Jump to content

User talk:Steel359/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

On speedy deletions of multi-user dungeon articles

I take it the Carrion Fields article only requires a 'critisism' section to be exempt from speedy deletion as well, then? As the all characteristics of that recently deleted article are identical to this one, yet one has been deleted and the other has not. 84.192.125.204 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at Carrion Fields and it is completely different to this Achaea article. Secondly, that was deleted through WP:VFD, not speedy deletion. – Steel 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems rather odd indeed. The CF article shared a virtually identical type of introduction to this Achaea article, a virtually identical 'theme' section, only a more detailed description of the MUD's features than this one does. Because of this, I would like to know what prompts you into calling it 'completely different'. Secondly, the consensus reached through WP:VFD regarded an article on the Carrion Fields which has not existed since 2005. The CF article that was recently deleted featured a radically different content from the one the consensus was reached on two years ago. I should know, as I re-wrote that article with the specific reason to remove the problems which had caused the old Carrion Fields article to be nominated for deletion. As an administrator, could you investigate this matter a bit further please? I would do so myself, but I am not all that familiar with the vast majority of Wikipedia's policies yet. 84.192.125.204 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the article you're talking about is The Carrion Fields (MUD), not Carrion Fields. Anyway, the best place to go would be WP:DRV and say that you want to re-write the article without any of the problems which led to it's original deletion. – Steel 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information and advice. 84.192.125.204 14:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Could I point your attention towards the Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_14#The_Carrion_Fields_.28MUD.29. You've stated that Achaea is a notable article. Now due to the fact that CF and Achaea by any means carry the same level of notablity, reasons listed under the wikilink, and your administratorial approval of the one, could you please overlook the other one and give your feedback, possibly undeleting the article on CF. Thank you, ~~MaxGrin 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

MiRMiS

I am writing to protest about the deletion of article submitted by me on the band MiRMiS. Although I do understand that Wikipedia does not and should not have pages dedicated to every band that have ever existed, the fact that MiRMiS actually does have a record deal puts them apart from a lot of other bands who could be considered "Amateur" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anconky (talk • contribs)

Has anyone written anything substantial about this band? – Steel 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

MCC

Hello, I would like to contest the deletion of my article on the McMaster Climbing Club. This is especially because the McMaster Science Society is the same thing, an association under the McMaster Students' Union at McMaster University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riopella (talk • contribs)

Does this solve the problem? – Steel 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i guess thats fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riopella (talk • contribs)

Delete

Could you delete the article "NIcktoons World Online"? It was put to debate and is obvious it needs to be deleted! Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphantom15 (talk • contribs)

Done. – Steel 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
ThanksDphantom15 11:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting non-English articles

Hi, I saw you deleted the article on Fabien Mugnier for not being in English. I don't mind the deletion itself, I was about to delete it myself for being a nn-bio, but please remember that not being in English isn't a reason for speedy deletion, unless the article already exists on another wikimedia project. There's been some guy using sockpuppets to disrupt WP:PNT by changing the {{notenglish}} tags to {{db-notenglish}}, and I'd hate for people to just zap those articles because they aren't in English (against policy). So keep that in mind, thanks. - Bobet 11:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do generally check to see if it's on another project, but point taken. – Steel 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Castle Marrach

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Castle Marrach. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I see the page has been restored. Thank you! Petercorless 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kent Tritle deletion

Thanks for deleting that redir. I got involved with telling the author about copyvio and what they need to do to get a release. Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. – Steel 12:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

GLT speedy

Hi Steel359,

I see you speedied an article of mine ([1]) per CSD A7. I would just like to say that software is not web content or people or any of the other categories that fall under CSD A7. But since it probably isn't very notable I'm not gonna ask for undeletion. --MarSch 12:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to stretch A7 to include anything which doesn't assert notability. Though that's an area reasonable people disagree on, and it was technically out of process so I'll undelete if you want me to. – Steel 12:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Curtin Engineers Club page

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted this page, it was my first contribution and i had been discussing it with another administrator and he gave me a few pointers on what needed correcting on it, which i did and he said he was happy with it. So i was just wondering if you can give me some advice on what i should change in the future as i spent about 4 hours working everything out just to get it deleted when i thought i had it ok.Browny254 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who did you discuss it with, and where? I can't find any discussion. – Steel 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

it was on the Curtin engineers club page and was it was Jhinman who gave me a little advice. Browny254 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a run-of-the-mill club at a university. – Steel 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah it is, does that mean we arent allowed to have a page? we were asked by the university if we wanted to make one because they had mentioned the club on their main page. Browny254 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it notable enough to warrant an entry in the encyclopedia. – Steel 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

so just because you dont think its notable it gets deleted? we have almost 2000 members and its fairly well know in our local community. i have seen a lot of almost meaningless pages on here before that havent been deleted. i just did a quick search and ive found lots of other university clubs with similar pages, just because ours is a little more light hearted doesnt mean it doesnt deserve to be here. thanks for replying to all this btw, im new to it so im just trying to work it all out. Browny254 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want a wider set of opinions we could send it through articles for deletion, but I guarantee they'll want to delete it as well. And I'm not just picking on your club, feel free to link me to the other clubs/societies you found I'll delete them as well. – Steel 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Smith, Telegraph Revolution

Why did you delete the article Fayde H. Smith? Perhaps you did not see that its speedy deletion tag had been contested. It is also clear that a link verifying the statements made in both the article and the discussion page was soon to be posted. Why not give a chance for legitimacy, and refuse to even consider the article simply because you doubt the validity of the subject?

So much talk, so few links. – Steel 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from JzG's talk page:

Wow, thanks for offering your input, as I know you're very familiar with what's going on. I also really appreciate your speaking up for the likelihood that I'm not someone else (and just FYI, I be a he). My only concern was that, in the time that this information stays up, anyone who casually stops by wondering "Who is this Derek Smart guy?" might read the article and conclude "He attacks soda machines, and therefore must be nuts". All in all, it's not like that story hasn't already gotten around, and I respect your position that it is best to wait until the RFAR is concluded.

Thanks again for addressing my concerns. I feel much better about the whole situation. Mael-Num 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It was bad timing, I think. You turned up on a controversial article a few hours after someone there got blocked, and disappeared a few hours before the block was due to expire. – Steel 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lil' Sonic on Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lil' Sonic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Flyingtoaster1337 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's usually much more polite to simply ask the deleting admin to give it a second look rather than rushing off to DRV. Contested speedies shouldn't be taken there. – Steel 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Taggings

They are lacking content. All they are, are a 1-2sentance summary (from the episode list page) and an infobox. That doesn't tell anyone any more than the episode list does. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Context =/= content. – Steel 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me what more info a 1-2 sentance article about an TV episode + infobox tells a reader that the List of Episodes does. Last I checked articles like these qualified for speedy deletion. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Go re-tag them for someone else's opinion or (preferably), take them to AfD. There is currently some disagreement amongst the community as to whether individual episodes should have articles when there's a list, so I didn't think it was appropriate to speedy so many on a whim. – Steel 11:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I tagged them, not because I don't think episodes shouldn't have their own article, but because they provide no more information than the list does, articles about episodes that provide more info than the list does (Something Wicca This Way Comes for example) I wouldn't delete. But as i said prior they used the exact same 1-2sentance summary that is used on the episode list page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As you suggested, I listed the first 3 articles at AFD to set a precedent for the remaining episodes on the list. (Rather than list all of them) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article:RecentFiles.com

I just created and started to add to this article. This is the first article I have tried to write, so I've never seen this speedy deletion flag. What are the specific grounds on which this article is flagged? Is it possible to put the page back up so I can continue working on it? Thanks. --Droptheshoe 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guidelines require that websites have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works. Has anyone written anything substantial about this website? – Steel 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MGS3

Hey man I saw you got rid of MGS3 from the FA today list. Um...why? I have been considering doing the same for Empires, mainly because there are so many video games out there right now. That might be why, and I wondering if that was the reason. Also, what ever happened to that character coming to you about that Nicktoons forum and the afd?--Clyde (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to that Nicktoons forum guy? I dunno, this? Not sure what you're asking. I don't want to start a huge discussion about MGS3 main page request here. I'll email if you're really interested. – Steel 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's the guy. Slightly amazed he's still here. As to MGS3, I'm a interested in why it was removed, or at least I'd like to hear your take. However, if it's personal and none of my business, cool.--Clyde (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Check your email. – Steel 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

Hello, thank you for the note you left on my talk page. I really don't feel like going through the frustration of trying to combat POV-pushing right now. Thanks for the note anyway! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

TB68

I noticed that on the 17/01/07 you were reponsnible for deleting the Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge page. Please could you give a valid reason as to why? The article was written by me on behalf of The Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge club. The club was founded by Mr Steve Barnett (creater/breeder of this particular strain of Bulldogge) whom owns the Copywrite to all the articles published about the breed and he has given me permission personally to use any information I need to complete this article.He also with the help of people like myself owns and runs serveral websites that contain the term Dorset Olde Tyme Buldogge Or DOTB/dotb all of which are copywrited to himself in one or another.So with that info. I cannot be possibly breaking any copywrite laws either. Again Could you please give a valid reason for the deletion and if possible republish it, as WE feel we have done nothing wrong..or give us the nessessary info to correct what was wrong.. Please feel free to email me. TonyTB68 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

The text needs to be released under the GFDL. – Steel 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WebAPP AfD

Thank you for putting that train wreck empassioned discussion to bed. Flakeloaf 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Train wreck indeed. – Steel 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted bullycide for GFDL purposes

Hi Steel359, since you closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullycide, I thought I should let you know that I undeleted it to redirect to List of people who died due to bullying, which doesn't use the neologism (see here for my reasoning). Since it's a history-only undeletion, I didn't think it needed a DRV, but if you believe otherwise, just let me know and I'll be happy to put it up for DRV. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine by me. – Steel 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. As for your comment that it was "about bloody time" for my RfA, I guess I figured better a few weeks too late than take the risk of too soon; anyway, it's done now. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article: AGHOST (acronym)

Hello Steel359,

Why did you delete the article AGHOST? I see that you made the comment CSD G11 in the history, but I do not see anything in CSD G11 that would qualify AGHOST or a deletion. Can you be more specific as to what happened, and perhaps consider restoring the article?

Update

I'm editing this entry just because I just found the "Articles for Deletion" page that mentions AGHOST (it took me a while, I'm still a bit new here), so I'm beginning to understand why it may have been removed. I've read the notability guidelines thoroughly, and unlike many of the other "ghost hunting" or "paranormal research" groups out there I believe AGHOST actually has established significant notability in its field. The group has existed for more than 5-years and is a non-profit organization, which is unique among these groups. It also has had a great deal of press, including national (US) press, links to which I added to the article specifically to establish notability (at least I tried to anyway). I thought I had successfully satisfied the notability guidelines to show that AGHOST is not just another half-baked ghost hunting club, but rather an organized group that has established itself in the field and has made a notable impact.

Thanks, Obsid 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was an articles for deletion page for these guys. Could you link me to it? – Steel 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The Articles for Deletion page for 2007-01-12 is where I saw AGHOST mentioned specifically, although the original deletion proposal was for the "CASPR" entry, I believe, and AGHOST was just mentioned among others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_12 I agree with some of the comments posted on that page regarding removing non-notable groups, etc, but in this regard I still think the AGHOST has established its notability. That's why I originally wanted to write about it. Obsid 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The best thing you can do is make your case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR and see what happens. If you've got links to lots of press coverage that'll help. – Steel 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise. I've added an entry on that page, so we'll see what happens. Obsid 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry in advance for bugging you again. I added a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR, but how do I know if anyone will read it? It seems a bit unfair that the AGHOST article got lumped into an argument for which most of the opinions were directed toward an entirely different article (CASPR). AGHOST was merely mentioned in one comment, and it does not seem like it received any sort of debate. If no-one responds to it, would it be bad form to try and re-create the article and see if it gets deleted again? Obsid 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone will come along in a few days and "close" the debate and decide whether to delete the article(s). What you've done is probably enough to save Aghost. – Steel 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking you're probably pretty tired of hearing from me :-p User Majorly recently closed the debate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR. I asked him on his talk page if he took the AGHOST article into consideration, he said "no" and apparently believes you should make that decision - User_talk:Majorly#Deleted_Article:_AGHOST. Obsid 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Recreate it, just make sure anything you write is sourced. – Steel 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This group is non-notable. Many other such "ghost hunting" groups receive similar amounts of press coverage, especially around Halloween. The claim to notability that they "participated in a number of technical projects that could be considered unique among paranormal research groups" appears to be based on hyperbole written by the group itself, and (1) an ordinary publicly distributed web browser utility which they have renamed a "Space Weather Archive", (2) an ordinary web collection of photos and videos which they have named a "Media Archive", and (3) an ordinary spreadsheet file which they have named a "Reporting Database". In addition, they appear to have commercial enterprises for which they desire publicity; various self-published books and courses for sale, as well as a database of "ghost pictures" that users are charged a fee to access. I have nothing against factual articles about verifiably notable paranormal groups or organizations, but this one clearly does not meet the criteria. ---- LuckyLouie 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (1) There is no such thing as a publicly available utility that can search the SEC archive, the one AGHOST built was custom made and is available for free for everyone to use. (2) The collection of photos/video/audio I thought was unique because no other group that I know of has such a massive collection of paranormal investigation photos available online. It is true that it's private, but only because it includes photos of private homes and business, and so it's a precarious issue I think to make it 100% public. (3) The Reporting Database is NOT an "ordinary spreadsheet" program, that's such an absurd assumption it kinda angers me. It is a PHP/MySQL application with over 12,000 lines of code, and it is the really the only such web-based application that exists for case management and recording paranormal research data. If you want a copy of the source code to prove it I'm sure we can arrange it. Lastly, the group is non-profit, not some massive enterprise. Yes, it is membership supported group, and some of the members have published books, and no they do not sell "courses" (where did you get that?). No offense intended here, but clearly the assumptions you've made about the group are incorrect, and I'd like to ask you reconsider your position. In regard to notability, the group has had a great deal of press, I think more so than most, including national press. But how much press, exactly, do I need to prove notability? Do I need five links to news articles, or six? Your condescending post, and the fact that you read the article and made such wrong assumptions without actually doing any research suggests that you may have a personal bias here. It seems to me that the notability guidelines were written not only to assist the admins, but also to protect that authors from undue bias. Lastly, perhaps we can continue this discussion (if you want to continue it) on one of our talk pages, instead of cluttering up Steel's. I'm sure he's heard enough of this by now anyway :) Obsid 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Obsid, you certainly have intimate knowledge of the AGHOST operation. Are you a member of the organization? If so, your authorship of the Wikipedia article is against WP:Conflict_of_interest policy. Wkipedia is not a publicity service, it cannot publish a self-written article in which an organization quotes its own opinions about how respected, advanced, and well-known it is. --- LuckyLouie 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi LuckyLouie, thank you for your reply. Yes, I am a member of AGHOST, one of many. And, I have read WP:Conflict_of_interest, but I still don't think AGHOST should be deleted - please allow me to explain why. I encountered those guidelines before writing the article, and saw it as an excellent guideline to try to keep the content neutral, and unencumbered by my own feelings for the group. I knew it was a risk, but I decided to be bold and create the entry anyway. I believe I was neutral, or I really tried to be anyway. I did not read that section as absolute policy, for which any article or edit can be deleted regardless of its content. I still do not believe that is its purpose. Furthermore, I actually provided links to notable media and real projects, so I'm not actually asserting my own opinion about the notability of the group anyway. I realize I may not win this one, but I have to say that I think the article stands fine on its own, despite the "policy" you quoted (which is really a guideline) and despite your poorly researched assumptions (no offense). Obsid 08:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm not reading all that. Unless you need me to do something, take it elsewhere. – Steel 13:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MGS3 response

With 2 columns for references, the page is shorter in length. While with one column there tends to be a lot of white space on the right side. I just think it looks neater when there's a very long list of references. -th1rt3en 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The page is about six lines longer using one column, so there's no pressing need to shorten anything (nor do we need to go out of our way to remove whitespace). Using two columns makes the refs section look very cluttered, which makes things much less user-friendly. What do you think? – Steel 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of other articles use 2 columns for lengthy references lists, and every sof often you'll find a 3-column one. Though I am using a 1600x1200 resolution so we might see the list differently. -th1rt3en 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
What other articles do has little bearing on this one (there are plenty of articles which use one column, anyway). – Steel 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD Sacian language

Sorry about this but I've never been good at figuring out Wikipedia's bureacracy, one reason I stopped contributing, so I figured I'd just ask the admin responsible directly.

I clicked on the link, to Sacian language, apparently, a minute or two after you deleted it. (Second time in a month I've had a blue link to an article that was red by the time I got there).

I'm rather bad at using the AFD to find deletion reasons, checked all the discussions back to the 12th and couldn't find it (nor was it in the PROD that I could see).

I may have overlooked it or the discussion may be older than the 12th, but I was wondering, could you link me the AFD (either here or on the talk page for my IP, it doesn't matter).

Or is it a fake language? If that's the case (I've never heard of it, which is why I was curious to see what it was), never mind. Any rate, thanks, Luke. --71.192.116.43 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it since it was empty except for the {{Iranian Languages Group}} template. – Steel 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the explanation. Luke. --71.192.116.43 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

US Bill of Rights, etc

You beat me to the State of the Union address vandalism. I apologize profusely for deleting the image in the Bill of Rights article - I saw the vandalism and wanted to remove it but couldn't remember how to revert a page *blush* mind fixing it? Verloren Hoop 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely amazing Verloren Hoop 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am ;). Anyway, WP:REVERT explains how to revert, and you could always check out stuff like popups, or copy the contents of this page into this page to make reverting easier (only if you want to, of course). Leave a message if you can't get it to work. – Steel 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RevenueGateway.com

Trying to figure out why you pulled the RevenueGateway entry. I had multiple outbound links on it going to independent, newsworthy articles that discussed the company. Can you help me please? --Hmoss 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revenuegateway had no links to newsworthy articles. It did, however, have several links to it's "advertising pertners". You continually moaning about spammy articles being deleted is starting to get annoying. – Steel 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, there's something I'm not getting here. At the bottom of this entry, and in the entry, were links to the following under In The News: MyTrueSavings.com Signs on as RevenueGateway Advertiser, RevenueGateway Boosts Payouts for Mate1.com Campaign, RevenueGateway is SEO Chat’s Affiliate Network of Choice

So you're saying that articles in industry journals like these don't cut the mustard?

Further, you said the following when I erroneously posted a question to PMC's board:

"Let's get our facts straight. What I said was fine was a stub (example), not that spammy shit which PMC deleted on the 23rd. – Steel 11:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"

Listen, "that spammy shit" as you call it, hadn't changed a bit since our initial exchange in December. At the time you suggested that over time the entry would be whittled down to a stub, NOT that it was spammy shit or that it would simply be pulled down again with no warning whatsoever. --Hmoss 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullet points because it's easier:
  • Revenuegateway [2] had no such In The News section.
  • Our initial exchange regarding EuroRevenue occurred around the 11th December [1]. You created Eurorevenue on the 12th. Perhaps it was poor wording on my part, I didn't mean that over time others would be whittle it down to a stub. I apologise if you interpreted it that way, I'll be clear now. Don't recreate the article in it's spammy form. One question though: why did you recreate the article with the exact same content which got it deleted the first time? Especially as we were talking about how you shouldn't expect more than a stub.
-- Steel 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I recreated the entry the exact same way because I was under the impression that the problem was the fundamental lack of "...independent newsworthy sources" which I swear were very much there.
  • Here, I believe, is the confusion where RevenueGateway is concerned: The first time I added RevenueGateway I did so without the newsworthy sources and it was promptly pulled. This was in December. The second time I posted it, which was a week or so ago, I added the newsworthy sources, again listed here:

Several days passed and no comments were made. Since EuroRevenue was deemed acceptable--I thought--based on the simple addition of newsworthy sources, I assumed the same needed to happen where RevenueGateway is concerned. The original EuroRevenue entry that was pulled was never substantively changed, as I didn't think there was an issue with the copy or content, rather, with the lack of sources. That, I assumed all along, was the real sticking point, not the content. I don't believe my entries contain rhetoric or hyperbole. As I mentioned, I'm not about to add entries without sources any longer. I realize that's a waste of my time and yours, and will swear on whatever book you like that those articles reprinted above were included in the entry that was deleted on the 23rd of this month. Do you just need the entries to be shorter?

Thanks for taking the time, --Hmoss 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this seems to have boiled down to a simple misunderstanding. Recreate them as stubs, if you want. – Steel 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to con anyone here, Steel. Maybe I'm just not understanding something. Here, for example, is a company like ours Commission_Junction. Does that qualify as a stub? And I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I can see substantive differences--more outbound links, less copy--between this live entry and my dead one. I'm just trying to get a sense of what is and is not acceptable. Thanks.--Hmoss 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my butting in, but have you read WP:COI? Regards, CiaranG 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made this edit to Commission Junction. That's what I think you should aim for with your articles. The trouble with looking at other articles for ideas is that most of them are crap, and don't conform to Wikipedia's various policies. We simply don't have the manpower to clean up and continually monitor every article. All I try and do is ensure the new ones that I see coming in are edited to a reasonable condition. – Steel 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Planetary Whatsit

Moved. Thanks for the suggestion, didn't know tha could be done. – Emana 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the other article you found. There are quite a few more but other contributors seem to think they can be cleaned up. So I'll let them be for a while. – Emana 20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

— for so quickly spotting and fixing the vandalism to my talk page. :-) – Kieran T (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:) – Steel 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at Work

Hello Steel359, a sockpuppet of User:Maleabroad (who is currently blocked for a week) has recently come about called User:Brownguy20. Could you take a look at it please? Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with me... but yeah, looks like a sock. Blocked. – Steel 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivil?

That wasn't incivil, it was a polite notice, however, it may have come across more abrupt than what I meant.

I was just expressing my opinion that this user wasn't appropriate for adminship.

1B6 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to have someone desysopped is not civil. Especially when you haven't a hope in hell of getting him desysopped for a few instances of minor incivility. – Steel 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mamed Emin Rasulzade

Thanks for putting an end to the continuing vandalism on the page. --AdilBaguirov 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You just locked a page edited full of POV issues. I will request changes for the article once I gather up the evidence.Azerbaijani 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if I haven't heard any of this before... – Steel 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL yea, well, thats why I said I would bring up the evidence :).Azerbaijani 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You're better off going here. – Steel 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yea, thats what I'm going to do. I didnt mean that I was going to post the evidence on your talk page.Azerbaijani 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh good. That'll make a change. – Steel 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What?Azerbaijani 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone actually using dispute resolution as opposed to demanding that I revert to their version. – Steel 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to be the first.Azerbaijani 00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series)

I did list TWO sources. Sonicanime.net, and sonicstadium.org. I know you mean well, and i thank you for helping me out... i just think this is legitimate information, coming from reputable sources.... RingtailedFox 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These sources appear to be run-of-the-mill fansites. Surely this movie (if it exists) has been announced elsewhere? – Steel 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, it has. Richard Kuta's website: http://www.rkdezignz.com/hub.html. RingtailedFox 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a blog, so it's even worse than those fansites. – Steel 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
okay... RingtailedFox 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the vandals are stepping it up a notch now. They're now going onto my talk page and the article talk page. I'd like something done, please. RingtailedFox 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sonicstadium.org is a very reliable site. so what if it is a fan site? apparently, no sources i give will be "reliable" or "credible", am i right? RingtailedFox 01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't twist my words. We need something that isn't some blog or fansite or anything of that nature. – Steel 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to twist your words. I'm sorry if i sounded like i did. it's hard to convey meaning with just letters, after all...x.x - RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry D. Alexander

Hello Steele. Why did you delete the Larry D. Alexander article. It had been re-edited by one of the Wikipedia editors with a request to verify statements in that article. All statements had been verified through various publications and through the Library of Congress. Please return this article. thank you-- John Adamson 00:27. 28 January 2007

You'll need to take this over here. – Steel 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Salt the earth

Could I get you to salt the earth over at Usurper (band) this time? I think its been recreated enough, this time with a blatant copyvio.--Crossmr 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Steel 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Category:Request for protection

I did create the category, but that was in response to the creation of the template {{Request Protection}}, which was created by User:Parker007. He had them in the category, so I simply made the category to correspond with it. I did add a warning to the header that making the request at RPP would get a faster response. I don't have an opinion on whether it's usefull/useless. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

True {{Request Protection}} redundant with WP:RFPP, but then isn't the {{Editprotected}} which goes into the category Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests also redundant? I was hoping that this category be added to this category tracker which updates every hour: --Parker007 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary}}

Perhaps. But one redundant category doesn't justify the existence of another. Is it OK if I delete {{Request Protection}}, since it isn't practical (or necessary) to have both and WP:RFPP is far more effective. – Steel 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we shut down WP:RFPP and completely move towards this new method, its more efficient for the admins, because it will be all in one tracker for the admins. --Parker007 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A request page like WP:RFPP is way more effective than a category. – Steel 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I would suggest deleting: {{Editprotected}} & Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests, and moving the remaining entries into that page. Peace. --Parker007 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You have still not deleted what I asked, while unilateraly deleting my contributions. --Parker007 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your actions at Template:Afdclose

What was your policy rationale for deleting that template, did it meet CSD criteria? Why not prod or list at TfD? (stuff said w/out thinking removed) Navou banter 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight; Template probably was a little abrasive. Additionally probably inappropiate. In the future, let folks know so they can edit or otherwise take some action to bring it to a better standard. Thanks, Navou banter 02:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nine times out of ten, I do close the AfD, and receiving a template message like that because I happened to forget once irritated me a little. I apologise for deleting it without taking it to TfD (or even telling you), but I think it's better gone. – Sock of Steel 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, putting myself in your shoes; It would irritate me. I need to think before I create templates. It is better gone. Additionally, it was deleted under csd author request if anyone else has any question. :P Regards, Navou banter 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, cool. – Steel 15:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don Toriano

Why do keep deleting this. It's just a few sentences describing who this person is. He has a link for his name so why doesn't he deserve a brief description? Thegenius415 04:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't expain how Don Toriano was noteworthy enough for an article. – Sock of Steel 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Germanium - looks like he's back under a new name

You remember this guy, who discovered the secret of 1/0, and how it relates to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and kept posting it until he and his IP's were blocked? You might want to take a look at Alphanon (talk · contribs) Fan-1967 05:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He could have almost passed as a completely new user had he not started rephrasing things he posted with his IPs...
I was erring on the side of giving him another chance, but re-reading Tango's conversation with him at User talk:Germanium put me off that idea. I'll block when I'm back at home (a few hours). – Sock of Steel 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And he's gone. – Steel 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that. CMummert · talk 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Do tell me if he turns up with different IPs. – Steel 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire

Hi,

I added a comment explaning why I asked for protection of the Seleucid Empire page. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Seleucid_Empire_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

And I fully protected it... – Steel 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I may be more accurate: I asked a protection for its pre edit warring version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seleucid_Empire&oldid=104085363 where the word "Palestine" wasn't unproperly remplaced with the word "Judah" yet. By the way the "Judah" page is rather a disambiguation page than an article.
Dear anon: Please read WP:WRONG first. And Palestine is wrong, since the region only bore that name after AD 135, because the Romans were trying to erase the name of Judah at that time, and you seem to have the same POV now. The fact remains that Judah is indeed what it was oficially called before 135, not Palestine. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Piracy

Steel: Thank you for your quick response to my request for semi-protection of Piracy. It was rather annoying, going through and having to revert it all the time. Cheers, HubHikari 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:) – Steel 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sigh

not even 2 days later notice the lack of a header :-) I wish there was a solution here... --W.marsh 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer having the header then go for it. It's not as big a deal as our discussion yesterday made it seem. – Steel 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1B6 (talk · contribs)

This user you pre-emptively blocked after he threatend to "go on a vandalism rampage" asked to be unblocked, saying he's calmed down, so I have unblocked him, but he's on a last warning. Proto::► 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy had been acting up (incivility, frivolous threats of arbitration, etc) for days, and he reached the limit with that vandalism rampage threat. If he says he's calmed down, Ok fair enough. – Steel 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_30. Thanks. >Radiant< 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Document Professional

As an Electronic Document Professional, I am curious as to why our designation was deleted.

Although there are less than 500 of us worldwide, the program has been in place for over seventeen years. Attached are a few references to the program or people with the designation: http://www.aia-itp.com/site/news/xtra_content/nl0412/newsletter0412_edp.htm http://www.printondemand.com/mt/archives/007324.html http://www.bus.ucf.edu/rquinn/vita.htm http://www.prinova.com/pdfs/pressrelease2.pdf http://www.xplor.org/EDP/pdf/EDP_brochure.pdf Mrprtr 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was written like an advert of sorts. There are no problems with someone else rewriting it in a more encyclopedic fashion. – Steel 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the comments. I will see if the EDP Commission can have someone assigned to redraft.

Mrprtr 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alunared

Please restore the Alunared article. The article asserted Notability and the prod was substantively objected to on its discussion page. No one further contested the band's Notability, and the proposed deletion notice ought to have been either removed or debated further. Proceeding straight to deletion without "giving an informative deletion reason" (see Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Procedure_for_admins) seems counterintuitive. To a reasonable person, the reasons for deletion of an article where the prod has been substantively contested should be at least as substantive as was the objection to the prod notice (for example, if the objector provides links, you could disagree that they are multiple, nontrivial, or independent of the subject, and then proceed to delete on those grounds).--Jeandjinni 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This probably cuts it as a non-trivial source, though the other links provided don't. – Steel 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That should have been asserted on the article's discussion page. If you restore the article I can add another non-trivial source not orginally linked there: this one. There are others; they're just more deeply buried in internet.--Jeandjinni 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In good faith I have offered to cleanup the article by adding a second nontrivial source. Could you please restore it so I can do so?--Jeandjinni 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry D. Alexander

Hello Steele. The Larry D. Alexander article you deleted had previously been restored by administrator Herostratus after a request made by me. He re-edited the article and labeled it with several "citation needed" requests. I took a lot of my time to help satisfy his requests. I was able to verify through newspaper, art publications, and the library of congress vast amounts of information on Mr. Alexander. I uploaded about a dozen newspaper articles on various art related exploits of this well-known artist. They included articles on his "Clinton Family Portriat", which he presented to the president in 1995, his work that is a part of the permanent collection at the Southeast Arkansas Art Center in Pine Bluff, Ark., his work that is housed at two universities, his four Greeting Card lines that I found registered at the Library of Congress, one of his books being used to help create a supplement to improve the American History curriculum at high schools, etc. I also found on-line, 5-star reveiws on two of his books at Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Books-A-Million, and many other book retailers. you can veiw the upload in the "what links here" in the tool box where you deleted his article. I have come through in a big way with all the citation verifications you requested and more. Please do the right thing and restore this article on this most worthy artist and author. Thank You. 31 January 2007 Charles Dillion

I don't recall asking for citation verifications. In fact, the only thing I've said on this subject is that you'll need to take this over here [3]. – Steel 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lexi Belle

I see that you deleted my wikipedia article on Lexi Belle, even though it followed the same exact format of every other adult film star article. and further fit all of the standards that a person must have as so far as notability is concerned in order to be Wiki'ed. Please restore. :) Thanks. Plandr 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you consider to be the notability standards? The article certainly didn't meet them. – Steel 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lexi Belle is as much of a well known adult film star as any other on wikipedia. A google search of her name reveals pages of sites mentioning her, and she's been in over 2 dozen films. Google image search will also reveal several pictures of her (safe search off) for whatever that's worth. 130.126.221.144 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. But has anyone ever written anything substantial about her? – Steel 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How substantial? Her birthday, ages, films she's appeared in and vitals are known, which is about as much as many of the articles featuring pornographic film stars have.

A few random clicks on the wikipedia list of porongraphics film stars of the 2000's yielded these results, which don't really have any more (or less) content than the wiki I did.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Eternity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzie_Kenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Stone

To my understanding, those articles fit wikipedia's notability and quality standards, and I basically copied the format from them and used as much information, I just didn't stretch it out into 4 or 5 sentences. I think that if you compare what I wrote against those articles you'll find that I met the standard of quality and notability.

Thanks in advance. Plandr 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they do need to be deleted. However, they are established articles and I don't think it's appropriate of me to delete them on a whim. Feel free to send them to articles for deletion. We still need multiple non-trivial sources for Lexi Belle, though. – Steel 10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No-Confidence Motion regarding Steel's Adminship uses

I am wondering if User:Steel359 has some biases while using his admin tools; Appparantly the trust factor is reducing per me; It states on you user page that you are a Male Wikipedian who is Gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steel359&diff=85857193&oldid=84398308 ; Would that be an issue, what I mean is, could that influence your bias toward female porn actress? You have still not deleted what I asked, while unilateraly deleting my contributions. Please explain your reasons regarding this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359&diff=104015378&oldid=104015264 ; And also please explain why you still require the admin tools when Wikipedian are having trust issues regarding the way you handle the tools. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359&oldid=104717182 . And if you want I will dig up much much more from your archives.--Parker007 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I said It states on you user page that you are a Male Wikipedian who is Gay", that comment seems to me to be uncivil and a personal attack (because I am focussing on a person, not their actions - I should assume good faith instead, but you are already an admin). I appologize for any misconceptions; No personal attack was intended or meant to be inffered. The reason I have brought no-confidence motion is because "You have still not deleted what I asked, while unilateraly deleting my contributions." --Parker007 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you still here? – Steel 10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PT

Given your user subpage that pretty much has the same purpose, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Protected titles (WP:PT) and consider transferring your list over. – tariqabjotu 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My subpage was created as a temporary measure while the official page was still being set up. Assuming WP:PT is now up and running I'll be using that. – Steel 10:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblog

What was the reason for the Autoblog article being deleted by you? You did not leave a deletion summary as instructed in the guidelines and, therefore, I'm having to ask directly not. Also, how was it able to be deleted without warning in the form of a template being placed on the article first stating that the article is in danger of being deleted? Roguegeek (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) It was deleted because it had no assertion of notability, (b) I did leave a deletion summary and (c) because that's how speedy deletion works. – Steel 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on this, shouldn't the articles for Engadget and Weblogs, Inc. (partners of Autoblog) also fall under this same category? Roguegeek (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
According to their respective articles, Engadget has won awards and Weblogs was bought for $25m. Autoblog's article said nothing like that, only that it's a blog service (or whatever it is). – Steel 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So, therefore, if Autoblog has won awards, this is notable enough for it to have its own article as long as it's mentioned in the article? Roguegeek (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's won awards it's likely to meet the notability guidelines, yes. – Steel 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecourier

You apparently protected this page after the DRV discussion. Could you unprotect it please such that an article can be started by someone else?Jaybregman 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You remember how you went on that angry rant, right? Do you still feel that way? – Steel 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear from our discussion in the DRV I don't--but the real question is: how do you feel about it?Jaybregman 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I unprotected the pages earlier today. Does that answer your question? – Steel 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks for that.Jaybregman 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Undoing Philwelch's block

I am absolutely proud that you undid the block on David Levy due to "trolling on Werdna's RFA." It was a completely unjustified block. You are the light in the world. You rock like a magicist. STEEEL THREEFIFTYNIIINE!!! Anyways, if you have to put up with bullshit about the reversion, ask them to explain in no less than several hundred words how the statement was trolling and not a legitimate qualm about Werdna's etiquette. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...

You may want to review your block log. And Philwelch's, for that matter. – Steel 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel! I was already in the process of typing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, and I'd sincerely appreciate it if you'd read that and consider extending Phil's block slightly (not as a punitive measure, but to prevent him from causing further disruption at the RfA before it closes). —David Levy 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion about this on ANI. – Steel 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish language

Since you're the one that semi-protected it, another one of Ramirez72's suspected sockpuppets removed the "0.01%" bit from the Philippines saying that it's unnecessary (somewhat agree because it shouldn't be even there), it has been remedied already, but if it's possible, I'll request a full-protect when things get out of hand. Thanks a lot. --Howard the Duck 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hi there

I have read help page where it clearly suggests that an article could be deleted on "notability" and "self-advertisement" grounds. I have suggested a couple of pages which I personally believe clearly fall in that category. This is, in my opinion, helping wiki not vandalizing it! So I suggest again, pages I proposed for deletion are clear instances of self-advertisement. cheers Tumbleweedtumbles 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of vandalism, but anyway those don't appear to me to be clearly self-promotional. My suggestion would be to tag them with the WP:PROD template or take them to WP:AFD. – Steel 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel. Why is it that everytime I post my link on the external links one of your mods delete them? Am I banned from posting my link? If so for what reason? My last link was the following: "St Helens CHAT - Local history" (nothing else) Which wiki rule have I broken? I feel that I am being singled out and discriminated against. I am NOT trying to cause trouble in any form but to contribute to wikipedia. I was about to contribute to 'Notable People' article with reference to a well know broadcaster and author of a best seller and her latest book 'The Dick Kerr Ladies' which she has used our site for research and references and which she gave us credits in her book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dallo100 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Forums generally make poor external links. – Steel 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel. My site is NOT about a forum but consists of everything reference to to St Helens and is mainly about local history. My link is to our mainpage and NOT our forums. We use the forums for information swapping. Why is St Helens Connect acceptable when that site is a forums only? Why the double standards? Have you tried checking my site out? What information are your going off?

Oh, wow. St Helens Connect is just as bad. Consider that gone. In the meantime, check out the section titled "Links normally to be avoided" in WP:EL. Your site hits points 3 and 11 (and possibly 2). Also, see the section below that about conflict of interest, specifically:
You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
The fact that you're making such a big deal out of this and taking it personally suggests you're more interested in getting your link in Wikipedia than improving the site. – Steel 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in here. I've looked at your site, so perhaps I can highlight a few issues:
  • The most prominent item is a banner where I can compare prices of mobile phones, laptops, etc, followed by large adverts for roofing companies, dating services, and online shopping. This advertising forms the bulk of the home page, so it is easy to see why people have considered your links to be spam, and is inappropriate per WP:EL (links normally to be avoided, #5).
  • Your only contributions to Wikipedia involve inserting the link to this site - this makes it look like you are interested in promoting the site, not contributing to the encyclopedia, and inappropriate per WP:EL (links normally to be avoided, #3) and WP:COI.
  • The main purpose of the site is evidently a forum, why else is it called St Helen's Chat, and why is the forum the first item on the menu? This is inappropriate per WP:EL (links normally to be avoided, #10).
  • You're posting links to your own site. This is inappropriate per WP:COI.
  • It doesn't contain anything useful to the reader that would not be in the Wikipedia article were it to reach Featured Article status. This is inappropriate per WP:EL (links normally to be avoided, #1).
It's unfortunate that people have removed your links without taking the time to explain the relevant guidelines via your talk page, but I hope the above comments will help somewhat. The link to St Helens Connect was inappropriate too, as you rightly point out - I've removed it. Regards, CiaranG 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Steel, not only did I butt in, but I did it with a wordier version of what you said. I got to the link first though. ;) CiaranG 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand certain points you have mentioned but the 'adverts' are sponsors who pay for our servers so we can carry on with our local online community. I still mean and intend to contribute to wikipedia and I accept your latest decision which deems to be fair as far as external links are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallo100 (talk • contribs)

Wiganworld is mainly a 'forum' and 'communicate' site, which is just the same as St.Helens Chat. If it was called WiganChat instead of Wiganworld, would you have wiped that one too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)

3RR question

Okay so I need the advice of a man who has caught every type of crap invented on this encyclopedia. I was working on The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth. Particularly, I was cleaning it up, and removing this section. I removed it here then an anon added it back in here, then I removed it again here, and finally an anon added back in again here. Am I allowed to remove it again? You worked on CVG articles, and you know what is game guide material, and I think you agree it must be removed. How do I go about this?--Clyde (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are several days apart and don't really constitute revert warring, so you don't have to worry about the 3RR. I agree, the info being reinserted by the anon is a datadumpy gameguidy crufty list. I'll watchlist the article myself and keep it out. Might try talking to the anon if it becomes an issue. Good catch. – Steel 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Morfik

Steel
I see that you deleted the page I was working on for Morfik for being blatant advertising. I would like to get further explanation, please. I believe that there are several facts surrounding that company that make its inclusion in Wikipedia important, namely:
1) Multiple patents pending regarding AJAX technology, which, if granted may have important implications for AJAX development, especially in regard to the cross-compilation of high-level languages.
2) Position as the first publicly available AJAX RAD/IDE, beating GWT and others to the punch.
3) Other innovations such as bookmarking and support for browser features such as back, forward, and refresh, which were also firsts for AJAX frameworks.
4) Other companies in this space such as TIBCO appear in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.
MikeyTheK 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sensing some conflict of interest here. Recreate it, sticking closely to WP:NPOV and WP:V. If there are still problems, I'll submit it for the wider community to review. – Steel 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you deleted the page, you also deleted all the work that went with it. So basically I'm going to have to recreate the page from scratch? Can we at least put it some place where I can recover SOME of the work I did on it? It took me about five hours each time I created it. Even emailed would suffice. MikeyTheK 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You've caught me in a good mood, so I've restored it and added a few tags. Do read up on WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:COI though. – Steel 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I deeply, deeply, deeply appreciate it. Thanks for the advice on the articles to read. MikeyTheK 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Steel

It appears that the article has been deleted again, before I had a chance to do anything with it (I logged in this morning to work on it). Can you please tell me where I have to go to get it restored again?
Thanks. MikeyTheK 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it was on CSD, along with over 300 other articles last night. Tagged as A7, I deleted as G11. I suggest userfying. The article in its present state will get speedy tagged again, IMO. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I might AfD it to get a wider review (but mainly so it's no longer my problem). What do you think? I've never been a big fan of userfying, tbh. – Steel 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If its to be undeleted, it will have to be userfied at this point. It will never pass Afd the way it is, IMO. Does this company pass WP:CORP? I saw no references, and the only two external links were to the company itself. I am asking MikeyTheK to join in this discussion also. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to get it userfied (I assume that means moving the source to my user page) just so I don't lose the work I've done...which is currently lost. The page was by no means complete. It was a work in progress, but I only had a few hours at a time to work on it, so it will sit for days potentially between edit sessions. After I'm done I'd be happy to submit it for review to see if it's fit for inclusion.MikeyTheK 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Steel, Can we please do something so I can start working on this again? I don't mind having it userfied if that's what it will take to restore the work I already did on it. Thanks. MikeyTheK 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Mikey (I'd forgotten about this discussion up here and must have missed your message on the 29th). Anyway, I've moved the text over to User:MikeyTheK/Temp. – Steel 13:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Steel, Thank you very much. Do you mind so if I ask for you to review it when it's all done? MikeyTheK 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, what the heck is the difference between the /temp page and a regular user page? MikeyTheK 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:USERPAGE should explain it all. – Steel 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
AHA! Thank you. MikeyTheK 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the Discussion pages

Dear Steel,

I would like to complain about your deleting of comments / threads on the DISCUSSION pages. Indeed, Wikipedia policy is to post proposed external links on discussion pages so the user community can decide if they should, or should not be, included on the main pages. It was totally inappropriate for you to delete the discussion threads.

For example, there was a discussion on including news aggregators under "external links" on the "Breaking News" talk page & "Global Warming" talk pages, and you deleted the discussion thread. The discussion page is precisely where talk on what should or should not be included should be discussed. By your deletion of the discussion page, you have terminated a valid discussion thread.

To justify your deletion, can you please show the discussion thread which you removed from this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming

i.e. the original post, the reply from a user and our reply .. indeed, for the page above, I am unsure if the following reply was received since you deleted thread :

Thank you George for your comment. I believe there should probably be a section for such news aggregators, if they either have a specific page for a topic, but the issue is to compile such a list, e.g. different news aggregators may have different URLs or slightly different topic names than Wikipedia. A list of single click URLs which takes you to the latest news on a topic should be useful to readers.

I hope I will not have to take this further since it is a sign of censorship. JamesStan 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel, I also added a db-talk tag to Talk:Breaking News. – Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this was all taken care of as I was eating dinner. Oh well, fine by me. – Steel 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I disagree with the deletion of the list of ...for dummies. After reading the reasons in the discussion and that thing of Wikipedia is not a directory I don't find a reasonable explanation for that. So I added to the Deletion review for today--ometzit<col> 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List_of_...for_Dummies_books. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Gizmo Logic Studios Inc.

Steel
I see that you deleted the page that I created under the condition WP:CSD#7 I checked the conditions of WP:CORP and feel it fell well under all those conditions. The entry was not completed in the sense that all references were not added yet along with external citations too (I can only add so much in a day). Some of the references not added yet are listed below. I ask that you restore the entry so I can add these references and you can then verify them. If at that time you feel that the organization has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself, and fulfills the verifiability guidelines, then delete the entry.

1) The company has produced products available in schools and libraries across Canada. 2) Products have been reviewed by national film board and has in entry in IMDB and national online rental company in Canada Zip.ca. 3) It has been recognized by the Prime Minister and most Premieres of Canada in publication. 4) The products the company has produced has been reviewed in four printed newspapers and have made television appearances discussing those products. 5) The company holds trademarks in two countries. 6) There are many similar company entries such as Baby Einstein 7) There are studios such as Strand Home Video Level5studio Monzey Studios Archeus Studios listed on Wikipedia have little or no information under the WP:CORP guidelines at all but the entry exists and this was just a quick search of other similar companies.

Please help me understand better why the entry was deleted and some listed above are fine?

--Scot Lemieux 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you provide multiple non-trivial sources I'll restore it. – Steel 13:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel,

Below are a list of some multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent. There are more published works listed below than the four listed above in item #7 which are similar studios. The list below only includes one television spot as there is no permission from other tv spots to put online. The list does not include the three radio spots the company has done, nor does it include the four printed newspaper articles about the company and launch of their first public product. I think the first link below clearly indicates a non-trivial item published by the leaders of the country of Canada and the rest of the links add to the frequency.

  • [[4]] Although this article is hosted by the company it contains articles published by Premiers and Prime Minster of Canada about the work done by the company.
  • [[5]] TV spot
  • [[6]] Public Library
  • [[7]] Public Library
  • [[8]] Event
  • [[9]] Publication
  • [[10]] IMDB (International Movie DataBase is clearly non-trivial)
  • [[11]] IMDB (Trivia)
  • [[12]] May require to logon to browse titles (Canadian Version of Netflix) Feed back from external people about the products company produces.
  • [[13]] News Event on Newswire
  • [[14]] News Event on Newswire
  • [[15]] News Event on Free Press Release
  • [[16]] Ottawa News Event
  • [[17]] Ottawa News Event
  • [[18]] Company Description by Third Party
  • [[19]] Company Products at La Grenouille Verte (french)
  • [[20]] CD Warehouse / My Music
  • [[21]] Bongo World
  • [[22]] Canadian Babies
  • [[23]] Canadian Links
  • [[24]] RZ Photo
  • [[25]] French Kiss Company Product Evaluation
  • [[26]] Ottawa News Event
  • [[27]] Ottawa News Event

Thanks in advance --74.105.7.168 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) --Scot Lemieux 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Our definitions of non-trivial seem to differ. Some of those links are simply listings in company directory-type things, others are links to online stores where Gizmo's products are being sold, while others are press releases. Has anyone written anything substantial about this company? – Steel 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel

I think the first listing is non-trivial and quite substantial, how many companies have leaders of a country in the G8 review and comment on products produced by a company? That alone should pass the definition on non-trivial? The companies focus on the products it produces and not the company itself, so if there are more reviews about the products it produces than the company that indicates substantial material. A listing of a companies products on IMDB suggests the company produces products that are significant to the movie and film industry. The published printed work about the company in Newspapers and Magazines can not be re-published here as no permission has been given and would violate copyright. Substantial does not also mean that published material has to be only online.

I know you are aware of deciding whether to delete on Wikipedia 

  1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.

I also read for the first time that the conditions for Speedy deletion (SD) are Pages that are suitable for immediate deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, advertising, pure vandalism and certain housekeeping situations).

The page created doesn't not meet criteria for speedy deletion, if you felt it still needs deletion it should be flagged for Proposed Deletion under the conditions set out by WP:PROD guidelines as the page did not meet any of the criteria for Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

Please restore the entry and if you feel it requires deletion please flag as proposed for deletion instead so I can contest it in a public forum instead of your interpretation of non-trivial and flagging it for Speedy deletion.

Thanks. --Scot Lemieux 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Westyism

Please also delete Spoonerism for the same reason.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359/Archive_7&oldid=1145848209"