User talk:Akradecki

7796:

sockpuppets Vistaboy99 and Autoplay91) -Ahmadbatebi's edits to his page appear to have been good-faith efforts to make some details of his escape from Iran more accurate. -Ahmadbatebi asked for clarification of why he was being blocked, and none was provided (just a "please read the sections above" note from you and a rather insulting note from the now-blocked sockpuppet Vistaboy99). Since Ahmadbatebi is not a native speaker of English, and has been on Knowledge, in the US (and out of jail in Iran) for only about a year, it seems to me that a much more gracious reply is warranted. -The wikipedia page on "Managing your own biography" states: "Managing your biography on Knowledge can be a daunting process at first – and more so if your biography is of poor quality, has been vandalized, or has other problems." It seems to me that Ahmadbatebi was frustrated by misinformation that appeared on his page, and made a good-faith effort to correct it, both by editing it himself and by emailing admins. Looking at the "managing your own biography" page, it doesn't even appear that there is a hard-and-fast rule against people editing their own biographies, by the way, as long as the edits are reasonable. -After reading a couple of news articles about Ahmad Batebi's escape from Iran, it doesn't seem that there is any conflict between the version of his escape that he attempted to update his article to, and the version in these reputable news sources. The whole process of blocking this user seems to violate several wikipedia rules, such as "Assume Good Faith" and "Don't Bite the Newcomers." In summary, I suggest that Ahmadbatebi's account be unblocked, with apologies from the wikipedia community that as a new user he had to deal with multiple sockpuppets posting rather insulting comments on his talk and usertalk pages, and that wikipedia admins look into making the changes to his page that he suggested.

306:

my article looked about the same as yours. (Also, Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, to sign them, click the signature button at the top of the edit box) Cheers --Nz26 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Well, I dont know how we messure value in Knowledge but for the Greeks in Finland and for that ethnic group this information is very valid and important. In adittion, the page was created and is promoted to those 100s of greeks in Finland in order to add more content and historical information about Diaspora. I hope that you dont expect that one man will write the whol history of greeks in finland but rather you could expect that a page will stimulate others to contribute contennt. Isnt that the philosophy of a wiki? Moreover, as said before I started by listing media and social clubs, I dont have information on famous greeks in finland and I dont like to start promoting living persons. I will add more content as it goes so please give more time in order to add more content. I do understand your concern but I think that even that small portion of text helps and informs a small group of Greeks living in finland and has its value becouse it demostrates that people of that ethnic origin live/work and by their actions create history and art in the place that they live. Many thanks, waiting for your reply.Makrygiannis74 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) You have put the hangon tag on the page so that is fine. Speedy deletion will be removed once content is fixed. Cheers Nz26 (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Do we have deadline for this? Makrygiannis74 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Unsure. Ill remove the tag on the page. Please develop the page more, Otherwise Ill flag it again Nz26 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2894:‎ which is a photo that my father had taken of her when he had gone to Washington DC and had met her. That photo has been used extensively in the past couple of years and neither Ms. Mazahery nor my father have any problems with it being used here or elsewhere. Also, ironically enough, my dad took that photo using my camera that he had borrowed for the trip! So I need to know which photo is more appropriate to use under Knowledge rules. The photo that was used initially in her profile is a more appropriate depiction of Lily Mazahery in the context of her work and activism profile, which is on Knowledge. But if that is not acceptable under copyright guidelines, which again, I really can not make sense of (sorry!), I would like to know if it would be OK for me to use the other image on her profile. Thanks again for all of your mentorship and help. -- 318:

then went and added a load of press quotes from 'third-party sources' that are all 'verifiable' and you are now telling me 'Each quote needs a ref, otherwise it needs to be removed. This article has little content and lot's of quotes, which is not really encyclopedic.' So now you seem to be telling me there are too many 'third party sources'. I can add complete references to the quotes no problem at all but I would appreciate some constructive advice on getting this article accepted as at the moment the decisions that have been made so far seem extremely subjective and not helpful. Do I need to remove some of the quotes? Tessa Souter is an extremely well documented and notable Jazz Singer and worthy of inclusion on Knowledge so please tell me what you think is needed to get the article accepted as I have followed the advice given to no avail. Thanks.

6978:

industry. Castle is now the largest manufacturer of DC brushless motor controls and DC brushless motors for Radio Controlled airplanes, cars and boats in the world. We are also included in several UAVs in the aviation industry from companies such as Aerovironment and Aurora, as well as many other commecial and military applications. Castle also employs over 100 people worldwide. My customers have been asking why Castle's reference was deleted, while our competitors' pages have not been deleted. They have viewed the deletion from Knowledge as an indicator that Castle is not as relevant to the industry as our competitors. If you would give me a specific reason why the article was deleted, I can modify the article to better serve the Knowledge audience.

2391:

should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

1969:

statement. Further, if you read through the Google TOS that you referred to, you'll find this statement in regards to the content of the page: "Except as expressly authorized by Google or other proper third party rights holders, you agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on Content, Google services or Software, in whole or in part except as specifically authorized in a separate written agreement." That's not a GFDL statement, and in fact, there is no GFDL statement anywhere in the TOS. Note that this statement applies

5619:"damage". They're always thoughtful and properly sourced. You have complimented me on my edits, and thanked me. I'm sad that you don't even remember. I'm even sadder that Alan doesn't remember me buying Prouty's Helicopter Aerodynamics from him by the carton for my students! In the meantime, I've resigned myself to being banned by WP forever, so I'll just pop up now and again to say hello to the lads, and then be on my way again. Don't get all excited over this. I'm sorry that you're all too busy to talk. I'll leave my many WP aviation articles in your hands. 844:

to remember, so I create links for myself. Some people don't bother with a bookmarks page, they just stick the links on their main user page, which is perfectly acceptable. So, for instance, if you wanted to add a link to the vandalism board, it would look like: ]. If you want to make a subpage, you'd type in the search box User:Autoplay91/pagename (substituting the name you want to call the page, of course). When the screen comes up that the page doesn't exist, it'll also have a line that you can click that invites you to create the page. Hope that helps.

4128:(myself in this case) denied the speedy less than one minute earlier. Finally, having multiple albums is in itself an assertion of notability, and we as administrators (as opposed to bots) can make a judgement call on borderline cases such as this, so not all articles consisting only of Wikilinks and an infobox should automatically be deleted obviously. I am going to restore the article with some text and real links (it does appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC, as far as I can tell), so please AfD it if you feel that the subject is non-notable. -- 6087:. This appears to be official policy, and I carefully followed the directions, being certain to not use the old name ever again, and to not edit the page with the contested content again. Since I followed the official policy to the letter, what appears to be the problem? I'm still not sure what the problem was, and I'm raising the question here since it's Alan Radecki who did the block. No other admins, users, or complainers asked for a block. Are you able to help me with this, or does it have to go to a dispute resolution process? 8104: 1671:

home page is not a valid 3rd party source (a link to which had been there since the first draft of the article by the way and was not recently added), but I see no reason for the 2 magazine articles to not be valid sources. I was going to add a reference to yet another magazine article, but first can you please elaborate on how you think the currently referenced magazine articles do not meet Knowledge standards? What would be more relevant than the 3rd party articles/reviews on the subject such as the ones cited?

4913:

Knowledge--extends far, far beyond my personal perspective on him as a fan. In fact, I do research on a variety of topics--jazz guitarists is just one of many research interests. Thus, I have no problems understanding the distinction between material that is intended to promote and review vs. factual, verifiable, encyclopedic information that intended for use as a source of reference. I will keep reconsidering and revising the language until it conforms with Knowledge's guidelines. Thanks for your response! ---

5887:'s blog). I'm not bugging you to try and get you to eventually cave and endorse this article. I'm asking you because I know that you're critical and unbiased in your reviews. If you did miss that coverage, let me know what you think. If not, I'll put that article on a shelf until it becomes notable (which may be never). BBC is obviously reliable but G4 and SciFi are up in the air (becuase G4 and SciFi are more about entertainment than unbiased news coverage). I hope this isn't too much of a bother. 5307:- the best way to explain "notability" is that other non-trivial, mainstream media sources need to have "taken note" of the company, and your article needs to cite those sources...think of it as a practical use for all those term papers you learned to write in high school, where the teacher insisted that use find and properly cite all those references. So far in the article presented, there is no indication that the company rises to the level of encyclopedic notability that meets the standard of 5244: 2701:, the source for the article, is a website that wrestlers can (but not necessarily do) pay to have a profile add, which all they do is record the wrestlers match history and are deleted if the website finds out the wrestler is giving them false information. The original nominator is the only person to have a problem with the website, and damn near every single article on Knowledge about a professional wrestler uses OWW.com as a reference. In addition to OWW.com he has profiles at 9395: 9351: 6126:"Updates to A-10" and one for "development of A-10" and then one that lists the same updates under the first A-10C squad in 2007. Even when cited I doubt we need the same information 3 times on one page, and the site could apply to the combined section. I plan do do the same on other pages I've posted in the talk page about before doing so such as the B-36 which Bzuk has shown to complain about also, so I don't think the talk page is good enough for him either. 10548: 10344: 8240: 10452: 82: 1579:

whenever you propose a change, you have to keep in mind that your proposal may be turned down by the group. I've had plenty of mine turned down. Don't assume that proposing something gives you the right to automatically implement it. Lastly, I'm really disappointed that you never really addressed the issues in the RfC, and your disrespectful comments about the editors which you've made above indicates that there's been little change in your outlook.

3075: 1331: 226: 10508: 9363: 5651: 7636: 10054: 3891:

just trying to figure a secure way of accessing my computer when I'm travelling. But if I go onto Google and type Neorouter, the second link sends me back to the deleted Knowledge entry. And if I search Knowledge for more details on VPN it mentions Neorouter frequently - and it keeps sending me back to the deleted page. And I have no idea if the first entry in Google is the Neorouter that the Hamachi Knowledge references or not.

380:). The product reviews are third party users who have nothing to do with the developers of this product and even criticize some of the product. I have since removed some content and tried to ensure an informative yet neutral voice. It is difficult to post an article that one agrees is acceptable and another does not. Are my newest changes acceptable and how do I make sure it gets approved? Thank you in advance for your help! -- 21: 7327: 10256: 4894:

very neutral. Right now, this looks like a "glowing" review, and that is primarily what's being objected to. Quite frankly, it can be difficult for a fan to write about a performer, because the fan naturally thinks highly of the performer, and thus the language - adjectives especially - tend to naturally find their way into the text. Articles here should be written in an "encyclopedic" tone that documents the facts and no more.

8220:(i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. 7125: 6921: 5733: 2886:. One was a photo that had been removed because of copyright related issues that I really don't understand since the subject is over my head. However, because the same picture had been used in other places, I contacted the media source from which the snapshot was taken, and I sent an email to Lily Mazahery's office as well, asking them if it was OK to use the image. Both said that there were no problems with using it. 9254: 2633: 5489: 2366:

design excellence by promoting the advancement and recognition of professional lighting designers. Value Lighting designers are a tremendous resource of innovative, practical and economically viable lighting solutions. They understand the role of lighting in architectural and interior design and utilize their extensive experience and knowledge of lighting equipment and systems to enhance and strengthen design.

590: 7082:

page a while back that you deleted for reason of blatant advertising. Wouldn't be a big deal, except that when I was searching for a recent news article about the fest, I saw the deleted wikipedia page as part of some of the first search returns. I have gone through and modified my user page to reflect information about the event with links to stories from teh Seattle Times, Stranger, etc at the bottom

4248:

endeavor after finding the tool mentioned multiple times in other articles, but not containing an article definition of its own. In fact, I modeled my article after the format of two of the SDI's "peers" in the psychometric world: LIFO and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I have been working with the SDI for 13 years and know it's been a valued tool in the training and development world for nearly 40 years.

10116: 8204: 1825:

I just have the reference to the technology be an external link to the project homepage. I'm fine with that, but was told not to do that on a related page. On another page, which was a "List of xxxxx software" type of page, I had an external link to a specific discrete event simulation engine. It was removed, because I did not have an internal page for the technology, which I have now created.

9858: 9787: 9727: 9229: 8979: 9036: 8729: 8547: 8418: 8278: 7493:. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Knowledge, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Knowledge, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- 1942:

are put in a position of trust and control, and I feel you did not uphold that trust. How do I make a complaint against a data steward? If my appointed government official makes a decision I don't like, I can complain. I thought Knowledge was similar, in that it wasn't just a handful of trusted officials make all of the content decisions, but rather a democratization of information.

7994:- Perhaps a naming scheme for articles would be of help for all articles relating to H1N1/A 09 Pandemic and articles/templates/etc related to such? The naming seems to be a bit widely and arbitrarily selected on pages, and navigating to find and searching for specific information can be a bit confusing at times. Hope this helps and you're the right person to ask about all this. 1139:

does) and are thus commentary, rather than being objective and dispassionate news articles. Additionally, typically they don't go through the same editorial review process as an actual article would. While blogs by reputable journalists can sometimes be used as supporting references, this is your sole ref, so no, since it's a commentary piece, it doesn't meet the standard.

7549: 3965:

deleted as blatant advertising. I understand that, but I don't know how to make my article work. I looked at an article about Yosemite backup and I do not see the differnece between that article and mine. I would be grateful for your advice. If this question is too low-level for experienced users, please answer on my talk page instead of here. Thank you!

1075:, in discussing self-published sources, states that "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." A blog is not at the same level as a major news or trade publication. Remember, we're not creating a forum or online guide here...this is an 2913:, and email them the replies that you have. Hope that helps. Photo copyright really is a convoluted problem, which is why I only upload images that I shoot. If Lily is going to be in L.A. any time soon, especially in San Fernando Valley, and would agree to be photographed, I'd possibly be able to shoot some images myself. 3938:

product - how secure is it, how legit is it (it's carving a hole in my firewall accessible by a 3rd party), are not likely to be covered by the vendor. But thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I appreciate it, and the hard work that you and all the volunteers that keep Knowledge working put in.

5431:

from. Are you sure it was a Google-owned image? Images that turn up in a Google image search are NOT owned by Google, and you can't just release them or use them as you please. If it is a Google image, you need to list the source, and list a link to the license that allows its use. If you don't do this, it

6125:

Thank you for taking Bzuk's side without informing me what you were talking about and taking 0 good faith. I'm glad to see that the longer term aviation people like to gang up on people. This article was marked as being a mess and if you look farther then one edit you will see their was a section for

4490:

Hi, I hope you can tell my why you deleted the page about the Norwegian rock band "GUSTU"? They are a released band, both in the US, China and Europe! With airplay on radio in Norway, China, USA and Japan. A new tour is under way, with shows in Asia, America and Europe, that's what we in the biz call

4294:

True. Does that prevent me from being able to post a starting article for other people to edit? Should I start with less information so people will feel more inclined to add to the article? I have only included content that is fact-based and the vast majority of content is quoted from other sources.

3894:

I've never posted anything at Knowledge, and I know very little about how things are done on here in terms of ettiquette and if I'm violating any rules or anything by posting this - but I do know that I would like to read more about Neorouter, and my primary source for information (Knowledge) deleted

3010:

Just wondering why the Botchamania page was deleted and is now restricted for someone to create it. There are bits that say due to it being about a website that is not worthy of inclusion. What exactly would make it a website worthy of inclusion? Maffew, the guy who makes them has 10,000 subscribers,

2423:

So, the web site for the US Dept. of Energy isn't good enough? Quick Google search shows 11,400 references, including several from journals, trade press, and industry sites. I honestly have no idea what to provide to meet - could you please provide one solid example of a web site or source that would

2032:

interesting, so I give you that. However, in the next section below it under "Knowledge is not a bureaucracy" the page states: "Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Knowledge's guideline on gaming the system). If

1973:

to the "content", even if the content comes from a 3rd party. Further, right after the statement that you quoted to me, Google states "Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service

1968:

about the code clearly says "Copyright 2009 Google" at the bottom, and has no other statement, including no GFDL statement. For example, if you look at the bottom of any Knowledge page, there is a GFDL statement about the text. There was no statement at the bottom of the Google page, only a copyright

1941:

Now, I don't want this next bit to come out as a criticism of you personally, it is a flaw in the system: You thought you knew something ("Google copyrighted this") and you were very incorrect about it and as a result I am now losing valuable time trying to clean up the mess. As a steward of data you

1562:

As far as the proposing a change - this is a joke - I often proposed a change (held lengthy discussions) and people like BillCJ just ignored everyone elses comments and just did it his wall and Melbourne one is a joke as a administrator - He does not have a clue oten ageees with my point then ignores

843:

No problem with the questions...they're always encouraged. You are free to make subpages under your user name. For instance, if you look at my user page, you'll see both a bookmarks page as well as a toolbox page, and some sandboxes for working on articles in. There's just too much for this old brain

468:

Nope, sounds like you covered them. I appreciate your willingness to work with the editor. Just a note you might want to pass on, though. Typically, if I see COI, I'll just warn the user, however there is a growing number of admins who, if they see a user name match a corporate name, will indef block

340:

First, all quotes need references...that's one of the things that makes them "verifiable". Second, your references, and especially the quotes, need to contribute materially and give encyclopedic information about the person; in writer's parlance, they need to "tell a story". Right now it reads like a

317:

The original article I created on Tessa Souter was declined and the the advice given was 'Please provide more information on why the person or group is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and cite reliable, published third-party sources, so that the information in the article is verifiable.' So I

301:

Greeks in Finland. The page is not a spam, it describes the Media published by an ethnic group. Dosent promote any specific product becouse there is no product here. I would say that has encyclopedic value since the content concerns around 1000 people that the live in Finland. Also similar pages like

9180:

that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped

8211:

in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have

7081:

Hi Alan. I had been avoiding adding any pages to Knowledge for Seattle's True Independent Film Festival as I was involved with the festival and had read previosuly that it was best for other people to add info on the event once it becomes newsworthy. Apparently an award winner or volunteer added a

6977:

Alan, -- I've had several of our customers ask why the Castle Creations Knowledge page was deleted. Your comments stated "(A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/band/company/etc." However, I do believe the article correctly gave references to Castle's relevance in the

6863:

I did some more editing and shortened the product description and company history. I've read the CoI guidelines and have tried my best to keep a neutral point of view. I've also read up on the relevancy guidelines concerning company profiles and feel that they are met through the external validation

6592:

Hello, I am a Roman teacher, journalist and (waiting to be published) writer.. I saw that you cancelled part of my text about Beurling... :) I am pretty new... I see that there is a kind of control about what people write.. am I wrong? :) That's nice but if wikipedia is a free enciclopedya why there

6505:

I'm sorry you can't believe it, but most Knowledge business should be discussed on talk pages to provide for transparency. Generally, I only use email for Knowledge purposes when there is sensitive content. There's several things I'd like to discuss. First, I have an issue with your involvement with

5989:

You have clearly edited under more than one account. You have started a new account to avoid the indef block of you old one. That's a violation of our policies. You need to go back to your original account, acknowledge your improper usage of multiple accounts as well as the incivility, commit to not

4815:

I really wish you would stop referring to Coderite and myself as sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I don't know anything about Jim Corder and you will NEVER see me add any information to that page. Furthermore, what happend to assuming good faith? In addition, the Royce Campbell page did not start off as

4672:

Ok, I can see that, but a new article like that, may not be all done, but more or less. And the band meets these points: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. (Ostlendingen paper, HA papaer,

4247:

Hello, Akradecki. I'm hoping to get some further guidance into your reasons for deleting "Strength Deployment Inventory." It was not my intention to add any blatant advertising to Knowledge and I'm having a hard time figuring out where I went wrong. I'm happy to conform to guidelines. I took on this

4127:

You deleted the article as a promotional one (I'm assuming G11), and there is no indication that you thought there was no assertion of notability until this discussion started. Moreover, I take issue with the fact that you saw it appropriate to speedily delete the article after another administrator

3890:

I'm looking for ways to set up a VPN network on my home computer and I was reading entries on Hamachi, VPN and then it mentioned Neorouter. I click on the entry for Neorouter and it shows that it was deleted today due to lack of notability. To be honest, I have no idea if it's notable or not - I'm

2155:

Please explain in further detail why these 3 entries were deleted. Specific details as to why you thought it would be best to delete them and what we need to change so they are not deleted in the future. Please do not state them as merely not following "notability" rules because the last entries met

1824:

Hi there, I am getting conflicting information about software-related pages. You recently removed my OTPauth page, which was about a specific technology related to One-Time Passwords and is linked off of the One-Time Passwords page under the heading "specific technologies." It seems you would prefer

1537:

I was just wondering if anyone at wikipedia has a clue regarding how screw'd-up tables make an article look. - nothing is in ling, information is being lost and the article does not look professional or well written. Knowledge table do not work - when I first created this series 2 years ago, I tried

1378:

from editing this page, user Shayan7 who appears to be the English translator of Ahmad Batebi, continues to do exactly what Batebi was warned against doing. Shayan7 deletes verified information with unsourced and original source info that has recently been posted on Batebi's website as a reaction to

1171:

I disagree with you about both the use of blogs at news sources. They are not quite the same as news articles, but they represent the opinion of --usually--an important editor there. Depending on that person's reputation, they can be every bit as reliable as if he were to publish them in a book. For

305:

It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic You can put the {{hangon}} tag on the page to contest to this. If you are able to rewrite it so it looks more like a encyclopedic item it won't be deleted. I have had this happen to me and

6816:

in March. Even though I work for Netviewer I can only confirm that you were right in deleting the article. It was generated by a PR agency tasked with general internet promotion. I am pretty unhappy with how this turned out and how the Knowledge guidelines where not taken into consideration. I have

5776:

is particularly uncivil, and somewhat reminiscent of a banned cruft promoter, ToughHead (I think that's the main name - he used so many I can't keep up). It's possible that this is someone else who is blocked/banned, but I thought of Tough when I saw the comments on the AC-130 talk page. He is also

5430:

First, you DID claim that it was yours. In fact, the exact wording you used was "I created this work entirely by myself." Second, you then "released" the image into the public domain without any indication that you had the right to do that. Third, you did not list where you got the underlying image

5294:

for you to be writing about your employer. Second, you need to understand that just because a company exists doesn't make it automatically qualify for a Knowledge article. There are a number of standards that a company has to meet in order for it to qualify...we call that "encyclopedic notability".

5274:

I'm new here to wikipedia and I recently saw that the company I work as an intern for didn't have a page here on wiki. So I added it with basic information and the page, as well as the logo has been deleted two times(the last time was by you on an account of an A7). So obviously I'm doing something

4984:

Hi, we do not understand why the page we uploaded was cancelled. This band (Electricsheep) really exists and has at least one thousand fans all over Switzerland and even in Europe. They have a concert activity and an active discussion with their fans in Facebook, Myspace and Music.ch. We would like

4713:

Now I feel that you are rude. But the rules are clear on this point, and GUSTU can check 4 points in the ruls, when all you realy need is to have onlye one! So I can't say I understand this! So if I delete one of your articles, I can do so, if I personaly haven't heard of the things you write about

4676:

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and

4497:

So, if you don't want people to fuck up the articles you write, then please.. read the rules and READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE YOU DELETE THEM! I gotta say, this realy pissed me off! So if you don't put the article back up to the web, I will (togheter with the rest of the fanclubs all over the world) go

4018:

Articles with little or no text but that have links to external websites are considered spam. It was on that basis that the article was deleted. Beyond that, the article could well have been deleted under A7, non-notable band. All that supported the article was a myspace link and the band's website

2770:

Guys. I'm an increasingly frustrated and discouraged newbie to Knowledge. I'm loathing the accusations and failing to see why the page is repeatedly being deleted. It is impartial, objective, notable and entirely in keeping with the entries for other offshore law firms. Please would one of you give

2207:

I just checked the other two. Xshell also doesn't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. Other than a Cnet download page (which had no neutral 3rd party info on it), there was nothing to justify an encyclopedia article. Knowledge is not a product guide. Again, you said that they meet

2084:

Another thought: Your conflict of interest policy sounds like a good idea, but then the way you described it above, "it is pretty much inappropriate for your to write about a product that you developed.", raises an interesting question. Would Thomas Edison have been prevented for contributed to the

1767:

I am curious to know why you deleted X-Block? We have plenty of references (I can add some more all from leading engineer magazines). Yes, it is a product but it is all about running pneumatic cylinders in a different way and saving 60-70% energy. The cylinder manufacturers are trying to kill us as

1417:

Hi! Since you seem to have become my mentor here (which I really appreciate, by the way), I attempted to provide some points to counter those made by Shayan on Lily Mazahery's Talk page. I would be so grateful if you could let me know how I did and how I can make the changes that obviously need to

1138:

This has nothing to do with the fact that users can post comments, it has everything to do with the fact that it is a self-described blog. Even at big news organizations, blogs are treated differently. They are typically written in first person and share opinions of the blogger (as this one clearly

1114:

is that of a news publication. The mere fact that users may post comments to articles is true of most all on-line news publications and should not disqualify them as an independent and reliable source. I would also add that they are already cited quite frequently in other Knowledge articles. See

725:

My connection to him? None! Never have met or spoken to the guy or anything else other than observing his inappropriate behavior here and elsewhere. This behavior, which is not limited to Knowledge as I understand it, has raised a great deal of questions about this individual and his credibility.

10307:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

8130:

page several years ago that you had a C-130 picture that you'd like to add to the article. But without the information, it wouldn't have fit. I have now added some info to the history section (1960s) about the fact that they owned C-130s and was wondering if you still had that picture and if you

7020:

First of all, my organization wasn't using it to promote my business. We didn't write the article, we didn't contribute to the article, no one from my organization had anything to do with the article. So why was it removed? Please answer my question, rather than making assumptions about how the

6333:

before it happened. Not necessarily contesting it -- may be a borderline case -- but would quite like to review the article to check whether it was missing any references that might be significant under WP:BIO. Can you make the text of the deleted article available to me? Then I'll take a look and

4893:

I'm not going to presume to speak for Enigma, but my main concern, beyond the copyright issue which I've addressed to MiamiJazz above, is the strong promotional tone that the contributions lately have had. Knowledge is not a place to promote or review anyone, and the tone/language used needs to be

4501:

A fun fact is that the English article was the last page on the Knowledge universe about the band GUSTU. We got articles about GUSTU in over 5 languages, and the only one who got deleted, was the english one, by you!! What does that tell you? Even if you might not have heard about the band or even

4137:

I apologize if I've offended you. I have every confidence that if you restore it, it will be done properly. As for deleting it after you declined, there was no intent to wheel war with you...when I deleted it, it still had the CSD tag on it. I suspect that we had it open at the same time, and that

4041:

A7 is not a way to cheat AfD, and notability guidelines are irrelevant for speedy deletion anyway. Moreover, the article did not consist of, as you say, only links to external websites, but actually listed all of the band's members and albums. In cases like this, the links can simply be removed. I

2390:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources

2306:

again. The article didn't meet it. See the part where it says "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"? Gotta have that.

1578:

With all due respect, I disagree. I've tried viewing the tables with several different browsers on different sized screens (from my narrow laptop to my widescreen touchsmart) and I've encountered no problems. Further, for me personally, the tables help organize the data for better viewing. Lastly,

945:

My intent was to add it as a link to the GUI Test Tools article. Were you able to see my final changes before deleting it? Was there a problem with the final changes? It is about a commercial product, but I tried to make it so that it was not an 'advertisement'. I saw some other pages that the

7978:

I've been trying to help out with the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic articles on and off since the story began last year. However I've been away from it for a little while now, and noticed some things which could perhaps be updated, though I'm not sure how to, so hoping you as an admin and history with

6476:

I can't believe that I'm forced to contact you via this page as you won't reply to the email I sent. That said, you deleted an article on the music group I:Scintilla, which I and a few others maintained. Can you please explain your reasons behind this? Also, if possible, we would request that the

4837:

including providing a copy of that to Knowledge by email, and then adding the OTRS ticket number to the article's talk page. The red flag that this raises in my mind is why/how you got permission. Usually that means that the editor is directly connected to the subject (ie, working for a promoter,

4177:

with some text and refs. It's not much, but I believe that the notability has been established because the band has been reviewed by multiple unrelated publications, and at least two of its albums were published by a notable label. This is not nearly all the info that's possible to get about this

4088:

a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article on an artist or band that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a

3937:

Thank you for the explaination. I don't agree with the decision - there were some notes on security issues that I found from the Google cache version of the page and even if it is basically an ad, as users use it, they will update the page with more details. The real questions that had about the

2755:

Hello, I see you deleted one version of the article (me deleting 2 other versions). the article has been recreated, and I'm loath to delete it a 3rd time. But I could use another pair of eyes here. See also pertaining messages on my talk-page. What do you think? COI, SPA, paid writing? Cheers and

2440:

Did you read what I quoted above? Once again, it says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." It's

1933:

I can add the February edition of Linux Pro Magazine as a reference, since they ran a cover-story article which referenced the code library and discussed the application of such technology in-depth. If the article is restored, I would be happy to put this reference (and you can verify it, BTW, by

1670:

Please look again at the dif page, perhaps you missed it but I had added an entirely new source ("Sound On Sound" magazine article) and clarified a second source by adding its off-internet hard copy publication details ("Electronic Musician" magazine article). I totally agree that the Soundplant

399:

here. You are essentially writing an article promoting your own company's product, even if you're trying to do it in a neutral tone. While we have a bit more leeway at AfC, there are editors around who feel this is still inappropriate. Personally, I feel this crosses the line, but I don't want my

3964:

Hi Akradecki, I am new at Knowledge and am trying to complete the list of backup and online backup software by adding NovaBACKUP and some other tools. The addition seems not to be accepted if there is no reference to another article on the software. So I wrote an article on NovaBACKUP, which you

2365:

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Founded in 1969 and based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, IALD is an internationally recognized organization dedicated solely to he concerns of independent, professional lighting designers. The IALD strives to set the global standard for lighting

5618:

G'day lads, here I am, if you're looking for me! All I can say is, FWIW, I've never used socks, and my edits are always useful and respectful. Having flown in Jamaica for 6 years, I'm well acquainted with every nook and cranny of the place and its history, and it's not fair to say my edits are

1929:

Furthermore, some of that content was cut-and-paste from the homepage wiki, but not all of it. There were some custom statements in there that I would like to retain in my records. Your terms of service clearly state that I can have an article emailed to me if it is deleted, and you have yet to

1796:

It was deleted as a copyvio because it was cut and pasted from a website, which is not acceptable. Secondly, although this is not the reason it was actually deleted, it could just as well have been deleted for being an advertisement. Knowledge is not a place to promote your company's products.

446:

Finally, it does appear the user has a conflict of interest. However, s/he does appear to be making a good-faith effort to contribute an article. I'd be willing to work with this user and monitor their contributions, although they seem be going about things the right way so far. Are there other

5963:

Hi Alan. I think you asked me to post my query here, not under BillCJ(talk). I posted the query here several hours ago, but it looks like my query was deleted. Is that so? Can you tell me how to proceed? You mentioned I should apologise, but I need know who was offended. BillCJ says it's

1913:

under the "Your Rights" section which states: "Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted, or displayed by you on or through Google services." Secondly, the source code and wiki content are clearly licensed under the GNU General Public License v2, which means that

893:

The problem is that I dont' feel it makes sense to create a dedicated page for Vermeth, as it is simply one of the numerous side projects by Black Legions members. However, the releases have notability as part of the Black Legions' collective oeuvre. Any idea how to proceed without getting the

770:

Point well taken. I was just struck by how cruel and absurd some of the statements were against her, particularly as I have followed her work for years and have great respect for what she has done. Regardless, I thank you for your advice and will certainly act more carefully and with greater

297:

Guys, you have given me all the excusess that you could give me and it looks like that editor has different opinions about this article. Could please restore the page and talk to me before you make the deletion becouse Im tired or writting the article 10 times. Here is a history of the previus

4178:

band on Google, but I don't have time to dig more (and in any case, I have no personal interest in the topic, just didn't think the article needed to be deleted). Again, if you still feel that the article should be deleted, please use AfD! I hope there are no hard feelings between us. Cheers,

1499:

I'm not sure you know this, so I'm sending you a quick note about it. I've come across to AFDs you closed and you forgot to put the header inside the closure tags in both cases. I know that at least one of the TFD or CFD processes do it differently, which might be causing the confusion. Maybe

7795:

Hi Ackradecki, I noticed that you blocked the user Ahmadbatebi for editing his own article. I hope you'll revisit this block for the following reasons: -The users who called for Ahmad Batebi to be blocked are all sockpuppets of the same person, who have since been blocked. (Joaj, and Joaj's

4832:

If you're going to use copyrighted material, you need to understand a few things. First, you need to understand that it can't just be permission for Knowledge to use it, it needs to be permission for anyone anywhere to use it any time. The point of Knowledge is that we make the material here

4007:

Hi Akradecki! Why did you delete the article Totimoshi on the basis that it was promotional? I didn't see anything promotional about it, and have the suspicion that it would even pass an AfD, as the band has multiple albums and is sold on Amazon (Google search). The article also had no text,

1597:

Additionally, since you mentioned on Milborne's talk page but not here the 17" monitor issue, I just went and double checked how it looks on the 17" monitor I'm using at the moment (viewing with Google Chrome as the browser), and it looks just fine. Don't have the problems you're describing.

941:

I just tried to add a new article on Phantom Automation. I accidentally saved it as a real page instead of to the sandbox, and noticed it was marked for deletion. I added the 'hangon' tag, and explained that I was updating it. I finished updating it and noticed it had been deleted anyway.

828:

I really am sorry to bother you again, but this discussion has just made me think of another question for you: Is there any way to bookmark the links such as the ones you have suggested? I would like to have a list of the hyperlinks to the pages that provide instructions regarding editing,

439:

First of all, thank you for inviting me to comment. Hopefully we can reach some agreement on the article. I think the best way to proceed is to look at the sources provided. After all, notability is simply the coverage of a subject in third-party sources. I think the best two sources are the

9955:

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the

6528:

You clearly are using the encyclopedia to promote your business entity. That's simply not acceptable. If your band is notable (as we define notability), then someone uninvolved will most likely notice it, and write an article which both describes what makes it notable and support that with

5414:

I did NOT claim that I prepared all of the image. Underlying image is from Google. I only draw Metro system over this. I read the usage of Google Images. Google allows the usage of their images as long as the Google emblem is protected on the image and the name "Google" is referecenced.

1651:

of the changes made since the last time the article was declined. The only additional source I see is the addition of the Soundplant home page, which isn't a valid independent source. You made changes to the entries for two already-existing sources, neither of which meet our standards.

4912:

I understand your concern about the language appearing as though it is a review or promotion of Royce Campbell, and I wish to make the language of this article as impartial/neutral as possible. Campbell's career and notability--and the need for information about him to be included on

726:

However, the reason I posed the question was because I wanted to understand blocking rules better in general, not just in his case. I am quite surprised with the amount of vandalism and inappropriate behavior on Knowledge and was wondering generally how such actions are addressed. --

1828:

Which way do you want it? And thanks again for making me redo work I've already done. Can you, if nothing else, send me a copy of the page which you deleted (OTPauth)? You should be more judicious with your "speedy deletes" as I didn't have appropriate time to add the hangon tag.

3314: 504:

Hi there. This is entirely unimportant, purely personal curiosity on my part, but I noticed you deleted Kaori Tea under A7 right after declining the speedy on the grounds a prior AfD had found its sources notable. I was just curious as to why. The sudden 180 confused me a bit! -

6510:

email me, because your email address revealed that you are directly connected to the band, and your message stated that you are "the primary force behind the i:scintilla music and brand". This makes you essentially ineligible to edit the article, because it's a violation of our

3529:). Rather than mark the whole article for speedy deletion because of one section, I started to go through and remove copyvio info found in the article. The more I look, the more I find. Do you have any suggestions as to what I should do? I was thinking that I could ask the 2348:

IALD is an internationally recognized organization comprising independent and esteemed professionals dedicated to the very highest standards in lighting design. DOE's collaboration with IALD further strengthens its commitment to developing innovative, energy-efficient lighting

6048:

Joe, I just wanted to let you know that Alan is on vacation for a week or so, per a note he left on my talk page. Also, as far as I know, appealing a block or ban has nothing to do with the blocking admin, so there should be a way around that. You may end up having to email a

10083:

or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our

2130:

non-trivial media sources that cover the subject in a significant way). Remember, we are not a product guide covering every software-related item in existence. We cover only what others (meaning major media sources) take note of in a way that's more than a passing mention.

1937:

Finally, this is not a "product" and I was not the sole contributor. I understand the conflict of interest if I work for Pepsi and am marketing it, but I tried to be as objective as possible in just describing the code library according to your rules of objective language.

7242:

I see that the importance of this page is questioned. I think that if some mesh vendors are going to have pages then people should know what other options are available. This is particularly true when the companies philosophies vary so much. See the Criticism section of

5366:

Cool, I put it on there. I hope somebody picks up on it. There is quite a bit of a backlog on there though. I know a lot about some of the video games that are on that list. Since I do know a bit, and can get references I'll probably create some other wiki pages on those

372:. In my correspondence with a previous reviewer (Tnxman307) we had discussed the reliable sources and I was told that my most recent additions would work. Regarding the content of the article, I was following the format of current articles already posted in Knowledge ( 2080:

Sure, fine, but at this point, I have explicitly licensed the content under creative commons, and can show an outside 3rd party external source (Linux Pro Magazine) as validation. Two of your "three strikes" against the page are now gone. Mind if I put the page back ?

2017:

I am convinced you are flat out wrong about the content licensing at Google Code, but since I think it will be pointless to continue to argue with you about it, I've explicitly licensed the content as Creative Commons 3.0 BY. You can clearly see this on the sidebar at

9951:

or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

1238:, appears to be returned to own the survivors articles despite all the discussion and RFC we had previously. Also appears to have a pair of socks User:Tallmantz and User:209.212.28.50. I am bit to close to the latest changes so any help or advice appreciated. Thanks. 5149:

after I prodded it. However I see that someone has recreated the article on the talk page. I guess this should be interpreted as disputing the deletion, so I think it's best if you restore the article and its history, if you wouldn't mind, and I will take it to AFD.

6740:

The net is that there has been a rather significant change to the article name/scope by another (quite well-intentioned) editor, with questionable "consensus" for such a significant change. But what to do now is the question. Thanks for reading this far. Cheers.

6174:

You guys are all right, I am here to announce my original research that the 44 hour day is not superior to the 24 hour day. Sorry for my over reaction and general cranky tear. I think I'm starting to understand the idea of finding interested people and talking to

4866:

page? Which material is questionable? If you speak to the areas where there are problems, then I might be able to address them. What language is promotional? What information is not accurately cited? What needs to happen to get this article into shape? So far,

1432:

I think you handled it quite well. You made your point through independent sources, which is the most convincing way to make a point in the WP environment. And, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that this is the reason for using independent sources.

5329:

Thanks for the help and advice! Those are good resources for guidance and I am reading them right now. As for the COI, I'm not sure what to do. Do you think I should just let another person write the page in the future, or write it and have others approve of it?

1379:

Knowledge's administrative interventions. As such, only the username of the editor has changed from Ahmadbatebi to Shayan7! The actions are precisely the same. They are inappropriate, disruptive, and lack a neutral point of view or properly sourced information.--

10476:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

4680:

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (12 weeks on the 1st place at Top 8, NRK P1 (norways biggest radiostation), heavy rotation on RadioLand radio, and listed on rotation on NRK P3 norways biggest pop and rock radio station.

2022:. As for the Flikr analogy: it may be Knowledge policy not to use a flickr image here unless it is explicitly licensed, but that is because the user retains rights, not Yahoo!. This is an important distinction from the way you've explained your understanding. 1878:

website, which clearly is copyrighted by Google (see statement at bottom of that page), so using that text here is a copyright violation. Three strikes...that was actually a fairly judicious use of speedy. (Oh, and please sign your messages with four tildas.)

785:

In the same token, others are also expected to show the same restraint. If you observe others making "cruel and absurd" statements, you are well within your rights to either post a complaint to the Incidents board, or even warn the user yourself, based on our

7529:. Rather than insert myself into the middle of an ongoing situation, it seems better to alert you to the fact that he's at it again and let you handle it. However, if you don't have time to look into this right now, I can easily follow-up elsewhere. Thanks, 3670:

Hello, all - certain you're busy, but based on the discussion I was curious as to why it's not enough context to identify articles subject? I have seen unknown films with no poster art and one line of info on here. Please advise when you're able. Thanks!

6515:

guidelines and I'll be posting a note on your talk page with more information about that. Second, as to the deletion, I just went and triple checked. It was nominated for speedy as a copyvio, and upon checking I found that the text of the article was taken

6304:

Hi Bill...I see no problem with the use of Prod for notability issues. Can't go much farther into it, though, as I'm heading off on vacation. Will try to check in periodically, but won't have massive amounts of time to donate to the project till next week.

6524:, and that website it clearly marked "all content copyright (c) 2003-2008 i:scintilla". That makes it a copyright violation. Lastly, you said, about the deletion, "it's equally frustrating when one considers wikipedia's priority in google search results". 6817:

tried to correct the issue by posting a revised and hopefully non-advertsing version on my user page. I would be glad if you could have a look at the revised article and tell me if your prior concerns have been addressed. You can find the article here:

7986:

seems like it should be renamed to '2009-2010 H1N1 Pandemic in the United States', or something similar to reflect that it is still an ongoing event, and to indicate that it specifically relates to the H1N1 pandemic, and not just a 'flu' pandemic.

3695:

This one had multiple problems: it's written like a promo piece, it's about a film that doesn't exist yet, and it has absolutely no references that attest to notability. Wait. When the film comes out and garners media reports, write about it then.

5559:, a indefinitely banned user known to employ socks. I'm just suspicious at this point, but thought I'd have it checked before he does any more damage on the Jamaica pages. Thanks. (And no, the Barnstar was given before I tackled this task!) :) - 8009:

I'm sorry, but Akradecki hasn't been active in several months, which is a shame for WP, as he was a very good editor and admin. I know a few admins, but none that frequesnt disaster-management pages that I know of. Have you tried posting on the

3011:

and his channel has been viewed half a million times, which I would consider to be pretty high by YouTube standards. Plus his account has been shutdown, which could be discussed in the article and his numerous run-ins with ROH and DirectVideo.

1253:

Thanks for the heads-up. I dropped a note on his talk page, and will keep watching. Looks like the others are definitely socks. I don't like what I see with this...trying to create a consensus with ghosts. Will definitely keep an eye on things.

528:

after the AfC review, and the version posted to the article space was unchanged from that which had been previously declined, therefore I reversed myself. Sorry for the confusion. I should have checked the history of the AfC submission first.

5311:. All of those blue links that I just created give a lot of guidance. It will take you some time to read through them, but it's really important that you take the time to do it. Good luck, and if you have any specific questions, let me know. 7524:

had COI/Spam issues, as he was adding his website to articles. I was going to revert these and warn him about the problem when I saw that you had previously discussed this exact issue with him just a month ago and given a very clear warning

175:

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible.

1715:

Sorry, your note got lost in the shuffle. Unfortunately, I still don't see it meeting encyclopedic notability standards. However, if you want to resubmit, I'll refrain from rejecting it and let another of the project folks weigh in on it.

6079:

Thanks, Bill, I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps I should approach this from another angle. After being blocked by a banned admin (but not banned by a community for bad behaviour, etc), I opened another fresh account under WP's policy of

1624:

I'm puzzled by the reason given for your rejection of this article, "No additional sources that meet WP:RS added since last submission." In fact 2 new sources had been added, both articles from highly respected industry publications...?

1196:, and thus I don't see them as meeting the standard, especially when such a commentary is the article's sole source. However, with more and more major news people blogging, it probably would be a good idea to start a discussion (maybe at 4833:

available for anyone to freely use it for any purpose, including commercial usage. Are you sure that the permission that you have covers that? If it does, you need to document that permission by carefully following the steps outlined at

4578:

All I want to know is WHY you deleted the article!! But after reading your answer, there is clear that you don't have a reason. If you had a reason it would be easy to give me an answer! So, here I am, still waiting for you to fix it!

4498:

on and make this into a big thing! I have read the ruls, I have talked to other user on Knowledge, other editors and the official Knowledge employees, and the only one who found out that deleting this article was a good idea, was you!

2709:, and most promotions websites feature event history (as well as producing the events on DVD) and title histories, all of which can be used to source the article in case someone has a problem with "At on , Jigsaw defeated to win ". 302:

Greeks in Sweeden has less content then this one, actually many pages related to the subject of Greeks in -somecountry- have less then 100 words. So why pages with less content then this one are still up and this one is under threat?

3524:

While looking over AfDs, I ran into an article about a school and found that the info in the article was all a copyvio. While googling the text, I found that it was no only on other websites verbatim, it was in another wiki article

9181:

for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the

4391:

Hi, I have created page Mytrendyphone under a WikiProject Company. First time I made mistake and it's ok but second time I don't see breaking guidelines. I just want page about my company, like pages many of them. Can you help me?

8964: 46: 10075:

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

1982:

license under GFDL, copyright by Google has to be assumed. As to your Flikr analogy, it's actually a good one: images from Flikr can't be used here unless they carry an explicit GFDL statement. Oh, and by the way, Knowledge is

1282:

Any suggestions regarding how this on-going problem should be addressed? User (Shayan7) has received a number of warning from admins regarding his threats and attempts to bully other editors. Yet he seems unphased by it all.

10288:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 6289:, and weigh in on the proper uses of PRODs? I've looked at the guidleines, but not found anything clear on using PRODs for notability questions. There are other points that should be apparent on reading the section. Thanks. - 7642:

Alan, Hi. I wonder if you could help me identify this airplane. I hate to leave hanging unidentified. Not much different (to me) than the Beech C99, a tad smaller, maybe. Perhaps you knew ... when you get a minute. Thank you

3029:

I wasn't the last person to last delete it...it's been deleted 4 times (I was actually the 3rd), and every time it was the same thing: it failed our standards miserably. Please go read the following guidelines and policies:

2125:

issue. Even the most brilliant research scientists can't write about their breakthroughs here. I have no problem with an article on the subject being written, as long as it has demonstrated encyclopedic notability (meaning

5094:

Thanks a lot! Just one last quick question, from how many fans on a band becomes worthy to be cited in wikipedia? I am sorry if I am not able to sign this comment properly, I am not very expert with this kind of software

6209:

says to ask you, then take it to DRV, though contested PRODs are always speedily restored at DRV (that I've seen). I think the policy may be out of date, but I figured the safest thing to do it follow it to the letter.

2881:

Hi again. I am trying to figure out the licensing and photo policy here and I couldn't be more confused! So once again, I am hoping that you can direct me towards the right path. I have uploaded 2 different images for

1394:

I don't have time, at the moment, to dig through the diffs, but would you mind providing some that demonstrate your assertions that "the actions are precisely the same"? That will help in trying to moderate this mess.

9004: 9883: 10480:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

5868: 5846: 5275:

wrong. All of the pages on how to do this stuff are confusing me. Could you help me out by explaining a bit? Thanks, and cheers! I think it might have been because all of the info was from the Stratogon Website.

2048:

Copyright is one of the areas that's specifically exempted from "Ignore All Rules". Copyright issues are very conservatively approached. You and I might not agree with it, but that's how things work around here.

1861:

guidelines...it is pretty much inappropriate for your to write about a product that you developed. Second, the article had no outside neutral 3rd sources to verify its notablity (for more information, please see

10175:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 9752: 6698:, as he did not respond to any any attempts to contact him. He did some good work, so I'm sad for him that he felt the need to do this too. Hopefully he'll turn around, and be a productive editor once again. - 9812: 8414:

submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Knowledge before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

6864:

from TechCrunch and market research companies. Would you mind taking another look? I'd go and re-upload the article afterward and see how it fares. Thank you for your help in setting me on the right track. --

4095:

If you think the article should be deleted, take it to AfD, where more users will decide whether it meets WP:MUSIC, which it might (do a Google search and you will find a lot of articles about the band). --

6016:" OK, I'll bite - just out of curiosity. I suspect you're deliberately being disingenuous, but I'm willing to hear you out. How does one do that if (a) the account is closed and (b) the admin is in jail? 3917:

I'm sorry, but that entry was removed through our deletion process and can't be brought back. The article provided little of substance, no more than what you'd get by going to the company's website. Sorry.

3258:

Well, I have no idea what the article originally looked like, but I think the current version has enough solid refs (ESPN, Sports Illustrated, New York Times, etc). If you disagree, you can take it to AFD.

7575:. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback 9649: 9645: 9288: 4792:

Please, is there anything you can do about the two articles? They're both disasters. On the Royce Campbell one, a sock or meatpuppet keeps adding questionable material while removing the article tags.

4649:. The closest item was the charting, but the song didn't chart on a national chart, only a particular radio station's chart. I'd suggest waiting until the band comes out with one full album, does some 2487:

Yes. I'm a member of the association, and it was brought to my attention that this page was deleted by someone who isn't as familiar with wikipedia procedure. I'm going to move this discussion to the

9823: 8208: 7147: 4109:

of notability? You're absolutely right, that failing notability guidelines isn't a CSD reason, but as you well pointed out, there wasn't even text here, so where can there be a claim of notability?

6392: 6385: 298:

discussion that lead us to remove the "speedy deletion" tag and give us more time to add content. Few hours later you deleted the page, did you see the history tab with the discusions that I had?

8485: 4601:

I don't respond to incivility. I you want to know the detailed reasons (and I have plenty), then come back and speak like a gentleman, and I'd be happy to have a congenial conversation about it.

2033:

the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

7988: 2697:, the third largest promotion in the United States and has competed on several events aired on pay-per-view. The only other problem with the article by the original nominator was the fact that 2261: 889:

page. One thing on my "to do" list is to add pages for the albums that were released through official recording compagnies. This is the case for the two Vermeth albums released by French label

417:

Having said all that, I do understand the frustration of dealing with multiple editors, who might have widely varying interpretations of our policies and guidelines. I will drop a note over at

404:

of the product. Take a moment and read the material that the blue link I just typed says. This appears to be a relatively new product that you're trying to promote. I, quite frankly, don't see

10131: 6367:

Thanks Alan. I am unlikely to want to reinstate the article -- I agree with the PROD -- but may merge it (or part) into one of the articles that formerly referenced it (there were four such).

4677:

redirect to that article.) (on this point the band has: inclusion on a compilation album (Riot on Sunset), Inclution on a awardwinning short-film in Norway and a TV add for a political party)

3533:

for help but I'm not sure if that's a fast enough solution. I don't really want to rewrite the whole article from scratch either. What do you think? I'll be watching here for your response.

7563:! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up 7392: 4816:

blatant plagiarism as I have full permission to use ALL the copyrighted material on the Royce Campbell site. If need be I can provide proof. I just want these senseless allegations to stop.

4645:

Discussions about articles, unless they contain sensitive information, need to stay on-wiki. I only have a moment right now on break, so in short, the article failed to meet the criteria of

2876: 9541:

This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message

3830:. Also, if you wouldn't mind, could you please put some space between your comments and the text in the afc articles? It would make viewing the articles and the discussion easier. Regards, 3626:

has been created for a third time. I have tagged the article, and I was hoping, since you deleted the second appearance of the article, that you could put an end to the situation. Regards,

2807:, but when you start following the web links, a case for notability can be made. The problem is that you haven't made the case well, because you haven't used the standard reference format. 6225:

Done. You might want to address the issue that it was deleted for...if you go back and look at the prod message, they have a good point. This needs some sources to demonstrate notability.

2185:. It has been recreated and deleted multiple times, and the time before mine because it was a blatant copyvio. Notability does seem to be an issue. Can you please tell me, with specifics, 279:

Hi, did you know that this template has recently been upgraded and has various options for accepting/declining a request. I just ask because there are some queries to your declines on the

9274: 7139:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 7113: 4684:

12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. (Done radio interviews with more then three big radiostations of over a half hour each)

9893: 6718:

Hi Akradecki. We ran into each other previously on the WhiteKnightTwo article so I know you have some interest and knowledge in the development of Knowledge articles on private space.

875: 10519: 9115: 8808: 8635: 8477: 8361: 7146:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

9299: 2986:

Oh, how bizzare...never noticed that before! That message is a template, and I don't think it's auto-updating the time. Will have to explore that more. Thanks for pointing that out!

10440: 8672:

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.

8497:

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

7773:

Is it possible to please send me a copy of the Ryzom NEL page before it was deleted by you? Since I can't see what the contents was before the delete. Please reply on my talk page.

5534: 4207: 1978:

free under GFDL. Bottom line: the page says it's copyrighted, the TOS says it's copyrighted and that rights are reserved, and there's no GFDL statement, therefore in the absence of

9019: 3046:. It met none of these. There was no indication of encyclopedic notability and there were no independent reputable 3rd party sources providing significant coverage of the subject. 10106: 9708: 9160: 8930: 6554: 5914: 5772:

Alan, we have an editor makings some contentious edits on a number of pages. His edit histor is pretty thin (less than 100 edits since July), but he seems familiar with WP rules.

2234:

Could you please explain how to avoid the following message when trying to create this page? Do I need more references? More internal links? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

443:

The other sources are less in-depth, but they do provide some coverage of the subject. While this may not amount to spectacular sourcing, I feel it's enough to support an article.

9641: 7916:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 202:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 8045:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 7875:. I wanted to ask you for an opinion before I recreated the page in mainspace. Do you think I should start a deletion review, or do I have your permission to recreate the page? 4232: 10473: 9601: 9306: 4437:

Tnx for the quick answer. This is not my company, I am just fan from Serbia (company exist in 6 other countries, with same name). How Nokia or Microsoft have their own pages?

4008:

therefore I could not see how it was promotional and denied the speedy. I was also adding some very basic text when the article was deleted. Please clarify the issue. Thanks,

408:

notability established yet. What I see for sources are three blogs and one online magazine. Only Simply Communicate, in my view, even comes close to the level mandated by our

9295: 4223:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 9942: 10571:). Other language Knowledge articles either use same source or use EN Knowledge as source. Google search/Wikipedia library shows unsustained coverage from reliable sources. 6737:). I am inviting you as an editor, not as an administrator, as I don't think there are any major problems that can't be fixed by input from a few more arms-length voices. 2941:

As confusing as Knowledge is, I must admit that I am having a lot of fun learning. And I really appreciate having the guidance of experienced editors such as yourself. --

6672: 5888: 10498: 10384: 5196: 4725: 4634: 4590: 9320: 10511: 10500: 9281: 6730: 4242: 3495:

Ok, found it. It has not been resubmitted, which is why it isn't in the queue, and as far as I can tell, none of the issues that got it rejected have been addressed.

10244: 9653: 8153:

Ya hi....I was wondering why the article for D-Pryde was deleted, and I am not able to create that page. There is plenty of info that I can use on him in this page:

7727: 7705: 7660: 7312: 6593:

are people like you that have the authotitY to cancel or correct why other write? :) Sorry I am pretty new and still "green" about writing... regards, gian piero --

5265: 3906: 2296: 329: 8197: 7280:

Hi! I notice your draft article about Max Conrad. I was wondering if you were finished with the draft article and when it can be release into Knowledge? Thank you-

7032: 6818: 6652: 1451:

I stumbled upon this situation, read through the histories and fighting back and worth. I just wanted to say that I think you handled this situation beautifully.

6148:

Your explanation here sounds reasonable, but what you really need to do is go to the talk page of the article and discuss it there, in a non-confrontational way.

752:

are somewhat incendiary, and show a lack of neutrality on your part. You might want to consider modifying your approach when dealing with controversial subjects.

9313: 9055: 8748: 8717: 8407: 8298: 2937:

I don't know if you have seen this back and forth discussion or not, but just in case, here's the link to the thread on the admin's talk page about this issue:

1819: 9972: 7180: 5461:

I was wondering if you would not mind restoring this page such that I could modify the deleted content such that the content would be sufficient for Knowledge.—

4494:

There was alot of work doing this page with all the info about the band. Sure, there was some editing to do, but hey.. that's the point of Knowledge isn't it?

3575: 829:

commenting, responding, etc. but I have not figured out how that can be done. Any help that you would be kind enough to provide will be greatly appreciated. --

10594: 10351: 10337: 9822:

is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to

5063: 4520: 3966: 2903: 2891: 2909:

The photo taken by your father with your camera is much easier for the copyright issues. For the other one, if you want to use it, follow the instructions at

10658: 10493: 10304: 10281: 10249: 8939: 8682: 8188: 7255: 6644: 3714:

I received your input, thank you - please remove our talk thread as it's duly noted and I do not want this showing up on google when the title is inserted.

3417:

page, saw a few hundred characters deleted, and reverted it without looking closely at what I was bringing back. I'll look more carefully in the future. --

2779: 903: 10149: 10653: 10531: 9715: 7790: 7543: 7441: 7308: 6983: 5045: 4997: 4985:

to kindly ask you to please reactivate the page or at least to give us a copy of the original text since we did not make any copy of the same. Thanks, C.

4442: 4400: 4360: 4303: 4256: 3787: 3722: 3679: 2273:

This group is an international professional organization for architectural lighting designers and incorporated at a 501(c)6 as an association, akin to the

2107: 2093: 2069: 2034: 2006: 1946: 1898: 1837: 203: 9892:

is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the

7848:, as well as several lesser known independent promotions where he also held titles. Within the former promotions, he has had championship matches for the 3847:

Looks good, I think there's sufficient refs to keep it from being deleted at AfD if someone ever decided to go that route. Thanks for all your hard work!

7098: 6869: 4268: 3623: 2887: 2554:, which did not reach a consensus to delete, so it should not be speedied. That is one reason why we need to check the page history before deleting. -- 1776: 7076: 2042: 1954: 9846: 7644: 2445:

responsibility to ensure that this is in the article. Secondly, I get the strong impression that you're connected to this organization. Am I mistaken?

958: 7805: 4502:

like it, that doesn't matter, I couldn't care less! But when you, and you alone decides that this article should be deleted, that's just plain wrong!

2181:

I'll have to look into the other two later, but Xmanager was originally deleted via AfD, so recreation really isn't appropriate without going through

2115: 2077: 2014: 1906: 1849: 10555: 10541: 10332: 10040: 10017: 9994: 7973: 7822: 7594: 6485: 6470: 5739: 4516: 2610: 524:

process, so I decided at that point to decline. However, I then double checked and realized, through checking the history, that it had been actually

7946: 10635: 10327: 9542: 9173: 8958: 8184: 5918: 4979: 4817: 4484: 745: 668: 10204: 633:. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW 8695: 6979: 6935: 6734: 6384: 5747: 5556: 5096: 5041: 4993: 4438: 4396: 914:- an album isn't notable unless it's artist is notable and it has been covered by reliable independent sources. I saw none of that for this one. 188: 9769: 8229: 7213:

with history for me please? I would like to see the previous versions of this article in hopes of bringing it up to inclusion standards. Thanks

6624: 5236: 1648: 8011: 7564: 6865: 6824: 3359: 3014:

In terms of content, a breakdown of the botches included with links where necessary to other pages on Knowledge. Consider it, and let me know

878: 700:. Even after the block is lifted, though, it would be inappropriate for him to continue editing the article about him. Your connection to him? 649:

Dang, looks like I missed the action. Oh well, I don't think this person will be bothering you anymore, but I'll watchlist the article anyway.

496: 440:

Wikinomics interview and the Simply Communicate piece. They provide a solid basis since they are third-party and go in-depth about the subject.

10639: 9936: 7419: 3550:

What typically is done in a case like this is to chop it down to a stub. Anything that's not clearly ref'ed and in Knowledge style should go.

1373: 10435: 8712: 7900: 7568: 2799:

Jason, first, what is your connection with the firm? Second, it would be very helpful if you'd put the refs into inline citation format (see

2606: 1709: 678: 696:

I've only blocked him for 24 hours. A ban would come about only if he kept up the inappropriate behavior. The block did not include his own

690: 677:: Is the user banned indefinitely from editing his own page or is the block still for only 24 hours, which began last night as indicated in 9602:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS289US289&q=%22international+association+of+Lighting+Designers%22&btnG=Search

8003: 7391: 6243:

I have no doubt it'll end up at AFD, no matter how much notability is demonstrated, so it'll get deleted unless that's done, yes. Thanks.

6088: 6017: 5965: 5620: 5088: 4666: 4614: 4216: 3993: 3154: 2749: 2164: 470: 381: 6034: 6003: 5448: 5217: 5105: 5005: 3860: 2820: 1909:

Wow, you're a piece of work ;). Okay, first, The Google code copyright applies to their site, not the content. This is well documented at

9864: 9840: 9793: 9765: 9733: 9515: 9203: 9159:

at 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from

9156: 8985: 8965: 8926: 8718: 8675: 8536: 8501: 8382: 8271: 7767: 7681: 7576: 7572: 7210: 7191: 7106: 6760:. Much appreciated. I think that article is back in good (interim) order and will improve over time as it evolves in Knowledge fashion. 6161: 5917:

complete instead? I tried to delete it when I realized that I should not post non-US page here but can't find a way to do it. Thanks.

4372: 4347: 4315: 4289: 3931: 3799: 3754: 3734: 3221: 3059: 2870: 2693:

The article was deleted in June 2007 for being about a "minor league" wrestler. Since that time, he has gone on to compete regularly for

2144: 2062: 2000: 1892: 1749: 1729: 1686: 1665: 1526: 497: 354: 199: 6412: 3609: 3172: 2521: 2499: 2458: 2433: 2406: 2380: 2320: 1810: 514: 211: 10028:, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! 10005:, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! 9982:, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! 7936: 7740:

A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

7668:

Dont think Alan is around at the moment so if I may - N45004 is a 1980 Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain Serial Number 31-8052163 refer

7433: 7425: 7267: 7136: 7118: 6757: 6722: 6062: 5361: 5339: 5324: 5140: 4922: 4907: 4888: 3098:, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 2831:

Why did you delete the slipknot single snuff? I edited that last night because the infobox was WHACKED! Please start it again... :'(

1354:, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 1267: 989: 249:, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 9138:

to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated

8178: 7755: 7450:

21:36, March 8, 2009 Akradecki (talk | contribs) deleted "Cal Orey" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

6950: 6542: 5831: 3563: 2950: 2926: 2342:

U.S. Department of Energy and International Association of Lighting Designers Partner to Improve Energy Efficiency in Lighting Systems

2282: 1480: 1461: 1446: 1427: 857: 838: 803: 780: 765: 735: 713: 10463: 10312:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 6914: 6460: 5952: 5726: 5720: 5395: 4855: 4825: 4804: 4783: 4570: 3910: 3709: 3508: 3376: 2910: 2551: 2221: 1926:

clearly indicates this license in the right-hand sidebar. Do you think every photo you post to flickr is copyrighted by Yahoo, too?

1761: 1611: 1367: 1273: 486: 463: 280: 186: 7014: 6135: 5781:. He may just be an aggressive editor, per his name, but he does need to throttle back a bit. Can you check this out too? Thanks. - 5134: 5034: 4477: 4431: 4201: 4151: 4132: 4122: 4100: 4068: 4046: 4036: 3974: 3953: 3290: 3268: 3253: 3235: 927: 574: 556: 542: 10285: 10089: 7853: 6873: 6858: 6789:. You are invited to participate. And if you know other similarly interested editors, please do let them know as well. Cheers. 6376: 6362: 5178: 5159: 4228: 1592: 9202: 7502: 6965: 6318: 6191: 5605: 5587: 5508:

For the tireless work on AFCs, deletions, and other administrative tasks that often go unnoticed (you know what happens when they

4973: 4621: 3490: 1640: 10536: 8029: 8023: 7237: 6270: 6252: 6238: 5901: 5762: 3661: 2741: 2592: 434: 5184: 3877: 3394: 2999: 2202: 1408: 1315: 1166: 1152: 1092: 1066: 1036: 662: 267: 10615: 10405: 10245: 10154: 9640:

v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions

8517: 8371: 8069: 8054: 7983: 7560: 7477: 7415: 6707: 6581: 6286: 5574:

Good find. Both edit history and other evidence makes it conclusive. I've indef blocked. Let me know if he shows up elsewhere.

3885: 3159:

Yes, and I've already restored it. I couldn't believe that something so short and unref'ed would be kept at AfD, but so be it.

1914:

reproduced or derivative works can be created by anyone as long as changes are made available. You can read more about this at

1388: 1292: 1235: 1213: 1054: 1047:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 5223:

Thanks for letting me know. Time is a bit of an issue at the moment, but I'll try to take a closer look in the next few days.

3129: 8143: 7591: 6395:

in which you deleted has been recreated by an IP editor. Just so you know, so you'll decide on what to do with it. Thanks!. —

5290:

Thanks for your note. Actually, there are a number of things that need to be dealt with. First, since you work there, it's a

4721: 4630: 4586: 4220: 4209: 2791: 2685: 2150: 216: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 97: 5284: 3240:

Demonstrated by what refs? To have a high school athlete listed, you need some solid sources. The article didn't have them.

2718: 10631: 10200: 9439: 9434: 9414: 9409: 7263: 6026: 5974: 5645: 5424: 5257: 2787: 87: 9775: 9280:

Another change has been proposed to the courtesy blanking policy. It involves CSDing distributive submissions. Discuss it

7526: 6557:? In fact, it might be something for the corporate side to handle. At least the guy is being up-front about it. Thanks. - 6202: 3596:

I saw it; with respect to Iridescent, my feelings are that it would be better to let the servers catch up before tagging.

3116: 1374:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s

1183: 9429: 8664: 8213: 7723: 7701: 7656: 7625: 7342: 7321: 6798: 6781:, and that this will likely affect several WP articles. To that end, I have made an initial proposal to get started on 6118: 6100: 5657:. He bypassed my two hard rangeblocks by requesting IP block exemption last month. In addition, this user was editing on 4747: 4368: 4311: 4264: 4224: 3959: 3902: 3795: 3730: 3687: 2838: 2101: 1845: 1741: 1701: 1678: 1632: 1619: 333: 325: 10101: 5982: 232: 10515: 10187:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

10123: 9880:

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

9809:

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

9749:

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

9001:

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

7909: 7709: 7028: 6750: 6713: 5146: 4729: 4638: 4594: 4182: 4012: 3945: 3152: 3138: 2765: 2332:

So, is it a matter of proving the existance of this organization as provided by a reputable body? incorporation papers?

1784: 966: 9024: 7036: 6993:

First, you should not be using Knowledge to promote your business. That's contrary to our policies. Please review our

5474: 9419: 9382: 7471: 6997:. Second, it is inappropriate for you, or someone from your organization, to be writing about it...please review our 6602: 5773: 5672: 3543: 3428: 3081: 2980: 45: 10216: 3339: 2255: 1337: 630: 10142: 9672: 9581: 9518: 9449: 9424: 9404: 9387: 8889: 8571: 8121: 7895: 7825:. The deletion discussion took place in 2007 with the concern that he was a minor league wrestler that didn't pass 6897: 6497: 6493: 5059: 4524: 4089:

full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Knowledge.

3198: 287: 7445: 6987: 6688: 6656: 6441: 5701: 3023: 2890:

But just to be safe and to make sure that I am not doing anything inappropriate, I uploaded another image of her,

2618: 10627: 10619: 10196: 10035: 10012: 9989: 9967: 9957: 9197: 9091: 8784: 8604: 8446: 8330: 8038: 7114: 6726: 5812: 5778: 5264: 4762: 4707: 4550: 3446:

trying to get the following submission which you rejected a second reveiew. It has been 1 week. Any ideas why?

3140: 3065: 2960: 1000:

Why doesn't an authoritative reference combined with several hundred Google hits count as sufficient notoriety?--

458: 10239: 7068: 6695: 6609: 5927: 3642: 611:

Thanks for the advice and I didn't moved it further.Discussion is taking place,and I 'm also contributing to it.

547:

Oh, I meant to say AFC. Anyway, now I understand! Thanks for clearing that up. I was just a little perplexed. -

10458: 10442: 10409: 10119: 10108: 9444: 9399: 9367: 9355: 8255: 8093: 7862:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions

7556: 7403: 7386: 7374: 6598: 6106: 5884: 5210: 5049: 5001: 4446: 4404: 3328:

I've seen you around the AFC pages, thanks for your hard work helping the newbies with their article creation!

389: 195: 10088:

for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see

7782: 6909: 6219: 4942: 2563: 1247: 9904: 9377: 9372: 7742:

These have to be indicated through reliable third-party sources. You can request a review of the deletion at

7669: 7647: 7538: 7102: 6407: 6343: 6105:

A, take a look at some of the edits taking place which remove large amounts of text complete with cites, see:

5527: 5454: 3999: 3591: 3469: 2747: 1788: 1572: 1107: 606: 272: 27: 10209: 7316: 6566: 5568: 2680: 10265: 9565: 6298: 5379: 5345: 4452:

So first you say it's your company, then you say it isn't? As for the others, they met the requirements of

4042:

will restore the article with a basic lede, and without the links, if you don't feel strongly about it. --

3841: 3827: 3477:

Sorry, I don't see that one in the queue anywhere. Give me the direct link and I'll see what's up with it.

3465: 2846: 8234: 8192: 8115: 6833: 6668: 5790: 2208:

the notability guideline. How? Where's the significant coverage in non-trivial neutral 3rd party sources?

1768:

they do not like disruptive new technology because it is a revolutionary new way (see Knowledge- FESTO).

1507: 10607: 10559: 10537: 10397: 10355: 10333: 10293: 10192: 8929:. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from 8217: 8169: 7222: 6994: 6956:

A, something weird going on here, check user's edit history to see if your antenna goes up as well. FWiW

5409: 4415: 4327: 3530: 3433: 3410: 2172: 1132: 1009: 642: 7964: 7521: 5861: 5299:, not an online product catalog and guide to all companies everywhere. As presented, the article has no 5040:

ok can we at least have the text you deleted by email or something like that? thanks,C.comment added by

2025:

Please email me the content of the deleted page for my records or post it on my talk page or something.

946:

GUI Test Tools article links to, and I didnt see anything in my page that was not in those other pages.

10611: 10401: 10309: 7801: 7599: 7490: 7411: 7370: 7354: 7289: 7171:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- 7132: 6636: 6630: 4954: 3099: 2659: 1355: 933: 312: 250: 9877:

the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

8212:

been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the

7517: 5165:

It's an IP, and I took it as simply vandalism, which I've deleted again. You sure you want to go AfD?

2029: 10467: 9098: 8791: 8611: 8453: 8337: 7849: 7810: 7743: 7609: 7586: 6931: 6594: 5743: 5201: 3970: 3617: 3516: 2341: 2229: 421:'s talk page inviting him to review this, and I will be happy to defer to his judgment on the issue. 369: 8998:

the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

7199: 6721:

I would like to get some additional eyes on a topic that has come up on the article formerly titled

10527: 10272: 10097: 10046: 9167: 9102: 8795: 8615: 8457: 8341: 7687: 7424: 7348: 7259: 6972: 6934:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 6786: 6030: 5978: 5958: 5746:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 5639: 5420: 2783: 1172:

what shows up at ask.com, the same criterion would hold, if the people can be shown to be notable.

363: 10314: 9746:

the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

8261: 2508:

guidelines, which preclude people from using Knowledge to promote their organization or products.

10080: 10031: 10008: 9985: 9963: 9350: 8895: 8622: 8464: 8348: 7621: 7613: 7513: 7047:

I don't know if I'm doing this right because I never did it before, but can you move the article

6469: 6417: 6196: 6187: 6131: 6081: 5872: 5630: 4364: 4307: 4260: 3895:

the information that I'm looking for hours ago. I would request that you bring it back please.

3791: 3726: 3683: 3194: 3019: 2842: 2541: 2111: 2097: 2073: 2038: 2010: 1950: 1902: 1841: 1745: 1705: 1682: 1636: 1505: 207: 9806:

the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

9533: 2550:; regardless of what I might think about the article personally, it was the subject of a recent 1321: 771:

neutrality even in cases where I feel there is great injustice. You are absolutely correct. --

8708: 7064: 6529:

independent reliable sources. Until that time comes, though, I won't be restoring the article.

4735: 4483: 3949: 3865:

I find that typing ---- produces a nice horizontal line between comments and article. — Martin

3587: 3150: 3136: 2965: 2598: 2495: 2429: 2376: 2292: 1984: 1780: 53: 10069: 9617: 9523: 9394: 9185:. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through 7852:

and will compete in a tournament at the end of this month to determine the fist holder of the

5378:

That would be fantastic if you'd lend your expertise to that end. You might want to check out

4945:

His username is related to the link he added, though it's possible it's just a fan. Thanks. -

4687:

The band is also planning a release june 1st. with a following tour, so that's also a point..

3074: 1330: 225: 66: 10127: 8139: 7872: 7797: 7778: 7677: 7533: 7465: 7407: 6946: 5908: 5795: 5678: 5666: 5499: 5479: 5455: 5372: 5335: 5280: 5190: 5072: 4918: 4884: 4834: 4386: 4073:

Akradecki, an article cannot be speedily deleted because it does not meet WP:MUSIC. To quote

3438: 3423: 3414: 3086: 1342: 1243: 962: 273: 244: 237: 7157:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

6765:

I believe it will be useful to have a meta-discussion to hash out the issue of the scope of

5193:. I've requested a community GA reassessment and thought you might like to comment. Cheers. 4537:, then come back when you want to speak politely and I'd be happy to address your concerns. 4326:

guidelines preclude you from writing about your own company or its products. Please see our

886: 10489: 10431: 10183:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 10085: 9932: 9836: 9666: 9575: 9015: 8954: 8885: 8873: 8127: 8098: 8075: 7719: 7697: 7652: 7581: 7498: 7366: 7251: 7176: 7090: 7024: 6905: 6891: 6829: 6548: 6489: 6481: 6429: 6425: 6324: 6022: 5970: 5923: 5808: 5685: 5542: 5250: 5243: 5101: 5055: 4989: 4717: 4626: 4582: 4512: 4356: 4299: 4276:

I also got the distinct impression that you were also associated with the publisher. True?

4252: 3941: 3898: 3783: 3718: 3675: 3453: 3304: 3180: 2946: 2899: 2834: 2775: 2614: 2160: 2089: 1833: 1772: 1737: 1697: 1674: 1628: 1532: 1423: 1231: 834: 776: 731: 686: 321: 3576:

User talk:Patton123#Category:London Underground stubs and Category:London Overground stubs

885:

Hi, as a contributor to the WikiProject Black Metal, I am currently trying to improve the

8: 10623: 10523: 10413: 10188: 10093: 10061: 9132: 9122: 8865: 8825: 8815: 8697: 8652: 8642: 8090: 7829:. I, myself, deleted the page in April 2008 as a recreation of a previously deleted AfD. 7300: 6767: 6437: 6280: 5696: 5635: 5416: 4875: 4821: 4800: 4779: 4758: 4743: 4566: 3831: 3349: 3329: 3121: 3112: 3005: 2121:

Yes, he would have been prevented from doing so. Besides the COI issue, there's also the

1349: 995: 894:

articles speedy-deleted for lack of an artist page, as just happened a few minutes ago? (

890: 622: 616: 602: 453: 263: 9312:

A discussion on whether autoconfirmed users are allowed to skip the backlog is going on

8869: 6555:

Talk:National Football League in Toronto#Creating a new article for Bills Toronto Series

1538:

tables but you could not get then to look right - you end up with things that look like

10323: 10025: 10002: 9979: 9948: 8177:

I was hoping to obtain permission to use one of your photographs. Please contact me at

8165: 7999: 7941: 7929: 7888: 7617: 7482: 7275: 7233: 7084:]. I'm hoping you can help me out with this to move it to the previously deleted page 7042: 6881: 6183: 6127: 5880: 5840: 5767: 3264: 3231: 3190: 3015: 2761: 2724:

With as many times as this article has been deleted, I'd strongly suggest taking it to

1501: 949:

Sorry, but I am new to this whole thing. Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated!

899: 749: 584: 552: 510: 60: 9118:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add

8811:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add

8638:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add

7131:

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for

4714:

and don't like it? That's the way you represent yourself in this case at least, IMO.

2771:

me an indication as to where I'm going wrong, without accusing me of 'paid writing'!

2605:

Please investigate this user. I've been suspecting that he's using sock accounts like

400:

opinion to necessarily be seen as the rule. That being said, the core of the issue is

10590: 10421: 10380: 10164: 10155: 9912: 8704: 7913: 7902: 7833: 7818: 7811: 7766: 7486: 7455: 7204: 7161:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

7060: 6804: 6401: 6372: 6339: 5468: 5155: 4556: 4331: 4188:

AfD not at all necessary...you've done well. Certainly no hard feelings on this end!

3583: 3205: 3147: 3133: 2687: 2623: 2559: 2491: 2425: 2372: 2288: 1568: 1225: 911: 409: 81: 10577: 10367: 2647:

For all your hard work at AfC, I hereby present you with this shiny award. — Martin

2569:

It would have been nice if someone had actually tagged the article's talk page with

2030:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy

1923: 1875: 1015:

Google hits don't count for anything. You might want to make yourself familiar with

10184: 10168: 10065: 10047: 9559: 8225: 8135: 8065: 8050: 8019: 7774: 7751: 7688: 7673: 7630: 7530: 7507: 7460: 7218: 6942: 6703: 6684: 6577: 6562: 6294: 6058: 5786: 5758: 5660: 5601: 5564: 5523: 5368: 5331: 5276: 4950: 4914: 4880: 3461: 3418: 3128:

Hi. I noticed that you just deleted this as G10, and I was wondering if you saw if

1239: 10284:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under 8180:

with your contact information so that I might email you the particulars. Thanks!

8103: 6655:, it's duplicate which was apparantly uploaded by Andrew. What's interesting is a 5777:

removing large chunks of Leads from other articles, with comments on this removal

5707:

Many thanks for doing that...hardly a coincidence, just a very determined person.

4879:

has not responded to me, nor to the comment I left on his talk page. Please help?

4690:

So, I can't say I understand it, would be great to hear from you again.. thanks..

1372:

Since Ahmad Batebi himself has been blocked <script type="text/javascript"src="

10485: 10427: 10135: 9928: 9924: 9882:

There is a backlog of over 1300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the

9832: 9811:

There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the

9761: 9751:

There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the

9703: 9662: 9571: 9177: 9145: 9087: 9063: 9011: 9003:

There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the

8950: 8880: 8780: 8756: 8600: 8576: 8566:, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 8442: 8326: 8148: 7845: 7494: 7399: 7382: 7172: 6927: 6901: 6887: 6676: 6648: 6587: 6418: 6247: 6214: 6050: 5892: 5876: 5804: 5548: 5114: 5014: 4936: 4646: 4534: 4074: 4052: 4020: 3638: 3569: 3534: 3093: 2942: 2938: 2895: 2854: 2714: 2573: 2168: 1760: 1452: 1419: 830: 787: 772: 727: 682: 385: 10576:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

10366:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

10308:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

9319:

Discussion on users not adding categories and not checking copyvios is going on

5964:

nothing to do with him, yet you said an apology is necessary. Can you clarify?

589: 10289: 10235: 10180: 10172: 9889: 9819: 9139: 8902: 8859: 8836: 8251: 8111: 8085: 7991:

is an example of this being updated in other areas reporting on related items.

7960: 7559:

or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the

7357:

with the Air Force for Big Crow-related information. They have an online site (

7338: 7195: 7185: 7003: 6961: 6847: 6664: 6613: 6531: 6449: 6433: 6351: 6307: 6259: 6227: 6206: 6150: 6114: 5992: 5990:

editing in that manner in the future, and ask to be unblocked. Simple as that.

5941: 5856: 5820: 5709: 5690: 5576: 5510: 5437: 5384: 5350: 5313: 5308: 5225: 5167: 5123: 5077: 5023: 4962: 4896: 4868: 4863: 4844: 4793: 4772: 4751: 4736: 4696: 4655: 4603: 4559: 4539: 4466: 4420: 4336: 4278: 4190: 4140: 4111: 4057: 4025: 3982: 3920: 3872: 3849: 3743: 3698: 3650: 3598: 3552: 3497: 3479: 3383: 3371: 3279: 3242: 3210: 3161: 3108: 3048: 2988: 2975: 2915: 2859: 2809: 2800: 2730: 2669: 2654: 2599: 2581: 2510: 2447: 2395: 2309: 2303: 2244: 2239: 2210: 2191: 2133: 2051: 1989: 1881: 1799: 1718: 1654: 1600: 1581: 1515: 1469: 1435: 1397: 1384: 1304: 1288: 1256: 1202: 1162: 1141: 1128: 1081: 1062: 1025: 1005: 978: 973: 916: 846: 792: 754: 702: 651: 638: 612: 598: 563: 531: 475: 448: 423: 418: 343: 259: 9707:. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from 7612:? I tried to swap over the infobox formatting, but it contains a wikilink for 952:

Also, the person who helped me told me to ask you to 'WP:USERFY' it for me...

10647: 10568: 10319: 10176: 9253: 9249: 9186: 9080: 9025: 8853: 8773: 8593: 8435: 8319: 8161: 7995: 7917: 7876: 7865: 7841: 7826: 7437: 7294: 7285: 7229: 7168: 7158: 7151: 7140: 6998: 6842: 6794: 6782: 6746: 6512: 5291: 5021:

MySpace. A thousand fans does not make a band notable in encyclopedic terms.

4839: 4411: 4323: 4179: 4129: 4097: 4043: 4009: 3260: 3227: 3031: 2883: 2757: 2725: 2694: 2505: 2488: 2182: 1871: 1858: 1179: 1157:

Thanks, I'll wait then until a few more traditional news articles show up.--

1042: 1023:

non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

1016: 895: 741: 548: 521: 506: 396: 8154: 6477:

page be restored because there were no copyright violations. Please reply.

5113:"Notability" has nothing directly to do with number of fans. Again, go read 4673:

Lokalavisa, Osterdolen, Blikk, HamarUngdom and other papers and magazines).

4414:

guidelines preclude you from writing about your own company. Please see our

2360: 1563:

his own common sense and just reverts back to something that does not work.

292: 9897: 9191: 9182: 8509: 7844:(arguably the number one independent professional wrestling promotion) and 7837: 7362: 7094: 6900:) is arguing on his user page (via an IP) that he was incorrectly blocked. 6640: 6396: 6368: 6335: 6330: 5462: 5300: 5151: 5118: 4457: 3404: 3186: 3043: 2826: 2555: 2122: 1974:

offered by Google." If Google is reserving that right, then the content is

1945:

Not sure what you meant by the four tildas thing - I am look into it now.

1919: 1867: 1564: 1197: 1111: 674: 10600:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

9824:

Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page

8831:

to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

8658:

to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

7670:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=45004

7148:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of fatalities from aviation incidents

6841:

A good start, but still reads like a promo piece. Please keep in mind our

6731:

Talk:List_of_private_spaceflight_companies#Clarification_of_the_list_title

3348:

Oops...didn't see that you already had one. Oh well, nice job anyways :].

395:

Thanks for your note. I have a couple of concerns. First, is the apparent

341:

promo piece, a bunch of quotes saying how wonderful this person's work is.

10264:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

9555: 8221: 8061: 8046: 8042: 8031: 8015: 7747: 7716:

Yeah, why did you delete the Rusko (Musician) article? He's pretty real.

7244: 7214: 6699: 6680: 6573: 6558: 6290: 6054: 5782: 5754: 5597: 5560: 5519: 5304: 4946: 4746:. Started off with blatant plagiarism and now it is edit-warring with an 4461: 4453: 3817: 3457: 3189:

page? I was working on that article, and his notability is not disputed?

3122: 3039: 3035: 1863: 1494: 1072: 1055:

Me2Everyone: Viral Marketing of Virtually Nothing Monday February 9, 2009

623: 401: 10420:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

7377:; they have a connection to it too, and their patch has the crow on it. 7358: 2698: 1734:

Ok thanks, I'll try another edit and resubmission when I get a chance.

1079:, and consequently our standards are - and should be - relatively high. 9294:

The backlog is at emergency status and another drive has been proposed

9273:

Five changes have been proposed to the AfC policy. Join the discussion

8239: 8081: 7821:

page from recreation, as it had been previously deleted through AfD at

7605: 7378: 6244: 6211: 5688:. From a cursory glance, they appear to be the same user. Coincidence? 3823: 3627: 3582:

And just in case you didn't see, see Iridescent reply at my talk page.

2710: 2702: 1694:

I'd appreciate a reply to the above which was posted over a week ago.

740:

Vandalism that is noted and which needs to be address can be posted at

368:

I am in need of some assistance regarding an article recently declined

10299:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

7001:

guidelines. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a business directory.

4623:

and explain the reasons to me? thank you. Kind regards, a music fan!

3826:, per your request for a fresh perspective. You can find my rationale 2706: 10231: 8247: 8107: 7956: 7635: 7334: 6957: 6813: 6660: 6110: 5852: 4174: 4001: 3868: 3526: 3517: 3367: 2971: 2650: 2547: 2019: 1380: 1284: 1158: 1124: 1103: 1058: 1050: 1001: 634: 284: 7738:

Akradeki is not currently active. Per the note on the deleted page:

6679:. Perhaps a checkuser on all these users would be useful? Thanks. - 5533: 5514:

get noticed!) Keep upholding the policies that keep WP from being a

1915: 1200:?) to have a more formal guideline as to when blogs are acceptable. 1102:

I understand and agree with your point about self published blogs.

9334: 7858:

People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport

7832:

However, it is November 2009 now, and I believe that he now passes

7326: 7281: 7124: 6941:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

6920: 6790: 6777: 6742: 5753:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

5732: 4019:

link. Nothing there came even close to meeting the requirements of

1910: 1174: 1057:, qualify as at least one non-trivial independent published work?-- 8492:

Article selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.

2028:

If not a democracy, can you offer a different analogy? I did find

20: 10171:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

8703:

Just to let you know (I am supposed to - this is what it says).

7868:, as professional wrestlers are really a combination of the two. 6521: 5552: 5488: 2632: 9896:. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. -- 8526: 8480:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

8364:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

8131:

could add it to the article. If you could that would be great.

6608:

I didn't "cancel" anything. My edit can be found with this dif:

5871:

but I wanted to make sure that you saw it. Geekologie has been

4842:. Knowledge is not a place for promoters to laud their clients. 3741:

Um, no. I prefer to keep the conversations intact on this page.

520:

Confusion on my part. I thought it had been created through the

9298:

and suggestions on changes to the structure have been proposed

6735:

List of space tourism companies#Clarification_of_the_list_title

6669:"He is the Photographer from Sik. corp I've seen the Negitives" 6526:

We are not here to promote your band's google search standings!

6447:

Thanks for the note...looks like someone else already blocked.

2939:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:J_Milburn#Lily_Mazahery_image

2262:

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Deletion

10474:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/London Fire Brigade appliances

9826:. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. 9114: