User talk:Hairhorn/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Hairhorn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Acceptableism

Please delete - I moved it to my user page - user:joseane/acceptableism thank you Hairhorm Joseane (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

sas daniels LLP

Hi Hairhorn,

I was wondering whether you would be able to give me a few tips on how I could create the sas daniels LLP page to allow it to stay on Wikipedia? There is a lot of history to this firm dating back to 1837 so obviously it has served a legal service to a large client base. I have found it interesting looking at the different stages of the firm from merger to merger which contains some very interesting regional history. I don't want the page to be promotional, I want it to be factual and interesting so am very keen on helping the page stay up on Wikipedia. I've looked at some other law firms like Clifford Chance and Norton Rose specifically and they've been exactly the same (if not worse!) as the version I wrote but are allowed to stay on here and can't understand why?

Many thanks if you can help Mikehenry85 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Patti Schmidt

Actually, she was properly credited with a segment on Bob Dylan—I listened to it. Although, this is such a trivial piece of her career to list on an encyclopedia, so I don't object to it being removed. Just thought I'd pass you that news. +mt 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have worked at CBC and I was careful to listen to clips of the show before making this correction, and I indeed heard Patti Smith, the singer. Was this aired on CBC's "Inside the Music"? Patti Schmidt generally only does intros and outros for that show. Check here: http://www.prx.org/pieces/20585-dylan-shelter-from-the-storm Hairhorn (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're correct. Patty Smith hosted the "Shelter From the Storm" series with intro/outro by Patti Schmidt. The Smith/Schmidt thing is just a coincidence for the same show. Ahh, the detailed fact-checking ... +mt 19:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam bot

Thanks for the help with reporting the user whichphonesex.

Just for future reference, please use {{subst: when posting template messages. No big deal, but it's a little less strain on the server and so on. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Hairhorn (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia intellectual

Well, it certainly made no sense to me so bob's your uncle. The words and some of the phrases, sure, but all the rest was all 'Huh?'. Lots42 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, its quite understandable - what he sayd is that a Wikipedia Intellectual is someone who bases what he knows on Wikipedia articles, instead of basing it on books nought in stores. The second line is a characteristic for that group, noting that they know a lot of odd facts due to the detail in Wikipedia. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am puzzled. Good faith is good faith, but vandalism is vandalism. Hairhorn (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not in any way qualify as vandalism, and believe me, i received enough notices about my overzealousness while doing vandalism patrol. The article itself is just a term the user made up, or some form of new word that came into circulation. Sure, it does not belong on Wikipedia, but that does not automatically qualify it as vandalism. Unless the user disrupts Wikipedia by creating the article over and over albeit being warned, this is considered behavior of a new account which does not know its way yet.

Hence, cut the user some slack! It is an account created today, so accusing it of creating vandalism pages on these kind of article is considered biting. If we need to give plain vandals 4 warnings before banning them, there is no need to scare an apparent good faith user away :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

point taken, although I'm not fully convinced you haven't traded overzealousness for underzealousness. Hairhorn (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Point also taken. Finding a correct balance between WP:AGF - WP:SPADE - WP:VAND is complex as they kind of contradict eachother. For now im basing my tagging on a perception of what the user seems to be trying. If a user tries to add a spam article that might only skim across G11 then it receives a speedy tag. If a users first edit is an article is a bad one with good intentions i prod it. But alas, since i only started trying that tactic recently, i make mistakes assuming to much good faith, as witnessed two posts above. With some luck this is just temporally, but ifi run into to much wrong assumptions of good faith ill just tag stricter again :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly of Initiative

I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, I never said it was a good article...

As for the coatrack issue, though, there are plenty of articles on here explaining expressions used by only one side in a debate, eg: Irreducible complexity. The Monopoly of Intiative article, as written, is terrible and not at all neutral, on top of whatever copyright and forking issues there are. But, if I understand correctly, articles are deleted more on the potential of the subject matter to be a good article, and less on the article as written. But if it really is a term only used with reference to the European Union, then a redirect is probably the best solution. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of my contribution

Hi, I got the notice from you on removal of Honda Advanced Technology. This is my first time contributing to it and I can understand the Wiki guidelines to remain factual and encyclopedic. But, I don't know how to achieve this without being opinionated! Hmmm... can you please advise? Createsparks (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

L'enfer c'est les autres

I love bilingual puns. And I've been having a few disagreements with TPH, maybe Sartre was really talking about otters after all :) (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

- I prefer "L'enfer, c'est nous autres"... Hairhorn (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Robert Culp Effect"

Hairhorn ... the creator of the page now specifically says "This is something I made up" and "I made this up" ... does this now simply make the page a candidate for speedy deletion? BobKawanaka (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure.. the only possible criteria I can see are "Patent nonsense" and "vandalism", and it doesn't really strike me as either of those. Also, it may fit into some of the non-criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cal Con

The AFD for Cal Con, which you participated in, was recently closed as no consensus. I have requested a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 26#Cal Con. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there was a poor case for the article and I said as much in the AfD. My issue, to the extent that there was one, was with the nomination as written, which to my mind didn't make a convincing case for deletion.Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion review was closed just as I was writing a response. That's a little fast... Hairhorn (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic job market

Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a little bit more for clarification; I didn't change my vote, but I softened it up a little. Hairhorn (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mehngarwal

I have not acted on this nomination because you did not notify the original author (on his/her User talk page) at the time you placed the speedy deletion request. I have placed the notice myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that it's courtesy, but not a requirement. Hairhorn (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Meetings

See Talk:2009 Bilderberg Meeting. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re The Robert Culp Effect

 Done. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy for WP:MADEUP

I was just thinking earlier today that I wish there was a speedy for something that was blatantly made up and local, possibly as a subset of A7, i.e. where there is no claim of notability. If you want to actually propose this, ping my talk page after you do so on the CSD talk page, and I'll put my two cents in. Gigs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took on a new job, and besides I have an iron in the fire already over at WP:U... maybe we'll take it on when you get back. Gigs (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sara Northrup

You commented a few days on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Northrup. I have completely rewritten and greatly expanded the article (which is now at Sara Northrup Hollister). Your views on the new-look article would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Into the fray

Initial response is negative: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#CSD_for_WP:MADEUP. I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Gigs (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to throw in my bit. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I don't mean to attack you or anything, but I've been trying to create a page for the artist that I am representing and it's been extremely frustrating to try and keep it as it is, and I really don't mean to violate terms and whatnot so can you please help me out Philip Guiver (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, pretty strange behaviour for someone who doesn't "mean to attack". Enjoy your ban! Hairhorn (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

KTM 300 MXC

Hi Hairhorn, I've declined some speedies of yours as it seems those KTM thingies were motorbikes. ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lazer Helmets

Hairborn, thanks for rewriting the article. Its obvious i cant write them in english very well, but what i could do was to add it with my poor english, mark it as a stub and please another user from the community to correct it. So, thanks :). As per sharp, i added in order to verify company is notable, but if you judge its somekind promotional, and that other helmets too got 4 star, its okay this too.

Finally, as for what i added of being the 3rd producer, according to this phrase "The IMAG Group together with AGV, MDS, and LAZER is now the 4th worldwide producer within the sport helmets market", found here [[1]] i conlcuded to this. For sure, i found this phrase somewhere in wikipedia, maybe for AGV, if you need, i can take the time to find it again. Not for adding it to Lazer helmet if you judge it shouldnt be still there, but at least removing this phrase from the other article i found it here because as said "It's wildly unclear. ,by what measure? Sales? Units sold? Market penetration? ", so if it was unclear, it shouldnt be in the other article too. Regards.Psikxas (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. My only issue with the SHARP reference was that it didn't seem that relevant (it didn't really demonstrate that much). As for what's in other articles, a bad reference in one page is not a good reason to keep it in another. I'm sure there's an independent, third party reference somewhere that establishes Lazer's position in the market, you could try to dig it up. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no a misunderstoon. I didnt mean that because this phrase exists on another article, that it should exist here too. The opposite. That because the same phrase as here, exists on another article on wikipedia, that because we judge it shouldt, we should find then the similar article with the same phrase on wikipedia, and make better/more reliable the other article too. For now, i dont have time even dig these infos, or find the other article i mentioned, but ill do it and ill correct it.

Finally, i added the reference to SHARP, because as you may find, article deleted and they told me that i added a non-notable company, that noone else has written anything about this company in the past in order to belong here. But.xmm..it isnt too relevant? If you judge article will not be deleted again because of a non-notable company, leave it as you think.RegardsPsikxas (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

E63 AMG

I wasn't suprised that my article on the E63 would be tagged, I rushed it on the grounds that I would do editing over the next few days (I wrote it in less than 30 mins when it usually takes me 2 hours so you get the idea)so its not my best work (definetly not) and seeing as most of the information came from magazines I thought I might give their way of writing articles a try (none of my other articles follow a magazine like line), which as you can see hasn't worked out so well. Just give me a shout on my talk page if you have any suggestions; thnks! --Bismarck43 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tina Nguyen

Thanks for the courtesy tag. I enjoy reading all your feedback/comments even though you requested deletion on an article I created; with that said, I have a question that perhaps you'll be able to shine some light on for me. In short, there are many wiki entertainment base articles that have names that appear in numerous of other articles (cross referencing) and I have taken on the task to contribute and create articles on the existing names that appear red such as Tina Nguyen and others in existing wiki articles(ex: producers, directors, actors, studio execs); does that justify creating the article if it has notable internal links to several other wiki articles? I spend hours doing thorough searches to create factual articles and cross references in existing wiki articles that it could be frustrating creating an article and then having it nom for deletion. What I have noticed is that there are those that do not in good faith attempt to search and verify before placing judgement. Any insight would be most useful before I attempt to create anymore articles on living people that are acknowledged in more than one other wiki articles. Thanks for your time and contribution!

Furthermore, I see where I failed in this article in question; I relied on the internal wiki links to display other credits instead of including them in the biography. I have revised the article. Thank you tremendeously for indirectly showing and teaching me something new! I've debated this article in deletion due to the fact that all films mentioned excluding the Toback film, this actress is acknowledged on film reviews and articles; what that says from a film contractual point that she is credited as lead and/or supporting lead which warrants notable billing and press/promotional credit. I'm not sure a lot of contributors realize that it's notability/credibility for actors to be acknowledged as cast in film reviews and press acknowledges their character as relevant. BioDectective2508 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I read up and figured it out. Thanks! BioDetective2508 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeater (band) speedy declined

Hi Hairhorn. Just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article, as I found there were some third-party sources writing about the band. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion/mudpuppy

I read the "your first page" -- after the fact, sorry -- and your suggestion for deletion is reasonable. GregB (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A rare gracious response to a deletion request! Cheers! If you want to speed along the process, you can blank the page. Author blanked pages can be deleted right away, while pages for neologisms can take a week or more to get rid of. Hairhorn (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would like to resubmit a deleted page

Hello. I created a page today (AEP Netilla Secure Remote Access SSL VPN)that was deleted. I think I understand why now. As you may be able to tell, I'm new to wiki editing/writing. I have posted a re-write on my talk page. If possible, would you please take a look and if it's now in compliance can I post it? Thank you. --Aqwertys (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really up to me to say whether it meets the standards or not. The previous version (I can no longer see it) was deleted for being too promotional. The current version probably suffers more from concerns about notability (ie: why bother having an entry for it?) Hairhorn (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nipple Piercing

Can you verify whether the article being sourced is an actual article or a letter to the publication (like an editorial)? I've tried looking this thing up online and it keeps requiring me to sign in or pay money to read it. Thanks. --13² 13:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my talk page comments, I misread the article history, not realizing your edits were before mine, rather than after. The best I can get you for the article is the first 150 words. It's a letter, not a full research article. It only reviews 3 cases. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is because I'm concerned about original research issues. They only had three patients, it feels biased, and this appears to be an editorial (which isn't considered reliable, even if published in an otherwise reliable source). It also feels like it is making an awful lot of assumptions about the possible cause of these issues, even within these first 150 words. I wish I could read the whole thing, but I'm not going to shell out $15 to read one item. --13² 13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why my edit has the word "suggests" in it. This is a "research letter", not an editorial (there's a big difference in medical journals). My only real goal with the edit was to make Jane66's edit more neutral and to make the inline citation properly. I'm not trying to take sides in a debate. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I really don't feel like there's much of a debate. I just wanted to verify the source. I've tried to neutralize the statement further so that it doesn't feel like it directly contradicts the La Leche League (which is more reliable than this letter). --13² 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi hairhorn and thirteen squared. i have never edited wikipedia before and could not work out how to do the referencing properly, so thank you for fixing that. we do not want to suggest that every woman will have difficulties, but just bring the possiblity to people's attention. An editorial in a medical journal will be the opinion of the editorial staff or an opinion peice by an expert. Our research was published as a research letter, not an editorial and is still subjected to peer review. They did not accept what we wrote without critical review. Jane66 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do letters really get peer review or just an editorial review? I'm just curious. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi hairhorn, letters to JAMA and many other peer reviewed medical journals are reviewed by 3 reviewers. In our case the reviewers came back to us with suggestions and questions, and the letter was revised several times as a result, before finally being accepted for publication. They were initially cautious about the link between nipple piercing and difficulty with breastfeeding.If you would like further information about the process, look on the JAMA website instructions for authors.I am surprised this topic has stirred up such a lot of interest.Jane66 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3A

This book does exist. It may not be world famous but it its known throughout schools in Ireland. But introducing it to wikipedia could make it known and educate people about it. It was created for the All Ireland Schools book writing competition and it came in 2nd place. I dont know if you shall find this information anywhere, but I do know there has been a [2] page made about this book. If you wish I could provide you with the pages address so you can check it out yourself? Butchre (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But has it been published? Wikipedia is for documenting things that are already notable, not as a means of promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it has been published under Longford VEC.Butchre (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? As far as I can tell, that's not a publisher. Unless you can come up with a book review, a page on amazon or some other bookseller, you'll have trouble keeping this page on wikipedia. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to a VEC page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_Education_Committee . The book was created through The VEC in a competition. Can I ask you if you are Irish or Have Attended an Irish Vocational School? Butchre (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about me. You can read the guidelines you'll have to meet at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Beatmaking

I would like this page deleted please. I will use add the info to the page you redirected. Thanks. By the way what do the points in green font mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staykept87 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The page is under dicussion for deletion, which normally takes a week. If you want it deleted faster, the only way is for you, as the original author, to blank the entire page. (It doesn't count if anyone else does it.) Then it will get speedy deleted under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. (I have no idea what you're seeing in green....) Cheers! Hairhorn (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bryn Mooser

FYI... Also as Bryn mooser.  _{Guy M | Talk}  13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Redirected to duplicate. This will either stay as a redirect or be killed off by G8. Hairhorn (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ICM Information editing

The information about ICM came from our own corporate communications department here at ICM. I have actually sent then the information on Neutral point of view and conflict of interest and cleanup to our Director of Corporate communications so they can start to adjust the article.

The information that was previously listed grossly misrepresented ICM as a company. This is why we are trying to add information now. We are new to this and are trying to learn how to enter the information correctly about ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryChun (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that not all of the information was complementary, and shouldn't necessarily have been there. (Although you can't control your own press). Replacing uncomplementary content with promotional content is not the way to produce a neutral article; your text is bound to be deleted as promotional and unencylopedic, there may be copyright issues as well. I also hope you'll take the time to look at the conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I/we are not intending to control or strong arm information regarding ICM rather more properly populate information about the company. I sent the conflict of interest guidelines document along with sytle guide to corporate communications and asked them to properly rewrite. I will update this as soon as I get a more approriate version. Sould not be more tha a day or so. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryChun (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn,

Here are my questions given the posting/deleting.

• How is the ICM page any more promotional than, say, the other talent agency pages (William Morris, CAA, etc.)?

• Isn't something better than nothing? The Departments section give readers an idea of the focus and the clientele. If the page is collaborative, and it is, shouldn't the information remain up and just modified by additional users with more balanced information? Isn't balanced the means and not the end, the definition of a collaborative page?

Thanks for any information!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by modernfrieze (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou La Luz

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou La Luz. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rape camps

Just a friendly note on Rape camps. After you prodded the article, the article creator placed a {{hangon}} tag on it. I've boldly assumed this was an attempt to contest the prod, and I've removed both the prod and hangon tag. Feel free to send it to AfD if you still think it should go. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Seems fair. Cheers back to you. Hairhorn (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vachette/page marked for deletion

Thanks for the note and explanation. I'm a UT med school student and familiar with Vachette and have heard its president talk. He's very smart on path practices. I've done other Wiki work and thought he was worthy enough of an article, given how often he seems to address state and national conferences. He's not a public figure but within pathology, he's well known. I'll tone down the article and see if you like it. Thanks. --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I though it was a borderline case, anyway. Hairhorn (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the hangon tag, and then removed the services section (okay, maybe too much). I took that information from the company's site. Maybe I should've just summarized(?). Later, I'll see if there are other (enough other?) references to Vachette or its president (Mr. Raich). Thank for the help. --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The real sticking point for me was some of the languge, like " a nationally-renown[ed] and sought-after speaker"... too promotional. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Will tone it down. Can't do it now but will later tonight. Does the hang on tag give me some time? --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The hangon won't give you any tme at all unless you provide a reason for it on the article's talk page. Just putting a hagon tag alone does nothing. You might want to copy the article to your user page so you can work on it later, it may still get deleted. Hairhorn (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Biofascism

Just like me you supported the PROD for the article Biofascism. It was deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs), so FYI I instead did an AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofascism. (A lot of acronyms today...) Tomas e (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lila Rajiva

Hello, I see you assert that the nomination of Lila_Rajiva was improper. This is not so. The wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion clearly says "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below)." and advises IP users to add their reasons for deletion to the articles discussion page, which was done when I nominated it. I ask that you remove your speedy keep now that I have informed you of your incorrect assumption. Thanks. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see your comment on the talk page. But you have still failed to finish the AfD. There are three steps, only one cannot be completed by IPs, see WP:AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto

thank you for your reply. I am in the process of editing the article. thank you for the reply.Thank you so much for your reply. --BlueLankan 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the title in the english. also am doing a research in getting the more information for the title. please donot delete as of now. thank you. --BlueLankan 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I'll leave it alone for now, but I can't speak for others. At the moment it simply duplicates verbatim information found in other articles. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You saw that too, huh?

Just did a google search and was about to tag it. HalfShadow 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag what now? Hairhorn (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New user talk page

Hi Hairhorn, while welcoming new users I found this talk page User talk:Majorie4m. Would you mind taking a look? Shinerunner (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gone before I saw it. Apparently someone else didn't like it, either. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A most nonsensical post.

Hello, Hairhorn. My sincerest apologies for the inane and ridiculous post on Kant's page. You said, "the only thing worse than vandalism is unimaginative vandalism." But unimaginative vandalism is vandalism nonetheless, however low a form of it it may be; nonetheless, and I didn't decide on anything more complex- just the necessary minimum to be caught as soon as possible by a one such as yourself. I do thank you for changing the post, which was essentially nothing other than my plan to determine just how efficiently wikipedia works with posts of such a kind. I must say that the revision came quite soon, and I was impressed. Excellent work on your part for blocking idiotic, immature comments (and witless wordplay) on wikipedia's important pages.

Thank you very much for reading my comment on your page. I do hope you respond.

Dantesqueman (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact it took 19 minutes, which is a while. I'm sure you can think of a more productive experiment to run.... Hairhorn (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies.

Of course. That was the only one of its contemptible kind. I was a fool, no better than most who post ridiculous comments on wikipedia, (and they with the singular intent of harming it). Again, I apologize for the time I took away from you and to the general population for the harm done. Not least of all to Wikipedia itself, and its credibility as a source of authentic information. Thank you for your work, and I hope you can accept my apology. Dantesqueman (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Sandy Hott

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sandy Hott has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(remove prod tag - passes WP:ATHLETE by competing in world championships)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from MFTU

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to MFTU has been removed. It was removed by MFTU with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MFTU before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Dub metal

Can you plz name few bands that play music that would be called "dub metal"? Please note that Ragga metal bands like Dub War is entirely different thing. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Plz reply a my talk page. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CsD of Female Appreciation Day

Your fast, beat me to it :) --Scythre (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've come in second plenty of times....Hairhorn (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sumaura Kōen

I was in the middle of translating these pages from Japanese. Is there a way to get their source back? Laitr Keiows (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They were not empty. I will try contacting admin. Thank you for wasting my work. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I wasted your work, but your pages were blank. Placeholder pages are frowned upon, and it's an admin that ultimately deleted them. Hairhorn (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

article on city data is not spam

How about helping me rewrite the article by pointing out what part of it makes it spam. until then your spam label will be deleted. you are spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) if there are articles on websites like adultfriendfinder and realgm there is no excuse for leaving out citydata which has a forum where 600 thousand members contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, I can barely understand what you're saying. I'm spamming? I placed the {advert} tag in lieu of a speedy deletion tag. The advert tag only suggests a re-write, it has nothing to do with deletion. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing to you. how can I rewrite what I have written if you don't point out what you think makes it look like spam ? I included information about it being mentioned on cnn to support the claim that the information found on its website is well known and famous. to make it clear that the article isn't biased i included 2 links to people discontented with it.

UCAN

m agreed. Note however that Ingoman accused me of slander many times.... Is that not in the realm of the legal world, and "off-wiki" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, wut? Second, that others are doing something is not a great excuse for doing it yourself. If you feel aggrieved, there are no shortage of channels to go through around here. Hairhorn (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A J M Industries

just wanted to let you know i erased a note you put after the comment I made on the A J M Industries deletion discussion because I made a comment there without being signed in and it showed up as an IP. I'll try to remember to make sure i'm signed in next time. Thanks for you input.--Helpful4sure (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandra Palace

You removed spam from here and someone has just put it back. I'm not sure of my grounds for removing this spam so am passing it on to you. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hairhorn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EWN-America.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clerk note with regards to the SPI report you created. MuZemike 23:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hello Hairhorn,

Regarding proposed deletion of Joshua Blake: The Agency, forgive me as I’m a new Wikipedia user, but I’m confused.

The message states that I can remove it if I object to the deletion, or improve the article.

Technically, it does satisfy notability criteria in terms of "Significant coverage”, should more links be included to show this? There are plenty of news articles on the internet if so.

I have also found other Wikipedia articles on projects still in production, so assumed this was appropriate. There is a completed 6 minute promo for this show, which is linked.

I’m not hugely against deletion if this is too early for it to be on Wikipedia, so I won’t remove the deletion message, but I’d just like to understand the criteria a little better. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time. Jbta editor (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes, you can remove the Prod template, but you should address the deficiencies in the article, or at least give your reasoning for removing it. Also, and again technically, the status of other articles doesn't bear on this article. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion query

Hi Hairthorn,

Please advise on logic behind speedy deletion of Urban Communications being agency responsible for coming up with idea of Graduate Apprentice[3] while BHMG Marketing is to remain. Cheers.--UrbanComms (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed an unnecessarily promotional line that you added (not a "speedy deletion"). I did not address the rest of the article; I didn't write this article. Hairhorn (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

URDAD article

Have added more context which should clarify the topic as well as categorization. Would like to request that the article is not deleted. User:FritzSolms 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place, I don't have control over whether it gets deleted or not. You should add your comments to the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URDAD. Cheers. 12:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Vector (1996 film)

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Vector (1996 film) has been removed. It was removed by Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt with the following edit summary '(The unreleased version can be found on E-mule, it should've been specified before.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Feedback felching

I am writing this to inform you about your WP:PROD of this article, has been sent to WP:AFD by User:Chzz ([4]). If you still feel it should be deleted, please feel free to coment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Feedback_felching. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Declining speedy

I saw your edits on restoring the removed speedy delete template. User:Ren56 removed the template with no reason, I am afraid to revert it back because of 3RR, what can we do about this? The template has repeated twice on the article, and is a clear duplication of the lower navbox.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest decline reason looks fine to me, if a little terse. I'd suggest bringing it up for discussion instead, I'm guessing Miscellany for deletion is the place for it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Edward J. Carvalho

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Edward J. Carvalho has been removed. It was removed by Lifebaka with the following edit summary '(rm PROD tags; add notability tag and make refs not ugly)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Lifebaka before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Michael Roche(Footballer)

Hi,

My contribution was deleted from Wikipedia amd im just curious as to the reasons why?

User:Winterwonder2008 —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

You're asking the wrong person, I only replaced an AfD tag that was incorrectly removed. The page has not even been deleted yet. You can contribute to the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Roche (footballer). Hairhorn (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Persecution of Sikhs

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Persecution of Sikhs has been removed. It was removed by Rjanag with the following edit summary '(boldly converting to a dab page and removing PROD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rjanag before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be merged. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arunn Gupta

I've recently reverted an edit by user:58.68.8.185 on the Gorakhpur region of India article advertising Arunn Gupta's services, so it would appear that Mr Gupta is operating in concert with other editors.... danno 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been wiping speedy delete templates, too. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Having spent the day cleaning up the Gorakhpur article (again, there were 8 Arunn Guptaa mentions this time), I looked again this evening to discover that 2 editors with remarkably similar IPs have each added back some of the Arunn Guptaa spam. I don't really know how the system for dealing with sockpuppets works but this looks like a prime case. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks danno 22:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an area for sockpuppet investigations, although usually I think you'd have to find multiple accounts, not just IPs. The reports are easy to file. But from what I can see, you've already handled this the right way, by reverting & warning the IP. If it gets worse you can add higher levels of warning and take it to WP:AIV when it crosses the line. Hairhorn (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

That's great. Thanks for the help on the band members of The Shells. I had no idea if they deserved their own page -- but another editor insisted on redlinking them, so I tried my best to turn those links blue. Your approach works for me ... but please keep an eye on them, as this editor has been wikistalking me with a penchant for revising my edits ever since I criticized an edit of his 2 days ago. Thanks again.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick question. I don't care either way on this, but a question just popped into my head. The only thing "lost" by the redirect is the Wikiprojects on the discussion page. How is that to be handled -- should they be added to the band's talk page, or simply not added and that issue ignored? Thank you.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. As for the first issue, redirect pages are not a perfect solution to redlinks, because then you get "piped links", the ideal solution is to edit the original links so they lead somewhere else, which will make them blue (this is easy to do). As for the second issue, no idea. Cheers again. Hairhorn (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ipod terra

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ipod terra has been removed. It was removed by Joe1234567890000 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe1234567890000 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

I got a call from the Yahoos that created the attack page you nominated for speedy.

Thank you. XCD (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A call? Eh? You're welcome.... Hairhorn (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

David Altounian

I am currently building this page as a complementary page to an established article titled Motion Computing for which David Altounian is the current CEO of. This page is no different from Michael Dell or Steve Jobs' and contains information about a contributing member of society in austin texas.

Cw1242 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merely being the CEO isn't enough to merit a separate page. The other names you mention have notability above and beyond merely being CEOs; press coverage of them is easy to find. Not so for David Altounian. You'll need independent sources to establish his notabilty (ie more than the company's page and his Linkedin page.). Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 78,400 for david altounian motion computing. (0.36 seconds)

That is what comes back when you search him in google. I'm not trying to say this justifies his notability but there is a substantial amount of coverage on him and his business ventures, startups, contributions and other things that he has done that are beyond his position as CEO. How do you start a page and add information to it without admins trying to delete it immediately? You guys are vigilant, I'll give you that, but how does someone who is new establish any sort of credibility on this site when the powerusers shoot them down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1242 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheer Google numbers mean absolutely nothing. The first hit is a facebook page, then there's some blogs, a page on the company's own website, etc. Counting hits doesn't really go anywhere. Hairhorn (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Wahhabi" Myth

Hi, the three PRODs on The "Wahhabi" Myth have been removed. Yours was the third. Have left a note at OliverTwisted (the first PROD). This is part of a larger mess centred around Wahhabi and in need of mediation. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of people in Playboy 2010–2019

First of all, thanks for the sarcastic "Cheers" at the end of you comment... It wasn't appreciated.

Second, the Playmate of the Month and associated interview subjects normally get announced a few months in advance, so although empty now, the list soon won't be. If you're all fired up to get it deleted, then just have it moved to my user space and I'll put it back into article space when I do have at least one entry. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The sarcarsm is entirely projected on your part. I sent you a note as a courtesy, in lieu of a deletion tag on your article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Death

"Why is this such a popular vandalism target?" I often wonder that myself - its the most vanldalised page I watch.--SabreBD (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's mostly children forced to write "projects". Hairhorn (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Obsidian Key Entry - Eleanor J Cramphorn

The reason for this entry was that my step daughter had the author come into her school to promote the book. I thought other schools in the region may also be visited, and therefore an article would be useful for other parents.

Many Thanks

sam

• Well, I certainly wasn't questioning your motives, just the notability of the book. Hairhorn (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article Dipanjan biswas

The link to the poem "Ei Chotto Meye" has been added in the references. Is it notable now ? What other proof is needed ?

All I see is a link to a poem someone posted online. What is that supposed to demonstrate exactly? Existence and notability are very different things. Hairhorn (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So how do we make it notable ??

The subject of the article has to be notable, not the article itself. You can't make that happen. You can read the guidelines about notability here. Hairhorn (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian animation

Is there any way to fix this problem? The concept appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, rewrite the article with original text. Hairhorn (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mauj Jamshedpuri

Hi, I see you prodded this article. I actually put a speedy up on it but it was removed. Should I reinstate it or would you prefer to leave the prod run its course? GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to put your speedy back. I didn't replace it, because it was technically declined, but without an edit summary and by someone who looks like a sock of the article creator. It's not that unusual to have a speedy tag and a prod tag on the same page. Knock yourself out. Hairhorn (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Didnt realise it had been declined, I'll leave the prod run its course. Cheers GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kill fat today

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kill fat today has been removed. It was removed by 78.133.13.81 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 78.133.13.81 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quedgemin

Thanks for your useful assessment of this article, which I've deleted. It occurs to me that you could profitably use rollback privileges. If that would be of interest, leave me a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talento Argentino

Just to let you know that this page was created in a foreign language which the author later changed to English. A bot kept putting the A2 template back up. Dunno if you saw the edit history. - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked the history, but not every version. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement on Adify page

Hi Hairhorn, The material referrenced from http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Adify&oldid=87715 was written by me while learning how to use wikis. I noted this on the talk page of Adify. How would I go about proving that I am the author of this content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlandsmith (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms of use for the wiki you originally posted the text on aren't the same as wikipedia's terms of use. See wikipedia:copyrights for more information. But the easiest way around any copyright problem is a simple rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hairhorn --Courtlandsmith (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo (Video Game)

Apparently I am violating something by using text from MY website on an article about MY game that I am programming.

Why cant I do this? --Shawnanator (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can, but there's a procedure that has to be gone through first. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

franca batich

Hi. I am very surprised of you reporting a copyright infringement, as we had already emailed [email protected] stating this is not a copyright violation. could you please verify and remove the notice, thanks a lot. best, --Globe.explorer (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally one would clear up the copyright issues first, then post the material. Otherwise these sorts of things happen. Most users do not have access to OTRS email. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

hi hairhorn, honestly i feel your BIG BOLD REDUNDANT is redundant. I understood that the interview has to be removed, but a biography will soon be filled, and this page certainly is not the same as the superformula, so please respect this, remove your redundant comment and wait for a shortwhile while the biography is being prepared, thanks alot ian Ian Clemmer 13:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiZikl (talk • contribs)

I guess you're talking about Talk:Johan Gielis. This is a talk page, not an article. The whole point of a talk page is discussing how to improve the article, so I don't really see the problem. You might want to look at the Talk page guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Conductive atomic force microscopy

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Conductive atomic force microscopy has been removed. It was removed by Jaymody with the following edit summary '(This is a basic introduction on how the conductive afm technique works. The article has been improved and a citation has also been added to the article)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jaymody before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome listed at RfD

Hello Hairhorn. In May you converted the article Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome to a redirect, identifying it as an "Overly technical cut & paste essay, comprehensible only to experts (student paper?)". As the article does not go into sufficient depth to justify the title of the redirect, I have nominated it for deletion over at RfD. You are invited to to participate in the redirect discussion -- ToE^T 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nzaqout

I've deleted the nth reposting of the nn bio of the Libyan individual, and SALTed it, as you requested. I was puzzled at the precise speedy tag you'd used because I couldn't find any evidence that the editor who created the article had been banned. I finally realized that you had used the tag because the individual had been temporarily blocked. As you can see, I agreed with deleting the article and SALTing the title; my understanding, though, is that a temporary block isn't grounds for automatic deletion due to the creator having been banned. Just thought I would mention that for the future. In this case it seems that the individual's chances of future useful contributions are unlikely, but I always like to cling to a shred of hope <smile>. If the Libyan's biography crops up again under yet another retitling, please feel free to let me know and I'll assist. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks... I realized already that banning and blocking are two different things, although by then I'd already tagged everything and gone to bed. Thanks for clearing it up regardless. I come across a lot more banned users than blocked ones (and the user talk page tag for a banned user doesn't say "banned" anywhere.... in fact it says "blocked"). The paragraph of Wikipedia:Banning policy that distinguishes between them could be a little less convoluted as well. Anyway, cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest iteration is at Talk:Khaled Elhamedi, from User:SalahEldin2009. Hairhorn (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) There's an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled El-Khweldi El-Hamedi that is related, it seems. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn,

i am trying to build my contribution, there is one issues i have been looking into and that is the name of my contribution "Ontario Justice Education Network". I would like it to be visible when searched under its acronym "OJEN". Is there a tag that applies to this, i have been searching and reading through those listed in wiki, but haven't seen it if it is there. If this is not the way to accomplish this then how can i get it to show up under "OJEN" your help will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance b.c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojen1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WETLAB and my contributions

Designer1001 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn, why are my contributions conserning "Wetlabs" or "Wet-laboratories" being deleted (or marked to be deleted) soon after i make contributions? I also started a new article as WETLAB which is the term used for practical medical training, mostly cardiac surgery training, i thought i would start an article up because a wet-laboratory is a room where wetlabs might happen, a wetlab is the procedure *Like saying football and a football pitch-two different things-although linked, if you catch my drift :) So i started Wetlab up as an article but it got deleted, I have quite alot of expereince in this area because my father set up the organisation of WETLAB which brought the practice to a lot of medical practitioners attention, im not trying to spam, vandalise or anything...im just passionate about the subject at hand. I put a link to the website under 'see also' because as you can see there is alot of information found there, like videos and online classes on the subject, it isnt just mindless spamming! (wetlab.com) Thankyou

Did you read the notice I left you? The article I saw was blank, blank articles are deleted very quickly. You are perfectly welcome to contribute something other than a blank page.

I wasn't involved in the other versions, but please note that there is already a wetlab article, and that there are guidelines for the notability of companies and spamming. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, how can i stop it redirecting to wet-laboratories? there two different things and it mis-informs people, i wanted to right some content in wetlab and then redirect it to that page, when they click on the link of wetlab facilites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designer1001 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Please be more careful with tagging pages with speedy deletion in the future. Banco Chambers had an obvious assertion of notability. —Dark 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was replacing a tag that was removed by the article creator, I looked at the entry only briefly. You can take this up with the original tagger. And I have read the "notability section", thank you. Further, I would say that I have yet to see a broad consensus over the interpretation of "assertion of notability"; there are people around here who will tell you "x wrote a book" or "x recorded an album" is an assertion of notability, which is madness. In this case for example "appeared before high court several times" doesn't impress me in a law firm. Hairhorn (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OJEN

Hi Hairhorn,

Thanks for the tip about redirecting. It was much appreciated. However just a quick question on this, will it show up in Google search or other engines when searched as OJEN ? I made the redirect page but it doesn't show up in Google, i am wondering if it takes a bit of time to start to show up ?

Thanks again, B.C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojen1 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

REMOVAL NOMINATION

Hi Hairhorn. Having seen the zeal with which you and a couple of others chase down the possibly-not-notable, I suggest for your inspection the lesser musical references in the popular culture subsection of the Hindenburg airship's article. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Popular_culture the Zepplin album of course is notable, but the other bands seem like self-promotion by tiny entities. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Sorry, but what's the point of this message? You've used more than one post elsewhere to make personal attacks against me, now you have a burning interest in a subsection of an article? Feel free to edit it yourself and please do heed the warnings against making personal attacks that have already been placed on your talk page. Hairhorn (talk)

Speedy deletion declined: Robb knie

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Robb knie - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 05:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You should take this up with the original tagger; I only replaced a tag removed by the article creator. However, the current version of the article still doesn't look good enough to pass speedy. But that's rather moot now. Hairhorn (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bay View Academy

I severely edited Bay View Academy, and I think the remaining text should be okay. Could you please take a look at it? -- Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Someone put up an AFD template for Dechronication's sub-page, Dechronication/Hypotheticals. I had no idea that AFD'ing a subpage meant automatically AFD'ing the host page as well. Can you link us a policy page stating that the host page must be AFD'd if a sub-page is? --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing automatic about it. That page was added to an existing AfD, this is a pefectly commonplace practice. The AfD policy even gives instructions for multiple nominations. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Righteous Sock Barnstar
		Awarded to Hairhorn for meritorious editing. Thank you for your good work reviewing speedy deletion tags on new articles written by an unknown editor. As part of this project I created an account with a dubious username and wrote ten referenced but badly formatted stubs about Antarctic mosses. Two of those articles were nominated for speedy deletion; you rejected one of the nominations with a note that the article did not qualify for A7 speedy criteria. Thank you for prompt and conscientious reviewing. Durova362 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Katie Rowley Jones

I don't know if Katie Rowley Jones would pass WP:AFD, but with a clear indication of importance (starring in a West End musical) and even two relevant newspaper sources backing it up, it's clearly not eligible for WP:CSD#A7. Please brush up on WP:CSD#A7. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just below a speedy decline barnstar. Hmmm.... Hairhorn (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm indeed. Though seeing as it says "The Righteous Sock Barnstar", I hadn't noticed. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when making prod nominations referencing notability, please link to WP:N, since the PROD summary is used for the user warning message, and newbies may not know what is meant. Rd232 ^talk 12:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kwesi Boakye

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kwesi Boakye - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not the original tagger of this page, I only replaced a tag removed by the article creator. You can take this up with the original tagger. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc. - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't nominate this page ( I just replaced the tag) and you in fact deleted it, rather than declining the speedy as you say here. So I'm not sure what's going on. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Basically, I cocked up! GedUK  08:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Big J Show

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Big J Show has been removed. It was removed by 69.144.14.242 with the following edit summary 'The page is valid'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 69.144.14.242 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murghawi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murghawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murghawi. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ravi Arvind Palat

I have addressed some of the issues about why Ravi Arvind Palat should NOT be speedily deleted here: Talk:Ravi Arvind Palat. My guess is the old article did not properly establish notability.This one seems to pass easily to me. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Do you have a copy of the old article? Is this one very similar or is it in any way significantly different? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Nope, sorry. I mentioned that in the edit history. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

About A T M Abdul Mateen

Would you consider removing your dated PROD from A T M Abdul Mateen? This man actually appears to have been a notable figure in Bangladesh. There are still no supporting documents for most of the claims, but he was a Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Shouldn't he have more than seven days for the author of the article to scratch up some references? Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The prod is already gone. Speaker is probably enough for notability, yes; that was buried deep in the article. The lead still has no real claim to notability at all. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. By "lead", you mean the first sentence, like a lead in a newspaper article? Oh, and why did you delete my "fact" tag? Was it simply premature in an article with no references at all? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the prod, and I didn't remove your tag, either. Please check the article's edit history (click "history" at the top of the page). And the lead is the beginning of the article, see wp:lead for more. Hairhorn (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I misunderstood your reply. I did check the history. Both edits were done by IP 99.6.236.174 from Dallas. I assumed that you'd forgotten to log in. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Matilda Dodge Wilson

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Matilda Dodge Wilson - a page you tagged - because: I've removed the copyvio section. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I think you'll find that the 95% of what remains is still lifted from the same page as always, with the occasional word shifted around. Have a look: [5]. Hairhorn (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very slowly working to improve this article, but I notice that someone has removed the copyright ripoff tag from it and I am wondering if the article is still a largely unrewritten piece of someone else's work. I am not sure how to check for this. Do you mind doing it again? Ho ho ho Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Kobi Arad and sockpuppetry of its creator Knoblauch129

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129

Your comments welcome! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster Ik Jo Kang

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairhorn (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: World Organization of Students and Youth

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of World Organization of Students and Youth, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sources indicate some notability, sufficient for A7. PROD or take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not nominate this page, I only reverted a dubious tag removal, which to my mind is not the same thing. I think we've been down this road before... Hairhorn (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai

I've been having a few issues with the article creator of Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai removing Speedy Delete tags, and note that the article is a repost of a previously deleted article and you've had problems with him before. Is there a procedure for blocking the editor for reverting deletion tags? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, bad behaviour is first met with warnings (using the appropriate templates on their user talk page). In most cases you would not ask for admin help until you've run out of warnings (there are four levels of warnings). User talk:BaraaAbdulla already has a level 3 warning against removing AfD tags (I placed that one) but there is only one warning about removing speedy delete tags, and there is not even a notification that the repost was tagged for deletion. A block is unlikely until he stacks up a few more warnings. (When you do run out of warnings, the place to go is WP:AIV; there is also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but this case doesn't merit either of those yet.) If things start up again, feel free to tag his page with a warning template for every time he reposts this page or removes a speedy tag from it. Anyone can warn a fellow user, you do not have to be an admin (I am not). Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cybernautic

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Daddy

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Daddy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daddy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Powney

FYI I have proposed this page (concerning a plane photographer) for deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this should never have made it past speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kash Johns

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kash Johns, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. SoWhy 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I only replaced a tag removed by the creator, the nomination had nothing to do with me. The claims in the article are also pretty weak.Hairhorn (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Roy Clarke

Hi Hairhorn,

Please can I ask why you redirected Stuart Roy Clarke to The Homes Of Football as he also has books on other subjects and various exhibitions? These clearly do not fit under the Homes Of Football entry. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to share knowledge, not to delete it without question or knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry, I'm very dissapointed by this.

HomesOfFootball (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make my reasoning clear in the edit summary. Feel free to unredirect the page yourself, but have a look at WP:COI first. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haddock Fashions

I was being polite - for once... Peridon (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I waver back and forth myself... Hairhorn (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Advent Computer Training

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Advent Computer Training, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, Happy Camp Family Resource Center is now at AfD too.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD for As of

I have brought the page As of for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#As of. Since you have edited the page in the past, and since I don't quite understand the history of this redirect, I hope you can comment there. Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't get it either, the first edit seems to be protesting the original deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaco and the fretless

Here are a few examples of the rumor/misconception being spread around. These aren't supposed to be reliable sources, on the contrary – it should strengthen my point that this is a largely held misconception.

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] (this is supposed to be a biography – quote: "He invented the fretless bass guitar one night by taking out a pair of pliers and some wood compound and removing the frets.")
[10]
[11]
[12] (this is supposed to be a bass related lecture – quote: "It was invented by Jaco Pastorius who, takin' away the frets of his Fender Jazz, could in this way obtain a sound that even more so permitted him to stand out for his enormous technical and expressive skills.")

If you need any more links, please do not hesitate to let me know. I'm not going to take hippo43's bait and will refrain from keeping the edit war going, so I am counting on you to take what I just wrote under careful consideration and hopefully, do the right thing and restore the example yourself. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But even if all of these qualified as reliable sources, all this would demonstrate is a misconception popular inside a particular community, not a common misconception. Most people haven't even heard of Jaco Pastorius; even most of the bass players I know don't know or care enough to have any misconceptions about him. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of the point I am trying to convey here: all these are random blogs/sites (which points at multiple communities, not just one) which discuss the misconception from different angles. This is a clear indication that the misconception exists, and as for your claim that most bass players wouldn't care about Jaco... well, I will simply refrain from commenting on that In any case, the jazz community is too large to ignore. Many of the historical misconceptions listed in this article are among the American community, is that trivia as well? Also, this article lists many misconceptions, of which I have never heard before – should I be arrogant and remove them under that claim? To make a long story short, there was not a single music entry before I started editing this article. Instead of a thankful effort to add more material, editors are busy with hair-splitting politics and "compulsive deletionism." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Zip!

Click here for animation		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not easy on the eyes, but thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Better? - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

erm, looks broken now. I'm overdue for an archive anyhow... Hairhorn (talk)

Okay, less broken now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed & talking to newbies

The lack of communication here is sad. How can we make the speedy process more understandable to newbies without slowing down patrollers too much? +sj+ 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I'm not permitted to see just how sad it is. I will say that in my experience, people don't seem to bother to read the longer user page templates like {speedy1}, which is often the first one they get. Hairhorn (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed Deletion of Betaville

I am filling in the holes in the article as we speak, i should be done with it in a weeks time. This is no advertising, its a research project with funding from the Rockafellar group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneydoodle (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Binary Independence Model

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Binary Independence Model, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Might have been blatant before, but rewrite has changed it sufficiently. Thank you. GedUK  18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Factors Lab

Hello Hairhorn,

There was a submision to delete the wiki article about the band Human Factors Lab. this submision was done by a user by the name of "bringthemdown" this user account was created by ex members of the band for the sole porpose of vadelizing the human factors lab wiki page. The page has come under these attack from these same people, if you check the history on the page dating back for thepast 6 months you will see examples of this. Someone realized that this was a vandalism attempt and remved the note about the page being deleted. I noticed you then went back and undid this edit. im not sure what can be done to prevent this type of vandelism on wiki, perhaps you may have some insight. Either way please do not undo the attemps that are being made to prevent it. thanky you —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The place to dispute the AFD nom in on the AFD page. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been disputed there, and as of yet the deletion request is still on the page, what other steps can be taken to undo this vandalism and prevent it from happeneing in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting on the AFD page does NOT give you license to remove the tags from the article. AFD nominations are decided by consensus, nominations that are clearly done in bad faith will be closed. It's not clear to me that this is what is happening in this case. You may want to read up on the Articles for deletion policy. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Jimcrik7

I think there's 2 more: User:TeamWorm and User:KingHammer. Should a RFCU be started? XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not.... although the AFD will probably be over before it's resolved. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Et voilà: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcrik7. I didn't request CheckUser though since the CheckUser criteria seems to indicate it's not needed in this case. You might want to put your two bits in there since you tagged two of the suspected socks. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You posted under "Comments by accused parties" so I went ahead and moved it down. You don't seem to be a sock... :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I actually checked back to make sure I'd posted in the right spot, but you were faster than me... Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I create a page for a local Las Vegas MMA production called TUFF-N-UFF Championships? Every time I try to make one it gets a speedy delete for some advertising or whatever. I am trying to use the same template as UFC, Strikeforce, and MANY other MMA championships. What am I doing wrong? I am not an employee of the company, just a fan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TuffNuff Erwin (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion due to AFD guidelines denied Lopez Negrete Communications, Inc.

Article meets NPOV guidelines and I am not affiliated with the company. Thanks to Malcolma for category edit. I agree this page could use assistance from the Wikipedia community to make it better but article doesn't need to be deleted according to AFD. Cgiambi (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Denied"? Huh? AFD is decided by consensus, I have not even voted in the AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Colt Tallent speedy decline

Sorry about that - I could have sworn that they were mutually exclusive. If you want to re-add the speedy or request a WP:SNOW close at the AfD, please feel free to do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the AFD process will either wind up deleting or improving the entry, so I'm happy to let it sit for now. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien

Thanks for catching that. I added the ref to that site and missed the obvious copyvio. I have removed the text and posted at the discussion page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No trouble, thanks for your help. Hairhorn (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what about the photo? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can tag the photo as a copyvio, despite the fact that it says "own work". But you may have to do it on the wikicommons page..... I'm not that up on how to deal with images. Hairhorn (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Per guidelines, I will continue this at the page in question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I hate dealing with commons. I got as far as [13] which reads like an insurance policy. But from what I know, if a photo appears on a website, the uploader must prove ownership via email. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I only ever bothered once. I don't know why there's not better interconnection between projects. Hairhorn (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeb Livingood

Hi, you prodded Jeb Livingood; however, I believe that the deletion is not uncontroversial. I have removed the prod and opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Livingood. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Alan Weierman and Victory Forge Military Academy

Hi. I saw the edit summary in which you commented about the sourcing for Weierman's resume. Please see Talk:Victory Forge Military Academy (last section on that page) for some recent discussion of the sourcing for his self-claimed credentials. Also, note that the article describes this information not as fact, but as what he claims: "He lists his credentials as including..." --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the talk page. The whole thing should probably go, none of it is verifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Inevitable Flight, notability and close connection

Hello Hairhorn,

Thanks for pointing out the notability bit. I'm working on adding more content as well as external links. The documentary film is over two years old, and hence, there is not much external presence on the web. Please advise what else I can do to make it more notable. As well, I do not understand 'the close connection' to subject matter bit. What is it and how can that be taken care of?

Thanks for all your help!

Best, EssRiz (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the notability criteria for films, that should give you an idea of what you need to add. For the connection, see wp:coi. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anna Bulbrook

Hairhorn,

I noticed that you removed Anna Bulbrook, member of The Airborne Toxic Event. The band seems notable, has an Wikipedia article, and bulbrook is a member of the band.--Chuck369 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are of course as free as anyone to edit the page. Many, many entries for schools and universities have "notable alumni" sections that are full of vandalism and non-notables; I may be more or less zealous than others about cleaning this sort of thing up. But please note that the notability criteria for musical acts points out that playing in a notable band is not on its own enough to make you notable. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ezina LeBlanc

I've declined a speedy tag on this -- I know you didn't put it there in the first place, you merely returned it, but I'm hoping I can interest you in either working on the article or alerting someone who can. My feeling is that Miss Black USA is barely sufficient notability to retain the article, and I have edited out the worst of the self-promotion, but this article needs a LOT of work and I don't quite know which project, if any, would take it on. Any assistance you care to offer would be gratefully received. Accounting4Taste:talk

I've found an enthusiastic volunteer so unless you feel strongly about this particular topic I think you can safely ignore my request. But thanks anyway; I know you would have done something useful. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. This topic is a little out of my domain, so I'm not sure how much I could have done, but thanks for the vote of confidence anyhow. Hairhorn (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Equality Council

I note you have just reversed a removal of a PROD on this article. You may not be aware of the guidance of CONTESTED. In this case the PROD should not have been replaced, you could escalate for AfD if you feel this article warrants that step. Ash (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I replaced a speedy tag, not a prod tag. I may have been too fast with this one, but CONTESTED doesn't apply. Hairhorn (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks. Ash (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yahero

I've declined the speedy deletion tag you placed on this, and, as I said a week ago in a different context, I think there is barely sufficient notability to retain the article. This was entirely a judgment call on my part, and I do apologize for substituting my judgment for yours. I think part of it had to do with the undifferentiated mass of links at the bottom of the article, which were very difficult to plough through looking for useful material among the cites to blogs and other non-material sources; I don't blame you for a minute for looking at that mess and being unwilling to sift it. I'm going to try to bring this article to an appropriate portal, either connected with games or Christianity, and see if someone will put the work into it that it needs. If you feel strongly about this article's presence, of course, you would be very welcome to take it to an AfD process and I wouldn't blame you for a minute; this one was very iffy, and I think you might want to call this my good deed for the week <grin>; your tag on an article is almost always sufficient for me to delete the article out of hand, believe me, and I appreciate the large amount of articles that you assess. If you have any questions or problems, I am of course at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The most polite speedy decline ever. Cheers to you sir. Hairhorn (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way; I was hesitant to disturb your judgment. I have tried to bring this to the attention of the Games portal folks and will leave it at that. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No trouble. Some nominations are just nominations, and I leave it to others to decide. Often of course there is little deciding to be done. Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SarahPPF

Dear Hairhorn,

Please refer to the following talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RayCity

Replied on the talk page, although it may be deleted soon. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Congressman Bart Stupak

Stupak is a hypocrite who promotes extremist Catholic dogma on restricting Women's reproductive rights, while at the same time ignoring the horrors perpetrated by pedophile priests just as Pope Benedict XVI does. It seems for religious and/or political reasons the pointing this out in Stupak's bio (which I feel is valid due to Stupak's open merging of his religion and his politics) is unacceptable to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.222.49 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's perfectly acceptable to me, go ahead and put the information in, but try to be mature enough to use encyclopedic language. Writing rants isn't going to get you anywhere. Hairhorn (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Overwriting of SD tag

Oops, I'm sorry. I overwrote your SD tag for the Team Suck article. When I saw the article, it didn't have any tag on it and it was obviously an attack page (check the original version), so I used Twinkle to tag it, and apparently it overwrote your A1 tag. I'm sorry for any bad understanding. As I write this, the article was deleted under A7, but checking the logs it seems it was previously deleted per G10. --Legion fi (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No trouble, we just did edits one right after the other, and you were probably right to tag it as an attack page. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

James Ruse Agricultural High School

The article James Ruse Agricultural High School has been the subject of vandalism. I have restored what I think is the last good version. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the high school pages are vandal magnets. I've tried to revert stuff when I see it, but the "vandalism/BLP" filter doesn't catch everything. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenon Copyright Block

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and stop removing the template. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenon Pictures is not sure what the issue is? A few sentences taken off our company website that we put as the start of our Wikipedia entry? We wanted to continue building the page but every time our web person removes the block to look at the page to see what the issue is - you block it again. We'd like to resolve this issue of a few sentences describing our company that you believe is copyrighted when there is no issue.Thanks. Xenon 44 - Xenon Pictures. (you can check and confirm that Xenon 44 is a Xenon Pictures e-mail) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon44 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters, you can stop removing the tag over and over and allow the process to go through, assuming you've followed the process in the link above. Hammering the page from IP accounts isn't going to help. Hairhorn (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

High Risk Employee Injury

Has this article been created before, maybe AfD'd, or by another account who shouldn't be here with a new one? Acroterion _(talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea, the logs for that particular title are empty, and a (very quick) search through AFDs shows nothing either. Hairhorn (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was coming up empty too. Thought you might have had a previous experience with the subject. Certainly looks like they're pushing a neologism,a dn the blacklist would tend to confirm. Acroterion _(talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Hairhorn (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Whoops! Thanks for catching that. Let me double back here and look again. - Vianello (Talk) 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Petrolsoft Afd

Would you know to request that an Afd be left open longer? Response to this one has been lackluster. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would I know how to? Sorry, dunno. Normally if the response is unambiguously weak, it will be left open for at least another week. I'm not an admin, you could try asking one of the closing admins (have a look at some of the recently closed cases). Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Laurence Warder

I've declined the prod here: since it seems that he was a member of a notable band, I think that notability is possible (I don't say "definite", since I don't know much about notability guidelines for musicians), so I think that this should go to AFD before being deleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked articles

Hi Hairhorn,

I copied the text from my website and some images taken by myself to Wikipedia in order to offer an added value to the community of the work I've done. Can you please re-activate both links? The corresponding links I added below.

Do you need any additional information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heiliggeistkirche_(Munich) http://www.danielnoha.de/categories/cm/heiliggeist.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity_Church_(Munich) http://www.danielnoha.de/categories/cm/dreifaltigkeitskirche.html

Hope that helps. Best regards & don't hesitate to contact me. Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusselmann (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FirstGroup America

Please do not redirect. I have completely reconfigured the article. There are now links to articles for four of the five divisions, and references for the remainder. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was originally created by a new editor and I am just trying to help get a stub that will fill a gap in the FirstGroup coporate structure. It's a major company, so you know there are references out there. You could help. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

CloudOne

Conflict of interest? John McDonald (Vice President of Services & Support) =?= Jpmcdon  kgrr ^talk 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brooks–Iyengar algorithm

I have simplified what the algorithm does as best as I can. Reference 1 and 7 describe it as well as it is described in the literature. The algorithm is fascinating since it is implemented in all the nodes so the nodes vote on what the the answer should be close to. The Byzantine agreement has to be exact - either you compute the same answer or it's wrong. The sensor fusion takes measurements at each node and creates one reading for the nodes as a whole.  kgrr ^talk 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that this simply isn't notable, and there are still COI issues. Hairhorn (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Syed Ziaur Rahman

Hi Hairhorn. I see what you mean about not being clear-cut! The two pages are certainly similar and in normal circumstances I would probably have deleted. My problem is that the original deletion discussion was not completed and the article ended up being deleted as a G7, which doesn't apply in this case - the G4 criteria says that the same reasoning must apply in both cases. I think PRODing might be the best way to proceed with this. Sorry to be a pain, but these weird cases tend to fall beyond the remit of CSD. Let me know if you need any help. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a pain at all, I just thought it needed a going-over, which is what you gave it. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cable & Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia

Thanks for checking the new article on CASBAA! I have rewriten the article and added some additional sources - the article should now meet notability guidelines and the alert can be removed, right? Thx, (Mentalmoses (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Jonathan Lewis

Hello Hairhorn. Your attention to detail is remarkable and very helpful for a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. You are absolutely correct, and referencing of information and quotes is crucial. The best reference would be "fp", since it was "fp" who said the words. Please check and let us know? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.22.251 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"fp" isn't a reference, but thanks for the smartass comments. Hairhorn (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Our apologies, fp = Francois Pienaar. He is the person being cited, and whose coordinates were shown to you earlier. We honestly are not trying to be smart, and are respectful of your editorial standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Zealand Rugby (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A person isn't a reference. Have a look at wp:or, wp:rs, wp:v, wp:cite, etc, etc. Hairhorn (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

Because of the potential for complications, I've posted a note at WP:BLPN#Reza Pahlavi requesting additional attention on the articles. It's not any reflection on your own editing.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi (also)

I've requested semi-protection for the page; it was mentioned at the Royalty project. I think this page is now propoganda. Not that I'm on either side of this issue. PR (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Long talk page

While editing your talk page, I came across this message. "This page is 129 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Do you want to try it? Cheers, Vipin Hari || talk 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the new sockpuppet case

The socks must think we're idiots or that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I got a compliment from a CHiPs officer the other day when I wore some googles that simulate visual impairment as being inebrated to the brain. With white gloves on that I forgot take off, I beat another person in almost record time he said. I told I drink for a living - just kidding! He laughted and said that I must have great comprehension and tactile skills. Now, if only women would say that more often about me. . . --Morenooso (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell?.. ha ha.... Hairhorn (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I clicked the save button accidently and you missed my tagline gag which is smarter than the average bear. --Morenooso (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actin remodeling

I added paragraphs to the lead section of the article actin remodeling of neurons (old name: actin remodeling (neurons)) (old old name: actin remodeling) in order to summarize its contents, rearranged some paragraphing, and made other typographical fixes. Can the {{technical}} template be removed? Obankston (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Obankston (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Too Technical {{technical}} template because there was no futher activity for 2 weeks after I made changes to resolve the template. Obankston (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from C. Olivia Frost

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to C. Olivia Frost has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(full professors at Michigan are essentially always notable.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! . You are clearly right that the current state of the article looks like an advertisement, but I was able to find a few sources that indicate potential notability of the subject. I will engage the creator, a new editor with some ideas on improving the article in the next few days.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam pages can be deleted, even if they're about notable subjects. So I hope this will get a good rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Daisy Turne

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daisy Turne, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector Informatik

Hi, I have seen, that you request primary sources. Please note that several of the sources are written by independent sources such as Audi, BMW, BOMAG and some sources are published in paper magazins. Vector has put pdf versions of these publications on its homepage. For allowing easier check of the sources the wiki aticle references these online versions.

Now my question: Is it more appropriate to the rules of Wikipedia, if the the primary sources (print versions) are referenced here? Thank you, regards --JuergenKlueser (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seems the existing refs are independent enough. So I will rewind. If you disagree, please tell me. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

As per the Manual of style:

Consistency within articles See also Internal consistency Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; color and colour; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are as follows:

quotations (retain the original variety of the quotation even if it differs from that of the article; though the precise styling of punctuation marks such as dashes, ellipses, apostrophes, and quotation marks should be made consistent with the surrounding article); proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); book titles (again, use the original spelling—if there are multiple editions which spell a given title differently, use the one consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English. Asher196 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? There is ample use of International/British English in this entry already. If you want consistency you will have to revert a lot more than one edit. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as I look through the article I see a variety of uses, and I don't want to take the time to homogenize it. Asher196 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, either make all the edits or none, doing them willy nilly is pointless. Hairhorn (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the need to revert me on this issue, have at it. It's not a big deal. Asher196 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that you've reverted it twice already, I figured it was a big deal... Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought thought I was keeping the article consistant, but I was wrong. Asher196 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, cheers then. Hairhorn (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I generally agree that this is not a big deal, there are some points to consider. There is a widely accepted guideline about use of versions of English; see WP:ENGVAR. If the article originally was written in American English, changing other forms of English to American in the article is not inappropriate. As for "either make all the edits or none", the guideline WP:Other stuff exists suggests that it is a weak excuse to try justifying leaving one problem in an article by the presence of other problems. In other words, yes, it would be appropriate to fix the entire article, but no, failure to fix one problem is no excuse for leaving other problems. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Again, not a big deal; when I have time, I'll try to change everything to American English (my being American is irrelevant; I've changed articles the other way also), but in the mean time don't make our job harder by reverting changes that are appropriate. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really inviting a general discussion, there is a talk page for this entry... however, in response to your point, someone made a correction, Asher196 reverted it twice, and no one is arguing to "leave one problem". You can't change spelling to American English arguing consistency when there is none. Hairhorn (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion, including on your talk page, which you do not own. You're free to ignore or delete it. As for consistency, let me try to simplify the point made above. Consistency is the goal. Achieving a goal does not always occur instantly. If the appropriate form of English in the article is American English (per WP:ENGVAR), and someone begins the process of changing the inconsistencies one or two at a time, it is counterproductive for you then to step in and change them back with the argument that the article isn't 100% consistent. Please be considerate of your fellow editors and give them a chance to make the necessary changes. That's the main point. No one is arguing that the article as it is now is entirely consistent. The only thing being requested of you is a bit of patience and courtesy. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, take it easy. The whole point is that consistency does not favour British English or American English in this case, because there is no consistency. If you want to make the page consistent go ahead, but you'lll never accomplish it through reverts. Hairhorn (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

British or American English is not favored in the article because of "consistency" as it is now. Please read WP:ENGVAR. If the article is about an American subject (not the case), American English is used. If the article is about a British subject (not the case), British English is used. If the article pertains to neither or both American or British subjects, the consistency is to be based on the version of English in which the article was originally written, which in this case is American English. Therefore the entire article needs to be in American English. The fact that there might be some inconsistencies at this precise moment does not negate that fact. So if I begin the process of changing any examples of British English to American English, and you follow behind me changing them back to British because "there is no consistency", then there will never be any consistency. I don't think it can be expressed any clearer than that. If you wish for the article to be an exception to WP:ENGVAR, the best avenue for you to pursue that would be on the article's talk page. Incidentally, I still believe this issue is not a big deal, and it will remain no big deal as long as you don't revert an effort to make the article's English consistently American. But when your comments repeatedly suggest that you don't understand WP:ENGVAR and that you might decide to change American English back to British English in the article, that leads me to try to convince you not to edit war when other editors are simply trying to achieve the goal indicated in WP:ENGVAR. If that's not your intent, then all is well and we can dismiss this matter. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read ENGVAR, thanks, and you're skipping over some of the subtleties of it. You can make any further comments on the article's talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No subtleties skipped. In any event, please don't edit war. If you don't like any changes from British to American English, please discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I did one revert, accusing me of edit warring is a bit rich. And what part of "post on the article talk page" don't you get? Hairhorn (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean LeLoup

Hey there, just letting you know that I corrected a typo in your message at User talk:Jeanleloupjeanleclerc. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brenda Dervin

I am writing this message in regards to the page Brenda Dervin, that not only you but someone else keeps changing. The Personal Information section is actually not made up and much of the information can be found here on her official website. http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/people/faculty/BrendaDervin.aspx For the information not listed here, I can actually provide video clips of Dr. Dervin during class, discussing all other things that have not been listed on the her official website. Buckeye1111 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi, I had my page Jeff chang (poker player) deleted. I was just wondering if I could get a copy of this for my own reference. Could i have this article moved to my user page for my own keeping and so I can learn from my mistakes. thank you so much .

Peter86754 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobel of X

Please take a look at the proposal I made in Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field to ensure the future quality of the list. Your comments would be much appreciated :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill Connor (SC)

I accept your comment that the subject of this article (Bill Connor (SC) may not meet the notability guideline and includes only one third party source.

However, the presence of assertions of notability with references within the article mean that the article does not fall within the scope of WP:CSD. Criterion A7 (no indication of importance) states that this is a lower standard than notability and that the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.

If you still contend that the articles should be deleted, I suggest that you take it to WP:AFD. CosmicJake (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not nominate this page, I replaced an A7 tag that was removed by the article creator. The nominator was User:Carolina cotton. Hairhorn (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article should not have been tagged A7, either by User:Carolina cotton or by yourself. CosmicJake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Article creators are not permitted to removed speedy tags from their own entries, I replaced the tag on that basis. The page may or may not have qualified for speedy, but that simply isn't relevant. I chose not to decline the tag, so I replaced it. Your debate is not with me. Hairhorn (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Misconception

No, the misconception is that you die because "the oxygen is almost gone", as opposed to "the carbodioxide is killing you" the former being a frequent trope in movies of certain genres. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was not entirely clear in what you added. Feel free to rewrite and re-add, if you can find a source. Without a source, someone else will surely delete it, there is an army of trigger happy editors on that page... Hairhorn (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You removed it without discussion. You rewrite it if you want it there. There's a metric fuckload of sources at Hypercapnia. "In conclusion, it is the toxic properties of CO2 that is fatal, not the drop in oxygen." -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a clear entry with sources isn't too much to ask for, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither is asking for sources rather than reverting first. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your original edit says you were "too lazy" to add them, it's hardly up to me to force them out of you. Hairhorn (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll support Hairhorn on this. Anon 80, this isn't your playground. If you're too lazy to find a source and expect others to do it for you, don't bother editing articles. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no objection to this being re-added with sources, and I've said as much. But so far this editor has put all their energy into longer and longer posts on my talk page, which I'm now just reverting unread. Hairhorn (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

I am an accountant which means I have an obligation to prepare financial statements for my clients. I need a good working space to organise the accounts for Barney's Bakery as May 31st was the end of their financial year. Thank you.--Melons Accounting (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Flush and the Jacks of All Trades

I am writing to petition you to keep the page on this band. Here are several other websites that mention this band and its use of the cajon: http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Caj%C3%B3n, http://www.enotes.com/topic/Cajon, http://www.ask.com/wiki/Cajon, http://www.reachinformation.com/define/Caj%C3%B3n.aspx, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxharveys (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't up to me, it's up to an adminstrator, who has already deleted the page. Hairhorn (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Fisher (lawyer)

Would you please help me by identifying the passages you consider represent a conflict of interest and self promotion. I would like to edit those passages to conform to your standards. Thanking you in anticipation of your help. Natural born singer (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Natural Born Singer

The entry overall reads more like an advertisement or a resume, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more guidelines. And there is still promotional language, even after several rewrites, for example, "Fisher has come to attention as a leading criminal fraud lawyer", a claim that's sourced to two articles in where Fisher is only mentioned. Hairhorn (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to amend this article so that the tags at the top of the page can be removed. Thinking about the passage you referred to, the sentence actually reads in full, "Fisher has come to attention as a leading criminal fraud lawyer and recently defended the former UKIP MEP Tom Wise who became the first British politician to plead guilty to expenses fraud and sentenced to a period of imprisonment". The two articles referenced at the end confirm and correlate to the second part of the sentence describing the Tom Wise case. Do you not think the number of high profile fraud cases Fisher has been involved in including the Tom Wise case are evidence that he is a leading criminal fraud lawyer? Please can you detail all the passages that you feel use promotional language so I can amend them and the tags can be removed. Thank you for your help. Natural born singer (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Natural Born Singer

I have to wonder why a new user cares about which entry carries which tags. To establish that someone is a " leading criminal fraud lawyer", you need to find a source that calls him that, not extrapolate from press mentions. To do otherwise falls into original research. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hairhorn, Thank you for your help. My interest as a new user is that I wish to finish pages that have tags and appear to be unfinished. I have decided to start with this page. As you can see, to the sentence you quoted I have added a reference which calls Fisher "a leading barrister specialising in fraud and corporate crime". Are there any other sentences that need to be looked at or can the tags now be removed? Natural born singer (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Natural Born Singer

With more than a million pages, surely you can come up with a better excuse.... Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackbird (song)

Thank you for your comments, however, citing a Wikipedia article to justify an edit at another Wikipedia article doesn't work. You need to cite reliable sources, and Wikipedia does not meet the criteria. The term "vulgar" is a matter of opinion and can't be used in this context, per WP:NPOV. The reason that kid got the warning is because he reverted back to the POV version, which is disruptive editing. Radiopathy •talk• 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Templating a new user with "only warning" for something this trivial smacks of a lack of good faith. And I believe you also violated your own 1RR restriction in the process. Hairhorn (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the facts: reverting something that was removed for WP:NPOV is not a content dispute, especially when no edit summary is provided; I apologised to the user for templating him - and he is not a new user; I had no idea why the term "vulgar" suddenly appeared at a well-established article, and if it's because the term is used at another Wikipedia article, it can't be properly cited at the Blackbird article; so do the maths. Radiopathy •talk• 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The account was created in March, to my mind that makes it new. And calling an edit "POV" doesn't magically make reverting it vandalism. However, I appreciate that you've tried to clear things up with the user. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr.

Hello Hairhorn, I am trying to comply with all of the various qualifications to complete this autobiography for Mr McCreary but every time I add the information to rectify the problem you or another admin revert to first page... this is becoming very frustrating... Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr.

AGAIN, I am trying to comply with all of the various qualifications to complete this autobiography for Mr McCreary but every time I add the information to rectify the problem you or another admin now delete the page... this is becoming very frustrating... I keep seeing that there is a copyright infrengement from the temecula gospel fest which is another website that is using the bio that I created for their puropses... Instead of erasing y artcle or and posting these Speedy Deletion tags, Help Me COMPLY Pease help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried several times to help you, sent you to links with the proper information, and encouraged you to read the messages on your talk page. I can't be held responsible for you failing to read the information I give you. I have already sent you the link for wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials and wp:copyrights. If you really are the copyright holder of this text, you have to clear this up yourself, following the procedure on those links. You will also have to communicate with www.temeculagospelfest.org, who are also claiming copyright. Hairhorn (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted

Well spotted there! GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. It looks fine, until you try clicking the artist link.... Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

iPhone / iPod browsing

To avoid accidentally clicking rollback while browsing recent changes on my watchlist, I view safari in landscape mode using my left thumb finger to scroll down or up in the empty space in the left column. This avoids accidentally clicking rollback with the right hand. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried something like that... although I can also be ham-handed at clicking links... (dif) and [rollback] are often stacked on top of each other.... Hairhorn (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I often browse logged out, but of course, I can't check my watchlist unless I'm logged in. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Zimmerman_(politician)

There's an edit war going on at WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Zimmerman (politician) between another editor and a suspect IP sock, and your reply to the suspected sock is getting deleted in the crossfire. Just thought someone should let you know. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

misconceptions

... don't you think "facts about the misconceptions, rather than the misconceptions themselves" just increases the amount of confusion, rather than reducing it? Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, and I guess people will figure it out by reading the page, but I've seen at least one link to it tagged with "This list is confusing because it is headed "Misconceptions" but the list contains the truth, not the misconceptions! This is a list of TRUTHS!".

Can you think of a better way of phrasing it? 81.110.34.54 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess for me the trouble is that it simply doesn't seem that confusing. But I expect there is some way of getting this point across; maybe the talk page is the best place to go. Hairhorn (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ernest Duka

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ernest Duka, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

All I remember is "best singer" and similar spammy nonsense. Seems a bit moot in this case. Hairhorn (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

University Canada West

I reverted your revert. If nothing else, it fails verification. If you'll note the talk page discussion, you'll see that any assertion of accreditation or the lack of it would be at best original research. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually reading citations, and coming up with a lack of evidence hardly counts as orginal research. Hairhorn (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Lisa Christiansen AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lisa Christiansen

I am requesting that you consider reviewing the above mentioned article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on copyediting and established notability. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia due to blatant promotional tone. The article is no longer written in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability.

After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her. WP:BASIC states:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The book, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth.

I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother, since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. I would like to invite you to review the article and consider recommending that the article is kept, based on corresponding criteria WP:BASIC that establishes notability. It is my opinion that the article needs additional references. However, notability according to policy has now been established. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tesa Arcilla

I added the missing sources to this article, therefore I am entitled to remove your notice. Almost all entries about HK journalists have now been deleted by 'people' like you, which is very detrimental to people looking for information about them -- elementalkarl —Preceding unsigned comment added by elementalkarl (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See wp:afd, removing AFD tags is considered vandalism. Hairhorn (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: 3-D STRAW

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I deleted 3-D STRAW, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Lavine

Hello Hairhorn, I request that you provide a 3PO on the dispute I'm currently having with another editor.

University Canada West

The LWEI links are all "dead" - but in any case, I have added citations re: Eminata Group operating the university now. If you take a look at the talk page, you will see it was previously added but subsequently removed due to concern of advertisement.

In addition, I removed the Rank= Unranked (Tier 4) for two reasons: a) it was a duplication since there are 2 lines of the same but more importantly, what is tier 4 and who decides which institution is in tier 4? I was not able to find any particular source to it. In any case, it doesn't appear to have any effect on the infobox as it is not shown anyway.--Cahk (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Riddle School

I PRODded the article--I can't really call it a hoax since it's obviously made up by the editor and bears no (false) relation to any other reality. See what you think; I saw your A7 comment on Phil Eggtree, with which I agree (though I wish it were different). Drmies (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tempted to just leave the A7 there and see if it got deleted anyhow... but the redirect was a faster way to get rid of an obviously unsuitable entry. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Salam ibn Muhammad ibn Salah ibn Abd el-Aziz ibn Muhamed ibn el-Hasan ibn Ibrahim Mustafa ibn Mishary ibn Khaled ibn Jamal ibn ash-Syafi'i

Hi. I see you redirected this to Mahmoud Abbas. However, the article says that this person was the predecessor of Abbas, and not Abbas himself, so I've reverted for now - is there anything I'm misunderstanding here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you got it right. The first version of this entry was garbled and deleted under A10 for duplicating the Mahmoud Abbas entry, I probably didn't give due diligence to the recreated version. Thanks for moving it to a readable title. Hairhorn (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced essay

hello sir, I am new here, pls tell me what should i do about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkochhar (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You could start by reviewing policies such as wp:not and wp:notability. There's a difference between an essay and an encyclopedia entry. The title of the entry is also spelled incorrectly. Hairhorn (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Molly Bentley

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Molly Bentley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. I think there is a credible argument that she would be found notable at WP:AFD so I don't think speedy deletion is appropriate. Thank you. Thparkth (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not nominate this page, I replaced the tag. Also, producer of a radio show does not strike me as a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have trusted the script to notify the right person. For what it's worth, she doesn't have to be notable to be immune from A7 deletion; the article just needs to contain a credible claim of significance, and in my opinion, being the co-host of a fairly prominent radio show does constitute a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Contest: Camp Good Days and Special Times, Inc.

This importance of this company is that it is the only Camp that offers summer programs FREE of charge in the entire state of New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris keyes16 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is based on coverage in reliable, third party sources. Come up with a few refs and the entry might fare better. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamification

I see you updated the delete template on Gamification. Does this mean that article will get deleted again? (hope, hope, hope!) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's back at AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Stoush

Hi, I closed the AFD discussion on this as per Uncle G's suggestion, but I may have jumped the gun somewhat... I probably should have left this for some discussion first. If there's any objections to this, I obviously have no problem with it being reopened. Cheers! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell, it could have been speedied, really, an early close seems just fine. Hairhorn (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... didn't want to tread on any toes, but got a bit carried away with a shiny new toy! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of '''Pacific Coach Lines'''

Another editor recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Pacific Coach Lines. I disagree with the speedy deletion of 'Pacific Coach Lines'because PCL is a fairly major local company that has been in business for over half a century.. You should therefore not retag 'Pacific Coach Lines' for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 04:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy of Congregation Kol Ami.

Hi Hairhorn. I think that it may be incorrect to tag Congregation Kol Ami as WP:CSD#G11. The threshold to get past G11 is not very high and I think that this article has made it over. While it needs to be wikified, stubbed, and categorized, and the prose needs improvement, it is not so blatantly promotional that it needs to be “fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.” I think we should remove the tag. And, by the way, no one placed {{subst:spam-warn|Congregation Kol Ami|header=1}} ~~~~ on the author’s talk page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter now. An Administrator deleted it as unambiguous advertising, which I cannot see. By the way, ever thought about archiving some of this massive talk page?! — SpikeToronto 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yousuf Miah

Some confusion here, but deleted again, AfD already archived, so OK now (I hope) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing‎ and advert tag

You're probably doing it even as I speak, but could you leave a note at Talk:INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing‎ about why you've added the advert tag to the article and what Dillonraphael (talk · contribs) should do to address the concerns? Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LOCbook

Hairhorn, why did you tag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCbook as needing reliable secondary sources. There are other pages that don't have any either, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshmeat the only references or external links on that page are links to freshmeat.net. This page should also be tagged for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C320f (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghualm Faruque Khan Khattak

Hi Hairhorn, I'm afraid BLPprod only applies to living people, so I've declined your BLPprod of Ghualm Faruque Khan Khattak. ϢereSpielChequers 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right you are, I missed that. The same entry was speedied as spam before.... Hairhorn (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AustinBrister page deletion

Hairhorn, for years I was a heavy advocate of wikipedia, and even held open forums to discuss the beneficial and credible use of Wikipedia, as well as its role in the typical scholarly research process. I was extremely active in using my professional experiences and unique educational background to clean up wikipedia. I was determined to defeat people's claim that wikipedia lacks credibility. Eventually, I decided I would make my edits official by creating a user name. With the exception of one article, every article I have ever created has been deleted. As a wikipedia advocate, this is so frustrating, I can't even begin to express. Especially when the majority of the articles regarding the law (my educational background) are still to this day 90% worthless, containing extremely unclear and even incorrect material. As I feel that you are aware, you have frequently attacked my edits or additions to articles. As you know, several months ago, I worked with what appeared to be about 5-8 other users to create an article, and then fix all objections to the article's notability. Also, as you know, that article was eventually deleted. While I objected to its deletion, I knew that, without a doubt, the article WOULD meet notability guidelines after some editing, and after new sources are added. A common practice, I pasted the article in my personal page, and made several time consuming edits. Unfortunately, work took me away from wikipedia for a while, so I was unable to make additional edits. Also, during that time you placed my personal page up for deletion. I find this to be a personal attack. As you continually reference rules, I will do the same. Wikipedia guideles state that a user page will not be deleted "except for blatant or serious matters." Additionally, they state that "The only CSD exceptions are that test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space." Please see WP:UP#DELETE to get yourself caught up to speed with these important guidelines. None of these rules were followed in your action against my page. Additionally, "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion." So I see absolutely no reason why you did this to me. You have wasted my time, reuined my work, and have personally targeted me for your attacks. I don't know why you have such a problem with me, but I really wish we could work whatever the problem is out. I want to be active again in the wikipedia community, but you refuse to allow it. I feel that you bend the rules to support an attack against my every action. Please stop. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this exchange exactly? You don't like my edits, you already made that clear. Reasons for your user page deletion are given clearly at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AustinBrister. There are numerous mechanisms for undeleting a page; this isn't one of them. As to your other points, Wikipedia:UP#DELETE refers to page deletion, not comment removal. See, for example, Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Further comments about how little you care for my contributions will be reverted unread, I'm simply not interested. Hairhorn (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Marking For Deletion of Morison Group Company Page

Dear Hairhorn,

I would like to share some facts about Morison Menon Group.

Headquartered in Dubai, the group has offices in Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Jebel Ali & Ras Al Khaimah part from overseas operations in India, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Iran.

Morison Menon has an experience of over 15 years in advising investors in the UAE and in India and over these years has established network of contacts; created operational base in the UAE and in India; earned the trust of investors and organizations in its advisory capabilities.

Morison Menon has hands-on experience in Investment Promotion and Company Formation since 1995.

Morison Menon has secured pioneering awards & recognitions from Regulatory Authorities, the first time they were introduced, which include

1)Partner in Success’ award from Fujairah Free Zone in 2007 2)Appreciation Award from JAFZA in 2008, for introducing the most number of quality clients.

We need to have our company information in Wikipedia because we have clientele ranging from individual investors to large multinational conglomerates in UAE.

You can visit [Morison Menon Corporate Website] for more details.

Please guide us in building the page for the company profile prior to deleting the page.

You can make any editorial changes in the page as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanking you,

Morison Menon Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoipix (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have written a note about this at User_talk:Seoipix#Conflict_of_interest_and_promotional_editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hairhorn. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award

The Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award shall be awarded to Hairhorn for an investigation that sleuthed down a sneaky vandal. Mootros (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Chilliwack Cultural Centre

I'm willing to give it a few days to see what the OTRS confirmation says; it's possible that the "third party publication" simply reprinted content that the centre provided to them, too (smalltown newspapers do tend to do that.) And, of course, the article will still be deletable if the OTRS is never filed. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Katie Farris

Hi,

Noticed you tagged the article Katie Farris as not meeting the GNG. I think that it also might be a db-G11 and db-bio. Would you agree? Let me know. The article just seems fishy, given what you pointed out with the accounts all being made the same day. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Do you think it still qualifies for G11 or should I just remove the speedy entirely? I'm just wondering what the best route you think there is to take here. Whats even weirder to me is that my first speedy deletion request was taken down. By a random noob, with no reason given.Bped1985 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. No doubt it was a sock-puppet. I'll leave the template up there. See what an admin has to say. Thanks for the help, Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod/Prod2 removed

We both prod'ed Pseudolinear function and it was removed without explanation for the user. I brought the page to AfD. Thought you'd wanna know. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Input appreciated

I recently stumbled across The Count Of Monte Cristo (James Behr musical), an article which you've edited. I decided to go through the article's references, giving it a proper reflist, removing references for information not in citation given, etc. As I was doing this, it became clear that the article is more about James Behr than it is about the musical. I'm thinking of moving the article to James Behr, but wanted your input first. Thanks! (Oh, and if you reply here instead of on my talkpage, could you leave me a talkback? I'm highly forgetful... ) --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the non-notability of the musical. Haven't yet made a decision on James Behr's notability. I do agree the article seems like it was written by someone with COI if not by the guy himself. But if the article's gonna be either deleted or rewritten and improved, I feel like it should at least be under the proper name. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of KCL Radio

Hi Hairhorn. Do you have any advice on sorting out the article or is there really no hope at all in saving it? I'm quite new to wikipedia so I'm getting to grips with the rules. I'm happy that non notable things are being kept out but I guess notable is quite hard to define. I tried reading its page but it didn't help me make the page that much better.Kungfujam (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Oseguera Acosta

Hi Hairhorn,

I noticed your deletion tag on Isaac Oseguera Acosta... I have added my comment on this on Talk:Isaac Oseguera Acosta.

If you believe Acosta is tricky on the notable front, then Tito Zadi I think is even more so. I didn't want to add a del tag there because I've already had a go at a trim: Talk:Tito Zadi.

Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Holston Middle School

Interesting to see if anyone objects to your edit. After the grief I received over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blountville Middle School (my long-ago attempt to get rid of the article about another middle school in that district) I didn't think that it was a good use of my time to fret about that article. --Orlady (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious too... Hairhorn (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fred Sands article

Hi Hairhorn,

Please excuse my total lack of Wikipedia knowledge. You tagged the Fred Sands article, and as the new editor, please tell me what must be done to comply. The information about Fred Sands is accurate and can be easily verified.

Thank you, Mschwei (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fred Sands

Hi Hairhorn,

Thank you for responding. I don't understand the "user with a conflict of interest" tag. The info posted is factual and biographical. Where is a conflict of interest and how do I correct it?

Again, many thanks. Mschwei (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Ontario Youth Convention

I felt obliged to remove your contested speedy deletion tag and to send it to AfD. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

FYI: This text in wiki is a copyright for DJ Celeste and the OFFICIAL DJ CELESTE WEBSITE, and the usage DJ Celeste AND the official website chose to use it at for example Wikipedia! It is authorized to use this text in wikipedia for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Celeste

Best regards,

Celeste Heintz aka DJ Celeste aka --CelestialStorm (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)