Feel free to leave me a message in a new section. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. at a prefunctionary glance at your contributions it seems you havent added much content beyond AfD tags

and such related discussions.

Mind if you cool your Delete button for few fortnights?

Excessive AfD is as community damaging as vandalism and revert wars are.

Kind regards --Zarutian (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? I'm not acting in bad faith or anything. I have a busy life, so sometimes AfDs are all I have time to do. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Erpert, why is there a link to my twitter account being the reason for the information about the Buckeye Barbeque Qlub being taken down?

I did not provide any bias opinions about the student organization.

Feel free to fill me in. I was trying to make this page to create an informational page about the organization.

Benjamindwallace (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Your Twitter account states that you are president of the club, and Wikipedia discourages editors to write about articles in which they are personally involved. Please read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Recently, you listed the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate" for deletion. You said that the school she works at was "baulkham", however, it is "baulkham hills high school". A Google search for the school returned 18,800 results, and a search for "dr jeanne bathgate" returned 291,000 results. If possible, could you please reconsider your deletion listing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAHSsucks (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I understand what you mean, and I apologize very much, but I am not a fan writing the article. I am merely familiar on the subject. I went through and made more accurate sources, but none of my sources go to a main page, except to show the newspaper and story.

I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean by zero notability. We are talking about a superstar whose career began with the song Billie Jean, his black sequin jacket and white single decorated glove. Those are iconic, significant and culturally important, says our government. The album Thriller is considered culturally revolutionizing, and that is mainly because of Billie Jean and his attire during his Motown 25 appearance. Michael has always been a fashion icon, and now for the This is it, he was making a fashion comeback. Since Motown 25 he has always worn his black sequin jacket, white glove and moonwalked for the song Billie Jean. Those are all significant. There is a Billie Jean page, a Motown 25 page, and a moonwalk page. How can there not be a Billie Jean black sequin jacket page?

The video I use in the article is in the wiki commons, and used on the Moonwalk wiki page. I use it, because it is currently the only FREE picture/video showing Michael Jackson in his black sequin jacket. As for the other picture, it looks better than no picture, and I do mention it is not the Billie Jean jacket, so I really do not understand what you are referring to there as well.

The article is not bias by any means, and is absolutely significant, as it is the jacket he wore for every performance of his biggest song Billie Jean. I feel that I have done a very good job establishing the facts of the jackets significance.

I have filled the article with nothing but absolute truth, backed up by news articles, actual quotes, and newspaper sources. I have altered some sources to make it much more accurate and blog free, I do apologize very much for the use of the blogs and have removed them entirely!

It is my goal to get the article approved with wiki guidelines. I hope I have made the appropriate alterations.

Thank You for your time.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have flagged the article on Peter Kettlewell for deletion. You say he is non-notable and you say that Google does not turn anything up on him. You mentioned his credit on imdb, however, Mr. Kettlewell was not the man in question, as he has never worked on the show "Titans". Either this is another Peter Kettlewell in question or the imdb page is wrong. In fact, this Wikipedia page is just part of the process I have undergone to make the Holmes Group more widely-known. (An imdb page is in the works.) One look at the article I have written will show that he is not non-notable, in fact, he has had one of the most successful television careers in Canada. You may or may not be aware of this, but it is a difficult thing to do. As a producer for the highest rated program in the history of HGTV and as a Vice President for a company that makes millions every year, he is more than notable in the television and business fields in Canada. The reason for the lack of information about him is only due to work/ business items that outweighed the appropriate time to publish the article. Also, you said he was only nominated for a Gemini once, when he has won before. [1]

For these reasons, your lack of information on the subject makes you incapable of deeming this article non-notable. Please remove your deletion warning immediately. If you have any suggestions to making the article more Wikipedia friendly, I am completely open.

—Preceding 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|unsigned]] comment added by SpencerJamesK (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think maybe you should read WP:CIVIL and WP:DR because this isn't the best way to talk to people on Wikipedia. Anyway, I read the link you posted, and although it appears that he did indeed win, I still don't know if he's 100% notable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I was hoping we could have a discussion about the validity of this article's existence, but you have responded with no legitimate arguments. So I will just have to make my arguments better. Despite what you, again, "believe", I simply ask if you consider Mike Holmes is non-notable. If you think Holmes is notable, look at the facts: Peter Kettlewell has been an active part of the show since the very first season. Also, Kettlewell was written up in Report on Small Business Magazine which is included with The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper. [2] As you stated referring to ANYBIO, he should be included seeing as he is a winner of the only TV Award for Canadian television and it is one of the biggest awards in Canada. (Think the Emmys). I'm sure you would consider an Emmy award winner a valid entry for Wikipedia, would you not? Also, as I have said before, his profiles on imdb and a variety of other websites are in the process. If you want to talk like adults, lets talk like adults. Also, take a look at his TV page, and you tell me what's non-notable about these credits: [3] To avoid further confusion, I will now be chaning the article's title to "Pete Kettlewell" as a search for Pete instead of Peter comes up with more results. Also, see Holmes on Homes and Holmes Inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerJamesK (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I am talking like an adult; what's your problem? Either chill out or stay off my talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ramesh Babaji meets the criterion of "Creative professionals." He has extensively spoken on the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavatam [4] and Bhagavad Gita[5]. He is considered a renunciant because he has made available all his wisdom to those having interest at no cost [6]. Not many people in the world would have the courage to do that. He has single handedly inspired an effort to protect more than 10,000 stay cows from slaughter. He is inspiring a devotional movement among thousands and thousands of villagers of Brij Dham and now all around the world. He is also inspiring protection of thousands of acres of land from illegal mining.

These are among many reason why he should be considered a "creative professional" working towards the cause of protecting highly neglected environment in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that you have recommended this article for deletion. While other articles on much lesser known and prominent personalities exist. Guru Harihar ji Maharaj is treeted with great respect among his followers as the founder of Geeta Ashrams across the world, and Geeta Dham in India. A long list of names of world wide Geeta Ashrams is given at the end of the article. In addition, a long history of Harihar ji Maharaj's associations with leading political figures of Indian freedom movement is also given. The list of trustees of Geeta Dham is also provided as a reference to the article. If you visit many of the sites that are linked to the article, you will find the picture of Hariharji Maharaj as the leading figure for the particular Geeta Ashram, accepted even more than eight years after his death. The fact that an individual is being treated with respect more than eight years after his death is a testimonial to the respect he commands world wide.

It is because of establishing Geeta Dham, and sacrificing his life to preserve the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavad Gita [7] Harihar ji Maharaj should be considered a creative professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the first article, the first link you posted doesn't mention his name at all, the second link is to Wikipedia itself, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and the third link is just a trivial mention of him followed by some video files. (The second article has the same Wikipedia backlink problem.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I apologize for not using the sandbox mode, actually I thought that I was. I was just familiarizing myself with the process.

I have used Wikipedia for years and I would really like to become involved with the community. Thank you for the suggested reading I will be sure to make that my next priority.

If you have any other suggestions I would love to hear them. I want to help in any way that is needed. Safe guarding knowledge is a civic duty that has been an integral part of civilization from the very first written word. In fact it could be argued that it is one of the driving forces in it's development.

Thank you for your insight and suggestions. I look forward to "speaking" with you in the future.

Jason Breithaupt JTs Services (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Erpert, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Reubedan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't really tell if it was vandalism, but it was definitely nonsense to me. But thanks. :) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist.

I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. He will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down. All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't propose this deletion; I simply agree with it. And why are you posting this on everyone's talk page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I was advised that you proposed this deletion.
  • Your suggestion that two of the products mentioned were hoaxes will come as a surprise to both E-on and RWE together with other power generators who have purchased hundreds of thousands of tonnes over the last 5 years. If you want to act as the worlds policeman then I suggest you get your facts right. If this is the standard of information from Wikipedia then effectively all information published must be considered suspect and at the mercy of self appointed ill informed amateurs who want to pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.Geekiep (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, you were advised wrong. And I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Regardless of how well you know Mr. Edgecombe, all information on here has to be verifiable. (Personal attacks won't get you anywhere either.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I was advised by one of Wikipedias other self appointed monitors that you proposed the deletion. I think I am begining to understand exactly how Wikipedia works. It seems to exist as a vehicle to massage the egos of various non entities with little regard for what is useful, interesting or of note. Get yourself some sort of entry on Google and whatever dross you come up with is considered gospel. So called verifiable information seems to rely entirely on Google. In the case of Edgecombe and many like him, such detailed information is either classified or subject to commercial secrecy agreements. But, hey ho if all you want to read about is fiddle players and the like then Wikipedia is your goal. Do what you wish, I'm sure Chris will be quite happy to be rid of the lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • "Self-appointed monitors"? What does that even mean? You seem to have no regard for WP:CIVIL oe WP:NPA, and your previous comment also proves to me that you think WP:USEFUL is enough to keep an article om Wikipedia. But I'm tired of your complaints, so stay off my talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Self appointed monitors" - now take a wild guess what this means. Just for your edification I would suggest "self appointed" means someone who takes it on themselves to act in a capacity not asked for by others. "monitors" means a person who edits information by their own rules. I would suggest that you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I have made no personal attacks on you. You may well identify yourself from certain general comments made, but that would be your interpretation. WP:USEFUL is very much a matter of opinion - I don't find you useful but I'm sure someone, somewhere must find you useful.Geekiep (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's Insult #2. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

That's not an insult. I said the COMMENT was ignorant. Not "Sugar Bear is ignorant."--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)