User talk:OlYeller21/archive 1

Vandalism note

Looks like someone is vandalizing your page and mine from random IPs. I'm going to bed, so I'm taking the liberty of s-protecting your pages till tomorrow. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Akradecki, I really appreciate your help. OlYeller21 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya let all keep powell ohio's page amazing and vadalism free yay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshgibson01 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome and advice

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I read the plea on your user page for advice to help you understand the ins and outs of contributing. There is a lot of guidance, in fact a confusing amount: good places to start are the Introduction, the Five Pillars, and the guide to writing Your First Article. A lot of new articles fall foul of the requirements for Notability and for Verifiability from Independent, Reliable Sources. The other two key content policies are No Original Research and Neutral Point of View. Finally (I feel as though I'm setting you a term's reading list) the List of Bad Article Ideas and the rather long list of What Wikipedia is not are worth a look. I hope that helps! JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey JohnCD, I'm adding these articles to my list of readings lol. There's is an incredible amount to read and I'm doing my best to navigate on my own but this will help me for sure. Thanks for your help! OlYeller21 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice

If you edit scientific articles, use only peer-reviewed sources. It's really easy to do this <ref>{{cite doi|????????}}</ref>Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm not going to lie, I'm confused but I'll do my best to figure it out. :-) OlYeller^Talktome 10:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All papers have a doi number just cut and paste the text i gave you, inserting the doi number and the refs will be done automatically for you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Do you think you could toss me a link to an article with a Digital Object Identifier number? Do only online articles that analyze a researcher's findings have a DOI# or would, for instance, and article on Wired Science hace a DOI#? I'm really surprised I had never heard of this until now lol. Again, thanks for your help. OlYeller^Talktome 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all scientific article have DOIs. A lot of older articles do not. Here's an example that has a DOI, [1] and here's one that doesn't have a DOI. [2] And it's not just papers that can have DOIs. See http://doi.org/. Articles on Wired Science do not have DOIs. -Atmoz (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SOrry for any confusion, decent journal articles without a doi are still acceptable. It's just a simple rule of thumb.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello and welcome. This is just a quick reply to your notes on my talk page (thanks). Don't be too mislead by all the conflict you see there: there are many areas of wiki that aren't battle grounds! William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess my biggest quest at the moment is to find out where I can be most useful. Recently, I've been editing articles on topics that I know something about. I also checked out AfD but it seems like there's plenty of people there willing to condemn or protect articles. I've watched over the New pages and Recent changes list but again, it seems as though there are plenty of people watching those areas. I think I need to get into a wikiproject. All I do know is that I want to be a a combination of a WikiDragon and WikiOtter which a small pinch of WikiGnome. I don't see myself being a WikiFairy or WikiElf as I think that there are plenty of those around already and they just don't fit my style. I guess I'm looking for suggestions on how to move in that direction. OlYeller^Talktome 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New page patrol is always busy with work.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism of Powell, Ohio

You handled it well. Just note that you don't have to add the Wiki link brackets ("[[ ]]") inside of the vandalism template. Thanks for your efforts! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there was any "vandilism to Powell, Ohio you guys take this shit way to seriously, Its a small town in the middle of no where I really dont think people are going to care, they probably are going to get some laughs.

I'm from Powell and I care. Besides that, your racist edits don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Mayflower Beach

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of template

Hello. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:Adw. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speechless. The history says that I deleted it but I couldn't even say when I've ever even been on that page, let alone had a desire to edit it. I'll do some research and see what was going on. Thanks for the notice. OlYeller^Talktome 05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved to know that the deletion was unintentional. I was perplexed to find that the template had been deleted. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron OlYeller21/archive 1, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. A NobodyMy talk 22:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome...Be bold! --Buster7 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for changing the speedy delete on that artist page for me. I originally nominated it for speedy delete because the page was specifically about the band, and not about the artist. However, you are correct, this artist is not notable enough to warrant a page on WP. I support your deletion proposal!

Streetsabre (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Chris Doss

Heh, I can't say I'm that into basketball so I don't have a clue how notable 200-0 is, I will however try and be more cautious in the future. And thanks for letting me know about my error :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources

I don't know whether you are watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuessner effect, but new sources are available. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

No offense intended, just wanted to get your attention... ;-) It may look alarming if you're unfamiliar, but William and I do these sorts of things occasionally so please let my adornment of his user page stand for a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Up to you boss. OlYeller^Talktome 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason LaRay Keener

Good nom. Now go and rescue an article. :-) Bearian (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, I'm trying to figure out how. I've waited about 2 weeks to see if anyone would have info on how this guy is notable. I gave up once I found out that he didn't really win first prize as the article claims. Do you see any info that leads to why it should be saved? If you find it, I'll spearhead the rescue. I've done some search on my own, as I said in the nom, and can't find anything.  :-( I want to be an inclusionist but I dunno about this one. Help! OlYeller^Talktome 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Misread that. Thought you said rescue 'this' article. OlYeller^Talktome 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Dee

Hey there! I wanted to thank you for the work you have done on this article. I am not that wiki-savvy but if you have any questions for me then feel free to shoot me an email and I'll try my best. Thanks again, JayDeeTulsa (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayDeeTulsa (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I save this page?

You put the page Scatter Brothers Productions up for deletion, and I understand your concerns. The company is still up and coming, but is growing fast. It may not have A LOT of notoriety through press, but are very well known in the Tampa Bay/Central Florida film industry. Is there any way to save the page from deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougietuff (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting about chefs

I moved your posting about chefs from the F&D Article guidelines talk page to the main F&D talk page. The place you placed the discussion will not receive any responses. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be, but I completely agree that the CMC's should be recognized on Wikipedia. References could come from the ACF website, newspaper articles, or anything not directly connected to the chef. For instance, Chef Hartmut's webpage for his restaurant would not be appropriate to source from as per wikipedia guidelines. Let me know if I can be of some assistance.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal (musician)

Here's a nice one for you, and even acts to confirm his college: Lubbock Online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker / Talk page watcher

Re your message here: Hey, that was a joke. You're not a talk page stalker; you're a talk page watcher. Please keep my page watchlisted, so that I can have someone to rely on if I'm not on Wikipedia when a new user needs help. I have your talk page watchlisted, and I'll do the same for you (if you consent, of course). In this case, I didn't log on to Wikipedia until five hours after their request for help. Your help saved a new user from waiting five hours for a response. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Dee AFD

the link about him being on Urban Tulsa Weekly's "Hot 100" list of 2009, although it is short does definitely provide a lot of notability as that is a big public honor in Tulsa and the surrounding area. I think that should qualify. Also there is a news article on fox23 that I can dig up that writes about him but not specifically his comedy. Will that help? Bruce Jennings (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also RooftopComedy.com is an neutral site that verifies ALL comedians.Bruce Jennings (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck locked until 10April

You locked the page. I'm wondering why.There is no definite rule that says marriage dates & DOBs cant be included. 4 some personal reason plastikspork & redpen dont want it in. Y I dont know. In wiki terms there isnt any reason that it shouldnt be included. It is just facts. The dates arent private bc EH publicised it & publicises it every year. Also ABC Disney NFL all sent out press releases. Throughout wikipedia are marriage dates & DOBs dates, so y shouldnt they be deleted from EH's page? y rnt plastik/redpen going on every wiki bio & removing marriage dates & birthdates? plastik claims it put them ask risk for identity theft which I think is ridiculous. It is their DOB not their birthweight, length @ birth; favourite colur,etc. Thanks. 70.108.102.252 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While I assume that you weren't attempting to mislead, I think it's important to note that you're trying to add the birth dates of the subject' children, not the DOBs of the subject. Consensus on the talk page shows that at least 3 editors disagree with you and back up their reasons with links to policies (which have been explained to you on your talk page). Is it really that important to have a subject's children's DOBs on Wikipedia? As an outside view, it just seems sort of silly. OlYeller^Talktome 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OlYeller: On the disc page redpen/plastikspork oppose, while tom/speil/ & myself support. I conceded & let them rename the 1st section 'early life' instead of 'bio'. Where is their concession. On WP:BLP there is no clear rule about marriage dates & DOBs. plastik/redpen cite 'extraneous unncess info' as the reason. It is simply marriage date & DOBs, not time of marriage,location,birthweight, nor birthlength. Thanks. 70.108.102.252 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has agreed with you and I was only pointing out to the admin you're getting involved that you didn't clarify why you needed their involvement and that your comment needed clarification. You picked a particularly high profile admin whose time is better spent doing anything else but addressing your edit war which, quite frankly, is useless. Also, please don't clutter my talk page by copying over entire conversations from other users' talk pages. OlYeller^Talktome 22:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Botanist-inline2

Why didn't you check WP:TFD? It's where Template deletions show up. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed. If you compare the process to AfD, the AfD would show where the discussion for the deletion is taking place. Puting a few words on the talk page shouldn't be that hard. Also, editors will take your actions more seriously (especially unexplained deletion nominations) if you make an account. There's no reason not to. OlYeller^Talktome 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing deletion templates is usually considered vandalism, so I don't see why it would mean taking my actions more seriously if I had an account. AFD, RFD, etc are usually not justified on the talk page, so I see no reason to do this, it's just duplicate the rationale, and prompt a second deletion discussion on the talk page, where it definitely should not be since there is a proper deletion discussion area set up by the XfD processes. If you think should be so, then you should make a policy recommendation at WP:Village pump (policy). Incidentally, someone complained about your conduct at the TFD discussion. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonprofit Connect

Hey, I noticed that the article was deleted because of a blatant copyvio. Can you help me get the code from before it was deleted so that I can remove the copyvios and repost the article? For the record, I wasn't the author and didn't put into the copyvio lines. OlYeller^Talktome 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Userfied at User:OlYeller21/Nonprofit Connect. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. OlYeller^Talktome 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I Do Not Hook Up

I don't understand why you have reverted back to the old page for the third time? The page is a work in progress stating three different sources to prove the song is being released as a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.42.66 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That it exists is not the issue. The issue is if it's notable under WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC. Please see the talk page. OlYeller^Talktome 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" - I'm pretty sure the Hot 100 and UK Singles charts are classed as these. And this song has charted on both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.42.66 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then that needs to be shown on the page. Again, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page. Also, that doesn't give you permission to violate the 3RR. OlYeller^Talktome 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes AfD

FYI, I have submitted TOMS Shoes for deletion via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination) —Danorton (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 14:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Trance (Twilight Zone)

I'm confused about why The Trance from the New Twilight Zone is up for deletion. I tried to make the page as close to the 200 other Twilight Zone pages. I only wanted to flesh out something that interested me. If The Trance is to be deleted, shouldn't the entire Twilight Zone episode list be deleted as well? From the original episodes all the way through the last series from 2003? What is that's wrong? Tmkeffer71 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That area isn't something in too in to (show episodes). While there isn't a television show or episode guideline on wikipedia, I compared it to what I've seen with other shows (South Park for instance) where single episodes only have articles if they are notable themselves and not just as Twilight Zone episodes. I was trying to follow that precedent but I'm not sure that it matters. OlYeller^Talktome 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I came across the page from the new page portal or the new changes portal. I don't remember which. OlYeller^Talktome 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I only came across the entire set of Twilight Zone episodes because my cable system just got the Chiller network and I remembered them from when I was younger, but the list had hardly any of the Twilight Zone first revival series episodes, like just a listing and nothing fleshing out the episodes. Plus, most of the ones I worked on, had a note on it asking for them to be fleshed out, saying it was only a stub or some didn't have a page and when I clicked on it, it asked if I wanted to create a page for it. I really did nothing I wasn't invited to do. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. I just found something interesting that I could do something to help look better. Tmkeffer71 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for talking with me about it. Take care. Tmkeffer71 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to improve the article. I forgot until I just went back and look at it that I changed my mind about marking it. The South Park episode articles I mentioned that are getting deleted/merged are still being discussed and I didn't feel strongly enough about that precident to mark that page for deletion. I'm really tired and it didn't fully register. Keep improving articles though. It looks like you've done a great job so far. OlYeller^Talktome 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks again for discussing it. Tmkeffer71 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

With you and CactusWriter leading the way, I went through the TOMS Shoes and did some major copyedit, removed extraneous fluff, advert, and POV. I think it is far better than when it started. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! OlYeller^Talktome 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your good work on bringing life to an article which might otherwise have been deleted, I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your efforts at TOMS Shoes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TNK Emblem.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TNK Emblem.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

re TOMS Shoes

Actually what had happened was that he had added the box to Talk:TOMS SHOES, which is the title the article was originally created under and subsequently deleted a long time ago. I created the redirect for TOMS SHOES but forgot to create a redirect for the talk page. Not a problem fixing that! _scootey^talk 03:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dan Miller (sportscaster)

Thanks for your support. I thought the nominator had a pretty weak 1 sentence proposal. 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nominations generally are pretty short. I don't fault the nominator exactly. It seems that notability guidelines for newscasters and news writers has been muddy for quite some time. The muddy nature of Wikipedia's guidelines on news writers has even been written about by news sources. It's a very sticky situation IMO. OlYeller^Talktome 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^t|c 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When? :)

I don't think you meant WP:NOTNOW in AfD... maybe you meant WP:CRYSTAL? Gigs (talk)

Personal Attack

I was personally attacked yesterday at Signs (Bloc Party song) by a user who I won't name. It sort of hurt my feelings so I'm going to take a short break. I'm not crying about it or anything but I realized that if Wikipedia editing effects my life outside of Wikipedia, it's probably time for a break. Just an FYI for anyone who may be looking for me. OlYeller^Talktome 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Now another editor is saying that I have a personal vendetta against an article. I couldn't care less about a single article being deleted or not. I need more break time. OlYeller^Talktome 03:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, OlYeller, you shouldn't take the personal attacks at Talk:Signs (Bloc Party song) too seriously. All I see is a user who is frustrated that his article was tagged for deletion. I've been attacked before; see here and here. I wasn't offended either of those times because I could see how frustration of the users when their articles were deleted. Maybe I have a thick skin. Anyways, you shouldn't let anything on Wikipedia get too personal because it's just not worth it. If editing the deletion areas of Wikipedia is too stressful, I would recommend writing on something random that you have never heard of before (see Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests for ideas), or just take a short wikibreak. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Delboy deletion

How can a band be notable without the members themselves being notable? A band is it's members.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The same way that not every soldier in an army is notable. Is an army not its members? OlYeller^Talktome 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt Pawlowski Deletion

Hello. I was wondering why the heck you would put this article up for deletion? Why would you do such a thing? Seriously? It has credible sources. Everything's legit. Care to explain? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I explained in the AfD and on your talk page (see here). OlYeller^Talktome 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Shadowjams's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shadowjams (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Added another message. Sorry if my previous response was snappy. I didn't mean for it to be that way. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know...

[3] - you're replying to a year-old thread. Maybe you knew, but I reckon a new section might be appropriate. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, touche. I wonder what the best way to reevaluate this proposed guideline would be. Any ideas? OlYeller^Talktome 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New section, think about a rewrite. Then advertise... Fritzpoll (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It might even go over better if it's presented by an ARS member as opposed to a non-member (if all the us vs them beliefs are true). OlYeller^Talktome 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure how well that will go down. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

With the supporters or non-supporters of the current ARS? OlYeller^Talktome 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lessie Wei

Hey, I meant that your findings that the six you checked were notable regardless of the star indicated that the star was generally being given to notable people and not just willy-nilly. Like in the British honors system, some of the recipients may not be well known outside of their field. Drawn Some (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya but you forgot that I mentioned that only 10% of the recipients have Wiki articles. That doesn't imply that they aren't notable but it's a pretty good indication that at the VERY least, 50% of them are not. OlYeller^Talktome 13:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comedian Jay Dee

Can we bring this article back to life now? There is now another news source. Before you just needed one more news source and here it is: http://www.tulsapeople-digital.com/tulsapeople/200906/?u1=texterity 208.191.26.53 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to log in and wasn't sure if you knew how to get back with me on this. Thanks. Bruce Jennings (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hollmann

Thanks for your efforts. The second reference that you removed from mtishows (the one that was not a duplicate) was the one where I learned about his family life. That did not come from the playbill reference (that you kept); all the rest of the material did. Should you restore the second ref? --DAW0001 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, i'll do it if I can figure it out. Feel free to do it yourself if you'd like though. OlYeller^Talktome 01:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --DAW0001 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome

Otterathome is a quirky sort. I boldly removed the sockpuppet list from his userpage lest he get in trouble. Think we should take it to AN anyway? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. He needs to know that claiming to be other editors, especially very well established ones, is very unacceptable. If this were to happen outside of Wikipedia, he'd be open to legal prosecution. It's obviously not but the idea of claiming that your work is the work of others or that others' work is yours is very serious business. I've never run into him and I don't know if the other claimed sockpuppets are actually his but if you think he gets the point, I won't pursue anything. OlYeller^Talktome 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MMRF Article

The information in the MMRF article is completely outdated and in many cases has errors and wrong information. How else can we go about fixing this? - Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.121.187 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to add the information in your own words. That's perfectly acceptable. Please make sure to avoid what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" which is basically adjectives of opinion. Let me know if you need anymore help. OlYeller^Talktome 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Made a few quick error fixes, will come back to this later... 160.79.121.187 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Michelle

Looks good to me so far. OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob Cranmer

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.212.196 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Fail?

Um...on Machine to Machine, I finished rewriting it myself. It doesn't copyright violate now, though I think I have to go fix the history first. Silverseren^C 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgiving your implication that I am "fail", it's still a copyvio. OlYeller^Talktome 23:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The title was a joke, sorry if I offended you. Check again. I've rewritten that section of the article. Silverseren^C 23:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me! OlYeller^Talktome 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My history has nothing to do with it

I'm not the same person I was a year ago, not even close. I am not going to start yelling or get out of hand. I am, and will continue to, calmly press my point with logic and facts.

Thank you for worrying about me, but you also don't need to worry about me. I'm fine. I'm the one that's replied to so many comments because, at this point, it's my article, and I don't want to get it deleted. Silverseren^C 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I can't pretend to know you and I think it's great that you've grown. My suggestion was, in my opinion, probably best for you and more importantly for Wikipedia. While I understand wanting to protect your own work, I'm sure I don't have to remind you that the article isn't yours. I suggested it because it seems apparent to me that you've taken ownership over the article, which you have no admitted to, and it may be effecting the discussion adversely. OlYeller^Talktome 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew you were going to quote that policy when I posted that. :P

I meant "mine" insomuch as I don't want it to get deleted. It is not so much "mine" in that other people are free to edit it and do whatever they want to it. What I meant by saying that is that i've put a lot of work into the article and I know that it is notable and worthy for inclusion in the project and I don't think that it should be deleted. That's all.

How is it adversely affecting the discussion? No one has gotten out of hand, neither me nor the people I am debating with. We're all still completely calm and pointing out facts and things. It seems to me that the discussion is going fine. Silverseren^C 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion? Health Communication Network

Hi there,

Sorry I removed the tag and warning, I don't know what the process is, however I've re-written the copy as suggested for the article and waiting for someone to get back to me if it's ok as I do not wish to see this page gets deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echiu888 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your note on the talk page. The article isn't an advertisement anymore in my opinion but notability hasn't been claimed or established. If you want to learn more about Wikipedia notability, check out WP:N. It's a whole lot of reading but it should help you understand how Wikipedia notability works. OlYeller^Talktome 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Michael Lamb (professor)

Hello OlYeller21, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Michael Lamb (professor), 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. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding a reference after removing a db doesn't mean that it previously asserted notability. I hope that this is a template from some script, otherwise I'd have to suggest that you not template the regulars. OlYeller^Talktome 05:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, to avoid any further problems in the future, I suggest noting how an article claims notability when removing a db tag. Being a professor alone or being published are not claims to notability. Had you not added the ref, I would have reverted your edit and we probably would have gone round about it and never needed to. OlYeller^Talktome 05:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, being a full professor is generally considered enough to avoid speedy deletion, although it is not always enough to avoid deletion under Articles for deletion. There's a difference between a claim of notability (enough to avoid speedy deletion) and proof of notability (enough to survive AfD). The message you received was a template, as you suspected, generated by User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js, which is a convenient way of removing a speedy tag with a suitable edit summary and notifying the original tagger at the same time.

When I see an article that I am unsure about, I will sometimes ask the relevant WikiProject for help. For example, I recently saw an article about a U.S. army officer who didn't appear to be notable, but rather than tag the article for deletion myself, I asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and someone there with more familiarity with military biographies initiated the AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenie as part of KRS-ONE's discography

I'm sorry but you are misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines. The guideline of notability is only for creating an article ABOUT the artist [i.e. Greenie must be notable to have his OWN article on Wikipedia]. If you review Wikipedia's own guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Albums and pay SPECIAL attention to the section on DISCOGRAPHY [and albums]...you'll see there ARE NO EXPLICIT CRITERIA for discographies.

You have a WikiPedia page on the career of KRS-ONE, correct? As part of KRS-ONE's career he is presently working/involved in a collaboration with an artist named Greenie. He is releasing a 14 track album. I have posted links to production videos, audio, and more featuring CLEARLY-- KRS-ONE himself discussing the project [and performing on it].

KRS-ONE is a legend and major figure in hip-hop's history with a reputation for only putting his name on projects in which he strongly believes.

Greenie need not yet be notable--because it's not ABOUT Greenie-- It's about the CAREER of KRS-ONE.. the work/music HE* does --and presently, in 2010-- KRS-ONE is working on a project with Greenie-- KRS does 1-3 albums per year, correct? As you've repeatedly been shown, this year he's doing a collaboration with Greenie and that is PART OF KRS-ONE's biography now...regardless of Greenie's own current fame level.. If you need, the article can read "KRS-ONE is choosing to create an album project with an unknown named Greenie"-- but even the PROJECT is notable [not that it needs to be]--because it's the first time in history -- KRS and MC SHAN will be together on a CD [on the track named "WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE"..and because it features MANY old school artists--i.e. Busy Bee Starski...

Either way, there is NO wikipedia guideline that would exclude a KRS project from KRS' biography because it's not notable-- KRS is a MAJOR recording artist and legend..any time he sets foot in the studio to do THE WORK THAT HE DOES-- his production is PART of HIS*** biography/discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.21 (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll break down and address every one of your points. This is the last time I'm responding to you. OlYeller^Talktome 05:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• The guideline of notability is only for creating an article ABOUT the artist

Not true. Please read them again.

• If you review Wikipedia's own guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Albums and pay SPECIAL attention to the section on DISCOGRAPHY [and albums]...you'll see there ARE NO EXPLICIT CRITERIA for discographies.

You've linked a project. Assuming you meant to link Wikipedia:Notability_(music), you're right. The album itself doesn't need pass notability guidelines to be mentioned. The problem is that you haven't provided a "reliable source(s) that is/are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG) to prove that the album even exists. The only claim you've made is from a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. I've explained to you once before why but here's a link in case you need to see the policy. As you haven't proven that it exists, this would fall back on WP:NOTCRYSTAL which states that WP is not a crystal ball and speculation of an album (in this case) should not be included unless it can be proven to exist by a reliable source (again, not YouTube).

• You have a WikiPedia page on the career of KRS-ONE, correct? As part of KRS-ONE's career he is presently working/involved in a collaboration with an artist named Greenie.

Yes we do. If he is, then prove it (with a reliable source). A reliable source would be KRS-One's website, the New York Times, Spin Magazine, Vibe, or Rolling Stone.

• KRS-ONE is a legend and major figure in hip-hop's history with a reputation for only putting his name on projects in which he strongly believes.

I totally agree. He's an amazing artist and a person. Who he collaborates with is your opinion. Whether or not he collaborates with Greenie is speculation as you haven't provided a reliable source.

• ---The entire next paragraph isn't really needed. It repeats a lot of what you've already said and has a lot of your opinions which I'm sorry but don't really matter here.

• there is NO wikipedia guideline that would exclude a KRS project from KRS' biography

Yes there is. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Provide a reliable source and it won't be speculation anymore.

What this comes down to is that you have provided two sources. One that is an unreliable fansite of some sort and a Youtube video (which is not a reliable source). Perhaps you should wait until the record is closer to release and more information is written about it by reliable sources. I understand that you may be personally involved with this subject which may be the reason you're so adamant to include the information. I suggest stepping back for a few days, looking for some information about the artist and the album from a reliable source, and come back when you do. Until then, the information cannot be included. I'm sorry this has been so tough. I know what it's like to be new and not understand all the policies and guidelines. Again, this is the last time I'm responding to you as I've explained every point here to you before. OlYeller^Talktome 05:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Susegad

You recently marked "Susegad" for speedy deletion as nonsense - as the Times of London used and defined the term in an article, I have removed the tag. I have, however, requested that it be transwikied to wiktionary:susegad. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael White (bassist)

Please respond on my talk page as I will respond back here.

I noticed you have voted twice. You do understand that nominating an article for deletion is your vote deletion? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that AfDs are not voted on don't you? No admin is going to be confused by what I've done. Spending anymore time worrying about this would be a waste of my time. OlYeller^Talktome 14:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cathophilia

Hi, I originally {{db-attack}} for Cathophilia, then reverted as I was not sure if that template applied to institutions as well as people. When I notified the editor with the automatic message, I saw the message had to do with personal attacks. So it is for general attacks also? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, G10 also includes "some other entity" so I thought it would be included. I think that's the best tag for it but I'm not 100% sure. If it obviously needs deleted, I try to tag it with the closest tag possible and let an admin decide from there. OlYeller^Talktome 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. I just got cold feet as I sometimes do. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Nelson

Thanks for dealing with Jon Nelson. The editor has removed my tags several times, as well as those of JohnCD. Xtzou (Talk) 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I'm trying to get him blocked for enough time to pass that an admin can finally get a chance to take a look at the page. OlYeller^Talktome 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone! Hopefully he doesn't try to remake it. OlYeller^Talktome 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, its still there. (Too much of a miracle!) Xtzou (Talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I jumped and through it was another article I just retagged. The author had removed the db tag about 7 times from what I could count. OlYeller^Talktome 16:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again! He has recreated the Jon Nelson page from the redirect. Xtzou (Talk) 17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, the admin Accounting4Taste is involved now too. He started and AfD so we should be able to get it conclusively taken care of without having to worry about him recreating all the time. OlYeller^Talktome 17:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Gordomebix is busily adding more stuff to the articles that has no reliable sources. I have been debating whether to say more to him. There is probably no way to make the point without discouraging him. Xtzou (Talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Snoners

What do you think of Snoners? I labelled it a {{db-hoax}} because it is a combination of parts of snoring and penile erection articles. Must be a convincing read. Xtzou (Talk) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, I'll take a look. OlYeller^Talktome 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya, db-hoax looks right to me. OlYeller^Talktome 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anabela Basalo

What do you think of Anabela Basalo? It turns out, if you translate one of the refs with Google, that the "she" is actually a "he" porno queen. Xtzou (Talk) 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that posing for Playboy probably constitutes a claim of notability (I'm not very clear on models). I'm about to head out but I did a quick search that would prove that she did pose for Playboy Serbia (Ebay listing of the issue). We'll have to see if that constitutes inclusion. Regardless, the article needs some cleanup and references. OlYeller^Talktome 18:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Field Studies EP

Hello OlYeller21, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Field Studies EP, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is an article for the band who released the recording. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I've read over A9 again to make sure my memory served right and that nothing had changed. A9 doesn't say anything about an album being notable because the band that produced it has an article. Maybe I'm wrong? Check out the guidelines again please. In the future, it's helpful to everyone if you link specific areas of a guideline to support your arguments instead of an entire guideline. OlYeller^Talktome 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just posted it at AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The criterion says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist." It has to be both. Theleftorium 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know how I missed that. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks! OlYeller^Talktome 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Oh, and by the way, the message I left above was an automatic message. I would have linked the specific area of the guideline if I could. :) Theleftorium 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I was starting to think that after I thought about it a little more. I should have caught it from the "for the following reason:" part. My bad. OlYeller^Talktome 21:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: your concern about image tagging

Hi, OlYeller21. The File:Moonsalbumcover.png should have been tagged for WP:F9 (which is for images) rather than the WP:G12 (which is for text). In the long run it didn't matter because it was a copyright violation of this flickr image. The Creative Commons non-commercial license on it isn't compatible with Wikipedia. We can sometimes use album cover and book cover artwork in low resolution, if we can claim fair use. However, in this case, the claim that uploader had created the image was clearly false and I think it is better to simply delete the image and start from scratch. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the info! OlYeller^Talktome 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Wait, what? --Tgwti (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Tgwti

Removing the speedy deletion tag as the author of the article is not allowed (see the bolded text at the beginning of the 5th paragraph in WP:CSD. As you've done it more than once, even after removing warnings on your talk page about removing speedy deletion tag, I reverted the edit as vandalism. Vandalism is sort of a dirty word but you weren't paying attention to the warnings on your talk page. Please don't take it personally. OlYeller^Talktome 17:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi - I deleted two of your subpages that you had tagged with csd-u1, without reading the actual message in the tag. I've brought it up on WP:ANI, and another admin should be along shortly to fix the problem. Sorry about this. AlexiusHoratius 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking care of it for me. OlYeller^Talktome 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Have done it. SGGH ^ping! 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! OlYeller^Talktome 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

HEG

You placed a notice about speedy deleting this article (well disambig), but I don't see anything on the page itself or the history. What am I missing? Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The page is fine now. I can't remember exactly what happened but it was vandalized to a extensive degree. I believe an admin came by and deleted it then restored an older version. I honestly can't remember but I know for sure that I didn't db a dib page. OlYeller^Talktome 01:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Wizard191 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the vandalism had something to do with some sort of homeless fighting league. OlYeller^Talktome 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

I believe the IP and the article creator of Madison Eagles to be the same person. I will be restoring the tag for this reason. I will remove it if I am proven to be wrong by a check user. !! Justa Punk !! 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you think it is. As an established editor, I decline the speedy. Take it to AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 04:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your indirect threats are noted. Please stay away from my talk page permanently. !! Justa Punk !! 06:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They weren't threats and they weren't indirect. You screwed up and you know it. Telling a new user that they aren't allowed to removed db tags, template warning them, accusing them of being a sock puppet with zero evidence, and claiming to have initiated a checkuser when you didn't is wrong. I'll continue to watch articles tagged for speedy deletion and if I see you pull that crap again, I'll take the appropriate action to make sure that you understand how inappropriate your actions were. OlYeller^Talktome

East Indian people

As I see it , his is an entirely different article from Demographics of India. Whether it might be overgeneralized and under-documented is another matter; whether this is the best title seem more than a little dubious. I don;t know the history of the article or the people involved, but whatever the problem is, I don;t really think its the best way to try to solve it at Speedy. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris M. Allport

I've done some work there and ask that you revisit Chris M. Allport. As the man does not always use his middle initial, it seems like many (not all) of THESE are our guy. More important though, and through further research, it seems the fellow received multiple awards and nomination back in the 90s that allow notability per WP:ANYBIO. I've begun sourcing these in Chris M. Allport#Awards & nominations. Now that it belongs to Wikipedia, and since even 1990s notability is not temporary, why not warn the author strongly about COI and we allow it to be improved through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Donna J. Stone

Hi. Thank you for your efforts to prevent the possible deletion of the article I wrote about Donna J. Stone, and particularly for removing the request for speedy deletion. I did, in fact, write the article myself, and obtained written permission from Dr. Christopher Stone, Ms. Stone's son and the copyright holder of the photo I used in the article, to use the image in the Wikipedia article. (I know you didn't mention any copyright concerns about the image, so you probably saw that I got permission for the image.)

I know about the Wielder of Words website, of course, since I linked to it in the article and included it in the references. Dr. Stone also holds the copyright to the site. What I'd like to clarify is that I wrote the Wikipedia article before Dr. Stone made his website. This is verifiable by the recorded creation dates of both web pages. The history section of my Wikipedia artice, which can be viewed here, shows that I created it and wrote the bulk of it on December 29, 2009. The Who Is website shows that the Wielder of Words site was created on April 5, 2010, which can be seen here. (You'll have to enter the domain name to see the date; I can't link to it directly.)

Although I don't think it was necessary given the free nature of Wiki information, Dr. Stone did get my permission to incorporate the text from my Wikipedia article into his website about his mother. (I'm certainly not implying that he violated any copyright, either.) I believe the dates of creation should allay any concerns about copyright infringement.

As for the numerous references, I was trying to list everything even alluded to in either the article or its links. Admittedly, my compulsive nature probably led to overkill, with some references having only a tenuous connection to the text of the article. I'm a literary historian (with a special interest in modern poetry), and am prone to being overly inclusive. I'm happy to clean up the references section.

Since it seems unlikely that most readers of both web pages would check the dates the pages were created, your concern that the page I wrote might be deleted due to copyright concerns is a very good point. I can think of a couple of ways to prevent this. The easiest thing would be for me to ask Dr. Stone for permission to use text from his website in my Wikipedia article. Another option would be for me to rewrite the article from scratch, although I must admit that the time and effort involved make this a less desirable option for me. But I don't want the article to be deleted. What would you recommend?

Thanks you for reading this long entry.

Mary Ann

--Mah Jong (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mary. Thanks for the detailed message. It made it very easy to understand what's going on. I thought that there was a chance that wielderofwords.com borrowed the text from Wikipedia but I didn't think to check the whois on the website. This is a little over my head as far as Wikipedia's copyright policies go so I'm going to call in an expert to help out. I'll message her now and invite her to discuss the situation here or on the article's page. I'll make sure that you're notified of the location of the discussion so that you can participate. OlYeller^Talktome 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

In response to your question at WP:AIV, edit summary warnings do not count towards the required notices. Please see WP:WARN for more details. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Will do. Thanks for the info. OlYeller^Talktome 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Khan

Hey, guess I've mistakenly edited your signed comment, sorry pal =D Betelguese000 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. Just make sure you're commenting in your own section so it doesn't look like someone else is saying something that they didn't. OlYeller^Talktome 04:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Signature

I posted a reply on my talk about your signature. CTJF83 chat 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tenderloins

Please review the AFD and the article at The Tenderloins. The darn thing still needs work, but now that I have found the independent reliable sources to meet the nominator's concerns, perhaps your "weak" might now become a little stronger? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of editor from blogging project

Your point was well taken. I was about to send a curt note to the editor who removed that person from the list, but then I saw that it was a blocked editor and that the editor who did the removing was an administrator. The administrator should have stated his reason for taking the editor off the list. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

your message

I'm just browsing anonymously , i didn't edit from this ip . I guess someone else was on it from my ISP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.40.212 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jagdverbande Mitte

Hello OlYeller21, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jagdverbande Mitte, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a look at it again. When I tagged it for A1, the author had blanked the page. I'm assuming this is a template so I'll go check it out again and make sure we got it all taken care of. OlYeller^Talktome 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I just redirected it to another article with the correct spelling (from what I can find). The correctly* spelled version seems to have a little bit more info as well. OlYeller^Talktome 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Was thinking of another blank article. Not sure why I tagged it for A1. I must need a break. I'm out. OlYeller^Talktome 22:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Commenting about Club Docmur: When pages are moved to the userspace, they should be tagged with {{db-rediruser}} (speedy deletion of a redirect in the mainspace to the userspace) instead of blanked. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard. I wasn't completely sure what to do. OlYeller^Talktome 02:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia's long list of rules, guidelines, and policies can be a pain to remember. I hope you're feeling well. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lil Crazed

A tag has been placed on Lil Crazed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. OlYeller^Talktome 03:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

		Civility Award
		To OlYeller21 in recognition of notable patience in explaining to an article creator why the speedy deletion was going to have to be completed. Your calm demeanor and clear reasoning are beyond reproach, and inspire me to do as well in the future! With best wishes always, Jusdafax 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I think this is my second barnstar ever! OlYeller^Talktome 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pickle Drink

Hi OlYeller21, if you want to leave similar messages in the future you'd be much better off leaving them on the talk page of the deleting admin, as you created the Talk:Pickle Drink page after the Pickle Drink page had been deleted you've essentially just created a G8. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I get your point but my edit on the talk page was made 10 minutes before the deletion of the article ([4][5]). The admin just forgot to delete the talk page. OlYeller^Talktome 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I checked the logs beforehand and thought that you created the page 10 minutes after the page was deleted to my misunderstanding, so apologies for that. The page was deleted anyway. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

00:43, 25 May 2010 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Michael owen traynor" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.the-home-business-place.com/ponzi-schemes.html)

It appears an autobot has rejected the article for possible copyright infringement. I hope you are a human being. This is not an infringement. The Website the autobot tagged is an ecommerce site that posts news stories to generate traffic from searches to generate marketing revenue. They even cite Wikipedia as their source. Please see for yourself at http://www.the-home-business-place.com/ponzi-schemes.html. There you will find many posts that use the word ponzi, fraud, and scheme with dates and names of many people. They have no claim to the intellectual content in any of their posts.

It would be impossible to write a biography on this important figure, Micheal Owen Traynor, and exclude the words ponzi, fraud, church, scheme and the dates of his activities. Please insert human intelligence to distinguish what the autobot cannot.

More importantly, the Traynor article I posted cited the sources and included links to other unimpeachable sources, ie. the official Florida Department of Law Enforcement Website and the Florida Department of Corrections Official Website. The article I posted was based on an original news story by Tod Ruger as cited, an original piece to which I was a source, not cited.

Furthermore, it is important that Wiki remain a provider of all information. Please do not be hindered by false claims to intellectual property by marketers. Not that marketing is bad, they just do not own this. Also note the Traynor news story has been hijacked by plaintiff attorneys not related to the case and not located in proximity to any victims ie johnschapman.com. Please note that John Chapman Law is in Cleveland, OH. Has not investigated nor had any involvement with Traynor or his victims. I am in a position to know ALL aspects of this case and investigation.

Most importantly, it is very important that Wiki continues to be a conduit of candid information. The revelation of the facts surrounding Micheal Owen Traynor are important in many ways. One, it is a report of a historical figure that used his position to influence and ultimately harm those that trusted him. Two, his deception was discovered. Three, his victims were never compensated. Four, he is "paying" a price for his deception in his custody of the authorities. Important information worthy of Wiki.

Regards,

Newomatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newomatt (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I think you may be mistaken about a bot declining the speedy deletion as bots don't decline speedy deletions and the article was deleted by an administrator for the exact reason I tagged it. Secondly, I think this is really much more simple than you're making it out to be. The text that was on the article is found at the website you linked (it wasn't just similar wording, it was the exact text) which claims all of the information on the website with a copyright found at the bottom of every page. If the words copyrighted there are yours, the problem is between you and that website. As for what's "worthy" of Wikipedia, there are guidelines setup to determine that (see WP:N). Most importantly here, the article was a biography of a living person. Without reliable sources to back up the claims you made on in the article, the content would have had to have been removed as libel. If you have any questions, feel free to post them here and I'll be glad to answer them as best I can. OlYeller^Talktome 03:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning removed?

Why did you remove the warning on User talk:Ilovealexcrimmins3 about Alex crimmins? The warning was still applicable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the warning and replaced it with a less biting warning suggested to me by an admin (see here). I'm basically just trying to apply some common sense. It looks like a young girl wrote an article about her friend. The article will be deleted as an A7, there's an explanation on the talk page about making such a page, the girl isn't bombarded with a giant and strongly worded warning, and the world moves on. OlYeller^Talktome 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm watching the article and the user's talk page so that I can take care of any issues that arise. OlYeller^Talktome 04:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that you removed any warning about Alex crimmins and replaced it with a warning about creating the article Jonas Persson, which is a valid article about a notable person and was not created by User:Ilovealexcrimmins3 -- they had made a questionable edit to that page, but had not created it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Didn't catch that part. Let me try and figure out what I did. I'll make sure I get it fixed. OlYeller^Talktome 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it fixed. Not sure what I was doing there. Let me know if it's still screwed up. OlYeller^Talktome 04:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not locked? Speedy decline?

You said it was locked, but indeed it wasn't even deleted! Which is it? — Timneu22 · talk 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You linked the wrong article... See here. OlYeller^Talktome 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DJ Surge-N

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tamadis Young

A tag has been placed on Tamadis Young requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. OlYeller^Talktome 04:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Username vios, or the non-existance thereof...

Just a heads up. Usernames are generally only blockable as promotional when the directly or susbstantially match that of a business. People are allowed to have their own, real, personal names as their username or a part of it. Even if they write their own autobiography, that doesn't instantly make their username a violation of policy. The autobiography writing is an issue that needs to be discussed with the user in light of WP:COI, but there is no username violation. Take care when nominating at WP:UAA that the username itself is a blatant and instantly blockable violation of the username policy. --Jayron32 05:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take a closer look at the guidelines/policies to make sure I'm not erroneously tagging anymore. Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 05:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all! Keep fighting the good fight! --Jayron32 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Big Green Bus

hi i wrote an article called "The Big Green Bus" and I believe that it is meritable enough to be kept on Wikipedia. When will I know if you are satisfied with the notability and its sources? thanks

Pose716 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)pose716

User:Sharmila.c

I think the above user is a sockpuppet of User:Sngbengal. I would put up a Sockpuppet investigations, but I need to ascertain if there are others. Can you help?--^Nilotpal42 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll compile a list of all the iterations of the article and a list of the usernames they've used (if I can find more). I'm tagging a few articles right now but I'll be done in less than 5 minutes. OlYeller^Talktome 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is another one. The K. C. Bhattacharya article does not figure in the contributions of either accounts.--^Nilotpal42 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I just found that the text is from this website. Not sure how I missed that. Also, are you saying that K. C. Bhattacharya wasn't the same as the other two articles? OlYeller^Talktome 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the K.C Bhattacharya, so I can't say. Also see this. Either way, the article is copy-vio and suffers from lack of NPOV.--^Nilotpal42 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. From my memory, they're exactly the same. I don't really have a doubt that they'll be deleted but I'm afraid that the user will eventually get one by. OlYeller^Talktome 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I initiated the SPI Not sure that I did it correctly (used Twinkle). OlYeller^Talktome 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

SPCUClerkbot is apparently down so I just got it added to the list on my own. OlYeller^Talktome 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I added some text under under the head "Comments by other users".--^Nilotpal42 17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Users

• Sharmila.c (talk · contribs)
• Sngbengal (talk · contribs)

Articles

• Sangitalaya
• Kc bhattacharya
• K.C Bhattacharya

Copyvio

sngbengal

Jayaveera Abhayahastha Anjeneya Temple, Krishnapuram

I've declined the speedy because I can't find the text on the page. Could you recheck it? The page definitely isn't in a good state, and it really would be better if it were deleted, so if you could show me bits that have been copied that I overlooked, I'll be quite happy to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. this Google search should show it pretty well. I've always thought that Twinkle or the G12 tag could ask for a link to show the proof to make things a little easier on the admin. It seems like it would be a good way to make sure that people aren't doing the same work multiple times. I'll go bug the Twinkle people and see if I can get something added. OlYeller^Talktome 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Page deleted; thanks for the link. I couldn't find any text that was both on the article and the blog link, and I didn't have time to search (I needed to leave the house), so I wanted to make sure that you hadn't accidentally given a link to the wrong page. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing hangons

I was considering removing the hangon from The Smolen when you removed it first. My reason would have been that it was added by an IP editor, not by the page creator, and the CSD tag and policy only make reference to hangons being added by the creator. I decided that was too wikilawyerish and perhaps an AGF violation, so didn't, only to see that you'd removed it due to no justification in 2 hours. Is there some policy or consensus that says that's okay? In one sense, I suppose that you can argue that since the hangon tag says that it will be ignored if not justified that removing it after a decent interval such as you did is acceptable since it will be ignored anyway and, by removing it, you may jog the creator into re–adding it with a justification. This isn't a criticism, I like the idea, but hoping you had some specific authority justifying it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I don't have any policy/guideline to link to. It's really just my interpretation of a hangon. The part of the text that I interpret is "promised explanation is not provided very soon". In my opinion, placing the tag means that you're going to immediately go and provide an explanation. After an hour or two, if they haven't even edited the article, the hangon should be removed in my opinion. It depends on the article though. If I really don't think the article can be saved by the author (they've shown they don't know what they're doing) and I can't easily save it, I'll remove it. If I think the editor can save it or I can save it, I'll give them more time or just do the work myself. OlYeller^Talktome 17:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I may follow your lead. Too bad we can't delete them for

• not putting them directly below the CSD tag (hey, what say we co–sponsor revisions to the CSD tags to change "please add {{hangon}} directly below this tag" to "please add {{hangon}} anywhere you damn well please on this page, on its talk page, on your user page, or on Jimbo's talk page, since you're going to do it that way anyway"?),
• putting the hangon explanation on the article page below the hangon tag instead of on the talk page,
• replacing the speedy tag with the hangon tag, or
• failing to sign a hangon explanation on the talk page.

But I vent... Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And good thing I did, or this could have been the coup de grâce that finished me off: Bam!. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OlYeller21. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revisions to Donna J. Stone

Hi again. I hope you don't mind, but I undid your revisions to the Donna J. Stone article. I'm in the process of cleaning up some of my articles, and have been working a lot on this one. I've used the CompactTOC8 in this and other articles, customized a bit for size, to save space and eliminate blank areas. It's actually a lot of work, but I think it makes some of the articles look cleaner. Since it is an option made available to us, I don't see a problem using it. As for the spacing issue, I added the extra spaces to accommodate inline citations, which sometimes obscure divisions between paragraphs (and did in this case).

On another note, I noticed the Columbus, Ohio meet-up tag on your page. Are you from that area? I'm not, but one of my colleagues is. Coincidentally, Ms. Stone was also from there. Just curious.

Thanks again for your interest in the article. I hope you understand my reasons for reverting to the previous style.

Mary Ann --Mah Jong (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with if you really want it. I don't see a problem with the blank space between the TOC and the picture and I think that template is used for very long lists where a more complex sorting system is used. You've done a lot more work on the article than me see I'll defer to your wishes. OlYeller^Talktome 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Have a good Memorial Day! --Mah Jong (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looked at the article again, and I agree with you: the standard TOC works better, especially with the image size. So I changed it back.  :-) --Mah Jong (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Chichovarov

Just a friendly reminder to check the page history before tagging for a no content speedy. An editor had come along and blanked the page, so I reverted back to the pre-blanked version. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

12-point list

Hi. I added points #9 and #10 to Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. Do you support the 12-point list as revised? Greg L (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

John D. Lambris

Actually, I meant the hangon for any Npp-ers who might come along and tag it. I think he's notable, but I just don't have enough experience with BLP's to properly write the article. See Google News archives, Google scholar, and Gooogle Books. There's info, probably even enough for notability, I just don't know how to get it into the article. You like to rescue articles - will you help me rescue this one? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Winfree

You can find Kenny Winfree's music by going to Smithsonian Folkways Recordings and search for his stuff. But, you must type in Kenny Winfree. Also, how do you add external links to his article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unioncard1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I'll go check it out. As for adding external links, Wikipedia is sort of picky about it. External links go inside of a bracket (like this []) and have to start with http. For instance, adding an external link to my talk page, the code would look like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OlYeller21]. If you want it to say something instead of a number of the text for the link, you put a space after the address and then type whatever you want. Making an external link to my talk page that say "Talk Page" would look like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OlYeller21 Talk Page]. Let me know if you have anymore questions and I'd be happy to help. OlYeller^Talktome 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again OlYeller, but I forgot to mention concerning the Kenny Winfree thing, that if you will go to one of the search engines, preferrably Bing and type Kenny Winfree into the search box you will get a wealth of info. It goes on for several pages. Hope this helps a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unioncard1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Maryland Collegiate Baseball League page

Dear OlYeller21,

Thanks for your explanantion that my latest page violated guideline A7. I'm new at this so I'm requesting your help, assistance and/or guidance as to my next steps.

I'm confused/uncertain as to why an A7 tag was placed on my page. There are numerous other summer college baseball leagues with their own page. In reviewing them I don't see anything particularly special about any of them that would necessarily warrant a page, other than to provide reference and information. In fact, one page, the "Hawaii Collegiate Baseball League" contains far less information that I was attempting to provide.

So, please, can you guide me and/or advise me on what it is that my proposed page is missing? I would be very, grateful (from one Buckeye to another).

Thanks.

Roy Snyder Deputy Commissioner Maryland Collegiate Baseball League —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starflight7 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Roy (I hope you don't mind me calling you Roy). My first article on Wikipedia was deleted so I know what it's like to get blindsided by all the notifications, deletion warnings, etc. so I'll do my best to help out. The reason the article was deleted as an A7 was because there wasn't a claim of notability in the article. Notability on Wikipedia (see here) is rather simple on the surface but it also has a lot of smaller subsections to define what can be included that get fairly complicated. Rather than attempt to paraphrase numerous inclusion guidelines, I'll break it down to what I think the article will need to show to prove that it's notable.

WP:N states that a subject is notable if it has recieved significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The most basic interpretation of that is that if it's been written about significantly (not just a blurb or a schedule) by a decent sized newspaper, it's notable. In my opinion, none of the other inclusion guidelines would cover the MCBL. So in short, if we want to recreate the article, we'll need to provide 2 (preferably 3 or 4) news articles that discuss the league. Do you know of any articles? I can check out Google News and a couple other tools I usually use to find news articles but I'm guessing you'd probably know best as the commissioner.

As for the Hawaiian league, I'm not really sure how it slipped by. Wikipedia definitely has articles around that shouldn't be there, no matter how hard we try. If you're looking at other league's pages, see if they have any newspaper articles as references. That's usually the most covert way that a subject claims notability.

Feel free to ask questions here as I'll be watching. OlYeller^Talktome 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed RfC

OlYeller, have you seen this RfC on Talk:Draw Mohammed? Greg L (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

need Help

Hi can you help me improve "Amén"? I put a lot of new thinks the last days!! Really need your help please! --89.217.203.15 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw you-know-who day gallery

Jeez, that’s what I’m talking about. Thanks for reverting that (∆). That editor clearly either disagreed with the gallery criteria, or didn’t read it. That sort of drawing is just the sort of “pushing things“ that can cause a pendulum to swing too far the other way. Speaking of “galleries,” as I recall, some Black Panthers back in the 60s arrived at the California state assembly house, during live debate by state legislators, and sat in the gallery while openly armed with guns to make a point that it was their right to do so. The lawmakers in turn demonstrated their right to pass new laws faced with needless provocation that fell far short of any common sense. I think the current 12-point metric—if properly adhered to—should keep Wikipedia properly encyclopedic without outrageous POV-pushing and avoid a huge and utterly needless scandal. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Green Bus edits

HI There,

I just wanted to address the edits made to the Big Green Bus page yesterday. I realize it's not a huge page, and I'm hoping that it grows some, but I think the issues with the maintenance templates were fairly well addressed with the additions I put on yesterday.

Orphan: I put links to the page on the Dartmouth Outing Club page as well as the Dartmouth College page. I suppose I could look for a few more places, but that seemed sufficient to make it not an orphan at least.

Citations: I put inline citations in almost every sentence.

Notability: I think the national media attention that this program has received, detailed extensively in the article ought to be sufficient to establish notability.

Please let me know what more you think ought to be done to correct these problems and what the proper protocol is for removing those maintenance tags.

Bigroryg (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Bigroryg

"The article is still an orphan because it has less than three article linking to it. You didn't actually add citations to the article, you added external links. When I tagged the article, notability was very questionable. If the external links were in reference format, it would probably be easy to tell if the subject is notable but as external links, every link has to be checked and read to determine notability. I didn't feel like reading them over last night and was/am coming back today to change the links to citations and attempt to address the maintenance templates as it seems like you've almost addressed them completely. OlYeller^Talktome 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to thank you for your help formatting those in-line citations and with the categories and whatnot. I had just figured out what you meant by external links are not citations and I was a little intimidated about doing that. Anyway, I just thought I would reach out and say thanks!

Bigroryg (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Bigroryg

Hi There,

Just checking back in on this article - It has now the coi and tone boxes and I'd love to work to get those off. Any specific suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigroryg (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ks15ko sandbox

OlYeller21 - Hey, thanks for looking out for us newbies. I have had my article nominated for deletion, but there's really no info on WHY. I'm glad to re-edit, but I'm not sure just what that will take. I know how to make apostrophes but they aren't forming a bold topic for my article. ??

I have references that come from now-defunct magazines, etc. so I don't know how to document sources when there is not a current morgue of past article. (I have the tattered originals.) What else do I need to do to legitimize? Thanks. Ks15ko (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)ks15ko

Hey KS, I assume we're talking about this article about Michael Maron. As for the bolding issue, I'm not really sure what's up. The code looked fine to me but when I retyped it, it seemed to work. As for making sure the article is good for mainspace, we'll just have to make sure that the subject is notable per WP:N. The easiest way to show that he's notable is by providing significant coverage (not just a blurb that mentions him) by independent sources. It sounds like you may have heard that before though. I see you have a plethora of references on the page already. I'll take a look at them and see what the status is and get back to you. OlYeller^Talktome 03:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this sentence in a reference, "Make up artist and bestselling beauty author Michael Maron." This may be our best best to prove notability. If he's written a book that's won an award, he'll most likely satisfy point 4 of WP:AUTHOR depending on the significance of the award. I'll do a little research on the subject. OlYeller^Talktome 03:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I keep finding references that say he's a "best selling author" but I can't find the primary source that says he's bestselling. If one of his books was a NYTimes Best Seller, that's one thing. If it was a Benny's Bookstore Best Seller, that's another thing. Do you have any info on his books being on any charts? I have run across a few, probably unreliable sources that claim that most of his claims to fame are made up. It's concerning but I imagine it's not overly uncommon in an industry where ideas are shared, built upon, but stay relatively the same. Here is a Google News Archive search for Michael that we can use to look for sources. If we can't verify that he is a best-selling author and can't produce 2 or 3 news articles that provide significant coverage, the last inclusion guideline he may satisfy is point 1 of WP:ARTIST. I've got to get to bed but I'll take a look again later. OlYeller^Talktome 03:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ks15ko article re: Maron

Hi again. Supporting "best seller" notation, how about the badge used by the publisher on the cover of the paperback edition "The National Bestseller." <http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Marons-Instant-Makeover-Magic/dp/044638187X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276870327&sr=1-1>

I trust the publishing house would not have been allowed to make such a claim.? 

Beyond that there are several references I found by following the link you gave to Google news archive that list him as a beauty expert, noted beauty expert, etc., especially in a panel of beauty judges one for Most Beautiful Woman on TV with and another for Miss Teen America. (TV Guide picks 10 most beautiful women. The voters were Way Bandy, Nina Blanchard, Eileen Ford, Aida Gray, George Hurrell, Elsa Klensch, Shirley Lord, and Michael Maron. They ought to know beauty when they see it. Byline: Liz Smith) I think politically they were listed alphabetically, which put Mr. Maron last.

(‘TV’s Most Beautiful is Collins’ . . . according to a panel of 10 experts. . . panel of makeup artists, modeling authorities, fashion photographers and beauty editors selected by TV Guide. “ You can tell she absolutely loves to be beautiful . . . and consequently is, “ said panelist Michael Maron, celebrity makeup artist and photographer.) Ocala Star-Banner, Dec. 10, 1984)

TV guide – 10AM channel 13 – Wil Shriner Show – guests Steve Allen, Jayne Meadows, Teri Austin, Tony Hendra, Michael Maron St. Petersburg Times - Google News Archive - Jan 21, 1988 (Not a bad lineup to be invited on the same show with Steve Allen and Jayne Meadows.) So, if the "best seller" is still questionable, certainly he garnered some notability from these books as well as his corrective and charitable work. What do you think? (Ks15ko (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)ks15koKs15ko (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks M. OlYeller^Talktome 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Convenience Links and Citation

True, I forgot that offline sources counted as citations, but seeing as though said source is available on the internet at ERO website I thought it was better if someone could dig it up. I'll link this to the page now. <- Gadfium has already done it. Techhead7890 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A7

Re this, I tagged it as an A7. That is not spam, it's notability. Your reason for removal was therefore invalid as it was not tagged for the reason you removed it. Have anything to show why this person is notable after it has been deleted so many times?--Terrillja _talk 17:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why did your edit summary say, "still spammy?". It seems like you're not taking enough care in your tagging. Either way, I decline the speedy as there are a few independent sources covering him and he's part of a notable dance group. If you feel differently, please take it to AfD. In the future, I suggest being more accurate with your edit summaries especially when dealing with the deletion of an article. OlYeller^Talktome 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I still felt that it was spammy and being part of a notable group does not make them notable. See all the musicians that do not have their own article despite being part of a notable group. My summary was quite accurate, it was still spammy, and I was retagging for another reason. Please use more applicable edit summaries when removing tags that do not correlate to your tags. See how your logic doesn't make sense? Have a nice day.--Terrillja _talk 21:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I think we're done here. Try using Twinkle sometime. OlYeller^Talktome 14:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re; Michael Maron article ks15ko sandbox speedy delete

Hi, I've been following article guidelines, got lots of references both to notability and best selling author. I've got them set up in References and Notes and hyperlinked. Other than that, what else do I need to do. Was I wrong in practicing this page in my personal sandbox? Can I use that and just have whatever editor is available check it over? Should I try to get the original speedy deleting editor to pass on it? Is that necessary? Could you look it over and see if there's anything critically wrong with it, still? Thanks, Ks15ko (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Hey, why don't you better help me improving my own sentence? I'd be glad to listen what's wrong now. If you want to dispute whether or not it should be in that section - tell me, if not, then don't revert it to "criticism" section but change only sentences. Userpd (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because the sentence was correct in the first place. Are you suggesting that I teach you proper grammar? I'm not going to explain to you why the changes you made were incorrect. While I admire that you're relatively very good at a second language (maybe more), you're not good enough to be dictating sentence structure, especially on sentences that were fine in the first place.

I don't care enough to get you to discuss why you felt it necessary to move massive amounts of text on the page. I also don't care to spend my time teaching you proper grammar. That being the case, I'll be leaving the reorganization issue up to others and I will continue to revert any grammatical changes that you make that are glaringly incorrect. If those happen to be in the same edit, they'll both be getting reverted. You need to learn not to waste the time of others by making edits that you obviously shouldn't be making. OlYeller^Talktome 12:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Firehouse Restaurant

Hello, OlYeller21. I have read you message at Talk:The Firehouse Restaurant, where you said "To the patrolling admin, if you are going to delete this article, please userfy it first for the author. I have a hunch that some news articles can be found and we can easily remove the copyvio if that's the case. I also think that, from their intense editing, the author would do most of the work with the right direction." I have decided to comply with your request and userfy the article, although my own instinct was to delete it as spam. We will see whether you are right in thinking that the author will make a good job of it: I hope you are right. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I could be wrong. I'll do my best to guide the editor. I'll also be placing a {{noindex}} template on the article and I'll tag it for deletion myself if there's no way it's going to satisfy any inclusion guidelines. Thanks for the help. OlYeller^Talktome 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

meetup?

Hi there,

I got your name from the Wikimedia:Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started Wikipedia:Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Customer Service Skills

About a month ago, I was patrolling new pages and ran into a page for a restaurant that was very likely notable but had to tag the article for deletion because it was a copyvio and blatant advertisement. I then asked an admin to userfy the article so that I could help guide the user in cleaning up the article. After a few attempts, the user disappeared so I ended up writing the article myself and posting it to mainspace. Afterwards, the user came back and tried to add copyright material that read like an advertisement. I removed it and through a short conversations, found that the user was from the company. After explaining the issues and asking them to work through me to circumvent a conflict of interest, they got upset. They said that my customer service skills were poor and that they wanted to speak to management! I thought it was funny enough that I wanted to save it here so that I can get a laugh if I need it. OlYeller^Talktome 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have rickrolled them... and by 'may' I mean I did. I'll probably feel bad about it later. OlYeller^Talktome 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cue feeling bad about it... OlYeller^Talktome 12:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

GoCar Ireland

I didn't realise at first there was also GoCar Tours hence the previous revert. I agree it has to be disambiguated, however I think maybe "GoCar Club" may be better than "GoCar of Ireland"? Since it is a club... would you be ok with that?--NorthernCounties (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. OlYeller^Talktome 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, made the move to CoCar (carsharing) which seems uniform with Streetcar (carsharing), thanks.--NorthernCounties (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Drummer Boy

Hello, I assume your edits have been in good faith, however, it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, that if a song needs to be disambiguated, that you call it, for example, "Drummer Boy" (single). The correct title should be, as it was, "Drummer Boy" (song).

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs for information regardinging the style and formatting of naming articles. Thank you -- Patyo1994 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a better response than your previous. OlYeller^Talktome 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your prodding

I appreciate your impatience, however, as I have stated, I am now awaiting more people to give their inputs on the issue. __meco (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya... ya, that's what I thought. OlYeller^Talktome 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Rittenberg

I was going to userfy it for you but it turns out that what was deleted was a single sentence and I believe you've already included everything that was in it in your current draft. You've written an acceptable stub, the deleted sentence didn't even contain the claim of notability which you include. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Rittenberg

There's really basically nothing there that you don't already have. The only new info is that he used to write about "Notre Dame and Northwestern football and Northwestern and DePaul basketball" at the paper he worked for, and that he used to live in Berkley. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to understand what you mean

If you'll reread what I wrote, my entire point is that I think there may be a misunderstanding. Your comment struck me as quite harsh, and based upon WP:AGF, I'm assuming you didn't meant it the way I summarized it. The point of talk pages is to talk, and reach agreement, so I explained how I read your comment. I was hoping your response would be something along the line of "no that isn't what I meant, so I'm rewriting to explain what I really mean". However, you've reiterated that you don't care who's at fault, so I assume you really mean it. I'm not sure what action we should take. Is it your position that a block, supported by a [[Wikipedia:Ani#Block_of_User:William_M._Connolley_by_User:The_Wordsmith|solid consensus[[, should be revoked because Ol'Yeller doesn't care who's at fault? I'm genuinely puzzled what you think should happen, and why it should happen. (I don't want to drag out an off-topic discussion at WMC's talk page, so I'm responding here. If you'd rather not pursue this, that's fine as well, but I'm truly interested in what uninvolved editors think about this situation, and how they reach such conclusions)--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this out once and my page inexplicably refreshed so I lost all of it. I'll try and rewrite it but I'm starting to feel apathetic towards the whole situation. What I've written below is obviously public but intended for a conversation between you and I; not for an argument elsewhere. If I feel that my opinion will carry some weight later down the road, I'll contribute it myself. I hope this explanation helps as I don't want you to think I'm just busting down the door and calling everyone and idiot or something because that's not my intention at all.

The whole situations feels incredibly out of hand. There seem to be two sides here that are very intelligent. I believe that they're intelligent due to what I've been able to gather about their level of education and from the chess match I've witnessed of poking and prodding around policies and guidelines to illicit some sort of response from the other side. As new policies have been created for this situation, it's becoming more and more clear how out of hand the situation has become. Personally, I believe that the more policies, guidelines, or laws created for any situation in human society leads to a lot of pointy actions, "it's the principle of the thing" arguments, and all around loss of focus on the task at hand. I don't pretend to know exactly what's happened at the CC article, about CC itself, or the lengthy arbcomm discussions. The article could have been about Weimaraner or Islam and it wouldn't particularly matter. So to try and clarify my comment that "I don't care who's wrong and it doesn't matter" comes from my feeling that both sides aren't particularly right or wrong and that figuring out who's to blame or in the wrong won't improve anything. One of the main reasons that I don't lose my faith in society is due to my belief that intelligent people can come to an understanding regardless of however much they disagree. From what I can gather, many of the people involved are in the top 1% of society's intelligence, at least from their level of education. I'm not suggesting that everyone can just hold hands, sit Indian style around a fire, and sing Kumbaya to make the problems go away but I would hope that these two sides could come to some sort of compromise.

A good first step might be for those involved to concede some point to one another; not in regards to the article's content but in regards to the whole argument itself. Maybe WMC admits that he broke a policy and the admins admit that the blocks weren't really needed. I'm not saying that he did or that the blocks weren't needed. Both aren't wrong and both aren't right but it would at least set things in a direction instead of pounding it further and further into the ground. There's more important things in life than being right. Pride and fights about the principle of things can needed just as much as they can hurt a situation.

That's all I have for right now. I hope that helps to clarify my feelings about the situation a bit. OlYeller^Talktome 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm starting to get pretty sick and it's putting a little bit of a haze on my thoughts. Feel free to cut it up into paragraphs if they're obviously there. OlYeller^Talktome 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

<-Jehochman declared that the sanction was "arguably improper". As an experiment, I decided to start from the assumption that it was imporper, and decided to see if I could make such a case. My efforts started positively, and I was close to posting my defense of WMC on his talk page. If you are willing to read it, you will see why I did not.

In partial defense of WMC

In partial defense of WMC The probation page contains both a scope and a remit: Scope—Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) Remit(relevant part)—"...any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary" Neither phrase was carefully defined. "Broadly construed" obviously allows a fair amount of leeway. Presumably, this was deliberate, as the borderline in article space could be fuzzy. Everyone assumes that articles about climate are included, along with bios of people significantly involved in the field. I trust everyone accpets that the associated talk pages are covered. We got some measure of the limit when it went unchallenged that dog was outside the boundary. But what about user talk pages? I suggest it isn't immediately obvious that a user talk page is a page about climate change, and reasonable people might disagree. Accordingly, it would have been helpful had it been clarified. (I haven't read everything, maybe it was clarified, and I missed it.) I did a quick perusal of the log, and in quick review, noticed that the sanctions covered article and article talk pages, but not explicitly user talk pages. WMC has asserted that the CC-sanction does not extend to user talk pages. Based upon experience, that position seems valid. The remit is unreasonably broad. Understandably, when one is crafting a one-time policy, rather than a WP wide policy, one might not want to spend days agonizing over specific wording. I trust that if the sysop instructed WMC to send a check for $100 to everyone who asked, that would be considered out of bounds, so clearly we don't literally mean "any other measures". So what are the bounds of what can be imposed? One way to think about it is to consider the types of things that are generally allowed, or sometimes disallowed. Editors are generally able to edit any article at any time, but often, restrictions are placed. So limitations on edits to article space are permitted. Similarly, edits to article talk pages are generally permitted, but occasionally restricted. It is not uncommon to restrict the article, while allowing edits to the associated talk page, so restricting edits to talk pages is generally a "bigger deal". However, we give wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. We have policies covering the editing of comments of others WP:TPOC. A relevant admonition is "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". WMC's act to insert a bracketed comment into someone else's comment did not violate this. We very rarely restrict the right to edit your own talk page. It seems reasonable to conclude that the phrase "any other measure" includes the usual measures, and does not include unreasonable limits on edits to one's own talk page. In summary, WMC has a good case that the probation was never intended for user talk pages, and the remit is unreasonably broad, so that declaring that a sysop can take "any other measure" is not intended to be literally true. He is right to assert that the specific sanction is malformed, and not enforceable. Except: While double-checking sanction log, I noticed two exceptions. The first is quite minor (at least for this discussion). A sanction applied to Jettaman was quite broad and included a prohibition from a user page, but notably, this was someone else's user page. However, there is one other exception, and one sanction specifically did address editing one's own talk page. So we do have precedent for a limitation on editing one's own talk page, and as far as I can see, there was no conclusion or even serious discussion that the sanction was out of bounds. That sanction applied to WMC, so this makes it quite difficult to argue that the probation scope excluded user talk pages, or that WMC might have reason to think it doesn't extend that far. I also felt that inserting a clearly identified (using brackets) phrase into someone else's comment was a close call whether it should be considered editing someone else's comment, and one could reasonably conclude it was not. Except - WMC affirmatively stated it should be construed that way. To make an analogy, suppose we know the proper way to challenge someone to a duel is to slap them on the face with a glove. What do we conclude if someone slaps another person with a mitten? We could debate it, unless the slapper simultaneously declares, "please consider this mitten a glove". That removes all doubt, and even if the anal convicting argue it wasn't a proper challenge, it is tough to argue that the intent to duel wasn't there.

In summary, I tried to find a way to support WMC and I failed. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough, so I'll leave it to others to explain why his actions should be ignored.

I have no desire to continue this conversation. OlYeller^Talktome 03:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, the issue is now moot.--SPhilbrickT 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Please be more careful when resetting an article to an older version. Or did you have a particular reason for reinserting the dead weblink [6]? Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The user before you removed every picture from the article. You restored two pictures but left out the entire gallery (a very contentious section of the article) which has been included per a discussion found in the archives. Please be more careful when you partial revert edits. It can take a while to weed through your mistake and fix it. OlYeller^Talktome 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

About LogiGear page

Thank for your comment, but I am not Christina Thi. We might come from the same IP range or location; but surely I am not Christina Thi.

About the LogiGear page; I am not quite sure about the reason why Book section has been removed. I thought VISTACON information might be interesting audiences; If you think it likes an advertising, just remove VISTACON section, I am OK with that, but not deleting whole LogiGear article. All the information provided has the good references. I am trying to build Outsourcing company in Vietnam | Software testing company in Vietnam NewbieIT (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure who Christina Thi is or what she has to do with LogiGear but I never suggested that you are Christina Thi. The book section was removed because it's has nothing to do with the company itself, only a few people who may or may not have worked there (I'm not calling you a liar but in the world of Wikipedia, verifying is a little more in depth]]. The article had some weasel words and the only links where to press releases which made it seem like an advertisement. As for the page being nominated for deletion, I don't feel that it there has been enough coverage by independent and reliable sources to satisfy the inclusion guidelines found here. If the article does end up being deleted, don't fret. I can help you move it to your user area and give you some pointers on how to satisfy the inclusion guidelines. If/when the inclusion guidelines are satisfied, I can then help you move it back into mainspace. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here and I'll do my best to answer them. OlYeller^Talktome 02:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that's exactly what I am looking for in order to build a good article that follows Wiki's rules! I really need a help from Wiki Guru, to tell me what should/should not be on the article. BTW, please feel free to edit LogiGear page up to what you are thinking/knowing about LogiGear. I just simply try to do my best. NewbieIT (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I just updated the link from dmoz.org about LogiGear's services; I'm not quite sure it's really independent; NewbieIT (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User/Ks15ko/Personal Sandbox

OlYeller21, Thank you again for your support. It inspired me to complete much more research and produce a first page I am proud of. However, User/Ks15ko/Personal Sandbox, continues to appear online, though it was in error, has no references and was the article nominated for speedy deletion. I created it in error, never intending it to go public in that state. I would like, as its author, for it to be completely retracted and the history made inaccessible except to high level administrators. Can I make that appeal through you, or can you guide me to the correct level of administrator? Thanks, Ks15ko (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ks. I went ahead and tagged the page for deletion. It should be gone within a few hours and the history of the page will only be able to be seen by admins. Also, in case there's any confusion, I'm not an admin. It doesn't really matter for this case and I'm more than happy to help but I didn't want to represent that I was so I apologize if I somehow presented that. Let me know if there's anything else you need and I'll do my best to help. Have a great night/day. OlYeller^Talktome 02:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Fabio Agostini

Hello OlYeller21. I am just letting you know that I deleted Fabio Agostini, 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. Courcelles 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You indicated that you deleted it for being a copyright infringement which is what I tagged it for (it's basically the only reason I use to tag new articles for speedy deletion). Also, I'm not sure why, even if I had mistagged it, it's important to come here and tell me while providing no information that would lead me to not making the mistake in the future. OlYeller^Talktome 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging hoaxes

Hi. I've just deleted Marcel Louzado which you tagged as a hoax. It took me twenty minutes or so of searching before I was sure enough - it seems there is such a Jiujitsuer, but I found specific claims of championships won which could be checked and were false. My point is that you probably did similar checks, or maybe have special knowledge of that scene: in a case like this it would be helpful to the reviewing admin if you noted on the article talk page your reasons for tagging it as a hoax. See, for example (if it's still there) Talk:Leandro Santinho Morales, which I have just written up and left for another admin to consider. Hoaxes that take a lot of checking before one is sure should normally go to AfD, but if the checking assembles damning enough evidence which once assembled can be checked quickly, a G3 speedy will usually be accepted. Well done for spotting it anyway, it's depressing how many get through. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

read the fracking discusion page

you seriously can not be that dumb republican to belive that lies are not fiction! 71.99.92.124 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What you and I believe is completely irrelevant. We need to find sources to back up claims. Check out WP:R and WP:V for more info. The fact that those pages get one letter abbreviates is an example of how important they are to Wikipedia. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a republican or dumb. OlYeller^Talktome 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Redirect are considered so important that they have one-letter abbreviations. However, is Wikipedia:Redirect relevant? Did you by any chance want the two letter abbreviation Wikipedia:RS? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup; must have missed the 'S' key. OlYeller^Talktome 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian Veterinary Association article

Hi mate, I am trying to start a page on my professional organisation, the Australian Veterinary Association, but it keeps getting deleted. Where am I going wrong ? I'm not really writing anything controversial, its a fairly dry history, and I have been basing my efforts on the entry for the American Veterinary Medical Association. Any tips ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XPR250 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Navab Safa

thanks for the heads up, someone else already nailed it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Private transfer fees

I created a page yesterday for private transfer fees (admittedly, this was my first time creating a Wikipedia page, so there are certainly some formatting issues), and came back to find that another user (who has since deleted his accounts) made some pretty drastic changes that seemed to discredit more than add to the entry. The user deleted some of the headers, deleted the category listing, and removed all sources/citations. I was wondering what the best way to deal with this issue is. The topic of Private transfer fees is fairly controversial, with some large developers as their biggest proponents, but I don't want to get into a back and forth editing "war." Any suggestions? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolob (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Loganpatton5/Enter your new article name here

Thanks for the pointer; I've deleted the page. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea thingy

Thanks, you can always stick on one of the CSD templates which will always be picked up sooner or later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Brook Waimarama Sanctuary

Hello OlYeller21. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brook Waimarama Sanctuary, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to nature sanctuaries. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Jacob Langvad

Hello, I deleted Jacob Langvad as a copyvio even though you changed the speedy tag from G12 to A7. The actual source page uses CC-BY-NC-ND which is incompatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA) so it was a copyvio after all. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)