User talk:H0riz0n/Archive 1

[Southern Shakespeare Festival]]

Hi there H0riz0n. Do you think you could add some context to your article on the Southern Shakespeare Festival? Right now it's hard for readers who don't already know about it to understand the article, or appreciate its importance. Thanks! - squibix (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Squibix for the nudge, be patient... I added more info and will be adding more and more over time... pic, articles, media, etc. Think of it as a life project... seeing that I am the founder and former executive producer who now has retired to Japan :p

/Disccussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

Hi. Saw that you added your thoughts after the AfD was closed by an admin and archived. I've reverted that change as it is probably best not to add to discussion after the discussion has been marked closed and the "Please do not modify" tag was added. Hope that helps! Happy editing!... Should you wish to reply I will watch this page for a while, you can do so here. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I didnt realize until posting it that I was "locked" and was too lasy to do anything about it. IT seems a bit silly though if its locked by an "admin" why not just lock the page so we dont waiste time posting and commenting like this ... H0riz0n

Re: God

/god is dead achive

Signatures

You can quickly and easily leave a signature on your talk page posts by putting four "~" marks (~~~~) at the end of your post. This is expanded to give your username and a datestamp. I'm cleaning up Talk:Big Bang to solve this and other problems. Please hold off editing it for 15 minutes while I do so (the last three times I tried you'd changed it, requiring me to redo another 10 minutes of nit-picky editing). Thank you for your contributions, though. --Christopher Thomas 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H0riz0n: Ooops my appologies... I like the biginning approach, personally. But ok.

The datestamp is useful because it makes it easy to sort out what content can be archived, and what is still active. This gets done a lot, especially for active pages like Talk:Big Bang. Having the signature at the end makes things consistent with other posts; if mixed styles are used, it's hard to pick out who wrote what.

I've finished fixing signatures (yours weren't the only ones, don't worry). Happy editing. --Christopher Thomas 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR caution.

Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refrain from posting your own research/opinions/philosophy to Wikipedia. This is not allowed. Please remember that all contributions must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, or they can be deleted. Cheers, Sandstein 16:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, H0riz0n. Maybe I haven't been clear enough? If so, I am sorry, so I will elaborate. I am referring specifically to some of your recent additions including Distributive Unconsciousness, Quantum philosophy and Quantum mechanical laws, which appear to be (or appeared to have been) largely original research. I'd like to know why you saw fit to reproduce the above message verbatim on my talk page. Thank you. Sandstein 04:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to do some research before making dumb remarks such as: quantum philosophers/philosophy and Quantum Mechanical Laws as being my original ideas. Distributed Unconsciousness is my original idea, as it has more evidence than Jung’s collective unconsciousness idea. H0riz0n

Harmonics Theory

This article was deleted as original research in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory (2nd nomination)). Please do not recreate deleted content. --Christopher Thomas 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H0riz0n: Oh, My bad... I liked what you did and just thought it deserved posting. Ill recreate something "new" simple and be sure not to "recreate deleted content." I do hope you mean that I cant "use" deleted content vs. I can't re-post a new form. I will try to do something minimal. But I think given all the info out there and the fact that more than two 501c3 nonprofit organizations are citing him and his work means he should be listed in wikipedia.

Let me make the situation clearer: Unless you have a lot of new external references that weren't cited the last time around, that clearly show that this is a notable subject, the page can't be recreated in any form. Also, be advised that you really shouldn't take claims of funding and popularity on a pseudoscience's web page very seriously. Instead, do web searches for mentions of it by people who aren't the pseudoscience's authors. In the meantime, I'm putting another "speedy deletion" tag on the article, before it raises flags with watching admins.

I realize you're just trying to contribute, but the right way to appeal the deletion of an article is to submit an application for Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy for additional information. It's very important to go through the proper channels, as otherwise an administrator might thing you're deliberately vandalizing. --Christopher Thomas 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get discouraged by any of this, by the way. It's great that you're an enthusiastic contributor. It's just that you accidentally stepped on a bit of a policy landmine, so I'm trying to steer you away from it as quickly as possible. Happy editing! --Christopher Thomas 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H0riz0n: I understand your position. Thank you for clarifying things. As I mentioned I care little about Harmonic Theory--i thought you did a good job editing it. However it's sad that cycle theory suffers because of pure ignorance of the topic as a whole and it is to be banned because it is "lightly" connected to HT. It's actually funny. I guess this brings light to a major limitation to wikipedia's in ability to stay up with the latest thoughts and discoveries being contemplated and discussed... It's basically, controlled knowledge base by what I call "Wiki Control Groups" because any editor/administrator in reality anything "research" and or psydoscience and bring the hammer down on it with their possy control clan.

Actually, you seem to be greatly overestimating both the legitimacy and the importance of "cycle theory". I and several others have tried to explain this to you on the AfD page. The way to find out if something is science is to look for bona fide scholarly publications on it that are not presented on the web sites of the people touting the theories in question. All that turned up was unrelated links, newsgroup posts by CRI, and links in UFO conspiracy sites and the like. Nothing at universities, or any other evidence for the "taught at every university and receiving millions of dollars in funding" statements that you'd made. Rather than assuming a cabal or control group, consider the possibility that the objections being made are valid.--Christopher Thomas 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think hedge funds would be touting their theories on websites? Get real. Obviously you arnt a business major or you would have rememebered studying it in business school--and since EVERY university has a business school ergo one can say it is taught in Every university. Did you take macro ecomonics? Did you skip the day they coverered it? I have listed enough evidence to prove both the legitimacy and the importance of "cycle theory". Also, have you ever worked for a hedge fund to know what they are spending money on? Do you even know what one is? Do you honestly think that since the 1930s crash millions of dollars HAVENT been spent on finacial cycle theories...?! wake up... The fact is probably 100s of millions have been spent on the subject. You have no idea about finacial markets and the where they spend their money... do you? Your band of wiki content control cronies can do as you wish. I care little about what you do... I have expressed my opinion and shown you the facts.

I'm afraid all you're doing is continuing to make assertations without providing evidence to back them up. Nothing in business courses refers to the type of "cycles theory" described on the CRI web page or the foundation web page. The term "economic cycles" does occur in textbooks, but it means something other than what you seem to think it means. The mathematics used by hedge funds and other groups to attempt to predict the stock market is quite intricate, but has little to do with cycles. The way it works is to attempt to identify all parameters affecting stock prices, set up a massive set of differential equations showing how these parameters influence each other, and apply various statistical tools to attempt to a) figure out what subtle warning signals occur before a substantial change in stock price, and recognize these signals, and b) perform an sensitivity analysis to see how the system would respond to various types of event (mergers, accounting fraud, an oil refinery burning down, or what-have-you), and using human assessments of the likelihood of these events, derive a prediction of the behavior of the stock market for scenarios expected to occur. This type of system works better than blindly guessing, but is far from perfect, especially given that it has to cope with competing players in the stock market using similar systems (and so behaving in a complicated and difficult-to-model manner). Yes, I _do_ know what I'm talking about, thanks. --Christopher Thomas 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle theory, The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Cycles Research Institute, and Unified Theory of Cycles

These articles all seem to be derived from Ray Tomes' web pages. Please be advised that most of his attempts at adding "cycles theory" to Wikipedia were reverted or deleted back in 2005. His theories don't have a significant number of supporters, and so tend to be considered "non-notable". I'm putting Articles for Deletion flags on the articles as a result. Unlike the "speedy deletion" flag, this doesn't mean the articles will instantly be deleted, or deleted at all - it opens up a page where users can vote for or against deletion, and present evidence to support their cases. I encourage you to present evidence and arguments on these pages, since you seem to feel that the articles have merit.

However, please bear in mind the "pseudoscience" statements I made above. Lots of people have epiphanies and think they understand how the universe works. The true test is whether or not they can test their ideas, and whether or not the test results prove them correct. Most people don't understand how to do this, or even why it's needed. Take any claims made by proponents of radical theories, including claims that they're widely supported, with a very large grain of salt, and look for independent references to them for less biased information.--Christopher Thomas 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you're adding material to an AfD page, use:

Comment - (stuff goes here) --~~~~

Please _don't_ annotate other peoples' comments, or the original AfD text itself.

Also, _please_ use the "preview" button when checking what your edit will look like. Only hit "submit" when you're _done_. This makes the history cleaner, and keeps me from having to make my edits three times after getting an edit conflict each time I try to commit (one edit conflict should be the most that occurs with two editors). --Christopher Thomas 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Quantum mysticism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mysticism move error

Hello, I noticed (via tawkerbot2) that you recently moved/renamed a page. However, I believe you have made a mistake in the process of doing this, as you seem to have done a cut/paste instead of using the move option on the top of the page. The problem with this is that it doesn't maintain the history, which is required for copyright reasons. WP:MOVE has infomration on this topic, but I would suggest that the easiest way to fix this is to

revert the redirect on the original article (which is incoreect anyway, and doesn't apply to the talk page)
mark the two current target pages for speedy deletion (CSD G6/G7)
Once these have been removed, use the "move" option on the top of the page to "rename" the article correctly. This will
- Maintain the history
- Create the correct redirects on the original article and talk page.

Regards, MartinRe 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's just better to sort it out before other people edit it, or else it gets very complex to fix the historys! Any problems, drop a line at the admins notticeboard, there's plenty of admins there that would be willing to help get it in order. G'night. MartinRe 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the histories of Quantum mysticism and Quantum metaphysics, so it's all set. In the future, please use "move" to move or rename a page, instead of pasting the contents into a new article. FreplySpang (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

Quantum mysticism

Dear Horizon - I disagree with your recent changes to the article formerly named Quantum Mysticism. You must understand that the intentions of this article are subtly different from where you are taking it. The article is intended as a comment on the SOCIAL phenomenon of quantum mysticism, rather than a metaphysical exegesis on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. This is why I believe 'metaphysics' is the incorrect term to use in the title here - the article is talking about mystics who employ quantum mechanics to support their theses, not about the theses themselves. I'm not sure how to change the title back, but I'm going to give it a go, and also revert the article to its previous form. You seem to have many venues in which to discuss your interest in the field; I hope you'll allow the article to remain in the state in which it was originally intended. Adambrowne666 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect... I am taking it to where it belongs out of ignorance. The term is metaphyics... the study of defining the ultimate reality. Its an area of philosophy defined my Plato and has been in existence for more than 3000 yrs. However, mysticism is a recent invention and is used as a means to obfuscate the thru meaning of metaphysics. Also you may want to to read the mission of wiki... don't post if you have a people changing and or adding to your ideas... H0riz0n

Jung argued that UFO cultists - those who believe in flying saucers etc - are modern mystics, and that we were priviliged in the 20th century to see how a mystical cult comes into being. I would argue that 'What the Bleep' and its ilk are a more recent example of the same phenomenon - indeed, to me, you yourself seem to be part of the same phenomenon, and for that reason are perhaps unqualified to comment objectively on it. I might quibbling here, but it seems important enough to me at the moment to take it to a higher arbiter if we can't agree. Adambrowne666

Your personal bias with WFB doesnt concern me. What concerns me the the appropriate usage of the term.. and I know I can back up my argument. If you think you can, sure take your argument to a higher arbi... or change quantum "psudo"mysticism to your liking but not quantum metaphysic it's the correct usage of the term. H0riz0n

Thanks - that's very reasonable of you - if you don't mind, I might change it to quantum pseudo-mysticism, as you suggest. Adambrowne666 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hansen

Please consult Wikipedia:Cleanup resources: "If you don't have time to do anything more than tag an article as needing cleanup, that's fine and a very useful thing to do.". —Viriditas | Talk 11:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some it seems that all they have time to do.... you got to love the high horse! lol H0riz0n

Indeed, it would be useful to be able to search the contrib hist and count the number and types of templates inserted by a user. In my case, I'm guessing you'll find that I haven't used the cleanup tag very much. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen, isnt that involved and wouldnt take much time for someone with your expertise to clean it up. right? I have noticed a lot of the notices in wiki are from folks come across subject matters they dont like and either place the "unbalanced argument" or "needs cleanup" bs as a cop out to wanting to fix the issue in hand. I am just calling you on it... maybe I am wrong... maybe my comment will make you think twice about just putting our next tag on an article... thus my comment have served its purpose. Obviously you care or you wouldnt have spent anytime on my comment... I respect you for that. H0riz0n

I don't think you are wrong, I just think you are misguided and misinformed as to how cleanup works. I've never run across anyone who has used the cleanup tag in the way you've described. But, please, educate me on the matter. Surely, you can show "a lot of the notices" you describe? Show me one. —Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touche! H0riz0n 12:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)... hmmm you might want to take a read here... you'll be given more then an earfull. lol its blacklisted!!![reply]

Userpages

The userpage policies on Wikipedia are perhaps ambiguous, but generally, users are permitted to personalize their pages a little bit. It seems that you are tagging a number of Mailer diablo's items for deletion, so it might be best if you took things up here. As an experienced administrator here, it would be rather unlikely that these items would be deleted, unless (for example) they are highly polarizing and divisive. --HappyCamper 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user pages arnt a blog hosting all your pictures is a bit too much or it this a "ADMIN" privledge?! Its a blatent abuse that any non-admin wouldnt get! H0riz0n 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this looks like a misunderstanding. Almost all the photos are intended, and have been in use in various encyclopedic articles. The gallery is just there to track my photos and make sure that they're still relevant to the encylopedia. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its not you are abusing your admin authority and violating thr usage of your talk pages.H0riz0n

The page in question is in userpage space, not talkpage space.
The photos in the gallery are in use for encyclopedic articles. Take for example, Image:Hkstarferry.JPG, is used by articles ferry and transport in Hong Kong, just to name a few.
On WP:NOT - The section you have quoted is for articlespace.
On Wikipedia:User page - As per 'What can I have on my user page?', subpages on photos taken for use in articles is allowed.
As already mentioned, the gallery is for encyclopedic purposes and for my personal checking. Had I wanted to use it as a webspace, you'll see over 4,000 photos here, not the current 400 in my collection.
Finally, this is not sysop-related, it can be done by any other Wikipedian, including yourself, without any use of sysop powers. Every editor here is equal, and there is no sysop powers/position to be abused in the first place.
If you don't understand the above and insist on your 'impeachment proceedings', you may wish to go ahead, but it is likely that the above-mentioned will be pointed out to you by others once again. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel reply from User talk:Asatruer

--H0riz0n 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) call me.[reply]

Terribly sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else.
—Asatruer 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all

Thanks to H0riz0n and anyone interested enough to help with the 50x15 content. I manage online programs for 50x15. I appreciate those of you who've kept me honest regarding what should be posted here (i.e., NOT marketing babble :-) If anyone has any questions about the program, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanrahan (talk • contribs)

Michael Talbot - The Holographic Universe

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Michael Talbot - The Holographic Universe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9904.0. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot page

I see you've blanked the previous Michael Talbot page regarding and pasted in the contents of the Michael Coleman Talbot page. I assume you plan to also move the previous Michael Talbot article (classical historian and author) to its own page? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But, feel free to move it where you see fit. Since I can`t find anything on the guy online. Can you find anything on him online? Maybe he has some obscure middle name we can use.
- There is plenty of information on the scholarly Michael Talbot online, you can use the references section to find a selection of reliable sources such as the New York Times and BBC News establishing his notability. I'm not taking a position that either Michael Talbot is more notable than the other, I just want to ensure that any page moves are done in such a fashion that no information is lost. If you feel strongly that the page needs to be moved, please put in a request at WP:RM so that someone with experience can move it correctly (along with associated talk page and history). Thanks --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mobile Learning Engine

The article Mobile Learning Engine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

neologism used as vehicle for spam

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ESingularity Movement

A tag has been placed on ESingularity Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PhGustaf (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Distributive consciousness

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Distributive consciousness. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributive consciousness. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikitube

A tag has been placed on Wikitube requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikitube

A tag has been placed on Wikitube requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikitube

A tag has been placed on Wikitube requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikitube

Re your message: The previous deletion did not factor in my deletion of the article. The deletion was solely done because you did not establish why your website is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you wish to contest the deletion, you may do so at WP:DRV.

Additionally, please remain civil on Wikipedia. Calling editors "trolls" or relating them to the gestapo (you might want to read Godwin's law) is not appreciated. Finally, as others have pointed out to you, you really shouldn't be writing about yourself or your companies. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time to play silly wikipedia games.. they are for people that IMO are incapable of doing anything for themselves, I have every right to express my opinion. Wikipedia admin antics have been well documented as we both know. In regards to writing about myself, do you recommend someone write a biography about myself? I would think I would be the one person who knows best about myself? Where is the bias? H0riz0n (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Brown

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Irina Brown, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fillerup.ca/bio-irinabrown.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]