User talk:DarkAudit/Archive

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

User talk:DarkAudit/Archive 2 User talk:DarkAudit/Archive 3

Redirects

When making a redirect like WVU Fieldhouse you should check that the article it's pointing to exists. In this case Stansbury Hall doesnot. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should have thought of that. I usually create the article then the redirects as the redlinked redirects get deleted quickly. Have fun. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to WVU Field House and then deleted the one without the capitals. I think that's what you wanted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Britt

Hi: I think that delete/bio was probably better than delete/nonsense, but you beat me to it!--Anthony.bradbury 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chromavision

Sorry I was away all day. I've put it on my watch list now. You can also list stuff like that at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

An administrator can close an AFD, but I'm not an administrator -- look for someone who has closed another discussion. NawlinWiki 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

closing AfD

Done. By the way, you could have closed it yourself (little-known fact). :) Non-admins can close debates that are very clearly "keep" decisions, or mistakes, as in your case. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually..I just reviewed the policy page and I was only half right. You're not supposed to close discussions that you were involved in. But I don't think anyone would have minded. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point point

Ask and ye shall receive. BJK 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/me is not a Nazi

But have you given any attention to two of the other pages Djedamrazuk has propogated? They are Therion Confidential and Adisa Cizmic. While the former might have some merit underneath all of the CV-questionable images and the copypasted review, the latter seems to fail WP:BIO with 96 Google hits. But before I start something that's going to paint me a Wikinazi, I wanted your input per your enviable patience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have posted this in the AFD currently going on, but that would have made me appear to be out-and-out "attacking" Djedamrazuk's entries; an appearance I don't want to have. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks a lot better -- seems notable as an industrial designer. Thanks! NawlinWiki 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic

It's OK to remove it as long as you notify someone to close it. Give me a few minutes and I will go through it and close it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad 2600 games

Journey:Escape. I hate to think I actually paid money for that. (shudder) --DarkAudit 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Atari was before my time (born in 1987 I was), so I never really got to play any of those games :(. I would like to pick up a system sometime and start collecting though. Anywho, Wikipedia kinda has a lack of Atari 2600 game articles so right now I'm going around trying to remedy that by creating some nice little stubs, and bad games are more fun to make articles for ;) --SeizureDog 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Sure you can use mine! Computerjoe 's talk 09:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Haris Cizmic AfD

If you look at the comments just above mine and User talk:Mackensen#Haris Cizmic you can see why they were listed again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are notable they will survive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion

There should be a way to submit an AfD to admins only for such a mess. Perhaps a serious committee of 10 or 12 that can take the account of the encyclopedia above and beyond popularity contests; which in my opinion ruin the credibility of Wikipedia altogether. Ste4k 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear DarkAudit,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

Prodego ^talk 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Please reapply when you have made 250 article edits. Until then, happy editing! Prodego ^talk 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AXA and others

If I wanted to punish the articles for sockpuppetry I would have deleted the Haris Cizmic when I closed the AfD but I choose keep. To relist them just allows people to have a second look and see if the notability is there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCLG

There's not really a clearly defined policy on how to handle a situation like that. My personal rule of thumb would be two articles (see, for example, what I did at CHIN (AM) and CHIN-FM), but there are other editors who seem to prefer one. Basically, it's a personal preference more than anything — if you have enough information about the stations to split the article, then feel free, and if you'd rather not bother, then that's fine too. Bearcat 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion: Torrent finder

Hi, I hope you can take some time to vote on the AFD debate for the Torrent finder article (i noticed you had voted in another torrent site debate earlier). The debate is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Kranski

Wasn't me! (tm) - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College sports fandom

Thanks for some assistance on an afd. I've noticed that a lot of international wikipedians are fond of afding anything American collegiate. I think that it's mostly perspective. They are trying to compare American college sports to European collegiate athletics rather than what it really is, semi-professional athletics. So goes life. I guess the discussions make 'pedia a much more interesting place when people of different backgrounds try to mesh eh? Anyways good luck to the Mountaineers and good job whopping UGA. To Hell With Georgia! Excaliburhorn 01:20, July 7, 2006

The Guild.

Heh, no problem! Umbric Man

Rory Demetrioff

Why would you deny people from Canada to have access to researching this individual. He appears on the government of Ontario and Government of Canada registry for active lobbyists. I think this needs to be opened up to a wider discussion. How can that take place. Also, it should be encouraged to review already public information on google and on the government of Ontario Integrity Commission website at: http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage

Also, a number of collegues also have entries in Wikipedia including: Leslie Noble, Deb Hutton, Gerald Caplan, Ian Brodie, Rod Love

Why is this individual singled out? Perhaps he is not in the right category on wikipedia?

Thank you for your help and insight.

Oakville123 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it all wrong...

The correct answers are: Marshall University Thundering Herd, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Browns, and Chelsea :P. Otherwise, its always good to see another WVian on board. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you can see the stadium over the pile of beer cans, the hippie cover jam band, and the burning couch in your front yard. :). Just teasing you (you can probably guess where I went to uni). I've got a couple of WV articles that I'm hacking away at. You mind taking a look sometime? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I forgot to give you a link to the article. Here ya go: Huntington, West Virginia. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The empty space is now Pullman Square. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTC

Dude, I write a little stub on some streetcar line (502 Downtowner (TTC) & 503 Kingston Road (TTC) that is linked from the Toronto Transit Commission page and then you go and vandalize it by putting it up for speedy deletion. Chill out guy! Aren't you from Virginia, why do you even care? - Nlsanand

But honestly, instead of contributing, you're just punking me off. If I have a problem with an article, I change it myself. The article is linked from other articles, that's the problem with Wikipedia, too many people just trying to come up with review notes for other people's stuff. What are you the boss from Office Space? - Nlsanand

Bus routes

I am loathe to come to the defence of those bus route articles that you have tagged as candidates for speedy deletion, but I must note that the reason that you have stated is invalid, unless I have missed something. The section you have cited applies to "non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject." It does not seem to apply to bus routes or other intangible or inanimate objects. Sorry. Ground Zero | t 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7:

7. Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).

This makes it clear that CSD A7 is about people. I think that you are not using the template appropriately in applying "etc." to include things that are not people. If those who wrote CSD A7 meant it to apply to non-people, they would have written it that way, rather than just including a vague "etc." in the tag. I do not disagree with deleting these articles. This just isn't the way to do it. Ground Zero | t 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are now AfD'd. I listed them all under one discussion to save time and space. --DarkAudit 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

Yanksox has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Yank sox 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRoo

I agree WikiRoo's editing and behavior thus far has been less than helpful, but his comments on the AfD are real borderline. They're certainly not WP:CIVIL, but I don't think they quite violate WP:NPA yet. I'll keep an eye on it - he has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and WP:NPA, so he's definitely walking a thin line here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been a little less than civil with my last comment on the AfD, but it's the truth. --DarkAudit 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you meant, for what it's worth. I've been cleaning up after his messes for about a week now. When someone tries to explain policy to him he either ignores it and continues on his merry way or argues against it even if it's obvious his arguments are without merit. There's an RFC on him, in case you're interested in seeing it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall To Hell

I was the person who recently nominated Recall To Hell for deletion. I don't do enough maintenance, just correcting spelling mistakes and helping out on the RD when I can, so I didn't realise it was a prime candidate for speedying. Thanks for doing so. --Howard Train 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (crossposted to User talk:Kchase02, User talk:DarkAudit, User talk:TheCoffee)[reply]

No trouble at all. :) --DarkAudit 21:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and prod

I saw that you had nominated a number of articles on AfD because the speedy tag was removed by the author. I think that you may be getting a little confused between prod and speedy. Whereas a prod tag may be unilaterally removed by any editor, the speedy tag should not be. Therefore, you can simply reinstate the speedy tag and warn the user who removed it using the {{drmafd}} warning templates. Cheers, David Mestel^(Talk) 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

Yeah I noticed that he's back. He does seem a little rough around the edges still, but I think his behavior now is a huge improvement over what we saw under his previous accounts. I know WP:AGF and WP:BITE are being stretched to their limits here, but I have seen several attempts to add acceptable material under this new account. I'm taking a "watch and monitor" approach for now --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

If you clean up any of his articles and happen to remove the one actual point he cares is in them--some slight against regional government in Ontario--then you'll be called that again, I'm sure. And next time you're up in Canada, come have a drink with me. Maybe we'll have something to celebrate by then <wink> <wink>. Oz Lawyer 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

I've reconsidered, and can call the article an attack on Kulic, assuming he exists. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More JammXKids AfDs

I tagged some for speedy via A7. They're mostly gone. All the rest I could list are now in AfD as well. Their home page is unreadable via Ubuntu & Firefox, so I'm having trouble checking there for possible copyvio. --DarkAudit 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look too much into the JammXKids website... I could look at it a bit more to see if there's more copyvios, and maybe get those pages deleted quicker. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got most of them, but couldn't find any copyvio for Alyson Stoner, which looks like the only decent article out of the lot of them. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the last one I need to check. The rest are tagged for making unsourced claims. Guess I'll have to fire up IE to check that last one :) --DarkAudit 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about Alyson Stoner. If you look in the edit history, Cute 1 4 u didn't create the article; and it looks unlikely that it is a copyvio. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the Wikipedia:Copyright problems procedures for January Malkus. I didn't see a link on the Evan Saucedo page to do the same. --DarkAudit 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that's it. The link for that Evan guy is the same, what with it being a Flash site and all. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#Categories Specifies the criteria for speedy deletion of categories, notability is not a factor for speedy deletion of categories. Categories themselves are generally non-notable. If the category only contains non-notable entries, they should be dealt with,then the category can be speedy deleted as empty. This delisting was certainly without prejudice for you listing the category at WP:CFD — xaosflux ^Talk 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take the discussion there, then. The category will soon be down to one article as it is. --DarkAudit 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus routes (2nd nomination)

Just wanted to let you know that I've updated the AfD nomination above so that it conforms to Wikipedia AfD precedent. When nominating an article for deletion for a second time, it's best to use the {{subst:afdx}} template instead of linking to and altering the original AfD page. That way separate AfD discussions exist for each nomination. (See the fine print at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion.) Of course, I changed nothing essential to your argument for the AfD, except to wikilink to the previous discussion. -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never had to deal with one like that before. --DarkAudit 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder)

It doesn't look like any effort was made to add the results of the google search attesting to this man's notability after it was brought up in the AfD. The article is in the same state it was before it was nominated, which is just as it was when it was created in March. After being untouched for five months, I doubt that there is any great urgency for the author to expand it. As it is, no matter how notable the man may be, there is no such assertion in the article, and the article is not up to standards. If it's not fixed in due course, it should be re-nominated. DarkAudit 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I moved your comment above to the article's Talk page, rather than have it appear on my Talk page. It will be of more use there. I have also added an {{expand}} tag to the article. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I went to you as the closing admin. Maybe someone will do something with the article. DarkAudit 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week since the AfD closed, and no attempt has been made to expand the article beyond the expand tag. A lot of noise was generated on the related articles, Frank Finnerty and Sue Schilling, but that was based solely on the rapid renomination after the original 'no consensus' decision. If no work is done on the article, what is an acceptable delay before renominating? DarkAudit 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page states:

"In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion."

You could theoretically renominate this page for AfD tomorrow, provided you can supply prima-facie evidence that it violates policy in some way. I would have a go at expanding the article first if you have an interest in the subject. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent my time on Wikipedia determined to expand and improve the scope and qualirt of articles here, with particular emphasis on New Jersey articles, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. As such, I always find it hard to understand why some Wikipedians seem so determined to spend their time here trying to undermine other people's work with AfDs. I did not create any of these Atlantic County Freeholder articles that you have been so dead-set on deleting. I had made minor efforts in the past to rework some of these articles, hoping that their creator would pick up on them, but he seems to have flown the coop. I waited until the resolution of your multiple AfDs to start work on bringing them up to standards, and have done so with a few of these articles, including Frank Finnerty and Sue Schilling, all of which address all of the content and quality issue you have raised. Joe Kelly (Freeholder) will be next, followed by the six other Board members. While I agree 100% that WP:BIO includes state and federal elected officials, I do not agree at all that it excludes any and all county officials, a view that has been confirmed by other Wikipedians in two sets of AfDs. I am extremely disappointed that you would create new AfDs minutes after the previously closed ones failed, and will continue to stand firmly behind their retention on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope, with both sets of AfDs showing that there is support for these articles, that you will display a modicum of patience -- and a large dose of good faith -- in allowing a cooling off period of several weeks to months to allow sufficient time for all of these articles to be improved, by me and my fellow supportive Wikipedians, to meet your standards. Alansohn 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to them as my standards. They are not. I am just trying to uphold established Wikipedia standards. The articles in question do little more that state that the subjects are members of a county board. The Joe Kelly article keep still astonishes me. The keep was based on claims of notability that were never expressed in the discussion nor the article. Only the statement of 'google search shows notability' that was never expanded on. I nominated the others based on the 'no consensus' taken as a 'no decision' and that nothing was done to improve the article during the discussion period. That discussion period is there to allow the articles to be improved during that time, not after. The 'keep' comments in the new AfDs make no mention of the merits of the article, but just the speed at which they were renominated. You will note that I have not renominated the articles that were decided as 'keep', but have voiced my opinion in the appropriate places. If they're brought up to Wikipedia standards, fine. If not, they will be up for AfD after an appropriate delay. I have asked admins for guidance on what is 'appropriate' in these cases. DarkAudit 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Kelly (Freeholder) article has been expanded. While not yet complete, I think that the expansion goes a long way to addressing the concerns that have been expressed -- and rejected -- in each of the AfDs. I do not feel that you are imposing your own standards. However, I do believe that these articles can stand on their own, as long as sufficient time is allowed for their expansion. Again, I sincerely hope that we can now have a cooling off period of several weeks to months to allow sufficient time in good faith for all of these articles to be further expanded and improved, by me and my fellow supportive Wikipedians, so that the articles will not only be even better able to fend off another AfD, but that you will be satisfied with the content and structure of the articles. Alansohn 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder)

It doesn't look like any effort was made to add the results of the google search attesting to this man's notability after it was brought up in the AfD. The article is in the same state it was before it was nominated, which is just as it was when it was created in March. After being untouched for five months, I doubt that there is any great urgency for the author to expand it. As it is, no matter how notable the man may be, there is no such assertion in the article, and the article is not up to standards. If it's not fixed in due course, it should be re-nominated. DarkAudit 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I moved your comment above to the article's Talk page, rather than have it appear on my Talk page. It will be of more use there. I have also added an {{expand}} tag to the article. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I went to you as the closing admin. Maybe someone will do something with the article. DarkAudit 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week since the AfD closed, and no attempt has been made to expand the article beyond the expand tag. A lot of noise was generated on the related articles, Frank Finnerty and Sue Schilling, but that was based solely on the rapid renomination after the original 'no consensus' decision. If no work is done on the article, what is an acceptable delay before renominating? DarkAudit 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page states:

"In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion."

You could theoretically renominate this page for AfD tomorrow, provided you can supply prima-facie evidence that it violates policy in some way. I would have a go at expanding the article first if you have an interest in the subject. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent my time on Wikipedia determined to expand and improve the scope and qualirt of articles here, with particular emphasis on New Jersey articles, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. As such, I always find it hard to understand why some Wikipedians seem so determined to spend their time here trying to undermine other people's work with AfDs. I did not create any of these Atlantic County Freeholder articles that you have been so dead-set on deleting. I had made minor efforts in the past to rework some of these articles, hoping that their creator would pick up on them, but he seems to have flown the coop. I waited until the resolution of your multiple AfDs to start work on bringing them up to standards, and have done so with a few of these articles, including Frank Finnerty and Sue Schilling, all of which address all of the content and quality issue you have raised. Joe Kelly (Freeholder) will be next, followed by the six other Board members. While I agree 100% that WP:BIO includes state and federal elected officials, I do not agree at all that it excludes any and all county officials, a view that has been confirmed by other Wikipedians in two sets of AfDs. I am extremely disappointed that you would create new AfDs minutes after the previously closed ones failed, and will continue to stand firmly behind their retention on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope, with both sets of AfDs showing that there is support for these articles, that you will display a modicum of patience -- and a large dose of good faith -- in allowing a cooling off period of several weeks to months to allow sufficient time for all of these articles to be improved, by me and my fellow supportive Wikipedians, to meet your standards. Alansohn 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to them as my standards. They are not. I am just trying to uphold established Wikipedia standards. The articles in question do little more that state that the subjects are members of a county board. The Joe Kelly article keep still astonishes me. The keep was based on claims of notability that were never expressed in the discussion nor the article. Only the statement of 'google search shows notability' that was never expanded on. I nominated the others based on the 'no consensus' taken as a 'no decision' and that nothing was done to improve the article during the discussion period. That discussion period is there to allow the articles to be improved during that time, not after. The 'keep' comments in the new AfDs make no mention of the merits of the article, but just the speed at which they were renominated. You will note that I have not renominated the articles that were decided as 'keep', but have voiced my opinion in the appropriate places. If they're brought up to Wikipedia standards, fine. If not, they will be up for AfD after an appropriate delay. I have asked admins for guidance on what is 'appropriate' in these cases. DarkAudit 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Kelly (Freeholder) article has been expanded. While not yet complete, I think that the expansion goes a long way to addressing the concerns that have been expressed -- and rejected -- in each of the AfDs. I do not feel that you are imposing your own standards. However, I do believe that these articles can stand on their own, as long as sufficient time is allowed for their expansion. Again, I sincerely hope that we can now have a cooling off period of several weeks to months to allow sufficient time in good faith for all of these articles to be further expanded and improved, by me and my fellow supportive Wikipedians, so that the articles will not only be even better able to fend off another AfD, but that you will be satisfied with the content and structure of the articles. Alansohn 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Street Irregulars' Barnstar proposal

Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Baker_Street_Irregulars.27_Barnstar. Cheers -- Netsnipe ► 11:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Concordia Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!

Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
Give people the Civility Barnstar.
Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³ /t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot. [reply]

123 Pleasant Street

I added a "Keep" to this article's AfD. Can you tie the building to some prominent local architect? That might help. Doesn't look good for the article right now.Edivorce 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Notice Concerning an AfD on 123 Pleasant Street

I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD

I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

123 Pleasant Street Deleted

I see that this article has been deleted. I was touched by your efforts to work on this article. I beleive it also raises serious questions about consensus on WP. I will help with a WP:Deletion Review or other means if you are interested. Otherwise I'll let it go. Please let me know on my talk page. Edivorce 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New DR on 123 Pleasant Street

After getting your reply on my talk page I went ahead and opened a DR . I also made a requested to the closing Admin to give notice to users who participated in the discussion or edited the article.Edivorce 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]