User talk:Leuko/Archive March 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Hey 2 My Appologies 3 Haven Institute 4 Training contract 5 Playradioplay! (band) 6 Deleted Link...Please Respond 7 Comixfan article 8 Chaim Richman 9 Accidental revert of userpage 10 Thanks 11 Clarkson University vandalism 12 Bipolar page 13 Thanks 14 Changes to Great White Shark 15 Exeposé Entry 16 Cleanup templates 17 I would like to apologise 18 Newsarama notablity 19 Link Spam Issue 20 Spamming vs. vandalism 21 Backronym article 22 vandalism 23 Your NPWatcher Application 24 Rise and shine software 25 Please dont delete my article. 26 Green Peafowl 27 Union of Progressive Zionists 28 Hmph! 29 No discussion or reaction, just deletion? 30 The Shotokan Way 31 Responding to problematic usernames 32 Freedom for IP and NTEN 33 deleted debates 34 Barnard Hall/Vanderbilt 35 Christ, you are a prick.

Hey

I was only reverting vandalism on the page - I did not add the spam myself. I would appreciate it if you would remove the warning you placed on my talk page. Thanks! --Nevhood 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't reverted to a spam-filled version the same thing?  :-) In any case, I'll WP:AGF and remove the warning. Leuko 02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just noticed that an IP who recently vandalized several other articles deleted content from Pen, and I reverted his change. The content he deleted was indeed spam. --Nevhood 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes happen. Leuko 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My Appologies

Sorry about the recreation of that page on Top-Hat Mafia, i did not realize i needed approval to re-create it, but if its not to much trouble, is there a way you could maby leave it on, its not doing anyone any harm, and i worked really hard on it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tubyboulin (talk • contribs).

Please see WP:BAND for notability inclusion criteria. If you can cite a WP:RS that your band meets these criteria, it can stay. Otherwise, it will be deleted. Leuko 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a question, Lueko. What would happen if Top-Hat Mafia alll of a sudden became more famous than most bands today, would i need prior permission to create the article, or could i just do it without telling anyone??Tubyboulin 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven Institute

I am editing the Haven Institute webpage, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I will begin by removing the external links to the Haven.ca webpage in the body of the article. I expect this is what has prompted the sudden reaction from the editors.

In addition, I will certainly correct anything that will interfere with this article's integrity for Wikipedia. I am learning as I go ... but I am honest and earnest. Please do not remove the page until I have had a chance to correct it.

Thanks.

William Meyer 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't the links, it's the whole article and its purpose in WP. I don't actually determine when it gets deleted. An admin will take a look at the reasoning on the article's talk page and make a decision from there. Leuko 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will put my thoughtsonto the article's talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted while I was getting my thoughts together to write the TALK section for the article. So, now I am unclear how to respectfully request an undeletion so I can address the issues and alter the article appropriately. Please direct me what to do. Thanks William Meyer 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can request a deletion review. Leuko 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll follow up and do this William Meyer 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Haven Institute. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. William Meyer 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have followed the protocol to request a Deletion Review. Have I done this properly? What is the usual time line on such a process? I am eager to make whatever corrections are required, if the pages are undeleted. Thanks for your help. Respectfully, William Meyer 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was fine, since it was closed already. :-) Leuko 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Training contract

Why have you deleted the link to the Law Society of England & Wales from training contract? The Law Society of England & Wales is the governing body for solicitors and administers training contracts.

Hmm, looks like it's actually the Solicitors Regulation Authority according the website. Perhaps using a specific page on the site as a reference? Leuko 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Playradioplay! (band)

I am wondering what can be done to raise the speedy delete on the Playradioplay!(band) page. (Mpsss 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Are you able to cite a reliable source establishing notability? If not, work on that first. Leuko 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Link...Please Respond

Hello Leuko,

First, thank you for taking the time to maintain the Arabic Language page and for protecting it from spammer etc. However, my intention were not to "spam" the page with my blog link. I have never posted to a Wiki before so please forgive me for any indiscretions.

Also, I would like you and the others maintaining this page to reconsider your decision to take down the link to my blog. Although I am affiliated with the site, my opinion on the sites and information are impartial because I do not gain in anyway from my blogging nor am i affiliated in anyway with content producers featured on mysite. The only thing produced by me on the page (other than my opinions etc) was the aziizkeez.keylayout file for Macintosh computers. This is of course CopyLeft as far as I am concerned.

I think my pages is incredibly releveant to Arabic Language Learning. And given that most Arabic language learners (in the US) are college students I find my blog to be very relevant because it caters specifically to their learning needs. I myself am an arabic language learner at UCLA.

The resources posted to my pages are very relevant. In fact my Arabic Professor Michael Fishbein (UCLA) has even requested that I write a letter concerning one of my blog entries so that he can distribute it to his students (the one featuring Calkitaab.com) which I am not affileated with and am infact very curious about who runs it myself)

The bottom line is that by restricting my page. You are restricting your readers from gaining access to valuable information. I do not tout myself in the least. I do not gain from it. And could care less if you add my link back, except that I think that your exclusion of my link is not in the Wikispirit because I am sharing something positive and useful. Not just talk.

Regards,

muhammad aziiz palmer

Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:COI on why I removed a blog written by the person who added a link to it in Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to add it to the article's talk page. If there is a majority consensus that it is useful despite the policies against adding it, then we should add it. If not, then it should not be added. Leuko 06:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comixfan article

Hi Leuko, can you please explain to me why it is you don't think the Comixfan article meets the WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria? --Comixfan 07:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because the article doesn't cite any reliable sources that any of the WP:WEB criteria have been met, i.e. multiple independent reviews, awards, etc. Also, I am thinking there may be a WP:COI and WP:SOAP issue. Don't worry though: you have at least 5 days to fix up the article to meet WP standards before it becomes eligible for deletion. Leuko 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just been over this with RJASE1 and am working with him to get the article up to Wiki standards. --Comixfan 07:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, can you please let me know how the Comixfan article differs from Wiki article's on other comic news sites that have been around as long as Comixfan, such as Newsarama and Comic Book Resources? Why is it those articles aren't flagged for deletion but Comixfan's is? --Daelf1969 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as to why Comixfan's article is flagged for deletion, please refer to the AfD nomination. As to why the others aren't, 1) WP:ININ, and 2) I didn't know about them. Newsarama seems barely notable due to its TrafficRank, but there are no WP:RS to indicate passing WP:WEB. If nothing is added to the article, I will considering tagging it for deletion. As for Comic Book Resources, less notable, and no indication of passing WP:WEB, so I've tagged it for deletion. Leuko 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason for retaining an article on this - and other comic news sites - has been said best here. --Daelf1969 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaim Richman

I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed here as he is the director for a notable organization (which also has an article). If you still believe him to be non-notable, please take it to WP:AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidental revert of userpage

Sorry - I was patrolling the recent changes, but my revert seems to have stuttered through the servers too slowly. I'll just leave it alone and let you fix it. --DeLarge 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all fixed. Thanks anyways.  :-) Leuko 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for returning the favor. Someguy1221 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarkson University vandalism

Hey, you just added this on my talk page, and I'm not sure why.

All I did was get rid of "[[ps:Clarkson Suxors]]" at the very bottom of the page. [1] Amerika 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Looks like VandalProof added the user warning to the wrong page as a result of an edit conflict. Sorry about that, I've removed the message on your talk. Thanks for letting me know. Leuko 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar page

Hi,

I think the Wordpress blog is appropriate as you include: http://www.bipol-art.com.

The Wordpress blog is an educational blog written in a literate style. I don't see how it differs from the bipolar art page. It's also a useful link for people who want to learn about bipolar disorder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.23.185 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Per WP:EL, links to blogs should be avoided since they aren't WP:RS. And I didn't add that link, but come to think of it, most of the links in the article seem kind of spammish. Leuko 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But I think that "recognised authority" is somewhat misleading. People would be okay with linking doctor blogs, but not patient ones? Patients are experts on their illnesses. A well-written patient blog is a valuable resource for people who want to learn about the disorder. I think it justifies a fair linkage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.23.185 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, I disagree. We should be using reliable sources, not self-published sources. Theoretically, I could put up a blog, but I would not have any authority on the disorder. Add the link to your blog the the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus to add it. Leuko 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

S'not my blog. Am I doing this right- editing to reply? Sorry, I'm a bit crap. Okay, I'll add it to talk. I guess you're right, though.

I also forgot I have an account. Hello!

Sorry, I messed up trying to reply!

Anyway, okay, I think you're right. I added it to talk anyway.

Razamatazz 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Leuko 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert! =) Crested Penguin 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just returning the favor. Leuko 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Great White Shark

I made no changes to the Great White Shark page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.35.187 (talk • contribs).

Well someone at your IP address did, about a month ago. In order to avoid this confusion in the future, I would suggest signing up for an account. Leuko 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exeposé Entry

Hi, thanks for helping me out with the Exeposé entry. I have done my best to cite sources of information, although there are a few paragraphs in the 'Technical Background' section for which there is no published evidence (and is based solely on knowledge from myself, which only a few other people would be able to substantiate). I've read the guidance and this doesn't appear to come under original research, and I'm not sure how this would fit into the general guidance re: citing references. Any help would be appreciated, cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchdog341 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Technically, unless it has been published in, and can be attributed to a reliable source it is original research and can not be included in Wikipedia. Otherwise, good job citing the references for the rest of the article. Let me know if I can help. Leuko 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:22 9 March 2007 (GMT).

Hey! i got a message saying i made a change to a page in wikipedia and it was changed back... it is impossible for this to have been me even if it was from this i.p becuz i JUST fixed this i.p recently...(the pc was unplugged and in my closet for a long time and i have no other) and i REALLY REALLY hate learning about rocks (it was a wiki about rocks or something) so i wouldnt have been on a wiki about something like that to begin with. anywho, just thought i'd clear this up, thanks for making sure wikipedia is a safe place for information though, if it werent for ppl like you who go out of their ways to check up on all the new (and old) entries on wikipedia, then ppl like me would have to pay corporate america (like encarta) money to learn shit that should be learned free! thanks! I really mean it! Peace!!!

I would like to apologise

Latley a friend of mine has been using my computer to vandalise pages on wikipedia(some ppeople are immature). I have confronted him about it and I think that he won't do it again. I will also do my part to guard my computer from him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leegar84 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Newsarama notablity

I got three links, one of them being from the New York times, specificly mentioning Newsarama. I beleive that passes your requirements. So can the tag come off now (and, could you please help me put those two links in the article?)? --Shaoken 12:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else did it and removed the tag. Seeing as you were the only (reasonable) editor who objected to the article, now that we've added a reliable source does it pass the test? Also thanks for putting the notablity tag up, it's helped improve things. --Shaoken 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to pass WP:WEB now, but the article still needs clean-up. I mean a disagreement with a forum member is hardly encyclopedic. Leuko 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Spam Issue

I would like to appeal to your attention, that I am not inputting a spam on Wikipedia... If users like me are mistreated as such by users and other administrators. How would wikipedia be in its fullest greatness if a user is being harassed. We all intend to give, contribute, and aim meaningful content to wikipedia. Please stay be in control of balancing situations such as this. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reader contributor (talk • contribs).

Yes, it is spam. You work for the company that owns the websites in the marketing department. The use of Wikipedia for advertising is not allowed. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL, particularly the sections on how inserting links to websites with objectionable amounts of advertising that you own to promote them is not allowed. If you persist in re-inserting the links, you may be blocked and your websites added to the spam blacklist. Leuko 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamming vs. vandalism

When I looked through, it was clear that, while the user certainly might be considered disruptive, they also are discussing the disputed edits. It is a content dispute, despite the conflict of interest. Spamming is, for example, placing a link all over the place, in articles it's marginally related or unrelated to, generally with a total refusal to discuss. Vandalism is defined narrowly for a reason, if you feel that a contributor is being disruptive, ANI or dispute resolution would be a more appropriate step. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Backronym article

Uh, there was some problem with your revert, I think, to the Backronym article. Out of fear that I may violate the 3RR rule, I don't want to roll back your revert, but because I just nominated for FA status and was making constructive edits, something should be done. Can you help please? If you roll it back before your pop-up revert, everything should be fine.

Thank you. --Otheus 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. All I did was remove an uncited example (Ford), as instructed by the consensus on the page. Is there another problem? Leuko 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like your second rv (or first, not sure) rolled back too far. Could have been an edit conflict. See [2]. --Otheus 11:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, possibly it was... I think popups was screwed up last night. In any case, looks like you've fixed it already. Thanks. Leuko 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi, can you please revert 2 edits from the Russian Air Force article. I really think thats vandalism. The edits are made by 87.203.74.185 and 213.56.253.1. cheers, Eurocopter Tigre 14:52, 16 March 2007 (EET)

Looks like you already reverted the edits, but in the future, when you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Leuko 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Leuko,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martinp23 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rise and shine software

Hi Leuko,

I just created this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_shine_software

How do I go about of making the article stay on wikipedia? Is there anything I can do? It is a legit software application. Any insight you could give me would be great. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucgallant (talk • contribs).

Try citing reliable sources that indicate that this software is notable, like reviews in a computer magazine, for instance. Leuko 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, i've added a review from download.com, is this better? At this point the software is only about 8 months old, and a user base is slowly forming. Let me know what you think. Lucgallant 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Better, but technically the notability guidelines require multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage. You've got one, see if you can find some others to make it less likely that an editor will mark it for deletion. Leuko 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know what to put at this point, but what makes this page valid say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muine I know it is a reputable software, I just don't see the big difference... As well, my "See also" section seems to be broken, is there anything that can be done about that? I have two entries but none show up. Lucgallant 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ININ. The see also section wasn't showing up because it only contained categories, which are shown at the bottom of the page regardless of where they are placed in the article. Leuko 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. There's nothing more really that I can add to mine, so I'll just leave it as is. If anything comes up through reviews or anything, i'll post it, that is if my page doesn't get deleted before then. Thanks.Lucgallant 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dont delete my article.

Joseph is a NYC street artist as described.

Why are you so quick to delete this?

What more can I do to ensure this article remains?

Thank you, -sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Its me sam (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Please provide WP:RS per the WP:A and WP:NOR policies. Right now, there is nothing in the article to verify that this person exists, which makes it look like a WP:HOAX. Leuko 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Peafowl

So it does confirm that Mennig is friends with Kermit and the right birds were introduced into Malaysia. Frankyboy5 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kermit actually told me and voted in a poll/forum that the Green Peafowl is maybe six species, only one person voted no, and one person (me) voted yes. Frankyboy5 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really happy now that the right form is reintroduced into Malaysia, but the wrong info was published. IMO, most of the stuff about more subspecies have been verified, Mennig said that he is friends with Kermit who made the MSN Group and the gallery, but it would be good to wait until a peer-reviewed paper releases, or if Encyclopedia Gallinacea comes out. Anyway, the mention of more subspecies already exists in the article, and has been verified by Mennig (the thing about them being distinct species hasn't though). All the creepy-looking skins except for the Salween and Spicifer birds, including the golden creepy one, are from Wolfgang Mennig. Kermit just splits them up further into distinct species so you would not get stuff like Pavo muticus javanensis baluranensis. Frankyboy5 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that waiting until peer-reviewed papers or other reliable sources such as the encyclopedia you mentioned state that there are in fact sub-species until putting that in the Wikipedia article. Leuko 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Wolfgang Mennig and Kermit said they are friends and try to work together as much as possible (remember that large E-Mail conversation up there?). Frankyboy5 02:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Amoun-Pinudjem (Milad Sourial) is Kermit. He is an American of Egyptian descent. His small user page has a mention of peafowl mimicing reptiles. He also called himself Milad Sourial here [3]. He is making a movie called "Goddess of the Sun"[4]. I think he may also be the singer the "AnonYmous Ka", because his myspace page also featured the music. Frankyboy5 02:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He also has a second user account, Contribs with second account. Frankyboy5 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the conversation. I am just lost as to what your point is. Leuko 09:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That was to confirm that Wolfgang and Kermit work together. Oh, Kermit actually believes in the generally accepted taxonomy, but his preliminary data supports the notion of several species. He is trying to disprove this, but that's what his data shows. Frankyboy5 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Pinudjem is a third account from Kermit. Oh no! He changed quite a bit of the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankyboy5 (talk • contribs).

Kermit has identified my picture of a Green Peafowl at the Taipei Zoo as the Siamese Imperator (Pavo imperator siamensis), which has surprisingly colorful plumage (many think that imperator is rather dull compared to muticus), almost as colorful as the Malay Pahang form (P. m. muticus and P. m. malacense), which is still more colorful. The Siamese form is actually more related to the Indian Peafowl.

Milad Sourial is actually not a name. It's a title. Kermit told me that"

“

This is my official title as hereditary chief ie Ma'ahes ( hereditary chief) Milad ( born of) Amoun ( Region in Western Desert of Egypt) (0f the house of) Pinudjem ( my ancestral seat's name) Sourial ( Coptic Christian name of our family used like a last name since the Ottoman empire) There is no name there.

”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankyboy5 (talk • contribs).

Union of Progressive Zionists

Hi. Union of Progressive Zionists is still a work in progress, but I hope that the references I have included have established the organization's notability. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to remove the "notability" tag, but if you feel that the group satisfies the notability guidelines, I would appreciate if you would remove the tag. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you've done a good job sourcing the article. Leuko 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmph!

I've been on Wikipedia long enough. Some rogue asshole bot deleted an article that should not have been deleted. --Nélson Ricardo 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Leuko 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize a bot is a person.  :-) --Nélson Ricardo 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No discussion or reaction, just deletion?

What is an encyclopedia? I'd say it is where you turn to find information. The article in question Currents (band), now deleted, was about the authors of a product that is available worldwide, either by ordering a manufactured unit or buying it's contents digitally through iTunes. Information about the band and the album on the internet is limited as of today, why starting an article on the subject made sense to me. I would understand this course of action if an article on a band was created that stated that had not released an album or had released something selfproduced only sold the local friends, etc. Please explain? Kruka 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD for criteria that allow an article to be deleted without discussion, particuarly A7, no assertion of notabilty. If you have further questions, please discuss them with the administrator who actually deleted the article. Leuko 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Shotokan Way

Hi, I'm very new to all this and a little confused as ever, but I created a new page (The Shotokan Way) and it is about an online magazine publication.

I understand that because it is web content that it will probably be deleted, but is there anything specific I could do to keep it there, as it is a valid tool for learning.

I have read the page on being notable, but don't really understand how I can do this specifically for this page.

Any help would be great!

Thanks you very much!

Happywelshgal 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Hope that's right!)

Hi, no problem. In order for the article not to be deleted, the subject of the article must pass the inclusion criteria of WP:WEB. Usually this is done by citing reliable sources that have published articles about the website. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Leuko 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to problematic usernames

Please read the top of WP:RFCN before reporting usernames there again. In particular, please see the part about contacting the user first and asking him to change his username voluntarily. Skipping this step is what got your entry on Hellfreezesover666 (talk • contribs) deleted. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice the part where I didn't post the report on WP:RFCN? Leuko 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just now, yes, and hit an edit conflict trying to correct my post above. Sorry! However, the part about you bringing the username to WP:AIV was loud and clear. In general, it's better to bring objections on any issue to the individual(s) involved first, before getting others involved. I'm also about to say the same thing to the person who moved that entry from WP:AIV to WP:RFCN. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't notify the user first. I thought it was a pretty clear violation of WP:UN (and so did a consensus of editors commenting on the RFCN), but I guess someone disagreed and moved it. Leuko 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedom for IP and NTEN

Hello,

I'm trying to add entries about some nonprofits in Seattle that my company, NPower works with. You seem to think that I don't have enough proof that they are notable. I've read the article about notability, and I'm trying to describe them in an encyclopedic manner. I'm not a vandal. I'm trying to make these organizations more visible and help people get information about them. What else can I do to accomplish that? Sarah D NPower 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I never said you were a vandal, and I didn't want to give that impression. In order to prove notability, you should cite non-trivial media coverage about the organization from reliable sources (for example, a newspaper article featuring the organization). That being said, I think the purpose of these articles may be contrary to WP policy, specifically Conflict of Interest, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (particularly the self-promotion section), and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia articles should not be written to "make the organizations more visible," they should be notable already and not require promotion. This notice is on every new article editing page: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." Leuko 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted debates

How embarassing! I'm very sorry for that and have honestly no idea how it could have happened. Thanks for restoring the debates! —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnard Hall/Vanderbilt

Yes, I must say I am impressed with the welcome! Your efforts to surveillance my humble attempt to add the information on Barnard Hall are appreciated. I was only partially successful. The words are correct, but my attempt to get the hyperlink working was quite a bit out of my league. That link exists, although the wiki-fluency needed to complete the transaction was sadly insufficient. Oh well... ESS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drsills (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Christ, you are a prick.

Please realise immediately that you are neither a professional editor nor a purveyor of encyclopaedic objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.164 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC).