User talk:JBW/Archive 17

2517:

Because I have a business relationship with the company (it is NOT my company), there is an inherent conflict of interest. However, in the spirit of objectivity, this profile is filled with legitimate, third-party references from such high-profile publications as Inc. Magazine. So, while I assembled the information, it’s the media cited in the article that actually WROTE about the company. That should mitigate, if not eliminate, the conflict of interest bias. According to Knowledge guidelines, one criterion for acceptance of company profiles is noteworthiness. I have documented repeatedly via credible media reports that this company helped pioneer its field—and in some manner should be considered noteworthy for its accomplishments; 3. Knowledge encourages contributors to submit articles, even “break all the rules,” and seek input and advice. I respectfully asked for your help. Did you review the article and check out the third-party references and verification? Could you offer some constructive advice instead of just telling me to give up? I utilized a number of standing Knowledge company profiles as models for what I developed. I ask you to exercise your objectivity and give this another look. If you do not feel you are able or willing to help me further, please advise about steps I can take in an effort to get some form of this profile considered for publication in Knowledge—in alignment with many others already on the site. Thank you. Mdlusky (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)  So why am I not allowed to be sarcastic about a really crass error? The appropriate route now is to raise the matter at deletion review. Note that the proposed article title should be Lightning Labels. Why on earth did you include "profile" in the title? — RHaworth (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5054:

point is to avoid making the article follow any given source too closely. If you are writing from one source it is surprisingly difficult to do this. Even if you are genuinely trying to avoid direct copying there is a natural tendency to slip into following the source closely, often without realising that you are doing so. (I know this very well, having experienced it myself.) If you can find more than one source (preferably more than two) and write on the basis of a synthesis of what you read in all of them it is likely to be easier than if you are essentially rephrasing information from a single source. If you really have to write from just one source, then when you have written it, look back over your version and the original, and consider whether you think an outsider would be able to guess that that was where you got your material from. If the answer seems to be "yes" then you may have a problem. (Unfortunately this is far from a perfect solution. It is very difficult to look at what you have just written and see how it would look to someone coming to it afresh.)

3110:

collaborated with multiple Grammy nominated artists and is working out a contract deal with Kanye West's recording company GOOD Music. West has been nominated for 36 Grammys, and albums released under the GOOD Music label have won multiple Grammys. Being in association with such successful artists certainly warrants his credibility as a musician. It was stated that his popularity is strictly in the Cleveland area which is not so. I am from Virginia and saw him perform with Kid Cudi. Chip tha Ripper is currently on a 9 state tour. The MTV articles I included also display that his reputation exists on the national level.I hope you reevaluate the article and reconsider your choice to delete it. He is a very talented artist that has and continues to work with big name musicians.

1635:

whether it should be allowed to stay. However, that is not the only issue, as the article was tagged by Ukexpat for deletion as an attack page. Having looked at the content of the article I had to agree with Ukexpat. The article was written entirely to express a negative point of view about a company, and did not give a balanced, objective account. That was in itself sufficient reason for deletion, and it would not be acceptable to restore such an article, even for discussion. The speedy deletion policy explicitly states that an attack on a living person should not be restored, and although this was about a company rather than a person, it could be taken as an attack on the people responsible for the actions referred to, so I think I have to take the same line in this case.

2934:

or resourcefullness to write about a subject everytime you ack a reply by again not even trying to be helpfull. The simplest thing you could have done was to remake the article so it could be improved by the willing people, yet you chose this abusive stall tactics for TWO WEEKS. and yes, John Titor does have an article, but again this is a classic pattern of an abusive admin endlessly debating and refferenceing till the creation-wave has died. Obstructivness is Not why I'm here. maybe you should ask your self this question, hopfully this time you could get an answer. I bet there's a page you can beurocratize and refference the answer to. I bet you'll feel comfterable doing so too.

4820:

would find that the respective dates were 6 December 2009 and 20 June 2010. Have you looked at the edit histories of all the various sock puppets? If you have and can still believe that the similarity of interests, the similarity of editing styles, etc etc are just chance coincidence then you surprise me. Then there are the similarities among some of the user names used (King kong922/King kong92, Greengoblin92/Greengobbie92). Yes, it is perfectly possible for different users to independently come up with such similar user names, but come up with such similar user names

3757:

unlikely, but not impossible. Until the user edits again I'm not sure what we can do about it. I thought of blocking and unblocking the individual user, but I doubt that that would work. Blocking and unblocking the range might. On the whole I think I would leave it for now and see what happens. If the editor makes edits elsewhere we can heave a sigh of relief, if he edits his talk page to say "I still can't edit" we can think again. By the way, I like the idea of you giving yourself talking tos. I wonder what you say to yourself? I suppose it's not my business to ask.

2849:

discussion and then re-created, without the issue which led to deletion being addressed, then it should be speedily deleted. I was implementing that guideline, and personal opinion did not come into it. You say "re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause". There you are expressing disagreement with a Knowledge guideline. You are free to suggest changes to that guideline if you wish, but as long as that is what the guideline says, there will not be much mileage in criticising an individual for acting in accordance it.

4010:. I also am releasing my second CD, after having released Teardrop Rain in 2008. And yes, I just did a book tour in New York City for a book I recently published through Wiley & Sons, a top publishing house. People ask how I find the time, and I tell them I'm fortunate to be doing exactly what I love to do- invest, compose, perform, write, and pursue other activities that come my way. It creates much envy/jealousy so I am used to people trying to tear me down, especially in what Ayn Rand once wrote, this 'culture of envy' that is the United States. 2995:

whether Philip Schneider does. I have indeed tried to be helpful, and I'm sincerely sorry that you don't appreciate the fact. I regard explaining the relevant parts of how Knowledge works to be an attempt to help you. If you do not regard anything short of restoring the article as helpful then unfortunately the answer is that the article did not indicate notability, having no reliable sources at all. If you have any further requests for help on this then please feel welcome to pose them in a civil manner and I will do my best to respond to them.

544:, do you think it would be OK to undelete this page? I know the user was socking, and that he's been rather uncooperative and accusative at certain points (including to OTRS, apparently), but the person is notable enough to me and the only reason was G5 (I think the spam and copyvio parts have been removed and such, and it was his originally his own writing, anyway). Probably unblocking the user wouldn't end up well after a while, but I think the page can be salvageable. Is that OK with you? 4439: 4377: 4350: 4267: 3557: 2718: 2457: 1656: 880: 622: 326: 31: 5063:. Then you can iron out any problems, and ask for other people's opinions, before letting it loose as an article. Putting it in your user space does not mean that you are free to breach copyright, but it does mean that if there are defects it is less likely to be deleted almost immediately, so you can have time to deal with any problems. If you do this you are welcome to ask my opinion of your draft before moving it into mainspace as an article, if you want to. 1168: 2800:

nominator, for delete, and three in favour of keep.) You say "the article has been recreated with better content". What is "better" is a matter of opinion, but that is irrelevant, because when I assessed the speedy deletion nomination my job was not to make that judgement, but to decide whether the issues which led to deletion had been addressed. They clearly had not, as there was not a single reliable source cited.

3982:(click show all authors and affiliations). It was the first time an atom of 110 had ever been made. That Imyoung says element 110 had already been discovered disproves the timeline of events as recorded by history. Also, provided on my wikipedia page are just a handful of articles in which I am listed as a co-author thus the assertion that Kacher has been co-author of over 50 research articles is correct. 2885:

issues which led to deletion, then the answer is "yes", and I did so. The AfD was based on lack of notability and verifiability. As I have already said above, the new version of the article contained no reliable sources, so it certainly did not address those issues. As for your final sentence, I'm afraid I don't understand it, but if you will clarify it for me I will consider whether I can answer it.

2500:

with media references is to emphasize that this is a legitimate profile candidate. Given your stated penchant for providing constructive advice and helping out new contributors (of which I am one), I’m hoping you can help guide me through the maze. My message below, entitled “Request for respect and consideration,” sums up my thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance for your help.

1447:

you for your honest remarks. I wanted to really dive in and edit this entire piece but was concerned about COI even though I do participate in Knowledge using a pen name and don't link anywhere to my my writings (which are mostly text-based and not able to sourced on the Internet anyway). Would it be inappropriate for me to work on this entire definition

3461:. Now sudenly you delete my newest information with a comment that there are no sources. Well, I have one of the must reliable sources, The Modesty Blaise Companion Companion, written by Lawrence Blackmore. I think that before you just delete my information you could at least have tried to find out what this was all about. I am sertenly NOT a spammer. 4168:

that The Synics Awakening are notable by Knowledge's standards, but nothing I have seen suggests it. Certainly the article did not indicate it. When I did a Google search I saw MySpace and Facebook pages, blog posts, the Knowledge article, etc etc, but little if any sign of coverage in reliable independent sources. Have a look at

4080:

path, not just as traders but as high level mammals. We help others including ourselves along this path by teaching and coaching, for teaching is the best way to solidify the understanding of concepts. And we hope our book and website will help others optimize not just their investing, but also their lives.

3936:, though I believe two reviews are 4 stars. That Imyoung implies that we rigged the reviews and took the time to post them is ludicrous. Did we also force websites to post favorable reviews on our book and make videos about it? Here are just a couple sites that have posted favorable items about our book: 4658:

you can contact the deleting administrator and ask them to undelete it. Although you have not actually asked for undeletion, it is clear that you are not happy with the deletion. If you would like to ask me to I will undelete the article. However, I think it is only fair to tell you that if I do so I

4641:

The person proposing deletion should ideally notify anyone who has substantially contributed to the article. However, checking through strings of edits to determine exactly which editors have made substantial edits is something that very few editors do, and in practice it is usually only the original

4128:

I recently created a page for my band The Synics Awakening. We have been featured in two local newspapers, one widely distributed Metal zine, and have been aired on local FM stations as well as various internet radio stations. We also have a CD released by a well known online distributor. How would I

4079:

That said, I want to leave on a good note since this is not at all directed at you but to those who wish to unjustly tear me down. I believe music is the shortest distance between two people, and as we discuss in Chapter 10 of our book "Trading is Life; Life is Trading," we are all on an evolutionary

4005:

I started one of the first investment advisory services on the web back in 1995. Yes, I was writing my Ph.D. thesis, but I was also focused on switching out of the field and into stock market investments. I've often done the highly unusual. I recently was on an archaeological dig in Kefalonia with an

3989:

That Imyoung implies that just because I was not lead author in many publications makes my participation negligible is ludicrous and presumptuous. For example, there is a reason why Albert Ghiorso invited me onto the element 110 experiment. I was considered a top graduate student for my unusual ideas

3756:

Assuming that the user genuinely has found himself blocked, no I don't know what's happening. The only thing I can think of is this: the user tried to edit when you first made the "muffed" range block, gave up, returned today to edit and assumed that he was still blocked, without checking. That seems

3178:

Well, I've made a quick Google search and found MySpace, Facebook, Knowledge, various download sites, listing sites, promotional sites, but nothing that looks to me like independent coverage in a reliable source. You are welcome to come up with some suitable sources if you can, but in my experience a

2933:

Moreover, and you should really wake up to your own talk page and realize this, I did not come here looking for answers or endless debates or muses, I'm was looking to write an article. Not destroy one. I don't know about you, but I'm not here for 2 or more hours of every day, and I'm not in the mood

1853:

will see a black listing, which will suggest to them there is no other article on the subject just as effectively as a red link, so I don't see the advantage in the latter. In addition to this, is that if someone should some day decide to write an article on Senostoma, they will be able to start from

1081:

My Truthiracy word was already accepted, why now did you decide to delete it? What word do we have that describes a conspiracy that becomes the truth? We don't, and that's why we need this word to be accepted. The Enron conspiracy became a truthiracy. Who pressured you to remove it? Christopher Lord

386:

I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother,

360:

I am requesting that you consider reviewing the above mentioned article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on copyediting and established notability. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Knowledge due to blatant promotional tone. The article is no longer written

4250:

hi jamesB, ok i cant get my head around the speedy deletion tags, help! i tagged dry bones for deletion because this is not Wikia, dry bones already redirects to list of mario characters, try Dry bones(mario) it redirects there so this article should have never been created. what do i use instead to

4205:

My complain is that the page was deleted although I added some reliable sources (an article from the South China Morning Post and an entry from the official blog of the Journalism Centre of the University of Hong Kong). However, I also took the chance to complain about Knowledge's inclusion criteria

4201:

Hi Jim - The reason why i created a deletion review is because, when I went to the page 'Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tesa Arcilla', I read a message saying that 'Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)'. That

3795:

Hi James, Thank you for reviewing my block and actually doing some research before declining my request. I am just writing to ask for some advice on how to handle a similar situation if I even come across one again. Two experienced editors were edit warring and seemingly not willing to comprise with

3142:

satisfies Knowledge's notability guidelines, not taht he has worked with others who do. The new version of the article did no more to establish notability than the old one, most of the references being blogs etc. No matter how talented he is or how many "big name" musicians he works with, if he does

2499:

Please help me. As you will see in the message string below, I attempted to place a company profile about Lightning Labels (titled Lightning Labels profile) with a number of credible third-party sources—including Inc. Magazine---to document noteworthiness. The primary reason the article is so packed

1451:

I also teach a course in an academic setting on social media? I currently write under a pen name in here that only one person knows as tied to my real name so it shouldn't look as if I am trying to build my own authority. Regardless, would that be seen as COI? I could stay away from all social media

1446:

no dark secret so I can definitely drop that as well. I was not really concerned with it other than to show that for some reason, she or he appears to be tracking what I do and making arbitrary changes. Yet, as long as it doesn't continue, I am more than willing to let it go. For this article, thank

1424:

sourced than most of the article. The rest of the article is, in my opinion, very poor in several respects, and your section too is by no means perfect. However, removing that one section on grounds of poor sourcing while leaving other sections with poorer or (in the case of one section) no sources,

436:

Unfortunately another administrator had already deleted it before I saw your message. However, I think that what you are trying to do is outside Knowledge's terms. The whole nature of what you have tried to do is inconsistent with the purpose of Knowledge, as other editors tried to explain to you on

5053:

I know nothing about Russell apart from what I have seen in the deleted article and the source mentioned, but it seems to me that he is probably notable enough to warrant a Knowledge article. You ask for "suggestions about how one might proceed in this case". Since the only issue was copyright, the

5025:

On the question of copyright, most of the article seemed to me to be clearly a paraphrase of the source, but whether a close enough paraphrase to constitute copyright was perhaps debatable, and certainly not unambiguous enough to justify speedy deletion. However, there were a few passages where the

4969:

I agree that 'no harm' isn't a good reason for protecting things, but I wasn't suggesting it was, only that it was a reason for not needing to remove protection once it had been put there for some other reason. However, in this case I don't see that removing it is likely to do any harm either, and,

4819:

I find "If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password" totally bewildering. How on earth would it prove that? I am also puzzled as to why you don't just look at their editing histories and find out the dates. If you did so you

4594:

3967:

I was part of the Dr. Darlene Hoffman/Dr. Glenn Seaborg research team that helped to confirm the existence of element 106, and thus we had the privilege of naming it Seaborgium. I have evidence of group pictures taken with our research group which included me, Glenn Seaborg, and Darlene Hoffman. In

3736:

Yes, I do already know this, and I can't figure out why this guy can't edit. This is my first and only rangeblock, and I muffed it to start by not making it anon only even though I intended to and thought I had, but I fixed that days ago, and other editors from the IP range have evidently been just

3481:

lies with the person adding the material. Presumably such a person has a source, or they wouldn't be adding it. It therefore follows that they can easily add it. Alternatively they haven't got a source, but have a good enough knowledge of the subject that they know where to look for one better than

2667:

You deleted my article "Control System Middleware for operator functioning" But this is not advertising! The article has encyclopedic value Describes the main method of signal transmission with digital television for use by the media and many others. It does not mention any company or brand. In the

2097:

The article did not look serious. Also, although you say "many experiments were conducted", the article gave no sources to indicate this. The "references" in the article did not confirm any of the article's content. A search has failed to produce any evidence of existence of any research on this by

1378:

I understand I didn't do my homework well enough before writing my first full article on Christiansen. But I am not Christiansen - or related to Christiansen somehow - either. I just didn't make a good first attempt and I didn't know of all the drama that had come before my submission as because of

4756:

The issue of a lost password is irrelevant. This is a blocked user trying to evade a block. It is also a user who has abused multiple accounts (the evidence is not just the checkuser results, but behavioural evidence too.) It is also a user who has a history of various kinds of unhelpful editing.

3959:

I dont have an accent as I was born in California. I have a 'California' accent to foreigners, but not to anyone living in the U.S. The 'Dr.' is used for anyone who achieves a Ph.D. It is not just used for medical doctors. Thus all scientists who have Ph.D.s are referred to as Dr. This is true in

3618:

edited all the time) he said in the edit description "I have added this because it is true. So tofutwitch, don't delete it because that would just be wrong. THIS IS A REFERENCE" I did not delete is, but another user did for understanding reasons. I think that there is a chance they may be the same

3518:

I have looked back at the pages which were given as copyright violation sources, and you may well be right about the copy being the other way round. However, if you created the article 3 or 4 years ago then you are a sockpuppet of the banned user Darkred, also known as Spahbod. This means that the

2994:

I am not sure what question I "failed to answer". If you mean "How does that make him any more deserving of a wikipedia page than Philip Schneider?" then the link I gave to OTHERSTUFF was an answer. I don't know whether or not John Titor warrants an article, but that is irrelevant to the question

2868:

Right. if you'd like to get even more beurocratic, please answer me this. if an article was erased via reason x, and y weeks later was recreated by another user who did not know about the said reason nor participated in it's discussion, and have alternative content that may address reason x, is it

2818:

That's not a serious reply. re-erasing an article because you have decided to erase it before is not a valid cause. moreover, if you wish more sources to be found (there are dosens of them all around the UFO community), you may ASK for them. destroying a work done by many collaborating individuals

2509:

Further to your e-mail: I am sorry, but my best advice is: give up! It is obvious that you are promoting your company. Please have the honesty, modesty, realism to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about the company. Re messages not getting through. Did you actually review this

2182:

1848:

Someone who wants to find out about Senostoma may look for an article on Knowledge. With the present setup they will be taken directly to the article which gives what little information Knowledge has on it. The way you would prefer it, they would just draw a blank, so the current arrangement would

1307:

FYI, the article creator (and subject) removed your prod and added what looks like more reviews of his productions. I haven't looked at them all, but they still seem fall under the same problems that were indicated in your prod rationale - they're not about him, but rather his works. Might be time

571:

Personally I tend to take the line that blocked users should be prevented from getting their way if they try to get round their blocks, in order to discourage them from trying in the future to do the same again. However, I don't see anything really bad about the latest version of the article, so I

4210:

the publication. For example, no article has ever been written about Diana Lin, who is one of Hong Kong's best know journalists. In a struggling democracy like Hong kong, can we accept that people cannot access to any information about someone who brings to the news to the people, like she does?

4167:

having asked "is the subject of this article suitable for a Knowledge article?" Unless the answer to the second question is "yes" any time spent on the first question is likely to be wasted, as no amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. It is possible

3997:

Again, I appear in scientific papers such as the one I mentioned above with Seaborg and appear with him in research group photos taken at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Seaborg was in his early 80s when he held these bi-monthly research meetings in his office at Lawrence Berkeley National

3796:

each other. My instinct was to revert the page to how it was before the dispute started until the discussion page reached a consensus on what to do, however obviously this was not viewed as the right thing to do. What actions should I have taken when confronted with a situation like this? Thanks,

2848:

You refer to "destroying a work ... just because you personally dont agree with it". However, that was not the reason for deletion. In fact I do not know enough about the subject to have a personal opinion. Knowledge guidelines specify that if an article has been deleted as a result of a deletion

2794:

There was no vote. On English Knowledge deletion discussions are decided not by voting, but by an administrator's assessment of the value of the arguments advanced. In this case we had such arguments as "there's gotta be a reason to keep an article about someone who claims to have done top secret

2772:

article was deleted in the past after a vote was cast, WITHOUT a majoriry for the deletion. since then, the article has been recreated with better content and by other users. Moreover, Having erased an article in the past (for no good reason) is no reason to re-erase it it the future. Since now,

2696:

The article was deleted because it was written to promote a concept. The fact that it did not mention a company or brand is irrelevant: "promotion" does not have to be commercial promotion. The existence of a similar article in Russian Knowledge is also irrelevant, both because different language

1474:

I certainly don't think it makes sense to say you should not edit a particular topic area because you have an expert knowledge of it. I have never thought that because I have a knowledge of mathematics I should keep away from editing mathematical articles. However, it may be best to avoid editing

4306:

Dear James: A few months back I created a wikipedia page for reality TV star and author Tionna Tee Smalls. That page has since been deleted. I wanted to request that the page be reinstated on my account so that I can edit it and improve the page so that it can remain on Knowledge. Further, if

3913:

Imyoung may have an axe to grind most likely because he lost money in the stock market when he was invested with Gil Morales. Gil has already written about his drawdowns in our recently published book, as big drawdowns are part of his investment style. I had only joined forces with Gil as he was

3476:

You may well have a reliable source, but you did not cite it in the article. I am only too well aware that there are many people who edit Knowledge and think that the burden of proof is on anyone removing unsourced material to search exhaustively and remove it only if sources prove impossible to

1634:

There is room for debate on when it is justified to create a new article which covers a particular aspect of a topic already covered in an existing article. If that were the only issue I would be perfectly willing to undelete the article so that it could be discussed before it is finally decided

5047:

I thought, and still think, that the presence of passages which were verbatim or so nearly so that the copyright infringement was unambiguous, together with much of the rest of the article being so close to the original as to make copyright at least questionable, justified deletion of the whole

4162:

I think you may be making a mistake which is very common among newcomers to Knowledge, especially those who come here in order to promote something (whether a club, a band, a person, a company, or whatever). That mistake is asking "how can I rewrite this article so that it doesn't get deleted?"

3950:

2. I received a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry, which involves a lot of work in Physics, as most of my work was done at the 88" Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory adjacent to UC Berkeley, hence at this level, is considered equivalent to Nuclear Physics as the line between the two is

3502:

The page "Bahram Moshiri" was deleted by you on the grounds of copyright violation if i'm correct. The sites you put on the deletion tag are using my text, not the other way around. I created this page 3-4 years ago, but it was deleted for some reason, and as you may know wikipedia articles get

3021:

If AIV is not the place to report a person who is repeatedly adding original research to an article, then why do we have a series of four escalating vandalism warnings from uw-nor1 through uw-nor4, including the final one indicating they'll be blocked if they continue? Those warnings should be

2884:

You ask me to answer if I'd like "to get even more beurocratic". I don't wish to get bureaucratic at all, but even so I will try to answer. I am not sure what you mean by "the article should be reviewed", but if you mean that it should be checked to see whether it has successfully addressed the

2516:

This is in response to: RHaworth (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC) In your role as a Knowledge editor, I have three requests: 1. Per Knowledge policy, please show respect and consideration. “With amazing skill” is obviously sarcastic and is unbecoming of someone in your position; 2.

4796:

was used. If these two times dont overlap this would prove that he was forced to make a new account because he lost his password. If the times do overlap, then he is wrong and deserves being accused of sock puppetry. (II) If only he is given another chance, is it not somehow possible, that two

4741:, they could have a same IP address because they might live in same vicinity and use same ISP. Forgetting a password is pretty normal and common. I just want to help a good faith wikipedian get his account back. Give him a chance and keep an eye on him. Keep the other accounts blocked. Cheers. 4938:

completed AfDs, I suppose...and that would need some debate. I was just looking at 'odd' pages tagged for pending-changes protection, because the trial is over, and there is currently considerable dispute as to whether PC should be removed, as there is no consensus approval. Anyway - thanks,

4563:

2799:

to to have done top secret underground government work then I can have a Knowledge article about myself. (Incidentally, even if you think that a vote, including such nonsensical ones, would be a better way to decide deletion discussions, there was a majority for deletion: four, including the

3775:

didn't make that block anonymous only! What were you thinking?!" Frequently, I'm less chiding and more dull, though: "Don't forget to pick up milk." I seldom talk philosophy with me. :/ Thanks for the suggestions. If he has trouble still, I'll try unblocking and reblocking. I hate that it's

1530: 3340:) on the same series of interrelated articles - and yet however noting that it is the user's first block, a block of a relatively shorter duration was appropriate. The block will expire in a few hours, at which point in time, hopefully, the user will engage in discussion, and/or if needed, 4765:. Because of this mistake, I had to search to find the real user. In the course of doing so I happened to stumble on evidence of sockpuppetry which I had not previously seen, and so the effect of your trivial slip has been to considerably strengthen my belief that the block is justified.) 3109:

You recently deleted the article "Chip tha Ripper" due to its lack of credibility and status as a recreated article. I believe if you read the information included on the new page you will see this performers status and popularity have grown since the previous articles were deleted. He as

4063:

14. Many biographies on wikipedia contain publications even if the person was not primary author. As above, the publications provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I may glance at a person's publications on wikipedia with frequency when reading about a person.

3931:

Our book has ranked as high as #2 on both finance and investing on amazon.com. It sold out of its first printing in 4 days after the book was launched. We were also told by our published Wiley & Sons that it is now being translated into Korean. The 5 star reviews can be seen here:

383:, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth. 4783:

Behavioral evidence in what way? He may be learning how to use and edit wikipedia. Thats why he recently discovered userboxes. We all were newbies when we first arrived on wikipedia. But later we learned to cite our sources. He deserves to be blocked on behavioral evidence if he has

5040:

During the 1920s he built the arcaded three-storey accommodation blocks on both sides of Queen's Way for members of the Legislative Assembly (Eastern Court and Western Court), and in 1930 he completed Flagstaff House, then the residence of the Commander-in-Chief, now the Teen Murti

3960:

Europe, the United Kingdom, in Australia, and in the U.S. Also, I find it interesting that Imyoung admits 'In the USA is it not common practice...'. Is wikipedia just a U.S. based source of information? Of course not. Knowledge is great because there are no geographic boundaries.

2869:

not so that by wiki guidlelines (not laws, I remind you. guidelines for beter community incorportaion) the article should be reviewed? what is y so that an article that was erased in prehistory to have any chance of being recreated to achieve the so called conclusion of x?--

501:

is normal behavior? NovaSkola reverted my edit as vandalism, while I've filled interwikies, native name in both languages and I've mentioned that fortress is situated in disputed area which is under control of the NKR. It is not the first such behavior of this user. Thanks

437:

the article's talk page. You are in effect trying to use Knowledge as a web host for your college team, rather than to write an objective encyclopaedia article. I think you would be better off putting the page on a web host or social network site, rather than on Knowledge.

2536:

What I am diligently trying to ascertain is the proper procedure for edits. It seems to involve any given article's talk page. Am I correct that the proper procedure for editing is to make some kind of explanatory or justification post on the article's talk page? Thanks

2510:

edit? Did you wonder why you could not see your text in the normal rendered version of the page. With amazing skill you had placed your text in one of the few places where the MediaWiki software would ignore it! — RHaworth (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

4068:

15. From the age of 5 to 12, each year Suzuki would choose a handful of talented students to represent the institute, and would fly them somewhere in the U.S. or to Japan. I was chosen each year. We have old copies of programs where it shows I performed for Suzuki.

3661:

First of all, sorry it's taken me 5 days to reply to this. If, when I receive a message, I am too busy to deal with it, I normally plan to deal with it when I come back. However, what often happens is that it soon becomes lost behind a line of other messages and

2552:

It is almost always a good idea to give some indication what your edit is doing. In simple cases an edit summary is enough for this. however, if you need a longer explanation you should post a comment on the talk page of the page you are editing. You should also

2225:

167:

You are correct i did work on the file for 41 minutes. I am overly impressed you can tell time however i had the notification for deletion after i hit save the first time. i guess i was misinformed that saving was an illegal play till refrences went up MY BAD.

3917:

Imyoung claims he has little time for this, yet he spends an inordinate amount of time researching my background, then writing voluminously to wikipedia. We suspect he is Barry Bruhns who was involved in a lawsuit with Gil Morales or one of Bruhn's cohorts.

136:

You are right in saying it wasn't ten minutes after you typed the first paragraph. You created the article at 13:09, and it was deleted at 13:50, which makes it 41 minutes. However, I am not sure why you are telling me about this. The article was deleted by

2138:

I was a bit puzzled by it, but it was entirely clear from your editing history that you are a constructive editor, not a vandal. I just thought the best thing was to let WereSpielChequers know, so that if it was some sort of mistake he could deal with it.

5058:

may helpful. There are numerous Knowledge pages on copyright, and there may be others which may be helpful to you, but most of them are of little relevance to what you need. One other point: it may be best to first write a draft in a user space page, say

3482:

someone else does. In any case, whatever my opinion or yours, the policy is that the burden of proof lies with the person adding content. As for being a spammer, I have no idea how that is relevant: certainly I never suggested it, nor even suspected it.

2122:

Thanks for pointing out this genuine and easily made error. I have apologised to WSC with a full explanation. We enjoy an excellent working relationship, especially on BLP and RfA issues, and I wouldn't like him to think I've suddenly become a vandal ;)

667:

Huggle patrolling can be less stressful than some kinds of admin-stuff. Even blocking vandals that come up on Huggle doesn't produce a string of "how dare you do something I didn't like, (such as deleting my vanity article on my garage band)" messages.

900:

you have deleted my new addition to wikkipedia, which was a serious entry under the assumtion that it is a hoax of some sort. it is not...It is a valid point of veiw that was enetered in order to communicate with the world. please reinstate the page.

2628:

No, no - it's my fault. I compared it against the French article, but I misread the French, and when I scanned the English-language version, it didn't gel. I've reviewed the French, and I withdraw the objection; it just needs some cleaning up, is

5033:

During the 1920s he built the arcaded three-storey accommodation blocks on both sides of Queen’s Way for members of the Legislative Assembly, and in 1930 he completed the residence of the Commander-in-Chief, Flagstaff House (now the Nehru Memorial

4075:

This kind of behavior of wikipedia should be controlled. If it is possible, we nominate that Imyoung be deleted from Knowledge. We have also consulted with our attorneys at Reed Smith and are prepared to take this to a higher level if necessary.

3927:

1. "Chris Kacher, aka Christian D. Kacher, aka Chris Casher, is an expert at self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, who uses Knowledge to sell himself and his products: his CDs and his latest a book that got only 5-star reviews on Amazon! "

3627:, it read: "My dad works for Horizon Air. He is in the route department for Horizon Air. He showed me a new schedule" What do you think? It could be that we just have two kids who don't like to listen.... Let me know what you think. Thanks. 2747:), or sometimes I go to test-wiki. However sometimes I need a page in mainspace and on the live wiki. This is fairly harmless as the page only exists for a few minutes at most, and is not linked to from anywhere (except my talk archive!). 2191:, it read: "My dad works for Horizon Air. He is in the route department for Horizon Air. He showed me a new schedule" What do you think? It could be that we just have two kids who don't like to listen.... Let me know what you think. Thanks. 1961:

The issue is not whether I have "tried the search function", but rather what is likely to be most helpful to an ordinary user, knowing nothing about the workings of Knowledge. (I'm also not wildly keen on the edit summary to your last edit.)

2605:

I have looked back at the deleted article, and it is not as clear cut as I first thought, so I will restore the article. I shall also inform the editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion, so that they can consider whether or not to

2068:

Why you delete my article, it was a refreshing work of literature and was observed by actual doctors and many experiments were conducted with evidence of this tragedy pictures were not posted due to the fact the article was semi-complete.

2319:

As you will see from the deletion log, I deleted it because it was a repost of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Nothing at all in the article indicated that there had been any change affecting the reasons for deletion.

3955:

3. "In the USA it is not common practice to apply the title of a profession to a person who never practiced the profession nor is the title “Dr.” used except academically (from his accent I suspect he may have a foreign background too"

3372: 2958:

If you're objecting to the AfD process which led to the deletion of the article, you're not just going against JamesBWatson, but against the whole of Knowledge. I would advise you not to frame the issue as if it's just you versus him.

2098:

doctors with the names you gave in the article, or indeed of the existence of such doctors at all. If you can give a source for the information in the article then I can restore it for you. However, if I do that it will go to an

1404:

think they are valid, they obviously would be. If you think they are merited, then I will accept that as well. I did review this other editor's talk page and she gets attacked on there pretty frequently for this same behavior.

651:

Good to see you Huggle patrolling, knowing all that admin-ing isn't going to your head. I've been more low-impact lately owing to some other obligations, but hope to be doing the 0 hour vandal patrols again soon. See ya there.

4054:. As for employment at William O'Neil, read our book "Trade Like an O'Neil Disciple: How We Made 18,000% in the Stock Market". It is a personal account of our years as top performing portfolio managers for William O'Neil. 1327:

James (I know that's not your real name based on your user page but I wouldn't know how else to address you)... :-), I know we disagreed on Lisa Christiansen article. However, if you look at my information on my user page

364:

After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her.

4653:

The conclusion of this is that there is probably really no realistic way of knowing if an article is proposed for deletion except looking back at it. However, all is not lost. If an article has been deleted following a

1393:) was more than harsh on the Christiansen article and even implied to another editor that she knew some deep dark secret about me. Well, I can tell you that's not true because there is no deep dark secret I am hiding. 4058:

13. Many biographies on wikipedia contain references. The references provide a far more complete picture than if they were stricken. I look at a bio's references on wikipedia all the time when reading about a person.

1544:

Thank You Mr. JamesBWatson for quickly responding to my pleas for help and for reverting edits that I - and you - felt should not have been deleted. Most of all, thank you for your willingness to help a new editor!

4797:

previous accounts are deleted or kept blocked and his Greengobbie92 account is unblocked. I am pretty sure he learned his lesson by now. He now knows that administrators have access to tools that he cannot escape.

4180:

to see what sources are required to show that it does. If and when you have evidence that the subject is notable then you can consider writing an article, and I will be very willing to give advice on how to do it.

3665:

I think it very probably is the same person, but since at the moment it was just a one-off edit I think we can ignore it. Feel free to let me know if the trouble restarts when the IP's block expires (26 August).

2229:

1900:

OK, I accept that there is a point to your suggestion, though I think "stupid" is overstating it. I still think, though, that the benefit to readers is more important than inclusion in a list for editors to see.

387:

since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. I would like to invite you to review the article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on corresponding criteria

107:

i am wondering why i wasnt allowed to continue working on this article it was flagged for speedy deletion not even ten minutes after i typed the first paragraph. i wasnt even finished and it was deleted

3211:, since the infamous Indonesian vandal also inserts his brand of misinformation on this article as well. Victimized three times in the past seven days using IP addresses from the 202.70.54.0/24 range. - 3978:. Note, in 1993, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) was Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, or LBL. The element 110 experiment was discussed in this paper here of which I am shown as a co-author: 1603:

and others), it is proper to write an article about it, especially if it too big (as I though was the case) to be included in a related article (which under this case it would be 2 different ones,

517:

What you did as vandalism doesn't look like vandalism to me. However, another editor has reverted to your version, and it has been left at that, so I don't think we need to worry too much about it.

2668:

Russian part of the Knowledge article, this quietly posted a year ago. Previously, there was no time to issue in greater detail the article. Now I would like to do everything. From SW. Igor Ionin

1501:

Thank you Mr. JamesBWatson. I appreciate the speed at which you responded and the advice. You're not near as awful as I thought. (That was a joke) Again, I appreciate your feedback and assistance.

1182:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

3747:

On second thought, no, I'd better not put it on hold, as that's misleading and confusing in itself. While I sometimes do give myself talking tos, this is an entirely different kind of thing. :) --

1452:

and marketing discussions but I am somewhat of an expert in these areas and it would seem to be a waste of my expertise. This is one rule I am still unclear on in Knowledge...how this part works?

4663:

discussion. The article did not really establish notability for its subject, and was also in my opinion sufficiently promotional in character to be borderline for speedy deletion on that basis.

1799:

report, but on the other hand there were also enough grounds for immediate action by an administrator without such a report. By the time I read your message they had all been blocked except for

2463: 4031:

11. "Note 7) his Charles D. Coryell Award needs to be verified. Of 33 recipients only Christian D. Kacher’s name is inserted using Times New Roman, all other are in the same font, Verdana ."

1425:

does not seem to me the best way forward. As for the "deep dark secret", I cannot find that suggestion anywhere, and unless it was a really serious accusation I suggest dropping the matter.

4206:

saying that, by essence, it was difficult -if not impossible in non-anglo-saxon countries- to find sources about journalists since journalists are not the focus/subject of any publication,

4650:. However, to be realistic, it is unlikely that you will want to regularly check through all of the pending deletion proposals to see if they include any pages you may have an interest in. 3519:

article should be deleted as created by a blocked user in violation of the block, so I shall not restore it. It also means, of course, that the account you are now using will be blocked.

2828:

I can see by your talk page, that this is an almost common move on your behalf, and would hate to call names on arbitrations. please restore it, and place your request in a civil manner.

374:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

2577:

Hi ! This was not a personal attack. This article has many, published, sources. Please, reconsider. Did you (at least) click on the links and read the sources ? This is public fact.

4307:

there is any information you can give me as to why the page was removed, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time with this and I look forward to hearing from you.

4400:

our last post as of 15:44, 19 August 2010 : ... i put my draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime thanks, added by Seujet2010 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2010 ...

5060: 4024:

Again, this has been audited by the big four auditor KPMG. The documentation is here right on our website because it is hard for people to believe such a high return is achievable:

270: 3964:

4a/b. "Totally ridiculous unscientific nonsense, the first atom of element 110 already existed and Kacher, lowly grad student in the academic hierarchy, did not confirm anything."

406: 4021:

9. "Because of the hyperbole in the interview (not even Warren Buffett makes 18,000% profit over 7 years and somebody who did wouldn’t need to write books and drum up business)"

2930:

You again failed to answer my question. reusing the same argument since the last delete is not an argument if it does not have a finite time to live or ANY option for user input.

4886: 2300:

Why the heck did you delete Samuel Galindo's page? That was absolutely pointless because even though he hasn't made a first team appearance yet, he made an appearance for the

736:

The ip I reported a few minutes ago DOES have edits. It looks like there might be a bug. check my contribs for the reverts I did on the ip. Not sure why it's not showing up.--

4511: 5077:

Thank you very much! He seems like an interesting and notable man, and I will give it another try. Again, thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response. All the best,

2399:

We really need some kind of references or proof besides Wiki before we mark those living people as dead. An obituary or vsomething with a reference footnote would be best.

1572: 391:

that establishes notability. It is my opinion that the article needs additional references. However, notability according to policy has now been established. Thank you.

3990:

and Ghiorso and I became good friends. Ghiorso was close colleagues with Glenn Seaborg and at that time, had discovered more nuclear isotopes of anyone living or dead.

2531: 2036:

Can you clarify that remark? I understand neither what you are referring to when you say "where you have no expertise" nor how you think I am being " an obstruction".

1822: 206:

Hi there, would you please restore my deleted article or move it into my own name space. I think I'm asking for the correct thing. I was filling out the main cast for

5007:

I believe that RTR is an interesting architect who should be properly documented in Knowledge - do you have any suggestions about how one might proceed in this case?

3143:

not satisfy the notability guidelines then he does not warrant an article by Knowledge's criteria, whatever your own view or my own view of his significance may be.

2900:

Uh, John Titor has a wikipedia page, and he only CLAIMED to be a time traveler. How does that make him any more deserving of a wikipedia page than Philip Schneider?

1803:, and I have now blocked that one too. Thanks again. (By the way, how much intelligence do you think it would take to use user names that don't give the game away?) 1114:. In either case you will have seen that the reason given for deletion was copyright infringement, yet none of what you say above has anything to do with copyright. 3951:

blurred. You'll note from my list of publications (Physical Review C, etc) that circles in science consider this to be as much if not more physics than chemistry.

214:

had a small page with little notability other than he is an actor with a couple of films under his belt. Could not a page on Kim Min be equally notable and exist?

3933: 2834:

we are all here by good faith, ands some believe that Admins are here to facilitate contributers to better articles. so, please help us do this work. Thank You.--

4310: 3038: 2763: 2546: 4887: 4512: 4466: 1842: 1562: 1228: 355: 4758: 4734: 4132: 3858: 3737:

fine. Do you have any clue what might be wrong there? (I guess i'd better put the unblock request on hold, to keep others from having to stop by there.) --

3015: 2779:

I respectuflly request that you restore the information you have destroyed. if you have specific claims to it's content you may use the discussion page. --

2077: 1858:

is deleted that will be lost. That is a minor point, but it adds a little reason to the other one. Is there any advantage at all in your proposed version?

4910: 2654: 4090: 2925: 4535: 4017:

Again, another specious assertion. This was probably put forth by those who say I am two people because no one could have done all I have accomplished.

3118: 2585: 1669: 1628: 971: 4999: 4627: 4416: 3092: 3078: 3064: 3050: 2045: 2007: 1971: 1940: 1910: 1887: 1867: 1662: 1655: 1259: 1111: 1110:

I am puzzled by this. The only ways I can think of that you know I deleted it is that you have seen either the deletion log or the closure notice on

1090: 452: 284: 3751: 4703: 4337: 3240: 1827: 1142: 909: 3908: 3780: 3766: 3725: 3675: 3528: 3138:"Being in association with such successful artist" certainly does not indicate notability: notability is not inherited, and we need evidence that 1784: 1753: 1510: 1484: 1461: 1434: 4495: 4190: 4155: 3878: 3843:

More than "suspiciously like". It is obviously the same person. However, the account was already blocked before I read your note. Thanks anyway.

3446: 2878: 2788: 2676: 2566: 2477: 2111: 1812: 1271: 832:

I think it's probably not a hoax, but it seems to be an account of an inadequately sourced and totally non-notable myth, and I wouldn't oppose a

456: 422: 230: 3542: 2289: 2239: 957: 798: 784: 770: 188: 160: 3375:

on the two users you mention was very informative, but I had previously had no reason to look at Jeff79's edits. Thanks for the clarification.

3152: 2623: 2518: 2490: 1644: 4874: 4845: 4806: 4774: 4672: 1123: 775:

Had an edit conflict when I caught the update at ARV. Thanks for checking it out, I appreciate it. I thought I was going crazy for a minute.--

719: 705: 691: 677: 607: 581: 313: 4934:

Thanks; I agree probably 'no harm', but that isn't a great reason for protecting things; otherwise, we'd apply Pending Changes protection to

4711: 4688: 4559:

Thanks; I agree probably 'no harm', but that isn't a great reason for protecting things; otherwise, we'd apply Pending Changes protection to

3885: 3870: 3624: 2347: 2329: 2188: 4684: 3776:

necessary, but we blocked five socks from this guy in a single day (!!), and he's insisting on continuing to violate copyright policy. :/ --

3491: 3196: 2710: 2526: 2423: 2388: 1701:

reason that I should be suspicious enough to file a suspected sock report? Or do I wait to see if Kimmy starts actively disruptive editing?

1294: 526: 478: 464: 446: 5086: 5072: 4105: 3866: 3859: 2648: 2148: 863: 845: 4979: 4956: 4925: 4231:

I can't find any deletion review you have created. Did you create it anonymously, or from another account? Can you give me a link to it?

3130: 1046: 1015: 498: 1317: 939: 361:

in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability.

4604: 4581: 4550: 3852: 3470: 3400: 3384: 3004: 2979: 2894: 2858: 2843: 2809: 1996:

Well, then maybe you shouldn't inject yourself into areas of Knowledge where you have no expertise and are likely to be an obstruction.

128: 4916:

Probably not, though it probably would do no harm leaving it, since nobody should be editing it anyway? Well, I've removed it anyway.

4541:

Probably not, though it probably would do no harm leaving it, since nobody should be editing it anyway? Well, I've removed it anyway.

1134:

Thank you for deleting my page... i was unsure what to really write about him.. since he is a really new person.. and i understand..

4452: 4390: 4363: 4280: 3570: 3452: 3163:

Their album came out 2 days ago and like I said I would ask, I would like for you to look into it to see if they meet requirements.--

2731: 2470: 1795:

Thanks for calling this to my attention. I don't think there is the slightest doubt about it. You certainly had enough grounds for a

1673: 893: 817:

HI. could you take another look at this pleas? I think it is a cleverly contrived hoax. Let me know what you think. Thanks.--

639: 430: 343: 201: 4757:

Whether or not it is a "good faith wikipedian", it is a Wikipedian who was not a net positive to Knowledge. (Incidentally, you said

4719: 3893: 332: 325: 255: 5000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Discussions_.2F_disputes_re_.27Hitchin.27_and_.27Robert_Tor_Russell.27

4788:

a page. If so, which one? And besides the block request was because of sockpuppetry. (I) We need to see when was the last time the

3771:

All kinds of things. :) For instance, related to this, it started off with "I can't believe after all the reminders I gave you you

3355: 3246: 3104: 1876:

The advantage is that in lists of articles to be created, it will show up as red. Black is stupid because black is no information.

3741: 3031: 2132: 586:

I will undelete it, but if they end up making another account, I won't be so lenient on whatever they might choose to write next.

4737:, I think he was not using his old account because he has lost its password - it is pretty much clearly written there. And about 4118: 4098: 3179:

band for which this is the kind of thing you find on the first couple of pages of Google hits is very unlikely to satisfy either

400: 4140: 2776:

Personally, I fail to see why some people seem to have nothing better to do than to destroy articles instead of bettering them.

1375:

and the European Journal of Social Psychology. And there were no "outlandish claims" in my edits as she also used as a reason.

1250:, I don't know, as I haven't checked the references etc. However, you are free to PROD the article if you think it deserves it. 1240: 4318: 3710: 3655: 3281:

Solid block. When in doubt, don't revert another editor's edits. You should learn to work with others much more constructively.

2597: 1554: 1414: 871: 661: 507: 405: 3934:

http://www.amazon.com/Trade-Like-Bill-ONeil-Trading/dp/0470616539/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268601553&sr=1-2

1599:, I was under the impression that if an event page is sourced by reliable secondary sources (in the case of this article, the 4296: 4260: 3221: 3037:

The point is not that such a user should not be reported to administrators, but rather that such a report does not belong in

2485: 2456: 2335: 2274: 2219: 1721: 1300: 3225: 1615:

page), so any clarification that will help further my understanding on the rules of Wiki, will be appreciated :). Thanks, --

565: 497:

on the other discussion page of administrator, but I'm nit sure that I can have an answer from him. Explain to me please if

4474: 3512: 2757: 2117: 1339: 944:

By the way, for anyone who knows how to spell who reads this, I can save you the trouble of searching: a Google search for

102: 4240: 745: 4225: 4014:

8. "Are they two different Kacher or did he merely play investor while somebody else did the work in nuclear chemistry?"

3805: 3422: 2688: 2538: 2085: 1765: 1734: 1702: 1309: 761:

9's talk page. I have blocked 80.222.122.229, and I will delete 80.222.122.209's talk page, since there is no such user.

5019: 4214:

Meanwhile, I am already in touch with Knowledge people to suggest changes to Knowledge's policies and guidelines. Best,

4051: 4025: 930:

gives precisely one hit (the deleted Knowledge article), but provide me with sources and I will consider undeleting it.

635: 3700: 3645: 2831:

Besides, no one can really tell the differences between the articles' content once you have destroyed all copies of it.

2373: 2264: 2209: 1154: 1003: 184: 124: 4043: 4039: 3904:

Dear James, I am Chris Kacher. I have been notified that the page that was created for me in 2006 is up for deletion.

3430: 2313: 1442:

Of course we can move on and I am through acting like a toddler regarding your initial remark. As for Flowanda, there

3944: 3172: 3126: 2593: 2436: 511: 503: 350: 196: 4424: 1102: 1098: 595: 553: 292: 2102:

discussion unless you give pretty good sources, and in its present form it is, I think, very unlikely to survive.

1396:

Since I know you and I didn't agree before either, I thought I would ask you to review her removal of my edits on

296: 4034:

That Imyoung brings this up shows the mental state of this person. He will do whatever it takes to tear me down.

4007: 3585: 3284:). These two users have been engaging in disruption, together, at the same series of interrelated article pages. 3280: 2089: 1150: 917: 4702:

Thank you for providing context for the page. By the way, I plan to start a mass nomination for secret pages at

4635: 4370: 3994:

6. "Glenn Seaborg was born in 1912 and at about 80 years of age no scientist I know of still mentors students."

996: 826: 4503: 4482: 3899: 3836: 3320: 3299: 3295: 3263: 2697:

Wikipedias are autonomous, and do not all have the same standards, and also for reasons which are explained at

2684: 2450: 2444: 2301: 1390: 1364: 1279: 646: 339: 238: 141:. My only involvement was to explain to you that the way to ask for the article to not be deleted was to add a 4696: 3731: 3611: 3477:

find. However, I personally think that there is far more sense behind the existing Knowledge policy that the

3389:

Thanks for doing the additional due diligence research on your part! And you are most welcome! Cheers, ;) --

2572: 2175: 1928: 1301: 413: 4836:

show up to a checkuser as being the same user? That many chance coincidences stretch credulity a long way.

4828:

frequently make similar edits, with similar style, similar citing habits, similar introductions of OR, etc,

2408: 1367:) who the was one of the people who was bashing the Christiansen article, has removed everything I wrote in 5055: 4750: 4123: 3682:

Sounds Good. One Question though, when you block an IP, can a user with an account log in and edit? Thanks

3590: 3341: 3337: 3271: 2246:

Sounds Good. One Question though, when you block an IP, can a user with an account log in and edit? Thanks

1611:). I'm still new at Wiki editing and I might have made the wrong assumption (which was based mainly on the 1071: 3533:

I have now looked at the relevant editing history, and confirmed that you are the blocked user mentioned.

2819:

over weeks and months just because you personally dont agree with it is a blatant abuse of power. I mean,

4245: 3907:

I am more than happy to provide whatever you need in terms of links and verifications. I am available at

3563: 3556: 3368: 3088: 3060: 3027: 2821:

you can also nominate AfD by your self, see the vote, discount it, and erase it your self all over again.

2643: 2003: 1936: 1883: 1838: 1236: 532: 4623:. Is there a way for people to know in advance that there is a propsoed delete on a particular page? 4035: 3940: 2744: 4989: 4643: 3788: 3014: 2973: 2950: 2724: 2717: 2662: 2154: 1322: 1213: 38: 3924:(my numbers correspond to Imyoung's numbers, and it is Imyoung's words where quotes are included ""): 3789: 3364: 1764:

as well. So now I am wondering, do I even need to file SSP or can they just be blocked as duck socks?

1190:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 4325: 4314: 4301: 4108:, where it is more relevant, and since it is very long, I am archiving the copy that was placed here. 3217: 2752: 1850: 1829: 1680: 1060: 628: 621: 2360:

Hi, sorry to disturb you. There appears to be a case of vandalism (or a total mix-up) at the top of

5068: 4975: 4921: 4841: 4770: 4668: 4600: 4546: 4470: 4445: 4438: 4356: 4349: 4333: 4236: 4186: 4151: 4114: 3848: 3824: 3762: 3721: 3671: 3538: 3524: 3508: 3487: 3442: 3380: 3236: 3192: 3148: 3074: 3046: 3000: 2921: 2890: 2854: 2805: 2706: 2619: 2562: 2419: 2325: 2285: 2235: 2144: 2107: 2041: 1967: 1927:

Have you tried the search function? Here's an example for a redlinked article from that same list:

1906: 1863: 1808: 1730: 1640: 1579:

Can you please explain to me the reasons for the quick removal? (I didn't even have time to put a

1550: 1506: 1480: 1457: 1430: 1410: 1333: 1290: 1255: 1220: 1119: 1011: 953: 935: 841: 794: 766: 701: 673: 577: 522: 474: 442: 309: 251: 156: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4707: 4863: 4219: 4196: 4136: 3426: 2542: 2429:

thanks. do you know where i can submit a rsolution please? should i post it on the page itself?

2081: 1782: 1751: 1719: 1313: 1205: 1129: 731: 5004:

Personally I do not believe it is such, but of course I understand that I may well be mistaken.

4832:

frequently have one account coincidentally start up shortly after another one has been blocked,

4383: 4376: 4094: 3975: 3693: 3638: 3610:

came back into action after having no edits from July 21-Yesterday. When he posted his edit to

3497: 3202: 3158: 3084: 3056: 3023: 2355: 2295: 2257: 2202: 2174:

came back into action after having no edits from July 21-Yesterday. When he posted his edit to

1997: 1930: 1877: 1832: 1696: 1232: 780: 741: 488: 180: 120: 4619:

Did not get to see the PROD delete until yesterday, and did not have a chance to respond re:

4292: 4273: 4266: 4256: 4002:

7. "Nobody I know wrote their Ph.D. dissertation while also running an investment service."

3602:, at least for a little while. I think we may have hit a bump in the road though. As soon as 3122: 2738: 2589: 2557:

explain on the talk page if the editing you are doing has been questioned by another editor.

2440: 2166:, at least for a little while. I think we may have hit a bump in the road though. As soon as 1625: 1039: 989: 451:

You miss understand - I nom'ed it for CSD both times ! (along with AfD'ing the football team

2394: 4996:

Hello! I am writing about an article that you deleted for unambiguous copyright violation:

4631: 4491: 4462: 4420: 4412: 4403:

we have no answer from you, so we try to add a new article in the hope that it will comply

3968:

addition, you will see that some of the research papers published contain all three names:

3810: 3418: 3212: 3114: 2938: 2913: 2749: 2698: 2672: 2581: 2432: 2384: 2369: 2073: 1849:

clearly be more helpful to them. On the other hand, someone already looking at the article

1138: 1094: 1086: 905: 715: 687: 657: 600: 558: 288: 280: 226: 172: 112: 4146:

Unfortunately your message comes just as I have to go offline. I will try to answer soon.

8: 3820: 3777: 3748: 3738: 3504: 2343: 2309: 1546: 1502: 1453: 1406: 1329: 1146: 1059:

Ahoy! Just a friendly note, looks like you may have overlooked putting a block notice on

965: 913: 886: 879: 396: 4129:

go about referencing those things so that the page I created will not be deleted again?

3986:

5. "In all the other research articles I found, he was an “also-ran” graduate student."

2773:

it's gone (by your personal decree, with no deleltion vote) all content has been lost.

4990: 4793: 4762: 4499: 4215: 3801: 3581: 3550: 3466: 3410: 3314: 3289: 3257: 3168: 2743:

Yes I usually use test pages (you can see a list of them, together with other cruft at

2680: 2481: 2404: 1770: 1761: 1739: 1707: 1688: 1384: 1358: 1275: 1179: 1076: 810: 615: 460: 426: 234: 207: 3207:

Sorry to point this out to you, but you should've also imposed the semi-protection on

5082: 5064: 5015: 4971: 4917: 4893:

I would imagine that this page no longer warrants pending-change protection? Cheers,

4837: 4766: 4664: 4596: 4542: 4518:

I would imagine that this page no longer warrants pending-change protection? Cheers,

4329: 4232: 4182: 4147: 4110: 4052:

http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf

4026:

http://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/pdf/Chris-Kacher-KPMG-verification-letter.pdf

3844: 3758: 3717: 3686: 3667: 3631: 3534: 3520: 3483: 3438: 3376: 3232: 3188: 3144: 3070: 3042: 2996: 2917: 2886: 2850: 2801: 2702: 2615: 2558: 2522: 2415: 2321: 2281: 2250: 2231: 2195: 2140: 2128: 2103: 2037: 1963: 1902: 1859: 1804: 1800: 1636: 1476: 1426: 1286: 1251: 1115: 1007: 949: 931: 859: 837: 822: 790: 776: 762: 737: 697: 669: 573: 518: 470: 438: 305: 260: 247: 176: 152: 116: 265:

Thank you for the guidelines. Can you please view my talk page for EXTENSION, INC.?

151:

tag and explain why on the talk page, rather than removing the speedy deletion tag.

4789: 4715: 4692: 4678: 4288: 4252: 3889: 3874: 3478: 3331: 2905: 2769: 1616: 1612: 1265: 1221: 1031: 981: 319: 3979: 3974:

Here is the article where I am mentioned as having helped to confirm element 106:

3969: 3945:

http://www.chartswingtrader.com/2010/09/stock-market-video-using-telechart-to.html

4866: 4798: 4742: 4738: 4614: 4173: 3180: 2380: 2365: 1596: 1584: 1187: 711: 683: 653: 590: 548: 533: 388: 366: 211: 145: 3041:. There are various admin notice boards for reporting various types of problem. 2825:

some sources were the local Police who shot him dead, others were navy officers.

854:

Thanks. Done. You may wish to support it with a {{tl|prod|2}} template. --

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4949: 4903: 4655: 4647: 4574: 4528: 3832: 3816: 3458: 3396: 3351: 3306:

Taking all of the above into account, and the pattern of disruptive editing by

3208: 2966: 2946: 2607: 2361: 2339: 2305: 1247: 1191: 1064: 833: 541: 392: 4008:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1362158.ece

3083:

Sorry. YMMV=Your Mileage May Vary. Meaning, we each have our own opinions.

4660: 4169: 3998:

Laboratory. He was very much a huge guiding force even at this advanced age.

3797: 3577: 3462: 3415:

yo G whats up in the hood? unlock hunstanton's wiki page please blud thanks

3310: 3285: 3253: 3184: 3164: 2611: 2400: 2099: 2063: 1796: 1600: 1380: 1354: 47: 17: 4659:

think the article will very probably be deleted again, perhaps following an

3371:

for talk page discussion, since that was the only article mentioned. Also a

2414:

I haven't the remotest idea what this refers to. Would you like to clarify?

5078: 5011: 4970:

as I have already said, I have done so. Thanks for explaining your reason.

4595:

as I have already said, I have done so. Thanks for explaining your reason.

4177: 3275: 2124: 1397: 1368: 1350: 855: 818: 3327: 2901: 1608: 1161: 1054: 1025: 975: 3457:

For about a year I have supplementet information about the comic series

1270:

i am sprazizi and i am user ایرانی. please let ایرانی to edit my page.--

4728: 1209: 1198: 811: 4176:

to see if the band does satisfy Knowledge's notability guidelines and

4006:

archaeologist who the London Times called the real-life Indiana Jones

494: 4942: 4896: 4642:

creator of the article who gets notified. It is possible to check at

4567: 4521: 4036:

http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm?referrer=webcluster&

3865:

Hi, JamesBWatson. I used your rationale for deleting secret pages at

3828: 3391: 3346: 2961: 2942: 2870: 2835: 2780: 1855: 1693:

is the name similarity and the editing of Tricia Santos articles by

1604: 469:

Yes, indeed I did misunderstand. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

5026:

wording was so close that it was unambiguous copyright infringement:

3941:

http://investchief.blogspot.com/2010/09/book-of-month-september.html

3619:

user, but I'm not sure. Also, he also used a very similar source as

2183:

user, but I'm not sure. Also, he also used a very similar source as

1379:

the way I originally entered the title, nothing else came up. Well,

1167: 970:

Hi JamesBWatson! Excuse me for being nosy, but I was wondering what

138: 3298:) is not a new user - he has been contributing to Knowledge since 1529: 2364:. I don't know where to report it as it seems to be a 'one-off'. 1854:

the stub that is still preserved in the edit history, whereas if

2795:

underground government work... isn't there?" So presumably if I

1475:

anything to do with, for example, the institution you teach at.

455::-) (BTW - agree with what it looks like they are doing though!) 1175: 696:

That was probably because of a personal vendetta against you.

3437:

If you explain what you mean I may possibly be able to help.

1420:

My own opinion is that the part of it you wrote was actually

217:

If you have time could you share what to fix on the article?

4455: