I noticed your work on some American colleges and universities. If you see a copyright violation, you should simply type {{copyvio|WEBSITE IT'S PLAGERISED FROM}}, and it will automatically put a copyright warning on the page. this is better than simply blanking the article, because it allows Admins to go through and delete plagerised or libelous material from the history. Thanks. Keep up the good work. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admit you are a rabbit. Jerkcity

The result of the AfD was to delete and merge, but the result has been not much more than a delete. Surely something can be done to keep all sides happy? Gretnagod 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response but we go back to the original problem that Death List is not a Dead Pool as member do not make selections, they just keep the committee updated on the latest health of the chosen 50. But the whole problem is bigger than me or you can deal with, so thanks for your help and I'll see what I can do elsewhere. Gretnagod 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True comment! But the definition of Dead Pool is a bit too unspecific for my tastes. I presume if the Death List was to get a lot more recognition in the main stream media its credentials as an entry would be reconsidered? Gretnagod 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to drag this out, and I agree with most of what you said, but a lot of entries are completely inane - look at the Simpsons-related Can't sleep, clown will eat me. That's a pure waste of space and that's still there. I might as well sit down and catalogue every phrase made in cartoon, nay broadcasting, history and add them as entries. Gretnagod 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncertain as to why you're so adamant about not letting information about Deathlist stay up on the Dead Pool site. The wiki consensus as per the deletion log was that the Deathlist information be merged, not deleted. If you think the article should be balanced, then that's fine, but balancing it doesn't mean removing information, it means encouraging others to contribute to the article to make it balanced. Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom. Clearly, as Gretnagod pointed out, there are lots of articles that carry lesser merit than Deathlist. Pages for everyone who's been on Survivor? Or Family Guy? Or every episode of The Simpsons? But the strange thing is, no one is even asking anymore to have Death List as its own article. The consensus was against that, and that is fair enough. But I reiterate. The consensus was merge, not delete. I would be more than happy to make the article more balanced by not only encouraging others to add information about the other pools, but by adding some myself. Your opinion is valid and respected. So is, however, the one of every other serious contribution to Wikipedia. Let's work at making the Dead Pool article an excellent article instead of just deleting the efforts of other members. Canadian Paul 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the votes for deletion page had deemed it significant enough not to delete, I shall reiterate a few points. First of all, the first list came out in 1987. Not only was that before the longest running online Dead Pool (the Derby Dead Pool [1]), which began in 1996, but it also came out one year before the Clint Eastwood movie. Check out the "history of deadpools" section on the Derby Dead Pool website. Yet you'll notice that Deathlist.net is not present on that history. That's because Deathlist.net is not a Dead Pool. Deathlist is a unique concept and community based project that, while admittedly is not totally seperate from the idea of Dead Pools, is different enough to mark its significance. Consensus has forced those who support it as its own article to acquiese our right to a seperate page, but the recommendation was still to merge, which meant that the information should have been kept mostly intact. Furthermore, you'll note that the page didn't even exist until it appeared in a major article in Britain's The Sun.

Your view on significance is a bit skewed I think. Why should numbers be the be all and end all? Should we do a seperate page for every episode of every show that has more than X amount of viewers? I don't think it's necessary, because Wikipedia is an informational source, not a fanclub for TV shows. What about Ertugrul Osman V? Not many people know about him. He hasn't done much. But by virtue of his status as the patriarch of the Ottoman Dynasty, he is significant and worthy of his own article. But chances are, only people who study Middle Eastern history will have heard of him. I'm sure that there are similar articles in the field(s) that you specialize in.

The consensus was merge, not delete. If you wish to change the consensus, I'm not the person to be arguing to. There's a giant community willing to host the issue on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring your fight there. Until then, please cease in your attempts to prevent the proper merger. Canadian Paul 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself has being constructed using several sources. You have no right to claim that it's copyvio just because some of the information appears in a non-free encyclopedia. What are you complaining? the Dates of Birth and Death? the fact that he studied in India? Does any encyclopedia has some sort of Monopoly over FACTS (cause I find hard to believe that those small bit's of information are copybio)?

Also, I pointed your attitude as hostile due to the fact that you were claiming that I didn's give any reason for my revert. As a matter of fact, I did. Now, I'm Someone without just cause. The fact that your claims does not have a clear support does not means that I don't have a cause.

Exposed this, once again I remove the Copyvio sign. No webpage has a monopoly over information regardind important dates or basic (and common) information. Messhermit 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you paid the subscription? If not, that is a poor asumption Messhermit 03:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have lied, since most of the information in the article I have gathered from different sources (from webpages to books from college libraries). I will revert once again the article, and stop reverting it without any other reason that your belief that is the same exact article. Messhermit 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone else believe that what you are claimming is true? you are the one who has the subscription. Information in that article is from different sources Messhermit 03:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I don't have a subscription to that encyclopedia, and I'm the author of most of the info in the article. So rest assure that there is no copyvio with that encyclopedia. Messhermit 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm telling you that I did not use Brittanica as a source. if the sentence was used, then it was because it was posted in another page that has nothing to do with Brittanica and that is why It is possible that it might being the reason of why it is included. Most of the information comes from several books at the Miami-Dade College Library. Messhermit 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then pls write the sentences in my talk page that should be rearranged in order to solve this. I will try to replace them with similar information gathered from books from the library. The fact that one or 2 sentences fall in this category must not mean an excuse to get rid of the whole article. Messhermit 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have seen cases were some weird administrator erase a whole document just because it had one of those. There lies the problem. Messhermit 04:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]