User talk:GRBerry/Archive 6

• Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
• Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
• Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

• Archive 4: December 31, 2006 to January 27, 2007
• Archive 5: January 31, 2007 to May 31, 2007
• Archive 6: June 1, 2007 to September 1, 2007
• Archive 7: September 2, 2007 to October 29, 2007
• Archive 8: October 30, 2007 to December 31, 2007
• Archive 9: January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008
• Archive 10: April 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008
• Archive 11: September 1, 2008 to ongoing

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Going

I thought you might like to know that an article you restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 16, Ben Going, has been brought for a hearing at AfD. The spam accounts there are driving me nuts. Ichormosquito 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{afd-anons}} and commented. Trust the closing admin; they usually do a good job of disregarding single purpose accounts once the issue is highlighted. GRBerry 15:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do. Is there any kind of claim I can bring against them? Do I ignore it? I'm asking you because you had pointed out our "serious inter-user conflict". See: Talk:Ben_Going And sorry for being generally stupid. Ichormosquito 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My RfB

Hi. I responded to your oppose on my RfB. If you opposed me because I value the spirit over the letter, then I will remove the response, as I responded assuming you had misunderstood my (easily misunderstandable) old defunct philosophy. I just wish to understand your oppose more. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, couldn't get to this while traveling for the funeral. I note that Deskana has become a 'crat, so this is very moot now. GRBerry 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in an RfC

I saw your comment on the Jeffrey O. Gustafson RfC that you had "first learned of this situation when the DRV for his talk page was opened," but I haven't quickly been able to locate that DRV. Do you have a link to it handy or at least a time-frame when I could look for it?

I was going to offer an outside view to the effect that no administrator should maintain his userpage as a redlink ... but having seen yours, I guess I won't. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 24. I'm not sure I'll keep my userpage as a redlink very long. I only took it red yesterday, and there really isn't anything I want to say on it right now - what I want to say would be frowned on severely. I believe that there has been prior discussion about Jeffrey having his page as a redlink, at least some of which occurred on Jimbo's talk page around the end of May/beginning of June. It is certainly unusual; most admins without a user page just redirect to the talk page. GRBerry 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember that. I also recall that someone suggested making an issue of it, only it turned out that an arbitrator had done the same thing around that time. Thanks for the link which I will go look up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppet

Actually, I don't remember much about that editor or case. Someone who keeps sockpuppeting should probably be blocked indefinitely. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

deletion review: category:jewish american comedians

Thanks for fixing the template. I rarely mess with all the wikipedia policy/bureaucracy stuff and find it to be unnecessarily confusing. Regardless, I'm glad someone is there to fix my screwups. --Osbojos 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. You did things right; the deletion review regulars just decided it was easy enough to change the templates by hand, rather than create convulted, probably non-maintainable syntax for the template you actually used in order to know whether to apply {{la}}, {{lc}}, {{li}}, or one of the others. GRBerry 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinLIKE

I found that the article on WinLIKE was deleted and protected from restoration. Whatever were the reasons to delete the article, the ban on creation a new one on the topic seem to be illicit, as the tecnology exists and is used by quite a number of sites. You may delete the old article, but creation of new, independent one must be opened! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stasdm (talk • contribs).

You might start by reading the deletion discussion or the review of the deletion, which you participated in previously. As was said then, someone without a conflict of interest should write in userspace a new draft, making sure to strictly follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the reasons to name me the person with "conflict of interest"? My only connection to Ceiton is that I was the first Russian WinLIKE user and so was asked to be a Russian WinLIKE forum admin.

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^(T, C, D) 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online DRV

You closed it, because it technically wasn't deleted...but where should we discuss it then? I want to revert it, because it no longer fails WP:WEB, but I don't want an edit war, because Jauerback will revert it back to the redirect again...so what should I do?VDZ 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the AFD with a merge result. The best place to discuss whether there is a consensus to unmerge is at the talk page of the merege/redirect destination, here Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. You need an overall consensus, in which the opinions of the AFD participants are given due weight in evaluating consensus. Having looked further, I agree that merging is appropriate for the article as it was. If the sources you brought to DRV are enough to write an article, write an article using them. I'm a big believer in the Wikipedia:Independent sources method of demonstrating that an article can be written. Whatever you do, don't recreate the game guide content (technical requirements, how to play) or the list of spam external links that was at the bottom. GRBerry 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did try on the talk page, and even asked for help at the village pump when nobody objected, then recreated the article, but Jauerback reverted it right after that and told me to take it to DRV instead... VDZ 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was to rewrite the article using the independent sources to source all content in the new draft. Do that first, possibly at a subpage or by then restoring the redirect over the top, and discuss the rewritten draft. If that is a reasonable article, and you can't get people at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game to discuss it, then solicit feedback from the AFD participants. A draft written only from independent documents is decent evidence of notability. Just adding the links at the bottom, which is almost all you did, doesn't mean anything significant. GRBerry 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DRV comment

GRB, thanks for the notice. I'm not sure how that happened, but I moved it to the appropriate section. Thanks again — xDanielx^Talk 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Template the regulars

I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my original comment, I said to endorse the initial deletion. I do not choose to opine further in that discussion. GRBerry 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hukou

I note your comment on the talk page. I have carefully merged the relevant section into the article in my userspace, and then transferred it in 4 macro steps, and would appreciate your comments. Ohconfucius 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on Pseudoscience

At my RFA you stated that I believe wikipedia should employ a "Scientific" point of view and that I support the full out deletion of Pseudo-science related articles. This couldn't be further from the truth. I have worked very hard on improving scientifically controversial articles that are often labeled pseudoscience. I have brought the Parapsychology article up to GA status. I believe articles who's subjects are frequently described as "pseudoscience" SHOULD exist and should be presented in a NPOV way, simply letting the facts speak for themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green108 evading his block again

Hi, I saw your note on his talk page. Despite your advice, he's editing from an IP address again, here. IPSOS (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I cannot see that an individual can be "tried" for an offence without being allowed to defend himself.

Within the spirit of the law, I am limiting myself to do just that. I informed IPSOS and left a note to that effect on the sockpuppet page.

I am playing with an open hand. Thank you. User:Green108

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your informative comments on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doseuro

I don't feel Doseuro is sourced well enough, although if there are few-to-none articles on this subject in English (as stated on the article's talk page) I'll simply leave it alone. It can be tricky finding notability for foreign things and this looks like a mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me now though. -WarthogDemon 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Reversion of courtesy blanking

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask about this... any particular reason you blanked this discussion? David Fuchs^(talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the IP editor comments triggered it. 68.101.0.201 was among the worse. She is of marginal notability, and having that page as a top search result is a massive disservice to both ourselves and her. As a side benefit, courtesy blanking will make the page less attractive to those executing the DoS attack on her. GRBerry 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds fine- I replaced the general template however with the afd template. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your informative comments on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of courtesy blanking

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask about this... any particular reason you blanked this discussion? David Fuchs^(talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the IP editor comments triggered it. 68.101.0.201 was among the worse. She is of marginal notability, and having that page as a top search result is a massive disservice to both ourselves and her. As a side benefit, courtesy blanking will make the page less attractive to those executing the DoS attack on her. GRBerry 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds fine- I replaced the general template however with the afd template. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doseuro

I don't feel Doseuro is sourced well enough, although if there are few-to-none articles on this subject in English (as stated on the article's talk page) I'll simply leave it alone. It can be tricky finding notability for foreign things and this looks like a mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me now though. -WarthogDemon 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I don't really understand what you want me to do. I created the article Allegations of state terrorism by Iran in order to add facts to wikipedia. I voted to keep Allegations of state terrorism by Russia. You're not making sense to me could you clarify your point?--Southern Texas 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion related to Allegations of Apartheid ArbComm

mischaracterization in evidence

You are mischaracterizing here. The editor states only that he was offline canvassed, not that he was canvassed to vote keep. More likely the opposite as he had previously voted delete, and changed his mind, but we can't say definitively either way. -- 67.98.206.2 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leifern

A call for consistency is not an demand for all-or-nothing, unless you are willing to assume bad faith on my part. --Leifern 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained already on the Workshop page, that is not a call for consistency. A call for consistency requires recognizing differences that matters, not just similarities of titles. Your edit summary and title in leaving that comment was also inappropriate, given what you are responding to, which does not make a personal attack or violate AGF. GRBerry 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not all that complicated. If allegations about apartheid from one country are a notable topic, than allegations about another country can not be considered non-noteworthy unless there are other differences. Reasonable people can disagree whether an article about country X has reached a certain standard of NPOV, SYNTH, OR, etc.; and/or whether country Y has reached that standard. I have never proposed that if one article with a certain title should be kept, then all others must be; nor that if one article with a certain title should be deleted, others must be. And it is a personal attack and a violation of AGF to construe my arguments that way. --Leifern 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

votes or not votes

In theory, you are right.
In practice, you know the votes are counted. Alithien 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you anyway for your comment.

You know, I think contributors on wp:en are a little bit naieve...

The reasons behind the fact that it is claimed these are not votes but discussions and that votes are not counted is to promote discussions above all (and that is good).

BUT when you arrive at the level of a "proposal of deletion" or eg in the ArbCom process, people vote and then, the reason behing the fact it is claimed these are not vote but -again- discussion is to give the opportunity to admins to "stop" a cabal or a group of power.

And in practice, given they are admins with all pov's, they have to "count" the votes.

This lead to the following inconsistence : ArbCom suggest some editors would not have the right to edit these pages (given it is not a vote). How can it be good for the encyclopaedia to prevent people to give arguments explaining a matter ? Who is punished ? Them or the encyclopaedia...

Alithien 06:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the headsup

re apartheid arb. Gzuckier 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H.O.G.D., Inc. Deletion Discussion

Long post of no particular interest to me removed. See original and refactored and signed versions if you care. I removed it because it looks (on solely a skim) like it includes an attack on editors, and I don't want that staying in the archives. GRBerry 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOGD, INC. DELETION DISCUSSION

Please note that this discussion was closed by GlasFet arbitrarily; and w/o concensus. I would respectfully request that it be re-opened; and the full history of the discussion republished. Obviously, as there were many issues which were not addressed, this would save time.--C00483033 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed in good faith by GlassFET (talk · contribs) properly in accordance with WP:DPR#NAC, on the basis of no consensus to delete, after 10 days of extended discussion. He removed his own !vote before closing the discussion, and even after removing his own vote, there were comments by 14 editors and only 4 or 5 of them were in favor of deletion. There may not have been a clear consensus for "keep", but it was obvious that there was not a consensus for deletion. I have never edited the article and as an uninvolved party I found the action of GlassFET appropriate and in accordance with policy.

Further, the post that SSP SPA C00483033 (talk · contribs) left on this page and many other pages as well, and the identical posts by SSP SPA Rondus (talk · contribs) not only is a personal attack on editors, it's possible that it constitutes a legal threat. I'm not sure if it does or not, so out of an abundance of care, I posted the information here on WP:ANI to request administrative review. --Parsifal _Hello 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Shell Midden

I'm sorry if you think the Reference I added to Middens regarding Shell Middens and Julie K. Stein's seminal work was spam. I really don't see it as spam.

Would you be so kind as to help me out here?

Julie's work really is one of the best references for shell midden work. Is it not appropriate to point people to these sorts of works? At least in the references section if no where's else?

I really don't want to create problems for others.

Thanks kindly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allenwc (talk • contribs).

Will reply at this user's talk. GRBerry 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied at my user talk page. Allenwc 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Abuse

I recently created a Wikipedia page for myself, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. I knew Wikipedia opposes autobiographical pages, and I thought about asking others to submit a page for me in their own names, knowing they would gladly have done so, but that seemed not quite honest to me, so I submitted my own page in my own name. I was new to Wikipedia, learning everything from scratch, I made mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and I ultimately included substantial citations to credible outside references which supported what was included in my article. In response to the concerns about the article being autobiographical, I offered to ask others to rewrite the article and add to it, a compromise several editors seemed to view as satisfactory.

Shortly after submitting my article, my websites, boards, and blog were targeted for attacks by "not420/chan", "Anon," "Legion", the "Internet Hate Machine," aggressive internet hackers, in other words. My boards were hacked and spammed with racist, misogynist rhetoric and pornography, e-mail accounts of board members were hacked and violated, and my sites were subjected to "gigaloader" attacks over many days which ultimately forced them off the internet. My life has now been threatened many times in e-mails and via comments to my blog, and I have also received many rape threats, as have my commenters, colleagues and supporters. I am still receiving murder and rape threats.

My personal information, address, telephone number, and other information was published on "Encyclopedia Dramatica" alongside ongoing strategizing as to how to destroy my websites and web presence, harrass me and my family in an ongoing way, and cause me real life harm. The reason for this targeting and harrassment is that I am an outspoken radical feminist.

As part of these attacks, persons were urged to come to Wikipedia and to vote that my Wikipedia article be deleted. Iamcuriousblue, who has evidently written for Wikipedia at some point, was the first advocate for deletion and continued to press for deletion for days and probably weeks. During the discussion of deletion, my article was repeatedly being vandalized, filled with links to racist, misogynist pornograpy, my interracial children were called "mud children," and the most vile speech imaginable was included as "edits", in part by those sent to vandalize the site by Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Iamcuriousblue, who again spearheaded the drive to delete my article, has a long history of attacking my writings and political activism because he is opposed to radical feminism and is a pro-pornography activist.

I followed some of the discussion of deletion and noted that fair-minded, intelligent, credible and, most importantly, objective, Wikipedia editors voted not to delete. One editor noted that among certain populations, my name is a household world. He's right, it is. I am cited as a credible outside reference in at least one Wikipedia article. The discussion, however, continued to be spammed with anonymous deletion votes which in fact were part of the internet attacks against me. My sense is that the vote to delete may have resulted more from a desire to end the ongoing, very toxic and hateful vandalism of my page and ongoing flaming and conflicts than because any sort of consensus had been reached that my article should be deleted on its merits. I ultimately cited to many independent, outside references which are, in fact, thoroughly credible.

I do not see how what happened to me here can be consistent with the community ethos or values of Wikipedia. I think what happened to me here was wrong. The deletion of the article is now being touted as a "victory" by internet thugs at Encyclopedia Dramatica and elsewhere, as well as by those who oppose my long history of anti-pornography, radical feminist politics. And it is a victory for them, but I think it compromises the credibility of Wikipedia's editorial policies and processes.

I would ask that you give what I have written here your serious consideration. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
"Heart" Heartsees2 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the slanderous and petty attacks from this user at User_talk:Heartsees2#Deletion_of_Article_Cheryl_Lindsey_Seelhoff. If this user has a problem with me personally, let her take it through dispute resolution. Iamcuriousblue 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

And I've responded on my page to the slanderous (and serious) responses and ongoing attacks by iamcuriousblue, here and all over the internet, in the interests of taking the first steps in Wiki's Dispute Resolution process. My issue with iamcuriousblue is his conduct, which I think is in violation of Wikipedia's User Conduct policies and guidelines. I posted this here because according to the Dispute Resolution guidelines, we are first to go to those directly involved in the incident that gives rise to the dispute. Thanks for your time. Heartsees2 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 22:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add this incident to log of block and bans?

Just wondering if the two sockpuppets of Green108 identified and blocked here here should be added to the log of blocks and bans here. We are currently experiencing further disruptive SPAs connected with article with many similar patterns to those already logged. It may be useful to log all these incidents for when the article probation or the case is reviewed. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DYK

On August 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shortnose sturgeon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done GR, you have the pictured slot so you should get lots of traffic. Enjoy, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Halophila johnsonii, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I'm impressed that I have more than 20,000 edits [1]. The real count is hovering just over 12,000, and becoming more stagnant as I am reducing my participation in the site. Note: I hope I don't come off as snappy or condenscending; I am just amused. hbdragon88 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Seidokan

Is there anyway I could get a look at that article. As far as I remember there was a merged article of Rod Kobayashi, who is significant is American aikido circles, and his style Seidokan which is not (a later creation). The article itself had been around for quite awhile and although I did not look at it recently I am very surprised it was speedy deleted for any reason. Could be my memory is faulty.Peter Rehse 00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:PRehse/Seidokan. Definitely a poor article, shouldn't have been left in that form for as long as it was. Tag for user request speedy deletion when you are done, as I recommend a total replacement article if we do choose to have an article. If you instead choose to rewrite, ask at DRV for a history restore once the new article is in the mainspace. GRBerry 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that definately needed to go - my memory was faulty. I'll leave it to others to write an article if they wish and have put a delete tag on. Thanks.Peter Rehse 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

Please look again at the Deletion Review--I read A7 to say very clearly that any show of notability is sufficient. WP has enough problems without admins trying to judge by themselves actual notability when it is asserted. If you really think WP:CSD should say otherwise, why not propose the change there. I seriously doubt it will get consensus--there have been repeated suggestions there to eliminate A7 altogether because of its excessive use, and this sort of interpretation will lend strength to it, which would be a real problem because I think we need it DGG (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there was a claim of notability in the article. Most of my comment was explaining what real notability is, but I don't believe the article even claimed an incorrect understanding of notability. GRBerry 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating the words "attack site"

Re your message [2] at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#New wording: Good idea. --Coppertwig 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig socks and potentially related Arbcom

As one of the mentors, can you determine if any of Isarig's socks have been named in evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence, and make sure the arbitrators learn of it and the CSN result if they have been so named. I don't see significant mention of Isarig under that name, nor any of the confirmed socks. GRBerry 03:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Done. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 04:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]