User talk:Dennisthe2/Archive/All time till 09Dec2008

Dr Steel AfD deletion

Apologies for deletion of the blurb... It was my attempt at compliance.

Seary6579 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Kudos for dealing with the anons in the Brandford Punk Rock AFD scene. I shy away from such madness, so I'm proud of you for handling it well. YechielMan 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Search and Rescue South Carolina Task Force 1

The article appears to have survivied the AfD, at least for now. I was just curious if we would have persuaded you with the information we provided after you switched your vote to neutral? Specifically I'm referring to the link to CBS's The Early Show interview with Tracy Smith. What happens now? Is the article "safe" or could this come up again at any time? I'd like to think we would have achieved consensus given one or two more days. Thanks for your help. I have to admit the process improved the article. Best, MoodyGroove 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Here are the links to the media sources. If you have a dial-up connection, you may not be able to see the video:

URL for the Video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Janet Smith (this is the one you didn't know about).
SC-TF1 in the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the advice, I'll try and implement it a bit more. LazyDaisy

Barnstar

You deserve this

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your comment at the Lana Lesley AFD you definitely deserve this! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regis redirect

You can withdraw the nomination and when it's closed redirect the article. Otto4711 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizap

I have asked User:Quarl to reopen the AFD. What I deleted was not the subject of the AFD, but a blanked redirect page. The reason for the AFD closure is, thus, based on a misunderstanding of the situation on his part. We'll see how he responds. - TexasAndroid 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Community AfD

You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YWAM bases

Thanks Dennis for formatting my cluttered posts. It's the first time one of the articles I've created have been AFD so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote. I've gone ahead and done what you suggested. --Davidkazuhiro 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths

You previously commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths, writing:

*I'm going with Delete here. What constitutes "important" is subjective in this case - it's kind of a fine line. Granted, I could be wrong, but at best we're looking at a merge and redirect to Homeopathy. --Dennisthe2 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has since been renamed to List of homeopaths and has also undergone other changes. I am writing to inform you of this in case you would like to revisit the discussion. Thank you, Black Falcon 06:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kearns

I replied your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Kearns. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chink AfD

The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Trinity Christian HS AFD

You must be referring to the WP:ILIKEIT arguments. IMO the article is now well-attributed and its notability asserted by multiple sources, which essentially addresses the concerns of the nomination. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote!

Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Filthy Truth

Thanks for the backup. Communicating with Fnagaton feels like talking at (not with) a brick wall. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think it's probably going to pan out to be Fnagaton thumping his chest with repeated cries of "I am a source!" along with a period of shock and surprise when the article gets deleted. Mr.Starslayer at least seems reasonable, if not conversant in basic Wikipedia policy. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, at least this allows us to try to pry something out of them without opening a whole new kettle of problems with notability requirements. According to the current home of The Filthy Truth, the entire thing's got 110 members. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course numbers don't say much, but the production staff of individual games these days can be a bigger group. I'm thinking that The Filthy Truth may be a touch less notable than MrStarslayer and Fnagaton are saying. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me, on the other hand... Would it be unfair to use the term witchhunt to describe his reaction to most of my arguments? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*whistles* Now THAT is a messy, messy AFD. Then again, any time something like that is up for deletion it seems to bring the combative types out of the woodwork. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'm sure I'm going to burn somewhere for finding the procedings amusing. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! :) --Core desat 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma

In your comment in this discussion, you noted that this discussion should be sent elsewhere. Now that the AfD has been closed, the question now is where to hold this discussion. I encourage you and the other editors (listed below) to find a suitable spot for this discussion and carry out the necessary steps for making a decision.

Perhaps this message does not make any sense whatsoever. In which case, please respond to this message and indicate what you want me (as the closing admin of the aforementioned AfD discussion) to do to carry out the result of the AfD. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c.c.: User:After Midnight, User:JzG, User:Elkman User:Dennisthe2, User:Arkyan, and User:FrozenPurpleCube.

Septimalisation article - references added

I added major non-Christian references to Septimalisation article, please review your deletion decision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Septimalisation Wikinger 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, I got you message from the delete page, and I get your point. But, I'd like to discuss a bit. The rules of Wiki and of polite conversation are good rules, they let people with different opinions comunicate. I tend to be a bit bombastic, and I know I would tone it down sometimes. But, on the other hand these same rules can be exploited. They can be misinterpreted to mean that any opinion has equal weight.

I know that math, science, units of measure, relativity, can sound like foreign languages to people that don't have a background studying them and using them. This article on Septimalisation might sound as reasonable as, say, a perfectly respectable article on quantum mechanics. But I'm here to tell you, its not. These "equations" and "converstion factors" are completly meaningless. Its not just that they are wrong, they don't any meaning at all. I could talk about "the color of five" or "the mass of a joke", but these phrases, while sentences, have no meaning.

Why is this so important? Why I'm I spending so much time on this? Because these things can take on a life of there own. See postmodernism and the Sokal Hoax. People seem perfectly willing to debate fine points of "subjects" that have no meaning. Meanwhile, important subject can be neglected. Reasonable, yes, polite, yes, but lets not be suckers. Steve kap 09:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, if you would like me to replace the comments, I will. But his comments were disrupting the process, and they were all over the place. They should have been formatted in comment format. Again, if you would like me to replace the comments, I will. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that he re-added comments similar to his comments before, so I'll just leave those in there. Thanks! Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright/Copywrite

Thanks for pointing that out - rather embarassing mistake for someone with two degrees in English to make, although in my denfense my specialist are predates the dictionary! Cheers A1octopus 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed. Uncle G 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on Afds

Can you please try and limit your comments on Afds. While closing this recent afd I noticed your numerous comments. Needless discussion makes it difficult for closing admins to read through the afd. In particular I was disturbed by you comments to user's whom were voting in difference to your vote. It is completely unnecessary and makes the process needlessly combative. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zip Codes/WikiSource

I took at look at the inclusion criteria on WikiSource and it says "Statistical source data (such as election results)", which this could fall under. But it also says "Contributions are not limited to this list, of course". I have posted to a couple admin users and will see what they say. Take Care.....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn98 (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete template

re: Simen Nystad

Thanks. I'll add {{db-attack}} to my editing arsonal. Clerks. 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like you, you are cool. Well done for all your efforts. I reward you with this great barnstar. Hope you enjoy. Dom58! 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You deserve a barnstar. Dom58! 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't Jain yankee. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rawr and stuff"

Interesting signature, and probably the first time I've seen a "rawr" on Wikipedia. User:Tony Fox has "Arf!" for his talk page... and take a look at what I have. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Just thought I'd drop a line informing you of my request for adminship. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your signature

It helped me decode out how to write up my own (and eventually I got it right. ;) ) LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me /} ^{Logical Entries} 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darnitol?!!

Still chucking about the Darnitol! (here). I think I could use some. Thanks for the laugh! HeirloomGardener 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PL Kyodan

Thanks for reconsidering your recommendation on this AfD. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Crecente

How was a non-user able to AfD? I thought that only users could create the new page necessary ... ?

Also, please do a quick Google on "Brian Crecente" and you'll see that there are approx 127,000 hits. Additionally he is the editor of a Top-40 blog (per Technorati). If you could check a couple of the first links in Google I think you'll see that there is notability per the General notability guidelines.

If you agree I would ask that you consider changing your recommendation. Drew30319 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link may be helpful, right? [Brian Crecente] Drew30319 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the creation of the AfD, Wiki states: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below)."

There were many changes made to the article so it may be that the user found a way to go around this restriction through some type of machinations. Who knows ... Drew30319 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is the anon put his rationale for deletion on the article along with the notice. User:Uncle G then removed his rationale, and completed the process for him. I had previously made the offer of completing any potential AfD to the user, on my own talk page. I guess he just decided to put it all on the talk page, and Uncle G got there before I did. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review an article

Hi Dennis, if it isn't asking too much, can you please view the edits to the article "Adriana de Barros"? I've rewritten it, and would like to know if it is fine now. Thanks for your time. Breathe200 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't done something too horribly wrong...

This was deleted. I have undeleted it and moved it hither. Thereafter I redeleted List of ZIP Codes in Wisconsin. I hope that's not too incredibly out of line. Lemme know your thoughts. Tom e r ^talk 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Apple (rabbi)

I have rewritten the article with references. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Creating AfDs

Thanks and sorry, I didn't know how to add it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:I-can-has-cheezburger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-can-has-cheezburger.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Slang

No worries - the shift to DRV is the correct action. You can't close many XfDs without upsetting the occasional editor - I'm sure I've been accused of worse. I'm not bothered by it. Cheers, Wily D 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraceful. Rude actions are not made better by further rude actions. It's not "bold" to ignore policy. Shame on you. 2005 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic concentration cars

I thought about nominating List of classic concentration cars for a speedy deletion, but I thought that the phrase "classic concentration cars" might mean something special of which I was not aware. ●DanMS • Talk 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Blumenfeld

Hi, I didn't set Image:Amir-Blumenfeld.jpg to Creative Commons. It was already tagged as Creative Commons -- I just changed the version from 2.5 to 2.0 (as this is the correct version, according to the Flickr page from where the image is sourced).

The image was tagged as orphaned fairuse. But, the deletion criteria for images (#5) is only for Unused unfree images, not for images licensed under a free license (Creative Commons, in this case). You can use PROD or WP:IfD instead. utcursch | talk 03:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King's inspiration

Hello. Back in May you participated in an AfD discussion on Stephen King's inspiration. I have called this AfD for review as I believe it was deleted against consensus in the discussion. If you have a few moments, would you please read the review and weigh in with your current opinion? Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_22#Stephen_King.27s_inspiration Many thanks. All the best LACameraman 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar for your good work, especially on AFD's! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Legend

Since I hate faulty reasoning on AFD, I decided to reproduce my response:

This is the paragraph in question: " Hacker Software - What fun would homemade hardware be without homemade software to go along with it? Aside from the wide amount of Asian bootleg NES software available, the most impressive hack we've found is a completely original unlicensed Chinese Harry Potter game in which the young Where's Waldo-looking wizard journeys through the Dursley homestead kicking the crap out of rats, bats, fats (Dudley and Vernon), and, uh, Voldemort. And that's just before Harry learns he's a wizard. " - This section prominently features the game. How many subscribers of IGN saw this? Do you want me to find out which magazine this appears in? Then what? You are going to have to prove that it is not notable.

I am also going to tell you what I told Phamboy:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." - I would think that EGM has fact-checking, huh? All I need is one reliable source, right? If so, then this is flawed, and the nominator's argument is flawed.

WhisperToMe 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the core issue is that I said that one verifiable source is all the article needs to prove its notability, while you want two or more. I'll see if I can get a published #2 article. WhisperToMe 06:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this page is suggesting to me that Harry's Legend is a hack of an existing game called "The Waterboy" http://www.datacrystal.org/wiki/The_Waterboy - If I see the ROM and find this is true, I will write an article about the legit game. Regardless of the result of the AFD, I *could* merge Harry's Legend into "The Waterboy" WhisperToMe 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: WHups - that itself is a ROM hack! AT first I thought this was the original. Hmm, this is confusing... WhisperToMe 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

As I went down the Deletion how-to page, I saw what was necessary. I'll go back to it later. The page in question has a serious notablity problem in my opinion. MarkinBoston 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis!

I saw you at my AfD nomination, and I think I know you! Or at least know who you are, and if I am right, you know several of my loved ones. I just wanted to say hi. Chris 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me specifically, but I think you know several loved ones, if you lived in Southern California and now live more toward Canada. :) Chris 04:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing 101

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

My response edit conflicted with your vote, so you may have missed my point. I don't know if it changes your vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks.

I really do NOT appreciate the comment you left on that AfD page. However, it did kick me in the butt somewhat. I try to assume especially good faith with experienced editors and I was furious that the same courtesy hadn't been extended to me. I'm still not happy, but I'm better. --PMDrive1061 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Six million

In my opinion, it didn't meet the notability criteria for numbers... however, I am not prejudiced against restarting the article with that content. If you want me to userfy the page so you can trim it down, I'll be welcome to. east.718 at 19:57, 11/5/2007

Done, it's at User:DennisTheTiger/Six million. Cheers, east.718 at 20:09, 11/5/2007

Just let me know when you need it moved back. east.718 at 20:12, 11/5/2007

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least I got kudos. :) Thanks for contributing to the DRV. Pdelongchamp 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Egalitarianism

Thanks for nominating this article. I had it on my watchlist and was waiting for the duplicate article to close to get this one speedied as a recreation instead of having to hear more rantings from the creator of both. He's an interesting dude. Keeper | 76 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice

Hi Dennis, I really need some advice. After slogging through the AfD nomination for List of churches in Omaha, I decided to find other lists that were suitably aligned with the reasoning behind that AfD. In my (over)zealous scan I found this, this, this, this, this, this and this. After five days of brutal dialog that drew no other than yourself, I have withdrawn the AfD nominations. Why did this go down so poorly? I would appreciate any suggestions you might have for drawing other editors into the conversations, framing the AfD best, and handling the opposing editors in a constructive, forward-thinking manner. • Freechild'sup? 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I hope we will have consensus and understanding with Muslims in the real world as much as we have here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran congregations inherently non-notable?

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Lutheran Church, you said "Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that a single congregation of Lutherans can meet WP:N." Last year there was a lengthy discussion of what a religious congregation had to show to be notable, in a rejected notability guideline WP:CONG. Do you feel that no religious congregations can met WP:N, or is it just the Lutherans that fall short in your estimation? Edison (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the vast majority of congregations go about their business in an adequate but typically non-notable way, like, say most restaurants or most motels, but a few of any of these have substantial coverage in enough reliable sources that they satisfy WP:N. I only found one such ref for this one, so it got appropriately deleted. Edison (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

It's a wiki now. See here. (For at least one of the new versions). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audicom (PC audio cards)

Hola:
In the last days I have a very productive dialog with the user JRod2, who initially proposed the deletion of this article. Originally I have the idea of having two different articles to avoid a single boring one. But now I think that a single, well redacted article and with clean design will best fit the quality of wikipedia. He agreed with this idea. The article will basically cover the Audicom cards, the ECAM technology, and the Audicom software.
If you have any suggestion, please let me know.
¡Saludos!
SLedesma (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Crud (game)

While I believe your sincerity, perhaps a better method would have been to pose such a question on the talk page first. This game has been played since World War II and is not something merely made up one day (yes, I understand the link you provided). I can point to several examples: Keesler Air Force Base has a regulation Crud room in its Officer's club. In that venue I personally flattened a Major General...who promptly flattened me back a few rounds later. At Sheppard AFB, they recently installed a brand new crud table. At my current assignment, there is a crud table also set up in the officer's mess. Growing up in Alaska, the squadron had a crud tournament with their spouses and I (as a 10-year-old) was permitted to watch the craziness. It isn't what you are implying it is. Please read the external links for more information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Do not re-add speedy deletion tags where it's already been declined. It's bad form and not tolerated. Wily D 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competition Cams Article

Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each of the editors that previously voted against the article's notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kissy Simmons

Have just expanded the article, wikified, sourced, and cited. I found plenty out there toward her notability. I think she is now over that bar. Hope you agree. Regards Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at my document, and advise?

Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, but I am resigned to the article being deleted by a new account... by a SPA, ingnoring WP:ATD, Notifications, and WP:NTEMP. The first AfD left a trim article that asserted notability and was sourced. But with the later removal of the assertions and sources, even my own mother would think the article as crap. Somebody is being sneaky. Sigh. So any advice on presenting a DRV would be of help. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalWikiPro

Thanks for your comment re LegalWikiPro. Since I am relying on other lawyers to help edit, I am finding it difficult to get some of these self-interested lawyers to freely contribute. But I'm getting alot of interest in the concept. "I'll be back" when this thing gets off the ground. :) Briefer (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]