User talk:Cryptic/archive-6

This page is an archive. Please do not edit it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

In the unlikely event that you care

I'm glad to see that you've returned in some capacity. You were always the admin I respected the most, and it was disheartening to discover you'd left after I returned from my brief vacation.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

The Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War cut-and-paste page move was one of my earilest mistakes when I was a relatively new user here. Thanks for fixing it. (You don't need to reply.) Hbdragon88 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiman

G'day Cryptic. You recently rv'd some vandalism to the Dog page to the last version by Wikiman. Unfortunately, he also is a vandal... Gordon | Talk, 19 October 2006 @12:17 UTC


dumbass

dont call my shit a garage band, you sit on wikipedia all day and edit peoples nonsense come on how much room do you have to talk about anybodys anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpeper7 (talk • contribs)

Tsk. Ξxtreme Unction 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York-Adams Area Council

I think it is getting sorted out. Now if I could get Camp Tuckahoe deleted so that York-Adams Area Council can be moved into its place. Thanks for your help. --evrik 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you delete the article StarGateWars? I was creating it and accidently clicked save instead of preview. How was it advertising? I only play the game. Tyscorp 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty

Re: [1] Okay, thanks. I wasn't entirely sure if it qualified under the existing CSD criteria (heh, guess I found out). Thanks again. EVula 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It is much appreciated. I'll let you know if he continues his antics. And enjoy your trip. :-) Nightscream 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, I spoke to an administrator back in January about how to become an administrator, and he said you need 2,000 edits. How can an editor check how many edits they have? And if they have enough, what should they do to lobby for an admin position? Thanks. Nightscream 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not be Cryptic, I do know the answers to which you seek. I would recommend Wannabe Kate's Tool for checking your edits, as it does a good job of presenting everything (not just your edits, but your actual activity).
As for making a request to be an administrator, a 2k post count is hardly the only requirement. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and read up there; the various editors who hang out there all have different (rather stringent) requirements that you must pass if you want their support; basically, you just need to prove to them that you deserve to be an administrator. After a cursory glance, I think you might get shot down (that's not a personal statement about you; I'm just saying). I'd recommend you submit an Editor Review to get more in-depth feedback about what you may need to do to secure an administrator position. EVula 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not the best person to ask; I've recently returned from a six-month-long wikibreak, and WP:RFA's standards are notoriously inflationary. —Cryptic 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. However I believe Nightscream has lied and misrepresented the situation with me. He unfairly and unjustly attacked and provoked me due to differences in our POV over many things. He misused and abused his power and authority as a moderator to ban me and since the site administrator does not care about the site he just took nightscream's side to try and avoid conflict as Luigi would be the one throwing the snit fit if he didn't get his way. I tried to reasonably talk to him about this but he pretends that I do not exist which is just continuing the insult and degredation that I received from him and the administrators of nitcentral. I have tried to be polite and civil about but that didn't work and I have gotten mad and been uncivil with him yes, but it is all a direct result of his provocation of me. I am sorry that his arrogance and jerky behavior has caused an issue here and will not pursue it further here unless he attacks or otherwise attempts the same behavior against me here that he did on nitcentral.Rwetruck 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bosco Technical Institute

You didn't actually revert the speedy to the redirect. Which is okay, because I was going to move the page back to where it was before it was moved without any consultation or prior notice. --evrik 11:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Looked ok to me. In any case, I've deleted the revisions except for the initial redirect; you can move pages over them if there's only one revision and it's a redirect to the title you're moving from. —Cryptic 11:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, this isn't working for me yet ... Don Bosco Technical Institute, Rosemead was Don Bosco Technical Institute. I object to the move not because the guy who made the move was wrong, but because he gave no notice, gave no chnace for input, and simply created a redirect. I would like to see the Rosemead page restored to the original name (keeping the history). If User:Scorpion prinz, let him notify us first ... or maybe actually do something with the page like creating a DAB page. --evrik
OK; I've moved it back (and I didn't get the administrator-only "delete that page first?" prompt, so it should have worked fine for normal users). —Cryptic 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EIT.gif

I thought fair use images were only to be used in the Article space and only if alternatives are not available for whatever reason (the trademark/copyright protections of logos being one of them). Therefore I would think that this should be deleted since it is only used on a userpage. --Trödel 19:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be unused for seven days. See WP:CSD#I5. —Cryptic 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for info and link :) --Trödel 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to Inhale

I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waiting to Inhale. Would you mind taking care of the redirect Waiting to inhale, too? Cheers! -AED 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RussArt linkspam

In last revision, there is no link to RussArt. Please give me a reason, why you delete RussArt entry and not TigerCinema? Both are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.88.27 (talk • contribs)

Because I saw RussArt being added (yet again), and hadn't yet had a chance to go through the entries that were already there. —Cryptic 08:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've stumbled into the midst of this issue-- when I deleted the inline ext links from the list, I accidentally removed the RussArt entry. I have now restored it to the list. I have no issue with this either way; my only concern was that inline external links were inappropriate. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Helgrot

User Helgrot is kind of new and I do not think it is fair practice to block him without any warning.--Bakhteiarov 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

undelete "decayenne"

Hello.

I recently made an article (called decayenne) that was deleted because it sounded like an advertisement and because there were no sources other than decayenne.com. However, I tried to clean up the advertising "feel" of the article before it was deleted. I came across an interview today on www.easybourse.com (a french financial online magazine) with one of the founders of decayenne. They also had interviews with the founders of other social networks that have articles on wikipedia, notably aSmallWorld. decayenne is important enough to have on Wikipedia and undeleting the article would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, especially because of how big social networks have become in contemporary living. As previously noted, the number of decayenne members is not that great (currently ca. 4,000), but that is a poor indicator of importance as decayenne has a strict invite-only policy that no other such site has. Niche social networks are the future of social networking, and even in elite aSmallWorld there is a lot of buzz about decayenne. Please undelete the article.

Thanks, RedBLACKandBURN 31 Oct 2006

Done. I'm still pretty dubious that this meets our content guidelines, but I'll give you a chance to clean it up. —Cryptic 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Garyrmortimer

Looks like this user's gotten hit by a block you set on this IP. Since it was such a long block, I was thinking I should double-check with you before converting to anon-only? I'm mainly looking at the user's creation log, which suggests the account existed about two weeks ago, or so. Thoughts? Luna Santin 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked anon-only myself; I've never seen one of these /index.php spambots edit with a username. (Should've blocked anon-only in the first place, but I'm still not used to having the option.) —Cryptic 11:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Good job on the formatting on JW's page. I figured there must be SOME way to do it. Kudos. F.A.A.F.A 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: tbm-teeth.jpg

Why did you remove this image off the This Busy Monster page? I don't speak Wikipedian so "speedied unfree image" doesn't mean much to me, but I have express permission from Chistopher Possanza to use the image, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. Waqcku 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the large block of text that appeared when you uploaded the image explains, mere permission to display an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient; they must also be freely redistributable and modifiable. When such images are uploaded, they immediately become candidates for speedy deletion. —Cryptic 23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard E. Witkin

Hi Cryptic, thank you for undeleting revisions from the article. I should have taken a closer look at the history to determine which revisions were in violation of copyright, and I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. Cheers, Tangotango 07:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoia Tour

You are suppressing a page that has references from media. There are about 243 references to the Pronoia Tour on Google alone. In fact I have archive video footage of this event, including Peter Rosen's Kidcast for Peace. Are you not going with the consensus, and leaving this to a "majority" opinion amongst a few wiki users? The Pronoia Tour resulted in a lot of offshoots, including a Cybersafari to Africa. There is also mention on the Wired Magazine page Ethnopunk 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place to complain about a properly closed, nearly unanimous afd is on WP:DRV, not here. —Cryptic 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Reilly (comedian)

Hi. I'm building a list of all the David Reilly's of the world, and noticed you'd deleted one of mine. I'm fairly new, and not sure of everything, but what was wrong with it?

David Reilly [[user:reillyd]

As can be seen in my deletion summary, the article consisted only of the words "Dave Reilly is a comedian in the United States." Merely having a job does not qualify a person for an article on Wikipedia, and the article didn't say anything else about him. For more, see WP:CSD#A7 and WP:BIO. —Cryptic 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonie Walker

Hi Cryptic. I'm a pretty new Wikipedian with only minor edits to my name, mostly in music. I've come across this article that is frankly atrocious, seems to violate everything in the book and I have no clue how and what to tag. Can you help? Cricket02 23:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's atrocious, check out some of the articles that transclude {{db-band}}. (Search for "(transclusion)".) That said, a couple problems jump out at me, glancing through Lonie Walker:
  • The diction is quite hypish and promotional, and hardly NPOV. The whole article reads like a magazine review.
  • Quotations should never, ever be used to narrate an article. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an interview. Where they remain, each one needs an inline citation.
  • The section on her bar should either be split into a separate article or drastically cut down. The article's about her, not her business.
  • The album sections should be split into separate articles.
  • The trivia section should be removed. If the information isn't important enough to be incorporated into the article's prose, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia entry. Trivial is the opposite of encyclopedic.
  • Similarly, the quotes section could stand to be removed; if she's not known for being quotable, they belong in Wikiquote at best.
  • The sourcing is, well, yes, atrocious. All the sources listed are from a website the subject is associated with. At the very least, if the press reviews and magazine articles reproduced on her web site are legitimate, they should be sourced directly, not through her site.
  • Category:American poets should be removed unless she's actually a published poet.
  • Lots of redundant categories. Articles should not be in both a category and one of its descendants; Category:Chicago musicians is a subcategory of Category:People from Chicago, for example, so the latter should go. So should Category:American musicians, Category:American entertainers, Category:African American musicians, Category:Jazz musicians, and probably several more.
...but that's not really what you asked. If you're not willing to put the time into cleaning up the article yourself (no shame in that; I'm not either), there are specific cleanup tags for all of the problems above ({{POV-check}}, {{cleanup-tone}}, {{quotefarm}}, {{split-apart}} or {{splitsections}}, {{toomuchtrivia}}, {{quotefarm}}, {{primarysources}}, and while I don't know one for the categories, I'm sure it exists), but rather than bombard the article with two pages' worth of boxes, a straightforward {{POV-check}} and a generic {{cleanup}}, with your specific concerns listed on the talk page, is both the best approach and the easiest to remember. —Cryptic 11:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I knew you could articulate all that far better than I. I could tell it was a clear vanity article as, among other things, she didn't catch a few "I"s in the body - and in BRIEFLY delving into the history she changes "I" and "my" to the correct person. She's already removed tags: Cleanup-date|August 2006 - cleanup-cliche|topic - confusing, without cleaning up. And to top that - she's added the article to other languages because she herself added fr:Lonie Walker + de:Lonie Walker to the article, adding it to other languages, although those have since been deleted from those Wikis. And you're right, I'm not willing to clean it up. I would just as soon prod it with 943 ghits - but with magazine reviews not sure that's possible, although you're right, they are not verifiable since they are on her own site. In your opinion, would it qualify for prod? If not, mind if I cut and paste some of your suggestions into its talk page? Cricket02 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's very unlikely that this article was written by the subject - the only significant editor of the article is Supershow (talk ·  contribs), who has substantial contributions going back to late July. The first-person language seems to stem from using quotations as narration, and the cleanup tags were both added and removed by him. The interwiki links are puzzling - the articles weren't deleted, they never even existed! [2] [3] [4] Maybe he thought interwikis could be used like redlinks.

    If the magazine reviews are legitimate or the named albums aren't self-published, then she certainly meets WP:MUSIC (the named magazines are reliable sources, even if the "reprints" on her web site are not); as such, I wouldn't even consider prodding this article. At most, if I was convinced that the reviews weren't in fact published by third parties and that none of the albums were published by major labels or independent indie labels, I'd take it to AFD to get more eyeballs. There doesn't seem to be much reason to dispute those, though, only to re-source them if possible, or add a disclaimer template like {{primarysources}} or {{self-published|www.loniewalker.com}}. This really looks more like a cleanup candidate than one for deletion. —Cryptic 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your time and effort on this, and your opinion well-respected. Everything makes total sense and it helped me to clarify things. I will try and coax some cleanup on it. Thanks much again. Cricket02 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recent notability notice removals

Hi - you removed notability (and inappropriate db-) templates from Witch Hunter and Robert Bateman High School. I am trying to mark newly created articles more clearly and am not up to speed on all the delete templates, and if in doubt - I mark with notability. I was unaware of the recent change to the proposed guidelines on music notability that if the band is notable their albums are - so thanks for helping me uncover that.

However, I do think that Robert Bateman High School should at least be marked notable (or deleted under A7) as there is no assertion in the article of why it is notable. It was founded in 2004, and while the website is nice - and it looks like there is alot of promotion of the school - I couldn't find evidence of independent publication about the school, any guidance you can give would be appreciated. --Trödel 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these articles were marked with "notability notice" templates, just db-a7 variants. I wasn't aware of a recent change to WP:MUSIC, but it's not really relevant, since A7 doesn't reference it.
A7 is very specific about what it makes speedy-deleteable. (By a weird coincidence, I was paging through the discussion that first put it into place when the new messages banner lit up my screen.) Articles about real people, small groups of real people (i.e. bands and clubs), companies, or web content can be speedied via this criterion if they don't assert any notability. Articles about books, albums, places, fictitious things, or anything else can't be.
Schools in particular are rancorous; abominable informationless single-sentence substub though it be, the only way Robert Bateman High School or most any other high school would get a consensus for deletion if listed on afd would be if it turned out to be a hoax. (And no, hoaxes are specifically not subject to speedy deletion, either - they need more than one or two pairs of eyes to be certain. Rossami used to maintain a list of apparent hoaxes that ended up being kept on his user page.) There's no way Witch Hunter would be deleted at afd, either; the overwhelming majority of our articles about albums contain nothing more than this article than an infobox, and the band that released it is clearly notable.
This isn't a nomic-like game of "guess which speedy criterion I can shoehorn this article into". We only speedy-delete very specific kinds of articles, and those kinds are determined by long experience of the kinds of articles that deleted every time when brought to a larger audience like afd. —Cryptic 17:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice - I wasn't trying to shoehorn any particular article in - the day I did those I reviewed about 100 new pages, marked some with db-?? if I was unsure, speedied clear violations, marked some with {{notability}}, but left the majority in place. I was unsure about these and appreciate your comments --Trödel 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my page. :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron & Budd

We have a new response on our talk page, concerning your edit Baronandbudd 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry About Deleted and Protected article

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

Myself and alot of others worked hard to write this article, and we feel it was deleted and protected without merit. Here are some points we are trying to convey against the Deletion reasons: (Pardon the swearing and bashing, we were angry)

dobbies: yea apparently they didnt know who crooked i was....sumthin about that it was shameless self-promotion...

Myself: I read Wiki alot, but fuck that shit. It wasn't promoting, it was straight up info. And if you look at any other artists wiki, you could say it is promotion for any of them.

Tony: Quote from: Kingwell on October 28, 2006, 04:27:24 PM Thats exactly what I thinking. Isn't everything on Wiki regarding entertainment or entertainers promotion, technically?

TRD: Any free information is free promotion if its relates to an entertainer.


I had also created pages for his mixtapes, which I see have been deleted because they included links to buy them, and were not notable releases. If it is possible to bring these pages back without the links to purchase, would you do that? Also, I feel that there are alot of unnotable albums/mixtapes on Wikipedia, why should his get the boot?

This artist is signed to a major label, I don't see how it was argued that he isn't a notable artist.


Can you please message me back on my MyTalk,

Regards, Kingwell

Hi

Forgive me if posted in the wrong spot, but I'm still learning making pages in Wikipedia. I have a question regarding this chat you had with one of my co-workers. I'm wondering what was the offensive material? I'm in the process editing the article about my company that Edward was attempting to post. So, if you can tell me what was offensive, that would be appreciated.

Franklin 2006.11.11.0048 UTC

The posted "article" consisted entirely of a logo and an external link, and was thoroughly objectionable. Please stop and read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography before proceeding. —Cryptic 08:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about that; I wasn't aware that material was posted. I originally thought he was posting a 2 page essay that I wrote. Thanks for the heads up. Franklin 2006.11.11.2322 UTC

Thanks

Hi Cryptic, thanks a lot for your advice... Please do let me know if you see any further areas for improvement -- Lost(talk) 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBUBKZUG

Hey, can you take a moment and delete this nonsense article? The creator keeps removing the speedy tags, and I am tired of playing around with him. There is no question as to its nonsensical and farcical nature. The guy is just a vandal and needs a serious warning. Thanks for your time. ---Charles 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action on this! ---Charles 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to delete my account

Hi Cryptic,

I'm looking to delete and close my account completely -- see [5] and [6]. What is the best way to go about this procedure? I would like to protect the account pages afterwards from recreation or editing.

--Deodar 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest you can come is to change your username. Accounts can't be deleted. —Cryptic 17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what I would like to do is delete both the userpage and the talk page and protect against recreation. I have seen this done before when people leave. --Deodar 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, one step in my long goodbye was to change my username, which I did a few weeks ago. I'm just looking to finish the process. --Deodar 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted your user page, but we normally do not delete user talk pages. (See Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?.) Is there some reason not to just redirect it? —Cryptic 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your the wrong person to talk to. I am following for a few weeks the procedure outlined here: Right to Vanish. I also didn't use the right deletion tag. (There was an edit conflict -- thanks for deleting my user page. I could put in a redirect for the talk, but I would prefer deletion as per RightToVanish and as per examples of others I have seen.) --Deodar 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to administrator here [7]. Hopefully this is a way to handle it properly. --Deodar 17:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not protected the talk page against recreation, but have done so with the main page. It however requires to have a place holder, so I have added that. The account is now indef protected per request. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

Hi! You just reverted and I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning. I'll reply here. Thanks! —SolelyFacts 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because you seem to be lost. As has been explained multiple times by several editors on the guideline's talk page, you're trying to clarify a facet of Wikipedia:External links on a completely unrelated page. —Cryptic 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you explain? "Inappropriate, objectable web content" has nothing to do with "External links".
It has not been explained multiple times for your information. The explanation was irrelevant as I had stated in the talk. They keep talking about censorship, which is not my focus.
Who are you? You weren't even part of the discussion and come in and the first thing you do is revert. —SolelyFacts 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop and read what you're reverting to. Wikipedia:Notability (web) talks about whether entire articles should exist. You're trying to hijack it midsentence into talking about external links. Articles ≠ external links. —Cryptic 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm trying to "hijack it midsentence"? What are you talking about? Have you not read the above? Wow, you are confusing me. That is not about external links, as I stated multiple times.

The "such as a link to a shock site" is not related to the "Inappropriate, objectable web content which are irrelevant to the article will also be". Was that your interpretation? Because I can see how that could lead to miscommunication.

"such as a link to a shock site" should not have been there, it is because I edited from a previous version so ignore that part, and tell me why "Inappropriate, objectable web content..." is irrelevant. That is an important aspect to consider. —SolelyFacts 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is.—SolelyFacts 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see

I see Pascal.Tesson contacted you. No wonder why you're not neutral. I could already see this from your first reply. I knew something was up. —SolelyFacts 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done reading what Pascal.Tesson said. He made many false accusations, "disregarding other editors' opinions". If you look at the talk, you will see I started a list of what people wanted changed, and I did changed them.

His accusations are one-sided and now I see why you had biases from the start, because that person had persuaded you. I need a neutral talk, please. —SolelyFacts 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Need your opinion

Cryptic, I'm attempting to post my article about my company, however, apparently it's violating a policy in Wikipedia, G11, if you can email me, can you help me out to identify what is paragraphs are offensive? Email me at [removed]] Thanks! Franklin 2006.11.14.1854 UTC

Blake Schilb

I had not logged on for a few weeks, and got a message that a page I'd created for Blake Schilb was to be deleted because of notability. When I looked up who deleted it, I got this page. Schilb is a men's basketball player for Loyola University, 2006 Honorable Mention All-America, Horizon League 2006-07 Preseason Player of the Year, and projected as a 2007 NBA Draft Pick. Since the page was deleted, he's been named to the Preseason Wooden Award watch list of arguably the Top 50 players in college basketball. In reading the guidelines on notability, I assumed that these distinctions would qualify. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks much. East-West

... ... ... I don't know what I was on, sorry. I've restored the article. —Cryptic 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Hi. I have just filed a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rrfayette. Since I have listed you as one of the users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute, I was hoping you could take a look at it. But I also have a question: I have alerted Milo H Minderbinder (talk · contribs) since he was heavily involved but before I get accused of canvassing can you tell me whether or not it is ok to similarly notify all the users which I have listed as editors who have tried and failed to resolve the dispute with Rrfayette? Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM#Canvassing has all you ever wanted to know and more. For an RFC, where the aim is to resolve disputes, it's not problematic unless you're copying the message to all 173 members of a wikiproject or such. —Cryptic 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Group

Thanks for the unref tag - they are a problem - i dont think much has been written about them - it'll probably be web based info - will get around to it - thanks anyways! Needs work SatuSuro 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BusBank

Hey, just wondering how 2 pages got deleted. In the past someone created a page called "BusBank" for the charter bus service company. The correct spelling of the company is "The BusBank." While I am new to Wikipedia page creation, I understood that a redirect had to be made in order to bring people from the Google results to the proper page. Also, I added the company logo and a pic of buses to The BusBank's page. Call it first timers stupidity or whatever, but I would like to have the page restored minus any edits that you feel was against Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you. User:Thebusbank

The article made no assertion of notability. —Cryptic 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I do not know the fine line between notability and promotion. The BusBank has the largest Charter Bus network in North America (larger than Greyhound's fleet) also was highly applauded by newspapers for its evacuation relief efforts in hurricane's Katrina and Rita, the story regarding that effort was linked on the page also. I would only like to have "BusBank" old page restored to read "The BusBank" Please let me know if this is possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebusbank (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article had actually said that, it wouldn't have been deleted. Can you provide a independent reference to back this up? (The external link in the article was to one of the company's own press releases.) —Cryptic 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic- Yes it was a press release, but it was previously on Wikipedia, under "BusBank" so obviously it was deemed appropriate content since that page was active for almost a year. The page only got deleted when I redirected it to "The BusBank" Please let me know your thoughts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebusbank (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All that shows is that no one noticed it earlier. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core, non-negotiable content policy; I don't see anything in a casual google except reprints of company press releases, which do not constitute reliable sources. If your company is indeed larger than Greyhound Lines, it should be trivial to provide third-party verification. —Cryptic 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the page be reinstated as a stub? Much like coach USA without the press release? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebusbank (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't overrule another administrator's deletion (it was Brookie who deleted the article, not me) without third-party verification. I'll have time later today to look through the search results more carefully if you can't or won't provide it before then. —Cryptic 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Cryptic, I have attached a link that explains that The BusBank recieved the United Motorcoach Association's Vision Award and a link explaining that it is given to the "best and brightest companies" in the industry. The BusBank is the first non-operator to recieve this award. I hope this gives enough 3rd party evidence and I would like to link these sites once/if The BusBank page becomes available once again. Thanks again.

http://www.uma.org/

http://www.trailways.com/download.asp?fl=%2Fpdf%2FTraveler_2003.pdf

http://www.busbank.com/visionAward.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebusbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Searching "busbank chicago-tribune" or "busbank houston-chronicle" seems to generate some possible third-party sources that could be considered, although I can't find any article *about* them, they always seem to be the sideline. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(via edit conflict) The only mention of your company that I can find on uma.org is this directory-style entry. The pdf appears to be Trailways Transportation System's yearly company newsletter, and has a brief mention of you buried on page 16.
On the other hand, here's what I found on my own, buried amongst a great many verbatim reprinted company press releases, advertisements, and directory listings.
  • Kaiser, Rob (2002-11-11). "Angels scarce, but still hovering" (Fee required). Chicago Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 2006-11-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (A reprint of the full text is available here.) This clearly states that BusBank owns no vehicles, but is instead a travel broker, in comparison to both your misleading assertion above that you have a larger fleet than Greyhound and the image caption "One of the 60,000+ buses in The BusBank's fleet" in the deleted article.
  • Warrick, Joby (2006-03-21). "System makes storm cleanup cost more". The News & Observer. Retrieved 2006-11-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) This contains the only material I could find in regards to your company's role in the Hurricane Katrina evacuation. It's a passing mention in an article about the amount of waste inherent in the contractor-subcontractor-subcontractor system.
But this doesn't seem to be what your company is primarily known for. I've found a great deal of information about a certain bus accident, which, as documented in our Hurricane Rita article, killed 23 nursing home patients; curiously, no mention is made of this in the deleted article at all. A bare handful of the stories I found:
The BusBank, barely, would appear to meet our notability guidelines, if you can construe the Chicago Tribune article as being primarily about this company instead of mentioning it as a handy example. It's a borderline case, and I'd vote to delete it if it were formally nominated for deletion. I'm thus not going to take any action with regards to the article. If you still want it undeleted, you can try asking the deleting administrator; if he refuses also, you can make a formal listing on our deletion review page. If restored, however, I can assure you that the final article will bear very little resemblence to the hagiography that was speedy-deleted earlier today. —Cryptic 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cryptic, I'm glad that Wikipedia thinks that the Expedia of the Charter Bus Industry is not important enough and gets deleted hours after an edit, but Harold's Chicken Shack has a Wikipedia page that is fact-filled, enlightening and verifiable. Would it be possible to remove this post or move it to my profile's talk page in case i have further questions. Thanks

I copied it here - please consider registering a username - it makes it easier to find stuff like this. --Trödel 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sputniks Down

Hi. I was wondering if you could re-assess your opinion on the Sputniks Down page? I've added more info/citations so that the significance of the band is brought to light. Thanks in advance {Dianogah 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Square (slang)

RE: "Are they bored yet?" I reckon we'll find out. It depends on whether that one guy is lurking "around the corner". Wahkeenah 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Noodle Soup dance...

Why the Protected notice? Not really explained in the history...You could've just done a redirect to the Harlem shake.

Dont delete the Akron wiki article!

Why did you delete it?

Thanks for fixing my references

... on the Savannah cat article. Next time I get that message for speedy deletion, I'll remember to check my citation syntax! --Finiteyoda 09:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STUDIO L2

The art gallery and museum Studio L2 is not commercial. I wrote a very small note about the existence of this institution and art installation (please delete if anything within the page sounds wrong, but I AM working with it, under construction) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nike George (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, but

Thanks for taking the time to clean up the Steve Buyer article. It seems that the refrences to Mark Foley's money to steve buyer have been removed. I have included links below, if you could please place the item back.

Florida Republican Leadership PAC http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00325969 Look who the affliated person is

Donations from FRLPAC http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00325969&Cycle=2002

Hope this is sufficent to get the sorced fact back into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.8.170.203 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this does show that they have a funding connection. This in itself isn't particularly noteworthy. The point of the paragraph I removed was that "there have been increasing calls for Rep. Buyer to return the 2500 dollars"; it's this statement that needs a source, and I was unable to find one except for a few mentions on blogs, which aren't reliable sources. —Cryptic 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I've copied this to Talk:Steve Buyer; any followups should go there. —Cryptic 09:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please see talk page. Thanks

Neither you nor Gamaliel have responded to my concerns. Am I wrong to take a lack of responce as the go ahead to place to newly sorced facts back into the article?

Holy crap

Wow. You're back. Only just twigged. Welcome back. Sorry to take this long to realise. Steve block Talk 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for advices - I just wonder if my articles still are under discussion? Are all changes made? Kindest Nike NGL 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WiiVolve article

Thanks for placing the citation thing on the WiiVolve article, but I don't think that there ARE any third party publications yet. What should I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WiiVolve (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't any third-party verification, we can't have an article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). —Cryptic 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Will you be updating your bot to tally ArbCom results? Ral315 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to myself, you don't need to bother- another user is running a bot: User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. Thanks again for handling it last year. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was Interiot who did it last year, and my bot's blocked in any case. —Cryptic 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answers

Hi Cryptic. I'm in the process of answering the questions on my page, and hope to wrap things up this morning over the next few hours as time permits. I just wanted to let you know that I have every intention of answering them. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for helping me to avoid what I think would probably, in the end, have been a mistake at this time. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sufferage

Apologize for the ignorance. But how many edits do I need for Sufferage? Thanks Abu ali 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

150 by the start of the election, as it says at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote. —Cryptic 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bryant

Sorry about that - I'll fix it.--Brownlee 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks as well for notifying me on FloNight. Ral315 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler script

The script appears to hide the whole rest of the article, instead of just everything up to and including the endspoiler tag. See e.g. A Modest Proposal. If this is difficult to fix, please say so, then I'll have a go at it. Yours sincerely, Shinobu 02:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Template:Endspoiler lost both class="endspoiler" and id="spoiler" at some point. I've replaced the former; this fixes the latter. —Cryptic 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disenfranchised

I saw your note against my user name ( it's she, incidentally). I'm sorry; I did not realise that there was a qualification for entry. Clio the Muse 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Primarysources

Template:Primarysources is looking like an edit war. I post the tag on a page and it says one thing by the time I post it on another page it says something else. I am sure that the template needs work and that all of you making changes have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, but it is unseemly to keep changing the template without coming to consensus on what it is going to say first. When you edit the template you are editing a post that I have made on and that still lives on multiple pages. If you want to change it, that’s fine, it’s the wiki way. Please bring it to the talk page and work out what and why it should say before you change it.

Posted to talk pages for User:Jossi, User:Cryptic, User:Centrx

Please keep in mind it is my signature on a whole bunch of pages that that template is living on. The people that are seeing the template are seeing my post keep changing with no idea why.

Thank you Jeepday 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Hiya. When you note that editors don't have suffrage to vote in the ArbCom elections (e.g. Cleo123 on the "Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me" vote page), you're using gender-specific terms that aren't necessary and surely contribute to the perception of WP as a boys' club. In the case of ContivityGoddess, you described a self-described woman as "he" on the Starblind & Golbez vote pages. Could you not use a more gender-neutral wording? Cheers, Vizjim 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case it matters...

I've unblocked your Crypticbot account since you've made recent edits. Regards, Kimchi.sg 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ToodieFull.jpg

In a way, that image is redundant because there is already an image of the same character being used on the List of characters in Camp Lazlo article. Besides, the image doesn't look like a screenshot from Camp Lazlo. It looks like it has been edited (hint, the whiskers on the right and the red shoes). Squirepants101 22:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yrgh

I saw you recently reverted User:Yrgh's edits to the RFC page. If you see his user history, I have warned him twice against just posting his soapbox complaint as he did, and asked him to read instructions. He either does not know how, or is unwilling, and I am asking you if you would help me deal with this editor. A lot of editors thought he meant well with his edits, but I'm starting to get wary of the situation. Very wary. Please help me! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sean Howard/Archive 3 and Talk:Sean Howard/Archive 4

You've removed the speedy delete tags from these. Yes, an aricle on Sean Howard does exist, but that Sean Howard is not the topic of these talk archives. The article that these talk archives are related to was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Howard (American webcomic artist). Note that Talk:Sean Howard/Archive 2 was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sean Howard/Archive 2, so it doesn't seem to me that there should be any reason to keep archives 3 and 4. -- Dragonfiend 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Craft

Can you restore Kitchen Craft of Canada Ltd. please. It is one of the largest companies in Winnipeg, Manitoba and part of a project to list all top employers in the city. jdobbin 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat has restored it and moved it into your userspace at User:Jdobbin/Kitchen Craft of Canada Ltd.. —Cryptic 02:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Lane Luxury Community

Hi! I just spent two hours yesterday creating an article for Victory Lanes community and you deleted it for 'blatent advertising'. I am not anyway associated with the community, nor did I leave any contact information on how to purchase land or exactly where it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the sharing of people, places, and things...yet when I post about all the features that this unique community offers, it gets deleted!? 

The community has been featured in several articles including:


I thought that the concept of having an uber-rich community with its own race track was very interesting...not unlike the Jumboair luxury community that resides in Florida. How can I modify the information so it won't violate any terms and get deleted again - I think quite a few people would be interested in reading about it (just like people read the Robb Report - most can't afford the items, yet it is fun to dream!). Thanks Wrzfreak 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, which I've just moved into your userspace at User:Wrzfreak/Victory Lane Luxury Community, reads like a brochure, and at the time I deleted it, I was reasonably sure it had been copied out of one. It cited no reliable published sources, was almost completely unwikified, and was highly promotional in nature - in short, indistinguishable from the deluge of spam we are constantly inundated with. —Cryptic 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable - there is limited information on the community except for the links I provided above as well as the actual website - in the future how do you suggest that I post info for commercial locations without sounding like I am a sales person? Wrzfreak 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Hotel

I just had an article that I worked hours on deleted. The article was referring to one of the top luxury hotels in London. The hotel is part of a chain. There are other hotel's from the chain listed and there are numerous other luxury hotel's from London also listing articles. I worked on making it very 'non commercial'. Could you tell me why this was deleted but the others are ok? Thanks...I really appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abe66 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any deleted revisions at Hyde Park Hotel or several other permutations of the title, nor do I see anything similar in my deletion logs. Can you be more specific? —Cryptic 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that....it was The Mandarin Oriental, Hyde Park. I used other hotels that are already listed in London as a template. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abe66 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Primerica Financial Services NPOV

How does having the history of the company and a small criticism section, all of which are sourced, account for tagging the article with a NPOV dispute? What should be removed? I apologize for removing the NPOV tag, which I did without signing in, but I don't see the issue.

Sure I'm pro-Primerica, as are people against who add to the article. From what I've read as long as the subject matter added to the article pertains to the article and can be sourced it can be allowed. Am I wrong? Are the people who want to flame the company have more say about article. They shouldn't. Should people be allowed to add advertising shill to the article, no. Where do we draw the line?

The company does x, y and z. Some people don't like the fact the company does z. So there, that's how I see the article. If there's other things, illegal things, that the company is doing, state that. But the simple truth should be the stating of facts. That's what I THOUGHT Wikipedia was all about. May I was wrong. A1794 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Crooked I

If you could please take a second look at the deletion of the page for Crooked I. I went onto Wiki to get some information on the artist, and it said the page was deleted and protect from being re-created. He is a legitiment Rap artist who was signed to Death Row, and left teh label to start a Record Label of his own. I did read that it was deleted do to promotional data on the topic, but no matter what you put on Wiki it will be thought of as promotional, of the topic, and I would like to be able to use wiki as a resource on all of my favorite artists. I am new to wiki so if i went to the wrong place to ask about this I am sorry and please direct me to the correct path to get this topic re-posted. adarkfigure 29 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.106.129.123 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review is thataway. —Cryptic 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Incredible

Why have all references to the Duke of Ballenwsorth been removed from this website? Is this a political point against nobles in general, or directed towards the specific house of Ballensworth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.1.66 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just the hoaxes. —Cryptic 11:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Pete.Hurd 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD deletion templates

I saw your comment on Template:Nn-warn-deletion, do you think yourself and other admins would like all the CSD user page warning templates to have a deletion equivalent (i.e. no info about hang-on and in past tense). I have done a few - empty, spam and nn but have not got round to doing them all. Anyway your quick opinion please. Cheers Lethaniol 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't hurt, though this is clearly going to be the most-used one. The phrasing on {{nothanks-sd}} is already general enough that it isn't really out of place for an article that's already been deleted, unlike {{nn-warn}}. Most other speedies either won't merit an extra user-talk notification, aren't deleteable on sight (particularly the image criteria), or come up infrequently enough that specific templates won't be remembered. —Cryptic 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply - :):) Cheers Lethaniol 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

When you closed the AFD for The Search For The Next Fashion Model, you missed deleting TSFTNFM. The page is (or was) a copy of The Search For The Next Fashion Model. DCEdwards1966 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carrion Fields article its deletion

Are you aware that a Wikipedia administator actually considered this article to be valid, as can be seen in the article's history pages? Also, exactly on what grounds have you deleted this article, on which I have spend quite a bit of my free time? 84.192.125.204 12:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously determined to be unsuitable for Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrion Fields. User:Mushroom's declination to speedy-delete it on the grounds that it was "not about a person, group of people, band or club" - the article had been tagged {{db-bio}},which at that time did not apply to web content - is a red herring. —Cryptic 13:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you then explain to me why a page such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands is considered suitable and a page like the one I've attempted to build out isn't? Because this seems neither rational nor fair to me. Or do you intend to delete every article on Wikipedia descriping a multi-user dungeon? 84.192.125.204 13:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody's nominated that article to be considered for deletion. See also WP:INN. —Cryptic 13:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'll fix that momentarily. Please tell me if I'm missing any of the nuances in this matter. 84.192.125.204 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to repeat one related question which you haven't answered yet -- is every article which describes a specific multi-user dungeon to be nominated for deletion under {{db-bio}}?
I already said that the fact that the article was briefly tagged {{db-bio}} had nothing to do with its deletion. —Cryptic 13:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then can I perhaps again ask the question on what grounds you have deleted the Carrion Fields article? The result of a debate held two years ago was to delete, yet this article I have written since had a completely different content. As it stands, you may deleted it wrongfully, and I would like you to investigate that possibility. Thank you. 84.192.125.204 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review is right over there. —Cryptic 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically it raises more questions regarding your recent deletion of the Carrion Fields article than it answers. I will explain what I mean by this. Quoted directly from the Deletion review; This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion. I take it you deleted this article on the grounds that a prior discussion, held over two years ago, resulted in the consensus that the Carrion Fields article was to be deleted. Yet, as I think I've already stated, the article that I have written since featured a completely different content than the one the consensus was reach on in 2005, and I would dare submit that the article you have deleted thus was no longer relevant to that discussion.
You appear to be a person of limited patience. Yet, considering that you have arbitarily, without any prior notification and possibly under an invalid reason to boot have deleted an article I have spend many hours in total on, I would dare to say that I am conducting this discussion in a rather civilized and constructive manner. I would like a few clear responses in return, more specifically;
1) If you did indeed delete the Carrion Fields article based on the consensus reached in 2005 (two years ago), could it be possible you thus deleted it without first examining whether or not that reached consensus actually still applied to an article which has since been re-written to a radically different content?
2) If the answer to the above is yes, and provided you did examine the new content and found it to still be worthy of deletion under the same rational as that which was reached two years ago, then could you explain why the numerous other multi-user dungeon articles have never had a {{db-bio}} tag placed on them, even though they all share identical characteristics to the Carrion Fields article you have deleted?
3) Finally, would you recommend to me, as a fellow Wikipedia editor, that I place {{db-bio}} tags on every multi-user dungeon article I come across from here on? Thank you. 84.192.125.204 13:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Update

Another administrator (user:Steel359) has explained to me what the source of this confusion might be. The original article nominated for deletion was Carrion Fields. The article I am referring to, however, is actually The Carrion Fields (MUD). The first article has not existed since 2005, as it was deleted under the same reached consensus on which you apparently have deleted the second one. The The Carrion Fields (MUD) article however was originally written by me starting in late 2006, with the specific intention to remove all the reasons which originally led to the deletion of the Carrion Fields article in 2005. Could you please look into this a bit more? And my apologies for losing my temper a bit in my previous posts. It's just that, a lot of work has gone into the The Carrion Fields (MUD) article from my part. 84.192.125.204 14:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1/f noise

Please don't delete the material being added to the (currently redirect) page 1/f noise. This material is being developed in accordance with a discussion on Talk:Pink noise, with the redirect being maintained for convenience before the page goes "live".

If you feel it would be more appropriate to develop this material in another manner (e.g. on a Talk subpage) I am happy to discuss this. —WebDrake 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]