User talk:Alexf/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alexf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Deleted party article

Howdy :) Purely out of curiosity, as I don't recall it's contents, but saw it on my watchlist: What was in the fuckerware party article? I'm familiar with the term, as a play on tupperware party (which does mention sex toys, so perhaps a merge to there would be appropriate, if there was any content? or a redirect if there was nothing useable?). Or was it just a remnant of pagemove vandalism? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only line it had was a redirect to Party plan. That's it. -- Alexf⁴² 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I create it? (I don't recall doing so, but might have!) Might I request that you reinstate it as a useful redirect (as shown above, it is a fairly recognized term (search google-web for 9000 more)), or undelete and place it through formal wp:rfd? Please and thanks :-) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. I checked the ghits you mentioned and I the term exists (though new to me and frankly sounds like a hoax or vandalism term). Page was restored. -- Alexf⁴² 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Oh yeah. I'm still amused by the creation edit-summary I used [1] "create (oh dear)".

I would source^[2] it in the stub-article Party plan, and add it as a bold incoming redirect, but I imagine that would upset more people than it would help... ;)

Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of "polaris project"

Hey Alex,

You deleted my article about Polaris Project earlier today (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Polaris+project). I am actually a staff member of Polaris Project and I had permission to replicate information directly from the website (which was the reason cited for deletion) for the purpose of a Wikipedia article. We are hoping to expand our reach and inform the public about our initiatives, so please let me know how I can get our page back up on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your help.

Grassrootspp (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was not deleted as a copyright issue as you said, but it was deleted as A7 because it did not assert notability. It talked about the project but did not offer any kind of reliable sources. The one and only reference it contained was circular, pointing to the website of the project itself. In order to get an article entered into the encyclopedia, you need to read the pages linked to above, plus it would probably be helpful for you to read and understand the rules and guidelines on conflict of interest and Business FAQ. -- Alexf⁴² 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I prove notability? I am not sure what other resources I could possibly cite that would be more reliable than the website itself. Polaris has not had many other websites cite its tasks- does this mean we cannot have a wikipedia page? Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Grassrootspp (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Its own website is not valid proof. If you cannot find other cites that mention it (or newspaper or magazine accounts of it, for example), as detailed in the criteria for web notability page, then I'm afraid it does not belong here. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of everything that exists on the web or the world. -- Alexf⁴² 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to leave the article as is, and then list several news articles mentioning Polaris and the work Polaris does under the references section? Thank you once again. Grassrootspp (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not as is but yes if you could supply proper references. It would be possible to userfy it to a private sandbox in your user area where you can work on it and have it reviewed by other editors before posting. -- Alexf⁴² 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Itz Si Duk - repeat offender

If you look at the articles this idiot has touched, it seems that it is a repeat offender coming back with a different account name each time. Is there something that can be done to identify the IP address used and ban anyone from that IP creating accounts like this? --TimTay (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You would have to place a {{sockpuppet}} tag on the user's page as a suspected sockpupeteer/sockpuppets and maybe request a checkuser, reporting him to ANI. -- Alexf⁴² 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --TimTay (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wuaala

Hi Alex, you deleted my article about Wuaala. I'm trying to explain what this new video platform does. I'm not promoting this company more than the others that I'm refering on the article, in the article I mention the different advertising features and what makes it so different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daunis (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked like advertising to me. Also did not properly assessed notability. I see you have recreated it, an article that was deleted four times already. It will probably end up in AfD so we'll see what happens. -- Alexf⁴² 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Satanic Head

Hi, Alexf, thanks for your quick response regarding the deletion of Satanic Head. However, the deletion might be a bit pre-emptive given that we haven't yet established the sources for the orginal article on the Esperanto wikipedia or notified the original author. If the article was deleted because it didn't cite sources, then this is a more accurate reason for deletion. However, I'm trying to track down sources now, and it would be a good idea to leave the article in place while this process is underway. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the original author of Satanic Head has now replied to me, citing the following sources [3][4][5][6]. They're all in Portuguese (one of the benefits, and difficulties, of the Esperanto Wikipedia is that because of the linguistic diversity of the contributors, there is also a diversity of source languages). Is it possible to restore the article and include the sources? --Sumthingweird (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I read Portuguese. I'll check them later today (I'm out the door to work now), and see if they can be used. Will post here later. -- Alexf⁴² 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to judge revelance of things???

Really? Seriously?

01:08, 9 September 2008 Alexf (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wapstan" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.)

Seriously, I tink Wapstan is a very established name in the Montreal underground scene for years, his label Brise-Cul is one of the most productive label in Montreal and he performed with a lot of big artists and in many very important festivals... Seriously, who do you think you are to judge importance or significance???

It's not my problem if you are unaware of the hard work of people outside Internet...

But i highly think you have no authority to judge what people are doing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITFOR (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the administrator that was on CSD duty at the time the article was nominated for speedy deletion. The article was deleted as A7 because it did not assert notability under WP:BAND. You may think the band is important, but it is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes unless you can comply with at least one of the criteria detailed in WP:BAND. As per authority, you should please read our deletion policies before you make accusations. Also would be nicer for you to be civil. Antagonizing other editors would not help your case in any endeavor. If you want to complain about the deletion you can do so at Deletion Review. As it is, you have not supplied any valid rationale for why your article should be in Wikipedia. -- Alexf⁴² 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hassan Fadil

You have bloked my article, and what do you no about Hassan Fadil, it has a one of famous moroccan players in Spain in 1980s, and one of stars of Mallorca and Malaga -- Hatim000^talk 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked but deleted, it's different. It was deleted under A7 rules of speedy deletion for not asserting notability under WP:ATHLETE. If it is as you say, then it should be easy for you to provide reliable sources for verification. The article had none. If you can supply that information and comply with WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN guidelines, I'm willing to reconsider. -- Alexf⁴² 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Machines Of Love

Hi, I posted an article not too long ago regarding 'Machines Of Love'. I have to be honest, don't you think you're being a bit overzealous? I mean, there are huge amounts of articles on things of complete non-importance, yet you seem to judge these things dispassionately. I'm not attacking you, personally, mind. I just think it's a bit harsh to go around and decide what's in and what isn't. You say there must rationale for it being in Wikipedia. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to be an open platform? OK, rules and regulations, sure - but zealotry (not sure that's even a word!) seems to go against the basic idea.

I'm rambling, but to finish - Machines Of Love is a somewhat notable group in Ireland, I'm a member of it. We do quite well. We're reasonably well-known. We weren't trying to promote the band (seriously, on Wikipedia?!), I just wanted to have a little fun and whatnot. If you don't think we deserve to be in, so be it. But I tell you, this has kinda left a bad taste in my mouth about putting ANYTHING in Wikipedia.

MachinesOfLove (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

P.A.L.A.S

I don't make the rules. It is not zealotry, but following the policies and guidelines. The policies for bands are clear and well detailed in WP:BAND. Either a band is notable or it is not according to those policies and guidelines. -- Alexf⁴² 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock my IP

Hello Alex, My IP Address is blocked, Please unblock it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardodosizecson (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have your IP address. I checked the Autoblock list under Ricardo and under DerekKeane and did not find any block. I checked with the Autoblock detector tool under your two names and there is no IP Autoblock registered. -- Alexf⁴² 11:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for placing a one-year block on anonymous editing from 198.83.124.253. — Robertpgreer (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick

Hi Alex, I have tried very hard to remain calm and civil in the face of user:MarshalN20s rudeness, personal attacks and near constant misrepresentations of my words and motivations (on my talkpage and on Talk:Bicycle kick). Could you please have a look the Peruvian section of the article and the talkpage discussion if you can spare the time. Could you review the conduct of the involved editors (myself included), kind regards E P 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read some of the discussion at the Talk page for the article and your exchange with him in his and your Talk pages. I see a candidate for Dispute Resolution and I see gross incivility by User:MarshalN20. I am not knowledgeable on the subject of Peruvian football history to give an informed opinion at this point on who's right but the tone has to come down. I left a notice on his Talk page to the effect. If need be the page may have to be protected for a short while to cool things down, though I always consider that a last resort. Have you posted this to FOOTY for other knowledgeable football editors to comment on? You should. -- Alexf⁴² 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested help from Mariano shortly afterwards I reviewed the talkpage and noticed MarshalN20 compare Seleciones de la vida to Pinochet. Mariano has tried to calm the situation, and has remained calm in the face of insults. I then posted to WP:FOOTY, (I admit that I forgot to mention the incivility, which I shold have done). Around this time I began making edits to the Bicycle Kick article and article talkpage Marshal stepped up the rudeness and personal attacks and began misrepresenting my words and motivations. I then asked No 57 for help, but he did not respond. Now I am dragging you into this mess E P 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I appreciate the concern, but feel that the back and forth arguments will only continue unless, MarshalN20 calms down. In my opinion MarshalN20 is trying to take this quarrel onto the talk pages of other articles (Talk:Chile#Edit_War). Mediation would help diffuse this problem, especially since more than one editor has had an objection with the content in the Bicycle kick article. English Peasant, contributing in good faith has been dragged into this dispute, and for the sake of civility is requesting assistance to resolve the issue. I am willing to do my part, but arbitration from an administrator or other editors is completely necessary. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I prefer not to be the arbitrator for several reasons. I just tried to get people to calm down but would like to see other people getting involved (hence my suggestion of FOOTY), or Dispute Resolution as a last resort. -- Alexf⁴² 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Civility

Lol. I do apologize for having acted in such a rude manner in the discussion, especially with all the expectators that it apparently has attracted. Hahaha. I've been stuck on this discussion with Selecciones de la Vida for quite some time, and things between the two of us really have gotten quite heated up. I've tried contacting a series of people for some sort of fair review to the dispute and article in order to solve the situation. These contacts include people such as Victor12, Hut 8.5, and even the main Wikiproject Football/Assesment page (This "FOOTY" you speak about). You can check on their talk pages, my talk page, and even the assesment page in order to verify this.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, nobody has ever contacted me back on that and the only people that ever came into the article (Nanonic, IP Address 96.242.82.74, and English Peasant) only came in there to bash me and delete as much of the Peruvian section of the article (which contained perfectly sourced information) as they could. Now, what's more, English Peasant did not come into the page as a "Fair Judge," but rather he came one-sided with Selecciones de la Vida and did not seek to find a compromise to the problem. "EP" apparently has problems with me even mentioning the name of a club named "Lima Cricket and Football Club" and does not even want one ounce of mention about the football history of the port of Callao, which is the port where the move was allegedly made. I ask, what is wrong with including the football history related to the port where the move was allegedly made (Especially if I'm using sourced information)?--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you please do take some time to look at the article, you'll see that Selecciones de la Vida has constantly been inciting the heated discussion by constantly stating I write "sly comments," uphold "straw man theories," that I'm almost like an "Aesop," stating strange things such as that I'm "a silly rabbit," among other things. English Peasant has also fallen into the same thing by stating that he and the other "respectable editors" of the discussion do not agree with me and seemingly pointing towards my inclusions into the article not being wanted; additionally, he has stated that I'm paranoic and that I have "hijacked" the article (therefore further inflamating the situation). It seems to me that he is being much of a hypocrit in this "uncivility" situation.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good sir. User:English peasant keeps making inflamatory attacks against me in the Bicycle Kick discussion page. I already took your advice of remaining calm and keep things at ease, but he keeps on creating provocative sentences that wish to keep sparking unnecessary "flaming" discussions. Since you seem to be a fair judge on this matter, would you please discuss this incivility from the part of English Peasant with him? I repeat, I am already following your advice, but English Peasant keeps on trying to create arguments and problems in the section by rambling on about the past problems which you said to let go and thus start with peaceful thoughts. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Barack the Terrorist

This user, whom you blocked, has asked to change his username. As you hardblocked him, may I leave this request, which I have not answered, with you? You will see that I already declined his unblock request. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not have unblocked had the roles been reversed and some other admin had blocked him. I see that he has already been denied three times as of this writing. In cases like this (blatantly hateful usernames) I practice RBI. -- Alexf⁴² 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Craig Heskey...

has been recreated. — Ceran thor [Formerly LordSunday] 13:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Couldridge

Thought vandal-only accounts didn't require warnings? BanRay 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Only for known socks of known vandals. Users need to be told. This is a kid who doesn't know better and was never told (until your message today). -- Alexf⁴² 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my Larry Antonino article, which I desire reinstated. Admittedly, I don't spend vast amounts of time writing articles or studying guidelines for article submissions, which may have been the reason that the article was deleted. However, I did assemble the article because there was a linked reference of Larry Antonino in another Wikipedia article, which information I was seeking, and the link lead nowhere. Wikipedia suggested that I add the article, which is what I did, having to research elsewhere on the Internet for who this person is, only to have it swiftly deleted shortly after its completion.

I have reviewed your guidelines for “notable,” for which he qualifies. You may add these links to his page so that all are aware of his notability:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0031363/

http://www.smooth-jazz.de/starportrait/Antonino/VillageStrut.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnbgreene (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Larry Antonino Article

You deleted my Larry Antonino article, which I desire reinstated. Admittedly, I don't spend vast amounts of time writing articles or studying guidelines for article submissions, which may have been the reason that the article was deleted. However, I did assemble the article because there was a reference of Larry Antonino in another article, which information I was seeking and the link lead nowhere. Wikipedia suggested that I add the article, which is what I did, having to research elsewhere on the Internet for who this person is, which only makes it that more annoying that it was so swiftly deleted after I had added the article.

I have reviewed your guidelines for “notable,” for which he qualifies. You may add these link to his page so that all are aware of his notability:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0031363/

http://www.smooth-jazz.de/starportrait/Antonino/VillageStrut.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnbgreene (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, notability may be there. I restored the article and added the external links (which you should have added, BTW). Now to the other issue. It is written as an advertisement and I see it has already been tagged to be deleted as G11. I'm afraid I have to agree with the poster. You may want to take the article off-line and rework it properly as an encyclopedic article. -- Alexf⁴² 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian Davis page

Admittedly I only put a placeholder there, but swift deletion seems a bit arbitrary without waiting for the stub to get some completion. The person in question is notable, as a quick Google would have told you.

As you say, "Vandalism is futile" Danja (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was totally unreferenced and did not assert notability in any way. You did not place a {{hangon}} tag on it nor added some reliable sources to it. The burden of evidence is on you. I am not saying the person is not notable (he may well be) but the article did not live to Wikipedia's standards and was challenged and subsequently deleted. I would suggest you work on articles off-line or in a sandbox in your user space to get them to a point where they are less likely to be challenged. -- Alexf⁴² 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article on the Gardens of the Righteous Worldwide

Dear Alexf, I didn't really understand why you decided I was infringing anyone's copyright. I quoted the sources, www.gariwo.net, under my responsibility, and this is also the organization I work for and which has a 20 years old experience at conceptualizing these subject matters, which would make a nonsense of me trying and putting up some brand new text. Furthermore, the content was interesting. What I mean to do is to link to all places in the world which have a Garden of the Righteous. Is there anything wrong? Have you got any suggestions for me to recreate the page without incurring in deletion? Best regards, Carolina Figini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.162.63 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia cannot have copyrighted material. Everything has to be licensed under GFDL, else it is considered a copyright violation. You also have a conflict of interest under your own admission, which is also a problem. May I suggest you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia to understand how we work and what is expected? Also these two other pages may be of help: How to write your first article and Business FAQ. Thanks and have a good day. -- Alexf⁴² 09:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Argentina Second Division

Hello-

I just realized that no one responded to your questions about the second Argentine division on the WP:FOOTY subpage. To answer your question, it might well be. We're in the process of adding leagues with as best of sources as we can for professional status, which is surprisingly difficult to find. If you know for sure that it is fully professional, or, better yet, have a source indicating that it is so we can definitively site it, then we can just add it to the list. I added several leagues today (India, Qatar, etc), so it's definitely a work in progress. matt91486 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. Had forgotten about that one. Thanks for the update. -- Alexf⁴² 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I just saw your answer to my aritcle....sorry for not answering sooner. I appreciate you taking the time.

How do I add a sandbox page to my user page so that I am not blatantly advertising. I thought my user page could be the testing ground. Is there another place to put the information so that I do not lose all the work I put into creating it?

Sorry to bug you again.Yitzhaac Pesach (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Subpages. -- Alexf⁴² 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fundacion Grupo Mayan

Hi Alexf, I just realized why it seems that all the references where the same, because it links to the groups official site. However, what I am trying to link to are scanned newspaper files they uploaded there. The groups site has a link to several pdfs that are scanned articles from newspapers at the time. It lists about 20 different newspapers, and has their scanned articles. I will see if there is a way to upload these pdfs individually to wikipedia so they may serve as sources. I have also added links to other websites unrelated to the groups website. Please let me know if this is enough so you dont delete it. I have read your suggested read and I feel this article falls under correct guidelines and is definitely a notable encyclopedic article. It is not a familiar topic in the US, but in Mexico it is. I think it would be a good thing to have in english wikipedia. I will also translate it to spanish and upload there. Let me know if it is ok now... Otherwise I will keep adding sources. Thanks so much Delia Moran (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fundacion Grupo Mayan

Hi. I am familiar with Fundacion Grupo Mayan/Daniel Chavez Moran. I have added some references related to some of the books that came out of this convention and some articles written by some newspapers on it. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracampero (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting James Kimmelman

You deleted a canidate supported by the Libertarian Party for Riga Township Supervisor http://www.lp.org/candidates/liberty-candidates-08/james-kimmelman http://libertarianpartycandidates.us/candidates/james-kimmelman-2008-riga-township-supervisor/ http://www.mi-libertarian-candidates-2008.info/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertarian7001 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article did assert notability under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick

FYI, I have followed your advice and opened discussions at WP:FOOTBALL and WP:WIKIQUETTE. E P 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Joey's Sports Blog

Is there away that you or I can retrive my entry so that I could improve it to meet the standards of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtsports92 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer in your page. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Wake It Up for speedy deletion with the reason "non-notable album". However, "non-notable album" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My fault. You are correct. Early morning here, before coffee, and I goofed. Thanks for the cluestick. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AribaWeb

Hi Alex. I'm super-duper confused by the deletion of AribaWeb. AribaWeb is *not* a corporate product -- It is free and open source. Just as the Eclipse Eclipse_(software) development environment was borne out of a commercial product at IBM, and the YUI Yahoo!_UI_Library library was the product of Yahoo, AribaWeb too has origins as a commercial product (in this case, at Ariba, Inc). But, again, like these two other (wikipedia-documented) open source projects, AribaWeb is not a commercial product.

AribaWeb is quite similar to many of the hundreds of web application development frameworks documented on wikipedia, and enumerated here: List_of_web_application_frameworks

As was highlighted explicitly in the article text, AribaWeb is more notable than many of the other frameworks already covered on Wikipedia because it 1) is one of the first frameworks of its kind (first deployed in 1999), 2) has been proven in real world deployment (millions of user desktops, hundred of thousands of companies, hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce) to a far greater degree than its peers, and 3) has a number of technically novel capabilities. In that sense it seems at least as worth of coverage as these (and other) similar frameworks already listed on wikipedia:

(Note that, unlike the most recent AribaWeb post, none of the articles for these frameworks site external sources for their relevance)

I understand that one of the original objections to the article was that there was an apparent conflict of interest because the original poster had a user name matching the topic name. An updated version of the article was subsequently posted by an independent authority on the framework but the post still met a similar fate. I believe that AribaWeb is worthy of citation in Wikipedia.

I would appreciate any guidance that you can offer on how the content of the article can be crafted to make evident AribaWeb's relevance and its worthiness to be described in Wikipedia.

Thanks! Metameta (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

résumés

Hi, Alexf.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on a user talk page. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not often but yes I did. I just read the discussion you mentioned. Sure it bites a bit and I may have been a little hasty the couple times I linked to it, but these are people that needed a rap on the head with a cluestick. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for not acquainting myself better with Wikipedia, Alex.

I appreciate your prompt information.

Eric Patrick Marr (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Eric Patrick Marr, 10.11.2008

Re: Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1

Re: Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1 Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of employee's 'about page'

Hello, I believe you deleted one of our employee's about page. Can i ask why. His name was Anthony Trizzino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.49.146 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted for the reason stated in the deletion summary: "A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person". Please read about notability if you have any questions on what the rules are. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you basically deleted it because "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person". Do you know who this person is? NO. so how why would you be the decider if they are important or not. I think you should re think your deletion. Just because you don't know who the person is, doesn't mean they are unimportant.

I think you should read the policies and rules on notability. It is not if *I* know the person or consider them important. In Wikipedia it is not truth we seek but verifiability. In this particular case, the article did not show they met WP:BIO requirements. If you can show it by supplying reliable sources, please do so. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ray McCauley

Hi there. I've removed the speedy tag off of this article because the version that I saw appeared to assert notability as the subject is claimed to be the pastor of a very large (43,000!) member church, president of an church conference (which admittedly may or may not be notable) and as a former Mr. South Africa. I thought that was enough to get past the speedy hurdle. I left a note on the writer's page about sourcing the article. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Album Listings' "Context"

What exactly would constitute context of an article about an album? It seems to me that an article that lists the title, the artist, the track list, the year of release and the record company would constitute a sufficient stub. Many, many existing articles about albums contain that and nothing else. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see why you speedy deleted two listings I made for albums that seemed to follow the criteria for quite a few other album articles around here. What else would be required to ensure "context"?Kthejoker (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I delete hundreds of articles a month as part of my duties, so unless you are more specific on the article's name(s) I can't answer. As a generic answer, album notability is covered under WP:NALBUMS. Hope this helps. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion from a while back

Hi Alexf! On April 27, 2008, you deleted the article Beit Eshel per CSD A1. I was going to create this article (it's a Jewish village existing in the British Mandate of Palestine before 1948), and was wondering what the content was—maybe it can already be used as a basis for a stub article. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It had no content (i.e. no text). It was just an image (deleted by somebody else). -- Alexf^(talk) 23:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenerife

Hi Alex. I seriously need your help translating Tenerife. It is a core article and I checked it yesterday and it was in a worse state than some of the obscure islands in the Pacific. The on seeing it was a featured article on Spanish wiki I had to do something about it. Could you help me translate it? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this useful too for guidance. I have a good knowledge of Spanish and am also using my advanced spanish dictionary to help. "Gentilicio" doesn't translate on the web and using my dictionary is clearly refers to demonym Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Demonym is the correct translation. I am at work now so I'll have little time for this today. I started cleaning up some of the translation and broken refs. I also started working on Toponymy later to clash with you when you posted a minute before me. It might be better to place an {{intranslation}} tag on the sections being worked on so other editors avoid working on those. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK will do. I'll place a inuse tag on it while in use. I'll do a bit more now and then return later this evening Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex I've just merged the existing info and spanish shown below. Any translation for history can you copy and paste this into the article and then work on it. Cheers

(moved to article - does not belong in Talk - maybe in a user's subpage). -- Alexf^(talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep I would have removed it from your talk page once moved, I didn't want an edit conflict thats why Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are still up for translating right? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Available time is the issue. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think once sport is translated we should move it to a seperate article, Sport in Tenerife, and then write a condensed paragraph or two summarising it. At present it is too long and unconcise and disproportionate with the rest of the articleBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be split into two or three articles. Also I have issues with the references provided. There is a case of the same three generic refs provided over and over. I have not checked them out yet, but if they say the same (as the original linking implies), then two of them are superfluous. I suspect, though that they are generic and do not point to precise articles that reference specific claims. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you as I did with Acroterion and CBT. Thank you for deleting all those vanity pages/advertisements that I've tagged. Looks like we make a kick-ass team! lolz —Ceranthor^(Sing) 13:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of DECIDE

Hi Alex,

Wondered why you've deleted my page on pop band DECIDE? This is twice it's been removed now and I'm getting a little frustrated as the reasons never seem to make any sense.

Alright DECIDE never had a top ten hit but they're now working as HOLICE and are about to hit the big time and I feel that it's an important article as part of building their profile and history.

Chris Coldcommunications (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied in your page. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch

For fixing the ref. on the Burger King article. I'm kind of new here, so I still get how to properly do it.User:Thewritingwriter17 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

No problem. If you have any questions just ask. Also please remember to sign your posts in Talk using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Jim Roscoe article

How important do you have to be to qualify for a wikipedia article? Jim Roscoe is a candidate for the Wyoming House of Representatives. Those vying to become public servants aren't important? WTF. The intent of the article was to explain who Jim is and where more information about him can be found. I do appreciate everyone who makes Wikipedia uncluttered, so thank you for your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.168.41 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of "how important" but of notability. Notability requirement for politicals candidates is defined here. Also Wikipedia does not work on truth but on verifiable truth, therefore providing reliable sources is important. Thanks for your question, but may I ask that to follow proper procedure please always start a new message in Talk pages at the bottom and always sign your notes with four tildes (~~~~) at the end? Thank you. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dannyville

AlexF,

With all due respect, I completely disagree with the deletion of Dannyville. It was a Wikipedia page about a section of the SEC baseball tournament. Now, I don't know if you've ever been to the tournament, but there is a section there called Dannyville, like I posted in the article. This is my first time to make a Wikipedia page, and it's like just because someone doesn't think something is viable information to the public, then it's suddenly not to anyone else either (or no one else thinks it is, rather). This is really my one big chagrin with any of this. I don't understand why one person or a handful can actually delete something a handful of people have been worked on because they've never heard of it, or because there's not an internet link. I'm just saying this is a public encyclopedia full of edited information. You're not going to know what all of it is in different parts of the country or know everything about specific events. This is seen through your deletion of a page dedicated to Jim Roscoe who is running for the house of representatives. Just because it's not important to you, it doesn't mean it's not to anyone else. That's what makes wikipedia so great. I would appreciate it if you would reinstate Dannyville. We're not making a mockery of wikipedia. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuceisloose (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The article had no references whatsoever. It had no assertion of notability whatsoever. It had been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor as non-notable and nobody added a {{hangon}} tag to the article to delay deletion and proceed to explain the rationale for keeping the article and/or providing assertion of notability by posting some reliable sources.

You said above, and I quote:

"it's like just because someone doesn't think something is viable information to the public, then it's suddenly not to anyone else either"

I understand your comments and your feelings but unfortunately that is not how Wikipedia works. The important issue is not truth but verifiability. It has nothing to do with an editor having heard of the organization or not. It has to do with abiding by the rules. In this particular case it is the rules of notability for groups. If, after reading the relevant pages indicated here, you still feel you can provide proper sources, I'd be willing to restore the article to your user space for you to fix and bring into compliance.

Deletion of Dannyville??

Alexf,

With all do respect, how can you have deleted the Dannyville page? I assume you have never been to the SEC Baseball Tournament or any college sporting event in the South or maybe even any function with the term "tailgating" associated with it. That is the only reason I would be able to understand why you do not find it significant. As a resident of Birmingham, Alabama, I and many others look forward to our yearly pilgrimage to Dannyville.

This is my formal invitation for you to join me next year in the friendly confines of Dannyville May 20-24, 2009 in Hoover, AL just outside the fences of the Hoover MET. Only then will you understand Dannyville's significance,

I hope you reconsider your deletion.

Mcnasty12 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see response above. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Dannyville (continued)

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC.
Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.

With this being stated, I want to make a quick point. I went back in and tried to put "hang on" twice in the edit field where it said to, and 5 minutes later the page was gone. Now on to more important matters than "hang on"

I want to make a couple of points. Anyone who will edit Dannyville is going to be a reliable source, however it's impossible to be secondary in this case because of what Dannyville is. Anyone can come or go as they please. Alot of people know what it is, and the few of us who know how to use a computer keep in contact through the year talking about how we can make Dannyville better. I doubt most of the people out there search dannyville, but the people at the tournament know it.

As for being organized for a purpose, what does that entail? Should we tell you that we make sure everyone knows to keep everything like they found it? That we help clean up the tailgating our out of respect for the tournament? That we help get the word out to patrons every year to come have a beer in Dannyville? Our purpose is to make sure everyone respects Regions Park and has a good time while they're there, and preferably in Dannyville. So we have a non-commercial activity, that is a social club, and a group of people (more than one person) coming together for a purpose.

However... within 2 days of it being up, how could we effectively make it known when it's gone before we can even get it going? Thanks again.

deuceisloose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuceisloose (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You said:

"Anyone who will edit Dannyville is going to be a reliable source, however it's impossible to be secondary in this case because of what Dannyville is"

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process"

What you are describing instead is original research which is not acceptable. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article to understand a little more of how Wikipedia works and what is expected. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Having a nice social club and a group of friends is great but not necessarily encyclopedic. In any case, I am bound by the rules, I don't make them, I have follow them. Again, if you think your article has merit, and you can conform to the rules and policies, you could work it off-line until it is ready for posting. Also, if you disagree with anything I said, and with the deletion, and want to appeal, you can try the Wikipedia:Deletion review process. Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you do go ahead, be prepared to defend your rationale with verifiable facts. I wish you well. Peace. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, all of the information I had worked on already was on the wikipedia page. can I have it back please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuceisloose (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page has been moved to User:Deuceisloose/Dannyville for you to work on and try to fix/bring up to acceptable standard. Also when in Talk pages, please try to keep your comments on the same section instead of starting a new one for the same subject every time and please remember to sign your comments by addig four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

David Ruck

I've undone your deletion of this as the user is clearly in the process of expanding the article, we need to give him a chance to do so. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. We'll wait, but I don't see (as it is now) much chance of notability assertion. No doubt the person may be a good programmer (but then so am I :). -- Alexf^(talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it, and will keep an eye on it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of John Dahlbäck

I created the article John Dahlbäck today. When I was about to update it a half hour later, you had already proded it AND deleted it without even giving me the chance to contest the prod. I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt and assume you just made a terrible mistake, but I'll have to bring this deletion up at an appropriate forum. As to Mr Dahlbäck's notability, it would have been obvious if you'd have checked the Discogs-link that was included in my first version. I have now recreated the article, and I'm not expecting anymore trouble from you, except possibly an apology. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Slow down. Please be civil. All you had to do was request undeletion giving your reasons. You used MySpace as a reference. As an established user, you know that is not a reliable source. I don't have a problem with the article as long as it asserts notability. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the notability of this fellow - I commented on the article talk page and await feedback. Also, Sebisthlm, you complain here and at TK's talk page that Alexf "prodded" the page. I see no such thing; the deletion history shows two items - article creation and speedy tagging by a third party. If I were Alex, I probably would have also deleted this page, as it shows no assertion of notability. Tan | 39 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Alexf, I got the impression that you were the same person who proded the article and deleted it within a couple of hours. If you didn't do both these things, and someone else deleted the article within hours of your prod, I'm the first to apologize. Given that, my post may have been a bit blunt, but by no means uncivil. If you think I've been uncivil, I'd like to know exactly what in my post that was uncivil for future reference. Given that this isn't the first time your deletions have been criticized, I'm a bit puzzled by the sensitivity you've shown in your responses. I admit I'm not an expert on the notability guidelines on musicians, but I would be very surprised if Mr Dahlbäck's discography or feature on the Essential mix on BBC radio didn't put him above the notability threshold. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably already know, but John Dahlbäck has been nominated for deletion by Tanthalas39 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck. You're most welcome to contribute. Sebisthlm (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know. Just went and posted my comments on it. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that I might rub you the wrong way, and that it might have something to do with my "direct approach" concerning my complaints with the first deletion of the article and the admittedly less than polite dig at your response on the AfD. Clearly these comments haven't gained me any supporters or converting any delete votes. I do think you (intentionally or unintentionally) have shown me some attitude in your response, that you might have been a bit sensitive in your response to my blunt message and that your accusation of incivility was a bit excessive. The bluntness stemmed from a frustration with getting the article you've created just hours ago, and that you're literally working on deleted under your nose. I'm not writing this to have a go at you, I'm just trying to explain things from my point of view. I don't know if I've offended you so much so that you don't want to speak with me or you just have more important things than AfD:John Dahlbäck (God forbid!), so I'd like to apologize if I've offended you and I hope the tone of our communication can change. In retrospect, it would have been better to write an acceptable stub in the sandbox and then post it, but I was hoping for some help from some other musically interested person. As for the AfD, I think I have been civil apart from the aforementioned reply to you, and that actually value the arguments that you and the other contributors. Sincerely, Sebisthlm (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no hatchet to bury. I could not be an admin without a thick skin. So I have no personal problems or animosity towards you. Now as per your comments on civility, from the beginning of the thread:

"I'm not expecting anymore trouble from you, except possibly an apology"

I did not give you any trouble. I reviewed an article tagged for speedy deletion and agreed with the editor that tagged it. Then deleted as part of my duties - I do that dozens of times a day, if you care to look at the log, you can see my deletion log from my user page. As for the apology request (rather blunt language I might add), there's nothing to apologize for: a) it was not a mistake on my part but a legitimate deletion. b) it was nothing personal about you or anybody else, just following the rules and policies. If your "bluntness stemmed from a frustration with getting the article deleted", then you should count to ten and calm down before posting. You get more out of admins with honey than with vinegar.

"I don't know if I've offended you so much so that you don't want to speak with me or you just have more important things than AfD:John Dahlbäck (God forbid!)"

You have not offended me. I don't have any problems speaking with you and yes, I do have more important things to do with my time. a) I also have RL work to do. b) I do not follow music or musicians as they are out of my area of interest (I do different kinds of edits). The only reason I'd look at musician pages is for CSD, PROD, AfD, or antivandalism work. You asked me to comment on the Afd (see above). I did, and that was it for me. I have a long list of articles to create and/or translate from other Wikipedia projects as you can see in my ToDo list. Don't get too worked up about it. c) "(God forbid!)": I'm an atheist so I care less about invisible magical entities than I do about musicians. Don't worry about it. Have a nice day. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RL you say? I've never heard of it... As I said, I know that my first message was blunt, and, as I've come to understand it, rather misguided since timing of the deletion (a couple of hours after I created the article, and literally when I was working with it) depends on when the CSD was placed on the article. The reason why I apologized is because I got a formal warning from User:Tanthalas39 for my admittedly stupid remark, so even if I might think that was a bit excessive, I figured that if he reacted so strongly, there was a risk that you had reacted in the same way. You also seemed to be a little less than pleased with me asking User:Theresa knott for advice on how to proceed with a complaint, I thought I already was in your naughty book. The reason why I asked her and not you was that I thought I had been confrontational enough with you without also asking you where to post a formal complaint on yourself. I'm obviously not going to proceed with such a complaint since I had misunderstood your role in the deletion process. I now also understand why you're not overly active on the AfD itself. Apparently, the whole of Wikipedia isn't revolving around that AfD... Best regards, Sebisthlm (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RL=Real Life. The only issue with Theresa's page is that it is not proper procedure. The way to deal with deletion issues/complaints/questions is to first discuss it with the deleting admin (being civil of course). If you cannot reach an agreement with the deleting admin and you think he/she might be unreasonable, or treated you wrong, then you can bring it up to ANI and you can also ask for a deletion review if you really think the speedy was wrong. Once it goes to AfD then it is a little different but you already know this. Anyway, lets forget the issue. There are articles to edit and vandals to fight. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what RL means (my Ironish seem to be a bit off nowadays). My breaking of protocol was all in good faith, and thanks for explaining proper procedure. Now I know how to act next time, which I hope there will never be one. Meanwhile, we have had a breakthrough in the AfD, where it all seems to boil down to a silly cultural misunderstanding. The nomination has been withdrawn, but the closure is pending reply from two contributors who voted delete (of which you're one of). As Shakespeare would have written; much ado about nothing... Sebisthlm (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I missed the Ironish. My fault. I really thought you did not know the meaning (being En as 2nd language and all). Never mind. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Neptuny"

Dear Alex,

you deleted my page "Neptuny" that I published yesterday (reason "blatant advertising"). I am convinced that the page on Neptuny has a place in Wikipedia and would therefore like to do the necessary editing to have it accepted in the encyclopedia. Please let me know if I can proceed with this.

Many thanks and kind regards,

Johanna (user: Johanna_sc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna sc (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I went back and checked the article. Unfortunately the article was tagged and was not in compliance so it had to be deleted. It read like an advertisement: "Neptuny is a leading provider of performance optimization solutions for both IT infrastructures and Digital Media applications."

It also had some URLs as references, all pointing to the company's website. To understand how Wikipedia works and what is expected of you to assert notability for companies please read the links provided. Please read the business FAQ. It might also be helpful for you to read about how to write your first article. Don't despair. We were all beginners at one point. My first articles were challenged and deleted too. Lastly, please remember to sign your posts in Talk with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your feedback Alex. I will read the guidelines again. Any chance I can get access to the page again or do I need to recreate everything? Kind regards, Johanna 87.54.59.99 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The page has been moved to your user space as explained in your Talk page. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I have edited the page in my user space and would like to go ahead and republish the text. Can I go ahead and publish or could I ask someone to preview it? Would of course like to avoid that it gets deleted again. Please let me know. Thanks, Johanna Johanna sc (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a quick read. As it stands it will possibly be marked for deletion as a G11 (speedy deletion criteria) as it reads like a company advertisement or press release. More details on your page. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Genaker reference on Push to Talk page

Dear Alex,

You deleted the reference to Genaker I added to this page. I understand that you did it because it was a link to a wikipedia article that was not available. I will put back the name without the link until I complete the company page.

If this is not correct let me know why.

Thanks,

Mmanta (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. Adding person or group names as examples on other pages as reference of anything is incorrect if the name is not notable and unreferenced. So far, and until you can show otherwise by providing reliable sources it is not for Wikipedia's purposes. Once the person has a valid article, or you can reference your inclusion of the name properly, then it's another matter. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More Tenerife

Hey could you translate the Dorsales section? Its gradually making progress Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done Sport in Tenerife Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for responding so quickly to my WP:UAA report relating to this: [7]. I am glad to see that character getting the boot with all due speed. Be well and keep up the fine work. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PS And thanks for blocking this UAA reported race baiter: [8]. That is some double play! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first character came again with a very similar nasty name. I guess he's jumping IP addresses. Was immediately blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Egad, how scary -- at so many levels. Thank you, again, for the fine work. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Deletion of article "Lucy Gow"

Lucy Gow is a real person. Our parents would be very upset that you have suggested otherwise.

Sam Gow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.145.95 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest she wasn't. I deleted the article for policy violation, specifically under A7 (bio) (doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person). Nothing personal as I don't know her or you. What I know is that every article must follow policy. Please read WP:BIO. If you think she qualifies, and you can supply reliable sources to prove it, then by all means try again. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion of page crazyfriendz

Dear Alexf,

Initially when this page was created, i agree it was somewhat advertising. But now i am not doing any kind of advertising. I am just providing information about a new social networking website crazyfriendz. It would be nice if you could just read the article before deleting it. I cant find any form of advertising in the current article. Please do the necessary.

Thanks, Sanath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedhacker (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The page was not deleted because of advertising but because it did not assert notability under WP:WEB. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)