User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 18

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #248

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

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!

Speedy Deletion Query

Hello Akradecki, I see you have speedily deleted a biography I posted on Norris Lozano. I am writing this in good humor and with the intention to learn from this.

This being my first foray into Wikipedia writing, please help me understand why a person who is uniquely responsible for innovations in finance, saving cool old buildings from the wrecking ball and reaching the highest levels of green building (LEED Platinum) before anyone else is deleted, whilst a guy who runs a phone company stays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_L._Stephenson)?

Is is just that I'm a bad writer? Bio too long?

What gives?

Cesmith111urban (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer is on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

delete

Please delete:

• User:Navy Blue/monobook.js
• User talk:Navy Blue

thank you — Navy  Blue  20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

done AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Franciscan International Studies Centre

Why did you delete this article? Its an established UK institution of higher learning which vets its degrees through the British University system. I would like to reinstate it but will not until I hear from you. If you insist I would like to appeal. Calcium617 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion because it was an organization that did not demonstrate encyclopedic notability, as defined by Wikipedia at WP:N. When I reviewed the article, I agreed. It was short, incomplete, did not demonstrate notability, had no references, and somewhat promotional. It was written by a user whose username indicated a conflict of interest. I have no problem with you recreating the material as long as it is written in a non-promotional manner, demonstrates notability, and has that notability backed up by references to non-trivial reliable sources that are not connected with the institution. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

352 Media Group Question

Hi Akradecki! Thank you for responding to my question so quickly. I think I could make a page for 352 Media meet the guidelines for Wikipedia. I was looking at pages for big companies like Walmart and Coke, and it would be quite easy to do so without advertising for them. There is a lot of news articles out there about them and I wouldn't write anything from my personal experience with them. I would simply write facts from the articles about them and put one of those tags that asks people to add more. I think a "stub" right now would at least work for now until more people added to it. Thanks Akradecki!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Another 352 Media Question

Hi Akradecki! Thanks for your help with this, I am still new with Wikipedia. I made a few edits on a couple pages and it's actually pretty fun. I started working on the 352 Media page in my sandbox. It is located at User:Raysfan2008/sandbox. I have a few questions. Should I just post what I have as a "stub" and let other users add on to it? Or should I keep working on it? I have to work and I'm afraid it will take up a lot of time to be working on something not related to my job. Also, is what I have ok so far? I know there are strict guidelines, especially when writing about companies. Thank you so much for your help!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi...I took a look, and it really needs more before going live...it's bound to get deleted as it currently is. The QSR Magazine ref is the only valid one, and you need more than that to demonstrate notability. You've got a good start, though, and I made a couple of tweaks as a way of showing you how things should be done. We don't hyperlink like you did the company name, rather we simply bold it in the first sentence. The only place a company link would be appropriate is in the External Links section. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki! OK so I added on A LOT, maybe too much. I have like 13 or 14 references which I'm afraid is too much. But I did add a lot of content. I also got a notice of "Disputed fair use rationale" for the picture I added (I'm not sure exactly what this entails). It's the logo for the company and I think I fixed it but not sure. So, if you could check it out again and let me know what else I need to change. Also, how do I put in a table of contents? Also, I was going to put a section for "Services" where I would talk about what exactly they do, and also "Awards", but I was afraid I would be spamming. Can I do this? Thanks again!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just went and did some cleanup, but it's looking pretty good. An awards section is not only acceptable, but a good idea, as long as it doesn't become spammish. It's a good idea b/c it helps demonstrate notability. Just make sure there's a ref to a good reliable source for each award, and it states it matter-of-factly instead of in "glowing" or promotional terms. Be real careful about services...as that can look like spam. It might be better to leave things as they are now. The TOC happens automatically, you don't put it in. I move the infobox to the top where it belongs, and did some other minor cleanup tasks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki! I am very excited because I believe I am finished with the 352 Media Group page and this would be my first page that I've created. What do you think? Is it ready to go up? Since you last looked at it I just added a short "Awards" section. I decided NOT to add a "Services" section because I really couldn't do it in a way that didn't look like spamming or advertising. So, thanks for all of your help! I really appreciate it. Let me know if there is anything I need to change before it can go live. --Raysfan2008 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Gage Page

Hi Akradeci, I wrote the stub Richard Gage and it was not an advertising at all. I actually wanted to demonstrate thee fallacies and lies of this guy who claims that the World Trade Center was brought down with a controlled Demolition. I have benn trying to be objective and to post links to information readily available on the internet, things like, his website named to be a sponsor of terrorism! this is important and it was televised on Congressional Hearings all over the nation. If you please check and help me to put the information again in the right context I will appreciate it. I definitely do not believe it was an advertisemt since I do not agree with his organisation. ThanksCeleronel (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Celerone, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a place to demonstrate someone's fallacies, no matter how ridiculous. Sorry. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Erme

Looks like we had a little edit clash over Erne I had to revert your edit since the page is actually vandal created and contains the wikicode copied off another page. I had reverted it back to the vandal state and readded the speedy deletion tag. I would appreciate your input on my handling of this situation and any suggestions as I do think I could have handled it better but got a litte confused. Cheers.

Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Elfster logo

I don't understand why the logo has been deleted while I was working on editing the article. Please let me know. joliette (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Joliette.

It's a non-free image. Upload it after you have an actual article to put it in. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Chloe Albert

Hi there, you just recently deleted my article - Chloe Albert. I am fine with this as I assume you know way more about wikipedia than me, I originally started this for a university assignment. However, would you be able to e-mail it to me, just so I cold have it. I will not put it up again or anything like that. I just want to be able to show what I have been working on forever to friends.

Thanks, 

(Pilut (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Warren Conrad

I don't understand? Why do you think? SirWTC and Warren Conrad are the same person? Can you prove it? Please restore my article until the Deletion Review is over. Tnks Sirwtc (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Please read WP:BIO and WP:RS. It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to you to demonstrate that this person is notable according to our policy. I'm a prolific blogger on Blogspot as well, and you don't find an article about me on Wikipedia, and for good reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to drop links to drive people to Blogspot. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion of Cory Davenport

The nomination was invalid and the AFD should have been allowed to run. My wife objected to the original speedy nomination earlier today. I would also note that the second speedy nominator is currently involved in an unrelated deletion dispute with my wife and myself, and I find it curious that he would make such an invalid nomination. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That article was totally spammish and promotional. It used glowing language clearly intended to promote its subject. The subject may or may not be notable...write a neutral, encyclopedic language and back up your claims with reliable sources and we'll see. At this point, though, there was no point in letting it go through AfD when it clearly met speedy criteria. If you want to build a real article, fine, let me know and I'll help you create a sandbox in which to do it. BTW, what's your wife's user name? AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My wife uses the name "The Enchantress Of Florence." Please explain to me why, when the speedy deletion process states that the process may not be used after a prior unsuccessful deletion attempt, it is acceptable to simply reapply the tag. I believe that this has been several times today, and is driven by animosity towards her and myself, rather than any good faith motives. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the prior unsuccessful deletion attempt? That would mean it went through AfD and was closed as "keep". If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest going to WP:DRV. If you post it there, I'll summarize the rationale for my actions and we can let the rest of the community decide. One note, though...if you take it to DRV, you'll probably be expected to put in the work to make this article encyclopedic...are you willing to do so? If so, start in a sandbox, and point to the cleaned up version in DRV...it'll go much better for you there if you do that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy isn't limited to AFDs, but any deletion attempts, including AFDs, prods, and speedys, except in the case of copyright violations. There was a discussion of this at AN/I earlier this year, where repeat speedying was, as I remember it, considered inappropriate behavior. Are you refusing to reopen the AFD on request? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not reopening AfD, I'm saying to take it to DRV...that's where deletions, proper and alleged improper, are reviewed and second opinions are rendered. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

user = misterpines, you deleted my entry, Broadband Learning Inc

I have had my page taken down for violating G11, you say. I have read G11 and it does not say that just because I am making an entry about a company, that you have the right to delete my work. I only put in cited information, I only put in facts, why did you delete my entry and would you please put it back up, or tell me what exactly, you took issue with? Could you at least give me my code back? Thanks in advance.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterpines (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted twice, once by me and once by another admin a few days ago. In both cases, the article reads like a promotional advertising pitch for the organization. Further, in my opinion, in clearly fails our notability standards, which you can read at WP:N AND WP:CORP. What is your connection with the organization? AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Amrutanjan

Could you please explain why the article was delete despite the fact that I was working upon it?-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the article despite the fact that there was a hang-on tag affixed to it-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The hangon tag doesn't automatically save an article...it is supposed to lead to the talk page where an explanation of why it should be saved should be given. The article was nommed and deleted because it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. However, upon review, I can see that with further development, such justification could be met, so I moved the text that you were working on over to a sandbox for you, at User:Ravichandar84/sandbox2. Hope that helps. (copy of this message also on your talk.) AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

fine. thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RCI0, RCI1

I note that you have speedily deleted RCI0 and RCI1, without the courtesy of discussing the matter with me (I created them) first; and ignoring discussion at User_talk:Fabrictramp#RCI0 and on the former's talk page, which you also deleted. The page are where users with no Javascript are directed, if they click on the Javascript-based "expand" links in their watch-lists etc; and were not "patent nonsense". Please recreate the pages, and list at AfD or use their talk pages if you wish to dispute their existence, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not articles, and don't belong in article space. If you want them restored, please list them at WP:DRV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Lol are you trying to lecture me on the Christian scripture? Perhaps you should read Jesus and the money changers, or the numerous times Jesus Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites, liars, deceivers etc.

My Christianity is irrelevant to this. I will try to be more civil, but as a human being, it is not to be unexpected for me to get angry at individuals who refuse to use reason or references to support their viewpoints.

Take this message as an affirmation of your warning; I will try to be more civil.

Gabr-el 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not her business for her to insult me. What is her business is to take a look a the situation and appreciate the whole picture, not just pick out loose evidence. User:AramaenSyriac has been blocked for vandalizing the Assyrian people page, and I demanded that he stop. Were is the incivility in that? I told him that if he would not stop, I would edit the Aramaen page as well. Unless you understand the full picture of what is going on, you will easily misinterpret my edits are uncivil. I suggest that you enlighten yourself here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gabr-el Gabr-el 19:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Young Progressive Majority

You deleted this page calling it blatant advertising. There is a serious controversy involved in California right now between two organizations operating under the initials YPM. Young Progressive Majority, an offshoot of Progressive Majority (which has a page) is a legitimate non-profit with chapters around the county. Young Political Majors has been involved in voter fraud, with its founder being arrested this past weekend. It's important for people to be informed on these two organizations. Topdown5 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your connection? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the president of the organization. We recently (and legally) registered over 500 new voters in the LA area. These people, watching the news, may be concerned that it was the other YPM who registered them and will look to find out if they'll be able to vote on November 4th.Topdown5 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're connected with the organization, you should not be editing an article about it. Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. The piece I deleted was considered blatant spam because it was written by a rep of the organization, was written in the first person, and was written in a tone that communicated that it was promoting that organization. This is an encyclopedia, not a public forum, not a bulletin board of political subjects, not a free advertising service and not a soapbox. If your organization is truly notable, as we define notability, then an neutral, independent editor who has access to reliable, independent sources will write about the subject. About all you can do is go and request an article be written. Thanks for your understanding. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Helitron

I urge you to restore Helitron, an article in progress. It may have been a stub, but as one of the three major technical collective choirs in late Soviet-occupied Estonia, it's certainly notable, and has played an important -- if small -- part in the Singing Revolution; specifically, as a source for composers and singers to participate in the latter.

{{db-band}}'s purpose is to broom away school bands of no acclaim and other wannabes; attempting to use it on a choir of more than four decades of solid orchestral experience is a little bit weird at best, and nonsensical at worst. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I supposed that a garage would be a lousy place to form a choir, the bottom line here is that notability was not asserted or demonstrated. Please read WP:MUSIC for our notability criteria. However, to give you the opportunity to bring the article up to speed to meet the criteria, I've moved the text over to User:Digwuren/sandbox, a place where you can work on it without threat of it getting deleted. Once it's up to speed, it can be moved back to article space. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series

I don't see why the page had to be salted. All I did was make it a redirect to the main Saw page, it wasn't as if I was recreating article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a redirect...the entire thing that had been AfD'd had been recreated. My speedy represented the third deletion, and I tend to automatically salt things that have been deleted that many times, because it's very likely that it'll get recreated yet again, wasting more time. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, sorry. I just intended to make it a redirect for the existing red links. I wasn't aware that others had edited it afterwards.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, can you tell me who the user who added the article back was?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Zangai was the one. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please can you add the list of Saw traps back because it forms an integral part of the film series. Dalek (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It was deleted at AfD. That's pretty much the final word, and I can see why. The article was extremely long, detailed, unencyclopedic and very poorly referenced. You are always welcome to try listing it at WP:DRV, but you'd have to make a pretty good case to overturn an AfD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes from the Road

Hi, could you userfy Notes from the Road to me? I'm pretty sure it can be made to meet notability criteria and would like to work on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done...it's at User:JoshuaZ/Notes. Have fun! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. To preserve the GFDL it should have the history attached. Did you copy and paste it? To userfy content one should undelete, move to the user spot and then delete the original redirect. Otherwise the GFDL becomes a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is only necessary when it's a permanent userfication. For a situation like this, once you're done, and the article gets moved back to its old title, the former history will show up as well as the history of your work. However, if you're interested in its history to help you build, I'd be happy to do it the other way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, while it isn't strictly necessary, it does become what amounts to a temporary violation of the GFDL. I'd prefer if I had the whole history if you don't mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

done. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

States Reorganisation Act

Alan, since you've had some experience with topics related to India (IIRC), could you take a look at the series of edits beginning with this diff? Btw, do you have a clue what the user may have been referring to in this diff by "do not abuse tools"? Might he be confusing using the undo feature with Rollback restrictions? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, won't have time tonight...have to go help daughter with calculus then write an piece for FI that I promised them this afternoon. The one thing I learned in dealing with Indian articles is that often times the editors involved don't want to discuss, they want to promote POV. Try seeing what response you get on the talk page, and I'll look into it more tomorrow. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, no prob. I know you're quite busy, and I'm fine with that. POV certainly seems to be the case here. I'll post on the talk page later tonight or tomorrow, and see what happens. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Company notability requirements

Regarding Genaker speed deletion, I think I understand the criteria for notability but I start to believe there is an implicit requirement that the evidence of notability should be found on freely available documents. What I mean is that I can give several references of market studies regarding PoC that include the proeminent position of Genaker (which would justify an article with a small history of the company), however those market studies, although available from the biggest market studies companies (IDC, Insight Research, Market Research.com, Moriana Group, etc.), are not found freely in the Internet for anyone to read (they charge high for those reports).

How can add such references as evidence of notability?

Thanks,

Mmanta (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's truly notable, it will be covered my major media, ie Fortune, Business Week, Financial Times, etc. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility

Hello, since I read your comment about this user -- just to let you know he/she is doing again. Tut tut. I'd just thought I'd inform you. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Show me a dif, and I'll consider it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite LOTR's flaunting of my mistakes, I have issued an apology to him, and on the Wikipedia's admin notice board have also issued an apology. I was at fault, and my denial of being at fault brought others to bear against me. Gabr-el 07:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it's behind us...let's move forward with constructive discussion on the article's talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg

Hi, you deleted the above image citing: Wikipedia:CSD#G4. But this is not a recreation of deleted material in the sense that I recreated it. A discussion is open User_talk:Nv8200p#Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg - I am waiting for User:Nv8200p to reply. Could you restore and let User:Nv8200p and I sort out, what we initiated Power.corrupts (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was recreation in that it had been discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 19 and had been deleted after that. For such a deletion to be restored, it should go through WP:DRV and make sure that all concerns which led to the deletion are resolved.

• The image was not recreated by the uploader. As the deleting admin, I restored the image so the uploader could rework the use of the image to meet the concerns presented in the IFD, which I believe he did. Rather than take this to DRV, how about I see if I can get the two delete opinions to buy into the rework and agree to keep the image? If not, then I'll take it to DRV? -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Have at it...I didn't realize that it had been an admin restoration...didn't mean to appear to wheel war. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaean-Syriac People

you recently protected this page from being edited.It's true that there is a real issue in that page but you have to realize that there are some nationalists who have vandalized the page and keep the page to their POV. Just look at the conversations in the discussion boards even though Waleeta tries to have a proper and educated conversation the TriZ is just immature and discounts all his points without any justification. You have to realize that people like The TriZ and Aramean-Syriac do not want to have a proper discussion to resolve these issues ... they want to abuse Wikipedia policy to turn many pages into their POV. This is what will/has happened. Malik Danno (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

you protected this article right after the single account editing against everyone else did their fifth revert back to his version. Man, we have 3RR for a reason. The reason is, we don't need to lock down articles when a single pov-pusher is out of line, we can just block the offending account over 3RR: This has been how English Wikipedia has kept its epic edit wars under control since what, 2005. You have also amazingly managed to lock for "dispute" an article right after the user trolling it had once again removed the templates saying there is a dispute ([1] - I have taken the liberty to reinstate those). Pray reconsider your action. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, you action is even weirder than I thought.

10:26: User does his fifth revert[2]

18:44, you lock their version [3]

18:52 you block them for 3RR [4]

This doesn't make any sense. I can see you self-describe as a "rouge admin", but what do you think you are doing here, exactly? Block users for 3RR, but make them feel better about that in protecting their version while they are blocked? I find this rather surreal. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify some things. As a neutral admin, I don't and can't pick and choose which version to lock it down at...that's against policy. That being said, what was essentially being done, as far as I can see, was the wholesale deletion of the article, and replacing it with a redirect. What I didn't see was any AfD discussion to delete the article, nor a clear consensus on the article's talk page that the article should be removed and replaced with a redirect. If I'm mistaken about this, please point me to where this was done. What I would suggest you do is to propose in clear, simple language what you want to see happen...if you get a clear consensus, fine, if not, then please stop trying to delete an article against consensus. Is my position now clear enough? AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Akradeki, sources play a large role in Wikipedia ... and if there is a page without sources it is not taken credibly. Also if there is a page on Wikipedia which misuses it's sources to match the POV of some then that page is not credible as well and something should happen to it. This is what we see on the Aramaean-Syriac page ... the first line of the page clearly states that The Aramean-Syriac people (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ, IPA: ['Sūryōyɛ Orōmōyɛ]) are an ethnic group. So from the beginning one would assume that these people are in fact an ethnicity. Being a page of the 'Aramaean-Syrac people' their sources should reflect that claim. However you never see this in almost all of their sources. One source after the other there is no mention of Aramaean-Syriac people as an ethnicity but members of a church. This is seen on . I will stop there but I can provide you with a majority of their sources NOT being about the Aramaean-Syriac (or even Syriac) people but the Syriac Orthodox Church. Last time I checked this was a page of an ethnicity not of a religion. Please help in solving this issue. Malik Danno (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for those comments. I'm not saying that they are without merit, but they belong as part of the discussion on the article's talk page. You don't need to make a case to me, because I'm not sitting in judgement on the merits or lack of merits of the content, or sources. I'm insisting that 1) people stop making this a discussion about the contributors and 2) that people discuss the merits of text and sources on the talk pages, including making proposals for changes and backing up those proposals with reliable sources. So, go make the argument that you just made in its proper place, and if you feel so strongly, make a proposal of what you'd like to see happen to the article and why. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all don't be so aggressive about it. Weren't you the one who was endorsing us to keep a cool head about everything? Second of all If you participate in a page like you did in Aramaean-Syriac People page then you can't just leave it. I have been commenting on the template (where I will start) and you are no where to be seen, now after you protected the page I would have at least figured that you would participate in solving the issue but you did not. That's why I came to you talk page to tell you of what is going on. You did not have to react the way you did and please do not leave a page after you have protected it (without it being solved). Finally I have told you ... some people cannot be reasoned with because they are too nationalistic, so NO matter how much my points make sense and how much reliable sources I have some people will never agree because of their POV. Its like telling a hardcore Nazi that Jews are good people ... No matter how much proof and how much you try to persuade them they will never agree with you. I'm not saying any member is precisely like that example but i thought that example fits in this case. Malik Danno (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I was being too aggressive...nothing of the sort was intended. Also, I have not left. I did see your proposal, and I appreciate the fact that you stepped up to get the ball rolling. All I'm saying is that I have to remain neutral, so I can't participate directly in the editing or discussions. Yes, certainly some people cannot be reasoned with, because they are too nationalistic, but in the end they usually get themselves blocked by their behavior. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki, I was not asking you to "pick a version to lock down". I was asking you to unlock an article you had locked without good reason. Where on earth did you get the idea that 3rrvio requires full protection of the article? that's the exact opposite of what 3rr is intended to do. If you are acting as the basic clueless "uninvolved admin", block the account violating 3rr and be done. If you want to base any further admin action based on the actual substance of the dispute, you would need to familiarize yourself with the mere basics of what it is about, right? You can't remain completely unaware of the issue and begin policing the dispute. As in, voicing opinions about the "deletion" of an article that was a 100% WP:CFORK to begin with, or equating redirection back to the article it was split off of with "deletion". I have been a Wikipedia admin since 2004, and I don't think you need to inform me about basics like the "wrong version", ok? Now can you please go ahead and undo your protection, or invest an hour or two to familiarize yourself with the actual issues this is about so you will be in a position help me moderate this pathetic ethnic feud. Begin reading up on its history here and here. Once you've understood the stuff that has been going down over the past year, I will be glad to welcome your judicious admin actions. If you cannot be bothered to do this, take this as a mere formal complaint. You do not need to understand what is going on to realize that you should not block an editor for 3rr, and lock down the article in the revision re-instated by the illegal edit you just blocked someone for, that's utterly stupid, and I have difficulties believing I need to explain this to a Wikipedia administrator. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was not locked for 3RR. The article was locked because certain editors were trying to remove it in its entirety without proper discussion. I've repeatedly tried to get those involved to discuss these issues on the article's talk page. Go there and propose what you want to propose, and get a discussion going. AKRadecki^Speaketh 12:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been on it since March. You obviously do not have a clue what is the issue here. Have you even found, let alone looked at and understood Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board? As it stands, you have unilaterally locked down an article because you (apparently) do not happen to think it is a WP:CFORK, without as much as pointing out your rationale. Beyond some patronizing airy remarks on 24 October about Wikipedia in general, your contribution to resolving this is zero. I have been trying to handle these nationalist editors (both camps) for a year. Thanks for your help, dear fellow-admin - not. If you continue to refuse to revert your unilateral lockdown, I'll take it to ANI, and I think I can predict my assessment of your performance here will not be pure flattery. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bill revert issue (header that was missing

Where to post discussions... The editor about whom you posted your message explicitly stated on his discussion page that he'd prefer messages to him be posted to his site. It was tackey of him to delete my message to him, which required a response, after he posted his reply to my board. So, where should the discussion go? --Zeamays (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting messages before the owners can read them...mmm I see that you deleted my response to his message. I don't think that's proper. He might like to know what I wrote. --Zeamays (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do know what happens on my talk page when I'm offline, because I check the history when I get back online. Alan, he must have missed the next point on my talk page: If you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page... This is the kind of issue that should be discussed on an article talk page anyway, especially since I was not the only editor to remove the link as "Spam", as User:Dchall1 did both before and after my reverts. I deleted his comments because I felt he was being disingenuous in claiming I did not leave an explanation. "Linkspam" is a perfectly acceptable edit summary requiring no further explanation. Since he apparently didn't know what it meant, I left him the linkspam warning, which contains all the necessary links, which he did check out. I understand he may be new here, but it's not a good idea to keep re-adding something over and over again when it keeps being removed. When it comes to external links, that's a good way for the link to end up on the Wikipedia External links Blacklist. - BillCJ (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to keep deleting something over and over again when it keeps being added. it's not a good idea to keep re-adding something over and over again when it keeps being removed. When it comes to external links. Threatening blacklisting is not appropriate in this case. A discussion of the merits is what is needed. There is clearly not a consensus on the Memphis Riverboats link. That doesn't justify repeatedly deleating it. --Zeamays (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

North American Aerospace Defense Command

ALan, would you mind taking a look at the history and talk page of North American Aerospace Defense Command? We've got primarily an IP user(s?) repeatedly adding POV and synthesis to the article re: 9/11. I really don't know what to do here, as I ahve posted at MILHIST (I think), and there was no interest there. This is a perfect example of where the community-model of WP breaks down. If you don't want to mess with it, I understand. I do wish we could get a semi-p on this, but I understand that other admins might not agree, as they would view this as an edit dispute. Of course, when the POVers don't play by the rules, and just keep dumping in text, it's hardly a dispute! Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ (talk)

Bill, I dropped a note on the IP's talk page, to which he responded and I replied...I think the issue is that he's new and doesn't understand the concept of OR and synthesis of conclusions. I've tried to explain it better. You might want to go read what I wrote and make sure it's coherent (I took a momentary break from calculus to do this, and that stuff always seems to warp my brain!). AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine to me. I hope it helps! (The note, not the calculus!) - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...not the calc? But I'm stuck...find dy/dx of x(x²+1)^1/2(x+1)^-2/3 ... will have to try tomorrow when my brain's not so addled. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are your feet cold? I found you some socks. Sigh. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent deletion

You have recently deleted an article - Aasis Vinayak PG. This article was started by me and I was tracking its status day by day. Many people , including many "key" people in FOSS community, have reviewed the same (see the logs). Also, the person is very popular in the FOSS community in India. We have tried to include all the reference links and awards as well.

It would have been better if you could reinstate the article and post it for a "voting" so that the quality of the article can be improvised. Karthika.kerala (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You have your wish. Sent to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aasis Vinayak PG. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple Green

Regarding Simple Green, which you deleted recently. Did I miss the AFD on this one? Here one moment (actually with a lengthy history), then all of a sudden gone with the explanation "blatant advertising"? Neil916 (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides being edited by Simple Green's marketing department, which certainly gave it a COI strike, the lead sentence read "For North American consumers, the most recognized product in the line of approximately 25 Simple Green products is a concentrated all-purpose cleaner and degreaser." That reads just like advertising copy. It went on from there. The only refs were the company's website. Sorry, but that, to me, is blatant advertising. However, my feelings won't be hurt if you want to take it to WP:DRV AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be a acting bit over-eager with the delete button. I appreciate your efforts to clear away the crap on Wikipedia, but deleting established articles with a variety of editors on sight because of some suspicious phrasing seems to be not in the spirit of the admin tools. The article needed work and there definitely was conflict between someone in the Simple Green company IP range fighting with someone else from the Clorox Company IP range. That is a reason to clean up the article, not delete it. I don't have time to drag it over to DRV right now, I'll have to come back at a later date and do it. Neil916 (Talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's salvagable, and want to do the work, I suppose we don't need to go the DRV route. I could userfy it to a sandbox for you and you could work through the issues. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want it userfied... it's not my article, the only thing I'd done to it was clean up some of the references in it and kept it on my watchlist to deal with some of the corporate edit-warring that was taking place. My recollection of it was that it was a decent start-quality article that had plenty of work to be done with it, certainly not speedy-deletion quality. At worst, if you disagree with me, put it through an AFD or something, I'd really be surprised if there's consensus to delete it. I'm just too swamped with real work to dedicate a lot of time to it, given my general lack of interest in the subject matter. I'd rather have it in article space where it can be improved by the general population. Neil916 (Talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be restored immediately. It had a few references and is a notable product. You were seriously overstepping your powers as an admin here. II | (t - c) 21:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only external links in the final revision of the page were to the company's website, which are hardly impartial third-party references. There is no evidence of notability whatsoever. The article is thoroughly contaminated with advertising and inappropriate data, and contains material that is very likely copyright violation. You are also misreading the chain of events. The article was in fact deleted twice on October 27, in response to two different concerns. It was first marked as a copyvio and was deleted per CSD G12; the deleting admin noticed at this time the serious other issues with the article, but instead of leaving all the revisions deleted (which she was entirely entitled to do), she elected to restore those revisions that were not unequivocally copyright violations and tag them for CSD again, to get a second opinion on the issue. Akradecki proceeded to review the history and Jennavecia's actions, agreed with her that the article was a valid CSD candidate, and deleted. Claiming that there was an abuse of process here is itself seriously overstepping reality. For what it's worth, I fully endorse the deletion of the article. Happy‑melon 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notifying you of requested un-deletion

Hello, as requested by the rules for un-deletion request, I am notifying you of the request I've made. Thanks.

Deletion review for Freeway (eCommerce)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Freeway (eCommerce). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. techwriter75 (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Award

(janitorial award moved to user page)

Wow...thanks...that was delightfully unexpected! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacation notice

To all and sundry, I'll be off to the east side of the continent for the next nine days visiting relatives and the National Air & Space Museum for a feature article I'm writing. Will have my laptop with me, but probably won't be checking in all that often. Cheers! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jobxavier

Hey. Recently, I looked at the Religious violence in Orissa talk page, and I noticed how that there was a IP that was banned for being a sockpuppet of jobxavier. And now, the same IP is under a different IP but very very much alike, and is making the same exact edits that the other IPs have made. [[5]], along with the, hindus are huge anti christians and heathens and all that. Is this a good enough reason to get him blocked? Deavenger (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was User:jobxavier’s disruption. The user seems to be able to edit despite indef block (I guess ip address changes frequently and therefore, indef block users are also able to edit) and blindly adding NPOV tags & unconstructive talking in Anti-Christian violence in India, Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka, Religious violence in Orissa‎ and Persecution of Christians articles. Since jobxavier himself have admitted that he is a user from Kerala-India, a whois checkup of 116.68.98.199 and 59.93.33.55 clearly underlined his bad hand in those variety of articles. I know since you are on vacation, some other admins may take care of these issues. --Googlean ^Results 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting one more case [6] anon sock edits from jobxavier. The shared ip starts with 116.68.98.+ --Googlean ^Results 11:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Start using Articles for deletion

Glancing over your talk page, I see there are a few objections of your speedy deletions. Please cease and desist speedy deletions. In some cases I suspect you don't even PROD first. If you don't recognize the serious problem here, I'm going to have to mount a call to revoke your speedy delete button. II | (t - c) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Deletion_review. If someone disagrees with your speedy deletions, it should be treated as if they are disagreeing with a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion -- the article should be restored immediately. II | (t - c) 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

fyi, that so called "policy" was this edit by ImperfectlyInformed which of course was immediately reverted. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the quite reasonable impression that speedy deletions should be treated similarly to proposed deletions. Since it seemed like an oversight that they weren't, I changed it. I'm pretty skeptical of the way they are treated now -- it seems like a loophole. II | (t - c) 02:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cease and desist"?? And just who are you to be giving those kind of orders? I don't see your name on the 'crat list. Clearly, if you think a prod comes before a speedy, you don't understand how the process works. I'd suggest you go read up on it before throwing your weight around. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Simple Green

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simple Green. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Request for clarification

Hello Akradecki, You have speedy deleted a page I was writing on ElectricAccelerator, under G11. Please help me to understand why this was; the page contains substantial information not readily available on the actual operation of the subject software, information about competitive products, patent citations, news articles from reputable software development publications, and significant negative and positive attrbiute data. It is not clear to me how the article can be perceived as blatant advertising when the pages for similar products (Incredibuild comes to mind) are simply stubs with a bit of ad copy yet they remain. ScastlePM (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

First, it was written in a tone that was clearly promotional. Second, it contains over-detailed information, like a company product guide would. As you said, it "contains substantial information not readily available." This isn't the place for that kind of information. You might want to read some of our policies, including on reliable sources and notability, as well as what Wikipedia is not. I also got an impression that you are associated with the company...is that true? AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Contested Page You Deleted

The page I wrote was deleted despite the fact that I entered the hangon tag. As a matter of fact, it was deleted before I could finish writing my reasons for contesting its deletion. Considering I spent days working on this article and am trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and instructions, I am a bit frustrated that a contested page would be deleted so quickly.

Those reasons are as follows:

This company is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article because it is an important player in the computer software industry with customers all over the world. Also note that companies like SmarterTools also have Wikipedia entries. See Parallels, Inc. as an example. Similarly, individual products from companies like SmarterTools have their own Wikipedia entries. See Ipswitch IMail Server, MailEnable, and Parallels Workstation as examples.

As per Wikipedia's guidelines, I have written this article in a neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone. The article is not promotional or advertorial, just informational. In addition to referencing the company's own Web site, the article also references several external sites and sources, including Web Host Industry News, Reuters, and Forbes. I should also note that the company's Web site was used as a reference only when external source material was no longer available. Citing any available source, whether it is a primary or secondary, should be considered preferable to not referencing the information at all.

Azsumrg1rl (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know how (and if) I can get my hard work republished ASAP. Since your username was listed as the deleting editor, I am asking you for assistance in this manner.

Azsumrg1rl (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I cleaned up the backlog at CSD I deleted quite a few. Which one are you referring to? One thing to consider (this is just a general comment, since I don't know which article you refer to)...you said in your comment above, "This company is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article because...." The only reason a company is notable is when it meets our guideline which outlines notability for companies, which can be found at WP:CORP. If you'd like to explain how your article meets these specific guidelines, I'm listening, and if you can make a good case, I'm willing to reconsider. BTW, how are you associated with this company? AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the SmarterTools or SmarterTools Inc. page that was deleted shortly before my first comment on your talk page. Regarding notability, I reiterate that the article references several external sites and sources, including Web Host Industry News, Reuters, and Forbes. The company's Web site was used as a reference only when external source material was no longer available. Citing any available source, whether it is a primary or secondary, should be considered preferable to not referencing the information at all. Azsumrg1rl (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I went back and double checked the refs. Yes, there are some that are to Forbes, Reuters, etc. websites, but every one of these is merely a reprint of the company's press releases. There was absolutely no independent reporting from reliable second or third party sources that would confer notability at all. As I said before, please show me how the company meets WP:CORP and I'd be happy to reconsider. Make your case: what about this company causes it to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability? Incidently, this wasn't the first time the article was deleted, the time before it was also for spam, and some serious COI concerns. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In trying to track down the correct deleter of my article, I did indeed discover that there have been previous attempts by different editors/authors to create this article. My understanding, however, is that the previous versions were straight marketing material and in no way written in a neutral point of view. I think you will agree that the article I wrote differs in both cases. As I am to understand, the reason you deleted my page is because the external sources are not adequate in establishing SmarterTools as a notable company as defined by Wikipedia. As a point of reference, how many external sources are required before a company is considered notable? Furthermore, if external, or "reliable second or third party sources," are available to establish notability but do not directly correlate with the history of the company and its products, how is that treated?

I appreciate your patience with me in this manner. As I am sure you can tell, this was my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia entry. I had hoped to become a regular contributor to this site...

Azsumrg1rl (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And I hope you do become a regular contributor...we certainly could always use more! It's so important to fully understand our general notability guidelines, and in this case, corporate notability guidelines. A company is considered notable here if it is covered by independent external non-trivial mainstream or industry media. This does not include personal websites, blogs, or only by company-released media releases. In other words, we want to see that the company has become notable to the point that others are taking note of it. Because of this, new companies, and new products, often don't qualify merely because usually notability takes time. It's the rare case where a new company is formed and over night establishes itself so significantly in its industry, or in general culture, that it rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. Keep in mind, we aren't a directory of all companies that exist, or that have released the latest, newest products. That's why the minimum is generally references to at least two non-trivial independent reliable sources. In general, for instance, Reuters or Forbes would be considered good refs if writers from those pubs had actually written the article. What I don't seem be be hearing from you, however, is what about this company makes it so significant that it deserves and encyclopedia article? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've appreciated your patience and help in this matter. For now, it appears I will have to wait until additional news articles are written on the company to establish notability. This is disappointing, considering the amount of time I put into the article, so hopefully I will be able to find additional news sources over the next six months of so. In the meantime, I may try editing a few articles to continue to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guideline and style. Thanks. Azsumrg1rl (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for other articles to write, consider checking out WP:REQ, where there's a huge backlog of articles that have been requested. You'd still need to confirm that the subject was notable and that there were refs available, but if you want to contribute, this is a great way to get your feet wet. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tobryant

I noticed you've been taking care of my recent requests for speedy deletion, so if you don't mind, I'd like to ask your opinion on a set of articles. I've been looking at the contributions of User:Tobryant, and they seem, well, unencylopedic is the best I can make of them at the moment, but possibly qualifying as G11 or A7. See Cisco Career Certifications, Building Scalable Cisco Internetworks, Virtualization infrastructure, and Microsoft Certified Training Partner for examples. Care to take a look and let me know what you think? --Millbrooky (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Air force acquisition

Sorry for the faulty speedy tag. I did look for some sort of copyright information on the site, but failed to find anything one way or the other. Apparently I didn't look closely enough; I'll be more careful in the future. Huon (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in the "security and privacy info" link at the bottom, and item 2. on the linked page. No worries, though. Except for unusual circumstances, all U.S. govt pubs are considered by law to be PD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wilson

You deleted my edit of "Thomas Wilson" which includes many such people. It is a common name. In error, I had included links that were unnecessary. While editting (of my first contribution), you deleted the entry. Please note that it was a carbon copy of a "Thomas M. Wilson" (Perth) whose entry breaks all of the same rules you cited for me. He is obviously advertising himself. Therefore, please delete his entry bio too. Otherwise, please let me continue fixing mine because it represents an incontrovertibly historical link with the Lafayette Escadrille and WWI aviation. Incidentally, my username has nothing to do with my email ID. I do not represent an organization or a company. You can email there at thomas.l.wilson@nasa.gov . ThomasWilsonTexas —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasWilsonTexas (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Drive-by deletion"

In the Deletion review for the Simple Green article, I used the phrase "drive-by" deletion when describing the deletion of the article. You responded in a manner that makes me think I wasn't clear in my usage of the phrase. I wasn't referring to a deletion that was undertaken lightly or overly hastily, but a "deletion on sight", where an article wasn't tagged by an editor for deletion and then a second, independent and uninvolved admin reviewed the tag and the article, agreed with the rationale, and then deleted the article. Sorry if I wasn't clear on my usage of the phrase. I've also clarified this in my comments on that deletion review page. Neil916 (Talk) 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it was most definitely not a drive-by...the article had been tagged by User:Jennavecia under G11. I very rarely do the kind of deletion that you're calling a "drive-by"...typically, as in this case, I work out of CAT:CSD, specifically the G11 section. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I definitely owe you an apology for being so irritated at the process. I was not able to see the tag since the history and the article had been deleted and hadn't seen any notifications anywhere. I thought it was something you came across and deleted on sight, but I feel better that at least it had two sets of eyeballs on it before getting deleted, although it makes me wonder how bad that revision that was restored must have been for the article to get speedied. Sorry again. Neil916 (Talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also owe you an apology, especially since I showed a fair bit more irritation than Neil916. I edited that article a long time ago and added references to it, and I was pretty surprised to see it disappear so suddenly. Given the amount of complaints you had on your talk page, I figured you were deleting referenced articles. Probably my fault to some degree, since I must have taken it off my watchlist. II | (t - c) 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do understand your frustration. As I work the CSD category, I actually usually decline more than I delete. But you also have to understand Wikimedia's views towards spam, as described a couple of years ago here. The amount of crap that's getting dumped into this encyclopedia is almost overwhelming, and there are plenty of people who think that they have the God-given right to use the encyclopedia to advertise their product or service. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I appreciate your janitorial work. II | (t - c) 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Turbo A.C.'s

Hi,
this band is definitely notable, and I can't imagine why there was a need to speedydelete an article that existed at least since 2005 (that's how long the German version has had an interwiki to en). Could you please restore this in my usernamespace, so I can add references? Cheers, --NoCultureIcons (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. See User:NoCultureIcons/sandbox. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --NoCultureIcons (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you take another look at the article? I don't want to move it back without approval; it's a bit difficult to find good sources in English, I guess they are more popular in Germany. Rolling Stone only did one review [7], wheras de:Ox or de:Visions would have provided more ([8]). --NoCultureIcons (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tacit approval, right? --NoCultureIcons (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry...just been real busy. But, it does look better. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/116.68.99.231

This IP edited the articles Anti-Christian violence in India, September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore and Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka. Edit pattern looks like a sock of Jobxavier. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting this too: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/116.68.99.91, & apart from above my reportings to you, I feel a range blocking may be needed in this case as jobxavier is using a range of ip starting from 116.68.99+.. & 59.93.33+.. Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 13:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another sock Special:Contributions/116.68.96.5. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: You should undo your delete of beadwall

It is a great energy saving device and would help with the waste of oil that most homes and offices now have. There is no company behind it and so it is open source or in the public domain since the patent expired. People have forgotten about this building technique. I don't see how you can judge its notability since you have no training in that field of knowledge. 71.131.6.177 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I judge notability the only way notability is judged at Wikipedia: by our policy. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Allison T56

Alan, is there any chance you have some images of T56s around? We could use one in the Allison T56 article, as it has no pics. Since C-130s and P-3 frequent the Mojave (Insert current name here), ;) I figured you might already have some, or could get some in the near future. Thanks for whatever you can do! - BillCJ (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, unfortunately, I don't think I have any, but next time they have Tanker 64 uncowled I'll be sure to snap a couple. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. I've found some images on defenseimagery.mil, but they aren't the best images. They'll do till we get something better. - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Condor band page

I'm not sure why you've deleted my Inappropriate Condor band page. We clearly exist and are serious. I'm not posting this as a joke or in humor at all. We've existed since 2006 and are in the works of an album as I type this. Please give me some indication why you would delete an upcoming bands page.

Please email me and inform as to why you've deleted this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooZooZoo3 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't routinely use email for Wikipedia business, so you'll have to live with this. Second, "existing" and "being serious" are not criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MUSIC, and further, since you say you're writing about your own group, you might want to check out our conflict of interest guidelines. And lastly, I don't know how you can claim ignorance of the reasons for deletion...they were detailed quite clearly on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Needed?

Hi Akradecki, I've got a question for you: Would temporary semi-protection be in order for the pages related to North Cyprus, since we're getting a new VivaNorthCyprus sock just about every day? I'm pretty new and not too knowledgeable when it comes to page protection, so I didn't know if it would be appropriate in this case. Thanks. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd say probably yes in general, but the community seems to feel that s-protect is only really appropriate if there's multiple IP accounts vandalizing multiple times during every day. FWIW, for the moment, I'd prefer to allow VCN to continue trying to use IPs, so we can get a sense of the IP range that he uses. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks a lot for the response! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adradecki

Adradecki I am in need of some assistance rght now in regards to the History of the Assyrian People. Dab has changed this name without any discussion or consensus until after the fact he did it. This page prior to being masively changed by this user was strictly dedicated to perserving and explaining the history of this persecuted people from ancient times to the present. He is continually disrupting articles from Wiki Project Assyria to fit his narrow minded views. Can you help revert this article back to the name it was before it got changed to this new name which is problematic on the grounds that not all assryians speak syriac and there are over 2.5 million syriac speakers in india who are not assyrian. This title is very misleading; there is already an articel on Syraic Christianity and there is no need to reiterate this information on every Assyrian related Article. Please get back to me and also Dab although helpful at times is continuing to disrupt pages from this project to meet his so called fair and balanced views. I have left similar messages fro some other users as well we can use some additional help thanks your participation in this will be appreciated. Nineveh 209 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As a non-expert, in reading through the talk page move discussions, it sounds like the current name is reasonable. As long as there are redirects from all the possible variations of the names, why does it matter so much? The point of a good encyclopedia article is to present a well rounded picture, to present all sides. Nitpicking over a title is counterproductive in every possible way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this user is letting his own POV afflecting the work in Wikipedia (e.g. [9], I get 6 hits in google when searching on Assyro-Babylonian mathematics, 16 200 hits with Babylonian mathematics.) The TriZ (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that ya'll are arguing on the basis of mere arguments. In the talk page discussion, I saw little or no referencing. Sure, there were claims that this or that percentage of refs use this or that term, but no reputable refs actually given. As far as I'm concerned, the lack of scholarship is appalling. You want to win your case? Stop writing from your own POV and start citing academic sources. Regardless of whether it's an ethnic group or a religious group, there's surely numerous academic refs that can support one version or another...or both, in which case the article should reference both sides. The real problem is that too many people are approaching this thing from national pride and/or offense, and few are approaching it from a neutral academic perspective. Until the discussion becomes more academic, I'm really not interested in being involved. My suggestion: Start looking up and quoting, on the talk page, academic references to how the group is referred to, and start talking to each other like you want to work together, rather than like you're re-fighting an ancient war. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am confident this will sort itself out satisfactorily quite soon now. I have never seen an editing dispute where both parties were quite so difficult and unamenable to admit even to the content of the dispute. This has been very difficult. There is a strawpoll on a move of the main article now. As it turns out, there are about four about equally admissible names for this group. To minimize confusion, we should decide on the naming of the main article first, and rename the other articles accordingly. Obviously, there is no way to make everybody happy. This is a real-world dispute, and these guys really hate one another's guts, so we cannot expect them to suddenly become friends on-wiki. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. This may sound very un-wiki-like, but in such a situation, I almost think that editors who are so closely personally and emotionally involved in the real-world situation should step away and let neutral, uninvolved editors write and edit the articles. I'm not an ethnographer, but I would expect that there is an internationally recognized "gold standard" publication in that field, as there is in just about any field, and the articles should reflect how that publication refers to the ethnic group. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki, the articles above that I mentioned has nothing to do with the modern group or the naming conflict, it's just some nationalist users trying to add Assyrian into the article. I mean Assyro-Babylonian mathematics got 6 hits in google, 5 of them refers to the ref that's used and the last one to wiki. Can it be more obvious?

I'm confident that we can all work together and put our own POV to the side in order to improve the articles standards, I hate no one and I'm willing to co-operate, obivously though I'm no avid supporter of assyrianism. The TriZ (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Google is not the deciding factor in academia. Triz before you start labling people nationalists I suggest you do some research on this and Google is not the place to start. Triz I can see you're trying to make Wikipedia a more Fair and balanced place for studies and I thank you for bringing up your concerns. I have edited and I have provided many academic sources that argue otherwise on the Babylonian pages. Instead of using google I use academic search engines that are provided to me and any student through the university that specifically list peer-reviewed scholarly articles and books that are contested and written by professional experts in the fields. Some of the search engines I use are JSTOR, Historical Abstracts, Assyriology Academic Center, Wilson Omnifile and so on. Again if you have any questions please feel to speak with me on my talk page and we can have a civil and respectable conversation there. I am willing to work to reslove as many issues as possible Nineveh 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs)

What I'd like to see from both sides is more quoting of academic sources on the talk page. Not entire chapters, but 2-3 sentence selections, properly attributed, to demonstrate how the different academic experts refer to the groups. And it doesn't need to deteriorate into an argument. If different experts have different usages, that's fine...the article should reflect the variations of terms throughout academia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sharp Nemesis

Hello! Your submission of Sharp Nemesis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jamie^☆S93 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Selteco Software

I am trying to figure out why my post about software that I am familiar with was deleted. I am also trying to figure out why my contest of the deletion was never responded to. This especially in light of that fact that Adobe has advertising posted all over Wikipedia that has not been deleted, and I tried to configure my submission in a similar form to theirs. It was not "blatent advertising" which is not something you are qualfied to judge unless you ask me questions about this. As I mentioned, it was my first submission, so I chose a topic that I was familiar with.

Was it in the wrong language perhaps? Was it software that you don't like? A topic that you don't like? Should we stick to only material that are consistent with your hobbies?

Alan, I would expect you to at least respond when someone contests quick deletion criteria. Instead your reponse was to delete.

bubbbab Steve sb@steveboyd.biz

P.S. Let's see how long it takes to delete this becuase it is not bowing to you like the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbbab (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Additon to the Selteco Talk

LOL, he even deleted my talk page contesting the speedy deletion so nobody could read it.

Welcome to Alan's Personal Hobby-Pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbbab (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it a) it was written like an advertisement, and b) because it failed Wikipedia's notability criteria. Simple as that. As for the hangon message, it did not address the issues, and did not provide any compelling reasons, from a policy standpoint, for why the article should be kept. And no, I didn't delete your talk page, I deleted the article's talk page, which is standard practice when an article is deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL

You are a joke. Not because you unilaterally deleted a page that you knew nothing about, although that is a little mindless, but because you have not once addressed the concerns raised with the inequities in other postings, and my article. I'll try and keep it simple for you, the reason for your lack of address, is that you can't. Software companies with the big bucks can post whatever they like, and you do nothing. I don't even work for the company, and have nothing to gain with the posting. Back to your post, at MacDonalds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbbab (talk • contribs) 12:58, November 30, 2008

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The existence of other articles is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that this article didn't meet muster. It was written like an advertisement/product guide. I could care less whether you work for the company or not...that doesn't make a bit of difference...what matters is the article itself. As for me knowing nothing about the article, that's irrelevant, too. The article needs to be able to stand on its own, and as an administrator, I don't evaluate an article based on whether I am an expert on the subject, I base it on whether it meets our standards to exist as an article. That is something I do know about. You should too, if you want to write here. You might want to actually make yourself familiar with our policies here, including what makes a subject "notable". You can read about it here: WP:N. Lastly, please keep your tone civil. Do you think that your insulting tone is really going to do any good in getting me to change my mind? If you try that tack with any other admins, or with other editors, for that matter, you'll probably end up with your account blocked. Lastly, if you know of other corporations who "post whatever they like", please do tell me, and I will most certainly do something about that...corporations are not supposed to be editing their own articles, and we have ways of taking care of that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

wise comment

Your 777 FAC comment about the mainstream media getting aviation details wrong is correct! The websites that someone didn't know is reliable gets the facts right! Chergles (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As a full-time aviation professional and a part-time aviation journalist, I find the glaring errors of the mainstream media quite frustrating. Oh well, such is life! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

(star moved to user page) Wow! Thank you for your thoughtfulness! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Livingston L. Holder, Jr.

Thanks for the help; I used William A. Pailes as a template, but as you noted that was my first foray into wikipedia editing. I've tried to stay strictly factual and only present material for which I had references, but I appreciate that there's a learning curve. Dr void (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Hercules

Okay, Alan - I show six Hercules operated by Alaska Airlines, ASA:

• L-100 c/n 3946 - L-100, Model 382-17B, Lockheed demonstrator N1130E, first flown 20 April 1964, FAA certification February 1965. Leased to Alaska Airlines, March 1965. Leased to Pacific Western Airlines, 1967. Modified to 382E (L-100-20), first flown April 1968. Leased to Delta, line number 304, October 1968. To PSL Lease Corp., N50FW, March 1969, operated by Flying W Airways, 'D' on fin. Leased to Airlift International, May-September 1969. To Philippine government, PI-97, RP-97, April 1973. Sold to Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation, RP-C97, 3946, October 1978. Stored at Manila, March 1981, registration cancelled 1984. To Philippine Air Force 3946, July 1983, same April 1995, operational February 1997, same March 2002, withdrawn from use April 2004, flying July 2006.

• L-100 c/n 4101, Model 382B-1C, first flown September 17, 1965, leased to Continental Air Services, N9260R, September 1965, then sold to the Government of Zambia, registered 9J-RCV, August 1966. Leased to Zambian Air Cargoes, August 1966, then sold to National Aircraft Leasing, registered N920NA, March 1969, in an FAA series usually reserved for aircraft of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, same January 1977. Leased to Alaska Airlines, April 1969. Leased to Saturn Airways, N24ST, June 1972, modified to L-100-30, November 1972. Leased to TIA, December 1976, port wing and engines damaged in explosion, May 1977, repaired; sold to TIA, April 1979. To Transamerica, October 1979, green and white scheme, Transamerica T on green tail in white - destroyed on ground as it landed Cafunfo, Angola during UNITA guerrilla attack 29 December 1984. Electric buss panel fire due to gunfire spread, hull burnt out. Pilot, flight engineer survive groundfire and are captured by UNITA, repatriated through the Red Cross after a month; first officer, two DIAMANG couriers, killed by gunfire.

• L-100 c/n 4134, Model 382B-3C, Lockheed Aircraft Company N9263R, March 1966. Leased to Pacific Western Airlines, then leased to Alaska Airlines, March 1966. Sold to Alaska Airlines, April 1966. Sold to Saturn, N16ST, July 1971. Modified to L-100-30, April 1972. Leased to Alaska International Air, previously Interior Airways, later Markair. To TIA, December 1976. To Transamerica, October 1979. Leased to Southern Air Transport, July 1986. Registered to SAT, October 1987. Reregistered N916SJ, April 1988. Stored at Tucson IAP, October 1993, same February 1995. Used for oil dispersal in Great Britain, March 1995. Stored at Marana Air Park, January 1998, operational March 1998, stored Marana January 2001. To Transafrik, August 1999, same May 2001, as S9-BAT. As of August 2005 airframe had 94,748 hrs., highest of all Hercules.

• L-100 c/n 4146, Model 382B-5C, delivered June 1966, registered N9726R, sold to Bank of America, leased to Alaska Airlines, June 1966, named City of Anchorage; leased to Aerea-Aerovias Ecuatorianas, April 1968, burned after propeller struck ground while taxiing at Macuma, Ecuador, 16 May 1968, no fatalities.

• L-100 c/n 4208, Model 382B-7C, delivered March 1967, to Alaska Airlines, N9227R, "City of Juneau", April 1967. Sold to National Aircraft Leasing. Sold to Alaska International Airlines, November 1972. Sold to Saturn, N18ST, January 1973. Modified to L-100-30, February 1973. To TIA, December 1976. Transamerica, October 1979. Leased to Southern Air Transport, July 1986. Sold to SAT, October 1987. Reregistered N918SJ, April 1988, same January 1998. Sold to TWL, Ltd., Mauritius, operated by Transafrik, S9-CAY by August 1998, same October 2002. Sold to Safair, ZS-ORA, December 2004, (maintenance by Safair, November 2004, as S9-CAY.) Reregistered ZS-ORA by October 2005, same October 2006.

• L-100 c/n 4221, Model 382B-10C, delivered July 1967 as Lockheed Aircraft Service Company N9248R; leased to Alaska Airlines, November 1968 – November 1969, then modified to L-100-20. Sold to Saturn Airways, October 1970. Crashed in bad weather on approach to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, 11 October 1970, 3 on board KWF.

That's all of the entries the 26th edition of Lars Olausson's Production List shows for Alaska Airlines, and I doubt that the records will change much as they got out of the Hercules business by the time the war in SEA was over. Mark Sublette (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the write-offs I lifted straight out of my List of C-130 Crashes article... Mark Sublette (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Sorry, I should have thought to look at your article. Oh well! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FA

The 777 article doesn't have a single explicit "support" even though it seems that you support it! I nominated it so support is assumed. Would you like to do the honors and support it? Chergles (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or provide some comments on what need improvement. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Faceless

Unlock this page and allow it to be re made for this well-known progressive death metal band.

Their album Planetary Duality debuted at #119 on the Billboard Hot 200 making them one of the most successful technical death metal bands. A very notable band -- please respond. Thanks Cjgone2 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not so easy (your demanding tone notwithstanding). The article was deleted via AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Faceless), so you'll have to go convince the gang over at deletion review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Who should I message then?

Deleting this page was definitely some act of bias because there's atleast 50 million other band pages that have absolutely no recognition in every other music genre. And this band just happened to get picked -- yet they're one of the most well-known in their music genre.. Which is notable enough to me.

Cjgone2 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not read? I told you who to message, even gave you a link above. It should be listed at deletion review. And before you throw around accusations of bias, you should make yourself familiar with how things work around here. "Notable enough for to you" isn't the same thing as notable enough for Wikipedia. Please make yourself familiar with WP:MUSIC. And no, there aren't 50 million such articles...there are only 2.6 million articles in the entire encyclopedia. However, if you happen to find a band article that doesn't meet our criteria, you're welcome to let me know and I'll deal with it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GPACSystem

Hi Akradecki,

Recently my first ever wikipedia article got deleted for lack of reliable sources. Unfortunately I did not realise in time and did not contest it before the deadline. Is there any chance you could reinstate it? I do not mind rewriting the article if thats ok. BrinleyAng (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it was prodded and no one took the time to respond to it, there are some other serious issues with the article. One, as you mentioned, was lack of references, but the lack of references also bring up the other...is this really encyclopedic? Also, how are you connected to the company? I'd be willing to consider restoring the text to a sandbox for you to work further on, but I'd appreciate your answers to the above first. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The GPAC has won an award and also received a government grant during it early days for its innovative approach to automation. Currently, it is in use by various government agency and isnt a commercial off the shelf product hence the lack of publicity. Also I was formerly an employee of the company that developed the product and having worked on the product, have a sound understanding of the principals of its underlying system which I see slowly being adopting in other systems hence feel it is worthy of mention. That said, I posted the article out of personal interest. There are references that I should have mention before, so if you could restore the article into a sandbox, I will work on it, keep you updated on it and only put it live with your approval. Thanks BrinleyAng (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As requested, the article was pulled out of oblivion and moved to your sandbox, here: User:BrinleyAng/sandbox. Enjoy! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tepper update

Thanks! The Model 382G-69C, c/n 5027 N3796B was previously registered N4557C... Mark Sublette (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! So 4557C has reappeared...it was here once before under that reg. Very interesting. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it is registered to Northcap LLC, Brandywine Building, 1000 West 10th Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 - one of those notorious "Delaware corporations" so long associated with you-know-who. I have forwarded your sighting onto Lars Olausson for updating c/n 5027's history. Mark Sublette (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

non-controversial?

Are you sure "deleted "Template:External media/doc" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)" was a noncontroversial edit? We need that documention actually for a template in use. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's how it was tagged. If this was a mistake, let me know and I'll investigate further. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

XMsuite Deletion

The XMsuite page was written using Clarizen and Wrike pages as model. The content of XMsuite was similar to those pages and both of those weren't deleted. Could you give me more specific details on why XMsuite was deleted and how I can improve and edit it so it will not be deleted again? Thanks--Jackdragon17 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

XMsuite Edit

I am a new Wikipedia user and I read the link you provided, but I am still unclear about the guidelines. Will the XMsuite page meet the guidelines for inclusion if I deleted the LLC part and deleted the http://www.xmsuite.com link? Thanks--Jackdragon17 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me first what your connection with XMSuite. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat

Alan, I'm not sure what User:CyclePat is trying to accomplish, but it's decidely an odd way to do it, per [ this diff] and the Scout/Wasp page. He's attempted some explanation at User talk:Fnlayson#You are making it difficult to implement change and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#A little help here!. I think he's trying to add some PD trading cards whole to WP, but I doubt that will be allowed per policy. I'm not sure exactly what his templated references thingy is supposed to be, but cite templates would do the same thing far much better. Could you look into this, and perhaps hand it off to another admin if you fon't have the time to deal with the user? Thanks, and have a Merry Christmas! - BillCJ (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm a vandal who is harrassing him! See this diff. Major fun! - BillCJ (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User: The Triz

I have read some of your posts before and I know you are not an expert on the Assyrian People, however I do know you are a expert on civility. This user continues to put down other users who disagree with his views, he calls them naive, childlish, stupid, biased, wihtout providing any sources of his own. I ask that you only engage in this discussion on the civility of the article, because this user is counterproductive. He disrespects others and puts them down because it does not match his viewpoint and he doesnt provide any sources to back up his claims. Read some of his posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac_people#Move_to_Assyrian_people this is only a small piece in what this user is doing towards others, here is another example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=254865500#Disruptive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_possible_sock_User:130.17.92.17 I humbly ask you to overlook or wiki discipline this users abrupt behavior towards other users he or she caustically mocks and puts down. 69.226.97.157 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion does seem to have gotten a bit heated at times, but I really don't see an issue here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference

The linked I deleted on Scaled_Composites_WhiteKnightTwo is not a real link. By manipulating the URL you can make the page say anything you want. Therefore its content is not to be trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.45.50 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't delete a link, you deleted the entire paragraph. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PT6T

Alan, do you know of any good sources, preferably online, but off is OK too, that describe the PT6T is good but readable detail? I vaguely understand how the PT6T differs from two separate engines, but I would like to learn more, and then try to put together a variant article about the engine. Since your 412 uses it/them, I figured you might be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks, and forgive me if I've asked this before. Hope you had a good Christmas, and have a Happy New Year! - BillCJ (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill! Had a nice quiet Christmas...was on-call in case the 412 broke, and got no calls, so that was a good thing. Basically the PT6T is two PT6A power section/gas generator modules bolted to a common reduction gearbox, also called a combining gearbox (or Cbox), which has a single output shaft that goes to the main rotor transmission. Besides the standard fuel controls and governors for each of the two engines, there's a common torque matching governor that makes sure the power output is matched (the Cbox has clutches in it so to accommodate one engine running by itself). As for resources, here's a few from my bag o' tricks:

• [10]
• [11]

Hope this helps! I can also dig out specific info from the maintenance manuals, if you need it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as always! I've noticed where were a number of twin-pac type engines in the 40s and 50s, notably the T40, Double Mamba, and XT67, which was the original engine for the Bell 212 until the Canadians decided to order it with the Canadian-built PT6T. Later, the US Government "repaid the favor" by insisting the PT^Ts for the USN/USMC aircraft be assembled in the US, which is where the the odd "WV" code in some T400s comes from. (I'm still trying to track down sources on that one, esp who "WV" referes to.) Anyway, I'll try to have some of that in the article too, with links to the other twinned engines. I'll post a note at the new Aeroengines Task Force talk page too, as several of the other editors there have 212 experience. Should be an interesting article when it's done, or I hope so anyway. I'd also like to see more info on the standard PT6s too, as the page is a bit short for such a major engine family. - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it possible that you have or can get a pic of a PT6T "out ot the bird"? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, we've only just changed the modules individually (you can remove either engine or the cbox with everything else still installed), but if we ever have the entire TwinPac out for some reason, I'll definitely get the pic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The article is up at Pratt & Whitney PT6T. Both it and the main PT6 page still need specs. I haven't done any engine specs yet, as I'm still a bit leary of them! - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Babylift C-5 crash

Actually, we've already got it... Mark Sublette (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Dear Akradecki,

I have recognized that you have deleted my artikel about the videogame company "redspotgames". I was wondering what to do in order to restore and keep this article. In the meanwhile the company has release new games and is the only publisher left of the videogame console "Dreamcast" which will be of interest to the videogame audience.

If you could give me some advice that would be great. Mode7 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting that, and I checked the page's history, and it shows nothing. RedSpotGames currently exists on wikipedia as a redirect. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

More fun with Centennial Airport

Alan, it's starting again! Yesterday, a user inserted more claims on Centennial Airport being in Centennial, CO, so I removed all references to Centennial or ENglewood unless the mailing address is listed as Englewood. Now User:Watkinsian is back today, undoing some of it, but making some improvements on others. THe mainn mess is in the Adam Aircraft article, per this diff. Help please! Or send this to another admin if your tired of it! Thanks, and Happy New Year. - BillCJ (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too...I'm of a mind of warning Watkinsian one more time for disruptive editing and then blocking, but because of my Air Methods connection, that might be viewed as COI and abuse of tools. Maybe Rlandmann or one of the other project admins could step in? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that, which I why I though you might want to pass it off. Would you mind contacting RL or Milb1 to see if they could help? I'm heading out for awhile, but I'll check later,and ask then if you've not been able to. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added Adam Aircraft to my watchlist, I will keep an eye on any more changes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MB. Air Methods is the other one that needs watching. Officially, both in company sources and other official sources, the address is Englewood, and Watkinsian, who I suspect is a promoter of the town of Centennial, has been running a slow edit war removing or weasel wording this info. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, from somobody not even in North America! just looked up Adams HQ on the google maps and it is firmly in Arapahoe County, most of the airport north of the County Line Road (I think a hint in the name) is in Araphahoe County just part of the south end of the runway and a few buildings drop into Dakota. I presume it is fairly usual to name locations with reference to the County? Also Air Methods S. Peoria St. is also above the county line road. As neither (Adams or AM) of them appear to be in Englewood or Centennial (according to the official Arapahoe County map which shows city boundries http://gis.co.arapahoe.co.us/website/arapamap/viewer.htm) what would normally be in the infobox location city (currently say Englewood for AM)? MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other articles, but since AMC is a publicly traded company, and is an FAA Certificated Air Carrier, the official address for the company, of which there are numerous refs, is in Englewood. IMHO, these refs trump a map. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK understood, the difference between the company as a legal entity and physical location. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a "promoter of the town of Centennial" (by the way: a "City" - of 100,000 people -), but rather a discreditor of misleading information. Stating a location as being in a certain city, when in fact it is several miles outside of it (and much nearer to a number of other cities), is at worst a falsehood and at best misleading. Just look at the map referenced above and it should be abundantly clear that the location is not in Englewood. A mailing address in the United States can be composed using any of the place names that the U.S. Postal Service deems acceptable for use with a particular ZIP code. In this case, companies located in the ZIP code 80112 can choose to use "Centennial", "Englewood", or "Greenwood Village" in their mailing address. AMC has chosen to use "Englewood"; thus the "numerous refs". It could just as well choose to use "Centennial", which, although not actually within that city's limits either, it is however immediately adjacent to them. Since AMC has been and is associated with "Englewood", there is reason for that to be reflected in the article; however, the reader should be made aware of the fact that this use of "Englewood" is a postal designation, and should not be construed as an indication that the company's location is actually in the City of Englewood. Again, when AMC is located directly on the Centennial border, yet seven miles from Englewood, it is blatantly misleading to indicate its location as "Englewood" and simply leave it at that. Watkinsian (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've told you before, Wikipedia is about the refs. If a bunch of refs say one thing, but you look it up on a map and deduce that it's something else, right or wrong, that's Original Research. Wikipedia's policy is to go with the refs. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Hi! Thanks so much indeed for awarding me the Wikiwings. I'm honored, and it motivates me to do more for that project. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS John Stagg

Hi, this article has been nominated for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure why I received it, as I've never edited that article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your block of an IP

I don't think you meant vandalism only account. ;) However, it was blocked for 6 months in May. I think the case can be made for a longer block. Enigma^msg 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The vandal, as announced in his edit summaries, is a long-standing, well-known one, which is why I used that justification. That being said, I am very hesitant to long-term block IPs. The current time period is typically long enough to discourage use, but we'll see. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For most vandals, a short block is enough that you don't usually see vandalism soon after from the IP. If they're persistent, they change IPs, etc. With this one, it keeps coming back. What was that, the 7th block? A long term block would be justified. Enigma^msg 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It did in fact, return to vandalize. Enigma^msg 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 10,001 hour block should serve to relieve the project of that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Makhachkala Il-76 collision

I think your opinion would me appreciated deletion discussion for Makhachkala Il-76 collision. – Zntrip 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 19#Sexting

Maybe you want to cut this short? Best,  Sandstein  21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimming List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

When you're the list per ADL please consider putting the trimmed entry into the Holding zone. (I've done so in this case.) Cheers.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli

Alan, I've noticed Stefanomencarelli has been making some edits recently. Was there not supposed to have been a review by Arbcom before he was allowed to edit? I should have mentioned this when you told me some admin had unblocked him, but I didn't want to deal with him at that time. After his several attempts to bypass his block, I did not think he would be allowed back without severe restrictions. Regardless of whether or not he is behaving properly now (I'm not sure - I've not checked all his edits), I don't see how he should be allowed back after cheating without some kind of review. Is there a place I can appeal his unblock to Arbcom? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I see you reverted an entire discussion on my talk page. Any reason? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the heads up. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glider

I am resisting the temptation to join in the debate once more on the glider article; it will just start off the same loop again. Wolfkeeper is arguing that the article's title should be based on the legal status. Just to give you a summary of what has been debated so far: everyone, other than Wolfkeeper, is arguing and voting that the basis for naming articles is what everyone calls them (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions) ie what people would expect to see when they type in a name. The consensus has been that when they want to see hang gliders, that is what they type. Hang gliders were given the prefix 'hang' to distinguish them from gliders. Similarly when they want to see gliders, they type gliders. The difference between Wolfkeeper and the rest is that Wolfkeeper thinks that an academic naming convention is better. Your suggestion that certification is a basis follows Wolfkeeper's logic of a name based on classification by the authorities. If the true names for objects are used for naming articles in future, then I would not like to be the person who suggests changing the name of the article on the Statue of Liberty! If you ever decide to reply again on the glider talk page, you may wish to take another tack. JMcC (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the input! I'm a bit confused, though, because by taking the stand I am taking, the practical outcome is what you seem to be advocating, rather than Wolfkeeper's all-inclusive viewpoint. By that, as an example, I mean that since hang gliders aren't certificated gliders, then they shouldn't be included in the glider article (if I understand you right, isn't that your viewpoint?). I guess what I'm trying to get at is a middle ground. We don't need to include everything that could conceivably glide through the air, so we need some structure. Since in the U.S. aviation world there are clear-cut lines as to what a glider is (and thus what you need as far as a certificate to fly them), that is a logical demarcation line. That line not-with-standing, what would you use to distinguish what should be included? The downside of what I'm suggesting that line to be is that I don't know if the JAA and CAAs of the world mirror the FAA on this, or if they define things differently. I don't want to take a US-centric view and imply that US FAA definitions trump everything, so I'd like to hear what other regulatory agencies have established. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse. I agree with your vote, however your line of argument will not help in discussions with Wolfkeeper. Technically hang gliders and paragliders are gliders, ie unpowered heavier-than-air aircraft. The article reflects the technical definition in the intro at the suggestion of Wolfkeeper. However Wolfkeeper is emphasising this technical definition should dictate the content of the article, whereas the rest of us think the common name is how the article should be named and should determine its content. Wolfkeeper's approach would produce one of two articles: a giant article covering gliders, hang gliders and paragliders; or a disambiguation page since there are fairly limited common features. By referring to the FAI's rule book about what should or shouldn't be certified, you are emphasising another technical definition, even though it is different from Wolfkeeper's. I believe that any technical definition is less important than what people look up. I think that the article should refer to all types in the intro (military gliders, hang gliders, paragliders and even the Space Shuttle) but since the popular meaning is gliders, the rest of the article should describe them. If an universal definition is to be used, I would prefer that of the worldwide body for air-sports, the FAI. Look up the records section and you will see their classification of aircraft, ie gliders, hang gliders and paragliders. JMcC (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

MARCbot

Hey there, just to let you know; I've recreated MARCbot, which you deleted per G11. After a Google search it turns out this bot is one of the more notable automated creations employed by the Army. Thoughts? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be very nice if your speedy deletion was reverted so the article's history and talk page are not lost. I totally agree with Master of Puppets excellent revisions which should be kept/merged. Many thanks, Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Apogee Foundation

Greetings. The Apogee Foundation article was online for years, and had been contributed to by many contributors -- including myself. It also had been reviewed repeatedly by Wikipedia editors during that time; during the history of which no one had ever proposed deletion -- only helpful adjustments, which were always promptly heeded and fulfilled. The reason for deletion is stated to be copyright related but, in my opinion, the best response to this would be to enter a "history only undeletion" so that the previously acceptable versions of the article are reinstated and any subsequent issues that were introduced could then be corrected. I'll be grateful if you will please do so, so that the work of several years by many people is not lost. If you will also please also inform me where I can obtain the latest version of the article that was deleted, I will undertake to make any necessary revisions or to obtain any necessary consents to bring it into compliance while also respecting everyone's past contributions to the subject and its presentation as much as possible. Thank you. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMeDeus (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough request. I have done a partial restoration, leaving out the copyvio and spam text that was added by extensive IP editing after this version. Feel free to expand it, but please be very aware of our policies on notability and reliable sources. If this article edited to include reliable 3rd party refs that demonstrate encyclopedic notability, then all will be fine. If it reverts to a promotional piece, then I'll delete again. Spam is not tolerated here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the version restored is from several years ago; and pre-dates versions already reviewed and not found problemmatical by Wikipedia editors. As requested earlier, please assist me in obtaining the latest version of the article to ensure that the good faith work of many people invested in this during the ensuing two years -- all of which had been previously reviewed by Wikipedia editors, and most of which was performed specifically at the request of Wikipedia editors -- can be preserved and incorporated in the new article; consistent with resolving any copyright issues; etc. Specifically, I request -- as provided for in Wikipedia's policies of deletion review -- that the deleted version of the article be restored to my userspace, in order that I can work on it to address any problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review According to Wikipedia's policies regarding history-only undeletion, which also are provided on that page, the deleted revisions of a history-only undeletion were to "sit harmlessly in the history of the page." But, in this case, everything since January of 2007 has been removed without a trace even though it had been reviewed repeatedly during those years by Wikipedia editors and found to be appropriate; indeed, as mentioned above, most of this work was done specifically at the request of Wikipedia editors in good faith without the expectation that those two years of responsive work would then all be thrown away without warning or an opportunity to correct any problems. Thank you. WikiMeDeus comment added by WikiMeDeus talk 10:10 AM UTC, 29 January 2009

Copyright violations are not typically kept in the history, as that would be a continued copyright violation. Likewise, to restore a copyvio to a sandbox would also be a continued copyright violation. If you want to go to DRV, and explain why you want to keep a copyright violation in the history, have at it, but I doubt you'll get far. It is not at all unusual to revert back to a neutral former version of a page, so I'd suggest that you use what currently exists and start there, being always mindful not to import material from the organization's web site or promotional material, and while you're at it, keep the article neutral and non-spamish. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a third option provided by Wikipedia policies: "The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review Please therefore be so kind as to email a copy of the article to me to review 'off-Wiki'.WikiMeDeus comment added by WikiMeDeus talk 15:54 AM UTC, 29 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

What part of "it's a copyright violation" do you not get? Copyvios get purged. Period. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - Advertisment?

Hey.

I wonder what is the difference between the article I made about GlobeStar and the IBM, Microsoft and CISCO's articles? I really do not understand why is the "advertisement reason" being used to justify the deletion of the article.

The same headings and kind of information that both IBM, CISCO and Microsoft's articles have are the same I used.

Please advise me about what is wrong on the article.

Thank you for your help and time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmsmartins (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was repeatedly removed because it reads like it was written as an advertisement. What is your connection to the company? AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrés Rivera

Hi, I note that you deleted Andrés Rivera – an article about an Argentine author. I'm just guessing here, but was the article hijacked by the singer again, prompting its deletion? The author seems likely to be notable (the singer is clearly hoaxy/promotional). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone who identifies himself as this singer's manager keeps adding articles about the singer with slightly different spellings, one of which was deleted through AfD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but for quite some time (maybe a year or so) the article Andrés Rivera was about a seemingly notable author (not the singer, which I agree should be deleted). Did you check the article history before deleting? Did the "manager" replace the description of the author with that of the singer? THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. Legit version has been restored. In digging into this, it seems that this is a sock problem. Socks and puppeteer have been id'd and blocked. I'll watchlist this article, but in case I miss it, if you see any more of these issues cropping up, do drop me a line so I can take care of it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great :) Hopefully that's the last of that. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I found another sock while snooping around: User talk:Loz burros1. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokey 3D Virtual Pet Application

Thanks for speedying that article. The author was non-communicative and non-collaborative when prompted with the spammyness complaint. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, you prompted me to look a bit deeper, and it seems that the contributing editor has also be abusing multiple accounts. That's now been dealt with. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi - I see you deleted the page for Sentara Health System based on copyright issues. I work for the company and am updating and correcting the information online. I copied and pasted a few things from the SEntara website - is this why it was deleted? PLease advise. If undelete the page, that would be great so I don't need to start fresh.

Thanks.

Jessicacarlson7 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted both because of copyright issues and spam issues. Wikipedia is not a place to promote companies. What's more, it is considered very inappropriate to edit pages that relate to the company you work for. This is a violation of our conflict of interest guidelines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you revert the page to its earlier state? I was merely trying to correct outdated numbers about the hospitals listed, including the amount of beds and physicians. Is there a conflict of interest in making sure things are correct?

Jessicacarlson7 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were quite a bit more than fixing a few numbers! I'll restore it, but cut out all the spam material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I added the timeline too. But it's just factual info that filled out the previously written history info. I can delete it. But it said on the site that there was copyright infringement from a site called nationmaster.com - that looked like a copycat of the wikipedia info. nothing I can do about that.

Jessicacarlson7 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it would be better if you left it alone. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicacarlson7 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible to remove the Protection placed on the page "ROBLOX". It remains unmade and making it is not permited. I was wondering if you could remove the protection, and then we could use a "#redirect" and redirect it staight into the ROBLOX Wiki. Then, have a "See Also" Section with a link to the ROBLOX homepage. This would make it much easier for people trying to find out about this up-and-coming game. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That article was deleted via AfD, and was repeatedly recreated, so I'm not inclined to unprotect. You might want to consider taking it to deletion review, but a redirect out of wikipedia certainly wouldn't be allowed. If it is an up-and-coming game, that tells me it is not yet notable. Let's stick to encyclopedic subjects. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultra-lounge series

I noticed that this has been deleted as "advertising". Couple of quick points, I as a collector found it HUGELY useful as the only source I could find of the entire series and their titles. Since the series has long been out of print, over 5 years, I fail to see how it could be promoting the sale of said discs.

For a pure collecting standpoint I think it should be reposted. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that is is a source for infomation that collectors can use.

I am thinking about doing an entry on the Essex House publishing company of the '60s will that also be deleted as a "advertising"? If yes, let me know now and I will same myself sometime. Thanks

Huskerdan (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was "advertising" in that it was promoting the Myspace Ultra-Lounge page, and it made no attempt to document encyclopedic notability. I have no problem if you want to go create a real article in your sandbox, and then have it evaluated and eventually moved into article space. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mathilde Laigle

The article Mathilde Laigle was deleted. I had not enaugh time to translate the article of french wikipedia and I'm very sory but I will do. She was one of the first historians to write a new history (before "gender history") and next year a colloquium will be organised at University of Provence about the first wife historians. She wrote in newspapers about democraty in America too and she was very impressed by "the bigest democraty in the world" and I will explain that. She is famous I think for american historians.

Good bye and have a nice day,

--Sweet buttuery tart crust (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I restored it to your sandbox, here: User:Sweet buttuery tart crust/sandbox where you can work on it. Please be mindful of our academics notability criteria. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree with you that the article is too short to be on wikipedia. I will be better when I will have time...

Have a nice day Akradecki !

Paul Munhoven, --Sweet buttuery tart crust (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sand-box

Hi Akradecki.

Can you please take a look at my sandbox please? I finished the article.

Thank you very much for your support.

Lmsmartins (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Ok, I see what you mean. I shouldn't say up-and-coming as ROBLOX now boasts over 2,000,000 active players. Upon further looking I found a page about ROBLOX that is useful and easy to follow. Thank you for answering! --Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Curtay

You have deleted my entry for the artist Jean-Paul Curtay on the basis that it was not clear that this was an important live person important enough to be in an encyclopedia. Mr. Curtay was an important artist in the 'letterist' movement. He was important enough to be introduced by the eminent composer John Cage at the Institute of Contemporary art in London. His credentials are clearly indicated in the article. Please reinstate the article.

Thank You, 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Steve Malagodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalagodi (talk • contribs)

First off, the majority of the article was a copyright violation, so no, it can't be restored. The rest of the article was simply a list. There was no encyclopedic content, no reference to neutral 3rd party reliable sources. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Batch of Journals

You seem to have made an error, due to Hu's overenthusiastic tagging. The articles are descriptive not spam, its a major specialized publisher, and at least some of them are major journals: Journal of Investing, for example, the first one I checked, is held in over 300 WorldCat libraries. Please restore them and then Hu can nominate for AfD if he cares to. I think they'll be kept, at least after I add some data to them. DGG (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'll commit to posting them to AfD, with a note that they were created as a part of a marketing blitz, I'll undelete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I will commit to is to follow them up for editing & take responsibility for the article. Why should I post them on afd when I am about 99% sure they'll hold up? You are welcome to., of course. I notice that Journal of Portfolio Maagement, the 2nd I checked, has 578 library holdings. See my note on the author's User talk:Consultright. I remind you that COI or even being created in a marketingblitz (actually, it was over a month) isn not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I see that you haven't commented over at Hu's talk page...out of respect for him, you might want to let him know that you've requested this and are taking responsibility for them. I've restored Journal of Trading, Journal of Wealth Management, Journal of Structured Finance, Journal of Private Equity, Journal of Portfolio Management, Journal of Investing and Journal of Fixed Income. They're all yours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will, of course. It won';t be the first time he & I have disagreed on this sort of article addition. BTW, you might check Wesley L. Boykin the deletion log seems to show some confusion between you and me, each separately deleting the two alternate names as a redirect to each other. I'm not sure he's notable, but it isn't I think a speedy. DGG (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A promotional autobiography? I fully think Boykin was speedy material. I deleted both a redirect and the article, which was also redirected from the creator's user page User:Wesboy.AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps broader consensus is needed when abuse and exploitation as illustrated on such a large scale that it egregisly violats our Wikipedia:Five pillars by using Wikipedia as an advertising platform and a vanity press. This entirely undermines wikipedias neutral point of view and suggesting that such articles be kept damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you, which is why I went ahead and deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the right thing was done initialy, despite DGG claiming otherwise. DGG is well intentioned, however he sometimes fundementaly misunderstands Wikipedia's objective in keeping with neutral point of view policy and What Wikipedia is Not. --Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To AKRadecki. Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping Wikipedia clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Topcity.org

The entry has two secondary sources from recognized publications. It meets the criteria for notability. Please reinstate it.

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) harioddohtus

I'm sorry, no. The article read like a total promo piece, and as the site was only created in October, I hardly believe it has encyclopedic notability. The two sources you cite, one of which is a university newspaper, are hardly significant, and don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your reasoning is not supported by the criteria for secondary sources. The Wahburn Review has been in print for well over a century and has a weekly readership of over 5,000. The second source is from the Capital-Journal's radio program hosted by Jim Cates, a well-known local radio personality, and program is hosted on www.cjonline.com, a major website with over 300,000 unique reades a month, not to mention tens of thousands of daily print readers.

Since you're so quick on the gun to delete, please cite WHY how the sources do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as secondary sources. All you have done is given unsupported opinion to justify an arbitray deletion.

Secondly, I don't remember anything under the notability criteria that listed time as a determining factor for notability. Your logic seems to suggest that a subject cannot be notable unless it has been existence for a set period of time. Can you cite your source for that, so I can mark my calendar for when when the article should be reinstated?

Thirdly, I was coming back to to do a second draft when I saw the deletion. I'd be happy to tighten the writing, but frankly, your reasons for deletions are not credible. If you won't neutrally apply the wiki guidelines, please forward this conversation to whichever entity reviews contested articles.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hairoddohtus

You are welcome to take this to deletion review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the deletion review guidelines, I am supposed to try and work it out with you. You are not being very helpful. Please tell me why the secondary sources aren't good. If you can demonstrate they are through the Wiki guidleines then I will graciously concede the matter.

However, you really should clarify why two established news sources are "hardly significant."

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) hairoddohtus

Our policy indicates "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." What you've provided are two very minor, local news reports that cover a subject of local interest. I don't consider that to meet the bar. When I said that you're welcome to take it to DRV, that means you've met your obligation to try and work it out with me, and that you are free to post it there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I messed up the code on the review page, so I am posting what I wrote here. Perhaps you can use your expansive admin powers to fix it for me?

---

Reason to Undelete ---------

Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources.

I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper.

This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick to delete the article and refer it to deletion review process instead of supporting his reasons for deletion in a reasonable manner. That's actually an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of time and energy.

Most people would not call the admin's opinion that the only daily newspaper of a state capital is "hardly significant" and "not a mainstream news source" as reasonable or credible.

Thanks.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Manila

Hi, do you know what's going on at Manila? It looks like the third or fourth editors with a very distinct style. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, I'm not sure what to make of it all. I stumbled into that because of following up on earlier problems with the editor I blocked. I suspect this is a case of meatpuppets using the same or neighboring computers at a university (PLM). If they don't start talking on the talk page about all the major changes, I think a temp protect act might be in order. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Geekologie

Hey Akradecki. It looks like you've got some extensive wiki experience. I was wondering if you could help me with this article. I think I fully understand now why it was deleted (no proof of notoriety). I was wondering if you could help me understand what I could do to prove its notoriety. Geekology hasn't been awarded any awards but has many viewers. I posted one refence to a google RSS feed search that showed that it had around 2100 subscribers on iGoogle but that's obviously a weak reference.

I can't think of any other ways to prove its notority (and that it has thousands of daily viewers) without showing some sort of search data or a stats page given to me by the website's administrator (again, obviously not the greatest source). Do you have any ideas that would prove its notoriety? I understand that Wiki needs legitimate sources to prove notoriety but I also feel that a a webiste can be notable without having awards given to it or articles written about it.

I'm new to wiki and doing my best to follow the rules and regulations for articles and users and I'd greatly appreciate your help.

Thanks for your time. Zach OlYeller21 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. Let's start with what you call "notoriety". We don't care about "notoriety" around here. What we care about is whether the subject has encyclopedic notability (click the blue link to read about what I mean). What really matters is what others are saying about the subject. What do I mean by "others"? I mean what we call reliable sources. These should be independent 3rd party news sources. Not blogs, not personal websites, not Google. Has USA Today or CNN or some other major news organizations, or at least an industry news organization done a review or otherwise reported on the subject? If they have, then those sources need to be cited properly within the article so that it demonstrates its notability. Try reading through Your First Article, I think you'll find it helpful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That clears a lot up for me. Thanks for your help. There's obviously a notoriety line drawn and my definition was different from Wikipedia's. After reading and thinking about it more, Wiki's definition makes more sense. I'll see if I can find any sources as you mentioned. If I do, how can I get others or an admin to check the article before I post it so that I don't add to the number of quickly deleted articles on Wiki?

Again, thanks for your time. Zach OlYeller21 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to create the article in your userspace, such as in your User:OlYeller21/Sandbox (just click on the red link to create it). Once you have it up, I'd be happy to take a look at it, as I'm sure that just about any other experienced editor or admin would be willing to. Good luck! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

N Cox

I was surprised to see your suggestion at User talk:Ncox that he had submitted his own biography to Wikipedia using an IP address. Cox is a reputable editor and it would be very out of character for him to do such a thing. He does have his biography on his user page, and it would appear that someone has chosen to submit this to Wikipedia. He has denied that it was him. Do you have some evidence to the contrary, such as checkuser? If not, I think an apology might be in order.-gadfium 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What I saw was actually a very common pattern of editing around here, unfortunately. However, I take him at his word and have apologized on his talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

G'night

To the IP editor who's been attacking this page in the last few hours...it's bedtime here in SoCal, so I'm sprotecting this page till tomorrow, so you'll have to go play somewhere else. To all the other IPs who, for-who-knows-why, would want to post here tonight, sorry, but one bad apple, you know. See ya'll in the morning. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Aircrash-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 07:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider versus gliding versus standard definitions

The problem is that Jmcc150 is trying to define these terms strictly as sporting terms only- that's why he keeps dropping FAI definitions everywhere (it's a sporting organisation). But they're not just sporting terms; they're used by a wide variety of aircraft for a wide variety of purposes; and he's going out of his way to make sure that this not be correctly reflected in the wikipedia.

And it's even worse than that; he defines glider=sailplane and gliding=flight of sailplane (only), so hang gliders don't soar or engage in gliding flight.

This usage as simply a sport doesn't reflect well the history of the term, nor the likely future of the term (for example SpaceShipOne); and that's why the 'inconvenient' history was moved out from the glider article into 'unpowered aircraft' for example, because it pointed out that a glider isn't simply a sports aircraft of the sailplane type.

Essentially Jmcc150 seems to believe that in the wikipedia consensus outweighs anything else, but that's wikiality, it's not at all what the wikipedia is about.

One way or another these standard terms have to be accurately defined and covered in the wikipedia, and I had hoped that most people would have seen through him by now and helped find good ways to do this but somehow people aren't putting 2 and 2 together.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the technical meanings should override Wikipedia:Naming conventions of using the common name. To Wolfkeeper gliding is an article that should also include flying squirrels, and glider includes airliners with engine failure. He also believes that gliding includes hang gliding and paragliding, despite the classification used by the world governing body for air sports, the FAI. He is constructing a duplicate article called Gliding (flight) which I suspect ultimately he will try to use to replace Gliding. JMcC (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper certainly doesn't have much in the way of consensus. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that only consensus was needed to write articles, or that consensus overrides reliable sources or the other core values here. How is it that standard terms like glider, gliding become only sporting terms here? Flying the space shuttle to a landing is a sport is it? This isn't the way that people in general actually use the terms. Jmcc150 is going completely out of his way to desperately avoid this from being a POV that the wikipedia covers. You have to ask yourself whether that is right or wrong.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weitzenhoff case

One of my students tried to create a page about this important case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/United_States_v_Weitzenhoff - and the concerns you posted were valid based on what had been posted initially, but I think my re-writes and the extension addition of references should have addressed your concerns now, allowing you to remove your comment at the heading. I plan to add more info to the article later. -Law Prof

Looks good, let me know when you're ready to go live. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Added sections about dissenting opinion, further appeals, and other issues considered by the court, internal references to famous judges involved in the case. Note - I am not an expert at Wikipedia's formatting guidelines, so feel free to make such revisions. -LawProf

If no one else takes care of it first, I'll tidy it up and go live with it this afternoon. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's live! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalsim

Hey again AKRadecki, I was looking through your profile and came across a file that's had its page vandalised with "silly vandalism." I was going to simply delete it but I thought I'd ask if there was a better way to handle it than just deletion. I read through Wikipedia_vandalism but I still feel like it could be more thuroughly delbt with by a administrator. Other than just fixing the vandalism myself, is there anything else I can do? I read about vandalism warnings but I wasn't sure if it was just for admins.

The vandalized file is File:Rouge-Admin_JollyRoger.svg OlYeller21 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism, not much else that can be done from here, as it's actually a file over at Commons, and I'm not an admin there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Christopherson Travel Deletion

I'm trying to submit an article about Christopherson Business Travel after reading an article about their merger with Andavo Travel. (http://www.ubta.org/index.cfm?scid=1692)

I tried to strip any information I had gathered down to only well-cited, factual references. Can you provide some specific advice on how this article could be improved? I'd love to participate more on Wikipedia but I want to be sure the stuff I post isn't flagged and deleted. Is there a better process I should follow rather than submitting to the Articles for Creation section? I'm perfectly happy to have others help me improve the content but it seems difficult to engage people in improving articles for publication.

Any advice is welcome. Montypics (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issues are 1) encyclopedic notability (see WP:CORP to see if this company qualifies for inclusion in the encyclopedia) and 2) verifiability and reliable sources. If you meet these policy requirements, there should be no problem. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've poured over the guidelines you cited.

Certainly the issue of notability is somewhat subjective but I felt like including recent citations about the company's size, revenue, etc established some level of notability. Am I off-base about those things establishing notability? What could be done differently?

As for verifiability and reliability of sources, I tried very hard to only reference secondary sources and reliable news outlets. Which references, in particular, would you deem as unreliable?

I'm not particularly concerned about the inclusion of this specific article as I am about making sure I am able to participate without constantly failing to meet the editorial standards. Forgive me in advance if I come across as something of a newbie.

Montypics (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved a draft of the article to a user subpage User:Montypics/Christopherson_travel any help to make the article notable and reliable would be appreciated. Montypics (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium pages

Alan, If you're still up now (Wed. night), could you move Old Yankee Stadium back to Yankee Stadium? There are several discussions at Talk:Old Yankee Stadium regarding renaming these articles, but no consensus has been reached as yet. Also, move protects on Yankee Stadium and New Yankee Stadium would be good also, as I think this will continue to be an issue for some time. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

AFC

Hi

thanks for stepping into the AFC project and helping out. The back log has almost disappeared after being backed up by several dozen for a week. I notice you are commenting on the content of the articles to point out inadequacies. Unless there are other reasons for declining, style, poor grammar, spelling or missing bits do not disqualify an article for being accepted. The article may just become a stub, or something with a cleanup tag, but at least there will have been a start on a topic that should be in the encyclopedia. For example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Sandy Ghandi could be accepted based on your assessment. Cleanup can happen later. Also for a copyright violation we should be removing the violating content. (Many times the contributor does hold the copyright, but it then has to be proven). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input...I'll keep all that in mind! Did you catch my suggestion at the talk page for the list of recently accepted articles? I would like to see the list grow a bit, maybe up to 10? Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds a good idea, but I must admit I am too lazy to add those that I accept. Also I seldom notify the contributors, but most find the articles. Usually if I find an article that needs wikification I will do that my self, and even fix a few spelling mistakes. There are others that complain if we don't add categories and stub templates, so I usually do this too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area Puma Project Article

Hi Adradecki,

Thank you for your helpful comments. I revised the Bay Area Puma Project article, just to let you know.

I want to respond to one thing: The text is not copied, but as this is a scientific project, some phrases cannot be re-phrased and are common terms in the science research field. I did not cut and paste

Why would you want to de-bold the headlines? Just curious.

If you have any more tips, I am open to them. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allycatfelidae (talk • contribs) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Per our Manual of Style, very little in an article gets bolded. Mainly the first use of the title in the first sentence. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of R/F/picture

Why did you delete the userbox I have created? I see nothing wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hevosen (talk • contribs) 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it was located on a User page for a user that doesn't exist. If you want a user box, create it in your own user space. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Small Problem with your AFC Reviews

Hi there! I've noticed that you've been reviewing AFC submissions lately. This is fantastic; we're always looking for more helpers. However, I've noticed that when you place submissions on hold, you've been removing the ts= and a= parameters from the AFC submission template on the top of each submission. These parameters are important for organization by date in the respective AFC categories, as well as knowing the creator of each submission, so do please leave those in when you edit the template on a submission. Other than that small tidbit, you've been doing a great job reviewing submissions, and I hope you'll continue to help our project. Let me or any other project memeber know if you have any questions. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. You might want to make that more evident in the instructions!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look, that is a very good point. I'll change the wording there. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Banned user

You deleted the article of Rail transport in Northern Cyprus, however I am not a banned user. Kaygtr (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. I've restored the template. In deleting a bunch of items created by a banned user, this one showed up as being created by him/her, when in fact that person merely edited it. In restoring it, I've also removed the contribution of that editor. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Thank you for notifying me. Simon^KSK 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked or banned?

Greetings! I see you've been reverting edits of the latest User:VivaNorthCyprus sockpuppet, EuropeanStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), under the rationale of creation by a banned user. Was VivaNorthCyprus banned? I see him marked as indefinitely blocked, but I don't see evidence of a community ban. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While this user has not been formally banned by ArbCom, under our banning policy (wp:ban), one method of a community ban is, and I quote, "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned." This is the 43rd sock of this user, and if you go to the earlier socks, you will see multiple admins refuse to unblock. The unblock request abuse became so frequent that the standard practice amongst the admins who routinely deal with this person is to simply protect the talk page while blocking, so you won't see the unblock requests in later socks. In my view, this person has far exceeded the patience of the community, and a de facto ban per policy is in place. If you want to discuss the specifics of the evidence and patterns of behavior, I'd be happy to off-wiki, just email me. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first situation I've dealt with of sock abuse*, though I won't give the others any recognition by naming names. However, given that WP:CSD draws a clear distinction between indefinitely blocked and banned, and since banning is effectively a "Wikipedia death penalty", I wanted to make sure of the situation and community's collective opinion before tagging him as banned.

I do see your point, and I agree in this case that this user has exhausted the community's patience - and that yes, formally now, but informally before, he is banned.

* I need to reread the banning policy and the list of bans, since the user I was thinking of is on the community ban list. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Handling sockpuppets

Hi. I noticed you commented on the banning of a certain user named RichardRelucio, who had lots of sockpuppets. I think he's at it again using several different accounts, all registered within the past 2 or 3 days (handles are "TestTrip09," "Sobresaliente," and "FlamingTorch"). He insists on editing/vandalizing(?) this article. I don't know if this is me being paranoid or if this is something that should be handled. Rmcsamson (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like there's already an admin working this one, but I'll start tracking things as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Films considered the greatest ever

Hey again. I ran across the article for Films considered the greatest ever and I'm having trouble understanding how the contents of this article are encyclopedic. I'm not looking to get it deleted or anything, just increase my understanding about Wiki article. The entire contents seem to be baed on opinoins. Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The contents are actually based on surveys, and are sourced. If it had been just an editor's opinions, then yes, it would have been a candidate for deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs

I'm not going to lobby hard for Eugene, but I did want to make sure you noticed my comment.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing valid info (the coords) for no valid reason is disruptive, and what he continued to do would be, to a newbie, hard to tell it wasn't from an admin. But, when he came back with this edit, my ears pretty much closed. I don't respond well to demands or orders. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you also read this? I'm not admin, but a one-week block seems kinda harsh to me... --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are generally progressive. I'm not the one who actually placed the block, I just declined the unblock request, but this user had two 24 hour blocks and a 48 hour block prior to this one. As his 4th block, he's actually lucky he only got a week. I know a lot of admins who would have given more. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're right it was Toddst1 who blocked - my mistake. I still think the basis for the block itself was a bit weak, but I understand your reluctance to unblock. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus Invasion

Appreciate your response on this issue just wondering if you could take 1 more look as to my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:62.190.46.162 and if you cannot directly help please could you steer me to the correct board for such changes. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvTex (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area Puma Project?

Hi- I noticed that the Bay Area Puma Project is still 'On Hold'. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.33.80 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Life is busy. Anyway, it's now live at Bay Area Puma Project. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Thanks, Alan. DO you know of a simple tutorial on filing AFDs? Everytime I try one, I seem to get more confused! - BillCJ (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just start with the template {{afd1}}, then follow the instructions, except that for each step, I open a new tab in my browser, that way I don't get confused. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Shnitzled

Hello. I see from this users' talkpage that he/she has somesort of civility issues! After tagging this article I created with a speedy note, I added (what I thought was a polite) comment on their talkpage. It eventually ends in this comment. Thoughts/how to take this further? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The user left this on my talkpage. Feel free to extend his/her wikibreak! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this user. Lugnuts (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Akradecki, I'll be more than happy to remove that whole section from my talk page, but I did want to make sure that you know that what I said was only in response to that nasty message left there by the user. For the record, so to speak. The funny thing is that this user actually made some decent edits and speedy proposals, as far as I could tell. But telling others to go f*** themselves or jump out of windows is not the way to go, of course. Thanks for your patience and your help, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider

Hi Akradecki, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bay Area Puma Project

Hello! Your submission of Bay Area Puma Project at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Thank you for the courtesy note regarding Markvision55 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I really appreciate the heads-up! Kralizec! (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NP! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry...

I would like to make an unreserved and heartfelt apoligy for my recient behavior and actions, I have no idea what came over me, or why, I would like to move on now, I'm pretty sure you would too. Shnitzled (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology joyfully accepted. Like I said at AIV, the best way to get over stuff like this is to go edit articles! There's a bunch of proposed ones over at wp:afc that could use your talents (of course, there's some trash, there, too, but it happens everywhere). Happy editing! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I've been looking over this list to better understand how what I've read (the new-to-wiki articles) is applied. This article, brokeNCYDE, is up for deletion for the fourth time here. I'm confused as to why it's up for deletion again as I read here that articles shouldn't be nominated more than once for the same reason (unless something has changed). In my opinion, the article isn't notable as it hasn't provided any notable sources as all references are made to sources that I would call anything but reliable. All of their ablums' articles are up for deletion as well because of WP:NALBUMS#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs.

Can you shed some light on this for me please? Also, is there a list of Admins that I can ask questions to? I don't want to bug you every time I have a question.

As always, thanks for your help and time. OlYeller^Talktome 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't have time to look at the AfD's you've refed, will do that later today. In the meantime, the list of admins is at Wikipedia:List of administrators. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Sent. - BillCJ (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...did you get the pics I sent back? AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Wow! THanks! Btw, are the pics PD? I have some vaptions to go with them to add to the pic on my user page. Also, could you take a look at Samoan Clipper? It is written more about the plane, but cites no sources. If kept, it should probably be comverted to an incident article. It looks like it could well be notable. Thanks. BillCJ (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AFAIK, they are not PD. Don't even actually know who the photog is. They were forwarded to me by my contact in the airliner scrapping world; he had just participated in the move of the 757 tube to Mojave, so the real interest for he and I in the pics was the trailer. I'll take a look at the clipper article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FreeLinc

I added this reference from Urgent Communications, a reliable source, to the FreeLinc article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeLinc. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reprinted press releases aren't really independent references, now are they? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)