User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 17

	Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #145

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

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

CAFE Foundation

On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CAFE Foundation, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

entry for MegaVision company

Dear Akradecki - you deleted my entry on the company MegaVision within a few seconds of me starting to create it. Please give me at least a chance to finish the article :-). I am not associated with the company in any way, but missed information on them when researching equipment a few month back. They are besides Leaf the only American Manufacturer of high end professional digital pghoto equipment. There are entries on other such companies, e.g. their competitors PhaseOne (Danish) or Sinar (Swiss). Please give information a chance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bludwar (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted because if failed WP:CORP. It looks to me that it still fails this criteria, but I'll give you a little time to meet the guidelines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airport notability discussion

You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quad Tilt Rotor

Alan you started this Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor a couple years ago. I've been trying to add updates on the program when I see them. But there has been few until the last few months. Hopefully it will stay an option if the payload capacity has not growth too much. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered about cost issues...the CV-22 cost problems, and political issues, might have poisoned the water. Just my speculation, though. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One issue has been the increased weight of the Future Combat Systems vehicle. Also, merging Joint Heavy Lift with Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program and bringing the Air Force on board will complicate things. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BillCJ and My Edits and Contributions.

Thanks for your interest in what I have to say about this subject. Most of what I mentioned on BillCJ's page are not "opinions" they are factual. There are reliable sources out there documenting this subject with (much) less bias, one just has to know where to locate them - as the company - The Electric Boat Company has gone out of their ways to embellish the story in "their favor..." yet (they) never once openly acknowledged the pioneering work of Arthur Leopold Busch as others basically took credit for his contributions building the United States Navy's first submarines circa 1900. Busch was employed at John Holland's company/and the Electric Boat Company for nearly 9 years between 1896-1905. Yet Mr. Busch was never properly recognized for what he did at Holland's company - as their was a lack of respect and loyality (that was) prevalent within this newly reorganized company with Isaac Rice/Isaac L. Rice at the helm. The History Channel is aware of this "ironic situation" and has stated to me that the next time they do a documentary on this subject (of America's first submarines) they will certainly include the integral contributions made to Electric Boat by Busch... Thanks for your understanding in this matter. It is very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satgas Atbara

Good work Akradecki. If you think its with merging the articles, then lets look at it (Archangel1 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

D-Pryde

How come the D-Pryde article was deleted? I think it was a relevant artice... but I don't know. If you could write back to me on this at my home page it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get what u mean... he isn't quite relevant yet. Thanks for the reply! Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon B. Plantinga

I was in the process of beefing up the article with some information. If it is reinstated, Plantinga's importance to musicology and music history education in the US should be evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carillonista (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft nicknames

Has it been established that aircraft nicknames are to be in italics? If so, I have some corrections in my own entries to hunt down and correct? Mark Sublette (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how formal the "nickname". Generally, the pattern follows ships...a given name to a particular aircraft is italicized, whereas the model names aren't. I don't recall any specific Wikipedia guidelines on this (although there might be some), it's a more general journalistic rule of thumb (I've seen it before in the Associated Press Stylebook, for instance). On the other hand, it isn't that important, and I wouldn't go hunting that vigorously. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the deep end?

Hey Alan, looks likes you've started getting involved a little more now, and I hope you are able to stay involved. I've always enjoyed interacting with you in discussions, and I think you've always had a lot to offer. Are you back to doing Mopwork too, or are you staying out of that for now? Also, have you had a chance to check out the Cessna Citation series lately? I took in in a different direction, but all that is explained on the talk page. I'd sure appreciate some feedback on that project, positive or not, esp on the main Citation page, since I'm not quite sure what to do with it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill...I'm slowly getting back into it, and I'm starting to mop a few puddles, as I have time. My priorities have changed a bit, though. My blogging and my commercial writing have a lot higher priority, and so will command more of my time. I'm doing it this way because I've decided to remain sane. I looked at the Citation work, and I like what you've done. That mess was really hard for me to decide how to approach it, and you've definitely improved the situation. One other thing I'm trying to do is narrow my focus more. Instead of jumping all over the map with different articles, I'm going to focus on one core one, add to others as that core one leads to related info, but hopefully take that core article to a much higher level, hopefully resulting in a GA rating. The first target of this approach is the article on the NASA Pathfinder and its successors. Compare where it is today with where it was when it was started. I've still got a lot of work to do on it, but at some point, I'll be asking the group to give input, and an initial assessment, before I post a request for a formal GA review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Pathfiner article briefly, and I'll try to check out out more later. One question: Shouldn't the infobox title at least reflect the article title? Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I addressed the article title on the talk page some time ago, but I'm not fully satisfied with the solution. I still haven't decided if it should remain as one article or be split into two. While there were actually two aircraft, Pathfinder/Pathfinder-Plus and Centurion/Helios, their development was so interrelated that the "story" is told better by keeping it all together. Pathfinder was the first, and still survives in the "plus" configuration. Helios was the final development form, but didn't survive. So which should be carried by the article name? Anyway, I've still got a fair bit more work to do before I need to cross that bridge. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Collision" instead of "crash"?

Thread moved to Talk:2008 Chatsworth train collision#Article name. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moves

It seems that Hmains (talk | logs) has been moving a lot of disaster articles. He was the one that moved Glendale train crash to Glendale, California train crash and 2008 Chatsworth train collision to 2008 Chatsworth, California train collision. I’m not too sure if they have to be moved back, but I think it is something you should look into. Additionally, most of the articles can only be moved back by an admin. – Zntrip 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of user talk pages.

Thanks for your note. Unless I was in error I was only nominating if the user had ceased to exist? Paste (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U needing your endorsement

Hi Akradecki. After Davegnz's latest outburst, I have decided to file an RfC/U to gain input from the wider community. Since I have specifically named you as someone who has unsuccessfully tried in the past to encourage him to work constructively with others, my version of events requires any corrections you feel are necessary, and then your endorsement. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look, but it won't be till tomorrow. We're in the middle of an engine change on the Bell 412 and working a ton of overtime. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2tor page

I got a speedy deletion of the page i made about 2tor inc.

I failed to put the deletion on hold (Hangon) while i typed on the 2tor talk page or my own (jcm476) why it is relevant. Please read my talk page and reconsider the deletion of 2tor, and respond there. Thank you.

The article was about a new company and which described future products, nothing that came even close to meeting WP:CORP, and it wasn't referenced, nor was any kind of genuine notability asserted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (replying on your talk page as well)[reply]

I am an intern. So yes i am associated with the company, but this isn't part of my job. I wanted to make the page because i knew the company was being swamped with emails and calls about 2tor. Jcm476 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcm476 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you carefully read WP:CORP. This is an encyclopedia, not a business or education directory, and we want to include things that are truly notable. Notability is generally not instantaneous. You can't just come up with a great idea for a company and have it magically rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. After some time passes, and the company has become the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" (quote from our notability guideline), then it may well merit an article...but let someone else write it. Your connection with the company raises conflict-of-interest issues. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Caponnetto

I noted that you denied the csd on this page. You found no problem in the author writing his own autobiography?WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about that, but COI is not a valid CSD criteria. Dropped a note about the COI issue on the offender's talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Underwater Explorers

You have to be kidding? What is the point of putting a hangon tag on an article listed for a speedy, if it gets deleted within an hour and a half anyhow? The deletion makes little sense - Wikipedia has articles on all of the major technical diver training agencies (except GUE), and lots of minor ones (which are less significant than GUE) - see attached list: List_of_diver_training_organizations#Technical_diving_Nitrox_training_organizations. So why the speedy delete despite the hangon tag? --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get some feedback from you on this - my proposal is to put the article in for deletion review, but I would appreciate hearing your thinking before I did so. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you...I've been on the road. DRV would be fine with me. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to DRV, you might want to first read WP:CORP. Your article has been deleted five times (that should tell you something). An organization/company is notable in a Wikipedia/encyclopedic way if it is the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Your article cited none. As for the list you quoted, I've got some issues with that, as well, but this isn't the time or place. You might also want to make yourself familiar with WP:NOTDIR. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am pretty familiar with WP:CORP being a professed deletionist myself, but I still think it was a bad call not to put it through the AfD process. I noted it had been deleted on 4 previous occasions, which puzzled me at the time. I'll marshall a few third party sources in anticipation, just in case there is consensus to let it go through the AfD process as a consequence of the review. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have gone ahead and listed it for review. I hope I have not mis-stated your position, but please feel free to correct me if I have. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You stated my position fine. I notice the one comment there so far talks about redoing it in your user space. I believe you might benefit from actually writing the article as a draft in a sandbox of your own. If you want the deleted text put there, I'd be happy to do it for you. I'll be around off and on this afternoon, don't know how available I'll be on Monday. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion; I will try and do that if I can get some better material together. Don't worry too much about the old text - there wasn't much to it and I can recreate it easily. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unquie it is noteable.

http://dommagazine.com/index.html

See for yourself if this an important addition for those working to keep air travel safe.

It is notable that four professionals from a publishing company felt strongly enough about this magazine that they left their comforable jobs to create, based on the feed back that we are getting, a long over due informational source and focal point for the aircraft maintenance manager.

They really is no other magazine like it.

(Nooksack (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, your idea of what's notable doesn't jive with official policy...you might want to read our policy, at WP:N. Notability is conferred by what others say, not by what's unique, and not by what the mag says about itself. And for disclosure sake, I was a DOM for a while about 20 years ago. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEST Recommend Practices pages deleted

I have no idea why they were deleted. I did exactly what they told me and they were still deleted. I left a discuss for the person how did this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environ1561 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your talk page? I left an explanation there. There are zillions of standards in this world, and there is no indication at all that these rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. At most, they warrant a one or two line mention in the IEST article, which they already have. Oh, and I hope that you aren't connected to IEST, as that would be a conflict of interest AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close

Yes - I was aware of the AfD thanks to MilborneOne's pointing it out on WT:AIR. I'm very glad that you decided to close it as a bad faith nom. I considered doing so myself, but didn't want to fuel any possible feelings of persecution by me, so decided to let it run its course to its predictable end, or let someone else put it out of its misery.

For the record, Wiki Warbirds is indeed up and running and I sincerely wish Davegnz all the best with it.

It will be interesting to see, however, what happens if and when it attracts other contributors with ideas different from his own... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retching Red

Since you deleted the band's article, you might want to get the albums too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they tagged for CSD? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion of Clangers

The reason I tagged this for deletion was not that it wasn't a valid redirect, but that the redirect should be pointing the other way - the correct title doesn't have a "The". I posted on The Clangers talk page several days ago advocating renaming the article and got no objections (actually, no responses whatsoever). I can't imagine there being any objection at all, as the title of this television series patently does not include a "The", so I attempted the move this morning, which failed, presumably due to the non-trivial history on Clangers. I then consulted Wikipedia:Requested_moves, which reads in part "If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is a navigation aid (e.g. a redirect or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), the template "db-move" can be used instead to have that page deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6." Frankly, this seems to fit G6 to a tee, so I'm not at all sure why it's been declined, as the edit summary doesn't at all match the speedy template I used. Majorclanger (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. My misunderstanding. I've moved "The Clangers" now to simply "Clangers". Hope that helps! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! Majorclanger (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete beadwall article?

Do you work for an oil company and want to destroy history of energy saving devices?

You violated wiki standards requiring a vote on talk page. BRAINedit (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, for many kinds of articles, Wikipedia does not require a vote (see the appropriate section of WP:NOTVOTE. Second, Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO), and your article was clearly this kind of article. But what got it deleted is that it clearly failed our notability standards. If you want, though, there's always a way to get a second opinion. Feel free to bring it up to deletion review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icer brands, LLC

Dmanzor (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)HI, I am curious as to why you deleted the "ICER Brands, LLC" Page? It includes the history, company longevity, and credible companies that the they provide marketing and Product development services for. It is relevant because the brands which they work with are large international brand (i.e- Apple Bottoms.. which does 300mil + at retail in the US, as well as millions more intyernationally). ICER owns the sole licensing rights to that company, as well as others. The article was written in a very neutral context as well. Please tell me what else needs to be done in order to repost this page without it being deleted.[reply]

Thanks

It was deleted because it failed WP:CORP. Please read this notability guideline, and then if you feel that an article about that company can be written that clearly meets the notability criteria, then have at it. Also, are you connected in any way with the company in question? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P-47 survivors

Abuse, by me - you have got it all wrong - my articles for the past 18 months have been abused by editors like BillCJ and others - they have constantly harassed the hell out out me for even attempting to bring this series to fruitition. If you bother to check the archives, you can seen a pattern of the same 3-4 editors who have abused their prividges as editors - all without a peep or warning by you or the other so call overseers -

Now that I want to move these articles someplace within the wikipedia doman that is save from their harassement and abuse they and you are trying a new tactic of harassing me.

You want to critic someone - try BillCJ and his random removal of an entire paragraph from the North American B-25 survivors page - nothing wrong with the paragraph except for a missing citiation or two (some of the info is also on the B-25 page) but have you or others warned him for this 'vandalism' - no you are just part of the same problem of letting BillCJ (and others) abuse other editors.

My asking for a AFD is well within wikipedia policy "not have numerous copies of an article on any of the wiki pages " - since I am the original editor / creater of these articles and I am moving them to a site on the wiki domain, then I have the right to ask that they be deleted from wikipedia.

Unless you allow me the right to ask for an AFD on these duplicate pages (at wikipedia) then I will be forced to file a complaint with wikipedia itself that you are abusing you powers with wikipedia and that you be banned.

Not only will I file a complaint, but I will be asking for a complete review of wikipedia aircraft and I will be asking that editors like BillCJ (who likes to abuse other editors) - (and others) be perminently banned Davegnz (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, if you're going to file anything, you might want to start with a response to the RfC Rlandmann filed against you. Until you do that, your complaints will pretty much get ignored.

Being that as it may, if you want to report me, go right ahead...I have no problem with you reporting me or asking for a second opinion on my actions.

You are, however, mistaken in your understanding on a couple of fundamental issues. First, you don't own anything you write on Wikipedia - read the statement immediately below the editing box, where it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL". Notice the word "irrevocably"? That means you don't own it anymore. Second major misunderstanding: just because Wikia uses wiki software doesn't mean that they are on the same domain as wikipedia. Your quoting of "not having numerous copies" doesn't apply in this case.

As for your "right" to ask for an AfD, you already did, I haven't disallowed you from asking, and it was ruled "keep". There's a difference between the right to ask for it and the right to expect it.AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Horse Energy Service Page

I have had my page deleted twice now, and I am not complaining, just looking for a little guidance on how I can go about making it an acceptable article without "advertising". I have not worked with Wikipedia, and I do understand the rules, I am just looking for suggestions on what type of information I might want to include to actually get my article published on your site. Any tips you can offer me? Thanks in advance! (IHESOffice (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on WT:WikiProject_Disaster_management#Lists_of_victims

Can I ask you to join the discussion I started at WT:WikiProject_Disaster_management#Lists_of_victims? Dhaluza (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivil deletion of B9031 road

You deleted a geographical article with more references than most wikipedia articles. You could at least send a note to the recent creator if you are not subjecting to Afd. I see you have a history of deleting the work of others. Please restore this page. It is quite notable and has a number of notable features....some of which were in the article and some which i plan to add. Please respond here or on the article talk page, not on my talk page. I am aware of the discussion of UK B roads, but that discussion seems to fall short of universal policy where the road has many historic, cultural and scenic features. I invested an hour of academic research to begin the article that you destroyed without vote or discussion. Please restore this at once.Hadrianheugh (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it had been prodded for more than five days...meaning that the notice had been posted for 5 days (it was tagged with proposed deletion on 9/29) and nobody cared enough about the article to respond. If prods aren't contested after 5 days, articles are generally automatically deleted. The article failed WP:N, as it had no references to significant sources that attested to its notability. The two references in the stub (it was a stub, not an article...it consisted of one solitary sentence) did not attest to notability...one was simply an atlas showing that the road exists, and the other was to an article that mentioned a prehistoric site near the road, but the article never mentioned the road itself. What is notable (as Wikipedia uses the term) about the road itself? That was never addressed in the article. However, if you want it reconsidered, you are more than welcome to take it to deletion review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I did not see the prod. I still think this deletion method is too agressive for articles that are just being formed. It certainly discourages me from initiating new articles. No reply needed. Sincerely Hadrianheugh (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you disagree, but it's not my deletion philosophy, it's policy here. Prod is hardly too agressive, as it gives plenty of time for an article which is supposedly in the midst of "being formed". I'm sorry it discourages you - it shouldn't, really, it just should suggest that you a) choose to write about notable subjects, and b) you should be diligent to include appropriate refs. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Thanks for the continued notes about this. It appears, however, that things are settling down by themselves and I doubt (hope!) that further action will not be necessary. For whatever it's worth, I believe that your reponses were entirely appropriate to the situation. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Parrack

Hi. I noticed you deleted Doyle Parrack as a copyvio. Were all versions of the page copyright infringements? I think I edited the article at one point to stubify it and remove some copyvio content, but I might be mistaken. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, never mind. I'm looking at the Google cache, and I think I just added a ref for his death date. Just curious, though, what was it a copyvio of? Zagalejo^^^ 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a few lines, the vast majority of the article's text was lifted directly from http://www.stillwater-newspress.com/obituaries/local_story_251012307.html. That being said, I'd have absolutely no objection to someone writing a properly-refed "from scratch" version...the subject certainly seems notable enough. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

webPDF

Hi Alan. You deleted the page WebPDF for G11 "blatant advertising". Ok, understood. Let me explain something behind the page is a completely free, online converter that provides a benefit to the community. In order to add that converter to the list of PDF software, it needs its own Wikipedia page (as there are not supposed to be links to external URLs on that page), if we adhere to the Wikipedia rules. If there is a page such as "a list of PDF software", then our website should be part of it. Tons of commercial software is using this page for free advertising and about the only thing on there that is free and a benefit to the community is constantly deleted in one way or the other. As we say in German: you can only die one death. We create a page and you delete it or we enter a link and someone else deletes it, because it is a link. Maybe you could help in solving this riddle and provide some guidance? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Peter--Ph wiki edit (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thanks for writing. It's clear, unfortunately, that you are connected to the company producing this software. Please be aware that Wikiepedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for promoting your company or products. We have some fairly specific conflict of interest guidelines which say that you shouldn't be editing articles about your company or its products. Second, you should read our notability policy - articles aren't included in Wikipedia simply because they are about a product that is new, interesting or "a benefit to the community", and we are not a directory of software products. We include articles because they are about a subject that has encyclopedic notability, and this notability is generally seen as present if there are multiple non-trivial reliable sources that write about the product. Has your product been covered or reviewed by any major news or industry publications? If it has, then a case for notability can be made, but it must be made by someone else. With as many editors as Wikipedia has, most subjects that are truly notable will be seen and written about by a neutral unconnected (to the product) editor. You are more than welcome to edit Wikipedia articles on the general subject of computers, software, poodles, whathaveyou, but please refrain from running afoul of the COI thing. Sorry if this answer isn't what you're looking for! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Alan. Thanks for your effort and for clarifying that. Point well taken. --Ph wiki edit (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Line Blitz

You speedied this article a couple of days (criterion A7) ago and I was just wondering if you realised that in June it was the subject of an AfD discussion with the outcome being "keep" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal Line Blitz). Per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted". Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention...I've restored it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban journal of medical students

Hey, dude why are you deleting the pages for the former directors of the cuban journal of medicql students. We are trying to gather all the pieces and you just deleted our only page right away. can you put the page back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.174.125 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation accident cleanup

It has come to my attention that there are at least a dozen aviation accident articles that don’t meet the criteria for notability. 2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash, which we talked about almost a year ago, still hasn’t proved notable, so I don’t know what you want to do. For the rest, would you support nominating them for deletion?

– Zntrip 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I'll take some time to look through them tomorrow, but the answer will probably be yes. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job Xavier and whimsical blockings

I have gone through the 3 links you showed of my alleged bad edits. I find them to be minor edits of no shift in direction. I am now convinced of your POV. I repeat that your POV and whimsical admn acts are most unfortunate for WP, [pending report against you]] Jobxavier (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs)

Removal of legitimate, referenced information after you've been warned repeatedly not to is not "whimsical". Neither is vandalism of other editors' user pages. Automatically calling anyone "POV" who either disagrees with your edits or points out that your edits are out-of-process is also uncivil. Please stop. I hope, now that your block has expired, that you'll re-think your approach and contribute in a constructive manner. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carjam

Hi - I understand but as you are listing another similar business in the USA (Carfax Inc.) I wonder what they did differently? --Carjam (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Carfax (company) is the article you're referring to? If so, notice two things: 1) it wasn't written by a representative of that company, and 2) notability has been established in detail by multiple references to major media coverage. Your article achieved neither. Addressing the refs in particular: I checked all three as you listed them, the first two said nothing about carjam, the third is a forum and is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. If your company is truly notable in an encyclopedic sense, let the major media cover you, and when it does, then one of our editors who's not connected with the company will write about it here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess notable is subjective ...? We get 5000 visitors a day and deliver 15000 free vehicle reports a day. This is pretty big in little old New Zealand. I am intrigued as to how you determine that Carfax entry is not from someone associated with Carfax. For example I know that politicians in New Zealand have a long history of getting their own researchers to edit entries ... I used Carjam name cos I though honesty was the best policy. I also don't understand how the external links did not mention Carjam. I do understand forums are not (yet) considered reputable sources. But politicians researchers are ...? Hmmmm ...--Carjam (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is not subjective. I'd suggest you become familiar with our notability policy. As for Carfax, look through the contributor's history...see any obvious COI? AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 29 speedy deletion

Hi Akra,

Last night, I created the page for Now That's What I Call Music! 29 in the U.S. series, since the relevant information (namely, the vast majority of the track listing) had become available. I see that you have speedily deleted it, referring to it as "blatant advertising". Being completely unaffiliated with Now Music or any of its sponsors, let me assure you I was NOT advertising - such a page exists for every other Now album in existence, and has frequently in the past predated the release of the actual CD. The information provided was accurate and well-referenced (although admittedly not correctly cited - I was forced to simply stick the URL on the bottom of the page). If you could explain what is so unavoidably unencyclopedic about information regarding the CD, I would appreciate it. If it's not impossible to make the article appropriate, however, I believe such a hasty deletion was rash.

Thanks for reading, DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlight11 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in Wikipedia is simply about notability, which is established by having the subject covered by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Your article lacked that, and being that it is about an album that hasn't even been released, it appeared to the person nom-ing the article for deletion, and to me as the deleting admin, that it's purpose was to promote an upcoming product. Unless this is a major release anticipated and written about by major media, I hardly think that it rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. If you still disagree, you are welcome to seek a second opinion by listing the article at deletion review. As for why other articles haven't been deleted, I don't go seeking out articles to delete, I merely spend time reducing the backlog of articles nominated for deletion by others. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions/ Reversions by Googlean in Anti-Christian Pages

You might be approached to Block me again. I suggest that you do so only after reading through my reasoned edits with NPOV sources, which Googlean has arbitrarily and summarily undone.

Jobxavier (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, broken helicopter, so I won't be able to review this till tomorrow. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter fixed, I've looked at the issues. Please see your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Play fair" is what I would suggest that you do. But I am convinced that it is of no use to tell you. I agree with you that you have not studied much after KG; except perhaps, from the movies. Hence the Rambo attitudes.

Jobxavier (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobxavier (talk • contribs)

Speedy Deletion of the day

I put up an article for my aunt Lyn Beaclair who is an artist in quebec. Ironho lds was giving me some time to rewrite it but you decided to just delete it. thanks, I guess i should improve my wpm before i think of contributing to a public site. Jasonathon (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Aunt? You might want to go read our conflict of interest guidelines. A relative like that is a gray area, so be careful. If you want to recreate it, go ahead, but write it very differently, meaning not like you're promoting her as an artist. Pretend you don't know her from Eve, and don't go into things like her soul. She's just another artist you're documenting in a sterile manner. I read the hangon stuff on the talk page, and there was nothing about giving more time. The article also suffered from a complete lack of sourcing. Please be aware that we require reliable sources to be cited to give the verification of encyclopedic notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin It's about your block and protection on the anti-christian violence in India article(s). Cheers.--chaser - t 04:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]