User talk:Vianello/Archives/2010/July

MovieHatch deletion hangon

Despite posting a hangon @ MovieHatch within minutes (maybe seconds) of getting flagged for deletion, no time was allotted for the hangon. My article didn't yet show its relevance in a NPOV because no time was allowed to do so. Please undelete the article and allow me more than 5 minutes to actually write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmatney (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the article to my userpage. I will improve it there until I have a richer set of content before placing it as a full article. Rmatney (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Global Classrooms notable sources

I have added additional references to validate the notability of Global Classrooms wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwillnyc (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Darren Ross

Could you please salt Darren Ross as it is a recreation of a previous AfD and possibly recreated by a sockpuppet evading a block? It's been recreated multiple times along with various versions as noted in the deletion log. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Argus Health Systems & Catalyst Health Solutions

Both these paged were deleted after i added the "hangon" & provided reason for their significance. Could you please explain why the significance cited on both talk pages was not sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeebas62 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perry Noble - help requested

Hello! Earlier today you deleted the article Perry Noble. I did not create the article; my only association with it is that I tagged it as an unreferencedBLP before someone else tagged it for CSD. Anyway, the article creator has been raising it with me on my talk page and I've been trying to tell him that I'm not an admin, didn't delete it, can't restore it, etc, as well as trying to help him with reliable referencing. Anyway, I'm not getting anywhere; figured since you were the deleting admin you might want to jump in. I'm pretty much done with it since I had nothing to do with its deletion. Thanks! Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the user in question. I never accused Pianotech of deleting the article. I addressed Pianotech's criticisms of the article(he chose to raise) and the faulty logic he employed in supporting them. Also it appears the unverifiable references issue Pianotech raised were not the cause of the deletion. So why bring it up here? I'm waiting to see if this will be a pretext after the fact by the user who did delete the article.Daredevil1234 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Vianello. There are a few details I would like to rectify still by the way. If you will allow me I will state them without addressing the conflict itself. --Faust (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Perry Noble article

Hello, how are you. I'd like to address your deletion of the article I wrote. You state that the reasons for deleting the article are because I failed to explain the significance of the person. That is incorrect. I point to his position as senior pastor of a church and that church having other locations. I point to him being known by criticism of his theology and practices. I also point to his church being involved in a scandal with another person. There is an ongoing debate about the person in question, and I think that would make him significant. 3 users, yourself, timneu22, and Pianotech have all raised issues with this article unfairly. The article was brandished an attack. It was treated as a polemic, when it is reporting on the existence of someone. There was also the unfair assertion that I cited unreliable sources. The basis of this argument was that I was pointing to a video stored at YouTube. The user Pianotech made it sound like I was citing YouTube as a source, when I was citing the video that just happended to be stored there. I also see there was an attempt to create an article on the same subject that was proposed for deletion for the same reasons. I hope there is not some censorship going on here. Daredevil1234 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please review my talk page as I responded to your response. I see you also failed to mention the subject's church was involved in a scandal. I did not merely point to him being a senior pastor of a church as making him notable. In any case I'm going to edit the article and attempt to resubmit it. Daredevil1234 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: IP Block

It worked, just there are many networks at my school, I'm using a different network at school and now 153.107.33.151 is blocked, could I possibly get IP Block Exemption. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems a lot of the IPs at my school just got blocked recently, due to the misdemeanours of certain miscreants. It doesn't have to be permanent, but should these IPs get blocked again I'll ask again. Thanks though Vianello. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I wasn't being clear. I actually need IP Block Exemption, preferably for a long time. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Vianello. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Vianello, can you take another look at 153.107.33.155 (talk)? Vandalism from that IP has resumed. Unless I misunderstand the workings, an "anon only" block still allows registered users to edit, although an "account creation blocked" setting forces them to create that account elsewhere. Note that this IP is different from the original subject IP above. Also, it appears that all other IPs in the range 153.107.33.151 - 153.107.33.158 are long-term blocked. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from User Talk:Tcncv) Oddly, I don't see any contributions from the IP you listed at all. You might mean a similar one. Anyway, since the affected user has received IP block exemption, if there's sufficient acting up, the IP in question can just be reblocked and it oughtn't affect the user at all. - Vianello (Talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits I was looking at were those listed here between 04:58, 26 July 2010 and 00:38, 27 July 2010. There have been some constructive edits since, but I believe that user has since logged in. If there are no objections, I'll reimpose the "anon only" block. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Vianello/Archives/2010's Day!

Vianello/Archives/2010 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Vianello/Archives/2010's Day! For being an great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Vianello/Archives/2010! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grats VIanello. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article named NOLIT...

Can u please explain me why u did that and what we did wrong? Nolit Publishing House is very famous in this part of Europe and it is shame that Wiki does not contain any information on it. We provided links, and contacts of lawyers, it is not marketing because its only a "relic" - it doesnt exist any more by that name, but it has very big cultural importance, please answer us. Thank u in advanced. --Palikalane (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Hi there. I've recreated this article as a stub, since the agency is notable even if the old article left a great deal to be desired. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenville Business Magazine

Hi! You deleted Greenville Business Magazine because it's username was the company name...I have set up a new account under my name, which is this one, and uploaded a very edited version of what I sent. Is this usable? Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpemikayla (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)