Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Greetings to you,

I was the admin who restored the article above (and wasn't aware of the WP:DRV); I'm not that active anymore, but try and keep an eye or two especially on WP:PNT.

That said, I'm willing (and able :)) to restore wrongly speedy deleted articles, especially the ones deleted as wrong language (unfortunately there is a certain bias amongst the admins here concerning foreign languages), so if you like, you might just contact me in the future. Anyway, enough blather.

Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Record Holders Republic is deleted now. It was you who put a tag on that. I had a request for a discussion for not deleting it. The context for such a speedy and hasty deletion is not clear. RHR is an organisation by and for record holders and is not a Big company like what is noted below. Wikipedia had surprisingly approved an Indian National record organisation of a Big company. Please read the following line in world record India also enjoys setting and breaking records: the country has a local version of the Guinness Book of Records, called the Limca Book of Records, after a local soft drink brand. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????? So it is requested that the article may be placed for discussion or replaced, because RHR is such a reputed organisation..--Broarticle (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I see that you've listed List of Malaysian coats of arms at WP:CP. This is an image use issue, and that board does not handle images. I've opened a section at non-free content review, here, where your concerns can be properly reviewed. I've also tagged the various images, except Image:Coat of arms of Selangor state.svg, which is hosted on commons under a claim that it has been released into public domain. I'm not sure about that one and am running out the door, but if it seems wonky to you, please note it according to [1]. Thanks. Running. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the deletion of article Record Holders Republic is based on any policy. I request the administrators to please see the following notice by a Competitive officer of RHR. I request you to please look in to the matter and replace the article in the true spirit with necessary modifications if any. That is neutral point of view. Please dont take it personnal. But this is the fact

---

Reply to discussion by Officer of RHR If Wikipedia's intent is to disseminate factual material without an agenda then there is no reason RHR's page. RHR is a well respected world record adjudicating organization like Guinness. It differs, however, by focusing on human achievement records. There are nearly 700 record holders with nearly 1.400 verified human achievement records on RHR's web site. RHR does not charge for listing records and has established itself as an organization for record holders by record holders. Dr. David R. Adamovich, US President RHR Throwdini (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2008 ------------------------------

Thank you......--Broarticle (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been (slightly) expanded since you added your Notability tag to it; I've also added several book references which I think show quite clearly how important this organization (which I have absolutely nothing to do with!) is. So I've removed the notability tag. Hope you agree. --macrakis (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi you deleted my article that I posted for South Florida Adventures magazine. I am the webmaster/art director for the magazine and I have been tasked with creating this article so we have a wiki entry. We have been often asked by our advertisers why we don't have an entry. How do I go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwalstib (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the very fact you are editing an article on something in which you are involved is a no-no in Wikipedia. That would be a conflict of interest. As a matter of fact, the logs for the page South Florida adventures clearly states that the article was deleted for being promotional. Wikipedia must not, under any circumstances, be used as a promotional vehicle.

Now, if you want the magazine to have an entry in Wikipedia, the best way would be to wait for one of your readers to start one without any encouragement, or even as much as a mere mention, from you. And when people ask you why you do not have a Wikipedia entry, just say that as a magazine with a small circulation you are not yet entitled to one. See notability criteria for more information, and WP:SCRABBLE for an example. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. it looks as though WP:HG has let you down in your last edit to Coal, as it went back to the wrong version. No harm!--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why you replace the PROD nomination for Number Permutation Systems‎ with an AfD nomination. Do you think there's likely to be anything but a clear consensus that the dozen or so separate articles that User:Jazzlanguage created on each of Banacos' courses shouldn't exists as discrete articles?—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Blanchardb. Just a note to remind you that all the articles you've included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number Permutation Systems need to have the prod tags replaced with AfD tags directing users to this AfD discussion. Deor (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. In fact, I was in the process of doing just that when I got you message. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Record Holders Republic has been around for nearly 7 years and has remained a web site based until the publication of The Book of Alternative Records and now Believe The Unblievable! The Book of Official Human Achievement World Records. (Bartleby Press, 2008 in press). We are not as large as Guinness but certainly as notorious as we have specialized in human achievement world records. We have always been and will remain a record holders organization for and by record holders. Many of our record holders are listed with Guinness as well. We have nearly 700 record holders and 1,400 world records as valuable to the world record community as Guinness or any other organization that ever existed. If it's Wikipedia's intent to disseminate fact, truth and to enlighten it's readers of the issue, then RHR has as much business being there as Guinness. UNLIKE Guinness who charges up to $1,200 USD for expedite a claim we do not charge. Unlike Guinness we do not take collection records, smallest, largest, etc. We are a specialized world record organization to service the human achievement market at not cost. Mention in Wikipedia shows that their material is complete and up to date on the subject. To delete RHR weakens the value of Wiki as an up to date encyclopedia. Dr. David Adamovich, US President RHR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.244.85 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, Please take a look at the official comment of RHR authority copied above. I hope the official editors will help to edit the article after searching for the facts mentioned. RHR is doing a lot of things globally for those who look for World and national records. There are many links of such works of RHR. India's one of the biggest cultural fest is Antaragni conducted every year. Plese see the link below and see how RHR is helping Record attempees etc to come up. http://antaragni.iitk.ac.in/irhr.html

Thank you and looking forward to your co operation. And if can not be considered on any ground. WE have no comment and will stop the communication hereafter --Broarticle (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the above comment is from someone claiming to be related to RHR, so there's a conflict of interest there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not content with so rapid removal of BioAustralis. Their company page was legitimate, I think, though their advertisments were of course very rude misuse uf Wikipedia, and I was the first to object their links. Lushi (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, no such article ever existed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is Bioaustralis, not BioAustralis. please look at User_talk:Phillipajane. it clearly says:

A page you created, Bioaustralis, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

and if you attempt to create Bioaustralis you get this:

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted. ... * 02:34, 3 October 2008 Orangemike

Lushi (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is an article about a website, but technicly, it's about the comic. --IndyJones777 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop don't redirect the page whilst another user is editing it. When he has finished you may well want to AfD the page but the user should be given a fair chance to establish notability, first. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop editing kopachuck! my highscool project needed me to make one, so please STOP! I might make a deal, we get a section on the Peninsula District, and then we merge them, or a negotiation, I need this for a school project! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.226.221 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A section in the Peninsula School District article is fine. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a start, but why Delete the kopachuck atricle? I am Gonna Get Stuff to Make It Suitable and good enough, so dont delete it yet, give me 1 week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.226.221 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Broadband Learning Inc, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Broadband Learning Inc is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Broadband Learning Inc, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup I know thanks. This one however wasn't a definate hoax, it was quite a believable name and could have been refering to another that I suggested. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note regarding the template. It has been rectified. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if your interest in Christianity could make you a biased editor? It concerns me more than a bit. I wouldn't wonder, except that you proclaim your faith on your information as an editor... It must mean that it is important to you and that perhaps you cannot be objective about content in this kind of forum. AstroComfy (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)AstroComfy

My interest in Christianity made me aware that my involvement in the article Minnesota Atheists could have been interpreted as bias, and that's why I refrained from answering your objections to the article's deletion. I didn't need to say anything anyway. Despite your claims to the contrary, the article was a blatant ad for the organization, since it prominently displayed contact information. Additionally, the amount of detail given for the organization's position on several issues (see coatrack articles), and the omnipresent use of the word "we" made it clear that it had been edited for promotional purposes. In fact, the article was clearly a tract for the organization. You claimed that your article had been modelled after articles on other Atheist groups, but the reality I saw was quite different.

Given that I did not perform the deletion itself, you might want to contact the administrator who agreed with my assessment. As a matter of fact, David Eppstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted the article on the grounds of copyright infringement. We do not want an organization called Minnesota Atheists suing Wikipedia because the Wikipedia article on them is too similar to their web site. We have no evidence that you are even an acquaintance of a member of the organization.

Sorry, but the problems with the article were too blatant to let them pass. If you wish to appeal the deletion of the article, you may ask the aforementioned administrator to reconsider. If he refuses, you may start a case at deletion review. But I'll tell you right away, your chances of success are minimal at best. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this was vandalism? It looks pretty well intentioned to me. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not be vandalism, but I marked it as a factual error, not vandalism. The fact is, this person removed a sourced statement to replace it with his unsourced possible speculation. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me that the term "mitrailleuse à gaz" has developped coloquially as a pejorative term.

The user has been blocked for only half a day, and that was more for edit warring than vandalism. That seems appropriate, but you can direct him to this comment if you unblock him. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nowhere near enough of a big deal for me to override another admin. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't an oversight. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for engaging with this editor on his talk page. I don't know enough about the subject to wade in on the content issue, but your acknowledgement that this isn't black and white is appreciated. --barneca (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to insert the 12 lost tribes but it keeps deleting the see also and reference section. Im not trying to vandalize it. help plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.101.131 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You said I put an innapropiate link of the article "ARTS AND COMMUNICATIONS MAGNET ACADEMY," which I did not..

~~Vanessa~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.72.210 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You inserted promotional material, a no-no in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't create the Ninjaology page. I tagged it for speedy deletion. I'm not sure if I did something wrong or if this is just a mistake, but I swear I had nothing to do with the page's creation. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that, by the time I got your message, I had already removed the warning from your talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi i was wandering why the article does not meet the notability requirement? I just entered an outside reference from a local newspaper

Unsteady21 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb. Thank you for your comments. I'd like the article to remain on Wikipedia, as I don't believe it to be blatent advertising. I admit that currently the article is lacking references and needs a good deal of work, but the aim of the article is purely to imform readers about the project. In that respect is no different to the many other articles for other satellites on Wikipedia.

The ESMO mission is backed by the European Space Agency, and currently over 100 university students are currently working on it. It aims to further lunar science and act to get kids interested in space exploration. There are no commercial goods or services being promoted via this page (although some teams do recieve sponsorship from aerospace companies)

I will endevor to fix the references as soon as possible. Can you suggest any other changes which would make the article read less like an advert?

Kind regards, EPS Paul (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The original version of the article sounded like 100 students is not enough, that you were writing this to recruit more people to participate in the project. In any case, you must refrain from using adjectives that claim any potential advantages to a not-yet-recruited reader. Just because a venture is non-commercial doesn't mean some article about it is automatically not an advertizement. Have you ever heard the sentence, "The Army wants YOU!"? It is an ad, even though there is nothing commercial about a military career. Well, the original version of your article sounded like that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As for further improvements that could be done to address the issue of the tone being promotional, the administrator who first declined my request did remove some promotional-sounding words, and I did more tweaking after him. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This addition is strait forword with references. Please help me to see any errors. Thank you for your assistance, cerefhavu

Jehovah

It is claimed to be a direct phonetic transliteration, but a Hebrew biblical lexicon easily proves is not. The term Jehovah is a compound word in Hebrew. The first word of Jehovah is the Hebrew letter "yod", commonly printed "Je", pronounced "ye" (as in yes). "Ye" is a common Hebrew prefix, meaning third person future (he/she will). The name we know as Jesus was origionally Yeshua/Yeshu in Hebrew/Aramaic which was shortened from Yehoshua(Joshua). The name Yeshua is also a compound Hebrew word with the same prefix, the first Hebrew letter is "yod", pronounced "ye" which means third person future (he/she will); "shua" (shortened from "hoshua") means save or help. Yeshua/Yehoshua literally means "He will save" commonly translated in a single word, "salvation". In the term Jehovah, "ye" is a Hebrew prefix that means third person future (he/she will); hovah is a Hebrew noun meaning "ruin","desaster" or "destruction" (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943). Jehovah literally means "He will bring Destruction" or "The Destroyer" which is the opposite of "The Creator" or "I exist (I need nothing to sustain me.)". The Hebrew noun, hovah or howah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943) meaning: ruin, disaster and destruction as in Ezekiel 7:26 and Isaiah 47:11. Similar to the Hebrew noun, havvah or hawwah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1942) meaning: ruin, destruction and calamity; or evil desire as in Job 6:2 and 6:30 which is not an attribute of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerefhavu (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your addition is that, contrary to your assertion, you have not come up with any saources saying outright that "Jehovah" means what you say it does. Actually, by the tone of your comment, I can tell that none of your sources do, that the meaning "he will bring destruction" is your own conclusion. This kind of original research is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Only widely accepted conclusions can be inserted, with the exception of notable minority opinions which must be marked as such. Fringe theories and personal syntheses cannot be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances. If you say that "Jehovah" means "he will bring destruction," you have to cite reliable authors who explicitly agree with your conclusion, especially in the case of a conclusion that has a potential for controversy. Otherwise, you must not make any mention of that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

can you please tell me why this band doesnt reach the nobility requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.235.44 (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MUSIC. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not vandalism because I created the article. There is not debate needed to have the article remain. No other person contributed to the article. Thank you. Goategg (talk)

• Must have been word blindless after the pile of A7 articles I saw, it's easy to mistake an G7 for an A7. I still think it was the best idea to let the AFD run its course though. I don't think editors can retract articles by requesting their deletion if there's a good reason to keep it - which would warrant the AFD to determine if there is a reason to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Please can you tell me why you want this page removing. I have added this page because I have read on Google news that the EU wants a Olympic team.

Thanks User : Edsteroo

Simple. We have a policy against keeping blank or nearly blank pages. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have recreated the page with information about the EU Olympics. User : Edsteroo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsteroo (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam Lachowitzer, please change the tag, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

heh, to late, ah well, could always change the message posted to the author? thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a personal attack, since I assume that the subject is a real person, but it also bordered on patent nonsense as well. I'll leave the warning as is. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

um.. If i rememeber the content was somthing like: "Sam Lachowitzer is a resident of georgia", what part of it was a PA? I don't seem to recall a PA please refresh my memory, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Must have been edited after I tagged it, then. When I tagged it, the article said he was the daughter of Mother Teresa. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thats in order, I didn't get any time to double check anything as the article was gone in seconds, thanks for your time Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the article Vladamir's Principle, which you proposed for deletion, I have marked the article for speedy deletion, as I think that the article meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In cases where it applies, speedy deletion is preferable to proposed deletion. I have left the {{prod}} tag in place, so that if speedy deletion is rejected, your proposed deletion will remain in place. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this article is a blatant hoax. Any "well-known" principle would develop some Google hits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. This could have been a real crackpot theory. Crackpot, yet real, therefore A3 doesn't apply. That's what I figured. To me, speedy is when you don't even have to bother looking for Google hits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the revert. Sionus (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we cross-tagged, but which tag should we keep? — Ceranthor  (Sing) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the above discussion, I've removed your tag since the article meets speedy deletion criteria. Thanks! — Ceranthor  (Sing) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

... just curious, how did you find so quickly?

Thanks again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy. I was using Huggle. This anti-vandalism tool sorts recent edits by the warning level last received by the user making the edit. Since the user who vandalized your talk page had already received a level 1 warning a couple of minutes earlier, I was immediately notified that an edit had been done by him to your talk page, and it was on top of my evaluation queue. This action earned the perpetrator a level 2 warning. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, will go to Huggle right now check it out. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again. I downloaded but it seems to need some sort of configuration and I do not find a proper explanation. Do you happen to know a simple steps to set it up? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You could look at Wikipedia:Huggle/Configuration. Since it's been a while since I've set it up, I don't remember how to do a first-time configuration, but I think it requires that you create the page User:Miguel.mateo/huggle.css. In any case, I think you'll get better information at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, went ahead and copied your file into my profile, is working now, and it is really cool and fast. Tahnk you very much for the tip! Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my note and check my recent edits? Buckshot06(prof) 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I did not know that. Otherwise I wouldn't have used the term. Please be a little slower on the trigger next time when it appears a long-standing user (and admin to boot) is half-way through a two-step process. Buckshot06(prof) 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is about the Proposed deletion of "Broncs (disambiguation)"

Ok sorry. Please delete it. It is useless. Bballlova99 (talk)(My Contributions to wikipedia) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This same user who has absolutely ransaked the Better Business Bureau's page is persistently vandalizing it still! Maybe something could be done about it? --Antiobsteika —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented in appreciation of your always-excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a reminder about the username policy: WP:UAA is to report blatant violations, and most usernames that match a company or group name are not "promotional usernames". They are discouraged but not forbidden (the user's behavior can be addressed at AIV if needed). "Avichient" and "Poshsociety" are not promotional usernames, for example (the latter might have been blocked at AIV, though). Please keep in mind that while some users with a COI try to slip spam or talk about their non notable group, some are good contributors and we don't want to drive them away on the basis their username is not perfect. See User talk:ABCNews EH for an example. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In North Cyprus, only NC flag is waving, you need NC visa to visit NC. Also, about the official name of a city means that when you visit that city what you will see in the governance building of that city. If you visit NC, you can see only Turkish names. Hence, the official names are the Turkish names. If you cannat visit NC, you can download and install Google Earth to see the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcuk1974 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You miserable sod. less than a minute after I started my first page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducks Fogs (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not tagged your article for deletion. You may remove the tags once the concerns are addressed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I only have "schoolgirl French" at best...more about 'the pen of my aunt being under the table' than snakes...Your translation sounds a lot more exciting!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears this is a school asignment. So while it's certainly been educational and valuable (in my opinion), I feel a little bad that the person working on the article is trying to meet the criteria of the assignment (and coordinate with the 4 or so other people who also have the assignment, although she seems to be doing all the work) and now trying to meet the requirements of making their essay encyclopedic and appropriate for this project. Plus the whole article is threatened with deletion. Do you have any suggestions? I have no experience with this issue, but I saw there was an extensive discussion about a more serious problem with another instructor tasking an assignment related to Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One other thought I had. It seems to me the real problem is this assignment to write a Wikipedia entry on a topic that isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia. Would it fit better at Wikiversity? Hmmm. Anyway. Thanks for your patience. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on new page patrol, you will come across many of those, although I have never seen one marked as such as blatantly as the one I tagged for deletion a few minutes ago. These pages often duplicate existing articles with information that is often nowhere near as accurate as the original. Because we cannot let these pages linger where one could find them instead of the real article, we have to take them out as quickly as possible.

Furthermore, I would question the wisdom of a teacher telling his students to post their homework in a place where anyone else can modify it, and where modifications are not necessarily improvements. Articles posted as school projects that are nominated at Articles for deletion are usually deleted prematurely.

For my part, the way to deal with those is clear: priority should be given to improving existing articles instead of duplicating them. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I thought you were talking about School Project - Duck-billed wonder.-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but that one looks fun too. Better than online tools for collaboration in elementary education anyway... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you double check your recent report? It doesn't look like you've reported the right user to me... WJBscribe (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it looks like that. But whoever created I'm Going To Hack Wikipedia should be blocked immediately for making threats. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They already are. WJBscribe (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Drxoxo, who has a high opinion of himself. Acroterion _(talk) 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty baba. --Cbdorsett (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All there is left to do now is wait for an admin to close this AfD per WP:SNOW. And it looks like Ms. Baba got the message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I noticed that you seem to be the only person editing the Prayer article. A shame as you say, but maybe I can help out. I suppose I should start by checking out some good books from the library ... but I hardly know where to start. What have your main sources been?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I took over after some of my predecessors edited most of this article. I made some additions that are warranted by the results of the peer review, a copy of which can be found on the article's talk page. For the additions, my sources are mainly Google searches, but I've been rather selective in picking the results. I've also sought help from Wikiprojects that are related to each individual paragraph, with mixed results.

I still need to find something substantial about Australian Aboriginal traditions (my plea for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia fell on deaf ears), and I would also like to add something on the Incas. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you using huggle to revert a goodfaith edit? The word Christian has never been in a stable version of that article, not in the lead sentence. There is a discussion on the talk page, and consensus has been keep the lead neutral, and put Christian rock in the infobox if someone can find a reliable source. Rollback is to be used for vandalism, not good faith edits. Landon1980 (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There was something else in what I reverted that looked suspicious to me. But thanks for pointing out my mistake. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, I've made the same mistake several times. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Subject is a member of a notable band with a WP article so is not an A7 candidate. I removed the tag, wikilinked the band, and moved it to Gabe Garcia. If you feel she is not notable independent of the band then I suggest AFD --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

for deciding to play chess with me! :-) (you should )

--Ciscokid21 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the first time Huggle's done that to me. Hope it's not a problem with the new version!  —SMALLJIM  18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That happens. Sometimes we just don't check where our warnings are being sent. I've even sent warnings to myself on a couple of occasions.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Huggle was supposed to check for warnings to whitelisted users. That was a quick flurry of activity, though, so I suppose it's some sort of race condition. Best wishes,  —SMALLJIM  18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a very important annual contest that allows for the blending of public data with open source software. This contest has been written up in the Washington Post, O'Reilly's Radar, Social Times, Mashable, and Government Technology.

This contest is bringing us one step closer to transparent government and participative democracy. This is one of the first steps governments massive data stores transparent and inviting citizen participation.

Other pages that cover similar subjects are: Intranet design annual, University of Toronto Space Design Contest, Balkan Mathematical Olympiad, Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad, and MuchTemp.

This article is not about a group or a club, rather a new movement towards a two-way government. Thanks, Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		It's always annoying when a cleanup guy's userpage get's vandalized by those whom he warns. Thank you very much for cleaning up my talkpage, as well as many other users.  Marlith (Talk)  01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that you're interested in Christianity and speak French. We're trying to create a short three-paragraph article on Christian naturism in the major W. European languages. If you'd like to proofread the French section (especially the last two paragraphs), your help would be greatly appreciated. I'm pretty good at Portuguese, but my French could definitely use some improvement.

All the work in the various languages completed so far is kept in my Sandbox (Technical terms have already been dictionary checked.)

Thanks, RGNU (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I should have paid more attention in my high school French class. RGNU (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some one had listed evidence that sunscreen is the CAUSE of melanoma. Which none of the articles quoted point to a cause. It is a correlation and not a cause. I deleted the word Cause, and change it to correlate. This controversy needs to be discussed outside of the skin cancer page, as someone already created a topic "sunscreen controversy", where numerous articles are cited in support of and against this hypothesis. I guess, I was trying to be as neutral as possible.

Would you like to revert it back to the original biased form? Sunscreen has been PROVEN to cause melanomas? And avoid the controversy all together?

Northerncedar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerncedar (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with what you did has to do with relevance of content. The question is already developped deep enough in the Skin cancer article that you do not need any further development there. Furthermore, the section already has a link to Sunscreen, which has all the required links to Sunscreen controversy. We do not want articles to become link farms to push some message that somebody feels "this is something everybody should know." I work outdoors, and I've never used sunscreen in my whole life. What I see as the problem is the reason why you made those edits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I now understand. It is good that Wiki is getting a bit more protective of its content. I just don't like to see misinformation being spread so easily on Wiki. Nickcoop did a woozy ransacking the Mohs surgery and Basal Cell cancer pages for weeks, and I tried to report it with no avail. All it takes is one nutcase and a questionable reference, and harmful misinformation is given to the public. I would not be so upset about this sunscreen controversy, if it wasn't for the blatant misinformation that was spread by the person who inserted it in the first place.

Keep up the good work. Northerncedar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerncedar (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated an article that you originally prodded for deletion, and thought that you would like to know since you had placed the original PROD. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunk (slang term). --Terrillja _talk 03:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even knew that article. How could I've vandalised it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.97.211 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you know you've been nominated, sort-of, for adminship [2] by a user who also nominated himself for adminship. That user JRH95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a grand total of 13 edits on wikipedia, and his most recent effort has been to try to push conspiracy theories on the Barack Obama page. A fine candidate for admin, yes indeedy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the user who nominated me isn't the worthiest of nominators, I'll accept the nomination and see where it leads. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pity it ended like that, your withdrawal might well have been a good move. Certainly I haven't seen any problems with you - give it another go in a few months and it should go much better; unfortunately this isn't the first time someone's RfA has been derailed by a dodgy nominator. Best of luck for the future. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am disapointed to see this. You seem to have made a few mistakes, and I wasn't keen on the Huggle blasting, but gernally you seemed more than capable of handling a few extra buttons and I was set to support. Some free advice, FWIW - ease up on Huggle a bit please, and keep up with content creation. I actually think your early withdrawal showed good judgement. Hang around WP:RFA and WT:RFA to get a feel for community norms in this regard (participation is not mandatory I may add!). Give it 12 weeks and speak to me regarding a nomination. One "lapse in judgement" (not my opinion but it was that of the neutrals) by accepting that nomination is not going to overshadow your excellent and devoted efforts. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blanchardb. I'm sorry (if not surprised) that your RfA ended as it did, but I think you showed good judgment and reasoning in your closing of it. Also, the fact that most neutral and opposes were due to the nominator should show that your work here is good and appreciated. I see that Pedro has already offered, but if you ever want it I'm happy to nominate you in a couple months or so. FlyingToaster 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad it's done with. Not a single oppose vote had anything to do with my track record, and that shows me I'm on the right track. I'll do as Pedro suggests: work to bring the Prayer article to FA status. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent attitude to have, if I may say. Give it 12 weeks (just to "clear the air" as it were) and it would be an honour to nominate you if that is okay with your self. I do have a pretty good record :) Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You'll naturally be more careful from now on anyway, I don't think you'll have any problems on your next one. Good luck with it when it comes, and also on you FA. Chamal ^talk 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment regarding my request for adminship. "Oppose per your reply to Q1, considering that your edit history shows no user talk edits except on your own talk page. We cannot tell whether you have a solid grasp of the speedy deletion criteria.". Can I please ask exactly what you are referring to; I can only assume you are referring to putting messages on "User" pages, warning them of possible deletion. My understanding is that this is not necessary. Please clarify --TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is proper etiquette to tell someone that their work is about to be deleted unless they do something about it (which they should be given the chance to do if possible). You will also note that in most situations, even obvious vandals are not blocked unless they have been adequately warned that their actions are unacceptable.

Furthermore, since I am not an admin, I have no access to the pages whose deletion you requested, so I cannot evaluate whether your CSD calls are accurate. At least seeing an associated user warning, and comparing it to the deletion log, would give me a clue. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I didn't realise that telling people was good etiquette; thought it was a suggestion used mainly for unintentional vandals. I will make these posts in future. Generally though, if I see that someone has put a request in for Speedy Deletion, I will assume that person is the one that has put the warning on the user page. My intention if chosen as SysOp was mainly to delete those others had requested for deletion (if I agreed that they followed the speedy deletion criteria) rather than actively hunting pages for the sole reason of deleting. Your feedback much appreciated though --TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Asma Mohammad Rafi So why did you revert to a version that includes "Asma is the ugly daughter of an Arabic Omani singer Mohammed Rafi." ? I think you're the vandal here. - بندرچود (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

From User:Tony201213: YOu said it yourself, Blanchardb, your page was up for deletion. You know what I really don't klike about wikipedia? It doesn't let free information that people might want to add to it and everything. It says it itseldf: Wikipedia: A free encyclopedia. I bolded the letters to make sure you pretty much understand what I'm trying to tell you. I have in this kind of issue with Wikipedia before, and I really on't think it should be fair to delete people's articles for no reasobn. You might not know the page's intention, but my pages are for making articles about an actual book series. There's no harm. I mean, if one of the references held a virus and everything, you can delete the article in that case, but by means of "deleting an article because I feel like to" is just extremely unjust. i hope you're not one of those people who don't see the messages people send them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony201213 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be well-advised to read WP:FICTION and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to show you how many articles are unfinished and with unsufficient information? Do you? Because they have not been deleted, and there are even links of things that don't even have an article on it! You can't win this battle, I'm just telling you. This has turned into a battle. And why does everyone %&#@ing mess with other people's business. I mean, are you EVEN allowed to do this in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony201213 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You want a wider hearing? You've got it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, #1: If you want to respond, respond it the way, or similar to, of how you did it on the case of TimothyJacobson? #2: Why don't you tell me in a broad paeagaph explaining your thoughts about this, because I am very outraged. #3: Why do you want to do this? Does this give you pleasure? DOes it give you some kind of warm feeling when you see a person outraged about a situation such as this. #4: My article wasn't chosen for "speedy deletion" because it was a request, and it's because of that request that I am outraged. #5: Can you let me live my life? #6: I am still going to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony201213 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) --Tony201213 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When you nominate an article for deletion, don't try to rewrite all the technical markup involved all by yourself. Just let the substing of templates do the job for you, as suggested on the AfD template you first insert. It will be much easier for you, and I will not have to clean up after you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit of a pain imho, too much cursor movement and copy and pasting. I realise the templated version is a bit more convenient for viewers, but for the two people who are going to chime in on the average AfD it's not really worth it in my opinion. --fvw* 07:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

From User:Drewgillespie:

Hello, I set up the wiki page for Bobo and would appreciate for it to be kept up. I worked a long time on that overview/summary and if you need credible sources I will give them to you in pdf:

http://www.foxyproduction.com/static/dyn-files/1/1939.pdf http://www.foxyproduction.com/static/dyn-files/1/1940.pdf http://www.foxyproduction.com/static/dyn-files/1/1926.pdf http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/17365/a-e--editors-picks

Thank you I hope you understand. If it didn't look professional enough to be on wikipedia I understand. It was my first article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewgillespie (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article is empty... -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• You might want to talk to NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who delete the first version of you article, on which you worked so hard. We just cannot keep blank articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From User:Drewgillespie: I definitely spent an hour or two on it, it must've gotten deleted by NawlinWiki. I tried going to his talk page and he is "semiprotected." How am I ever supposed to discuss this with him if he is not open to messages? PLEASE HELP! I appreciate your time spent on these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewgillespie (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb and thanks for your interest in this topic. I have stated my objection to deletion. I have been studying this group for quite some time. If you dislike the use of "common" it is easy to replace although I am finding that it is the most common compared to "cusper" or "genex-Boomer"

Do you have any good ideas about a better way to state it?

I did add to the talk page this objection: I object to the proposed deletion and have added statistics and will continue to do so. Birth statistics along with sociopolitical as well as sociological evidence exists. I have quite a few sources. It will take me a few days to input them all. Many of the existing data is incorrect simply because of the fact that the "Baby Boom," relates literally to birth rates. As we study the data for birth rates even up until today, this wedge section of the statistical population has often been referred to incorrectly, and dates have also been incorrectly published. My efforts here are to correct the data and update the terminology.

Certainly birth rate and other data relating to the years of 64 - 68 define this period. The terminology and use of the word had its origins in California. I will add this.

Let me know, Best, archiemartinArchie Martin (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have contested the proposed deletion, so now the article is listed at Articles for Deletion discussions. To keep the article, you have to attest that the term "Tweener Generation" is the main term by which this generation is referred to, and that its use (the term's not the concept's) is widespread. Otherwise, I could create an article titled "Teener Generation" that would be nothing but a copy of the Generation X article.

You may want to participate in the deletion discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am thankful for the information about not deleting the speedy deletion posts. I also wanted to thank you for telling me about reasoning with the admin. on the article's discussion page. I just wanted to know that if there is a way to get an article back after it has been deleted and if I can still appeal to the admin. after it has been deleted. Thanks for your help!CATCHACODE(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

Yes. There is deletion review. But while some administrators will be willing to email you a copy of the deleted article, please be aware that if the concerns that led to the article's deletion (in your case, copyright infringement) are not addressed, the article is not likely to be restored. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to work on the article after copying information down from the official website of E-Lybra. I had no chance to get to the article until today and I found that it had been deleted.CATCHACODE (talk)

• Your article should be based on third-party sources for two reasons:

1. Notability cannot be self-proclaimed (by definition, actually);
2. You should avoid conflict of interest and achieve neutrality.

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't claiming to be signed to a label count as an assertion of notability? I make no assertions about the eventual suitability of the article on Wikipedia, nor would I object to a prod. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends what label. We're talking here about a label which itself has no notability asserted. But if you want to take it through the prod/afd route, then be my guest. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blanchardb on this one. If the label has an article, then I see that as a presumption of notability sufficient to defeat an A7. However, there are lots of do-it-yourself and garage music "labels" out there. If the article is an orphan and there is no article on the label, then I am skeptical. A quick google search on "4Front Records" suggests that it is a garage label.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above IP just violated again after you gave them a final warning. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just letting you know. :) --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

am still adding to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_AL-Hammouri why to make it a candidate for speedy deletion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You made a large revert with edit summary "Please do not state one man's opinion.". Did you notice that your revert reintroduced the same opinion of individual author in the LEAD? Lalit Jagannath (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I have restored the correct version of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have quite an interest in my chess game! :-P TheCiscoKid _{Talk to me} 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I received your message about linking in the air raid shelter. I removed the bomb-shelter.net and undergroundshelters.com links as they are both commercial. I hope I have followed the rules appropriately. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and causing a red flag.

Caroline Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiweb (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold off on the CSD, I am saving as I compose. Thardman22 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Blanchardb. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware of the context these belong in, so you might be interested in my comment on the AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am editing "Gonzales Weekly Citizen". Do you have any suggestions to help me get the article corrected? I appreciate any help as I'm still new to Wikipedia. Thank you. Mtortorich (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I userfied it and notified the author. If you want to MfD it in a couple weeks go ahead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first of all: Thanks for wishing me luck for my literary career. Second of all, I don't need that anymore. Using my userpage, I can already express the information and context of my literary artwork. As I was checking the message you left on my talk page, I did not, I repeat, did not declare war on you. There is no existing evidence to prove that I have declared you war because I haven't declared war on you and you might just had possibly misinterpreted the context of the message. The only purpose for the message was for you to stay out of my way. So, I repeat: Stay out of my way. I recommend it. Happy editing. (Tony201213 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, me. You might want to check the "Something Else I Want to Add" part of my user page.Tony201213 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that the issue presents itself with any real frequency, but I imagine it might be useful to observe that when one licenses his or her content under the GFDL, he or she retains the copyright to it, such that generally one does not do wrong to claim copyright in some amorphous way (cf., "the user claims to have a copyright, thereby somewhat violating WP:GFDL"), at least where such claim is not advanced in a fashion incompatible with the GDFL or, on-wiki, toward some disruptive or unconstructive end; just an FYI. Cheers, Joe 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a search and it appears to be a viable page (if renamed) Any chance of retracting that nomination? I'd be happy to do the work. I tend to forget about messages or AFD pages I covered because there are so many of them, so if you respond somewhere, please leave a message or template on my talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did the work for you and withdrew the AfD. Incidentally, I also felt it was right to remove the initial sole entry, since it already has a {{prod2}} tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! - Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting "Palestinian Terrorism" to "Palestinian Political Violence" is not NPOV. I went to "Palestinian Terrorism" to learn about Palestinian groups like Hamas that are specifically terrorist, not merely violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to make it better to the best of my ability. I just found out she died, but there is no article fro her. I have now denoted that she was an artist/critic/sculptor. I will put more about Claes Oldenburg.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can restore it if you'd like. Usually, when user and article match, it's self-promotional. Only takes a moment; hang on...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reverting of my edits on Steve_Gibson_(computer_programmer): while it is true that the link was to my personal blog, this is mostly because the other site (grcsucks.com) is dead. It is my opinion that all prominent viewpoints must be presented in an article, and considering that my blog references writeups done on this topic by people like the author of NMAP or the author of Snort (two very prominent products in network security), I feel justified in my opinion that this is a relevant viewpoint.

Being new to Wikipedia I would like to ask the question: under what form would the link be acceptable?

Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

While it is true that Wikipedia wishes that all prominent viewpoints be exposed in its articles, one exception to that policy, which continues to receive overwhelming support from the Wikipedia community and is strictly enforced by the Wikimedia Foundation for legal reasons, is biographies of living people, when such biographies are improperly referenced and negative in tone. Steve Gibson might sue Wikipedia for libel if something is said about him that cannot be backed up by reliable sources. Since a personal blog cannot in any way constitute a reliable source, it is better not to have the information at all than to have it without references, no matter how prominent the viewpoint may be.

Also, you are talking about information that came from a site that no longer exists (grcsucks.com). It is quite possible that the very reason the site no longer exists is that it was brought to court for libel by Mr. Gibson and was ordered shut down by the court. In fact, the very name of that site suggests that it was created solely to give negative information about Gibson and GRC, without proper references to back up what they say. If that is the case, no information that comes from there and cannot be found elsewhere on a non-blog site should be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm sorry to hear that there is no way to include this content on Wikipedia, but I do understand the problem. -- Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry for bothering you again, but would it be acceptable (from a Wikipedia policy point of view) to include the link a text along the lines: "there are several controversial claims made by Steve Gibson. You can find a collection of opposing viewpoints at ..."? -- Cd-MaN83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

No. The article already states the ones that can be referenced, and can be claimed as controversial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, since i know nothing more about the file, you may delete it. Veraladeramanera (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals" The deletion of an article you created, Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals, has been proposed for the following reason:

Please do not create an article about a single game. You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Navychappy"

This page was last modified on 13 January 2009, at 17:11. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

I understand the rules about not creating seperate pages for a single game, I would agree to delete the page without a problem, sorry for the problem this may have caused, I am getting a hang of this now. Thanks Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick, friendly note on La Forêt des Mal-Aimés. I had no problem identifying the subject (the missing image title told me it might be a Pierre Lapointe album, the Pierre Lapointe confirmed it), so I declined the speedy. Something else going on here that I'm not seeing?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When I tagged the article, I had no image title. I originally intended to tag the article as an A9, but there was simply no author mentioned or even hinted at, so I did not think it applied. Think of it as an A1 that was remedied before you had a chance to handle it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Not criticizing; I just like to double check because sometimes there's more going on that can be expressed with the canned CSD tag. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour! Ca me fait plaisir de voir un autre québecois :D --Mixwell!^Talk 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You commented about the stringendo page as a deletion candidate... however, it was not finished at that time! It still isn't, but now notability is certain. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I noticed you quickly marked this for advert and notability. Please take another slower look -- I think you will see it is mostly about the history of this (essentially defunct) company, which over a period of 35 years manufactured products that were used by thousands of visually impaired people worldwide. It had a major impact on the live of many blind people. I won't remove the tags, but I think the subject of the article is notable and the treatment is not advertising. Robsavoie (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hey man the only reason i made the page about Eazie games is because i wanted to mention an American video game company that that was not mentioned in you data base. If you want to be an incomplete source of information by all means delete my contribution, but do not lie to me and tell me that you appreciate my help. We at Eazie Games want to be noticed if only at the semi-reputable name of Wiki and we would prefer not to be totally stricken from the record books.

thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnatix (talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wanna edit-war over whose PROD gets placed? :o Acroterion _(talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're gonna prod the article, the least we should do is keep the text in place :-D -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Our edit war is over: the article has been deleted. :-| -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortest PROD I've ever seen! Acroterion _(talk) 14:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Dimond can be deleted now that I have made the MHFM page with more info; there are duplicating information but it is better to have the MHFM itself rather than its leader as the main topic. By the way, when and how is the deletion page resolved? Ourshelp (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi... I have removed the article from the category "Web Applications". Any other suggestions for improving the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungManBlues (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please find reliable sources (that is, not forums) to establish the package's notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi... As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... I have added references from "Information Week" as well as "Deccan Herald" . Deccan Herald is a major newspaper in the Southern part of India. Do let me know what I can do to get the speedy deletion tag removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungManBlues (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... and any input for improving the quality of the article will be greatly appreciated :D YoungManBlues (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blanchardb I was wondering if i could have permission to do something. I would like to start an award called "WIKIPEDIA'S MOST KNOW-IT-ALL ARTICLE LOVER" It is about members choosing favorite articles, and writing speeches about why they like it. I need permission for this, so do i get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 711joel (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no position to grant such permission, and given that you are blocked indefinitely, it is pointless to give you a procedure for this. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How can it be vandalism when I added referenced and verified information? There are sources for everything I added to that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.168.214 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this edit meet the requirements of WP:ROC? Sorry, but if it doesn't, then it's a biolation of WP:BLP.

Also, please note that Wikipedia does not care whether its information has been verified. We care about whether the information can be verified again. Please do not add potentially libelous material without references, even if what you say is absolute truth. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I can see your point about that quote from Ian Gibson's book - even if that is the exact quote verbatim - but what about the basic information about the cover versions and the 12" mixes? Surely that can't be labelled as "potentially libelous"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.168.214 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That had to be reverted along with the rest, given the tools I am using. Please feel free to reinsert it, but alone. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Will do. Thanks for taking the time of clearing that up, I'm pretty new here. Let me just clarify that I've put in a lot of hard work on improving that article, including providing references etc. so I react when people start accusing me of vandalism and unconstructive edits etc. But I see your point and I'll try my very best to stay within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.168.214 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)