Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Please note that the recent page blanking wasn't vandalism, it was a db-author. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have erased the warning I posted on the user's talk page. When you just see an individual diff on Huggle, you don't get to see that kind of thing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! Wikityke (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

while i'm working on my page appeared your observations. I understand you have a strong interest in my stuff, i don't know why. Why don't you wait until i finish my work? You say in your page you have some of the most important articles on christianity..who said that Jesus himself? of course he didn't , you observe "others jobs" but you make the same kind of mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortegapp (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was on newpage patrol when I first saw your article. It had enough of a notability assertion to avoid a deletion without discussion, but it had so many problems that they have to be dealt with if the article is to remain on Wikipedia for more than a few days. I tagged the general ones and the most blatant examples. You cannot say that Ortega worked with such and such "who happen to be famous": that sounds suspicious. A better option is to say that Ortega worked with such and such, period. Let the reader check for himself whether that other person is famous or not. Of course, you can lead the way to such a search: that's what wikilinks are for. And please do not use peacock terms like the ones that are omnipresent in your article.

As an aside, if you feel Ortega does verifiably meet our notability guidelines, you should make your case at the deletion discussion. Hope this helps. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. So much for my effort to tuck it away quietly into a safe place in my user space. :) Right into main space and under a very catchy article name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please mark pages as patrolled after speedy'ing. Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking into akhila page. I think this page should be independent, and should not be redirected to Akhil's. I know it sounds very similar to Akhil. I am going to add more findings, or others will add later. So, please leave this page independent from Akhil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psashikumar (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time, the article should direct to at least one notable person with that name. Otherwise, it should redirect to the male name. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added more stuff, and expecting few more. I hope it is fine now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psashikumar (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

can't understand why you deleted my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topgear23 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• edit

If ever anyone holds a competition to see the oldest word that someone at Wikipedia has incorrectly labelled a "neologism", remind xem that you are in the running as a serious contender with this one. Almost two thousand years knocks those who have labelled centuries-old words, or merely decades-old ones, as neologisms, into a cocked hat. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey - great patrolling - just wondering what the second tag is for ? [1] JCutter (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregard - I re-read the template and get it now - just seemed strange to add both tags at once but I see what you were doing. Thanks. FYI - I notified OP of autobio... JCutter (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok...It said something like it could be deleted. Why??? I just created this coming series like about a week ago and I haven't posted anything like pictures, Information or videos yet. The link I submitted it to my OWN site. Just to let you know....So, Why is it up for possible deletion????? I, Myself made this...I know I may seem kind of overly worked up but I believe I have that right. All I did was post this so news could get out about my new manga/anime series. Ok? Goodbye and How do you remove the deletion box??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnee905 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in the above argumentation, you pretty much stated all the reasons why your article will be deleted. All articles in Wikipedia must be on topics that meet certain minimum notability standards. You are not stating that there is any reliable source that ever addressed your project; as a matter of fact you are pretty much stating that it is an upstart project nobody else knows about at this point. This will get any article deleted, no matter what.

Second point: you wrote an article about your own project. Under conflict of interest guidelines, this is strongly discouraged. You should wait for someone else, who has not been commissioned by you, to start the article on your project.

Third point: you are inviting people to participate. That makes your article borderline spam by our definition of the term.

Fourth point: you asked me how to remove the deletion tag. Easily done, but since it is a speedy deletion tag, and you are the creator of the article, removing it yourself may earn you a warning, and a block if you persist.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web space provider.-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another point: You wrote an edit summary that reads as follows: Ok, please don't edit my articles because I created the series I speak about so...... No matter what you think, just Don't. Please and Thank You. Sorry, but in Wikipedia, you do not own articles, even articles about yourself. Such a plea will fall on deaf ears. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It doesn't look notable at the mo. I have just started it. The horse was notable, winning NZ's main race three years in a row. Wallie (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have updated it to show notability. I will add a lot more. The horse also held a lot of world records at the time. Wallie (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb,

I´m brazilian and I saw the Brainfacturing definition here at wikipedia, which is very important here for us. As you can see, there are several google matches for this in portuguese. At pt.wiki, they deleted it because its an english term.....I don´t know if you understand, but I think this article should remain.

Thanks,

Pedro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.12.142 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make your case at the deletion discussion, not here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb,

Thanks for the fix on the Alan Jenkins dab page. If you would give me any pointers to how these should be done, I should be grateful. I've added one more link since. FYI this came from a requested move which actually was just moving a redirect, but since my brother's middle name is Alan and I know how often that name is misspelled, I thought useful to add a redirect. Hope I did the right thing there. SimonTrew (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off the beaten path, I was struggling yesterday with redirects for new (stub) article Citroën C1 ev'ie perm +/- "ë"/"", "C1"/(null), "ev"/"Ev", "'"/(null) gives you 2⁴ = 16, and there are probably more that combinatorially explode the possibilities. I stuck with the few I thought were likely hits. It is not exactly the most exciting article anyway, though it links into a "topic" as some people call it where each individual article stands on its own feet (as IMO it must, and indeed each indvidual edit) but the whole is bigger than the parts; it was very topical yesterday since this new electric car was launched and I have been subbing electric car quite a lot lately just to knock it in to shape so naturally I wanted to add the info and woohoo got there first (do I get a barnstar? No barnstars yet, whatever they are). Anyway sorry off topic I was just wondering if you have any rules of thumb for redirects cos I don't want to create too many. I don't mean advice like double redirects etc I can handle that formality and check up "what links here" etc, I mean what is useful, the "pre-emptive dab" I think it is called or something, trying to guess what people will search for. I know that's not quite what it means in that sense, it means in the article itself, but the same kinda applies, "if I was coming here and typed Alan Jenkins what would I expect to see?" Certainly I would not expect to see grumbly Wikipedia just telling me there is no page on that. SimonTrew (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and apparently there are a bunch of templates to use on dab pages. Unfortunately, like all of Wikipedia search, nobody can find them unless they already know where they are. Pointers there gratefully received. SimonTrew (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, dead links are quickly removed from dab pages, and dab pages that contain no more than one blue link are deleted. Dab pages are meant to facilitate navigation between existing articles. This comes from the same logic that led Wikipedia to adopt the No blank pages guideline. But, as an alternative, you can create redirects. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. The redlinks were not on the dab page; rather, they were not in the search index at all so WP said "I give up" with its oh-so-helpful dab page (Wikipedia, now in 200 languages, but if you make a spelling error try again). I did all the redirects etc etc. What I was looking for help with, on the humourous Wikipediaholic test it said do you do redirects then do you also add reasons or something like that, I assumed there were a set of templates like you added {{dab}}. Templates are VERY hard to find until you know where they are, because WIKIPEDIA SEARCH IS CRAP. Just my humble opinion there. IT'S CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP. GOOGLE HAD "DID YOU MEAN" TEN YEARS AGO. My less than humble opinion. SimonTrew (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Blanchardb,

While I appreciate that this may sound like a joke, it is a serious compition. There are three (currently anonymous) sponsers who are putting up $16,666 each. I have been asked to do all the setting up and creating of the treasure hunt and clues. It is our hope that we can get some media coverage of it , at which point the compitions sponsers will reveal themselves an get some advertising. However, all three were soncerned about the possibilty of negative coverage, so don't want to be known at this time.

I will remind you that should you delete it, you will not be eligable for the prize. I wish you good luck and happy hunting - plus you are probably the first person to see this, thus can get a good headstart on the clue.

Yours sincerly,

DoodleHammer 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have something better to do than trace my edits? Meh ill stop now anyway... Wikipedia has helped me so many times, I think I should return the favour! :D 202.46.138.86 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree because in the beginning it starts off with why he is notable. Then it Continues to list he many pages he has listed under his name. It continues on to give links to his youtube page where you can view the many videos he has posted. If you were to go onto his myspace or youtube page you would see the many fans he has for the music he sings. So in my opinion I disagree with the speedy deletion of the Jordan Grizzle page. Furthermore, he has sang his own songs which will be later put on his Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not seem to know of any site other than his youtube page that claims he has that many fans. You need at least one reliable source (click on this link to see what we mean by that) to show that Grizzle is indeed notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

ok but he is also all over google.. and on imeem... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

and his website is being done professionally.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

His website being done professionally is a personal opinion and does not belong on a wikipedia article. Google is also not a reference, it is a search engine. I support the CSD as the author has not proved the significance of the subject. prospider‡ 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What we need is a page from a major site which is neither a blog nor a forum nor a wiki and over which he has zero editorial input. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

His Website. He has no input on it nor can he edit it in anyway. Its not a blog, or a forum, or a wiki, it is an actual website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, his website is not up and running. Also, there is no reliable evidence that states that he does not have completely control over the website. I continue to support the CSD A7. prospider‡ 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So can't you just wait the website is soon to be launched and Furthermore if he had complete control over his website it would be finished by now. The site was previously launched but was disabled because the domain was bought and now everything is being converted. That is were the introductory paragraph comes from. And to continue, the only input he has is the quotes that say what he has to say about everything. He has also been recognized by A&R however they do not show many of the artist they acknowledge and assist in producing songs therefore that is the only reason he is not listed on their page.--GrizzleFan (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GrizzleFan, the problem is, none of what you say is supported by any solid references. If the page does come up and it is constituted as a reliable source, then you are welcome to recreate the article and the CSD will be considered then. However, without any references nor any actual factual content on this singer, he is ultimately unnotable and does not deserve a page on wikipedia. CSD A7 still supported. prospider‡ 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What solid reference do you need??? His songs are all posted not only on youtube but are being sold on myspace.. the only thing that is being waited upon is the website to be relaunched...--GrizzleFan (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what you would consider a credible claim of significance or importance that I can give you....--GrizzleFan (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A solid reference is outlined at this page, and just because his songs are posted does not mean they are significant. I would recommend reading this article for assistance. prospider‡ 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

so once the website is running would that be consider a reliable source???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

can someone answer my question???? if his website jordan grizzle .com was to be launched would it then be credible and notable enough for a wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzleFan (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. He (or someone connected to him) is the one paying to have that website running. By no editorial input I mean a site where the only way he could get anything changed would involve talking to his attorney. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BAND. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I just declined an A3 on Straight Silver because the article had content. An infobox with the book-data does count as content. If I may, I'd suggest you just fix those articles (like I did) instead of tagging them incorrectly as A3. Regards SoWhy 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack article. I was just forking content in order to do an NPOV check. I would like to ask you to restore the page. There really was a scandal, see for instance Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. See User:PMDrive1061, who deleted the page. Would it be better to attempt Deletion review ? ADM (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no sources (since you used "citation needed" tags), therefore deletion review can only result in an overwhelming support of the deletion. Get some reliable sources, then we'll talk. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't use citations needed, since it was already a fork with 4 independent sources. You're mixing that up with another entry that I created recently which I had been working on. ADM (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Option F - Microbes and Biotechnology has context. There is sufficient text to identify the subject. For this reason I have removed the prod tag. Thanks for your help patrolling new pages! T3chl0v3r (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you still believe this article should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD. T3chl0v3r (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For amiably collaborating to improve the 'pedia. Cheers! —Eustress talk 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience in the dab fixes. Best regards —Eustress ^talk 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added some references to sources, and for notability. I think they fulfill the basic criteria. Elseware (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up and doing the names (and agreeing it is sensible). I guess that the correct way to do the references is to have a disambiguation page? --Hugh.glaser (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed your CSD for Thingamaboob. I know it sounds like a hoax, but it appears to be a real program sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society.[2] You may want to check for Ghits before marking hoaxes. The only reason I make that suggestion is I have been burned by what I thought was the most outrageous article only to find out there was some truth to it. 8-) ttonyb1 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but to me speedy deletion (G3, A7, and A9) is for cases where one does not feel the need to bother with a Google search. I am surprised that the Canadian Cancer Society would approve of anything called "Thingamaboob." They would have requested a name change at the very least. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised about the name and almost did not Google it. I guess I will never be a marketing "expert". 8-) Enjoy the day/evening... ttonyb1 (talk)

Wow that was quick. Yeah, get rid of it, speedy delete.

Sorry, have been doing so much heavy work here (check contribs if you don't believe me) I just needed a bit of fun. I still managed to wikify the article at first attempt!

Get rid of it would you? SimonTrew (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The novel (and the town the factory is in) is listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darnley_(disambiguation), seems to me that a page on the novel will explain an otherwise dead entry rather well, asa well as indicating that the novel is known[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]].

Cheers[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Please excuse if I mmake typos or stuff, my Internet connexion is still playing up so I am trying to go quickly.

Please blanchardb can you take a look at John Serry, Sr.. The self-stated primary author has, I think, left WP, and has stated this is about her father and that John Serry, Jr. is her brother (that comes under WP:BLP so I've not dared touch it). Whether they're notable I am not sure, but I doubt we'll get any more info if primary author has left, and I was tempted to prod them both (Sr. was prodded before and I did a lot of cleanup on that article, but apparently that was taken as interference, see at its talk page). I should really appreciate your views. SimonTrew (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ownership" of articles is against Wikipedia policy, regardless of the contributor's relation to the subject. The page I linked to here gives some advice on how to deal with such situations. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know about ownership or lack thereof, can you tell me (as you said "The page I linked to"? I'm a bit confused can't see any link. I was not suggesting she had ownership, only that it seemed that way. Kinda single-issue editor. I've never had an article deleted or even proposed for deletion, beyond stupidities like Ferret Ales (which you may note, on creation was listed as "speedy delete" by myself on its creation, I dunno I just had a bad day it was a small abuse I suppose but I think did little harm) and stubs that then either have been expanded or deleted cos there were other articles I couldn't find despite my best attempts, and trusted other editors' judgment when they've given anothe article I've then gone back and fixed up the links and the articles),

Sorry about my Internet connexion problems, I think I'd a hardware conflict I've whacked a couple of bits out of the computer and it seems to be working better now.

My own opinion I would like to keep Serry Sr as I think it is, after some tidying, a fair article, I think Serry Jr should go but not sure since it is BLP what to do there. I doubt anyone would support keeping it since only I and the departed author are watching it (I completely forget how I got round to these articles in the first place; I don't tend to use Recent Articles or Recent Changes etc and it doesn't link to anything I tend to work on). Maybe I got there via AfD but have only been looking at that for a little while. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The link I was talking about was to WP:OWN, but apparently you are aware of the policy. When I first saw your comment, I wanted to respond immediately, but that would have required me to sign on via an unsecured wi-fi connection.

The article John Serry, Sr. seems to need nothing more than tidying before it can be nominated in the Featured Article process, and basically that would involve just taking care of the issues listed on the template. The man's notability, as far as whether Wikipedia should have an article about him, cannot be questioned at this point: the article would probably survive an AfD with a speedy keep verdict. The article John Serry, Jr., on the other hand, could be nominated for deletion in good faith, but I don't think that will result in deletion.

As for your speedily deleted article... well, since it is your only fault as far as I can tell, I don't think there will be any consequence other than delaying a request for adminship if you even seek that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with everything you say. Sorry if the Ferret Ales] article caused trouble, though actually afterwards I found a lot of WP articles, not to that exact title but Ferret and Beer or Ale and was wondering whether actually it should be reinstated; I assume you realise my good faith there.

I am not particularly interested in Admin, I guess it would be kinda nice but I'm fine being a humble editor. Had I wanted it I would have gone for it before. But I've done about 4000 edits now and it's just fine for me to carry on the way I am; sometimes advice from more experienced people is helpful. I'm not a total idiot I think you see, but navigating WP can sometimes be tricky. SimonTrew (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Blanchardb & User:SimonTrew - Just a quick note to thank you for your input regarding the article John Serry, Sr. Please rest assured that I have not interpreted your collective attempts to edit the article as a form of "interference". My remarks regarding the activities of other editors such as DamiensRF relate to frivolous editing and an apparent lack of understanding regarding the subject matter of the article and the period in music history which it addresses. This is not entirely unexpected since the subject matter relates to a relatively obscure

period in early American music history. It was not my intention to either critique or question your editorial integrity. In addition, kindly note that my observations concerning authorship of the article were never intended to imply "ownership" or "exclusive editorial control" of the article. My only hope was to underscore my familiarity with facts relating to the article itself. As one of the musician's surviving sons (not daughter) I thought such facts might be useful. In actuality, it would appear that they are of questionable value due to policy restrictions (recall the COI complaint placed against the related article American Rhapsody). Kindly note that I am not concerned about creating a "High Profile Featured Article", promoting this musician for any form of commercial interest or creating a memorial or eulogy about him. My intention has merely been to document his professional activities for the benefit of future musicologists and students of early 20th century music within the context of a fairly simple biographical article. With this in mind, I have attempted to bring all relevant facts to the attention of your readers. This effort was successful as long as the article was submitted as a simple biography (At that stage it was rated as a B-grade and not subjected to conflict of interest complaints by the reviewing editor.) Evidently, this is not possible if the article is included within the Music Portal. Consequently, feel free to remove the article from consideration within the various Music portals if its inclusion creates so much controversy. I really do not object in any manner whatsoever and would be quite satisfied to leave the article as a simple biographical text (as it begain). It is quite possible that my endeavors should be directed toward established academics within known music conservatories who are better able to formulate an substanative analysis of the materials presented thus far. With this in mind, I shall be directing future editorial inquiries to such researchers rather than Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help and I shall look forward to observing your editorial changes to the articles mentioned above in the future. Adios --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs

Hello,
With the new title (National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection) you gave to my contribution (CNEP vs Polymer failure) I cannot retreive easily my contribution by typing CNEP on Google (for example). Could you arrange that for me? I wish also to appear by typing "polymer failures" if possible.
As you will see, as you suggested me, I add a short sentence in introduction. I was also trying to add CNEP in title without success. Thanks a lot in advance for your help --Urcize (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Google search algorithm has decided that a bank with the same name is a more likely search target than the National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection. There is really not much that anyone at Wikipedia can do about this. This problem is in the hands of Google, not us. Because of the size of the bank in question, I don't think even restoring the article to the title CNEP would change anything. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The MRC is indeed notable as it has been the field site for a number of noted primatologists and ecologists for years (Paul Garber - head of the American Society of Primatologist, Falk Huetman, noted Rainforest Ecologist out of University of Alaska Fairbanks, Andrew Halloran, Creator of the Elgin Center and primatologist specializing in primate vocal communication). I will continue to edit this page showing the peer reviewed publications which have come out of this site as well as the history of the organization. --Ozthechimp (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue VIII - May 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 68 FAs, 7 FLs, and 146 GAs, which includes 3 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 2 GAs over the past month, but we still basically broke even with the 3 new FAs. Member news With the additions of cindyrom4jesus at 69.254.33.66, User:Jwhosler, and User:Arverniking, we now have 281 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news There is some new discussion regarding project related activities, specifically including the various Christianity portals, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum and the possible expansion of the extant Narnia task force of WikiProject Novels. All input is more than welcome. . Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of the month will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Eighth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Hello from the new Christian films task force! I was recently apart of founding a task force, so this is the story. For several months, I would not only contribute to Christian films, groups, etc., but I'd also see other users working on similar articles. I really wanted to create a project for us to work from. Filmcom contacted me about trying to get a task force going, so we began working together on it. When it appeared the idea was dying, we continued to fight, and several other users joined! Thanks to the efforts of many users, I'd like to introduce you to the Christian films task force! We are currently having a bot tag all Christian film-related articles, and we are working to define our project scope. We now have our own icon and shortcut (WP:CFTF), with ten users signed out thus far - these are just some of the things that have been happening in the last few days. If you have any interest in joining such a project, we welcome everyone to join and get involved. American Eagle (talk) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear BlachardB

From the help you have given me in the past I know you are a true wikipedian, good faith, do the rules, and a real so-and-so sometimes.

With fear that you are a deletionist and I an inclusionist, could you maybe have a look around the Botanic Garden, Botanical Garden, List of.... it seems quite clumsy. I thought earlier it was wrong to put Botanic as primary and Botanical at DAB, actually we've done some fix-up there to avoid repetition but it's still rather clumsy which should be where.

This came about from editing copy-editing Medellín, where a botanic garden was mentioned and I wanted to make sure botanic or botanical.

I will happply take this to a DAB pag or whatever, but before, I should appreciate your views. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear me Imay have spoiled your christianity post (not as such bit the layout). The rules is I can't go back to change that so I just say sorry not my intent. SimonTrew (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any of these articles. They are perfectly legitimate lists and dab pages. Leaving redlinks on a list is okay by me, as it indicates that having an article on such and such botanical garden is desirable.

When it comes to public places, I am more of an inclusionist. To me, any building that's on the registry of historic places gets a free pass at notability, unless such a claim can be shown to be dubious. The same goes for botanical gardens, as there is rarely more than one per metro area. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Rick the Stick is not a notable character, such as a person in the news paper, etc. However Rick the Stick and other webcomic characters are part of a growing trend to bring comic strips to the masses online. Webcomics as a whole are being deleted from wikipedia as soon as they are posted, and have had mass deletions since 2007. These characters are fictional characters but are part of our society, no different than a TV Series (which continue to receive new postings and updates on wikipedia).

I understand that you have a guideline that you must follow to make sure that only notable pages are posted, and to help keep Wikipedia a safe and structured environment. My only concern is that artists such as Ken Drab who spend their money and time to create new characters and want to share their talents with others are not able to post their creations and ideas onto Wikipedia. These are notable characters and individuals at Convention Centers, and gatherings such as NEWW and Comic-Con. My only question is what makes a TV Episode more importan than a Web Comic. Most Episodes that are listed on Wikipedia never even went on to complete their first season before cancellation (Drive for Example) yet they are posted on Wikipedia.

I'm not trying to open the flood gates for mass works by unknown artists, just trying to get an understanding of what has to be done to make something such as a Web Comic notable and allowed for addition to Wikipedia.

Thank You,

--Tcmcelmurry (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you redirect it to Parkway School District???? --Stuvaco922 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons:

1. It was about a middle school for which no notability is asserted;
2. It contained contact information, a no-no in Wikipedia.

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you change Brigadier George Taylor to George Taylor (soldier)? Please go back to the original title. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilliams1972 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Only when you can show me that the word "Brigadier" appeared on the man's birth certificate. Here at Wikipedia, we want to keep article titles as simple as possible. We have the article Gordon Brown, not The Right Honourable Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain. So, since you expanded the wrong article, I boldly transferred all text and references to the right article and made the other a redirect. Since you are not expecting anyone to type "Brigadier George Taylor CBE, DSO & Bar, KHS" in full in the search box, I'm sure you won't mind. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished a bit of clean-up on this merger. If you have occasion to merge in the future, please note that §4(I) of the GFDL requires an edit summary noting "merge content from [[article name]]" on the target page, and preferably on the source page as well. Both talk pages also need {merge-from} or {merge-to} tags to retain discusssion history. There's a step-by-step at WP:Merge. Happy editing, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, you have put a marker for deletion on the DAF page. DAF are a debt education charity who provide books to schools.

There is no advertising involved - I haven't even posted a link to our website.

They have been around since 2002 and the purpose of the page will be to inform people that help and free books will be available to anyone regardless of their financial status. A government minister and a member of Parliament are active supporters of this cause.

I would direct you to similar organisations such as the CCCS and Christians Against Poverty. I would also suggest this is more encyclopaedic than pages such as Brake, Bottletop and Sparkle which I note are also charities.

If you have any advice for me I'd be really grateful to hear it.

Debtadvicefoundation (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb,

I am writing to you regarding the deletion of my page, titled as above. Firstly I wanted to apologise! I am new to wikipedia and was unsure of regulations and so on. Also, I created the deleted page as a start point, which I as planning to come back to and complete later, when I had more time! I didn't mean for it to be an "advertisement"!

I intend to re-create the page, but entered as an encyclopedic article. I wondered if you had any advice for me before doing so to ensure I wont get deleted again.

Cheers Ashmac69 Ashmac69 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The first question you should be asking before recreating the article is whether the troupe meets our minimum notability requirements. If it doesn't, or only does so because you are "stretching the rules," then you shouldn't even bother.

If you decide to go ahead and recreate the article, then you should know that any controversial information (which includes information that can potentially be regarded as promotional) should be backed up by third-party reliable sources, that is, sources not affiliated in any way with the subject. An unwritten rule here is that blogs, forums, wikis (ironically, including Wikipedia!), etc. are generally not regarded as reliable, since they can be edited by virtually anyone. The kind of information that is generally regarded as promotional includes all contact information (except a simple link to the subject's home page), mission statements that do not mention how the objectives have been attained in the past, positive reviews from people no one will recognize, etc. so you would be wise to avoid any of those.

Hope this helps. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you are new, you may want to take a look at the five pillars to see what Wikipedia is or intends to be. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just got back to my desk and noticed a deletion notice on the post i just made and a message from yourself.

Then I realised that the post itself had been deleted before I could respond or even add the hold on tag. I mean thats speedy !

I wanted to talk to you about the article and perhaps try to learn where I went wrong there. I am the editor of an online desktop virtualization forum (www.virtual-desktop-forum.com) and one of our advertiser asked me to draw them up a page on wikipedia which i did and I tried to model it closely on the VMware and the Citrix pages being that the company profiles should be kind of the same I thought when I used those pages as guidelines after reading the wikipedia guidelines. I tried to be as neutral as possible and I dont see how the page sold a company any more than the VMware or Citrix page do.

I do not believe that page should have been deleted as hastily as it was. The question I ask is how can any company profile be anything but an indirect advertisement for a company ?

What did I do badly that I should not have done here ?

Please advise because I actually put a lot of time into that page trying to be beutral about them and not sound "salesy".

Would appreciate the advice and the criticism equally :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you said, one of our advertiser asked me to draw them up a page on wikipedia. The first thing you did wrong was to accept the job, as it has put you in a conflict of interest. Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web space provider (for that, you may want to try MySpace instead). Any article on a subject that does not meet our minimum notability requirements can be nominated for deletion at any moment. If there is not even an assertion that our notability requirements are met by the subject, the process will probably be speedy deletion, which is basically deletion on sight.

To get a neutral article on Wikipedia, your client's best bet is to wait for someone unrelated to them to start the article without them even asking for it or even mentioning to anyone that they wish for it. If a company does meet our notability requirements, this is only a matter of time. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I can see where you are coming from there, you are right about the conflict of interest but you didnt know about that until I told you after you deleted the article but still use it to justify the deletion. You mainly deleted the article on the grounds of lack of notability ? I would argue that they are and I have specific industry knowledge to back this up and probably can find at least ten industry professionals to back this up who work for other companies. Can I ask how you came to the conclusion within such a short space of time after speaking to not even the author that write the article ? Did you not google tuCloud or read any industry publications at all ? I am also aware that this is not a free web space, I am a web designer by profession so I am familiar with this idea

I am slightly concerned here that this deletion appears to be cencorship based on very little. The company in question has a right to representation on wikipedia together with a list of its products. I can find ten other competitors listed here so why not them ? Could you not have sent me a message or waited to see if I added anything onto the talkback page before deleteing ? That page was up for ONE HOUR maximum.

Can you help me understand how you came to your conclucions here because I was just about to write a profile for my own forum, the virtual desktop forum (www.virtual-desktop-forum.com) and I am having doubts now in case the new page police decide I am not notable enough despite being us being the most comprehensive source of desktop virtualization information in the internet, literally.

Does this mean that someone like a member of the forum who is not on the team but likes us can write an article but we cant ? If they write on is there a conflict of interest because they are a member ? Could you write an article on use here because we really are trying to help users who are new to desktop virtualization understand what it is without being deliberately confused by one of hundreds of technology vendors.

Please advise. TheVirtualizer (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked whether I bothered to google the name "tuCloud." To me, the speedy deletion process, when used for lack of notability, is to be used when the article gives no reason to even bother with a Google search. But your article was deleted on the grounds that it was overtly promotional in tone, and that is what I saw when I first looked at it. You still call the article a "company profile," a term which by itself sounds promotional. (Unfortunately, it is no longer available to me any more than it is to you; you'd have to ask an administrator if you want it back.)

If you could write an article on tuCloud that is verifiably based entirely on third-party reliable sources, that is, sources that have no affiliation whatsoever with the subject and are not blogs, forums, or wikis, then you can get started. As far as I can tell, the article on Microsoft wasn't started by a Microsoft employee. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi There, have been reading all of the wikipedia small print a lot and you are right, most of this stems from my lack of understanding on what is and is not acceptable here. I do agree that I have a conflict of interest in regards to writing a corporate profile for tuCloud and I will tell them the guidelines so they can work it out for themselves. I guess its a very thin line and you guys have to be firm otherwise all kinds of crazy kookx will post on wikipedia, so its good that you guys are doing that and I support your efforts. Although I have used wikipedia for ages just like everyone else this is the first time that I have actually thought I had something to offer (NOT the tuCloud profile) and signed up. Its interesting to see how pages evolve over time under the crossfire of criticism and countercriticism.

I have read that nothing on wikipedia can really be trusted because it is written be volunteers, but am I right in thinking that this is actually a huge strength ? I compare it to the very first thing a good history professor teaches which is how to interpret bias. History is generally thought of as being written by 'the winners' but this is a common misconseption. History is what is left after all of the bias and dubious claims that cannot be substantiated have been stripped away, its whats left after lots of historians have argued over something and come to a common consensus. I think wikipedia is a bit like this no ?

TheVirtualizer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI - proded this before and original poster removed prod with no improvement. The more I researched the more it is a hoax because this actually is a notable term (6000+ ghits), but the user is completely trying to re-attribute history by claiming that it was just created this month by two people with no citation. Sounds like a hoax to me.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I felt it could not have been speedied as a hoax is that you had to do a Google search to come to your conclusion. However, this is not to say that the "hoax" argument is invalid in a deletion discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Will wait and see if prod works this time.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

seems like perfectly good db-group to me. I'm usually considered very conservative about this so I'm interested to hear why you thought otherwise. DGG (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, db-group does not apply to lists of people, since the article is not about the group itself, at least not directly. But if you want to speedy it, go ahead. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

for a true list, I'd agree with you, but this is just a disguised article about the group. I will speedy. It's just vanity, that word we're not supposed to use, to display the names here, and the particular context is one we should discourage. DGG (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanationPorturology (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism Great Ryburgh at - I'd just spotted the other vandal edits myself! A.C. Norman (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the information about my articles that may be deleted on my pages and notifiying me of them, otherwise I wouldn't have known about the messages or that they would have been deleted, I hope they don't get deleted, if they don't, it's thanks to you. Mr. Prez (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to thank you for the help with the Tony Spinner article. Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my recent problems with listing the AFD for Crash Bash 2, I use twinkle and have only recently started having issues with it. It only happens about 10 percent of the time, but when it does, it appears to list everything correctly but will not create one or more elements of the AFD process. For instance, I have had it not notify the original editor, not create the tag on the entry, or not list it in the daily AFD list. Sometimes all three happen. I have not been able to troubleshoot this issue as it seems to be random. I'm using the latest version of Firefox on Windows 7 Release Candidate. If you have any suggestions, I would certainly appreciate your input. Thanks in advance. Wperdue (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Hi. I would like to inquire with regards to the tags you attached to this article. Why Harvard and Oxford professor and chair is not notable for an article? And is the Oxford university website not a reliable third party source? Thank you very much. Regards, Grandmaster 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, being a professor is not by itself an indication of notability. And the Oxford University, as reliable as it may be, is not a third-party source in this case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He is mentioned almost in every book that refers to Armenian primary sources, as he translated many of them into English. See for instance references to his translation of Moses of Chorene: [3] Also, whatever is written at Oxford website is confirmed by other sources, for instance:

R. W. Thomson was the Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University and director of Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC.

Ronald Grigor Suny. Transcaucasia, nationalism and social change: essays in the history of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. ISBN 0472096176, 9780472096176, p. 515

What kind of source is required to establish notability of this scholar? Grandmaster 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you simply need to show that he is often quoted as a reference. You've asserted just that above, but your article doesn't quite do justice to that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. How about this one: [4]

Constable's immediate successor (at Dumbarton Oaks) (1984-89) was Robert W. Thomson, Professor of Armenian at Harvard University, an indefatigable editor and translator of decisive Armenian, Syriac, and Greek texts — I count ten and there are probably more — to say nothing of two textbooks on the Armenian language, and much else besides.

Angeliki E. Laiou, Henry Maguire. Byzantium, a World Civilization. Dumbarton Oaks, 1992. ISBN 0884022153, 9780884022152, p. 9

Grandmaster 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Blanchardb, I do not know why you are so quick to jump to conclusions and try to delete our article. It clearly states that what we have created has become considerably large in the past 5 years, and it confuses me that you are still willing to keep similar pages. Also, I don't know how you have any right to use profanity in your messages...No offense, sir, but none of us should stoop to that level.

Rockhead126 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Where have I used profanity? And if your "creation" has become as large as you claim, surely you can show us a third-party reference that would attest to that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain the "WHY DO PEOPLE MAKE UP STUPID CRAP!" a couple of messages ago? Anyway, we don't do much stuff on the Internet, but we do have a cheap Internet page one of us threw togther. We update it every couple of months. http://peoplesrepublicofantarctica.webs.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockhead126 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Show me with a diff that I'm the one who wrote that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This was from the page creator: "I mistyped when I created the name of the page. The page is about the clinical entity known officially as "Depression of Alzheimer disease." He states right there that it was a typo when he moved the page to "Depression of Alzheimer disease", the correct name. If it was a common typing error or a similar situation that would be one thing, but "Depression" and "Dementia" are pretty far from common accidents that would need a redirect.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it becomes an Author request speedy which should be issued by the page creator himself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is frankly two things (1) Something that a lot of editors arn't going to be aware of (2) more than kinda an irrelevant point when your declining speedy was based on assessment that it is not a typo when the creator himself states that it is a typo. I'll place a note on the editor's page asking him to request deletion, but it's an unecessary step in this situation, imo. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. Okay, I did the tagging myself with a {{g7}} template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, it seems you are doing a nice job on New Page patrol. It is rather rare that someone correctly identifies which articles are PROD's, Which one are AFD's and which one are pure CSD's. Thanks to you i even figured out that twinkle can place Prod2 tags, due to an edit conflict on Out of my shoe. Also, based on your edit history it seems that you even correctly retag articles which have been (incorrectly) tagged for CSD. Keep up the great work!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For understanding what could be improved, while also knowing what should be Removed, i award you a well earned star. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit, you made me laugh out loud ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AightMun? also appears to be a problem editor. The IP and username are probably sockpuppets. WP:DUCK--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realize there were more than one problem editor.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Im trying to figure out why I keep getting my entries for the Florida Whig Party and Modern Whig Party of Florida deleted. I am the assistant to the State Director of Communications for the Florida Whig Party. The Modern Whig Party of Florida does not exist. Everything I have added is truthful and verifiable if I was able to get to that point in my posts I could link and cite. Please contact Jason at 352-293-4139, he is the State Director of Communications. Annarogoski (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the fact you have that high a ranking within the party puts you in a conflict of interest. But your edits were reverted because they were blatantly promotional. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Being that you have not done any research. I will inform you now. the Florida Whig party was around before the civil war and was very active up until the ratification of Texas. The Florida Whig party of today is a registered party in Florida as of 2007. We are a affiliate charter of the National Modern Whig Party and if we were given the opportunity we could get to the point where we can put up the history and other pertinent info. But You deleting everything as we put it up kind of kills your argument of self promoting. You are not giving us the opportunity to get it done. Out of curiosity. What party are you with that makes you focus on us? Again we are not a state chapter. We are the "Florida Whig Party" but you would have known that if we were given the chance to finish the page. Or just pick up the phone and call like suggested and i can explain it to you. 352-293-4139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogoski (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The above does not address in any way the reasons why I reveryed your edits. Your edits were reverted because they were blatantly promotional. Sorry, but the words "Such and such is proud to announce..." do not belong in a Wikipedia article and it, with the rest of the sentence, must be deleted on sight per Wikipedia rules.

You asked, "What party are you with that makes you focus on us?" That has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

And, no, I will not discuss the matter over the phone. Please do not post your phone number or any other contact information other than your Wikipedia username anywhere in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand regarding "such and such is proud to announce..." That could have been deleted or edited to a factual, non-promotional statement, everything else was factual as far as party guidelines. Annarogoski (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. I happen to know the facts and where to link to the online sources to properly cite the said facts. It is not a promotional gesture by any means. It is meant to be informative and factual since the posts and edits made previously to the Modern Whig Party of Florida were inaccurate. That political party does NOT exist. It is the Florida Whig Party, which has a viable candidate for congress announced for 2010 and more to be released in the upcoming months for other official positions. This is my first time really editing anything on wikipedia, but from what I gathered about the site, it only supports facts, which is what I was trying to do. Florida Whig party is its own entity and a is an affiliate of the national party. Florida ballots say FWP, not MWP (modern whig party). Im trying to get the facts out about the party and its history the same way as other political parties have on Wikipedia. I just looked at the Republican Party entry, its very similar to what I was trying to publish before I kept getting my page reverted to an inaccurate site.Annarogoski (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are unable to show us any reliable sources supporting any of what you stated above (and, by reliable we mean not affiliated with the party in any way), then you are in a conflict of interest, since you already stated that you are a party insider. No two ways about that. Sorry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I resigned my position. I am not affiliated except for my voter registration. I am also white and american so I can not put anything factual and referenced or cited in regards to...lets say the civil war? So I am understanding that "YOU" dont want facts which can be supported, had the information not kept being deleted as I was editing, would have been posted. I would think that a party "insider" as you call it, would be privy to the facts and would know the exact places to find the information to link it.Annarogoski (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whigs of Florida 1845-1854 Author(s): Doherty, Herbert J. ISBN10: 0813000645 ISBN13: 9780813000640 Format: Paperback Pub. Date: 6/1/1959 Publisher(s): Univ Pr of Florida

Comte de Castelnau “Essay on Middle Florida”. The Florida Historical Quarterly, XXVI. (January, 1948)

The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Hardcover) by Michael F. Holt (Author)Hardcover: 1296 pages Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; First Edition edition (June 17, 1999) Language: English ISBN-10: 0195055446 ISBN-13: 978-0195055443 Product Dimensions: 9.7 x 6.5 x 2.2 inches Shipping Weight: 3.3 pounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogoski (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Political Crisis of the 1850's (Paperback) by Michael F. Holt (Author)Paperback: 352 pages Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co. (September 17, 1983) Language: English ISBN-10: 039395370X ISBN-13: 978-0393953701 Product Dimensions: 7.5 x 5 x 0.8 inches Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounce

Want to talk about a conflict of interest? Per your user information site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blanchardb, you show a SERIOUS conflict of interest!!!

"I am a casual editor involved in getting people to know about Christianity - that is, the good and the bad. I have some of the main vital articles of Christianity on my watchlist. I am currently seeking to upgrade the article Prayer to GA or FA status. Right now, it looks like I've got that article all to myself, which is a shame, but it allows me to work unimpeded.

I am also involved in the creation and expansion of articles about the geography of the region where I live, that is, Montreal, Canada. In my spare time, I also do graffiti reversion and cleanup, where I tend to specialize in new page patrol.

Outside Wikipedia, I am a single man (and yes, I would like to get married someday). I strive to live by the Word of God, but, like every honest Christian, I am falling short of my goals. Additionally, I have begun work on a novel, some excerpts of which I have posted on a dedicated blog here. (No, I do not intend to start the Wikipedia article on it by myself.)"

Annarogoski (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Merely being a Christian does not create a conflict of interest. If he edited an article on a specific church he was the pastor of, THAT would be a conflict of interest. If his conflict created an issue with regards to his editing that other Wikipedia editors noticed, then there would be a problem. In this case, you have stated above that you are the assistant to the State Director of Communications for the Florida Whig Party, which creates a conflict. I personally believe your conflict has influenced your editing, and that is an issue. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am by no means trying to make a personal attack. I appreciate the professionalism Blanchardb maintained and he has pointed me in the right direction. The whole point I was trying to make that there isnt a COI. I am trying to fix mistakes on the Florida and Modern Whig sites, that can be cited! The purpose of the editing was to put the facts on the page. That was all I wanted to do! Annarogoski (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Blancharddb, I modified your restoration of the Florida Whig Party article. I put up the version immediately preceding the redirect, without the apparant copyvio party platform. It is a state party, so if notability can be proven, it shouldn't redirect to the main party, so I agree with your restoration, just not the execution of it. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia COI link [5]I was gracefully sent "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" I appreciate your restoration of the site and I will make sure edits are more carefully done to stay within the wikipedia guidelines.Annarogoski (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to place such a notice on your talk page, and on the Florida Whig Party article talk page, as a good start. In the future, you should avoid copy-pasting any text from ANY source into Wikipedia, unless it is a short quote, referenced properly. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:ORG to better understand our concerns regarding the sourcing of the article.Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Annarogoski (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been redirected back to the main party.Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you'd declined a G3 on this page; the page is just a devotional song, each line written in Punjabi, Hindi, English and an explanation in English. I've placed this and a related page by the same user for AfD. Just thought I should let you know. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb - Thanks for your help here.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb, I hope you don't mind but I've declined your speedy on Battle of the Nobles as in my view it does now have context (it often pays to click on what links here for this sort of thing). ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Florida Whig Party, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use the rollback feature as you did to undo my speedy deletion request for the obvious hoax as you did in the Federated Republic of Northern Cyprus article. It is clearly a hoax and you clearly reverted a legitimate speedy deletion tag using the rollback feature. In the North Cyprus Portal you also reverted a blatant POV attempt to rename Northern Cyprus to North Cyprus by creating this ill-named portal with nothing but propaganda in it. Please see relevant discussion here: Talk:Northern_Cyprus#Voting_for_Moving_the_Article_To_North_Cyprus, which was rejected. Dr.K. logos 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What I saw was clear abuse of a speedy deletion tag. Your username sounds Greek, and this is about Turks. Do the math. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not math. It's prejudice and assumption of bad faith on the basis of my ethnicity on your part. You also reverted my speedy deletion tag on the obvious hoax of the Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus currently 1 (one) Google hit and coming from Wikipedia. Let prejudice do the math if Wikipedia is served well by this hoax staying here. And there was no abuse of the speedy deletion tag in either case. Both articles are bad faith POV forks with the Portal trying to bypass the naming dispute on the Northern Cyprus article while the Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus is blatant hoax vandalism. Dr.K. logos 01:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope this reply is in the right place.

You commented to my page not having enough basic information, which I agree. Could you tell me how I can get one of those side bars on the right which list statistics? Being that I'm doing a page on our library, I would like to add a picture and list some very basic information on our numbers and various programs.

Thanks! Obsessive Volunteer (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed you have similiar previous problems with this editor as I had several times by now. It appears to be some feud he carried over against me from some discussion board. Please see also [6] of his other threats and incivility. Thank you. Kurfürst (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue IX - June 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 72 FAs, 6 FLs, and 145 GAs, which includes 4 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 1 GAs over the past month, but we still gained overall. Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:SixGreenFish, User:Invmog, User:Unconsumed, User:TheThankful, User:Noghiri, and User:1111tomica joining, bringing us up to 286 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news There is some new discussion regarding project related activities, specifically including the various Christianity portals, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum and the possible expansion of the extant Narnia task force of WikiProject Novels. All input is more than welcome. . Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month Given the lateness of the newsletter last month, the contest from last month continues. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of June will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Ninth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. I am in the process of going through the various categories related to Christianity. I am finding that several of them may not have sufficient number of members to continue. By the end of the month, I hope to have the main category list finished (yeah, it might take that long, it's huge). At that time, I think we will review all the categories and see which may not have sufficient articles to continue. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian - 11:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy,

I'm trying to write an article on Adify, and would appreciate your guidance on improving it to be more encyclopedic. When you get a chance, could you check, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courtlandsmith/Adify and lend your advice? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlandsmith (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have brought the article to the attention of WikiProject Greece, since the guy is offering to send in scans of relevant newspaper articles. Commando/Athlete/Scientist? It's going to need some precise verification or, as you have proposed, deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was making an actual contribution to wikipedia in my article which was actually referenced by the Sevier family history book, I'm trying to understand why you vandalized a perfectly good article that had no information about the person prior to my creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drebfiadrok (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the article shows no reason why this person should have an article of his own, the most sensible thing to do is to redirect the article to that on the person whose notability he "inherited." See WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it (again) to John Sevier. You're quite right, this chappie is only notable for his famous grandson.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone actually wants to read about John Sevier's grandfather and how he came to America, where is that information supposed to be placed? In the same article as John Sevier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drebfiadrok (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a welcome template to your talk page. It's a bit of a big thing (you can delete the speedy and prod notices now you've read them if you want) but it does contain some very useful links. Can I suggest you read the wikipedia guidelines, and the section on your first article, as it will help you to understand where we are coming from--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Five Wits, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 23:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very obvious that why you want the article deleted is based on your own bias and subjective opinions, and I have written why your submission of deletion should not be accepted. Who do you think you are anyway? GOD??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

After checking out your profile it is obvious to see why you want the pages deleted.

Because you are a "BIBLE THUMPER", and that is the only reason you have nominated the page for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blanchardb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) 12:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusion, aren't we? If you are right about my motivations, then the article will survive the deletion discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

		"Speedy" Award
		In grateful acknowledgment of your consistently excellent work with speedy deletions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nabil Lahlou do exist and it's a bit hard to find information about him, even if he got some very local famous movies.Kindly keep the article and I will find more information. I have picturs of him how can I add them to the article? Rgds Karim Al Fassi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim El Fassi (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)