User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 8

Hey NawlinWiki, you have never deleted any of my contributions, but I can see you are an example of how absolute impotence corrupts absolutely. Wikipedia is supposed to be for the people, but you and other little tin gods have set yourselves up as gatekeepers for information you have no business tinkering with. You deleted an article of great importance to a professional field I am associated with, and I suspect you did it just because you could since it was so esoteric I'm positive you didn't understand what you destroyed. You are one of the reasons we information professionals are starting to eschew Wikipedia as a valid resource. Sleep well and know you are helping to wreck something that started with a good intention.

Archives:

User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 1 (Apr-Jul 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 2 (Jul-Aug 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 3 (Sept-Oct 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 4 (Oct 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 5 (Nov 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 6 (Dec 2006)
User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 7 (Jan 2007)

Please add all comments below the line. Why did you delete Flavorpill? My explanation that never got a chance to surface: Flavorpill has been pioneering the online events space since 2001. Long before Upcoming.org, Time Out or any of the others. The network has taken on the duties of publishing 11 different web properties covering Fashion, Current Events, Books, Music and Art. Flavorpill has received praise from several highly regarded publishers including The New York Times, CNN, CNET, USA Today, Wired and Business Week.

Flavorpill writes all original content and has every right to have a wiki page describing its history, culture and business practices.

An entry in Wikipedia would not serve to further business goals, rather make more information about the company and its history available.

I will gladly alter the content to be less congratulatory and meet the specifications of the wiki community, but to be deleted on the grounds that it is a business and not relevant is something I do not understand.

Why did you delete my ryan ogrady articale i worked hard on it

Let me ask you something: Has it ever hit you: Wow, I spend my time editing wikipedia.

Seriously, do you have a life?

WNJL.com Radio

May I ask who you think you are to deem our internet radio station as "nonnotable"? As stated in the Wikipedia you deleted (which, BY THE WAY, was up for several months and many of your colleagues saw ZERO issue with it), it was a top 50 station on Shoutcast at one time, is listed in all major search engines, and has a history as an FM radio station and an FCC visit, which I think would certainly contribute some interest to Wiki readers. Maybe you need to tone down your lofty duties as Wiki admin, LOL, and let things be once in a while.

What the hell?

My anti-american american article was still in progress. I demand it is brought back.

Perhaps it's neutral in MY point of you, you are just pro-american scum. Therefore, YOU are the bi-assed one.

Bay 101

Bay 101 is as notable a subject as any of the other casinos in the "Casinos in California" category. As I noted in the stub, it hosts an anual stop on the World Poker Tour, which places it in a particularly noteworthy group in poker circles.

Come On

Please don't delete the article about Don McCloskey. I just started working on it and i didn't get a chance to finish any information

Thanks!

Thanks for telling my mistake in Kyria and I'll rebuild it again in a better format.

why did you delete the Hadouken! band wiki?

they are a legitimate band, and i can't see any reason why the article should A) be deleted and B) all further editing blocked? please can you fill me in on why this state of affairs continues?

I believe you deleted my article and I don't understand why

The article that was posted on Polipsy-v on the 14th of Feb., 2007 was an actual post about a real disease that I have been diagnosed with. I ask that you please reconsider un deleting it, if possible. I will post more about it as i learn more about it, but unfortunately that is all that I know about it. Saying that it isn't valid or doesn't present any actual content is hurtful. The reason for posting it is because it is valid and I want others to be aware of it. Thank you for your time.

Article Deletion

Why did you delete Wall Square? The deletion log is found in the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=wall+square . Being one of the people mentioned in the article, it is very important to me that this article remain posted.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bronnikov_method. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vladislavix 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing you're the one most often deleting spambot pages...

Please make 2 edits for me (these pages are protected so I can't edit them myself):

Replace Wikipedia:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles with the copy found on the talk page (just copy and paste it ;-)

In Template:Protected title, change

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:|}}{{urlencode:{{{1}}}}}}} activity log]</span>

to

<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:|}}{{{1}}}}}}} activity log]</span>

If you want to know the background behind these changes take a look at Wikipedia:Protected titles. Regards, Flyingtoaster1337 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Flyingtoaster1337 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Winters

I hope you noticed that the Darren Winters article began as this blatant advert. I agree with your removing my speedy tag but I am still a bit worried that Darren might take legal action. -- RHaworth 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans beekman/User_talk:Jeroenhaan

Considering a speedy had already been placed on the page in question, perhaps adding your notice on the user page was excessive, especially since it might be considered vanity, or unsorced, but adding it was not "vandalism."-- Just noticed while checking new pages for the 1st time, & I'm tying to learn the criteria people use.DGG 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobotie

Hi there - I noticed you deleted this article yesterday as it had a speedy notice. However, it actually had a long and useful history as an article but had then been maliciously blanked and then given a speedy tag by an anon user. I've now restored it, but thought I should drop you a note as a friendly reminder to check article histories before speedy deleting them in future... thanks. Qwghlm 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protected titles/The Colbert Report/List

The problem was that you didn't re-delete the transcluded page. Your use of the template was correct. :-) —David Levy 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For the ability to delete an article under the time it takes for me to tag it for deletion :) _→AzaToth 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of this Barnstar! :) --Silverhand^Talk 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. NawlinWiki has been there many times when I tried to tag an article and it's gone before I can hit "Save page", or it's gone before I can hit "History" to see who created it. :) Leebo⁸⁶ 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camel case redirects

I was wondering if you'd be willing to undelete JRRTolkieN and TurkeY that you speedy deleted recently, partially because they don't fit a CSD criteria, and partially because they're historic. It's probably my fault for not tagging them with {{R from CamelCase}}. However, if you look at their earliest versions, you see that both contain versions that go back to March 2001, and that they contained the very first versions of text for their respective articles. (eg. J. R. R. Tolkien only has history back to Dec 2001, and Turkey only has history back to September 2001, so one could even say it's a GFDL issue). See also Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia and m:MediaWiki history for more information on why the pages were originally created this way. --Interiot 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A fair bit of our history has been deleted this way because it's not always obvious that these are useful to keep (and thus the need for http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/). Anyway, thanks for the help. --Interiot 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Pixar hoaxer is back

Wonder what his "dead gran" is gonna think about his lying self? Anyway, he's calling himself Dan500 now... go get him! :) TheRealFennShysa 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas White AfD

Whoops sorry about that last entry. I started editing the AfD page before the AfD was closed and apparently saved it after it was already closed. :) Shrumster 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit being a bitch.

Pretentious asshole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CubanSmuggler (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that may not have been smart. Philippe Beaudette 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that we're not here to support your addition of a hoax article? Well, no, I'm not sorry... --Silverhand^Talk 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas White

Could u please delete this article as it has passed the AFD for speedy deletion. Thanx --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Talk:Allen H. Greenfield

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Allen H. Greenfield. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jackhorkheimer 08:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk page in question already, since there was an article in place when the talk page was deleted, looking at the histories. --Core desat 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

psyopus deletion

I would encourage you to look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psyopus discussion. I have improved the article as well as finding some third party reviews. Thanks--Tainter 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from user page)

Did you not bother to read the talk page? Second, its no more spam then the dell page, go and delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Article deletion

A few days ago you deleted an article about a band from Adelaide, South Australia called The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls. you claimed that it was in breach of the notabillity guidelines for wikipedia. However as the band have had a review of their recent EP release (verifiable published information from a completely individual source). Also they are also they have risen to be the only representative of their genre in Adelaide. Seeing as Adelaide is the 5th largest city in the country this is a notable achievement. This effort, combined with the fully independent and verifiable, non-trivial published work about them, surely must prove their notability. I will be reposting this page later today and i will be listing the URL of the review they received as a source.

The issue isnt that they are in a big city it is that they are the only band representing their style in a city of over 1 million people. i quote from the wikipedia guidelines:

"a musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

7.Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city"

As the only band representing this genre in such a large city they are clearly the most prominent representative. Also this style has its own extensive wikipedia page, on which this band is listed as a prominent band for this style. therefore neither the prominence of the style nor the prominence of teh band within that style can be debated.

i am also in the process of restoring the article, including adding a link to Delusions of Adequacy.net

User:Captaindansplashback

Following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#Block_review_Breathe_Reprise you indefblocked Captaindansplashback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but I can't find any further discussion. I would like to take Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Captaindansplashback to checkuser but am unsure, if your block counts as a community ban. Agathoclea 09:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Mercedes

Hi There,

Can you please have a look at my page and highlight what i need to edit/delete? I Apologise for causing any inconvienence!

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ladymercedes (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

UPN-related vandalism

FYI, this edit was made by a vandal who registers sock puppet accounts and edits television-related articles to claim that UPN is being revived and picking up various canceled series. Any such account should be indefinately blocked on sight. Thanks! —David Levy 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism to my talk page!! ^{Rocket71048576}∞_Talk 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Vandal

I see you blocked one. You may want to look at these too:

Maybe get some kind of IP block? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice

If you would follow wikipedia procedures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:H2231 has continously blanked pages as he creats his page. This is about notability. The school he is making a page for is a private school. He gains by advertising his school on wikipedia. Isn't wikipedia against advertising? LexiLynn 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a welcome on my page? aw cmon. No seriously though, this is a private school, this is spam they use to be search engine spidered. Just like a young actress who hasn't had roles yet and makes a wikipedia page, these people only sole intention is to use wikipedia to get into search engines. LexiLynn 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LexiLynn

No, I just have a photographic memory. Please remember Nuetral Point of View. Still no welcome to my page, even from an admin ? LexiLynn 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Young are you saying the role listings make this person notable? This was started as a vanity page. It meets all the requirements of Speedy Deletion. Reinstating speedy deletion, there is no need for AFd according to Wikipedia. For comments (As you should already know) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shelby_Young LexiLynn 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page http://alexisstodghill.com/resume.html assert nobility too? If so, make a page for it. There are THOUSANDS of actresses that have had small roles in films and television shows that are deleted speedily daily from wikipedia. A listing of roles does NOT conostitute nobility. LexiLynn 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with speedy deletions, it has to do with you just don't agree so your going to try and use your Administrator ability to show your point. Don't get mad, just take breaths and come back later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

LexiLynn 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation help

Would like to make a page then about Alexis Stodghill. Actress with multiple credits, she has been listed on wikipedia before, but "rabid" fans of an opposing actress cluttered and spammed her page so that it was removed. Final reason why? SPEEDY DELETION by an "opposing rabid" admin, even after real fans added the bio tag to the top of the page, in which you cannot speedy delete pages, they did anyway, Vanity page was used because they said her roles while notable didn't belong on wikipedia. Now I'd argue that in the case of Shelby Young who has had multiple roles in student films NEVER released to the public, and 2 films in which she was background (An extra) clearly, and a pilot for a tv show (Wikipedia is not a Cyrstal Ball), if you believe those are notable, then you won't have a problem writing up an article about this girl http://www.alexisstodghill.com right? LexiLynn 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POINT does not apply, I just want to make it clear that after I create it, when it's speedily deleted because of "Lack of Nobility" and or vanity (though she has more notable and confirmed roles then the actress above" that you won't feel bad coming to the article's defense.

LexiLynn 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will create it, maybe you can drive by later and protect it for a bit. LexiLynn 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Lexilynn is not correct when saying "had multiple roles in student films NEVER released to the public, and 2 films in which she was background (An extra) clearly, and a pilot for a tv show (Wikipedia is not a Cyrstal Ball)".

Shelby Young has guest starred/co-starred on three popular television shows (Freddie, Ghost Whisperer, and Everybody Hates Chris) and one that is now off the air but had previously been on Showtime (Going to California). Along with two films (not backround work) that were BOTH released, quite recently actually. Waltzing Anna had a limited release in theatres across the nation and The Naked Brothers Band was recently released as a made for TV movie on Nickelodean. Granted the roles were small, especially in The Naked Brothers Band but they were definately not backround. Also, yes, she did do the Lazytown pilot and has also done voice work for many major motion pictures (IMDB keeps adding voice work for her and then it gets deleted, no idea why).

Now, Ms. Stodgehill has not done any notable work. So, I'm curious as to why Ms. Young's page, along with another young actress I'm familiar with Katelyn Pippy's page, were tagged for Speedy Deletion by the same user who is going to be making a page/has made a page for a Ms. Stodgehill, who's work I've never heard of (not mentioned on IMDB either, which would mean all work is non-union). Just curious, thank you for your time.

Marie 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset with you at all! I'm just new and still figuring out how things work around here. Thanks for letting me know, as I was just curious =D

Marie 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Brouwer

I tagged Julio Brouwer for speedy deletion. It's either an nn-bio or an attack or a joke. An anon editor removed the tag. Can you take a look and zap it if that's the right think to do? Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio tag

Would the page be acceptable using the Bio tag? LexiLynn 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pixar hoaxer

...now has a Category as Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Lyle123. This has gone from a mistaken user to a malicious user. can anything more be done?jj 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JewsDidWTC

That page described why the website is notable. Did you see the video? All the pictures in that CNN video were cribbed from jewsdidwtc.com, which suddenly makes jewsdidwtc.com notable.

Not that I support the conclusion that jews are responsible for the September 11th attacks- I share CNN's revulsion of that proposition. But CNN reported that some people believe that jews are responsible, and cited that web site and many pictures from it to make its case.

(contitued) The deletion review was about the GNAA article... this is about the web site that CNN featured. Arguably, CNN didn't mention the GNAA directly, but they did directly mention jewsdidwtc.com and showed lots of images from that web site. Thus making jewsdidwtc.com notable, if not necessarily the people behind it.

Leigh Whannell

I'm kind of confused still about how to communicate on Wikipedia. I know I did some faulty updates on Whannell's page but it should be fixed now, I cleaned up the bio, it was pretty out of date and poorly phrased. I hope I didn't violate any rules by updating it because it "reverted" and I got a message. And I just failed to sign this post, now I've signed it. Droidguy1119 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with this please

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xizer&action=history

Just reading the comments, this user continuosly makes personal attacks using foul language. Might want to take a look into his behavoir. Has been blocked before as well as blanking pages yet keeps this as his usual MO LexiLynn 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. krabs Creating Single Purpose Accounts

Hello NawlinWiki. Apparently this user seems to be created single purpose accounts to file falsified sockpuppet reports on them. Check his talk page and contribution history. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Farrell deletion

Hi, you deleted the John Farrell article on the 18th of January with "a7 nonnotabl econtent was: ' John Farrell is also known as Jack Farrell. He goes to HMMS. His favorite sport is cross country. His best freinds are Da'Quan, and Nick.'". Are you sure the article wasn't just vandalised? There should be an article about John Farrell, the Victoria Cross recipient (links). See the version on answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-farrell). Could you check this deletion and restore it if there was underlying content? Thanks. 203.87.64.249 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanization

Thanks for the sense of humour in dealing with the nonsense! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euthanize me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Phallocentrism revert

Phallocentrism != Phallogocentrism 136.160.160.166 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etherealization (cult)

I created the article in the first place because on the Etherealization page about R. Buckmister Fuller there was a line at the top saying "For the UFO cult, see Etherealization (cult" and the wikilink was red. I know that generally means that the article is requested, so I did some research and created it because I thought that it was wanted. There are indeed many articles on Wikipedia about cults, and a whole very long list of them. But if a cult has to have had a mass suicide to be deemed notable, then I understand. Verkhovensky 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding walfart

You know, it would of been nice if you told me what I was doing wrong the FIRST time I made the page, instead of making me guess. Also, you don't have to be a dick about it! If only someone told me that CALMLY when I first made the page, I would of accepted the deletion. Dancingfunman 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Doppe

Mr. Tom Doppe was recently Deleted by you and you told me that he sounds like a great teacher but that he is not famous. He is working on his Master's Degree and he will then become a published author. When this happens will he be "famous" enough to have his own page? Please message me back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Govnateeny (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

are you in administration. please email me at opusadam@yahoo.com and explain why my article was deleated and how i can get it back up. IT pertains to mutal friends and people whom i do know involved in a new concept. Further investingation into you however i will do.

HOW DARE YOU, TOO.......

HOW DARE YOU FOR ATTACKING ME! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VofDoom (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

24 Cast

First, you never gave anyone a chance to add to the "24 cast" page. It did not qualify for "speedy delete". If I was the only contributor after 24 hours, then sure delete it. But I didn't create it the first time, someone else did. Check the IPs if you don't believe me. There would've been more people adding to it. I suggest you reconsider keeping it. Tebor 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixity of species

Why did you delete the article? The article deleted was very different from the one which was nominated for deletion. It included thoughts from Plato and Aristotle which the other didn't and the intro was completely rewritten as well as the organization. Can you at least allow me to get the information the page so a consensus can be made about it's validity as a article? Pbarnes 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keronite deletion

May I ask why you considered my article on Keronite Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation to be blatant advertising or Spam?

I had done the bulk of the article this afternoon whilst in the office, before I had to leave. I got home and went to add all the link references to other pages, such as aluminium, anodizing, surface treatment and so on, that I wanted to add, only to find it has been deleted.

This was written as an informative article to fill people in about a rapidly growing product, not at all as a form of advertising as you imply.

Last Warning???

WHY are you giving me a "LAST WARNING" for something i didn't do!! and then on top of that, why was i given no notification before recieving a "Last Warning"

Radio Tramp

Excuse me, that is extremely rude. I was in discussion with another user about this article, and we were going to leave it with an afd tag so that other users could decide its fate. How dare you be arrogant enough to feel you had authority to simply remove it without discussion like that!!! That is simply not on. Well congratulations you've ruined my day. I was hoping I could join the other editors here on wikipedia and help out myself but I'm no longer interested. I shan't be editing this encyclopedia anymore if this is how you all behave. Pope Radio Tramp 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v:cisLunarFreighter Learning Trail

Yes, good points. We are not exactly noteworthy just yet. I was confident the cast of thousands was just around the corner and some of the budding artists and non technical people would enjoy fleshing out the Wikipedia entry. I am still confident I was only three or four years early. Thanks for the dose of common sense and deleting it for me. 8) Lazyquasar 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC) aka mirwin at Wikiversity[reply]

Article on Dylan Norvell

The article on Dylan was not intended as a personal attack. He is one of my best friends and it was created soley for informational purposes (that are true). -Sunshine 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question on policy

Hey, I'm back from a long wikibreak, and I'm slogging into a battle over at the Peter Lamborn Wilson article. I need to know what (if any) is Wikipedia's policy when it comes to pseudonyms---specifically, there is a lot of criticism of Wilson based on writings published under the pseudonym "Hakim Bey". My argument is that it has never been proven that all of the writings published under that pseudonym were actually written by PLW. Given that this is an article about a living person, there needs to be verification of the writings and the criticism that is made of said writings. I need to know the policy to back up my argument. Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ---Charles 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've read all of those policy articles before, but it is probably high time for a brushup. If I have any other questions, I'll let you know. Thanks again. ---Charles 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I P Vandal

NawlinWiki, User:209.112.144.170, whom you have previously blocked and other editors have warned, is still at it, and it seems clear to me that this is a vandalism-only account. Do you think that an indefblock might be appropriate?--Anthony.bradbury 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for blocking User:DXV. I was beginning to think I was trapped in a never ending cycle of vandalism, reversion, and being called a douchebag. Lordjeff06 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey im kinda new at this so i dont know the proper way tot go about contacting you but, please don't delete the article about the literary magazine! why would you delete the articles about litmag, but keep the articles about newspaper, band club, etc etc. sure, all these are clubs and may not have signifacnt noteworthy content, but its a function of deeprun highschool! what more reason do we need to attach it to the deeprun page? =(

Has Nick_Scratch received his apology yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Scratch

--John Kenneth Fisher 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limits to encyclopedias

I meant this is a serious contribution. Did I do something wrong?SmokeyTheCat 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) It was a very anodyne and inoffensive article which many people might have agreed with. You didn't give anyone a chance to read it.[reply]

RICH DREZEN'S PAGES

First of all, I am Rich Drezen [rich@richdrezenproductions.com], and I'm new to all this Wikipedia stuff. I don't know whether or not the articles I've created are formatted wrong or not but there is no reason why they should be deleted because they contain factual, non-biased information that I can verify if necessary. I don't understand or appreciate being accused of vandalism. I am NOT trying to advertise on Wikipedia. I am simply adding an additional source for my fans to locate information about my film material. I have deleted all so-called "autobiographical" and "self-promotional" information from each of my pages. I have not copied text from any other website. Please give me a hand here, I don't know what else you expect from me.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Concubine

At your convenience, please take another look. Thanks, -MrFizyx 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lumineers

Why was this page removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-chadwick (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Tylerbuy

Hi - can you kill this article LoveSac ASAP please? It's an attack page on a competitor's product, by the same user as the Comfy Sacks article. I've CSD G10'd it EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I didn't check the edit history and thought Tylerbuy had actually created the article rather than vandalising it. Good call EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bronze err

Thanks for stopping that little *insert appropriate expletive here*

Stui 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby McKee

Re:bad faith - quick delete - Can I ask why you put I acted in bad faith in the edit history? Why have you not assumed good faith? Also, why is a serious libel being left on the McKee page history? I have no idea why this is bad faith given I have started the majority of biographies for politicians for McKee's party the DUP. Weggie 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocking IP addresses

Hello NawlinWiki. When indefinitely blocking IP addresses, as you did 131.107.64.93, please remember to place {{indefblockedip}} on the user or user talk page for tracking purposes. Please also see recommendations against indefinitely blocking IP addresses. Thank you. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 07:49:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on IP blocks. The indef blocks that I gave were for spambots that were creating fake talk pages solely to post spam links. These accounts never have any legitimate edits, and some resumed spamming after prior temporary blocks. What kind of block do you think they should be given? NawlinWiki 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, 131.107.0.0/16 belongs to Microsoft Corporation. It might have been a compromised proxy. If it spams repeatedly, I would suggest blocking for a few weeks or months; particularly with a company like Microsoft, that should be more than long enough to correct any compromise. It did have some legitimate edits just a few days before you blocked it. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:27:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftism and the Artist Baron Barrymore Halpenny

I was very surprised to see the article stub on Shaftism had been removed, but then I have to admit I had not put much effort into the article.

I’m not angry, except with myself for not doing a better entry, but I do feel you should review your deletion, it is a genuine art form that I and many others have seen.

It is not for any gain that I have put this up nor do I personally know the artist. I just like art and trying to give proper recognition to true artists. Sadly many are overlooked.

I'm not always clear how Wikipedia works, so any help regarding editing is much appreciated. By all means edit my work and add to it.

Samuel Goldburg

WHY????

Why are you so mean to people? They just want to have fun.

RE:WHY???

Yeah thats fine. Sorry for that outburst it was unprofessional and I feel terrible about it. And sorry for the article itself, it is juvenile to keep reposting an unrelevant article to wikipedia and fell bad about that as well. I do admire your status on wikipedia as I am an avid supporter for wikipedia and the causes of it. If I knew how to nominate or give those barn awards I would most definently give you one.Dflav1138 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.204.14.7

I was wondering, as this IP address is a frequent vandal to Wikipedia, is there a way (as mentioned in the template at the top of there talk page here) to report this vandalism to the school district in which it belongs, and deal with the problem? Or is this tag just an identification of location? I have been wondering the effectiveness of this method for a while (wondering how effective it is) and I figured this would be the scenario to use it with. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Hello. Conservapedia (currently a redirect for Eagle Forum) was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, I believe this has changed, and that it should be restored. I say it has changed because it now gets 200,000 Google hits (rather than seven when it was deleted); and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). Can you restore or unprotect it directly, or should I put it in for deletion review? --h2g2bob 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Alicia von Sobbe-Grimberg

Hello there and thank you for your message as to why you deleted the page I created on Alicia von Sobbe-Grimberg. I hadn't finished the article so will recreate it now and include all the notable/Wikipedia worthy information. Please don't delete it again, this woman is incredible and very well known in the fashion industry. Cheers, Viv.

Res Rei

My american friends wanred me about this, they were saying that you people at wikipedia would not allow an article of the holy one, Res Rei. It is most definitely NOT nonsense! For years we have been shunned for our beliefs, and I think it is truely unfair that we are not even accepted on the INTERNET, of all places! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goggleboy1991 (talk • contribs) 12:20, February 28, 2007

I prodded it. I suppose if I'd read it more carefully, I'd have speedied. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of D. Mikels

Thank you for demonstrating what an absolute joke this website is. Your post on my talk page about this author shows you did nothing more than take a cursory glance at the books by D. Mikels (which is a pen name, not the author's real name. . .there is no first name other than D.). Fact: This author has sold thousands of books. Fact: The sales rankings on Amazon are only in the millions for "Dawn"; had you bothered to check you will find the sales rankings of the other two fluctuate from as low as 2,000 to (currently) 500,000 for "The Reckoning." Fact: Mr. Mikels had a literary agent in New York; the relationship went south and Mr. Mikels elected to "self-publish" his books, but here's something in your Wiki editor sanctimony you fail to understand under your rabid bias against "self-publishing". . .out of 150,000 titles (royalty and self-published) only one-third will sell more than 100 copies, and Mr. Mikels's books have all exceeded that. Fact: Mr. Mikels's books have been reviewed in newspapers throughout the nation, including the Sunday Oklahoman, the Tulsa Tribune, and the Rocky Mountain News. Finally, you mentioned I was promoting this author's books; well, Einstein, look at the articles of other authors on your website: Are you honestly going to tell me books aren't being promoted there???

Anyways, thanks for nothing but showing what vindictive, narrow-minded elitists you are. I followed a suggestion to share info about D. Mikels on Wikipedia, but after this blueblood orgy I'm out of here.

Demonstrative2627 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your work on removing thousands of inappropriate pages from Wikipedia. Thank you and keep up the good work! KFP (talk \| contribs) 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a barnstar for appropriate ones deleted because NawlinWiki doesn't believe in checking before deciding something is a hoax? If so, might be nice to gift that one as well. In some admittedly odd-sounding cases, the refusal to take 10 secs to Google before deleting work which took substantially longer than that to create might even be understandable and forgiveable, if they at least had the moral strength to apologize for that mistake as publically as they are willing to brand someone a vandal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Scratch . --John Kenneth Fisher 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Croatia

What the hell are you doing?????

WHY do you destroy my work?

Do you really think that was "testing"??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreaterCroatia (talk • contribs).

deleted pages

I am now using the protected titles mechanism rather than {{deleted}}. -- RHaworth 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHYYYYYYY

Why did you delete my Emese Gyorgy page, how did you even find it.