User talk:JBW/Archive 23

6054:

that said it was ok. To avoid explaining again, please view all of the related talk pages and let me know how you can help so he doesn't keep removing it. Take your time, as there is alot about it and I want you to see everything that was being said and how the edit is perfectly acceptable no more than any others used on people's articles. I have documented my edits excessively. He is just personally not wanting the edit there for an unknown reason, as his explanations aren't valid and contridicting/inconsistant. I saw you created a block he had on his page and so I wanted to contact you and the blocking admins to assist since he is seemingly violating policy and being disruptive, as well as continually reverting. I stopped reverting so I don't get blocked, but each time I "undid" an edit, it was to improve it or change it or reduce it down to one sentence. Not only that, he was reverting two other perfectly good edits that I did at the same time, which have now since been redone and kept. (I sourced one and did a grammer fix). The main text I did an edit on was already there, I just did a minor expand and added sources, so it's an issue of prejudice I guess. Not sure. Please help! Thank you and I appreciate your help in advance I'm attempting to do what's right in good faith. Take care...

3487:

The deletion was not based on notability concerns, no such concerns were raised, and there was no deletion discussion. Based on the evidence I can see, the article should not have been deleted; therefore it should be restored. If you or anyone else wishes to contest the notability of the subject, deletion could then be proposed on such grounds (an unnecessarily adversarial step in my opinion, yet permissible under Knowledge's current rules), or such concerns could simply be raised on the article's talk page (which it seems to me would be a more reasonable first step). Now, if you still disagree with my conclusions even after reading and understanding what I said (and verifying my claim that the '"reference"' is in fact a reference), please explain why. And perhaps I should point out again that I could easily have resurrected the article from the copy at ask.com without calling it to your or anyone else's attention if I had wanted to; instead, I wished to have it demonstrated, to myself and to my friend, that Knowledge administrators are intelligent, reasonable people like ourselves, and that mistakes can be corrected. I also wanted the history back; it feels very wrong to me when bits of an article's history are missing. Would userfying the article restore its history?

3464:

work by Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski, not references in the sense of citations of independent sources that support statements made in the article. I do not think that, in its existing form, it would be possible to justify restoring this as an article. I can, if you like, restore it as a page in user space for you to work on, providing references before returning it to article space. Let me know if you would like me to do so. However, before you decide, you should take account of the following facts: (1) this would be only a short-term measure to allow the article to be brought up to scratch, not a way of indefinitely avoiding deletion, and the page would probably be deleted again if it were not made suitable in a moderate amount of time; (2) a quick search gives me the impression that the subject may well not meet Knowledge's notability standards, as all of the sources I have found either do not give substantial coverage of Schmidt-Kowalski, or are not independent of him, or both. I am willing to "userfy" the article for you if you like, and please do let me know if you want me to, but I do not think it would be fair to simply do so without making it clear that there is a significant chance that any work spent on this article might be wasted.

3834:

something. There is a mild irony in this situation—I am trying to avoid falling into the trap of accepting a speedy just because someone tags it a speedy, and a few seconds review suggests it could be a speedy. I want to take things a little slower, and I have run across the occasional speedy I've declined after looking into it. The irony here is that I could have accepted it if I spent a very short time reviewing it, and I very well might have accepted it had I spent enough time to actually review the new references to see that they didn't add anything substantive. I got caught in the "sweet spot" ((or maybe it is the "sour spot" in this case) of spending enough time to see issues with the CSD, but not long enough to reject the issues. Having said that, I think as a project, we sometimes are too tough on potential new editors, so my instincts are to err on the side of caution. The worry in the back of my mind was that a potential new editor would have seen an article disappear, made what they thought was a good faith effort to improve it, and see it disappear with only the message that it was unchanged. OK, time to stop rambling, and cleanup some backlogs, thanks again for your thoughtful response.--

3040:. WP.N states "sources address the subject directly in detail, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" which various information about him there (on news) is. And specifically within the world of international Islam. He is a celebrity within that world, a link between anti-Islam goals and secular Islamic culture. This is an important topic within the Islamic community (Muammar Qaddhafi, Erdogan, various other leaders issued their statements over minaret ban in Switzerland, sure paid attention to the incident to which Streich being a member of SVP party (which launched the ban) was connected at then time, and that community is notable. Let alone the notability of SVP party itself in Switzerland, which he left, let's say, in an unusual way, and labeled his former party with such a controversial title, a "witch hunt" campaign on Islam. So, not only he's the first one to leave the party for political reasons, but also the former member with such a controversial resignation. Thanks. 4358:, among others, didn't think it was suit for deletion. But at the same time, no one was really able to improve the article. I understand the importance of collaborative work from CindaMuse's warning a while back. You just don't understand that virtually no one else can or will help out with such articles. Have you not noticed at all? At this rate, I would rather see most of the siren articles deleted, with basic information about whichever sirens and companies noted in the 'Civil Defense Siren' article. In my view, it is easier to have a few big articles covering their respective subjects, rather than a bunch of small articles that fail to do so. The reason for the attempted redirects was to make the subject more easily understood and covered in one big article rather than a bunch of small ones. Not to cover up previous edits like you 6070:

the "Wonder is important in Gibson's history, but is Gibson is important in Wonder's history?" question. I do not know enough about the history of either to have an opinion of my own on this. I could make a detailed study of the sources to determine how far they support the disputed content, but it seems to me that the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and the amount of time and effort I would have to spend on this would be disproportionate to the importance of whether or not a fairly small amount of fairly unimportant information is included in this article or not. Personally, whenever I have found myself in a dispute with an editor who seems to me to be stubbornly persisting in their view, after a few exchanges I have walked away and left them to it. Some of the content of

6091:

free to take a look, I just posted it. I also typed a proposed edit change. It's unfortunate how people are treated on here, if I had a created account or it was about Michael Jackson doing backups, it wouldn't be an issue. That is the point I'm making, that Gibson did have an impact on Wonder. It's not commercial info, but well worth adding and they are being prejudice about it. Oh well, I have a bad taste in my mouth about editors and Admin as this is a very unfair practice and flat out wrong. It's now the principle, this is the kind of behavior that causes so many other big issues/problems. Being stubborn isn't a reason to get a free pass. Maybe this is all he has going for him in life, IDK!? I will find my own Admin to look into it further, best of luck...

3819:

have any merit then I do not think it would have been reasonable to call it "sufficiently identical and unimproved". However, when the reasons for deletion are such as that the sources given are press releases or "trivial" and do not support notability, then I think that adding a few more of the same does not affect the reason for deletion. For that reason I personally would have accepted the speedy deletion nomination. Having said that, I admit that it is not an entirely clear-cut case, as the article does differ from the previous version in other respects, apart from the references, so it is a matter of judgement where to draw the line. I think the judgement you made was a perfectly reasonable one, even though different from the one I would have made.

3799:. Based upon some claims, it seems like they ought to be notable, but the article is not very good. My declination of the CSD was not based upon my belief that the article was now good enough, but a more narrow point - the CSD was predicated on it being virtually identical to the one deleted, and, in my judgment, it wasn't virtually identical. I noted that the editor had added several references. They may not be good ones, or not good enough, but we reserve that CSD reason for a particular reason that didn't seem to apply. I felt the editor deserved a community response as to why the article wasn't up to snuff. I'm still new to this job, and pretty good at changing when I make mistakes, so if you think my judgment was wrong, I'm all ears.-- 3024:, which is pretty a lot for such a small internet domain that has so few popular sites / internet activity (small amount of active internet users per se) in worldwide domain rankings. I know that google hits don't in and of themselves show notability, but perusing them shows he has some notability beyond, say, swiss right or the islamic world. And the article shows that the embellishment story of the Nation isn't the only embellishment story of his incidents connected to him. As the fact that his incidents succeeded to gain international coverage. Newsru source, is one of the most read Russian language online news site and was used as a source for discussion about what was written in its column on the most popular channel 883:. And yet your aspersions include accusing me of being POINTy. I also note that you deleted it without pointing to the deletion discussion. And yes, I know, I'm responsible for tags left or removed by automation. And yes, I get the procedural problem. And I get that the community has spoken at the thread I referenced, which indicates that consensus is that the info on Ardin is going to be kept out of wikipedia, at least, until things settle down. Obviously, I was not aware of that thread. Again, I get that the community has spoken. I've acked your criticism. Again, I ask that you leave me the hell alone now. Case closed. Horse dead. Would like to get back to editing. 3063:. In the case of proposed deletion (commonly abbreviated to "PROD") there is no discussion page, and anyone at all can simply remove the proposed deletion notice if they disagree. If nobody does so in a week then the article is usually deleted, as happened in this case. Even after deletion, if anyone disagrees with the deletion it can be restored, but in this case I see you have already re-created the article. Resolving copyright issues is irrelevant, as copyright was not given as a reason for deletion. I have not examined in detail the arguments you have given, but I have done the courtesy of informing the person who proposed the deletion that you have re-created it. 4389:, and dedicate themselves to trying to impose their preferred version despite consensus against them, tend to have a frustrating time. They continually find that their efforts are thwarted, that other people are against them, and that they never achieve what they want to. Eventually they either leave Knowledge disgruntled and angry or else get blocked, banned, or both. I don't always get my way. I don't get worked up about the fact. I simply move on, as I said above, to other editing. That way I achieve quite a lot of what I think is worthwhile, and what I fail to achieve is a pity, but not a big deal. (Incidentally, I don't understand what you mean by "but 5827:. I have searched, and found no evidence at all that you satisfy those guidelines. (Most of what I can find is on Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc.) As long as you do not satisfy Knowledge's notability standards the answer to "how can I create this without any problems?" is that you can't. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. I suggest you forget about using Knowledge to promote yourself, since any effort spent in doing so is likely to be wasted, and use your time and effort more constructively in places where you can promote yourself, without any need to establish notability, such as MySpace. 2864:, since there has clearly been vandalism there. I have recently extended the length of the semiprotection on most of the other articles, and I hope to do the rest soon, but it takes a long time to do them all. Unfortunately long-term blocking of the IPs is not an option. The vandal jumps around over a wide range of IPs, and to block the whole range would stop many legitimate edits from other users, which is not acceptable. From time to time I have used fairly short blocks both on individual IPs and on small IP ranges, and I will do so again if it seems appropriate, but the most this can do is hold the vandalism back for a brief time. 2707: 3697: 5980: 4487: 4421: 4217: 3879: 3764: 3646: 3592: 2609: 1755: 1050: 156: 109: 31: 407:

used in academic studies, so that is irrelevant. Nor is the "Western" versus "middle east" contrast remotely relevant. Knowledge does not exclude or include material because people on one side or another of a quarrel between different forms of nationalism want it included or excluded, whether the quarrel be one of those in the middle east, the far east, Africa, western Europe, Eastern Europe, or anywhere else. Exactly the same would apply, for example, to Northern Ireland.

4379:

version, and you have replaced articles with redirects to your own version in your user space. In other words, you have made concerted efforts to overturn the decision reached in the discussion. If you search back through my editing history you will be able to find several occasions where I have nominated articles for deletion but found consensus in the discussion was against me. When this has happened I have accepted the decision and moved on to other editing,

2082:

We just want the Wiki public to get to know us. I modeled the page after checking the page of another human rights organisation, namely Amnesty International. This one also shows, just like ours it's history, strategy and works. Your reason unambiguous advertising or promotion could, in my opinion, also be applied to Amnesty Internationals site. If you don't agree. Could you please let me know what kind of information I should delete or add. Thanks!

2203:.), indicating him as a football player, as part of the squad doesn't in itself evidence the fact that he is indeed a living person? Besides, I couldn't figure out how to conform to Wiki's format, including the personal details box on the right hand side, etc. Could you kindly send me some tips and guidelines to follow in order to make sure that the article meets Wiki's criteria, and if possible retrieve the content of the deleted article. 2649: 6004: 1571: 1660:. :/ But yeah, not very familiar with that stuff here. If anyone else would like to do so, feel free. The user with the IP 174.6.12.124 seems to be a repeat violator. However I can not check how many times he has actually been blocked as he erases his talk page regularly. Again, please check and see if my previous action was appropriate. Anyway thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. -- 2102:. Your statement "We just want the Wiki public to get to know us" confirms that you intended to use the article to promote the organisation. Finally, it is clear from what you say that you work for the organisation, in which case you have a conflict of interest, and probably should not be writing about the subject. Knowledge articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. 2995:, deliting sources etc. Please consider the proposal again because these are rough forms of violations of the rules of Knowledge. English Knowledge is to lot's of Ukrainians almost useless with such untruth and disputed informations. I am looking for specific help here because the user deliberately distorts the data.-- 2199:). The reason given for its deletion was Unsourced biography of a living person with expired PRODBLP. I tried to include some references and a number of links in the artice, however I'm not quite sure what exactly was expected in this regard. Moreover, the fact that there is an internal link in another Wiki page ( 3446:

upon.) Now I could put back the article myself, using ask.com's mirror; but it would be really awesome if you would just undelete it (please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that you can). It might help persuade a worthwhile contributor to return to Knowledge, and I would also find it somewhat reassuring.

1267:"just saying that it is very likely to be saved otherwise" - I think you mean -un-likely to be saved? My opinion is that the editor is taking the whole process far too personally, but when they also dismiss advice in a way that practically borders on personal attacks we don't seem to be left with many options. 4362:

once again. I would've liked to have turned my sandbox into a true article, but you do not seem supportive of this. What else do I need to explain, and are you going to help out with any of the articles? Before you assume Knowledge isn't the right place for me, I'm all for collaborative work, as long

3410:

was written by a Ph.D. candidate in musicology whom I happen to know; he used to be an enthusiastic contributor to Knowledge but has recently become disillusioned with it due to the perception that strange and inconsistent standards are often applied to its content. He was rather upset earlier today

2361:

My page was deleted for copyright infringment. I would like to rewrite the article. I see many other articles about high schools in my town and would like to list this school. I am a librarian so I am concerned with copyright. The mission statement is ours, however, it is posted on other websites.

406:

The redirect was nominated for deletion as an unlikely term to be used to search for an article on this topic. Since the term is widely used there is not very unlikely that someone will search for it. Someone who uses that term is not going to hold back from typing it into Knowledge because it is not

359:

The fact that it "has never used for Ayyubid Dynasty, except for nationalist movements" is irrelevant. If it has been used then someone might look for it under that title, and so the redirect may be useful to them. The fact that the only people who may find it useful are nationalists does not mean it

6090:

Thanks for the info. I was the one who was handling disputes right, the other one wasn't. I wasn't contacting Admin to do that, only to have my edit seen as no worse than others on the article for approval. In fact, I just included examples in the article that should be removed then if mine is. Feel

5603:

I've used Knowledge for a long time, but only very occasionally tried to edit them. I've never come across a "userfying for improvement" message/instruction before, and though I've tried using all the Help functions on this site, I can't see any reference to what that might mean. The page told me to

4605:

I am the 'webmaster' for TLT and I note that you have recently deleted the page that set up for the Theatre earlier today. I am totally new to this type of stuff after our previous 'webmaster' left the society. I therefore simply copied the text text the TLT site and posted it onto Knowledge with

3486:

The reference (I agree there only seems to be one) is to a CD booklet. This exists, and is an independent source which supports the specific assertions made in the article. I have no doubt that additional sources are available, but the policy under which the article was deleted requires only one.

3036:, in which the discussion took part, were invited such guests as Mickey Rourke, Hugh Jackman, Hugh Grant. Just after the news of his public announcement regarding the conversion and his resignation from the SVP party broke out, it was reported on the most widely read daily newspaper in Switzerland - 2292:

Hi There, I understand why you deleted this page (along with some of my other pages) and I've been working on rewriting them without copying and pasting - however - for some of my pages that were inside my User namespace - those drafts were the only copies that I had. It never occurred to me that an

908:

You seem to be suggesting that some of your edits have been automatically removed, and thus are not visible in the edit history. As far as I know that is not possible. The nearest I know of to that is if an edit filter blocks an attempted edit, which I have checked has not happened in this case, and

783:. The existing re-direct page appeared to be thwarting efforts to make the move. First the deletion of the re-direct made no difference then the request for speedy delete. However, we are still stuck with the wrong article name. As we don't have deletion of the old re-direct, can you help ? Regards 6074:

may possibly be of help. Finally, I suggest being careful about selectively contacting administrators who have been involved with a block of an editor who you are in dispute over in a completely different case. There is a danger that it may be seen as trying to find an admin who is likely to oppose

5711:

Hi. Thanks for adding your vote. We need some new opinions on the thread in question as it is the same people re-opining over and over. However, I think you added your argument at the end of the South African Cat (subcategory) rather than at the end of the main argument further up the thread. I may

5647:

should then have been removed, but wasn't. I have now removed it. (3) The user known as "Misarxist" asked for the deleted article to be restored. In its existing form it was not suitable to be restored as an article, so I restored it as a page in that user's user space, to allow time for the issues

4609:

Sorry if I have breeched any rules, but I am learning by my mistakes. The Wiki page is not intended as advertising, simply another way of people finding the societies' details. As a 'not for profit' registered charity we need all the help we can get and I thought that Knowledge was a great way of

3833:

Thanks for your in-depth response. You've been around for quite some time, while I'm still new at the mopping stuff. I'm happy to see that, while we did and still would make different calls on this specific incident, it falls more into reasonable range of interpretation rather than simply miss sing

3818:

Yes, your position on this is perfectly reasonable. CSD G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page", and it comes down to what is "sufficiently" identical. The difference you referred to is the addition of references. If even one of those references had seemed to me to

3019:

had been checked previously by another admin and what's more importantly she (the admin) helped to resolve the copyright issue. Clearly, if article was of no importance she wouldn't be bothered helping resolve an issue with the copyrighting. However, I'm not going to judge your action, you just saw

2081:

I wonder why you removed the page Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples (NCIV). We are a NGO. Our aim is not to make money but help the indigenous peoples all around the world for more than forty years. The reason why we want to be on Knowledge is not because of any promotion or financial gain.

1861:

Hey, I was just wondering if you could give me a more detailed explanation for why the page INAEXPO was deleted. The notability of the company for an encyclopedia is that it is the largest exporter of hearts of palm in the world (occupies nearly 35% of the global market). What would I need to add

1285:

I totally agree with you. It is actually possible that the article contains ideas worth saving, and if its author would only act in cooperation with us then we might be able to save it. However, as I said in the AfD, at present it is impossible to save it, as it is impossible to understand what the

504:

I have not studied the history of the talk page in detail, and I have not even looked at the article at all. However, I do know that you removed a talk page comment written by someone else, which is not normally acceptable, except in extreme circumstances, such as grossly offensive personal attacks

6069:

I have looked into this. This is a long and fairly complex content dispute, and i do not claim to have studied every detail of it in depth, but I have, I think, read the history carefully enough to get the overall picture. There are several issues, but it looks to me as though the central issue is

3975:

tags in the article where the reference is relevant, and then at the end of the article a "== References ==" section containing a {{Reflist}} tag. This will automatically create a list of the references you have added. I have now done this for you. However, the link you give is not a reference, in

3501:

OK, I had not realised the nature of the reference, but I accept what you say, so I have restored the article. I have also changed the reference format to avoid unnecessary duplication in the references list. However, it is not clear that a booklet produced by a company selling the composer's work

3463:

First of all, an editor's contributions record shows only contributions to pages still in existence, and does not show logs of deletions etc. Secondly, I have looked at the article, and although there is an item listed (several times) as a "reference", it is merely the title and other details of a

2439:

My page was deleted because it seemed to sound too much like a promotional campaign. I believe the product has great scientific importance especially in the realm of infect ion control (reason I had so many references). It has been rewritten so that all the "promotional" wording was removed. My

1808:

I was wondering if you could give a more detailed description of why the page for Best Western River North was deleted. I believe there is some interesting history and factual information that would be beneficial to share. Please advise me in any suggestions you might have on how I might improve

6053:

Hello, good evening! I'm having trouble with this user. He is just now responding about edit issues, but at this point I'm burnt out with resolving it with him. I have overly discussed it on the talk page of Stevie Wonder, there is a "paper trail" on my profile and his, as well as about 4 editors

4692:

Hi James Thanks for your kind reply. I have expanded the revised TLT page in what I hope is a neutral style including only fact, leaving out (I hope) any promotional stuff. If it still contravenes Wiki rules, please let me know before it is deleted again. I will continue to update on a factual

3445:

clearly has references. It appears as though some mistake was made. (My hypothesis is that the mistake was a failure to remove the tag after adding the reference(s), but it is easy to understand why an editor would make this mistake, since removing a tag from one's own article is usually frowned

1329:

Yes, I had seen that, but forgotten. Editors like this tend to have a frustrating and unpleasant time on Knowledge, and eventually leave in a huff. If only there were some way of conveying to them that being civil is in their own best interests, whether they think other people deserve civility or

915:

You created an article and then nominated it for deletion yourself, and I said that presumably it was to make some sort of point. I do not regard that as an "aspersion": it was an attempt to make sense out of what on the face of it was an odd move. You are welcome to explain why you did it if you

5604:

contact the "deleting administrator" but the Knowledge help section hasn't helped me get any clearer idea of who that might be. I am guessing that this may be you, so I thought I would ask. If its not, if you could give an indication of who I could direct my inquiry to I'd be most appreciative.

5596:

I was looking at the Reconciliation Australia page today. I thought there'd be more and better there. I deleted an odd/dodgy paragraph and thought about whether to add a bit of extra information. But I then clicked on the link to Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation at the bottom and

2826:

cartoon articles have fallen under vandalism after semi-protection have expired on such pages. For those that are currently under semi-protection and set to expire in Janurary, I suggest that you postpone the expiry time for at least one month. Also, as for the vandal IPs on these articles, you

2435:

Hi, Yes your remarks were very helpful thanks so much! I understand how an article could read like a promotion. Could you help me create an article that would pass? I am on a mission now to make a successful contribution! I have redone the page. I find navigation through these forums difficult,

1544:

Looks like we may need to start edit-protecting varous Tom & Jerry articles again - if you'll look at my contribution list, it seems that the same problem IPs we had last time are back, adding in the same unsourced trivia and deliberately changing release dates to incorrect versions... I've

475:

Adrian060756 - I did make a response but it was removed. All I wanted to do was to add a paragraph of information to the Heather O' Rourke page and everytime I came back to check it, it was gone! And I don't think that's fair considering there was nothing offensive, rude or rejectful about it.

5635:

Yes, Knowledge's workings can be very confusing for someone who is not used to them, as I remember very well from when I started editing Knowledge. However, you have done quite right in contacting me, as I am indeed the deleting administrator. (Also, even if you are not sure where to ask about

5551:

As with the edits the vandal did today, he has now infiltrated in Pokemon and Telemundo territory. BTW, the above address is now blocked thanks to Ryulong's actions, but Materialscientist doesn't seem to care about what the vandal can do. About the articles he "cannibalized," I know they won't

4659:

I don't agree with your evaluation of R Systems company profile being added as a unambiguous and promotional activity. kindly clarify for the said as I have mentioned all relevant links for the information provided. Further, I am unable to edit it as it is marked protected now. kindly reply.

4378:

You proposed an article for deletion. You evidently wished to replace it with an article of your own, which you think is much better. There was consensus not to delete it. Rather than accept that consensus, you have posted to editors asking for help in replacing the article with your preferred

4012:

after you message, I put a refence, (I tried at the beginning but i could not) however, my entry was deleted by Orangemike, just after your messsage.. I understand nothing, I came here faithfully to contribute, but the ambiance is not that i expected.. I write an entry about one of the leading

3516:

Thank you. I believe Vaux plans to work on the article some more, and probably add more references, but musicologists seem to agree that a CD booklet published by a company like Naxos is a decent source (and that having one's works performed and recorded commercially is sufficient evidence of

4353:

I do not think you really understand the situation at all. "If you cannot or will not work collaboratively..." Please describe where collaborative work comes into play here. No other people who have any knowledge on this subject has helped out at all, leaving me alone to try and work on these

3347:

At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :)

4635:

guidelines, it will be deleted. If it does but the article is a stub, then it too will be deleted. However if an article has a good length (and a modicum of quality) and fits notability guidelines then you have a case for keeping it. Make sure you mention on the Discussion page that you have

5774:

If you mean what is actually stopping you from doing so, then the answer is that it is protected to prevent you from wasting everyone's time by repeatedly recreating it. If you mean what is the reason for deletion then what clarification do you need of the reasons posted to your talk page?

3014:

Hi. While the nominator proposed it for a proposed deletion (but failed to go through procedures to list it properly and cite the reason on article's deletion discussion page), you still deleted it leaving no chance for anyone to vote for or against the proposed deletion. Anyway,

2882:

I always wanted to know: Why are all these IPs obsessed with vandalizing Tom and Jerry cartoon articles? These kids really need to get a life and stop putting in whatever they feel like to these pages. When are they going to learn that there are people that review these articles?

4292:

There is no doubt it's the same person. I have blocked the new IP and extended existing blocks on IPs previously used, but unfortunately the IPs are so widely spread that a range block is not a viable option. I have also semiprotected the articles most affected for 24 hours.

568:

Thanks for the reply. I have gone over the same. In support of the 'Non-Notability' and reliability of sources, please find the following links about Torry Harris. These are by secondary sources such as other Software companies and neutral, Industry Standard analyst firms.

2141:. Maybe too links ??? You put only (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject), Are you a bot ? You don't read the discussion talk ??? 874:

3)If automation removed the speedy tags, big fucking deal; I replaced them with a regular delete, for reasons I explained, which you haven't argued with, except procedurally. As I stated, I acted in good faith, because I feel there is some inconsistency between having

4610:

getting info to both people wanting to join a local amateur dramatic society and also people wanting good cheap theatre, at a price they can afford. We try to cater for people who would not normally set foot and the city centre theatres or even afford their prices!!

5928:

I notice that you deleted the page for our foundation claiming that it was 'unambiguous advertising or promotion.' We would like to have it reinstated, of course written in a way that conforms to Knowledge guidelines. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

180:

Has also reverted under IP address to avoid 3rr (cur | prev) 17:54, 11 December 2010 92.7.241.254 (talk) (6,178 bytes) (Undid revision 401679166 by Kudpung (talk) as these are the band's official sites, as is common these days, they are appropriate) (undo)

2032:

Today, 13.17 you delete my page "Undocumented functions" (because it was duplicative to "the same" page "Undocumented features") without giving me some time to develop it. I think, it must be called "vandalism". I hope some other person will vandal your work.

3020:

it was listed for a proposed deletion and deleted it without any discussion as you also saw it was noted in the related controversy article with a short summary (the incident with the nation magazine), but the person has over 224 thousand hits on google and

2324:

Unfortunately all of the pages in question were deleted because they were copyright infringements. Copyright infringement is illegal, no matter whether or not the illegal copy has the name of a Knowledge user in its title, and I cannot restore such pages.

1024:

which are separated in time. They each occur in the same section which called for your intervention some months ago. I tried to explain on the talk page, but my words may not be sufficiently plain. Please note that I've drawn attention to the talk page

1344:

The real failure is our failure to perceive their greatness and inability to do anything that is not entirely correct and in the best interests of the project, and allowing our fear and own inadequacies to blind us to what should be self-evident. (grin)

3976:

the sense of being a link to a source which confirms the content of the article, and the page it links to does not even mention Riva Kastoryano, so it belongs in an "external links" section, rather than a references section. I will make taht change too.

3517:

notability). Incidentally, if you are a fan of serious music at all, then I suspect that listening to some of Schmidt-Kowalski's work would help convince you of his notability (I listened to his third symphony last night, and it's pretty impressive).

904:

I will edit your talk page if and when it seems there is a need to do so. For example, if you make accusations against me in edit summaries (or anywhere else) then I will feel free to answer those accusations on your talk page, which is what I did this

3935:

hello thank you for your message about the references, but I could not add a reference eventhough I tried ten times...I have always the same message. I am trying to add my reference in the bar, next to "link" and "embedded file", thanks for your help

382: 650:

Hi James. What's your take on this? The user is deliberately playing around with the deletion system. I would threaten him with a block for disruptive editing and wasting people's time, and revert the AfD, but it's not up to me to decide (I

335:

Hello friend. You declined the speedy deletion of the redirect. The title has never used for Ayyubid Dynasty, except for nationalist movements. Number of google result is not a good criterion because for example there are over 8 million result for

2362:

I guess that will have to be omitted. I would like to rewrite the article. May I? It would help to have my text back, but I can start from scratch if you think that would be better. Thank you, Eileen (sorry, user:eileen204/new haven academy

1505:

Thank you for your suggestions. I've gone back through and deleted everything that seemed "promotional" and what remains is the focus on the science of the nanotechnology used. If you have any other further suggestions I would appreciate them.

1125:

Whether it is or not is irrelevant in this case, as I would have done so anyway. I also notice with interest that you posted an edit-warring warning to the talk page of another user, despite having reverted jsut as often yourself, which is odd.

674:. I considered salting the article, but on reflection I thought I would leave it open to anyone to write a proper article on the subject if they can. Nevertheless, it won't take much more of this kind of thing to make me change my mind on that. 2097:

I deleted the article because it was unambiguous promotion. For some reason it is very common for newcomers to editing Knowledge to assume that "promotion" applies only to commercial promotion, but that is not the case. You may like to look at

5649: 5572:

I have put a range block on for a brief time. Judging from the editing history the amount of collateral damage will be low or zero, but even so I am not willing to out a longer-term range block in place. maybe it will help a little, though.

1374:

I have just seen the editor's last two edits to the AfD. The two together are pretty weird. I have come to the conclusion that unfortunately we are dealing with someone who has really serious difficulties in communicating with other people.

1359:

Yep, you've summarized it pretty neatly. It must be frustrating for such great people to have to waste their time dealing with us lesser mortals, who insist on wanting justification, rather than just accepting that they know better than us.

2400:. It looks perfectly OK to me, but as I say, it was only a quick look, and I have not checked the references. I suggest you re-submit it as an article for creation, so that one of the editors who assesses such articles can check it over. 3852:

I do agree with your point about new users. Sometimes I take the trouble to write an explanation on a user's talk page when I know full well that a lot of admins would just delete and move on. Probably I should do that even more often.

710:

Yes, I have seen that. I also have my own view on this, but I have deliberately restricted what I have done and written to dealing with the creation of an effectively empty article to make a point, and left other considerations aside.

2247:

I am not convinced that the subject meets the notability guidelines. If not then no amount of rewriting the article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. However, you can look at the guidelines for yourself, including

627:

Well, my own impression is that the sources you give don't constitute substantial coverage, and at least some of them still look to me fairly promotional. You say "we will rewrite the article": do you mind if I ask who "we" are?

544:

I've had a quick look over your recent edits. Mostly, as you know, they are rather tiny little edits, and I have not carefully checked each one of them, but it looks to me as though they are fine. Best of luck with your finals.

375: 2392:

Unfortunately the page was deleted because it was a copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is illegal, no matter whether or not the illegal copy has the name of a Knowledge user in its title, and I cannot restore such

799:

OK, I will do the deletion and the move. However, for future reference, the way to deal with this situation is to tag the page to be deleted with {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}, and wait for an admin to deal with it.

1170: 4636:

permission to copy the text and release it under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA. There needs to be a way to verify this, like the original page it's copied from putting up a notice giving permission to Knowledge. Hope this helps.

2397: 1926:

It was Mike who spoke all dirty language on my User Page and when I questioned I was blocked for that. Its me who is taking revange for the foul language spoken by Mike. I just want to f*ck him out of this Wiki

3757: 5815:

Between the first time you created the article and the time I deleted it there was an interval of nine days. Between the time when I deleted it and the most recent time you had created it was an hour and nine

3566: 5874:

Unfortunately I have no idea. I am an administrator on English Knowledge, but that file is hosted not on English Knowledge but on Wikimedia Commons, and I know very little about the workings of WM commons.

3119:). Of course, I am not a checkuser, so I cannot verify this, but I am quite tired of the discussion on the talk page there. If possible, I request you to mediate in that discussion and bring it to an end. 3110:

are sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. I notice the style of their signature, and many other things, and I think that they may be the same user (all of them have little contributions other than the articles

2159:

Not only did I read the discussion, but I even went to the trouble to write to you on your user page explaining my reason, and attempting to answer your points. However, that was evidently not enough.

2062: 1417:

Perhaps we could provide a helpful link to an appropriate article...or, of course, better yet, create one ourselves...that would allow the editor to examine our concerns about them at greater length.

4062:

it was the website of the france's leading public research center, riva kastoryano is well mentioned there, but i could not add it because the entry is deleted, can I creat it again.. or thank you

1311:

2. No argument here, on either count. I think even at its best the subject might seem a bit opaque to me; the author's language limitations certainly aren't helping. As for their approach, I already

5070:. He struck while I was out and I just found out about it when Ryulong dropped me a message on my talk page. This is part of the 114.57.0.0/16 range because he also used addresses from this range: 4127:

JamesBWatson --- Thanks for your suggestions. I just did not feel I had enough experience to suggest an AFD, and thought I would bring this article to the attention of more seasoned Wikipedians.

2099: 857: 3223: 1708:

contribution so far, so I notified two others who had longer-term involvements with the article asking them for their input on the article's talk page. Looking forward to your input. Thanks,

384:. I am sorry to take your time for this matter which you may think it's not important in a western point of view, but such these matters in middle east are source of all conflicts and wars.-- 1824:

The whole tone of the article was like a brochure from the owners of it, including such language as "Hallberg's crowning achievement", and "This location puts the hotel in the center of the

4631:

Generally Knowledge is an information resource and is unconcerned with anything else. It might sound harsh but the absolute goal is a quality encyclopedia. Therefore is a page doesn't meet

2758:

Hi JamesBWatson, Thanks for the reply. Gartner and Forrester are Industry standard analyst firms and I thought recognization from these would suffice the notability of a company. Regards,

5959:. My (admittedly brief) searches do nothing to indicate that it does, most of what I found not being from sources independent of the organisation. You may also find it helpful to look at 3777: 1154:

Yes, thanks James. It's odd when someone is a member only for a few days and knows so much about Knowledge... Thanks for your time and take care.Pm master 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3219: 4582:

In my opinion, yes it should. However, I don't myself feel strongly enough about it to pursue it. You are, of course, welcome to take it up with the deleting administrator yourself.

2919: 866:. (Perhaps some of those edits were oversighted; I can't tell.) 2)I said I consider the issue closed, " I found a substantive and adequate discussion regarding the BLP issues; 3580: 1732:

page, as I proposed, thanks, but its been deleted twice before - why have you not salted it? It should not be possible to recreate this page in my view. Similarly, you deleted

4613:

Any guidance which you can give me will be appreciated as there is no point in me taking the (unpaid) time to set up another page, only to have it deleted again!! Regards Paul

2930:

by someone whose opinions you disagree with, whether for nationalist reasons or otherwise." My report presents different forms of vandalism made over a longer period by user

5597:

found it had been deleted, then restored and then moved with a "userfying for improvement" message. It had your username on it, which is why I am sending you this message.

4526:

Did you know that James D Watson is also a famous biologist? I didn't even think James Watson was anything else... Had to check out your user page in case you were the REAL

2060: 912:

If you think that some of your edits are invisible and that that is why I have not seen them, then why do you accuse me of failing to look at the full history of your edits?

2272: 596:

Please let me know if the above are sufficient for notability of a company. Once this has been confirmed, we will rewrite the article in a more Encyclopaedia like format.

3283:

My first try at creating a page was speedily deleted :) I now tried once again on my userpage. Kindly comment if the new format would be feasible for wikipedia . Thanks

1389:

I wonder whether it's in any way a function of the language barrier or the net in general, or whether they're as...exotic...even in settings with fewer obstacles. Scary.

4394: 5636:

something, don't worry. Just ask somewhere that looks as if it may be relevant. Probably you will find someone who will point you in the right direction if necessary.)

5420: 525:

I just thought I'd check in to Knowledge for a small relax session before I settle down for college finals. How's it going? Could you evaluate my most recent edits to

4859:(which is outside of the currently blocked 118.137.0.0/17 range, the second time he used an address outside that range). Same kinds of articles. Thanks in advance. - 3441:

We are both a bit perplexed by that particular policy, but in any case, he had told me that he'd added references to his article after it was tagged, and—sure enough—

4912:

As I've stated, 118.137.153.150 was the second address outside the 118.137.0.0/17 range that he used since the said range was blocked last August. The first one was

2087: 381:

is not used in academic studies to refer to Ayyubid dynasty. I excluded the thrid book for you here which also emphasis that using that expression is not reasonable

460:

It is not a question of "picking favourites". If you disagree with another editor's talk page comment you can post your own response to it, not remove the comment.

5936: 1661: 1221:

by this user this morning. I was already looking into the copyright of an image at the time along with external link issues. So watch this space for more abuse :)

938:

Re. points 1 3, 4, and 5, above, I'm not interested in adding to or shoving your nose in the many explanations or corrections already provided. I'm moving on. --

431:

Adrian060756 here. Message Recieved And Understood but pd_THOR is also guilty of vandalism as that user has removed my paragraph over and over again citing it as

2091: 1938: 1873: 1733: 947: 895: 4013:

sociologist in europe, and it is delated without any explanation, moreover I sent him a message in which I explain why she is important it is time to leave...

1097:), the user is obviously a spammer and he's been on Knowledge for a few days, pushing some irrelevant references onto articles. Could you please revert this? ( 5643:

was deleted because the article seemed to be written to promote the organisation, rather than as objective reporting. (2) The link to the deleted article from

4914: 4794: 4727: 1657: 901:

I did look at the full history of the edits you made to that article: all three of them. In fact I described all three of them in a message on your talk page.

5951:. Knowledge articles should be written from a neutral point of view. In addition, there is the question as to whether the organisation satisfies Knowledge's 5483: 5415: 5347: 4668: 4128: 4113: 3103: 2145: 3403: 2474:

I suggest submitting it as an "Article for creation". I don't have much experience of this process, so I can't offer you much help, but instructions are at

196:

Yes. I'm inclined to wait a little longer, though, and see if it happens again. So far only 3 reverts (unless I have missed some) over quite a long period.

5211: 4448: 5279: 5143: 5005: 2210: 1287: 484: 443: 5600:

I thought before I tried to touch the Reconciliation Australia page, let alone an ANTaR one, I'd try to clarify what the situation with the page/s are.

5956: 5900: 5854: 5798: 5754: 5735: 5607:(and my apologies if I've used the wrong page or mechanism to raise this. I am finding the internal Knowledge communication protocols very confusing) 5075: 978: 4893: 1669: 5720: 3549:, actually states that the article is to promote loeb&loeb. Does it now need salting? I'm newish at speeding so would appreciate your comment. 2118: 1810: 313:

I thought I had done that. If I didn't I don't know why. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out: I'll try to watch out for the same error in the future.

5819:

Knowledge requires a subject to be notable in order to justify the existence of an article on it. The most relevant guidelines in this case are the

3770: 3763: 1902: 1647: 265:

tag on your talk page, followed by an explanation of what help you need, and then someone should come along and help, or you cold post a message at

5582: 4993: 4907: 3147:

Having been involved in tracking this issue from its beginnings, I'd say there is some merit to the suggestion of sock- or meatpuppet behaviour. --

2769: 607: 2168: 591: 5675: 5640: 2111: 6084: 5972: 3526: 3511: 3496: 3473: 2892: 2873: 2266: 1893:

Such language as, for example, "has positioned itself as the number one exporter" reads like marketing copy, not like an encyclopaedia article.

1384: 1149: 514: 340:

which has never occured. If you have a look to Ayyubid dynasty history version you'll recognize that Kurdish users failed to use the expression

5884: 5784: 3796: 3789: 3314: 3291: 2454: 2334: 1985: 1639: 1637: 1554: 1520: 287:

Hi, JamesBWatson. Just a reminder that if you're going to delete AfDs then you also need to remove the transclusions from that day's AfD log.—

239: 217: 3862: 3847: 3828: 1837: 1230: 1208: 573: 322: 3009: 2798: 2629: 2409: 2316: 1736:, again at my request and thanks but that has been previously created four times. When will that page be salted? Both pages should be salted. 1196: 1072: 1009: 841: 834: 689: 637: 143: 5790:

I create this page and you decide to delete this straight away! But what do I do wrong? I mean, How can I create this without any problems?

4209: 2293:

administrator would delete a page that was inside my User namespace. I thought I could work on articles there. But I completely understand.

1629: 1608: 1499: 1218: 1173: 756: 742: 720: 705: 416: 393: 369: 4931: 4811: 4744: 4591: 2781: 2487: 2008: 1729: 1444: 1430: 1412: 1398: 1369: 1354: 1339: 1324: 1299: 1135: 880: 863: 824: 809: 683: 671: 644: 554: 278: 205: 4554: 3361: 3072: 3049: 3021: 1038: 496: 469: 5706: 5500: 5432: 5364: 4354:

articles. I already tried to nominate the ASC article for deletion under the idea it wasn't a subject that warranted a main article, but

4149:

First and foremost, the article about Rameses Casten has been thoroughly reviewed countless times, ang I think it is ready for creation.

3237: 3182: 2759: 2740: 962: 931: 852: 304: 5940: 5566: 4873: 2854: 2836: 2583: 5920: 5228: 4680: 1818: 619: 4645: 4327: 3370: 3322: 3164: 726: 5993: 5296: 5160: 5022: 4879:

110.136.113.144 hasn't been blocked yet. As I've already stated, this was the second time the vandal used this particular address. -

4500: 4434: 4230: 3896: 3781: 3663: 3609: 3546: 2622: 1768: 1098: 1063: 173: 126: 4385:. That is how Knowledge works. Editors who will not accept decisions reached by discussion, but persist in the belief that they are 3545:

you already deleted this page for copyright infringement. Now I have tagged the latest version g11 because the creator of the page,

2224:

First of all, sorry it has taken so long to reply. Someone removed your comment, with no explanation, and I have only just found it.

1276: 5092: 3213: 1539: 1469: 832: 3379: 2257:

If you are still interested in working on this article, let me know, and I will restore the content to a page in your user space.

4713: 4567:

Despite both your and mine concerns, the speedy delete for the dab has been completed. Shouldn't have this been discussed first?

3455: 2049: 1698: 1017: 696:

mentioning the names of the two women in the article. A consequence of this would be not to redirect the names to the article.

560: 426: 6100: 6063: 4082: 3985: 3122:

I decided to enquire about this sockpuppet problem here instead of reporting it directly, because I wasn't really sure. Thanks.

1717: 1704:

Hi again JamesBWatson: I see that you did place a notification on that article's original creator's talk page, but that was his

919:

Yes, I deleted it without pointing to the deletion discussion, since the AfD had no relevance at all to the reason for deletion.

5836: 4625: 4078: 4029: 3957: 2675:

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

1881: 1790: 1677: 1262: 1177: 5912: 5866: 5766: 3333: 5562: 4989: 4925: 4889: 4869: 4805: 4738: 4725:

Hello. Do you remember the Indonesian misinformation vandal? Here returned today using two addresses: the previously blocked

4185: 2951: 2804: 1010: 4949: 4829: 4762: 2694: 2436:

however, I think I created it on my user page space. Do you think you could look at it and comment? Many thanks eileen204

2153: 360:

is not useful. Besides, does having the redirect there do any harm? The worst that can happen is that nobody ever uses it.

5518: 5494: 5450: 5426: 5382: 5358: 4676: 4245: 3714:

I hope that 2010 was a great year for you, and that 2011 will be an even better one! Enjoy the rest of your Holiday Season.

2689: 2663: 5648:

which led to deletion to be addressed. This is commonly referred to as "userfying" the page. The new title of the page is

5246: 1589: 1189: 1004: 389: 349: 5314: 5222: 5178: 5040: 4456: 4136: 4121: 4033: 3748: 2382: 2218: 2083: 2053: 1545:

already reported the current IP, but if last time is any indication, they'll just be back on another one within a day...

1286:

author's intended meaning is. Another indication of the editor's approach to anyone who does anything they don't like is

5110: 4516: 4474: 1993: 6092: 6055: 5932: 5694: 5626: 5290: 5154: 5016: 4720: 4687: 4651: 2884: 2846: 2828: 492: 451: 5726:

You seem to be right. I found the layout rather confusing. I have moved my comment to what I hope is the right place.

3681: 3561: 3357: 3313:

Hi thank you for your comments, if possible please have another look of my revisions based on your comments thanks :)

3303: 1885: 5908: 5862: 5806: 5762: 5698: 5661: 5086: 4172: 3912: 3812: 2312: 1934: 1026: 988: 353: 4576: 3659: 2440:

question is what is the best avenue for me to get it published after the last page under the same name was deleted?

1952: 4597: 3260: 3248: 2637: 1180:

the user subpage shortly after your speedy deletion. I thought I best check with you before taking action. Thanks.

300: 4372: 3208: 3141: 190: 5652:. (4) So far there has been almost no work done on the page. It is quite possible that it will be deleted again. 4539: 3892: 3411:

when he discovered that the aforementioned article had been deleted; checking it out, I found the message on his

3116: 2845:

to the series itself. Since the same vandal IPs have touched that page as well, could you protect that page too?

2777: 2735: 2475: 2378: 1748: 1099:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scope_creep&action=historysubmit&diff=402753908&oldid=402752218

793: 615: 526: 4286: 2524: 1785: 660: 385: 345: 169: 122: 6075:

that editor. I trust that that was not your intention, but it can be a good idea to avoid even the appearance.

4973: 4853: 4786: 4709: 4168: 3731:

Keep up all the great editing and work you have done in the past year, and hopefully next year will be as good!

3389: 2945: 1565: 1484: 592:

http://wso2.com/about/news/torry-harris-inks-integration-partnership-with-wso2-ayushman-baruah-informationweek/

225: 5542: 5474: 5406: 3605: 3004: 2466: 6048: 5716: 5270: 4967: 4937: 4847: 4817: 4780: 4750: 3917: 3395: 3299: 3028:, this discussion took part during the show which was broadcasted in Russia and CIS countries in prime time ( 2462: 1528: 247: 115: 108: 5506: 5438: 5370: 5338: 5202: 5064: 4264: 3940:

tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references/: -->

3885: 3878: 3634: 1532: 1120: 6071: 5741: 5536: 5468: 5400: 5234: 5134: 3971: 2560: 2196: 1825: 1254: 1078: 730: 574:

http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/wave&trade%3B_emea_soa_systems_integrators,_q2_2009/q/id/46711/t/2

435:

when it is reliable. Same rules should apply to each and every user, you should not be picking favourites.

162: 155: 5302: 5166: 5028: 5960: 5264: 5098: 4408: 4342: 4096: 4047: 3998: 3924: 3272: 3156: 2907: 2811: 2747: 2596: 2536: 2500: 2424: 2347: 2281: 2181: 2126: 2070: 2045: 2021: 1977: 1964: 1915: 1850: 1797: 1686: 1665: 1559: 538: 2981: 1214: 5332: 5196: 5058: 4074: 4025: 3953: 2237:

to see what is required in the way of sources. The simplest way of citing a source is just <ref: -->

1957: 1877: 1550: 1312: 1083: 38: 3622: 3173:

It looks a lot like it, but I have given the user(s) a chance to give an explanation if there is one.

2969: 1490:

I've just seen the creator's message on your other talk page. I don't see much change in the article.

1403:

Well, the language problem is obviously a factor, but my impression is that it goes deeper than that.

6022: 5558: 5128: 4985: 4919: 4885: 4865: 4799: 4732: 4040: 2340: 1164: 1020:. Perhaps you may be willing to add this article to your watch list again? I reverted two edits by 585: 579: 6080: 6012:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5986: 5979: 5968: 5880: 5832: 5780: 5731: 5713: 5671: 5657: 5644: 5578: 5488: 5352: 4903: 4672: 4587: 4550: 4512: 4470: 4298: 4241: 4223: 4216: 4205: 4132: 4117: 3908: 3858: 3824: 3507: 3469: 3265: 3178: 3068: 2686: 2660: 2149: 1604: 1475:

You deleted this as spam on the 2nd, it's back. I'm not sure what's correct at this point. Thanks.

1440: 1408: 1380: 1365: 1335: 1295: 1204: 1145: 1131: 968: 958: 927: 805: 752: 716: 679: 633: 550: 510: 465: 412: 365: 318: 274: 201: 139: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 6014: 667: 5216: 4943: 4823: 4756: 4452: 4427: 4420: 3540: 3420: 3399: 2642: 2117: 1056: 1049: 5512: 5444: 5376: 6096: 6059: 5690: 5622: 5284: 5240: 5148: 5010: 4560: 4493: 4486: 4412: 4346: 4141: 4100: 4051: 4002: 3981: 3928: 3686: 3676: 3652: 3645: 3576: 3522: 3492: 3451: 3328: 3276: 2975: 2911: 2888: 2869: 2850: 2832: 2815: 2794: 2751: 2600: 2589: 2540: 2504: 2483: 2428: 2405: 2351: 2330: 2285: 2262: 2214: 2185: 2174: 2164: 2130: 2107: 2074: 2041: 2025: 2004: 1968: 1948: 1919: 1898: 1854: 1833: 1801: 1599:

for the exact requirements, and come back here once you are sure all the requirements are met.

488: 447: 330: 5308: 5172: 5034: 3502:

can be considered an independent source, so it is quite possible that this may be challenged.

5904: 5858: 5802: 5758: 5104: 5080: 4480: 4401: 4070: 4021: 3967: 3949: 3242: 2957: 2308: 1546: 1000: 982: 5952: 5896: 5850: 5794: 5750: 5682: 5614: 5553: 4980: 4880: 4860: 4697: 4664: 4632: 4521: 4444: 4368: 4156: 4089: 4066: 4017: 3945: 3841: 3806: 3788: 3598: 3591: 3287: 3233: 3090:, and looking at the comments there (the last section), I think that these editors, namely 3033: 3025: 2963: 2765: 2706: 2450: 2366: 2300: 2230: 2037: 1930: 1869: 1814: 1516: 1495: 1480: 1242: 1226: 1185: 1021: 603: 480: 439: 296: 235: 1656:

Hm... how did it become an article? I was actually trying to submit a vandalism report to

255:

I'm really sorry, but I have to go now and don't have time to help. You may like to put a

8: 6042: 4955: 4835: 4768: 4237: 4059: 3621:

The original deletion discussion is here--it links to the current article on a redirect:

3353: 3190: 3137: 2773: 2681: 2655: 2374: 770: 611: 266: 5524: 5456: 5388: 5588: 5252: 4705: 4621: 4545:

No, I didn't know. Yes, Wikipedians so confused they can't tell a B from a D, perhaps?

4250: 4164: 3991: 3872: 3795:

It's a minor point, but I just wanted to be clear. I don't necessarily support keeping

3639: 3585: 3558: 3204: 3078: 2939: 2725: 2713: 2699: 2579: 2556: 2520: 2197:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andr%C3%A8_Scicluna&action=edit&redlink=1

1908: 1745: 1723: 1623: 1583: 1238:

that carl sagan page has been verified to be ok before. please check my talk page. bye

1109: 738: 701: 643: 149: 5320: 5184: 5046: 6076: 5964: 5876: 5828: 5776: 5727: 5686: 5653: 5618: 5574: 5116: 4899: 4583: 4572: 4546: 4508: 4466: 4335: 4319: 4294: 4278: 4201: 3977: 3904: 3854: 3820: 3737: 3673: 3572: 3518: 3503: 3488: 3465: 3447: 3424: 3318: 3295: 3256: 3174: 3064: 3000: 2914: