User talk:TParis/Archive 4

1775:

an article irrespective of whether the article is valid and follows all the wikipedea rules and procedures. What is worse is that this loophole can be reapplied ad nausea without any consequences to the offenders, and that in some cases a good articles may have been deleted due this. This is in essence a subtle form of vandalism (like tearing pages out of an encyclopaedia because the content is disliked). I think that the Nuwaupu article qualifies as an example because if you examine my responses more carefully in the discussion, I gave lots of evidence addressing every issue raised thus proving that the deletion proposal was unjustified, but it was still deleted anyway. That said I do not want the deletion decision to be reversed as I am reconstructing and improving the article from scratch. In addition, I propose a new additional procedure ( in the form of a new template) that makes it more difficult for anyone attempting to nominate a good article for deletion using this loophole, thus improving Wikipedea. I have given it a lot of thought and have a good idea of how it can be implemented, but I would like your assistance and input as an administrator. What do you think?

1687:. Later I found out that user reverting my edit opened discussion at article talk page, thus, I engaged in that discussion from that moment on w/o touching the article any more. An edit war occurs by definition when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. I did not override repeatedly anyone's contribution, only once in the whole process, by mistake, I renewed my original contribution, when I was not aware that opponent of my edit opened discussion at article talk page, if it was already present there at that moment of my revert at all. I do nothing else but just exactly what is recommended - discuss at the article talk page. I'm strongly convinced that the real reason for my blockage is the incapability of the opponents of my edit to refute my arguments (they are avoiding answering my questions) and since they have administrators with extended powers in their group, they respond to my argument at talk page by using so called 10817:

tech/finance then there would be reliable sources corroborating that. I can't say I looked at all 24 sources you provided in that article, but I went through six random ones and they mostly appeared to be primary sources directly from Corporate Insight; including a bit that looked like a press release. I couldnt find much about the company itself from third party sources (from your references). Now, as the deleting administrator, my job is to review the discussion and determine the consensus. I dont (generally) make judgement calls myself; that's not what I'm there for. As an administrator, I dont make decisions, I just carry out the community's will (you could say). Now, that discussion clearly had a consensus to delete. If you think that the discussion was closed wrong (by me) or that the folks participating missed some very important point, you could bring the issue to

10967:

again. I don't appreciate how you've characterized me at all. I spent quite a good deal of time trying to understand your situations in the Social Democratic Party article and I don't see why that obligates me to get involve in a separate article. I also don't appreciate how combative you've been at my attempts to help resolve this dispute between you two. I feel like you have considered me "the enemy" from the start. I'm certainly not your enemy and I'd like to help you, but you have not made it easy at all. You've refused to discuss the content of the article for a good deal of the time spent on that article. That Direktor disappeared does not mean he was wrong or admits fault, perhaps he just found something better to do or perhaps he decided to

2322:

time working in this area while continuing your mentorship with Worm That Turned. I know you've completed his program, but I think you should continue to turn to him for mentorship in a less official capacity. I think you have the right intentions and the right drive to be an admin and if you continue to improve as you have after your mentorship, you could try applying in six months. Of course, you are welcome to take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm not the last word in RfA nominations, but I truly think your best shot will be after more distance from the problems in the past. Since you just had rollback restored, give the community time to watch you with that tool and trust you with it again before granting you more tools.

8911:

they were all very deliberately non-biased and heavily sourced. My question is why were these 3 pages (or at the very least the 2 for Infegy and SR) deleted? Can you please tell me what qualifies a company as any less-worthy of having a Knowledge entry than another organization or product, for future reference? Does the company in question have to be significantly notable before being accepted onto Knowledge? Given that these were fact-based articles only delivering the most basic information on the company and product, I fail to see how they measure as "unambiguous advertising." If you could please clarify, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

9907:

need to solve. Isn't it that you need proof that he was in the Broadway shows? Why does an article have to be about the person to qualify for that? The article about him in the San Antonio Symphony was by an official Symphony. Why doesn't that qualify as proof? in the The information in the article is directly from him, so there isn't anything that we are offending him by publishing. Or are you saying that he wasn't a big enough star? Or is it that you are not liking all the info in the article about his childhood etc, that has no sourcing? Can the page be reinstated and just show the places listed above that prove he was in L'il Abner and Fanny.

6802:

Jacobson himself says that the technique is not noteworthy. The discussion was enough to change one keep !voter's mind (Yunshui). As I said in the closing, assertions were made by the keep !voters failed to produce any and add them to the article (more bark than bite). Keep rationales were directly disputed. Existing sources are passing mentions (trivial). AFD is not a !vote and even though this is 4-3, there is strong a strong case made by the delete !voters and a very weak case by yourself and the other keep !voters. I would be willing to userfy this article if you think you can find the sources.--v/r -

6954:

the editor promised to add refs and after a week, the article remained unchanged. I tagged the article for AfD which you've recently closed as no consensus. The editors arguing to "Keep" the article didn't provide any sourced material or any argument other than their opinion. The arguments to delete at the AfD were pretty clear - the article has no references and fails GNG. I've no objections if references can be found, but I've looked, and I can only assume that the other editors have looked, and none can be found. Was there any reason you believed the article had sufficient merit to not be deleted? --

1171:

perhaps multiple third party sources not connected to the subject or a press release especially if it is point of view and promotional such as that sentence. Even "Open-E is used in 54% of the market" would also need a citation. Then I'd like you to find another editor, it could be me but doesn't have to be nor does it have to be an administrator, to review the proposed article and wait for them to move it back to article space. Following my suggestions is going to be the easiest way for you. Ignoring any part or all of it will only make matters tougher and more complicated. You have a strong

5161:

Regardless, the issue at hand is that none of the people who voted (or !voted, if you insist) to keep provided a solid argument for their vote based on policy - hence the 'badgering' - and therefore if we judge the closure of AfDs on the number rather than weight of arguments then any monkey could have taken part in the discussion but not had their views held to account, and this is validated by the fact that it's been four days since you closed the AfD and no-one, least of all the editors in the discussion who claimed that sources could be found, has added reliable sources to the article. --

4754:

commitment to, involvement with... idea... or organization." Even so, "closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." Just so. I agree with "the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Knowledge:Neutral point of view, Knowledge:No original research, and Knowledge:Verifiability—when editing in that area." Close relationship could involve "dependence" -- but that is not the case with me and Brown, or me and Fuller: for example, I have never been paid for this work, though that may change in future. The

9533:) 03:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Dear TParis, I just went to the instructions for starting a review of the deletion, that you mentioned. The first step says to discuss it with the person who deleted the page and perhaps that person will restore it, before submitting the review request. Can you restore the page? I can then add the references I mentioned. At least one of them may suffice? I'm not really sure why the page is offensive to anyone. There isn't much discussion. Mr. Braswell himself gave me the data and he wrote most of it personally. Thank you so much. 1691:, i.e. silencing me by blocking. I regard it for misuse of power, after all, if someone is accusing me of edit war, should be able to demonstrate it that I violated 3RR rule, what is not possible, because I clearly have not violated that rule. I'd like to ask whether I can somewhere within WP protest, complain or take any other action against something what I regard as unfair behaviour and violating WP rules when particular administrator in my strong opinion misuses his powers and arrogantly ignores my points raised in unblock request. Thanx in advance for any advice. 2961:, Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban. 8811:) about whether the subject is notable or not. People need to see the page in order to discuss the matter thoughtfully. This is a pro forma action; we generally will restore any disputed speedy deletion when the dispute is based upon a rational argument, and I wanted to avoid making you wait for the next time TParis comes online, since I think they would comply with your polite request in any event. Bear in mind that being a good cause or an open project does not exempt an article from Knowledge's usual policies with regards to 1388:. That means you need to include the good and the bad. Be sure it doesn't look like a resume. Then once you feel you've done all of that you need to ask another editors, it doesnt have to be me but it can nor does it have to be an administrator, to check over the article and give it a once-over. They'll make sure it meets all of our relevant policies. Then they will move it back to the article space as a real article. I strongly suggest following the advice I've given, it is the easiest process. Good luck!--v/r - 4050: 10754:

people repeatedly argue against me. Once a user reached out to and gave me tips on how to justify this page I did just that. And it seemed to work because for the first time there weren't instant responses from other users criticizing it. But then five days after what I assumed was a satisfactory answer it got deleted.... Hence I'm still lost and frustrated. So I have copy/pasted the same thing I posted on my user discussion to everyone. Hopefully makes it back to the person or people who originally shot this down.

9252: 8137:

administrator attention. To request page protection, see requests for page protection. To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. To report long time edit warring/abuse, see long-term abuse. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see sockpuppet investigations. To request permanent deletion of sensitive personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.

8091:

to which it is not sufficient to provide a couple diffs from a 24 hour period as you did on my talk page. And I fully understood that you acknowledged that your warning about wikihounding was inappropriate , however, your reason for that is still inappropriate. Not because of a possible POV pushing of my antipode was what I did was not Wikihounding. It was because if someone wants to accuse anyone of wikihounding, the plaintiff must prove that it has been going on for long months by very voluminous and convincing

1722:

deletion procedure rather than the quality or faults of the article?” In answering the question now stored in the archives, your response was, and I quote “Yes, if an article follows all Knowledge rules and procedures, it can be deleted if consensus during a discussion is to delete. However, the information is actually stored in Knowledge's database and can be restored if the article obtains notability per our policies.” This can be found in your archives under Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nuwaupu.

11950:. It appears that, rather than amending the template, you deleted it and appended your closing comment at the end of the discussion. I may be wrong about this but, generally speaking, it's been my experience that comments from those closing an RfC are usually appended to the top of the RfC and clearly identify the section content as an RfC/dispute process. If you had amended the template as per the instructions, an amended template would have been created...as you can see, for example, 10471: 5977: 870: 31: 2306:

for linking me your editor review where you were up front about your block for edit warring. Unfortunately, despite the mentoring, I think this is too fresh for adminship. I think rollback after mentoring is a great option, but not adminship. In fact, you've only had rollback restored less than a month ago on 29 July 2011. I also saw you were blocked in late January 2011 for copyright violations. Then in April during the issues of your GA review ban it was brought up that you

2373:. Another editor and I commented on the AfD why this title should be deleted after the content was merged (the name does not show up in reliable or unreliable sources and is likely made up by the author). I'd like you to reconsider the decision not to delete the page in light of those comments. I believe that allowing this page to stay even as a redirect gives recognition to the author's decision to use this article as a means for propagating unconfirmed/unsourced rumors (see 449: 11164: 9098:"I see that what I wrote doesn't really reflect what I meant to say. I follow a two-step approach in closing an AfD: first I consider the numerical balance between the two sides (though not to a mathematical certainty), then the quality of the arguments. I use a sliding scale: the greater the numerical difference between keeps and deletes, the greater the difference in quality of arguments must be to overcome that difference. What I meant to say is that 2504: 10784:. If you put the vast majority of the 300 million+ Americans in this country in front of that page and asked them if you think the subject matter is notable enough for an encyclopedia what would they say? They would say that page is unnecessary, that it should be deleted, that it certainly does not count as notable, and/or that it is so unnecessarily long that it must have been written by someone who works at that company. Sound familiar??? 9018: 6577:, therefore it is only logical that users can refer to Knowledge policies to counter arguments for deletion. If users cannot cite Knowledge policies to keep articles, but can do so to nominate and vote for deletion, this would be quite unfair. Therefore, under your rationale presented on my discussion page, all nominations and votes for deletion that include policy should also be ignored. This seems to go against the spirit of WP:AFDFORMAT. 330: 636:

a lot, but is not written about. And all of that writing is just for one magazine, her current job. So IMHO, it is possibly an eligble topic but probably would not pass notability. Just a heads up, I think you meant eligible in the sense that that write could be notable if there were secondaries. Some people might read that as meaning that you had made a finding in that regard....but good quick decision was a mitzvah, as some might say.

3448:

intended "first-class parsers" but if first-class isn't a technical term, it should be removed. Also, you didn't use any of the sources as inline citations that I linked on your talk page. It's imperative that these be included in the article. Your existing citations either do not mention Opa or are primary sources. Other than that, it looks great. Have you asked anyone from the list I gave you to take a look over it?--v/r -

4243: 11812: 1797:. Keep in mind that what you call a loophole isnt exactly what you think it is. Most Knowledge policies are established by community consensus. Deletion discussion decisions are also made by community consensus. It would be near on impossible for an editor to nominate an article in bad faith to have it deleted. It is more likily your article went through the proper process and the editors made their !votes in 5428:

this page was deleted to anyone who knows what a red link means, in exchange for the essentially non-existent value of deleting an innocuous redirect. I assumed this was an oversight that you'd correct without hesitation. But since I haven't found guidelines specifically discouraging this, and you clearly have made up your mind based on your own priorities, it's not worth my time to argue here further.

5232:

refute) with the delete !voters. When one side of a discussion appears to get the other side to at least reconsider, it would seem to me that they've presented a halfway decent argument that should be given extra weight. The !vote was 4-2 (4-3 in discussion) in favor of keep. At the very very most it could go no consensus. That would default to keep. The article would still be on Knowledge.--v/r -

2316:

on user talk pages for edits that were not vandalism. You didn't go back and correct your mistake, and instead blamed it on automated tools. It's important that an admin understands that automated tools are just tools and it is still you doing the edits. I also saw on your talk page that another such edit happened when you used rollback on a good faith edit. Rollback is for blatant vandalism only.

1560:

closing discussions and using an extra set of tools to accomplish the result of the discussion. I dont get to decide the outcome though, I have to abide by the result and consensus of the discussion. So you see, I have no more control over the discussion than anyone else. I also can't close it yet as it hasn't reached the 7 day discussion period and there isnt any reason to close it early such as

7105:

discussants seemed to be particularly impassioned, and as I often do I checked to see if they were SPAs. At that time In fact's contribution page was entirely about Mohammad Ala, and I jumped to the conclusion that he was an SPA without clicking to look for earlier contributions by him. That was sloppy on my part and I will be more careful in the future. I have posted an apology on his talk page. --

11245:"I am someone who has been in front of this “court” on several occasions. In real life I am a law abiding citizen who has never been in trouble with the law. On Wiklipedia, however, articles I wrote have been removed on several, if not many, occasions (the last one was removed by TP whose name I happened to see here). To this day I still do not understand the rationale for some of those removals. 3341:. I've updated it with references and a bit of content. It's not perfect, but I think it's a good start to let the Knowledge community improve and extend it, with its own feeling. (What I mean is that, as a member of the team behind Opa, and not an active Knowledge contributor, I would lack legitimacy to extend it more). Could you please review this, and share any remark you may have ? Thanks. 2026:? The only doubts are lack of sources in the first paragraph and something you've called "promotional language". I can read there: "DataCore Software is an independent software vendor specializing in storage virtualization, " (you've mentioned about word "specializing" in my article). Do you also thing that an official website would be a wrong source of information? I've found two articles - 5541:. Speedily deleting something as G4, 3 years after the recreation, is just plain silly on my part. By the way, the CSD discussion I started opened a can of worms, apparently there's a debate about whether surviving an AfD at any time makes an article immune to speedy deletion in the future for any non-copyvio reasons, no matter how long ago the AfD was. So just letting you know, thanks. -- 3809: 1852: 156: 7369:

From looking at the article's history and the previous undeletion request, it's likely that this article is the product of "his students" or others who know him personally. Of course you all are going to think he's "great". The best thing to do here is wait until he gets more coverage in independent sources and for a "neutral" editor who does not know Mahan Mitra to write an article. --

9412:

ceremonies for the Worlds Fair in 1968. The page he had on wiki listed his credits and had a description of the CD he produced last year. His wife Jane House was also a Broadway star in the 1950's. They performed with Florence Henderson, for instance. There is not much written about him on the internet, but here are few pages where they list him in the cast on the shows:

8386:

borderline case but I think it should have been given the benefit of the doubt. On the main pacman article it has been customary for editors to delete clones they have never heard of. If the merge does go ahead, I'd be very surprised, if any information originating from this article is still there in a year or two. So it, could effectively just be a delayed deletion.

7929:

topic in US law, but I'm sure that it developed over a much longer time than the article here in question. I also disagree with efforts to quash further discussion by asking others to stop posting to this page. After I made my first comments I came back frequently to look for constructive discussiion; there hasn't been anything of the sort from the deletionists.

11919:. One minor observation if I might. The "uninvolved" template has specific closing direction included for respondees which, I believe, retains the RfC template (or some variant of) at the top of the RfC. You might want to take a look at that and utilize that process in the future as it better identifies the section content as an uninvolved RfC closure. Thanks. 11337:

the goal won't. That database of information will continue to exist and grow in different forms. I like to imagine that we're building the foundation for a future Star Trek-like world-wide computer network. We've the pioneers getting the information in a digital form licensed so anyone can use it. It's really exciting when you look at it like that.--v/r -

4483:"If two people disagree on something, you need to check it yourself" You're asking for a supervote. I cannot close against consensus with a rationale "Well I checked it myself and I disagree with the delete !votes." If you feel the consensus was wrong, as you felt about the last AFD you brought to my attention, then the appropriate place is again DRV. 5497:

term to accurate term and term (disambiguation) to term). Redirects leave a trail to help readers find the old article, in case a new article is created at its previous location, and to prevent linkrot. Therefore, we usually neither suppress nor delete redirects. As Brion Vibber said, "Not breaking links helps everyone, especially us first and foremost".

9491:) 02:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your quick response. I find wiki difficult to navigate and even now cannot find any of the discussions you mention. I didn't know anyone had restored the page till I just checked and found it had been deleted again. I can't seem to keep it up long enough to know I can add even the credits I listed above. 3949:

he didn't. It's likely that the article would have eventually been deleted but it would have provided some time for Antonov777 to have had his views considered. For what it's worth, even if the subject turns out to be notable, I can understand why it was nominated and why it had the {{copypaste}} tag on it. It just doesn't look like an "article". --

11028:. The fact that you don't seem to have a problem with that is concerning. So basically, he is free to stall the editing of any article, without presenting arguments for it, for as long as he likes, whenever he likes, threatens with reports over whatever strikes his fancy, and then just gets up and leave - that's fine by you is it? And what exactly 10780:

based on its name and because of my frustrated and persistent defense of it… which you’ll know for certain must mean I work there and not that I’m a new user confused by a hostile reception. But why this feeling of unfair judgment is so frustrating is looking at any of the numerous examples that give Knowledge its reputation such as this page:

1726:. For a long while, something in your response did not quite sit right with me, and I could not quite put my finger on it. It has recently just dawned on me that not all of the conditions relating to the question has been met. When you response includes “However, the information is actually stored in Knowledge's database and can be restored 1613:

discussions in a way I disagree with simply because there are editors who base their opinion in policy, make a stronger case to do something, and have more support to do it. For the ones I blatently disagree with, I tend to leave them for another administrator. Dont worry about the discussion disappearing though. It's in this log,

5130:

the notability of the article's subject - they were mere uses of the word - which leaves us back at square one. Incidentally I reiterated my support of deletion several times just as if not more strongly than those voting to keep during the discussion. Was this overlooked because I hadn't voted (or !voted, whatever that means)? --

2013:

change and it will lengthen - than I'll be able to put there more sources. Anyway, I've put there only the facts. So I don't think there's a need to place there more sources - more than two (from OpenView and Open-E official website). Unlike in the case of any opinions and interpretations of facts - its' the obvious think.

1732:”, this part of your answer states that the article did not follow the rule of notability as found in the wikipedea policy. Therefore your response is in regards to an article that does not follow all the rules and procedures. To clarify my question further and to be very specific, the question is now as follows. 12050:. A redirect is basically a blanking of the content in an article and directing anyone that searches for it to the new location. A merge should take any content that is beneficial and not in the new target location and add that content there, so a merge is a redirect with some content moved to the new location. 10789:

because it’s the judgment of the likely many Dungeons and Dragons players out there who are also seasoned Knowledge editors that keep it that way. And please… don’t make yourself sound silly by trying to prove to me how that page is not a glaring example of the vastly different standards across Knowledge.

4401:

with it. If someone said something early on, before someone else actually checked for sources and found some, then you need to look at those reliable sources found, determine if the coverage is significant, and then focus on that. You are going through closing things with several AFD closures a minute!

12288:

My grandfather, my grandmother, my father, my two uncles, and one of my brothers served in the U.S. military and my sister has worked with the U.S. military for decades. I am confident that Tim follows a code of honor. Anybody who tries to push him against his duty deserves what he gets, and I would

10919:

Since you haven't contributed to that article or its talk page at all, I'd say it's Wiki stalking on your part. I really wish you'd just detach yourself him. I am sure your stress level would go down. I never intended to be the referee between you two and my comments were in the context of another

10774:

Why? Because after someone was nice enough to reach out to me I gave the response I would have gladly given in the first place. I stated my conflict of interest and laid out three sources from undeniably notable sources that easily meet Knowledge’s guidelines. Then the arbitrary judgment comes in and

10650:

One of the reasons it was closed as keep was because one of the merge !votes and one of the delete !votes both changed their opinion to keep which gives me an indication that the keep argument was persuasive enough and stronger enough to sway other editors. That leads me to believe that although the

9906:

How would a library help? I can't put a link to anywhere in the internet for that. Would a reference to a book someone published his name in as someone he worked with, be a source I could use? Are the links above not proving that he was in the Broadway shows? I don't know what the issue is, that I

8385:

6. If the article gets merged into the already long main pac-man article, then sourced information will be lost. I readily admit that not all of the ten sources on the article's page are ideal, but clearly taken together, some of them at least are reliable and verifiable. I do agree this article is a

8381:

5. If I look at your contribs, it appears that it took no more than two minutes for you to close the delation debate, right after closing a previous deletion debate. I understand very much that you must have to work very efficiently on Knowledge in order to keep up which the huge mass of admin tasks.

8365:

1. The initial deletion nomination for the article was inaccurate as the original nominator wrote in his nomiation's rationale "Sources are forums and a Flickr picture," which is not entirely true as I didn't use any forums as a source. I later explained this in the deletion debate. As for the flickr

8149:

WP ANI is not used for kicking up a shindy, during an edit war ,in order that the readers of the report began commiserating with the reporter. It was an edit warring for which Omen1229 reported me at WP ANI twice consecutively on the grounds that I am aggressive ,while at the same time he was still

8136:

To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism. To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review. To report improper usernames, see usernames for

7585:

I whish you to be nice, but you answered not a word to what I have said. It was Omen1229 who called my edits vandalism. As for wikihounding, I do not need to follow other people around ,in order to make any revert there, it is enuogh for me to take a glance at my watchlist. One of the articles being

7321:

This is the second time the page is deleted. I have already requested to keep this page. Mahan Mitra (Mahan Mj) is a great mathematician. He is one of the leading topologists in India. You may not know a recent great news: Mahan Mj got the very prestigious Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award in 2011!! This

6258:

sigh* The script I use to close AFDs has been malfunctioning so I've had to remove AFD templates manually. Apparently I confused this article with another article I closed as merge. I suppose now I have to go through the log and figure out which one was supposed to be merged and fix it. Sorry for

6240:

i'm sorry to bug you about this, but i'm a little confused. in the afd closing statement you said that a merge didn't appear to be appropriate but it should be discussed in the article itself, but then in the article, the template says that the result was merge and someone should go ahead and do the

5818:

to create a temporary page. And it sasy "Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. " So what is the point in creating any such page if it is to be deleted without any review and reason? Do we now

5129:

I think what TPW meant there was that his belief that there are no reliable sources to be found whatsoever was contradicted by the provided link to the Google Books search (as he said when he tried searching himself he found nothing); however TPW still maintained that none of those sources determined

5029:

Actually, yeah. I hadn't noticed it was alphabetical and I am horrible when it comes to MOS, but I wanted to give it appropriate weight and it appears the two items I placed it below should/would be more important. Either way, I suppose alphabetical makes sense and there was nothing in the RFC that

4454:

Doesn't matter though. If two people disagree on something, you need to check it yourself, and determine is this a reliable source? Since they are now published in a major newspaper, then I'd say they were. And is this not significant coverage? And everyone but LibStar commented before me, before

2395:

I take that back. We can't delete it because you have to have the attribution from the original article. You could perhaps do a history merge, but generally this is only done when two article about the same subject are being written and need to be merged. I can't see a history merge in this case.

2305:

Rcsprinter123 - I regretfully have to decline the opportunity to nominate you for adminship. I truly appreciate you asking, but I don't think a nomination on your part at this time would be successful. Let me explain and then I'll suggest what I feel you should do from here. Firstly, I commend you

2043:

I've a proposal. Just tell me what you think and point the concrete bugs in my article. I'll try to improve it. And don't get me/us (Open-E) wrong. We're not looking for another promotion channel here, on Knowledge. We just want to create a good content about the company which will be helpful for our

1774:

Your answer highlights the fact that the protocols in place are fairly robust. However, the fact remains that in rare cases the underlying ethos of wikipedea can be bypassed with this loophole because it is possible that any article can be deleted using unsubstantiated claims by those who do not like

1536:

and publish everything. The several opponents base their cases on the guidelines about notability and advertising. The consensus is the same as for SUPER and ISTAG, but only an Administrator can put such a consensus into practice. Perhaps if you joined that debate you could bring it to a focus and

1357:

and you will want to read that link so you are aware of your responsibilities while editing. Many of the links you've provided me are trivial sources, don't mention Astrid Chevallier, or are not third party sources. Although, it appears many of them are. I've restored the article to your userspace

399:

But the delete vote was delete and not merge. If you think that a consensus to merge was intended, you should have relisted it and included a relister's note stating so. With a mixed consensus like that, relisting seems like a good move, anyway. The merge does seem to make sense, but it was in no way

12235:

It seems axiomatic to me that the close statement should focus on the issues targetted by outside parties, not by the pet issues of the proposers. The "gag order" was not listed as a desired outcome of the RfC, and so it is completely improper to try to make that the focus of the short summary. This

11424:

No, it's not a cross name redirect. It's redirecting from mainspace to mainspace. Crossname redirects are when for example an article called "Spork" is redirected to "Knowledge:Spork" instead of "Utensils". Or an article called "TParis" is redirected to "User:TParis". When the redirect goes to a

11317:

I have always been amazed at the ability of Knowledge to get so many volunteers to cooperate and build such a tremendous resource. Having said this, I don't know for sure if this momentum will continue indefinitely into the future. As a matter of fact I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in

11032:

my "recent behaviour"? Telling you that an editor involved in a dispute you tried to mediate earlier has done exactly the thing you told both me and him not to do? Maybe doubling the article you arrived at in size? Maybe adding a dozen references where there were none? Is that "my recent behaviour"?

10821:

to have the deletion reviewed. The only other option would be to see if there are any other third party sources that discuss the company itself. If there were some in the article that I missed (as I only looked at 6), you can point those out to me but they'd have to be something that was missed in

9466:

on the merits of the subject. The result of the discussion was that he was not notable by Knowledge standards. IMDB not considered a reliable source that indicates notability by Knowledge standards. Also, we don't give notability to relatives of notable people such as their fathers. The only way

9411:

Yesterday you deleted a page "Donald Braswell" that I had requested be restored after a "Prod" deletion. It was restored, but for some reason you deleted it again yesterday. Donald Braswell performed in Broadway plays in the 1950s, was on the Arthur Godfrey show on TV, and performed in the opening

8943:

for spam and advertising context, than the issue here isn't "what qualifies a company as any less-worthy of having a Knowledge entry." The issue is that the articles were written in promotional language. Now, had they not been entirely written in promotional language, the criteria is for companies

8910:

Hello. I posted the pages for Infegy (a web analytics company), Social Radar (Infegy's analytics product), and Justin Graves (Infegy CEO). You deleted them within a matter of days, citing "unambiguous advertising." While I will admit that the pages were created as a way to expand the name of Infegy,

7919:

So what's wrong with using Knowledge as a source for legal advice? Nobody's claiming to be a legal practitioner. If we followed your rationale there would be no articles about law at all. Perhaps it could be argued that a small part of the article was synthesis, but that's a reason for improving the

7572:

Then grow thicker skin. I hate to be a jerk because I'm actually quite nice, but it seems you wont get it any other way. You are being aggressive when you stalk folk's contribs and undo all of their edits. That is aggressive. If you dont want to be called aggressive, then quit being aggressive.

7506:

Withal, an absolutely guaranteed way to create disharmony and disruption on Knowledge is to spark off an ethnic dispute. The easiest way to do that is to go round to a bunch of articles changing round peoples nationality and changing the place names from one language to another. However, one of the

7154:

I am totally surprised to see the page "FORE School Of Management" deleted from Wiki. It took pains to build a unprejudiced page for that research organisation. FORE School of Management is a trust college which is into management research. It is one India's most respected and known college for MBA.

6953:

Hi, you closed the AfD on this article as "no consensus". The article had originally been deleted via PROD due to failing GNG. It was REFUNDed after a request from an editor who was hounding my edits, and the request for REFUND was just another "revert" of my edits. When the article was REFUNDed,

6832:

There is nothing wrong with my tone. It was actually a rather offhand and lighthearted tone and if you took it as anything else than you've assumed wrong. I knew it would be brought up when I closed it (which is why I gave a rather lengthy close rationale) and I wasn't surprised someone brought it

6537:

Hi -- you closed the AfD for that article yesterday with an outcome of "merge". Since the article only has one sentence and the information already appears in the merge target, there is nothing to do -- so could you carry out the deletion, please? (There is no reason for leaving a redirect here.)

6070:

Hi, just a note to let you know that I have removed a couple of templates from afd discussions you have closed - it seems when there is a rescue template and the automatic closer is used the template remain on the article. a quick look after closure and remove by hand if they are still there is what

5064:

I don't do much work in the AfD arena anymore, and maybe that's why your close puzzled me. Most of the editors agreed to keep the article, but they generally used arguments along the lines of "this word is an the dictionary" or "this gesture is important" rather than "this article does have sources

4671:

please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc. -- and many of the ones you closed today were over 12 hours early! This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the

4400:

that I mentioned in the AFD and added to the article, not ample coverage of this person? You aren't there to count votes, do a quick glance, and delete something on a whim. Most administrators close the AFD and post a message that determining consensus, and then after that go and decide what to do

3948:

Since everybody was saying "relist" and you said that you wouldn't mind that being done, I went ahead and relisted it and closed the DRV. I also agree that the DRV nominator should have discussed it with you first. Also, for the record, I agree with Busterd's first relist and I would have done so if

3415:

templates with the date, access date, author, publisher ect ect so you have a complete citation. External links is fine but get rid of the philosophy section. Move the content into the lead paragraph. Also, clean up the prose in the Example to be more encyclopedic in nature and less 1-on-1 casual

2744:

Claire, seeing as there were only two folks who commented in the AFD, I would be willing to send it back to AFD if you'd like to have it relisted. However, here is a suggestion. Why don't you register an account on Knowledge. I'll restore the article as a subpage under your user account. You can

2327:

Also remember that adminship isn't necessarily a promotion, it's literally closer to a janitor. Not even kidding. You'll do less work on bus articles because you'll be busy doing cleanup and maintenance. Keep in mind that some of Knowledge's longest, most edited, and best editors are not admins.

2315:

You're also currently on a banned from GA reviews. Having difficulty authoring content is one thing for most admins, but not understanding what constitutes a good article will be a huge problem during an RFA. Also, as BelovedFreak pointed out, there were several times you placed vandalism warnings

1813:

Thank you for the advice, but before I take any action, I will scrutinize the discussion on deletion and all relevant procedures again and bring to your attention any anomalies as to whether the article should have been deleted, and if I am satisfied that there is no anomalies, I will let the matter

1424:

I'd like to challenge your claim that the result was "No consensus leaning delete" There were three keeps and three deletes, one of which was "soft (sic) delete". This seems to me a clear no consensus, which usually defaults to keep, if not a leaning on keep no consensus. Also, note that the editors

1170:

templates. You'll need several of these to support the content. Generally, it is suggested that there is a citation per paragraph and a citation to support any content that could be questioned. For example, "Open-E is the leading provider of..." you will need to support that with at least one but

751:

This page was an unfinished project, which I started yesterday and was going to continue today. The purpose was to provide information about X-Micro in a concise manner, not to advertise anything. Just to provide information of a medium-sized Taiwanese company, which is also a relatively known brand

728:

Thanks for the note. It wasn't stalking, I saw the editors reply to you after my first message and read into it. If I had gone through your contributions and butt my nose in several of articles you've been involved in than perhaps that is stalking. However, if you feel there are stalker concerns,

635:

Good to do a speedy delete on tagged article without notability assertion. however i also researched and it seems that you meant a "potentially" eligible. There is almost no secondary anything on that writer except for a mention in a WP article, possibly just a POV ditto, facebook. The writer writes

12455:

I am sure if I involve one of them as well as you or Worm, that we can come to a closing statement that accurately reflects the discussion, avoids Arbcom or future drama, and most importantly it puts the issues to rest. I think everyone involved is ready to move on and I'm willing to entertain any

10793:

In the back of your head you know that’s a fair point and a fair criticism of Knowledge’s current process. If you actually read my last post on the sources for this now deleted page somewhere in the back of your head you probably also know that those sources and reasoning should qualify as notable.

10779:

Why arbitrary? Because if you had a room full of people who follow the finance or tech world or both they would without question consider this “notable.” But instead it’s up to some random group of people and who knows what they do in real life. These editors see this page, immediately blow it off

10630:

Hi. I saw you were the closing admin on the deletion discussion there. Thank you for taking the time to close the discussion, and I do realize that closing AfD's is a bit of a judgement call. But I think this one should have been closed as No consensus. There were 3.5 keeps, 2 deletes, and 1 merge.

10323:

OK, I take that to mean that notification is optional. The editor who disagreed with me on the talk page definitely watchlists it, and we have been reciprocally communicating/barnstar-ing on our user talk pages, so that's covered. Given that some AfD participants were SPAs, I'm not going to contact

10295:

I just saw Dream Focus' comment here. If there were going to be a deletion review, I would have made those notifications automatically. But instead, I followed T Paris's advice and am discussing this on the article talk page, where I assume editors interested in the page are watchlisting it. I have

10030:

Relisting happens when there hasn't been very much discussion. When an AFD has had eight participants all giving an opinion, there is enough discussion for a close even if it's no consensus. There isn't really a policy against it, but it's generally considered a bad faith nomination. If you feel

9561:

Here are all the places I can find giving info about Don Sr. The rules I found said there just had to be one valid link. Won't some of these suffice? There are lots of places where other people have also listed him in the cast of L'il Abner and Fanny and that he shared the stage with people like

9100:

when you are considering the numerical balance (but not the quality of arguments), I considered the post-relist (or really, proper list) discussion to be more indicative of where the keep:delete line really is instead of the pre-relist discussion, since the post-relist portion of the discussion was

8976:

This is all true, but we could use more editors. Perhaps instead of summarily deleting these articles we could discuss whether they might be merged into one suitable article. In general Knowledge needs to be gentler when dealing with newcomers who are unfamiliar with our processes. I myself came

8090:

Sorry for the late answer, I was no longer around on Knowledge. I apprehended all of what you had said, but I only partially agree with you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no difference between wikihounding and wikistalking. That is one and the same thing, which is a very serious allegation,

7591:

I am not sure what you mean by grow thicker skin, but there is a similar saying in my mothe tounge which is used for someone who is insolent. It was Omen1229 who called my edits vandalism ,which are personal attacks one by one. As for wikihounding, please read what is written about wikihounding in

7368:

This is the problem with creating an article and only showing up every month of so to see if it's still here. One indication that a subject may be notable (but in itself not enough) is if a neutral editor with no connection to the subject "takes note of" the subject and chooses to write an article.

7202:

Sir I am a student of MBA. My intention was not to promote FORE School of management. I wanted to provide information to the aspirants of MBA in India. Sir, please guide me to correct if you found it promotional. I will make changes accordingly to create a fairer article. I please again request you

6422:

require that articles must not mainly consist of plot summary. Because the books seem to be relatively little-known in terms of real-world coverage, there is probably little non-plot-summary content that can be written about them, and so a merger would result in an article excessively consisting of

6350:

be merged with the main article, but 90% of it is excessive plot detail and it would be easier to write an encyclopedic plot summary from scratch in the main article. At any rate, the consensus was to delete the articles, not to merge and redirect them. Closing administrators are required to act on

5496:

However in general, the redirect will be a useful entry in the history, and it is best to leave it behind, unless there is a good reason to suppress the redirect, such as vandalism, userfying recently created malplaced items or freeing a title to be occupied immediately by another page (e.g. moving

5231:

Honestly, I fall on the moderate deletionist side of Knowledge. If I felt it was justifiable to delete based on the !votes, I would have had no problem pushing that button. I gave my rationale based on the discussion, I didn't feel you weighed in much at all other than to disagree (but not really

5065:

which demonstrate notability." Could you walk me through how you determined that the keep arguments had more merit? I imagine your close was correct, but I can't for the life of me imagine why, which is why I'm asking for enlightenment. I think my understanding of policy must be way, way off. --

4595:: your decision to close with deletion may be the right one, but it's unexplained -- aside perhaps from your cryptic "v/r", which I do not understand. My own "keep" "!vote" may be mistaken, but I think it's worth a comment, as it purports to negate at least one of the "delete" "!vote"s above it. -- 1751:

Sorry to confuse the answer. The answer is still yes. However, most editors involved in deletion discussions are very familar with policy. So when an article is nominated, experienced editors will generally get involved and apply correct policies. Then an administrator will come by after 7 days

1675:

Thanks for your reaction, however it does not help me a lot. You have obviously not read the reason for my query for unblocking (you are advising me the same thing I already did before approaching you), that was in the meantime refused, I can try to conclude my standpoint. I believe what I'm facing

663:

Oh. Sorry - you have a heavier workload probably than I had thought. Not sure and I am late for lunch. It was a writer who has nothing written about her exc Facebook, a local fan created the page and POV warriors are trying to use her ... I will look into this after lunch sorry got to run or I will

538:

Will I be stepping on your toes if I block Jww047 for 29 days, to match the 1 month block on his two IP's? I'm familiar with the Jww047 situation, and have brought myself up to speed on the latest ANI and SPI. He's disruptive and is, it seems, immune to requests, advice, and warnings. He edit wars

11437:

Im trying to clean up all the un-notable American Mafia related articles on wp. Not all American mobsters need a to have a redirect. If all the mobsters in the Genovese crime family were to have a redirect, the Genovese crime family article would have hundreds of redirects. Is there any way to get

11336:

That's true, and with all good things it must end at some point. But before we picture the end of wikipedia.org let's take a look at what we've got. We've got a freely licensed database chalk full of information that already exists across hundreds of mirrors. Even if Knowledge eventually fails,

11263:

You'd think so, but it's surprisingly effective. I think it is because of the stubbornness of editors to let it fail. There are quite a few mentoring programs available if you'd like me to find you one. There are also adoption programs too and a "Wiki guides". All three programs offer the same

11127:

My hands arn't tied, but this is a volunteer project and I feel rather attacked in this thread so I've declined to get involved here because I feel like my hand is being forced. If you want to raise the issue to another admin, I dont mind and I wont consider it admin shopping. I dont see why you

10788:

I don’t pretend that I understand Knowledge enough to be able to figure out how that page got there. But since it hilariously doesn’t even have any of those headers (like the “this page may be too long” or the “this page may need cleanup to meet etc etc”) I can guess the reason that page exists is

10225:, but I think you'd be better served to open a discussion on the article's talk page about redirecting it. I can't see any negatively unsourced material in the article nor a request from the subject for it to be deleted (even in the blog post) that would require a delete before a redirect.--v/r - 10189:

is about deleting or keeping articles. Merge and redirect discussions tend to happen there, but should really be discussed on the talk page. It was closed as no consensus. Why not try to develop a consensus to redirect on the talk page? It was no consensus, that doesn't mean a redirect can't still

7809:

I'm not getting into the content dispute with you two. That is for you two to discuss and solve. The point is, Omen1229, that when an editor reverts your edits that means those edits are contested. You must discuss those edits on the talk page and find a consensus. Continuing to reinsert those

7611:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to

5427:

Well, first of all, you're not looking at that "What links here" page very hard, because it does include an article, in addition to the two AFD discussions and several other pages. Second, I'm baffled that you think it's worth creating an unnecessarily confusing situation that gives the impression

4839:

Hello, again. Welcome back. I think you were away for a while. As I mentioned above, I have added more information to the article and would like to have it moved back to Article Space so others can comment and a new consensus reached. Also the original Discussion Page seems to have got lost, so it

4692:

I see what happened. I'm sorry, that was an oversight on my part. I was working on the log for September 10th and I had relisted several articles and I got distracted and decided to reload the page so I knew which discussions were relisted. It must have been right after GMT time entered the new

3222:

Hello, I'm one of the guys behind Opa, and we're all very disappointed not be present on wikipedia any more. I agree that the page was created too early, but now the buzz has really started a lot around Opa, and wikipedia should be the place for curious readers who want to find in-depth, objective

2150:

TParis - It's done. I've made a little change in our product name (DSS) and I've removed one of the sources (the one which could be a press release). If it's fine, please, just put it to the right place (and give me a know). Thanks for your help :-) Do you know someone who is a kind of Wikiwriter?

1057:

and don't use a name that represents your company) and come back here and tell me what it was. I'll undelete this article and move it as a subpage under your account and guide you on improving it. What I'd like to see is neutral language, no products section, and inline citations. If you can do

561:

I absolutely would not feel you are stepping on my toes. I wasn't aware of all of the back story when I stumbled on what appeared to be an edit war. I protected the page before I knew there was a more in depth problem. In retrospect and having read your earlier comments on Jww047's talk page, I

300:

OK, just before posting the above I checked Wiktionary and found it's "Very respectfully". Perhaps that's a common US abbreviation, but it's not known on my side of the big pond! You may be puzzling more readers than you realise, so I thought I'd leave this message here anyway. (I saw your sig on

12468:

That was my wish, also, in suggesting a balanced slate of persons who had demonstrated mutural respect. If WTT is unavailable, then Demiurge1000 has redeemed himself in my eyes by his work of 36-8 hours ago and would be fine. (This may be superfluous if we reach agreement now. I can live with the

12079:

No merge was necessary since there was so little content, I wrote the date in the elections article and redirected the discussed next election article. A short sentence giving the date is not from the source article, so no attribution is necessary. However, I saw someone else merged more, so it's

11292:

Thank you for responding. Can you tell me how you measure effectiveness? How can you say with so much certainty that the convoluted system that few, if any, at Knowledge have mastered completely, works to deter Wikipedians from contributing "inappropriate" articles and at the same time encourages

11084:

at me. Your argument in the first two posts was "The article doesn't need this" and Direktor's response was "You don't get to decide that"; paraphrased. Direktor's point was that it was a controversial edit that you should've discussed. From that point on it spiraled into name calling and edit

10816:

Hello Marino9813. I understand your concerns and I certainly sympathize with you. I really don't care much for Dungeons and Dragons myself and I dont see why we need a list of "Advanced 2nd edition monsters". My rebuttal would be this though, if you say that a room full of folks who follow the

10753:

If I have posted this on you're wall in error then I apologize. I admit that I am unsure of what would be the appropriate venue to air these views. I am not just ignoring #7 of your talk page. I post this argument (or rant in many editors eyes) because in making the now deleted page I had several

10663:

I certainly realize it's not a vote, and you'll note that the users recommending the article be kept were only able to find a blog post and a site on geocities to support notability. Is your determination that in this case the consensus was that the article should be kept on the basis that a blog

9212:

The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs, and in any event, since the AfD was not properly transcluded, does not represent a fair cross-section of the community, and so is entitled to substantially lesser weight. According more weight to the post-relist discussion, there is a rough consensus to

9205:

The closer's decision to discount the early round of discussion is unsupported by policy or guideline, and irredeemably taints their decision since the outcome was otherwise unclear. Moreover, it has the perverse impact of discounting the views of those interested in the subject and overweighting

8767:

I was creating the Influenza Research Database wikipage and my page was just deleted. I wanted to clarify that this database is a freely available resource funded by the NIAID, a US government agency under the National Institute of Health and is part of the NIAID's Bioinformatics Resource Center

8358:

My own opinion though is that the debate should have been closed as "no consensus" and therefore I would like to request a deletion review of the article. It does say on the deletion review page though to try and sort any issue out with the closing admin as a first step, so I am doing this first.

8194:

is without precedent. I am really surprised with the behavior that is tolerated on wikipedia. Should we all behave like that? My comment on ANI was simple and short, without inflammatory statements. Your behavior isn`t something I just made up, it has been proven with problems to many users like:

7928:

essentially a synthesis? I cannot comment on your made-up word "userfy" or on your meaningless reference to "become a web host." I also note than none of those wanting the deletion were Canadian, and all those wanting an alternative were Canadian. I have not reviewed the history of the comparable

5084:

The keep !voters feel strongly in their opinions and you, as the nominator, were somewhat swayed although still reluctant by their arguments. That gives me the impression their argument was strongly although I will consider a no-consensus leaning keep if we are to go just on !votes alone.--v/r -

4557:

Just to let you know that while I shall be drastically reducing my participation on Knowledge, I shall remain involved in overseeing the restriction between Roscelese and Haymaker. If there are any issues arising in regard to that matter that you and Courcelles are in agreement with, however, you

4020:

states that as long as there are multiple sources talking about the band, that are not influenced by the band, the band meets the appropriate standards to remain on Knowledge. Such sources were prevalent. I did not create the article nor do I have anything to do with the sources/subject but I did

2321:

Now, I hate to have had to break it to you like that. I've reviewed your contributions and I think the work you do with buses is great. I really like seeing the passion you have there and that you've found someone else who shares your passion to work on them with. I think you should spend more

2077:

will explain the reasons; I strongly suggest reading these links. OpenView and Open-E's official website are not going to cut it for sources. Open-E is a primary source and OpenView is invested and has a conflict of interest with the subject which prevents a critical review of Open-E. You need

1721:

Greetings, I hope your surgery is a complete success. I once asked you the following question “If an article is nominate for deletion using unsubstantiated claims, would that mean that a valid article that followed all the wikipedea rules and procedures could be lost/deleted due to the Wikipedea

1491:

I formatted the English one, but was less certain about the others. Not that they weren't good, the first Polish source looks really nice; the article has its own sources listed. So I'm seeing direct detailed material about the subject. A good call to reassess consensus. If I'd seen these sources

11132:

either; there isn't a need for one of them to take it to ANI. I just think it might boomerang if you do because you'll be seen as stalking. I really truly honestly with the best of heart encourage you to just detach from Direktor and anything he edits for a week or so to get some perspective.

8389:

7. Finally I contend that the sources given together, just meet the threshold of notability and verifibilty for the article to be kept in the encyclopedia. No-one in the deletion debate questioned me on this after I had made the improvements. I was not given a chance to defend the improvements.

7965:

made up word. Keep in mind that just like you'll find in different regions of the world, Knowledge has it's own culture and different cultures include their own words for things. Userfy is one of those words. You'll see a few if you intend to stick around. Once you are familar with the above

7104:

Thanks for the well-deserved scolding you gave me for mistakenly marking user:In fact as an SPA.That was not an attempt to influence the discussion, and in fact at the time I had not decided on my own recommendation for the article. But in reading through the discussion I noticed that two of the

6501:

as delete. I don't mean to contest the deletion, but since most of the delete comments were on the grounds of verifiability and hoax concerns, shouldn't the discussion have been relisted, as the article had been stubbified and properly referenced by then? The only comment regarding notability by

5501:

I haven't seen anything that says "Go ahead and delete a redirect that'll break links, as long as the user will find a move log entry that tells them where to find the article, assuming they bother clicking on the red link in the first place." And now I REALLY can't imagine what else I could say

5097:

I guess where you thought I was swayed was when I asked how a series of incidental book references provide proof of notability. I never saw any arguments based in policy supporting keep, and I guess I was assuming you saw something that I didn't. Thank you for clarifying for technique. How it

4159:

Consensus arguably wasn't final until you took it upon yourself to hit the gavel. Not saying that spitefully but it's the reason I addressed you about it. These arguments against the article in the AFD you reference in actuality only parrot the first guy's comment, which was false as you now see

3599:

Hi Day000Walker. No problem on the deletion, that's what I'm here for. I do have a concern though, you !voted twice on that AFD. Although it is a discussion and not a vote, please ensure you only give a single bolded !vote in future AFDs you participate in. Also, you asked for mentorship. I

2082:

article is a great example of a company article. Yes, their official website has been used as a citation. However, the entire article is not based on that citation. Most of the citations are books, news articles, studies, or third party unaffiliated sources. Again, an official website is the

2012:

Well, OpenView isn't a "parent company", it's the independent enterprise and our investor. So I think it's a good source of information (especially in case of the company's development history). I'll try to find something more but it may be hard - the article is just a short note. I hope it will

1735:

If an article is nominate for deletion using unsubstantiated claims, would that mean that a valid article that followed all the wikipedea rules and procedures (including notability and all other rules and procedures as stated in the wikipedea policies) could still be deleted due to the Wikipedea

1641:

That is exactly the kind of intelligent discretion that I thought would be indispensable, plus more, because I hadn't considered cases where correctly applying the relevant principles leads to a result that one dislikes. No one can be unbiased, but some can transcend it and avoid being unfair!

1585:

anything. However, I doubt that an administrator's role in deletion is only a mechanical application of a consensus. What is consensus? It is rarely unanimity, and discerning it would require distinguishing smooth-talking efforts to circumvent the guidelines from inarticulate efforts to apply

12545:

To be fair, I hadn't read comment at the time - and I can see you are well aware of your responsibilities here. There's a lot to read even since I signed off last night. I'm happy to help in any way I can, and perhaps a chat between three of us (You, me and Geometry guy?) would be helpful. I'm

12218:

Ok. I haven't gotten to the talk page yet, I am only past your comments on the main page. I've had to fit reading all of this into my normal daily schedule (which includes running out to gamestop right now to make sure my copy of battlefield 3 is here). I'm hoping to get a close done by 10pm

10966:

Taking a stab at me isn't going to help. I didn't jump into an article and take sides at all. You were both blocked for edit warring. I have supported both of you and tried to help you come to a consensus. If you can't see that, then you may need to take a breath and read all of my comments

8986:

Yes, but being gentler in dealing with newcomers needs to be balanced with our encyclopedic goals. If you review my edit history, you'll see that I do not summarily delete article. These three articles were really promotional. I've restored and trimmed the article down. It can be seen here,

8369:

2. There was no overall majority consenus during the entire debate. If the number of editors voting "merge" were in the clear majority, then I would completely accept the closing decision without question. However, only two editors suggested merge and two suggested keep (admittedly I was one of

7631:

However, these articles all cover my interesting field, they are on my watchlist ,and I am able to prove that I have contributed to them all in the past. Also, I visited Omen1229's talk page where I said him that his edits appear to be chauvinistic. As I said above, his primary interest on

4245:

as well as common sense. The rule is not to destroy a list because some prefer categories, the two able to coexist just fine. The arguments given by those wishing to delete, are invalid, they not speaking of its notability, but instead that stating they didn't like it, didn't like some of the

1761:

with substantial evidence that the nomination was in bad faith or unjustified. Generally this is done with new substantial evidence that the article meets our guidelines. In that case, it can be restored from our databases. Also keep in mind that part of the deletion process is to notify the

1612:

in some circumstances but rarely. Also, since AFD isnt a vote, we have to read the discussion and see if we can figure out the mood of the discussion among editors that properly apply policy. We must also look for evidence of bad faith such as canvassing. But for the most part, I often close

1559:

I can't help you here. As an administrator, my opinion is no more important than any other editors. Having me participate is not going to push the consensus one way or another simply because I am an administrator. Consider me more of a janitor than a principal. I do maintenance work such as

1339:

Last but nor least, Miss Chevallier has been granted 3 times a visa to the United States as an Artist of Extraordinary ability, based on her career achievement, contribution to the design world and letters of recommendation from many peers and professional of the design and movie industry. This

363:

for beginning the merge effort and I'm baffled. Not a single Wikipedian suggested a merge for the article. Nobody. The nominator voted keep, several other editors also voted keep (for that matter, speedy keep), and one voted delete, clearly stating this content should not be merged. How can the

11864:

I reblocked with a different reason; hope that wasn't stepping on your toes. I'd taken a quick glance at this when I saw it deleted at ANI, and saw that it was all fun and games, but it looked like he might be yanking your chain. Obviously if you think I was unreasonable, feel free to modify

11716:

The page that it was copied from was our own page. We moved it to avoid having it deleted. We were planning on moving it back once it was up to Knowledge standards. Please do email the contents. This is a class project and many students have contributed. It is a working document and we are

11248:

Oh yes, I must admit that I did not take the time to read all the references provided as reasons, but it seems to me that a system where citizens are expected to become experts in a convoluted system of laws, rules and regulations just in order to stay on the right side of the law is doomed to

10939:

Well, you felt pretty comfortable coming to another article you had no background in almost a week ago. You also felt pretty comfortable taking his side when his involvement with that article was (and still is) minimal. FYI, once the constructive discussion started at Social Democratic Party -

8377:

4. If a deletion debate is closed and the result can potentially be controversial, then shouldn't there be an explanation in the closing comments as to why the "merge" decision was taken? Especially when there was apparently no majority consensus during the discussion. I would've appreciated a

7910: 6801:

Oh boy, I knew this wouldn't take long. The problem is that yes, assertions were made that reliable sources did exist in articles. An attempt was made to find the sources and none could be produced. The one source that was found, in Flight International, emboldened the deletion opinion that

4753:

where it states "an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." My COI conforms with the "Close Relationship" definition. I have a close relationship to Fuller and Brown, with a "high level of personal

12189:

It is utterly unacceptable to require an editor to consult with somebody when he feels strongly. It is utterly unacceptable to attempt to use this RfC to change RfA policy, where current policy states that we may oppose minors from getting administrative rights, particularly when this was not

10310:

I have no objection to the discussion or to notifying folks. If you do chose to notify folks though, make sure you take Dream Focus' advice and hit up every commenter on the AFD with a neutral message and perhaps even the user who disagreed with you at the talk page earlier. Personally, I'm

5160:

of editors voting. But these things are irrelevant because you said the reason you closed was because of the strength of opinion rather than the merit of the arguments. TPW and I conceded certain points made by others in line with policy - that doesn't mean we agreed with keeping the article.

3447:

Looks a lot better, almost ready to move back. I have two issues. Does "Opa provides first-class parsers based on Parsing Expression Grammars" have a technical meaning? My concern is that first-class sounds promotional but I also know that classes are core to OOP. So I am not sure how you

2172:

There are many Knowledge editors out there. You can usually find folks in your area by looking for geographic categories of users. However, paid editing is strongly frowned upon. Seldomly, editors who create separate accounts for such editing and make their conflict of interest evident and

1402:

TP - thanks for your reply and your guidance. I did come across Astrid Chevallier's work a long time ago and I've been following her career since, for she's an interesting character both as an artist and as an independent woman. Thanks for your many advices, that's really helpful! Best, Susan

6307:

as "merge", whereas in each case three contributors supported deletion and one contributor supported merging or keeping the article, respectively. I do not see how you could come to a "merge" consensus under these circumstances. Could you please explain your thinking or change the outcome to

5471:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are...if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other

2674:

I am disappointed to see that our page has been deleted. Other GTD software like Omnifocus, Remember the Milk, Chandler are kept but not ours. We were mentioned a few time by Lifehacker and had a full article from them as App of the day, so I don't know why you said you only found one line.

10073:

Not linked to the AFD discussion, but perhaps helping you post-facto in your close, both delete !votes were made aware of the possibilities under the Cyrilic spelling and although not returning to the AFD to comment, they both gave positive responses toward the improvements and requests for

1528:: a description of a European Union research project, evidently written by its participants. Several of the same comments appear in both Deletion discussions. The Webinos supporters are almost all documented or identifiable members of the project. The only strong independent supporter is 1206:

I only have 1 hand to type with so please excuse typos. The products section needs to be removed completely unlss you can find a 3rd party citation for it. The 3rd citation is a press release and is not considered a reliable source. The article is still using promotional language such as

7155:

You could have traced the authenticity from the official website that I had provided for references. It was www.fsm.ac.in . FORE page did not contain any advertising . There were just facts for which there were references. There are many pages in Wiki which are very similar to FORE page.

6241:

merge. maybe this is a limitation in the kinds of templates available? or something i don't understand? it seems as if it might be more accurate to put a proposed-merge kind of template on the article to stimulate discussion? again, i'm sorry if i'm missing something obvious. thanks! —

5014:. Was your placement intentional to prevent its being the first (and most prominent) link? If so, I liked your choice. Later, someone moved it to the top of the list, alas. I'm not sure I want to re-start the ruckus, but I am interested enough to ask your intent, if it was intentional. 11947: 11916: 8373:

3. Being away from Knowledge for some time, I was very late to the debate, but I then spent a couple of evenings improving the article, adding more sources and expanding it, after the above concerns were raised. This (I think) resulted in the other editor voting keep. I am unsure if these

4801:

Hello, I believe you agreed with some other editors that the article by the above name should be deleted, which you did do. I have now updated the article with more sources outside of Kern County and highlighted more of Mr. Watson's non-local activities. You can see the rewritten piece at

8498:

hey, TParis... shouldn't the link in the afd closing note on the article's talk page point at the second nomination, since the first was speedily closed for procedural reasons? i'd fix it, but i'm too new to wp to feel sure that it should be fixed or that i should be the one to fix it.—

7053:

Did you read the edit summary? I closed the AFD (linked above) as keep. Upon further reflection and appeal here, I realized my close was inappropriate given the discussion and chose instead to relist. Please take more time to research before accusing me of being keen to delete.--v/r -

813:

Hello, Ok. I´ll do some more research on the topic and then prepare writing that is closer to the end result. The stuff I wrote earlier was my first wikipedia page, so really only a first draft. My source related research was also very much unfinished. I´ll get back to you later on! Val

11304:

Personal opinion based on direct observation? It's a project that's never finished so you'll always have gaping holes. It will never be complete. The truth is that Wikipedians have proven that they will volunteer their time to do painstaking tasks with little or no reward. You'd be

4021:

partake in the discussion and noticed you deleted the article. Therefore you should reconsider and undelete the article. If not, oh well, but I thought I would say something. I ripped these links from Google to make sure the other user did not falsify sources. Turns out they are real.

1425:

in discussion agreed that BLP does not play a significant role. Lastly, the nominator said: "If someone can source the article with a few other references, (besides his homepage) to prove his notability, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the nomination." Here are requested references:

12403:

I suggested Geometry guy, because he has followed this actively. David Eppstein would my second choice, and again, I would just say that he need only read the summary discussion. (Carrite would make WTT's screen melt, so he probably should not be asked.) Cullen would be a 3rd person.

4121::::: Oh I see. Then I apologize for that part of my debate, I did not know about that statute. However I still revert back to the point about the sources above being several and legit. For what it's worth I also helped start this other band pages I linked but that was ages ago. :-) 7507:

primary interest of Omen1229's to Knowledge is to change a place names from one language to another, and to try to insert information about ethnic assimilation and children deportation committed by ferocious Hungarians and his sources usually come from semi facist organizations like

4073:

kind of rationale. I didn't give any less weight to your opinion in the discussion even though you are editing from an IP. You !voted twice, I could only count it once, and one of the IPs had a horrible rationale. If you feel I read the consensus wrong, the next step is to try at

9548:

If you have any other sources you haven't given me to review, I'll consider it. But I dont feel the sources you've provided so far are sufficient to invalidate the AFD. You are welcome to create a DRV at this point, you can consider this an attempt to get me to restore it.--v/r -

109:

Would it be possible for you to expand on your reason for closing this debate as delete? The discussion was of a fairly complex nature by several people with experience in academic AfDs. It would useful to have your reasons why you closed this as delete rather than as No consensus.

12064:

Just what Off2riorob said. Someone determines what content is beneficial, copies it to the new article, and then sets up a redirect. Although that merge wasn't done correctly, there is a bit of attribution required in merging that wasn't done here so I'll take care of it.--v/r -

8716:

It's not the template itself. It's our username policy which forbids the use of "-bot" for unapproved accounts. Generally it's applied when an account is misrepresenting itself as an approved bot. I took that template as a misrepresentation that the account is approved.--v/r -

421:

AFD isn't a vote, though. It's a discussion. The discussion made me feel that some wanted to keep the content while the delete !vote suggested it should've gone elsewhere. I believe another admin would've come to the same conclusion. Anyway, thanks for doing the merge.--v/r -

9992:, sources must exist and be verifiable; however, it does not say they have to be easily verifiable such as the ease of a URL directly to the source nor do they even have to be in the English language. Try to find sources in books and magazines that cover Broadway shows.--v/r - 1752:

and read the discussion and read the discussion to discover which argument has merit and a stronger case and if there is consensus to support it. It would be a very rare situation for an article to be deleted with zero review by an experienced editor. That said, there is no

8477:

I agree with you that cleanup and no effort arn't reasons to nominate, but the three week later relist on a no consensus AFD doesn't really bother me too much. I'd just let it run it's course and hope it finds a consensus this time. I appreciate the heads up though.--v/r -

10262:

There was a discussion on the talk page by Tryptofish to redirect on the 4th of September. Someone later noticed, objected, and reverted him. Then it went to AFD. If there is a new discussion, every single person who participated in the AFD should be notified about it.

9103:

In my view it is analogous to canvassing - whereas inappropriate canvassing influences debate by making it more easily seen by people likely to !vote one way, here the non-listing influenced the debate by making it less easily seen by people less likely to !vote that way.

2087:. Press releases, official websites, parent companies, investors, paid advertisement, paid reviews, and child companies are not neutral unbiased sources and cannot support an article by themselves. Besides that, though, our basic criteria for inclusion requires multiple 4438:

on their talk page. Other than their vote not based on policy, you were the only other editor arguing in favor of keep. You gave your rationale and at least one editor disagreed (LibStar). I'm a quick reader. You might notice on my user page that I read a lot.--v/r -

2227:

You deleted my page, but it was just an informational page about my Company. I used iCloud and and Jolicloud's wikipedia pages for reference so I really dont see what I did wrong. It was not a page made for promotional use was implied. Please advise Kyle Justice iSpaces

8382:

Please don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate your hard work. But after the debate went on for three weeks and I spent several hours over the last week improving the article, I do think it might have deserved a slightly more in-depth look before making the decision.

6990:

I've relisted the AFD. I missed several things the first time I read it including the first keep !voter is currently indeffed for what appears to be Wikihouding you, and second that you !voted after your nomination. 7 more days of discussion seems appropriate.--v/r -

7235:. Please be careful how you word and what material you put in there. Anything that is unencyclopedic should not be included such as "Courses offered", "Facilities", and "Student Life" unless these items have significant coverage and are notable in themselves.--v/r - 11264:

goal - to help you understand Knowledge better so you can contribute effectively. I can get you started in any of these. Do note, though, that I checked your deleted contributions and the only time I've deleted any of your articles was per a deletion discussion at

3511:

Thanks a lot for the page, for your appreciation, and of course for your time, patience and advice. It's definitely harder than what I thought initially to write a good article. I will consider contributing more (although probably with a different username). Thanks.

3226:

There's also a fairness issue, as many obscure open source projects are on wikipedia (and I'm not saying there shouldn't be). I could even name one that is similar in its motivations to Opa, but less advanced and less known (although open source for a longer time).

10825:

I'm sorry your experience has been bad so far. Knowledge isn't trying to be a closed community, it's just tough when we get a lot of folks trying to promote their companies (or girlfriend or pet Fluffy) and we have a lot to try to deal with that we tend to become

6102:

BTW, thanks for your support in that WT:AfD discussion. Often I feel like bringing up any new idea in WP space is like rolling a boulder out of the creek and up the hill. Getting the boulder out of the water is next to impossible without (at least moral) support.

4246:

content on it, thought it'd be too long to maintain, didn't think it'd be useful, and several said "overly broad and inherently unmaintainable". Is there a single delete vote in there which spoke about the article's notability? Please reconsider your closing.

10014:

I thought the standard AFD process was to re-list it after seven days if there was no consensus and then wait another seven before closing it. Can you please explain the policy on that? And also what is the policy on creating another AFD for it? Thank you.

1580:

I understand that administrators' opinions have no special weight. I did not understand the Deletion process that you describe, so I feared that the Webinos discussion could indecisively wander indefinitely because no participant had the power to actually

8374:

improvements were carefully taken in to account on closing the deletion debate for this article? The problem was that most of the discussion took place before the article was improved and therefore did not apply to the article after it had been improved.

5395:

I would suggest undeleting this redirect. While it's an implausible search term, it's linked from several pages, particularly the AFD discussion where deleting the redirect makes it look like the article was deleted even though the consensus was to keep.

4090:

My argument merely talks sources. I think you have me confused. I did see there was another guy/girl on there talking about seeing the band live so I understand and agree with that view but at the same time it's irrelevant. Sources talk, bias walks. ;-)

10830:. I can recommend several programs if you are still interested that will help you become a better editor. There are mentorship programs, adoptee programs, and even the Wiki guides. Let me know if you're interested and I can set something up.--v/r - 6833:

here. I was having a private chuckle if anything. Keep in mind that voice inflection can't be portrayed through text and how you heard it may not be how I said it. With that out of the way, your source won't open and regardless, it doesn't address

5631:. However, he is discussed by multiple sources and recently became director/speaker of an international television program that regularly airs on six networks and reaches millions. Due to these reasons, the article appears to meet the requirements of 9094:? Also, you wrote: "Some have argued that the closing admin made a sound judgement call to give less weight to the !votes prior to the relist and then was well within admin discretion with the remaining !votes." The closing admin wrote (my bolding): 5205:. If you think the consensus was wrong, there isnt much that can be done in the immediate future. Another AFD right away would be closed as bad faith. An AFD in four to six months is reasonable if you really think the consensus was wrong.--v/r - 4705:

that's more or less what I guessed had happened--you were starting with the relisted AfDs, which most of us do a day early if they are clear enough. It's easy to drift, but we haven't gotten anyone yet to set up a bot to do timings like for prods.

3874: 2173:

strictly adhere to neutral point of view can get away with it but even Jimmy Wales is against the practice. If you want to learn more about Knowledge and expand your editting beyond just Open-E, there are mentoring programs out there. I recommend

1917: 221: 5536:

and further thought, I decided that deleting the article was wrong and restored it. Just an FYI, it wasn't meant to be a criticism of your closure of the AfD, I think you did a fine job there. I also didn't realize that the article was recreated

2340:

Thanks for this, and for being honest to me. I think I will follow your opinion, and leave it a bit until applying. I shall also try to follow all the suggestions you have made here to become a better editor. Hope you are having a good vacation,

8219:

is just ridiculous. Analyzing your contributions and various warnings that you received for your behavior (that you deleted from your talk page) you are not changing your attitude toward wikipedia and in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.

752:- though more so some years ago than now. Sourcing this information from the internet is an on-going process. How could the page be rewritten in a way that fits your criteria? And how can it even be deleted even before I was able to react? Val 8095:

as it is a very serious allegation. And you indeed beheld that it was an edit war for which you also warned Omen1229 as well. But when I expostulated on your talk page that two reports were consecutively run at WP ANI about me whose names were

4822: 2866:

Haymaker has responded positively, with a suggestion to limit the iban to an initial 6 month period, after which parties may agree to extend. I have recommended acceptance to Roscelese, so hopefully things will be in place in under 24 hours.

10237:

OK, thank you for your time and your thoughtful reply. As I said, it's hard for me to be objective, so I appreciate your unbiased take. I'm satisfied that you've listened to me very fairly and patiently, and I'm going to follow your advice.

6932:

comments that you were specifically talking about. I like the general idea and I presented an idea to implement it, but I think this is something you are going to have to go slow with and let brew in folks minds. Folks like Google.--v/r -

6785:

and an academic paper whose abstract makes clear that it contains significant coverage of the subject. I see no reason why such arguments that are clearly grounded in the general notability guideline should be discounted. Please reconsider.

10148:. Of course I'm too involved to be unbiased about it, and I do indeed realize that, but I sincerely hope that you'll think about it. Please tell me whether you might reconsider, or whether I should go directly to deletion review. Thanks. -- 10035:

would be the place to go. But if you don't have an Ace in the hole that wasn't already discussed in the AFD or if you feel it was closed correctly but you had hoped for another result, then it's best to wait a few weeks to a month.--v/r -

12506:

and closing it thusly. I don't think it is appropriate for you to try to broker an agreement... though I wish you luck with that. It's not an easy thing to do, closing an RfC like this, because so much has been written, so take your time.

10184:

Being that a redirect was suggested early on in the discussion and the idea was not taken up by a majority of folks or even given as an alternative to keeping is why I felt there wasn't consensus to redirect. Let's be honest here though,

4968:

applies since there is very little difference between the 2007 and 2011 versions. I've tagged it as such, so feel free to review it and either delete or remove the tag if someone else doesn't get there first! You may also want to drop by

3432:

I think now the 4 remaining article links are only reliable sources, but do not provide specific relevant points. I have improved the article with respect to structure, neutrality and style, and added relevant tags to the external links.

11607:

I actually didn't realize it was on AFD, LOL. I saw after I looked, but that suggestion really doesn't make sense. We can easily keep the scope to the actual parties, and not just visiting leaders. I like the idea of expanding the list.

8215:. Simply, whenever you appear there is a new edit war. Call me paranoid but it is too obvious that there is something here that isn`t right. It looks like your goal is to block some users by gaming the system. Calling my "involvement" - 5566:

Alrighty. I felt no criticism and I rather agreed with your interpretation of the CSD criteria. The article has no merit to stand on and had I !voted in that AFD I would've !voted delete. I was more concerned about what appears to be

10971:

himself from the article because this is a volunteer project and no one can be forced to participate. Either way, I think you need to take another look around and adjust your recent behavior before it becomes a bigger problem.--v/r -

2177:. He has a great program and you'll have an excellent beginning about how Knowledge works after his mentoring. I don't think he'll work with you, though, if you are only interested in working with Open-E related articles. --v/r - 9432:

He also is the father of Donald Braswell II. Can you please help me get the page restored and tell me what I need to do to keep it from being deleted again? I know him personally and know the information in the page is accurate.

1052:

prevents you from seeing how promotional it really was. I went through the article history and couldn't find a non-promotional revision. I'll do this for you though. Register an account on Knowledge (keep in mind our policy on

5116:

The part that gave me reason to believe you were sidelined was these two sentences: "Thank you, Berean, that gave me pause to reconsider. I'm still stuck, though". It would've gone as no consensus default to keep though.--v/r -

8340: 3992:) to be installed. This is very different from Javascript, which is a scripting language that runs natively in every browser. The technologies are very different, and the similarity in their names was a marketing ploy that has 1756:

where a user or administrator can pound a gravel and declare a nomination unjustified and thus annulling the nomination. If it ends after 7 days in a delete vote and was unjustified, someone will have to bring the article to

386:

I think you misread the delete !vote. It says it's an unnecessary split. The opposite of split: merge. A merge satisfies all parties. However, if you think I really am way off here, I can change it to no consensus.--v/r -

7749:

behavior. Frankly, I don't see Wikihouding, and if anything, I see Wikistalking on your part. Quit edit warring. Also, keep in mind that I already warned Omen1229 earlier this morning for his edit warring behavior as well

5503: 5389: 10631:

And the 0.5 delete refused to discuss their opinion for keeping. If you look at the argument you'll note the side for keeping agrees the game is "very uncommon", "obscure", and the best coverage found was a Japanese page on

8860:"Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." 3968:

OK. The archived noms at the state's website require JavaScript to view, and other people sometimes have this problem. Try viewing it from another computer or browser, preferably somewhere other than where you usually edit.

2437:

Hi TParis. Hope you're well. In case you didn't know, it's standard practice to ask users requesting confirmed permissions to describe sample edits they'd like to make and list pages they're interested in improving before

1586:

them. Administrators must therefore apply some level of intelligent discretion, or a rigged consensus could easily prevail. I certainly hope they do! Anyway, thinks for improving my understanding of the Deletion process.

294:

I'm mystified. What does it mean? Is it at Star Trek ref (having looked at your userboxes)? Or a USAF abbreviation? Or just something totally obvious that I'm dozily not thinking of? (And there isn't a WP article about it)

7573:

It's that simple. Take it to Omen1229's talk page and discuss the changes in a way that leads to compromise. And learn to use the preview button before you submit. I dont need to see 10 yellow bars on my screen.--v/r -

3549:

See the SSgt stripes duck taped over my SrA stripes? It's a promotion. I actually reenlisted 6 months after that, but we did the oath of enlistment to reinforce my comittment to the Air Force during my promotion.--v/r -

10769:

What pisses me off is not any concern for that specific company, but rather the feeling of being slighted. It’s hard not to feel like you’re at the mercy of the arbitrary judgment of whatever editors make this decision.

8685:

Requesting approval was my intention from very beginning, but your procedure is complicated: make subpage, put it here, do this, do that... so I postponed a little bit and never made any edit. I didn't know that template

10940:

following the entire farce - he simply left the discussion. Oh and btw, regarding your comment about "stalking", whatever happened to you don't "commenting on editors"? And last time I checked, DIREKTOR was the one with

10745: 8018:

No. There was sufficient agreement that the article was unnecessary with two !voters asking for it to be deleted. Why do you want the revision history? The article wasn't merged. Would you rather it userfied?--v/r -

1462:. That said, I reviewed your sources and I dont understand why none of these were introduced to the article or the AfD before it closed. I'm going to restore the article, but please include these sources ASAP.--v/r - 10920:

article. I can't come in here and judge the situation in this new article having no background. On the surface though, I'd agree that calling other user's bullies is not helpful to the encyclopedia and may warrant a

3460:

Yes, "first-class" was in the technical sense; I've made this clearer. I could indeed enrich the Opa article with bits from the cited sources, putting them as inline citations. I've just picked (more or less randomly)

12021: 4233: 5414:

page doesn't show any articles and anyone who clicks on the link will see the move in the log. It only takes a tiny bit of extra work (two clicks) to find the right articles for anyone interested in the AFD.--v/r -

971:. Since you're the blocking admin, please take a look at his latest unblock request and see if you think it is sufficient. He is asking for his name to be changed and promising not to add any more links to his site. 9562:

Enio Pinza, Florence Henderson, and Tina Louise. They also mention that the cast of the L'il Abner was on Ed Sullivan, they don't mention his name (he was on there). Other links validate his Minden roots. Thanks!

2902: 1234: 2328:

If buses are what you like doing, why not consider sticking with buses? If you feel this all is a little bit embarrassing, let me know and I'll delete this thread from my talk page before it gets archived.--v/r -

3941: 8181:

Since my name is mentioned several time , for no apparent reason I feel that I owe an response. Taking out of context something I said a year ago (first time you mentioned me), and accusing me again and again is

7637:"Magyarized name (used only in Hungary) is not important for English article. Karol Hingis (02. 05. 1951) is Slovak from Košice, only speaks Hungarian. His sisters are Eva, Marta, Helena and brothers Ľudovít and" 4068:

I just determine the outcome of the discussion. I'll give you that the !votes were almost even, but the arguments in favor of delete were stronger in my opinion. I read yours, and the end it seems a lot like a

10794:

The front of your head, however… says hey fuck this guy I’m just going to give him some cute term we use to address similar criticisms to make myself feel enlightened and not that there’s an underlying issue.

6401:

says that notability guidelines cover the subject of an article, not the content within. Had the content been merged, it wouldn't have needed to be sources neccessarily as long as it wasn't contentious.--v/r -

3387:. There are still external links that are reliable external sources, but not linked to a particular sentence of the article; so there is a section References and a section External Links. Is that okay ? Thanks. 2964:

A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions

11880:

That's fine with me. After the user redacted the threat I started to suspect something more was going on, that's why I started digging. I wasn't sure what to do though so you definitely helped me out.--v/r -

7632:

Knowledge are to go round to a bunch of articles changing round peoples nationality and changing the place names from one language to another ,which are something that may be indictable by an ArbCom injunction

4359:) has requested the article to be restored into his userspace so he can continue working on it. I'm going to go ahead and grant the request; this message is just a courtesy notification that I'm restoring it. — 6780:

I'm finding it difficult to understand your closing rationale. Keep votes were not based on "rumors of reliable sources" but on specific sources that were cited in our article: an article about the subject in

5502:

here, unless I were to find something even more definitive, but honestly if you're not interested in any of the above, I expect there'd be no point in pointing you to a guideline that specifically stated, "If

2362: 11654:

This is a user environment that we are working on. We are constructing and refining a proposed wikipedia entry as part of a Masters program project. Please tell us how to recover the contents of our page.

10202:

OK, those are some good points. Both you and Rob seem to be looking at what you call "a majority of folks" even though there were clearly SPAs saying keep. As it is, you have left alone a page that violates

8586: 1511: 8856:

Hi. I added a brief page on a music band. It was deleted in a few minutes. I don't think there was enough time for anyone to discuss the significance of the band. I feel based on Notability(Music), Rule 5:

7131:. When you mouse over a username you'll get an instant edit count. Edit count alone can't determine who is and who is not an spa but by mousing over !votes in an AFD you can get a good idea who to check. -- 12105:

decision supposed to work? Is anyone "volunteed" to carry it out, since in my experience once an article is redirected its contents disappear? Is there a formal description of this process anywhere on WP?

7232: 2095:). If you move this article back to the article space, it will surely be deleted again because the sources are not independent of the subject. Do you see why the sources are not acceptable now?--v/r - 10555:. There really isn't a set time that a snow closure can be applied. Based on the amount of opposition to deletion, and no deletion arguments apart from the nominator, it could very well be closed now. 10007: 5411: 3761: 3750: 6909:. You might not agree with me entirely, but at least you and Jimbo haven't smirked; both of you sounded open to the concern. Would you mind looking at my most recent comments? I'm beginning to think 6517:

No. The issue in the AFD was that the claims of notability themselves were a hoax. If you read through that list, all of the claims have been debunked. That is why the subject was deleted.--v/r -

10221:

There were two SPAs and their involvement didn't really change the result. And there were five redirects if we include yours. There was really no consensus, like I said. You are welcome to go to

1305:

A documentary of Astrid Chevallier talking about design and her involvement in posters has been created and broadcasted by a French University. An archive of the movie (in French) can be seen here:

12136:

Sorry I am tired and a bit disillusioned at the moment (sure I will bounce back shortly), so did not do a good job of describing what I meant. Let me try again: when an admin closes an AFD with a

11684: 6723: 6674: 4434:

however they want. An administrator's job is to determine consensus. As a matter of fact, I did read that AFD in full and Northamerica1000's comments were based on Imdb resulting in me leaving a

3942: 3338: 8393:

Please let me know what you think. If the debate could be re-opened I would be happy with that. If we can resolve it here then there would be no need for the lengthy process of a deletion review.

6573:

Hello TParis. This is regarding your statements received on my talk page about Knowledge policies and AfD's. Users are authorized to cite Knowledge policies as rationales for article deletion per

1111:

I've published the new article about Open-E. Hope it's fine now, isn't it? If not, don't delete it - just tell me what's wrong. As I can see there are many articles about similar companies - like

733:. Excessive citations are not needed. You can place them at the end of a sentence. Removing excessive requests for citations is not vandalism, but again, feel free to do as you please.--v/r - 11016:

in that article's talk page, which were both pretty benign and which were met with nothing but rants about how I "don't get to decide things" by DIREKTOR. He immediately started talking about my

8440: 7767:

Here is discussion about me without me :-) My explanation about Karol Hingis for TP: He is Slovak and speaks Hungarian + Czech + English + German + another languages... What will be form? Karol (

4961: 1245:

Recent updates: Miss Chevallier has had a major poster exhibition at an art gallery in downtown Los Angeles last spring. The show was supposed to last for a month and extended for another month.

10296:

no intention of trying again to redirect unless there is consensus there to do so. So, my question to T Paris: should I make those notifications anyway? I'll do whatever you instruct. Thanks. --

8106:"You are being aggressive when you stalk folk's contribs and undo all of their edits. That is aggressive. If you dont want to be called aggressive, then quit being aggressive. It's that simple." 5144:

I found your rationale to be more badgering of the keep !voters rather than putting a rationale up yourself. Besides, you agreed that consensus of the discussion appeared to be to keep.--v/r -

3362:. Also, cut out the Philosophy section and the two sections under it. Also, include the sources as inline citations that directly support the sentences in the article by using the <ref: --> 11688: 3617: 2363: 2022:

I know that you're a kind of Wiki-Specialist :-) So I have a small request. Show me the best example of an article about any company - I want to have a good exemplar. Should it look like here:

10352:

Hi. Why did you delete the article about Tatiana Woollaston. It was supplemented by several references to official sources, such as WPBSA site (Official website of World Snooker Association).

11239: 9106:

I can assure you that I fully considered each comment in terms of the quality of arguments in the same way; no distinction was made in that respect between pre-relist and post-relist comments

6035: 2282:

page that you would be willing to consider nominating somebody for adminship, and to contact you if you're interested. Well, I'm interested, so I thought I'd ask you to give me a nomination.

9988:

be used as reliable sources. Sources do not have to be available online. Sources can be online, in newspapers, in magazines, on TV, on the radio, in scientific publications, ect ect. Per

7938: 6568: 3230:

Opa has been announced on Lambda the Ultimate, and has generated a lot of comments on Slashdot, Hacker News and other well-known forums and blogs. Here are some of the links mentioning Opa:

126:

That's a very clear delete. You are the only editor who gave any rationale for keep and other editors disputed your rationale. Read the editors' comments directly below your !vote.--v/r -

12015: 8370:

them). One editor apart from the nominator suggested delete. But please bear in mind that all of the delete/merge decisions were taken before I improved the article and found more sources.

6304: 3748: 1040:

policy. Basically it comes down to the article doesn't explain what is significant about your company that would be important to an encyclopedia, like Knowledge. Please keep in mind that

12236:

is particularly objectionable when RfAs were not the focus. If they wanted to focus on RfAs they should have invited comment from SandyGeorgia and the others at RfAs with a proper notice.

9079: 6300: 6014: 3844: 3828: 1359: 3909:, and having the article history there would help us to restore the article easily if this is so. I feel the topic is potentially likely to be licensed by another language because it is 3401:

There is no way at all to incorporate content from those sources into the Opa article? Read those articles and pick out factual content that can be included on Knowledge that meets our

539:

interchangeably with his account and his IP's, often to add BLP violations to an article. His IP's are both blocked for a month for behavior that he is now continuing with his account.

11105:(the party was not founded in 1937 and no source says otherwise). Anyway what's the gist of all this? Unless FkpCascais and/or Sunray take this to ANI, your hands are tied? Is that it? 10690:

While it is true that they don't have to be in the article, it is not true that articles should be kept on presumed notability and the idea that "sources must exist". See discussion at

9139:

The closing admin said he gave more numerical weight to the post-relist discussion. I haven't reviewed all the comments at the DRV, but is that distinction against the consensus there?

8405: 7995: 3150: 3021: 11581:

Unlike the US, the provincial and territorial Green Parties in Canada are independently operated separate from the federal party. They have no formal affect on each others governance.

10008: 9587: 6141:

You recently closed this AfD as a delete. However, the AfD lists 2 articles, only one of which was deleted. Was there a procedural problem or a simple oversight? Thanks either way? -

4672:

actual closings today., but just a reminder. And, btw, I do not think any one admin should close as high a proportion of the closings as you did today, even if they do it perfectly.

4269: 1887: 1871: 562:

should have blocked but I decided to stick with my earlier decision hoping it would give Jww047 a hint that his editing pattern is disruptive. Feel free to block the account.--v/r -

191: 175: 8597:

has wanted to included considerable amounts of curft and bio info on the winners. He continues to revert my removal using the "vandalism" tag, can you swing by and keep an eye on it.

1814:

drop. P.S. I did not mean to infer that the loophole is intentionally used, but even in good faith the accidental or unintentional effect of the loophole will have the same outcome.

1412: 11024:

failed to notice that than I don't see why I should take your comments as objective. That DIREKTOR disappeared once arguments were presented in a point-by-point manner is his usual

10810: 3958: 3778:

Hello, I made a lot of changes to the article to put it in compliance. I didn't see any comments on that. The page was just deleted without any feedback. Please re-consider. Thanks

1948:

I'll expand it later. Hope it's fine now and it's a good starting point for future changes. If it is OK for you, please, help me to put it in the right place. Best regards, Patryk

2138:

but #1, 4, and 5 are good references. I cleaned up some of the language too, but you'll have to tweak it to make it accurate. Let me know when you've reviewed my changes.--v/r -

10367:

Read the AFD you just linked to me. There was consensus to delete. If you wanted to keep the article, you should've made your case in the discussion; not after the fact.--v/r -

4305: 4294: 3836: 1346:

Please do not hesitate to contact her directly should you have any question, I know she's very busy at the moment launching a new web concept, but I'm sure she'd be glad to help.

1036:(content guidelines Knowledge is run by). However, had the article been written in a neutral way without the promotional material it likely would still have been deleted per our 788:

or even significance. There was also a lot of use of peacock words such as "an emphasis", "soon expanded", "currently entails", and "wide product range". If you can show me two

10775:

someone (or several people?) determines that a company that is an unofficial authority on how technology intersects with the financial industry isn’t notable by their standards.

10609:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 7896:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 7440:

Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts? . (TW))

7085:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 6726:

regarding your recent message to him. You probably have the AfD talkpage watchlisted anyway, but in case you missed it and wanted to respond, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers,

4308:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 3764:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2385: 8905: 6608:

It appears that there is significant precedent and consensus in citing Knowledge policies in AfD discussions. Please refer to my user talk page for more information. Thank you.

3074: 1546: 1395: 846:

Thanks for the word to the wise -- the process was actually quite enlightening! I learned a lot from all the comments and will keep in mind how much more there is to Knowledge.

10990:

For reference, Timbouctou, claiming someone is "stalking" another editor is a comment on their actions, not on them themselves - and from what I can see, it's a justified one.

9728: 8471: 1274: 12140:

no one is tasked with actually merging the contents from the redirected article. The end result is an effective delete (as is the case with redirect). Am I making more sense?

4239: 4109:

because of this last sentence "Consider these accepted articles with even less 3rd party ref's than Common Dead at the moment: Toxic Holocaust, Genghis Tron, Exit-13."--v/r -

2083:

wrong source for information because Open-E is not going to be critical of it's own product and thus has a biased viewpoint. You need to look at websites/sources that have a

1879: 360: 183: 9471:

board and ask there but I doubt you'll get much support; you are welcome to try though. Your best chance is to look for offline sources such as newspapers and books.--v/r -

5326:

You wrote: Give me a couple of days to decide how to approach this. I want to help you but I want to make sure it's done right.--v/r - TP 01:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

3703:

Correction, when I hover over the IP, which relates to contributions, it does not show. When I hover over the talk link it does. Oh well, another new thing learned. Cheers -

2886: 11198: 6134: 5297:

Thanks. I use a script to close AFDs and lately is seems it has been having trouble removing the AFD tags from the actual articles. I'll write the script's author.--v/r -

5201:

Not really. I mean no disrespect simply because your an anon ip, but I dont see what you expect to be done. Consensus was clear. If you think I judged it wrong, there is

3906: 3852: 996:. We need to know what was wrong. We aren't looking strictly for promotion, but our Wiki page is (have been) very important for us. If there's such need, we'll improve it. 12502:

Hi TParis. I will comment on the closing discussion on the talk page as soon as I can - but can I just remind you that what you should be doing here is summarising the RfC

6861:

The assumption of good faith applies to all of the participants in the discussion, not just Ahunt. It seems that I'm not going to change your mind, so shall I take this to

6661: 6617: 10623: 10065: 7847: 6380:

Thank you. I believe that the content is not suited to a merger because it is entirely unsourced and (for a series of relatively minor notability) excessive plot summary.

4452: 4025: 2151:

I'm looking for a person with fluent knowledge about the Knowledge rules - someone like you (I know you are a kind of such person but I don't want to overuse your time).

272: 12114: 12033: 2439: 1668:

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not know where to go with my protest against my blocking. Please, advise. The explanation of my standpoint is at my talk page.

10781: 10024: 8449: 8442: 6947: 6368:

Alright. I honestly can't see why you're so opposed to a merge close, but Reyk was against a merge in both AFDs too and I supposed that is worth a delete close.--v/r -

4635: 3127: 2861: 2162: 2055: 1895: 1093: 1017: 199: 10516:

Hi, I'm a newly-appointed admin, so I need to be sure that I'm doing the right thing; I have chosen to ask you a question because you've closed quite a few AFDs today.

6117:

No worries, I appreciate you investigating as to why. Its likely a tech glitch in need of a tweak. I will look back at that discussion to see how it resolves, regards.

4499:

Meh, screw it. You say that your comments will sway future !voters? I'll relist another week and we'll find out. It doesnt matter one way or the other to me.--v/r -

3787: 3773: 2893: 1762:

original author, an almost guaranteed keep !vote, who can pose an argument in favor of the article. The process is not fool proof but generally serves us well.--v/r -

10576:'s anyway so it's a bit tough to put a rule on it like a time limit. It's pretty much a common sense thing. I'd agree that that article could be SNOW closed.--v/r - 10345: 10129: 8889: 8864: 5824: 5222: 5192: 5166: 5135: 4880:

Hi TParis. I've noticed that you frequently close difficult AfD debates and provide strong rationales for your closures. Would you be able to close any of the RfCs at

4292: 3631: 8211:. I have stayed away from you, but miraculously you still manage to manufacture conflicts, and strange enough all of them with Slovak/Czech users. Also problems with 8012: 7146: 6178: 5787: 5525: 5388: 5364: 4954: 4518: 2733: 1143: 10110: 11272:

decision to delete your article, but a community discussion that I ended after the standard 7 day discussion period. Articles deleted via AFD can't be brought to

9334:"If the subject of an article is the primary (or only) topic to which a term refers, then that term can be the title of that article without modification".--v/r - 9121: 7901: 6250: 4623: 1340:

information is not supposed to be published publicly, but in this case I thought it might help you reconsider her case and hopefully republish her Knowledge Page.

11216: 8931: 5217:

I just feel as though you haven't clearly justified your decision. The way it seems to me is that you followed the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. --

2876: 6060: 6028: 5897:

was reviewed and the decision was to delete. If you want the "rewrite" userfied, that can be done. But don't expect to move it back to article space until the

1417: 10361: 1801:

and the article was deleted per proper policy. Dont assume that because there exists the chance for misuse or abuse that it has actually happened here.--v/r -

1676:

is a misuse of administrator powers, administrator who blocked me declares that I was war edit, but that is demonstrably false accusation - I only added my edit

1564:. I think the discussion has a lot of good solid arguments and I am confident that tomorrow an administrator will make the right call during the close.--v/r - 11622:

Yeah, I'm fine with it either way. If whomever suggested it feels strongly then they can start a discussion on the talk page. We've pretty much accomplished

11242:

but I guess everyone has already moved elsewhere and this huge discussion seems to have died down). Anyway I posted this in response to your own comment there:

10691: 7978:. After all of that, you are welcome to try to make an argument for keeping your article, but don't be surprised if I'll have more reading for you on what an 7635:. This is not a good faith effort but a disruptive one. Also, Omen1229 removed a Hungarian name to someone whose ethnicity is disputed with an edit summary of 6770: 6233: 6158: 5519: 5405: 5001: 3132:

who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

1003:). So, please, let us know what was wrong and if there's such possibility, send us the old content. I hope it wasn't deleted permanently - it would be rude... 364:

result possibly be merge? I don't get it. Unless I hear otherwise in the next couple of days, I'll delete the merge tags on the articles and their talk pages.

102: 10678:

There is consensus to keep based on presumed notability and that sources must exist. Sources do not have to be in an article to determine notability.--v/r -

6713: 4331: 2889: 11721: 11663: 10644: 10157: 7268: 7223: 7181: 6135: 5762: 5740: 5683: 5640: 4389: 3896: 3600:

wouldn't mind mentoring you, but I would be selfish if I didn't mention that I am aware of a user that I believe has an outstanding mentorship program. Ask

3217: 1815: 1776: 1737: 1280: 8768:

program. The article was introducing the contents in the Influenza Research Database, and not for advertising purposes. Can you reconsider your decision?

12533:

I'm trying to avoid further problems by getting this hammered out in a way that suits everyone. I'd rather we not all end up at Arbcom in a month.--v/r -

12309: 12269: 10624: 10520: 9295: 9087: 9080: 7861: 7848: 6795: 3721:, the other bio mentioned in the legal threat. I don't see any notability, and it's been tagged as non-notable and relatively unsourced for several years. 2461:

Hi Fastily. It seemed to me they already said they wanted to work on the Selena Gomez article and they already had 6 constructive edits elsewhere.--v/r -

999:

Personally I don't think there's no possibility to publish any information about any company in here, on Wiki (if I'm wrong, just try to delete this page:

6687: 4964:

a few weeks ago about the above article. What you may not have realised is that the first AFD in 2007 ended with it being deleted and so, at least to me,

11536: 11494: 8040:

Clearly you are busy. But I would like to "userfy" Howard J. Brown. Back on 19 Sept you wrote: Give me a couple of days to decide how to approach this.

6498: 6427:, all content must be verifiable and therefore sourced, including plot summary, although the works themselves would probably suffice as primary sources. 5746: 4795: 4424: 4346: 4276: 3878: 1921: 934: 908: 225: 119: 10077: 7810:

back into the articles is edit warring. It needs to stop. I'm not picking sides, I'll be happy to block both of you if the behavior continues.--v/r -

4758:

article concludes, "Be guided by the advice of other editors... identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article."

4647: 4547: 1679:, and then when it was reverted and person who performed revert constantly erased my efforts to discuss the edits at his talk page - I undid the revert 12344: 10694:. The interpretation in the discussion was that it was so obvious that the sources must be shown at AfD that we shouldn't even bother adding it to the 10346: 10130: 8868: 8787: 8772: 7256: 7211: 7169: 5659: 5023: 4631: 4592: 3922: 3905:, while maintaining the redirect? I feel that while it is not notable at present, it may garner reliable reviews in the future if it is licensed by a 2236: 2190: 2115: 1956: 1452: 1404: 1123: 645: 11085:

warring. Again, I suggest you take a breath and then take another look at my edits. I've done nothing but try to calm you down and help you.--v/r -

5791: 10606: 10595: 9458:

process which is an easy-to-delete, easy-to-restore process. After the article failed to improve, it was nominated for deletion through a different

8919: 8565: 8238:. Edit war and you will be blocked. Wikistalk and you will be blocked. What someone else is doing is not an excuse for your poor behavior.--v/r - 5872: 5842: 4519: 3913:, which has a broad appeal, and because it has already been licensed in Italian. Thanks for your consideration, and I hope your surgery goes well! -- 3779: 3765: 3352: 3332: 2887:

If those pages are considered violation of policy, I give permission for an admin (you) to delete them without waiting for the process to be complete

2134:

Patrykkosin - I made some changes to the draft. The new sources are mostly good. The last one appears to be more likely a press release which is a

1614: 740: 10618: 8547: 8521: 7911:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada

7322:

has been announced on 26th September 2011. I think, you should consider my words and restore the page as soon as possible. Yours truly, Soumya Dey.

6351:

consensus, not to impose a solution that they think is preferable. I therefore ask you to re-close the discussions as having a consensus to delete.

6284: 6266: 4733:

You offer to "userfy" Howard J. Brown, let's do that. This is my first article, delete, and userfication, so if you have any advice, please share.

2851: 1242:

We carefully reviewed the reasons you posted for deleting her page. We apologize for having not updated her professional references in a long time.

1135: 9976:

that multiple reliable sources must exist that discuss the subject significantly. Your sources above do not or they fail other guidelines such as

9588:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell%2C%20Sr

7248:

Thank you for doing that. I will take care of articles i contribute to be relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia. Thanks and regards,Rocky

7082: 7071: 6735: 5663: 4624: 4526: 3562:

Ah, yes I see what you mean. I was curious as I said, and well, when I'm curious, I generally ask. Thanks for your response, and for your service!

11590: 11575: 5375:

Thanks. This is a case of an editor opening his mouth to do more harm than good. His comments are useless. That's in the best of faith.--v/r -

5351: 5124: 5111: 5092: 673: 658: 12441:

David Eppstein and Geometry guy have already commented on the RfC, so presumably your proposed closing already takes into account their views? --

12374: 11368: 10567: 10477: 10470: 10067: 9506: 9463: 9091: 8166:

joined the discussion, they are both eager to have me blocked, and you almost bought into their mendacities. It is not very nifty to say least.--

7275: 4035: 3593: 2936: 1418: 596:

Thank you for sharing your opinion as to what is and what is not a valid speedy deletion. I am certainly glad that your opinion is not policy.

249: 12566: 12540: 12485: 12436: 12400:

Hi again! It is impossible to write on that page now, and this is a detail, so to stop my having to wash my mouth out with soap, I write here.

12255: 12226: 12059: 10651:!votes were borderline, that the consensus was to keep. It's a tough call, but I believe I made the right one because AFD isn't a vote.--v/r - 9999: 9901: 9556: 9520: 9478: 7331: 6703: 6086:

Thanks. Sorry to have left those behind, I'll be more careful with keep closes in the future. Just a note, I openned a chat with the scripter

4849: 4834: 1021: 11989: 11975: 11963: 11941: 11265: 10305: 10286: 10123: 9948:

which is the part you are talking about where we require sources to prove something exists or that he performed in Broadway shows, and we have

8485: 7094: 6771: 6234: 5805: 5775: 3870: 3757: 2766: 2184: 2166: 2102: 2059: 1913: 1097: 1073: 380: 217: 103: 11753: 11710: 10583: 10172: 9920: 9632: 9542: 9500: 9448: 8823: 7751: 6227: 5960: 5928: 5888: 5852: 5828: 5691: 5673: 5239: 5226: 5212: 5196: 5182: 5170: 5151: 5139: 4580: 4169: 4154: 4130: 4116: 4100: 4085: 1823: 1808: 1784: 1769: 12158:

The article get's tagged with a merge template that puts it in a proposed merge category. Then it's a regular merge from that point.--v/r -

11555: 11050: 10999: 10448: 10434: 10418: 10404: 10388: 10374: 9219: 9176: 9140: 9113: 8163: 7989: 7553: 7515: 7433: 7421: 7356: 7140: 5705: 5449: 5437: 5422: 5382: 4935: 4904: 3890: 3184: 2837: 2823: 2752: 2737: 2354: 2335: 2107:

It's almost ready. Would you take a look at it and tell me what you think? And question: Would you be interested in cooperation with me/us?

1275:

http://yourweddinginfrance.wordpress.com/un-petit-coin-de-france-2/un-petit-coin-de-france/astrid-chevallier-expose-son-amour-pour-la-france/

508: 429: 416: 394: 12463: 12450: 12360: 12165: 12149: 12131: 11637: 11617: 11602: 11521: 11344: 11331: 11287: 11258: 11233: 9729:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell*

7905: 6886: 6874: 6856: 6827: 6809: 4895:

as well? Some user RfCs receive little participation and can be difficult to close. Approaches to close such RfCs are Beeblebrox's close of

3712: 3611: 1745: 1362:. What you'll need to do is include these new sources and the existing ones using inline citations. This can be done with the <ref: --> 952: 940: 927: 11951: 11902: 11888: 11730: 11675: 9372: 9358: 9341: 8641:

I didn't know is is illegal. I put it and then went to study process of granting bot flags. My only wish is maintaining inter wiki links.--

8508: 7378: 7242: 7196: 6922: 6320: 4865: 4494: 4478: 4446: 4342: 4286: 4242:

you deleted the article. I'd like to point out that this topic is clearly notable, as evident by how many books have been published on it

4005: 3579: 2703: 2541: 2267: 2145: 2127: 2003: 1182: 630: 583: 569: 12072: 11980:

The other 2 questions were not submitted as RfC's because there was a rather obvious consensus as to the questions...which still applies.

11140: 11122: 11092: 10979: 10961: 10934: 10837: 10333: 10318: 10247: 10232: 10216: 10197: 9397: 9153:

That was one of the reasons for a relist. Some editor's supported his decision to give less weight to the pre-relist !votes as a sort of

9101:

properly advertised, while the pre-relist discussion was likely seen by mostly readers of the article (who are more likely to !vote keep).

8971: 8281:

makes a good argument so I've left a comment to restore. Maybe another admin can close that DRV early and just restore/userfy it.--v/r -

8245: 8026: 6978: 6906: 6562: 6294: 6126: 6097: 5368: 3730: 3672: 3242: 2688: 2422: 2409: 1624: 1595: 1571: 1353:

Susan - please keep in mind that your message to me appears to suggest you represent or are connected with Astrid Chevallier. You have a

807: 133: 10869: 10857: 10593: 10488: 9073: 8998: 8981: 8899: 8843: 8328: 8314: 8302: 8288: 8229: 8080: 8052: 7338: 7310: 6900: 6472: 6455: 6439: 6409: 6392: 6375: 6363: 6341: 6171: 5994: 5734: 5587:

If you're closing AfD discussions as "no consensus" when you personally would have !voted to delete, then you're the kind of person that

4370: 4227: 3935: 3808: 3698: 3684: 3571: 3557: 3417: 1851: 900: 841: 237: 155: 11452:

There is nothing wrong with articles having multiple redirects if they are helpful. There isnt a reason to delete the redirect.--v/r -

11098: 11077: 11074: 11071: 11068: 11056: 10731: 10707: 10685: 10673: 10658: 8882: 8736: 8656: 8432: 8418: 8065: 7831: 7817: 7804: 7048: 6998: 6750: 6524: 6511: 5051: 5037: 4788: 4775: 4730:

I agree with what you wrote on Howard J. Brown: "I find the arguments to keep convincing, but the consensus here appears to be delete."

1933: 1501: 12089: 11928: 11874: 9157:

well founded decision while others felt his decision wasn't supported in policy. Both sides suggested relisting on the matter.--v/r -

8724: 8711: 8672: 7069: 6940: 6762: 6204: 6112: 4995: 4660: 4336: 3792: 3658: 3644: 3521: 3502: 3474: 3455: 3442: 3427: 3396: 3381: 3297: 2778: 2486: 2468: 1486: 1469: 980: 855: 282: 11851: 11794: 11312: 9227: 9216:

The closing admin's later comment ("I see that what I wrote doesn't really reflect what I meant to say") corrected this misconception.

9197: 9184: 9164: 9148: 9134: 8533: 7874: 7719: 7061: 7026: 7010: 5944: 5908: 5275: 4943: 4925: 4567: 4506: 4383: 3211: 2745:

then improve the article with the sources above. Then we can send it back to AFD with the improvements. How does that sound?--v/r -

2200: 2044:

customers, current and future employees, journalists, IT specialists etc. That's all. Open-E doesn't support an intrusive marketing.

1218: 520: 11459: 11447: 11432: 11419: 11393: 10057: 10043: 9882:

This is largely a self-published source that appears to be done by a fan and does not go through an editorial process as required by

8799: 7760: 7736: 7697: 7580: 5610: 5582: 4888: 4617: 4139:, I saw four (three from the same website) that I would say are. But I think consensus in the AFD is clear and you'll need to go to 3257: 2221: 625: 605: 320: 12010: 11630:

get in the way of things so I've no objection to your revert. It didn't have any support in the AFD, I was just being bold.--v/r -

11408:"CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework ....." 8573: 7546: 6275:

i'm sorry to add another item to the list of crap to get through. thanks for fixing it, and thanks for your good work in general!—

6080: 6045: 5304: 4301: 3534:

Why does the caption for the image on your user page identify it as a promotion when it seems quite obviously to be a reenlistment.

2653: 2613: 2589: 2573: 994: 476: 12423: 9928:

We have several different guidelines that he could potentially qualify for inclusion under. The most important, in my opinion, is

8988: 8258:

Someone started a DRV over one of your closures, but since I speedied the recreated article, they notified me instead of you. It's

8032: 6589: 5560: 5107: 5074: 4931: 4900: 4892: 4717: 4700: 3622:

Thanks for the quick close. I'm not certain the threat was authentic, but an extraordinary statement. I was about to post in AN/I.

1270: 985: 139: 9318: 8828:^^ What they said. Just try to trim down on the promotional language. Yeah, it's non-profit and yeah it's government, but it is 8423:

Thank you very much for considering the above points and acting accordingly. I appreciate your help in this matter. Best Regards,

8355:

article as it had been running for about three weeks. I was the article's orginal creator and reponsible for most of its content.

6963: 6330:

redirected. I see merge as a "grab everything important" while the building burns down. The end result is the same, the article

5639:

and therefore justify his inclusion. Could you please provide me a more comprehensive reasoning concerning the deletion decision?

5459:

I admit I've decided to waste a bit more of my time, because the more I look at the guidelines, the more stipulations I find that

2641: 1028:

The article used promotional language in addition to a listing of "Current Products" and "Past Products" which is in violation of

302: 10889: 8259: 7880: 6837:'s concern that the two added refs (external links) were "are just passing mentions". I can't verify it myself but if I were to 6492: 5721: 4725: 2691: 2669: 2525: 1835: 1517: 722: 12469:

later part of Tim's statement. I hope to convince you that the first part can be improved, fairly, and avoid driving me insane.

10892:, followed up by a warning you posted on my talk page. In light of that, what would you call DIREKTOR's most recent addition to 7003:

Why you are so keen to delete just this particular article as there is lots of worse and unsourced articles in same category? --

5571:

than anything else but decided to just drop it because I found it difficult to argue to keep the article and it would have been

11835: 11826:

For being both responsive and responsible, making sometimes difficult decisions while remaining cool, calm, and civil. Thanks.

9048: 8851: 7681: 6547: 4982: 3816: 2953:

page in Knowledge, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party -

1859: 163: 12527: 12001:

FYI. I have posted another request for an uninvolved user/admin closure for the current RfC...if you're so inclined. Thanks.

11687:

which violated Knowledge's content license which requires contributions to be attributed and 2) The article was deleted via a

10842:

Hello TP, I wanted to let you know that I have posted a lengthy response as well on Marino9813's talk page. I wish you well.

5352:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARuhollah_Khomeini&action=historysubmit&diff=451773193&oldid=451704601

5338: 1968: 1708: 882:

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin.

12212: 11556: 10424: 9403: 5524: 4896: 4815: 4781:

Give me a couple of days to decide how to approach this. I want to help you but I want to make sure it's done right.--v/r -

2283: 2158: 2051: 1716: 1089: 1013: 546:

that you declined to block the account, so I'll hold off until I hear from you in case I'm missing something that you see. --

495: 11192: 10539: 8610: 5648: 4912: 2697: 555: 11671: 11649: 11410:. Would this redirect fall into G4 speedy deletion? Im going be away for a while and wont be back on wp until next week. -- 10506: 6200: 5820: 5507: 5343: 5218: 5188: 5162: 5131: 5078: 4161: 4122: 4092: 4053: 2985: 1438: 962: 12335:"It is utterly unacceptable to attempt to use this RfC to change RfA policy" -- also puzzled. Who is trying to do that? -- 9280: 8888:

The article had no claim of significance. Do you know something that might be a claim of significance? I am doubtful if

4930:

Thank you for closing the Willfults RfC/U. The other RfCs are difficult closes, so no worries. Thank you also for closing

4398: 4199:

within his block discussion. He has an indef block, so can't tell you himself. Thought you should know. All the best, —

4061: 2685: 1306: 1281:

http://www.france-amerique.com/articles/2009/06/12/une-affiche-hollywoodienne-doit-raconter-tout-le-film-en-une-image.html

1142:

You should have waiting for me to get around to this. I've moved your new article to your userspace. You can find it at

11857: 11403: 10484: 9066:

Haha, you're right. I suppose if I trout someone, I better make sure I got all my i's crossed and my t's dotted.--v/r -

9033: 8352: 8342: 5783: 5442:

You're right, there was an article on that page I overlooked. I've fixed the article to point to the right page.--v/r -

5360: 3287: 2795: 2729: 2374: 1426: 891: 345: 11802: 11778: 9761: 9594: 8366:

picture I later removed this reference and so corrected it. Therefore these initial concerns were completely addressed.

8001: 4604: 4045: 4040: 4030: 2758:

Thank you, sounds good. I have now created an account (frasycl). Can you restore the article under my account? Claire

2554:, having gone there and found it to be in need of some work - but not scene of the drama referred to above, I perceive! 1680: 1677: 11548: 11544: 11506: 11502: 11293:

contributors to continue filling in all the gaping holes in information that is still missing from the knowledge base?

9127:

I based the close on the arguments in the DRV itself. But I reworded the last few words to make it more clear.--v/r -

7897: 5875:(as you have mentioned above) was over the old copyvio version of the same article. Please give us some reason why the 4356: 2997: 2299: 1685: 1683: 1203:

Just take a look on my article. Do you think it's better? I'll try to improve it but I need your help and suggestions.

9384: 4435: 4214: 2806: 12047: 10602: 9745: 9591: 9314: 8795: 8759: 8557: 7302: 7264: 7219: 7177: 6946: 6065: 3543: 3015: 3003: 2244: 2123: 1964: 1131: 1048:. I understand if it's important to you, but the way it was written was unambiguous advertising. Often times, your 314: 265: 12395: 11718: 7078: 6600:" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates 6009: 12186:

The short proposal seemed to me to need copy editing for simpler syntax and to avoid vagueries and the gag order.

10862:

That was a very patient and well thought out response. I hope they see the value and truth to those words.--v/r -

10116:

Thanks. Makes me feel better about closing clearly against consensus, but you made a very strong argument.--v/r -

9298:. Also, when searching for October Sky, there is a redirect to the article for the film. What are your thoughts? 8927: 6604:) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." 6177: 4376:

No problem. I generally userfy articles upon request when the AFD has as few participants as that one did.--v/r -

3262: 3038: 2991: 2307: 2248: 914: 830: 768: 12024:

was a merge. However in effect all that happened was a redirect with the loss of contents from the original page?

9218:

Anyway, this is just a nit-pick. Otherwise, I agree with your closure to relist as an accurate result of the DRV.

9202:

Thank you for revising your close. I consider the distinction to be important because one "overturn" voter wrote:

8307:

Feel free. I was going to let an uninvolved administrator do it, but you won't get any complaint from me.--v/r -

7537:

What did I call vandalism? Omen1229 called my reverts vandalism as I pointed out above, and my diffs prove that.--

7424: 5727:

I've taken care of it. It appears it was never added to a log, but it had enough discussion nevertheless.--v/r -

4683: 3978: 3928:

Done. Ohh, and surgury was a month ago, I'm healing fine thanks. Just waiting for family to leave now ;)--v/r -

2442:

them the right. It's no big deal, but you may want to keep that in mind when handling future requests. Regards,

1262: 834: 772: 11910: 11081: 10913: 7889: 7564: 7531: 6928:

It's kind of the wrong venue anyway. This is something that should happen at the village pump. I couldn't find

6672:- I have started a discussion titled "Use of Knowledge policies as rationales for article deletion or retention" 5990: 5919:

userfied, as you have suggested above, irrespective of the outcome. Could you please tell how that is to be done?

5717: 5699: 5291: 4953: 4552: 4207: 3009: 2932: 2455: 1698: 1663: 1310: 718: 621: 601: 11480:

Tried to insert links to photos of Mary Blair from Google LIFE for her Knowledge page but they were pulled down

9777: 9597: 9169:

For your close, would you add "Some have argued that the closing admin made a sound judgement call to give less

7982:

is and why it resulted in your article being deleted. I just don't want to overwhelm you at this point.--v/r -

7587: 7114: 5708:

was never closed (nor relisted). You happen to be the first admin in that day's log - would you do the honors? –

3359: 3196: 3168: 11380: 11238:

Thanks for responding. I wonder if it is appropriate to raise the following issue here (I tried raising it at:

9285: 9060: 8543: 8504: 8491: 7644: 6724:

Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion‎#Use of Knowledge policies as rationales for article deletion or retention

6644: 6530: 6280: 6246: 3689:

I'm sorry, yes it was blocked. I just learned that apparently an IP block doesn't show up with popups. My bad.

3050: 2946: 1458:

4 delete !votes, you're forgetting the nominator. And no consensus generally defaults to delete for unsourced

1300: 698: 8175: 7920:

article rather than suppressing it. Of course, improving requires more work than deletion. Proving that it is

7854:

Hi! I was a bit curious about your close of this AfD. The only keep vote was obviously unacceptable. Thanks!--

7650: 7488: 5156:

The 'rationale' that I support had already been stated by TPW, and yes the consensus was keep in terms of the

1296: 11425:

different namespace like Knowledge: File: User: Template: ect, then it is a cross namespace redirect.--v/r -

10144:

concerns. If one actually weighs the persuasiveness of the arguments, much of the keep arguments were simply

9258: 8754: 8635: 8594: 8578: 8271: 7677: 7189:

That article was highly promotional. Far from unprejudiced. Do you have any relation to the school?--v/r -

5934: 5310: 4875: 3068: 3056: 2949:), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on 2774: 2494: 1315:

Miss Chevallier has also been for several years a judge at the prestigious HOLLYWOOD REPORTER KEY ART AWARDS

9112:

Would you revise your closing statement to more closely reflect what the closing admin has said? Thank you,

7487:

And in addition, these changes cover the article Magyarization for which Omen1229 received an ArbCom warning

6019:

Hi there, any idea how I can retrieve the information for this article which was deleted last night? Thanks

5098:

relates to judging a debate on the weight, not number, of arguments is likely to continue to mystify me. --

4525:

I'm sure it was simply missed, but there was a second article listed in this AFD that has not been deleted,

2842:

Thx and done so. I thought he would be automatically notified, since the tagging was done in his userspace.

12480: 12418: 12304: 12250: 12207: 10886:

calling an editor a "bully" isn't going to fix the issue and may lead to another block for personal attacks

10798:

I really don’t want to deal with this kinda of BS. Guess this attempt at joining Knowledge was a failure.

9175:

This will clarify that the closing admin didn't give less weight argument-wise to the pre-relist comments.

8608: 6818:

was cited in the artcile, whose abstract makes clear that it contains significant coverage of the subject.

5104: 5071: 4764:

Thanks again, hope your surgery was smooth and that you are recovering quickly, and have time for more WP!

4693:

day and when I clicked the new log it brought me over to the 11th. I'll gladly accept a trout now.--v/r -

3192: 3091: 3044: 2897: 1254:

The International TV channel TV5 monde has broadcasted an interview of Miss Chevallier all over the world.

669: 641: 12497: 12332:"SandyGeorgia and the others at RfAs" -- puzzled. I thought SandyGeorgia was responsible for FAC, not RfA? 11399: 9206:

those of editors who follow the deletion process itself, which is also unsupported by the deletion policy.

7708:

doesn't care. Unless it is blatant vandalism or negative unsourced BLP issues, you cannot edit war. You

7639: 993:

Would you tell me why the Open-E page was deleted? What was wrong with it? Please, contact us via e-mail:

252:

in my user space, so the article can be recreated, as the individual is expected to attain notability per

12370: 12265: 12041: 11858: 11059:

to quite calling people a 'bully' or I'd block. So that I "told both and him" is inaccurate. Although

10927:

My intention is to help you two collaborate together, not to be a tool to use against each other.--v/r -

10523:, which has been up for just one day, could be closed "keep". How long should I leave it before applying 9251: 8977:

here in the first place to create promotional articles, then decided to stay and do more useful things.

7452: 7406: 7363: 7122: 5484:

Avoid deleting such redirects if...You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect.

3062: 2646:

Absolutely, and for that we can be glad something positive has come out of this entire ordeal :D!--v/r -

2398:

I take that back again. Since a merge didn't actually happen because the content already existed at the

1384:

templates. Use language that is neutral and non-promotional. Make sure the article is not slanted to a

439: 94: 11240:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Checks_and_Balances_in_the_Articles_for_Deletion_Nomination_Process

9944:

criteria #1 but you havent really demonstrated that with your sources. We have two important policies,

9326:

The general rule of thumb is that if most folks are looking for the movie, it should retain the coveted

7643:

And then said user started a mass campaign by adding Slovak names for clear Hungarian persons like here

6087: 4135:

Honestly, I'm a bit borderlined. I've gone through every source and while most of them certainly arn't

2704:

http://news.lamprecht.net/index.php/2006/12/04/thinkingrock-die-perfekte-gtd-umsetzung-fur-alle-systeme/

12562: 12523: 10944:

blocks and several topic bans to his name, not me. But don't worry, I shan't bother you again. Cheers.

10893: 10614: 10511: 9916: 9628: 9538: 9530: 9496: 9488: 9444: 9272: 8808: 7483: 7459: 7446: 7399: 6683: 6657: 6613: 5287: 4970: 4586: 4106: 3601: 3492: 3267: 3243:

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/08/27/2115210/Announcing-Opa-Making-Web-Programming-Transparent

3103: 2689:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/top-20-free-applications-to-increase-your-productivity.html

1939: 1258: 714: 617: 597: 469: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 38: 11133:

Anyway, I must've copy/pasted the wrong diff, there is nothing wrong in that one so I'm sorry.--v/r -

9894:

I hope I've clarified why these sources aren't acceptable. Have you tried your local library?--v/r -

7231:

I have completely stripped the promotional language out of the article. You can work on the draft at

7038: 2078:

sources not connected or affiliated in any way whatsoever with Open-E. As you've already linked, the

11985: 11959: 11924: 11763: 11158: 10107: 9173:

weight to the !votes prior to the relist and then was well within admin discretion with their close"?

8564:

I revamped it; hopefully it's more to your liking. Let me know if this addresses people's concerns.--

8558: 8539: 8500: 8468: 7915:

I commented directly on the page to your deletion, but one of your friends saw fit to delete this:

7612:

the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Knowledge

7439: 6276: 6242: 5758: 4803: 4794: 3989: 3121: 3109: 2516:

For attempting to mediate Treasury Tag drama - not sure it'll work but it's the thought that counts!

1292: 9715: 9584: 7203:

to undo deletion . I am ready to amend it .Please help to make it better. Thanks and regards,Rocky

3298:

http://linuxfr.org/news/opa-un-nouveau-langage-pour-le-d%C3%A9veloppement-d%E2%80%99applications-web

2914:

by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the

11703:. I can email you the contents, but it'd be unsuitable for Knowledge in it's current form.--v/r - 11667: 11371:

why was the result a redirect? Reading the the votes: there was 5 for delete 2 redirect 1 Merge. --

11207:. However the article disappeared so speedily I did not even get a chance to put a "hangon" on it. 10565: 10504: 7041:

it had only orphan tag before your edit. Anyway there is more bigger problems than this article. --

6196: 5687: 5644: 5007: 4563: 4165: 4126: 4096: 4057: 3420:

to help you clean it up and perhaps make it a bit like other programming language articles.--v/r -

3146: 3097: 2979: 2872: 1819: 1780: 1741: 1330: 1058:

that, I'll help you move the article back to the main article space. While I think this fails our

860: 528: 288: 11968:

I did it that way to follow the precedent already set on that page for the other two RFCs.--v/r -

11484: 11481: 10140:, it seems to me that there was clearly a consensus to redirect, especially given that there were 7037:

I dont know what you actually do (not familiar with these shortens) but you added something here

5011: 3258:

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/2961-opa-a-unified-approach-to-web-programming.html

11398:

The article was deleted, then recreated as a redirect. The redirect for Aparo has very few links

10444: 10414: 10384: 10357: 9977: 9807: 8155: 7934: 7327: 6635: 5515: 5433: 5401: 5101: 5068: 4858:

and open a topic there to reverse the consensus in the AFD using your article as a draft.--v/r -

3115: 2847: 2833: 2802: 2682: 2349: 2294: 2135: 1977: 1288: 781: 665: 637: 591: 490: 484: 411: 375: 11514:

They are copyrighted and the license is not compatible with Knowledge's content license.--v/r -

10031:

it was closed improperly or that there was a significant angle that was missed in the AFD, then

9853: 9615: 6815: 6580:

Per WP:AFDFORMAT - "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates

5871:

of the article too, you have not clearly specified the reasons for doing so. All the discussion

1976:

Patryk - that won't do. You have a single reference and it's a by a parent company. That is a

1271:

http://monkeyartawards.typepad.com/monkeyartawards/2011/03/lets-just-hope-theres-food-there.html

12546:

relatively annoyed with some of the behaviour since I signed off, but hey ho, what can you do.

12446: 12366: 12340: 12261: 12145: 12110: 12029: 12006: 11613: 11586: 11571: 11540: 11498: 11327: 11298: 11254: 11212: 9040:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

8492: 8411:

You're right about your updates. I should've given the !vote after your's more weight.--v/r -

7975: 7946: 7742: 7090: 6870: 6823: 6791: 6531: 4666: 4350: 3604:

for mentorship and I guarantee you'll come out of it feeling confident in your editing.--v/r -

3589: 1996:

for more information. There may still be more issues, but this was the most prominent.--v/r -

1082:

My account is: Patrykkosin. I've ready content - without promotional language etc. What next?

352:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

9870:

Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per

1793:. Before recreating the article with your new improvements, you should start a discussion at 489:

Really sorry about that -- I should have remembered to remove the prod after I restored it. --

12547: 12508: 12472: 12410: 12296: 12242: 12199: 11898: 11870: 11563: 10721: 10610: 9912: 9829: 9624: 9609: 9534: 9526: 9492: 9484: 9440: 9355: 9310: 9265: 8791: 8776: 8590: 8579: 8278: 8235: 7374: 7260: 7215: 7173: 7136: 6719: 6679: 6653: 6609: 6005: 5618: 4845: 4830: 4811: 3974: 3954: 2692:

http://lifehacker.com/software/gtd/download-of-the-day--thinkingrock-all-platforms-245740.php

2579: 2521: 2399: 2370: 2240: 2174: 2119: 1960: 1688: 1408: 1269:- and MonkeyArtAwards, which is a controversial yet worldwide read blog about movie posters. 1150:

with significant coverage of Open-E, specifically, and include them in the article using the

1127: 713:. In addition, removal of requests for citations on a BLP could be construed as vandalism. 579: 551: 464: 243: 12582: 10924:

report. But last I checked, Direktor wasn't the one with the problem with personal attacks.

9801: 9603: 8863:

Band has released two or more albums ("albinobeach", "angoliangirls") An independent label (

7482:

these edits are very hostile, unencyclopedic, and contains a very contentous POV material

6623:

Please note that the abbreviations above that are used in the WP:AFDFORMAT instructions are

4485:

I can't say I'm dreadfully opposed to a relist, but I think plenty of discussion took place.

3495:. You did a great job, consider sticking around and writing more computer articles.--v/r - 2065:

As I've said several times, you need more sources. It's not a request, it is core policy.

12175: 12055: 11981: 11955: 11920: 11726: 11659: 11532: 11490: 11185: 11114: 11042: 10953: 10905: 10806: 10329: 10301: 10243: 10212: 10168: 10153: 10100: 9380: 9302: 8923: 8915: 8783: 8569: 8461: 8225: 8190:

but my constant "name-calling" and ignoring the aggressive and inappropriate behavior from

8008: 7954: 7467: 7252: 7207: 7165: 6188: 6122: 6076: 5754: 5356: 5265: 4188: 3886: 3783: 3769: 3180: 3032: 2762: 2725: 2286:'s a link to my recent editor review and you may check my contributions also. Best wishes, 2232: 2154: 2111: 2047: 1952: 1647: 1591: 1542: 1119: 1085: 1009: 976: 945:

I'll leave it for another admin. I dont have enough experience to judge this case.--v/r -

826: 818: 764: 756: 115: 11012:

I've discussed the content at that article and explained the rationale for my edits in my

7945:

Please read the following and then you can come back and make a better argument. Firstly

7294: 1435: 687: 8: 10995: 10850: 10556: 10535: 10495: 10083: 9817: 9667: 9606: 9572: 9421: 9366: 9290:

Thanks for your help. I think it would be appropriate to rename the article for the film

9056: 8878: 8396:

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my concerns, much appreciated. Best Regards

8324: 8298: 8267: 7386: 6814:

Firstly, please moderate your tone a little so we can have a civil discussion. Secondly,

6592:. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet 6574: 6192: 6154: 5713: 5568: 4634:. During the middle of the discussion the article was changed by the original author to 4559: 4431: 4210: 4144: 4011: 3918: 3708: 3694: 3668: 3567: 3539: 3529: 3142: 2974: 2926: 2868: 2698:

http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2007/03/18/thinkingrock-cross-platform-gtd-application/

1753: 1609: 1432: 1334: 1322:

Her recent work include: - marketing (poster and web design) for Jonathan Winters' movie

968: 703: 616:

report me and I'll laugh when they throw it back into your face. What have I disrupted?

12183:

I have written a longer summary, which at least tried to deal with substantive issues.

7298: 6879:

It appears that way. Can't say I blame you if I was judging it on !votes alone.--v/r -

4690:

DGG, what are you talking about? The day was over before I started closing discussions.

2711: 11473: 10703: 10669: 10640: 10464: 10440: 10410: 10380: 10353: 10179: 8991:. I'll give it a couple of days before I nominate it for deletion through AFD.--v/r - 8739:

As I said, it will take some time to read your policies before I apply for approval. --

8453: 8428: 8401: 8108:, which is a sonorous claptrap in my opinion, and , in this case, the matter is that : 8076: 8048: 7950: 7930: 7827: 7800: 7768: 7323: 7110: 6985: 6974: 6959: 6558: 6543: 6507: 5983: 5976: 5533: 5511: 5429: 5397: 5334: 5047: 5019: 4771: 3136: 2940: 2843: 2829: 2798: 2686:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/19-free-gtd-apps-for-windows-mac-linux.html

2343: 2288: 1992:(not related to Open-E in any way and goes through an editorial process). Please read 1929: 1554: 1368: 1164: 887: 401: 365: 233: 9865: 9789: 9618: 9600: 7306: 3288:

http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Auch-Opa-ist-fuer-Cloud-Anwendungen-1288588.html

2473:

Ah alright, just wanted to be sure you were familiar with PERM/C practices! :) Best,

1307:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ouvg_art-ifs-acts-expo-5-astrid-chevallier_creation

12442: 12336: 12141: 12106: 12085: 12025: 12002: 11700: 11627: 11609: 11582: 11567: 11362: 11323: 11294: 11250: 11208: 10145: 10137: 10091: 10087: 9762:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/

9595:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/

9454:

Wikiauthenticity - The previous deletion was restored because it was deleted via our

9331: 9244: 8747: 8704: 8649: 8628: 7086: 6918: 6866: 6819: 6787: 6746: 6731: 6108: 5624: 4978: 4643: 4638:, so unfortunately it still exists. Could you also delete this article? Thank you, 4196: 4070: 3726: 3654: 3627: 3585: 3517: 3470: 3438: 3409: 3392: 3368: 3348: 3328: 3156: 3135:

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and

2770: 2430: 2273: 1497: 1480: 1446: 1378: 1343:

Those credit should add to the ones that were already present on her Knowledge page.

1207:"specializing". Try "primary focus" or similar instead. Find more citations. Read 1154: 1112: 681: 261: 253: 11742:

I'll do that, but do not restore it to article space without getting it reviewed at

7795:)? I think Info about name of Karol is irrelevant in artcle about Martina Hingis. -- 7395:

First of all what I did was no Wikistalking. These articles all are on my watchlist.

1249: 12537: 12460: 12433: 12357: 12223: 12162: 12128: 12069: 12022:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Next Danish parliamentary election (2nd nomination)

11972: 11938: 11894: 11885: 11866: 11848: 11831: 11791: 11774: 11750: 11707: 11634: 11599: 11518: 11456: 11429: 11390: 11341: 11309: 11284: 11273: 11230: 11223: 11137: 11089: 10976: 10931: 10866: 10834: 10728: 10692:

Knowledge talk:Notability#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence

10682: 10655: 10580: 10552: 10431: 10401: 10394: 10371: 10315: 10264: 10229: 10194: 10120: 10080: 10040: 9996: 9933: 9898: 9877: 9621: 9553: 9517: 9475: 9394: 9351: 9338: 9306: 9223: 9194: 9180: 9161: 9144: 9131: 9117: 9070: 8995: 8968: 8896: 8840: 8721: 8669: 8603: 8530: 8518: 8482: 8415: 8311: 8285: 8242: 8196: 8085: 8062: 8023: 7986: 7958: 7871: 7858: 7814: 7757: 7716: 7577: 7508: 7370: 7353: 7290: 7239: 7193: 7132: 7128: 7058: 7023: 6995: 6937: 6883: 6853: 6806: 6759: 6700: 6521: 6452: 6406: 6372: 6338: 6263: 6224: 6168: 6094: 6042: 6001: 5970: 5956: 5941: 5924: 5905: 5884: 5849: 5802: 5772: 5731: 5670: 5632: 5579: 5446: 5419: 5379: 5301: 5236: 5209: 5179: 5148: 5121: 5089: 5059: 5034: 4992: 4939: 4922: 4908: 4862: 4841: 4826: 4807: 4785: 4697: 4657: 4614: 4577: 4558:

need not wait for my input - you may assume the consensus has me on board. Cheers.

4539: 4503: 4491: 4456: 4443: 4402: 4380: 4366: 4309: 4283: 4247: 4224: 4151: 4113: 4082: 4001: 3970: 3950: 3932: 3681: 3641: 3608: 3554: 3499: 3452: 3424: 3378: 3208: 3188: 3165: 3085: 2820: 2785: 2749: 2650: 2586: 2538: 2518: 2465: 2431: 2406: 2332: 2264: 2197: 2181: 2142: 2099: 2000: 1805: 1766: 1705: 1621: 1568: 1466: 1429: 1392: 1215: 1179: 1070: 949: 924: 804: 737: 655: 575: 566: 547: 529: 517: 505: 426: 391: 279: 130: 47: 17: 9746:

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm

9592:

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm

8158:,who is the meatpuppet of a twofold indef-blocked castaway user's, whose name is 7039:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UK_Alfa_Romeo_Owners_Club&action=history

5489: 4610:"v/r" means Very Respectfully. I'll expand on the close in a few minutes.--v/r - 3277: 2402:

article, I'm going to go with my original suggestion and CSd the redirect.--v/r -

1682:

since I regarded such revert for invalid if no discussion was accepted afterwards

1266: 12260:

Kiefer, this is completely improper. Have you no sense of propriety whatsoever?

12121: 12051: 11696: 11443: 11415: 11376: 11177: 11171: 11106: 11034: 10945: 10897: 10802: 10325: 10297: 10239: 10208: 10204: 10164: 10149: 10053: 10020: 9643: 9566: 9415: 9376: 9017: 8221: 8183: 8171: 8151: 8004: 7788: 7732: 7693: 7560: 7542: 7527: 7429: 7099: 6217: 6118: 6072: 5798:

It's not under any review. The AFD is over. I've once again deleted it.--v/r -

5605: 5572: 5555: 4600: 4017: 3882: 3027: 2791: 2416: 2379: 2220: 1651: 1643: 1587: 1538: 972: 822: 760: 746: 710: 694: 543: 329: 111: 10075: 9703: 9691: 9679: 9581: 9578: 9575: 9427: 9424: 4965: 4749:

I earned a PhD and am a researcher, so I know how to be objective. I agree with

3272: 3263:

http://www.webappers.com/2011/07/22/opa-the-scalable-open-source-cloud-language/

1284: 1037: 46:

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

10991: 10968: 10879: 10843: 10827: 10528: 10524: 10136:

Hi, I'd like to follow up with you about your closure as "no consensus". Given

9767: 9455: 9052: 8978: 8945: 8874: 8833: 8820: 8807:

I have restored this page for you so that there can be an open discussion (See

8320: 8294: 8263: 8187: 7776: 7672: 7670:"? I deleted vague and Magyarized name of Slovak Karol Hingis in article about 7346: 6929: 6910: 6601: 6597: 6588:), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective 6463: 6430: 6415: 6383: 6354: 6311: 6213: 6142: 6056: 6024: 5709: 5283: 4200: 3993: 3963: 3914: 3704: 3690: 3664: 3563: 3535: 3402: 2922: 2632: 2604: 2564: 2257: 2084: 2074: 1561: 1263:

http://frenchmorning.com/la/2011/04/13/les-affiches-de-films-comme-oeuvres-dart

1059: 1033: 1029: 899: 797: 310: 11915:

First, thank you for responding to the uninvolved user/admin close request at

8587:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Australian Geographic Society Adventure Awards

8000:

Please restore the Revision history of Rosedale, Lawrence Township, New Jersey

7478:

By 1910 census, which had been manipulated by the ruling Hungarian bureaucracy

6184:

This is shietal ramesh. Can you please tell me why you have deleted my page?

5915:

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I would like to explore the option of getting the

5510:, DON'T DELETE THE REDIRECT. This is REALLY IMPORTANT, like, LIFE AND DEATH." 5477: 3247: 1311:

http://www.astridchevallier.com/MEDIA/2_AGW/X_exhibitions/IUTcaen/IUTcaen.html

906:

Maybe, you saw wrong, I were blocked on 27 June 2010, that's not that recent.

12353:

SandyGeorgia does participate in RFAs and often can be a tone-setter.--v/r -

11743: 11623: 11277: 11204: 11129: 11064: 11060: 10921: 10818: 10717: 10713: 10699: 10665: 10636: 10573: 10548: 10222: 10186: 10141: 10095: 10032: 9973: 9941: 9937: 9929: 9871: 9859: 9847: 9841: 9835: 9823: 9783: 9709: 9685: 9673: 9661: 9612: 9510: 9468: 9459: 9154: 9008: 8949: 8940: 8816: 8662: 8615: 8457: 8424: 8397: 8212: 8208: 8072: 8044: 8003:

as there was no consensus to delete the revision history for the article. --

7979: 7823: 7796: 7724: 7705: 7471: 7453:

Vandalism by Nmate, Please don´t delete References by historians + dead link)

7412:

One of the contributors of this very discussion at WP ANI is a sockpuppet of

7106: 7016: 6970: 6955: 6862: 6846: 6838: 6640: 6593: 6585: 6554: 6539: 6503: 6445: 6419: 6398: 5636: 5628: 5464: 5330: 5202: 5043: 5015: 4855: 4767: 4755: 4750: 4739: 4713: 4679: 4140: 4075: 3718: 2813: 2392:

Once the merge is complete, just CSD the redirect as an implausible redirect.

2279: 2092: 2070: 1925: 1798: 1794: 1758: 1533: 1459: 1385: 1354: 1172: 1063: 1049: 1045: 1041: 883: 869: 851: 793: 730: 229: 11595:

That's fine with me, I was just following the suggestion in the AFD.--v/r -

11101:

you posted above? And among the things I removed was a blatant violation of

9778:

http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042

9598:

http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042

8071:

I will be lucky to get that, look forward to it -- thanks for your time --

7727:

doesn't care about it, but what about Wikihounding and grow thicker skin?--

7649:

And when I asked said user about it, his answer was entirely unintellegible:

7500:

If you take care to work for talk page consensus before making risky changes

4806:. What shall I do with this article now to have it reconsidered? Sincerely, 4234:

List of African American women AFD. No valid reason was given for deletion.

1301:

http://www.astridchevallier.com/PAGES/AGW/Press/Design_200909_IM_online.html

1006:

I'm waiting for your answer, Best regards, Patk / Patryk Kosiń Open-E Team

12081: 11692: 9981: 9883: 9811: 9795: 9771: 9721: 9697: 9649: 9190:

I suppose, but I don't think the distinction is all that important.--v/r -

8961: 8740: 8697: 8690: 8642: 8621: 7413: 6914: 6842: 6742: 6727: 6104: 5749:, you may have overlooked the following sub-page of the article talk page: 5679: 5655: 5271: 4974: 4881: 4639: 4189: 4136: 3910: 3722: 3650: 3623: 3513: 3466: 3434: 3388: 3344: 3324: 3312: 3237: 2707: 2619: 2551: 2475: 2444: 2066: 1993: 1790: 1692: 1669: 1529: 1493: 1476: 1442: 1297:

http://www.astridchevallier.com/PAGES/AGW/Press/Design_200907_IM_print.html

1208: 1147: 1054: 789: 257: 12429:

I'll contact them tomorrow and see about closing with their input.--v/r -

12365:

She certainly was in mine. Kiefer should have invited her to participate.

12124:. The contents don't disappear, they stay in the article history.--v/r - 10746:

In a shocking twist... it's another frustated user whose page got deleted!

9655: 9569: 9418: 6969:

Thanks - I see it as relisted, probably the best option at this stage. --

6913:'s suggestion is best; this would work better as an essay for discussion. 5010:

that you didn't place it alphabetically, which is the preferred order per

4918:

I closed it, but I don't feel comfortable closing others just yet.--v/r -

4160:

yourself. Anyway yes, I have moved on to WP:DRV. Too bad. Thanks anyway.

2903:

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and User:Roscelese

1235:

Please consider republishing the page for graphic artist Astrid Chevallier

448: 12534: 12457: 12430: 12354: 12239:

Glad that you are supporting the Swedish economy, particularly EA games!

12220: 12159: 12125: 12066: 11969: 11935: 11882: 11845: 11827: 11788: 11770: 11747: 11704: 11631: 11596: 11515: 11453: 11426: 11387: 11338: 11306: 11281: 11227: 11134: 11102: 11086: 10973: 10928: 10863: 10831: 10725: 10695: 10679: 10652: 10577: 10428: 10398: 10368: 10312: 10226: 10191: 10117: 10037: 9993: 9989: 9969: 9965: 9961: 9957: 9953: 9949: 9945: 9895: 9755: 9751: 9738: 9734: 9550: 9514: 9472: 9391: 9335: 9327: 9291: 9191: 9158: 9128: 9067: 8992: 8965: 8957: 8953: 8893: 8837: 8812: 8718: 8666: 8598: 8527: 8515: 8479: 8412: 8308: 8282: 8253: 8239: 8200: 8159: 8059: 8020: 7983: 7971: 7967: 7893: 7882: 7868: 7867:

There was no consensus to delete, so I closed it as no consensus.--v/r -

7855: 7811: 7754: 7713: 7574: 7417: 7350: 7342: 7284: 7236: 7190: 7055: 7044: 7020: 7006: 6992: 6934: 6880: 6850: 6803: 6756: 6697: 6696:

I am well aware of the abbreviations, thank you for the reminder.--v/r -

6631: 6581: 6518: 6449: 6424: 6403: 6369: 6335: 6260: 6221: 6165: 6091: 6039: 5952: 5938: 5920: 5902: 5880: 5846: 5819:

create a new page now? or no article can ever be posted under same name.

5799: 5769: 5728: 5667: 5576: 5443: 5416: 5376: 5298: 5233: 5206: 5176: 5145: 5118: 5086: 5031: 4989: 4919: 4859: 4782: 4694: 4654: 4611: 4574: 4530: 4500: 4488: 4440: 4377: 4361: 4280: 4221: 4148: 4110: 4079: 3997: 3985: 3943:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Phased vector control of induction motors

3929: 3902: 3678: 3638: 3605: 3551: 3496: 3462: 3449: 3421: 3375: 3205: 3162: 3080: 2881: 2817: 2746: 2647: 2583: 2535: 2462: 2403: 2329: 2261: 2194: 2178: 2139: 2096: 1997: 1802: 1763: 1702: 1618: 1565: 1463: 1389: 1212: 1176: 1067: 946: 921: 801: 796:

about this company and explain it's importance and promise to write in a

785: 734: 704: 652: 563: 514: 502: 423: 388: 276: 127: 11946:

You can take a look at the template as it existed prior to your closure

11683:

It was deleted for a couple of reasons. 1) It was a copy/paste move of

9090:. Would you include a convenience link to the relist AfD as was done at 8145:

To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard

7512: 6448:? I think that Jeremy Lee one can be closed as speedy undelete.--v/r - 6423:

plot summary, contrary to the previously mentioned rules. Moreover, per

11474: 11439: 11411: 11386:

Did you note the part where it got deleted before the redirect?--v/r -

11372: 10049: 10016: 8620:

Isnlt little too fast to block a bot that didn't make a single edit? --

8204: 8191: 8167: 7728: 7689: 7556: 7538: 7523: 6834: 5593: 5543: 4840:

should be restored. I am asking you to do these two things? Sincerely,

4596: 3252: 2503: 2364:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Attraction 2012 (Six Flags New England)

690: 11067:

is appropriate for that comment. As far as your "recent behavior", I

6036:

User:Jprw/Liverpool_vs._Dinamo_Bucharest,_European_Cup_Semi_Final_1984

3584:

Thanks a lot for deletion, I am sincerely searching for mentor-ship.--

3139:, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator". 1512:

Discussion of another EU research project needs a decisive participant

1323: 11844:

Thanks so much ;). This is my first one as an administrator.--v/r -

11163: 10632: 7451:

Another personal attack today by the user who reported me at WP ANI

6052: 6020: 5750: 5704:

Hi TParis - I've just been going through my past edits, and I notice

5279: 2623: 2595: 2555: 2079: 1736:

deletion procedure rather than the quality or faults of the article?

306: 10048:

Thank you. I'll just wait a couple of weeks before renominating it.

8661:

I'm willing to unblock, but how about you put in a request with the

8456:

is sufficient time for others to have fixed the addressable issues.

7520:"I think he has any mental disorder, because I don´t attack someone" 6741:

Whoops, ignore that - I see he's already alerted you, above. Sorry.

6305:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Minor Characters in Kushiel's Legacy

5678:

I do not have any affiliation with those users, so please request a

3416:

discussion between persons. You might also ask one of the folks on

3268:

http://www.morganhill.co.uk/cloud/opa-the-cloud-language-test-drive/

2679: 1723: 1617:, and an administrator will undoubtably pass by it tomorrow.--v/r - 1532:, whose support is a special case because he wants to eliminate the 1259:

http://blogdowntown.com/2011/04/6213-art-walk-preview-for-april-2011

1146:. What I'd like to see done before it can be moved back is 1) Find 10163:

There were eight keep votes at that AFD and only four to redirect.

10009:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Brothers & Sisters (Family Guy)

9972:

is the notability policy which requires per it's implementation in

7924:

synthesis would be to prove a negative; where is the proof that it

7498:, an article where nationalist disputes have occurred in the past. 6301:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Kushiel's Legacy characters

4708: 4674: 4395: 2790:

Hi. No idea what this, but it appears to be a bad faith attempt at

847: 11717:

continuously reviewing it. Can you please email the contents to:

10884:

If I remember correctly you kindly informed us six days ago that "

8696:

means that bot has been approved, remove it from bot's userpage.--

7586:

edit warred over is on the top of my frequently edited articles:

5815: 2694: 1474:

I am really busy now (traveling), will do so by Monday, I hope. --

1293:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/blakeradio/2009/06/24/topically-yours

1175:

and your article will be heavily scruitinized. Good luck!--v/r -

780:

The article as written used X-Micro as the only citation and is a

11811: 10379:

Do you have a backup? I worked 4 hours to make article correct .

9638:

I'll go through your sources and explain why they can't be used.

8293:

None better than you to do it, but if I have your leave, I will.

4884:? If you don't have the time or the inclination, then no worries. 2034:- where it is used as a first and main source. What do you think? 1945: 1327: 305:" section: I'll be interested to see how things progress there.) 11020:

of edit-warring (what history?) and threatened with reports. If

10409:

Both, if it possible. For future correction. Thank you, TParis!

10082:

And I do hope editors at ru.Knowledge can learn the benefits of

9716:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580

9585:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580

7552:

An this is the second insulting topic heading about me at WP ANI

7447:

Vandalism by Nmate, Please don´t delete References by historians

2550:

As a nosy talk-page-stalker, I've just spent some time updating

2310:

to have issues with copyright and especially fair use rationale.

1331:

http://humanosphere.kplu.org/files/2011/04/to-catch-a-dollar.jpg

10765:

Sigh. I figured that page was going to get deleted… but still.

8058:

Im going to send you an email with my thoughts on this.--v/r -

6841:

on Ahunt's part than the two added sources are trivial and not

4761:

So TP, for now you are the "other editor". Can you advise me?

3877:. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to 3618:

Legal threat at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Christian Ortez

1920:. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to 1265:- It's been relayed by the Internet Movie Poster Award website 1000: 935: 909: 224:. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to 11562:

I moved the list back, because they're not all leaders of the

11528:

I didn't attempt to put up the actual photos, just links!...

11485:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=d306d4746cbe7e90

11482:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=4f80f6fc1c97e443

10393:

Yes, would you like it emailed to you or would you like me to

7432:

is (one of the contributors of this very discussion at WP ANI

7158:

It is my request to you to please undo deletion of that page.

4823:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond_A._Watson

4240:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_African_American_women

2683:

http://www.priacta.com/Articles/Comparison_of_GTD_Software.php

1319:

Names of the juror appear in the hard copy of the catalogues.

1316: 1289:

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090602150525zzzz.nb/topstory.html

1248:

It was supported and relayed by the FRENCH CONSULATE website:

361:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Chuggington characters

12016:

Can you explain the difference between a redirect and a merge

9854:

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/

9616:

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/

5814:

But there was an instruction similar to the third one here -

4275:

The consensus was it was an overly broad an ambiguous list.

1525: 1521: 1309:

Photos of the event - including a public lecture - are here:

10782:

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

10491:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

9660:

This is a mere mention of him, not significant coverage per

9088:

Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily

9081:

Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily

7494:

You're being warned under DIGWUREN because you broke 3RR at

7445:

Personal attack today by the user who reported me at WP ANI

6502:

Keb25 didn't note why the subject was deemed non-notable. --

6015:

Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984

5997:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

5006:

Hi TParis. I noticed when you added the "See also" link to

4279:

for example. It's a pretty clear consensus on that.--v/r -

3358:

Rename the code section to "Syntax" or "Example" similar to

1326:- poster and web look for Nobel Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus 1044:

a web-host, a place to promote your company, and you do not

9467:

to get this article restored at this point is to go to the

8443:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination)

8092: 7996:

Revision history of Rosedale, Lawrence Township, New Jersey

6569:

Important clarification: Use of Knowledge policies in AfD's

2396:

The redirect will just have to stay for licensing purposes.

2023: 9830:

http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm

9610:

http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm

8351:

Firstly, thank you for closing the deletion debate on the

8234:

I'm really tired of arguing with you, Nmate, as you can't

4825:. Kindly ignore the version that is in my Sandbox. Yours, 4195:

FYI, your name has been mentioned (at the very bottom) of

1789:

Proposals for new policies or templates should be make at

10716:

that sources must exist on articles where there might be

9802:

http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_braswell_sr.html

9604:

http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_braswell_sr.html

8514:

Let me look, I think I might have made a mistake.--v/r -

7633: 6326:

The useful content can be merged and the articles can be

1333:- marketing campaign for GK-TV and their TV show Camelot 9858:

This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails

9846:

This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails

9834:

This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails

8277:

Thanks for a note. That is a terrible DRV, but I guess

7400:

Undid revision 453025469 by Nmate (talk) Vandalism : -->

2256:

That article was entirely 100% promotional. Please see

513:

And I should've restored the talk page. My bad.--v/r -

8906:

Deletion of pages - Infegy, Social Radar, Justin Graves

5901:

has achieved notability by Knowledge standards.--v/r -

4932:

Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Conspiracy theories link

3337:

Update: Thanks for restoring the page in my user-space

1520:

deletion page and article? This article is similar to

932:

But, what will be with my request: assigned or denied?

9818: