I changed your CSD tag, it was not a hoax (they really did) but rather a copyvio of http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091115-236337/Thrilling-discovery-Lots-of-water-on-moon. Thanks for patrolling though and keep up the good work! You already beat me to a few speedys! (Not that it's a race, of course!)-- fetchcomms☛ 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blanchardb, I removed your speedy on Tsonka ball and replaced it with a PROD, because it doesn't fit under A1. Just FYI, A7 is the tag to use regarding concerns of notability, which I believe was your intention based on your edit summary. However, neologisms do not fit under that category. Keep up the new page patrol, Fingerz 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

11/23/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woland333 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I created a Paul Rish page. Can you critique it and give me some suggests? I just have it under my user page right now. —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

The subject's notability is not established from third-party reliable sources, which means that in its current state the article will probably not survive a deletion discussion, and may even be deleted without discussion. Rish's candidacy should be referenced, at the very least, from the Macon Telegraph, and preferably the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Furthermore, the whole page looks like an electoral tract for his candidacy, something that is frowned on.

Try building the article entirely from sources over which Rish or the Republican Party does not have any editorial input whatsoever, and none of which are blogs. (Macon.com being a blog, it is not acceptable as a source.) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for reviewing my article! I am busy reworking it. However, Macon.com is the official website of the Macon Telegraph. It even says so at the bottom of the Macon Telegraph Wikipedia page. The article written by Travis Fain on Macon.com is the exact one that ran in the Telegraph.

On another note, paulrish.com was the best source i found for biographical information. But I can't use it because Rish's campaign has editorial control over it. Right? Thank you again! --Woland333 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. It is Rish's own site, so we cannot tell whether the information found there is accurate. Don't forget, since he's on an election campaign, he set out to make himself look good on his own site. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb! I guess you'll remember that one month ago you've helped me to revise the Forship article, improving its text and references in order to better comply with Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiability, and therefore abort a speedy deletion process. Well, approximately at the same time there was a similar questioning in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where I have created an equivalent article: pt:Forship Engenharia. There, the argument involved also the fact (brought up by myself) that I work in Forship, as an Engineering Director. After some argument, which was beggining to get hot and personal, with an editor called Gunnex, and to avoid a potential war of editions, I have taken the initiative to propose a process of elimination by voting, to bring the discussion to a wider community decision. The final result, after two weeks of voting, was favorable to the maintenance of the article, since the majority of editors considered that in spite of the fact that I work in Forship, there was no impeditive COI and all applicable Wikipedia criteria were fulfilled. Eventually, all tags (notability, verifiability and COI), were removed by admins... The reason to ask for your help once more is that Gunnex (being, as myself, editor of both en: and pt: Wikipedias) simultaneously included a COI tag to the English article. I have decided, at that time, to wait the closure of the voting process in pt:Wiki before taking any action in en:Wiki. Now that the issue is solved there, I am asking your advise about the best approach to follow. Is the decision taken in pt:Wiki sufficient to solve the COI questioning in en:Wiki? Could you deliberate about it and (in case you agree with the decision taken by pt:Wiki editors) eliminate the COI tag? Should I follow the same path and propose a similar elimination by voting process (I'm not even sure if this is also of normal use in en:Wiki) here? Can you please advise me on the subject? I am sorry to bother you with this long explanation and request, but I was not able to summarize it further... Please feel free to request more information or clarification, if needed. I thank you in advance. Rgds. Antonio Prates (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that at this point, the only thing for you to do is to wait and see. The COI tag means that the article has been edited, for the most part, by someone involved, in this case, you. Given that the article has survived a deletion discussion in the Portuguese Wikipedia, it is likely to survive one here as well, and you are allowed, even encouraged, to bring up the discussion in the Portuguese Wikipedia if no one else does.

But as for the COI tag, I guess you should wait for the article to be expanded by someone uninvolved. Remember that there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Blanchardb. I will do as you suggest. Thanks for your advise. Antonio Prates (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray Oaks (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why am I forbidden to creaete a topic on knowledge Arena and why have my edits to Conccept maps been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Oaks (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see our guidelines on articles about neologisms. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What you need to show is that the term is already accepted by the community at large, as evidenced by usage by people other than McAleese. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. earlier to-day I obtained a Wikipedia user name 2. I wished to add to / edit an article "Concept Maps" 3. I did so 4. The edits have been removed 5. I wish to add to what is know about concept maps with reference to a term used to describe the process by whcih they are created i.e. Knowledge arena 6. this term has not been used so far in W.

a. why I am being denied edits to concept maps b. by whom c. why can't I create a new topic?

There is too much help to help me !! :-) - I need simple advice on how to achieve the above 2. & 5.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Oaks (talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like who ever removed your additions at Concept maps reinserted them. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you for detecting that!! - They have been re-instated. I have checked. Does this mean I can continue to develop the area of concept mapping with reference to the term "Knowledge Arena"? I need to add a few more brief articles - including graphics - that are required to show why the previous edit to concept maps is substantial and fair etc. It is my intention to develop what is known about the area using published sources as references etc

If I can go ahead taking note of the various guidelines - just say - Go ahead !! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Oaks (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

About Véronique Billat:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov search on PubMed U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, you can find some off the 100 scientist publication

look on google: http://www.google.fr/search?as_q=v%C3%A9ronique+billat&hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aofficial&hs=nqv&num=10&btnG=Recherche+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

look on youtube http://video.google.fr/videosearch?q=v%C3%A9ronique%20billat%20youtube&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=fr&tab=wv#q=v%C3%A9ronique+billat+youtube&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=fr&tab=wv&qvid=v%C3%A9ronique+billat+youtube&vid=-17638076202621436

etc...

She was one off the most famous scientist about sport practise and this works are usefull in all sport. Soccer, running, swimming, cycling, Mountaineering etc... She also work for some therapy and study about genetic muscle illness..

Look also on french wiki and you can see all the occurency about this work

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&search=veronique+billat&go=Lire

Thank's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent colas (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Too late. As for your references: in Google, lots of stuff by Billat, but next to nothing about her. (That's what counts.) Youtube is not regarded as a reliable source, since anyone can upload material there. As for the French Wikpedia, what you have shown is that she's been cited as a source for four articles, and that hardly qualifies as "famous" or even "notable." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm new at this and I believe this church to hold historical significance to the development of religious freedom and ultimately play a small part in the freedom of America from British rule. This is new to me, so I'm doing my research and trying my best to properly lay out this page. Please give me some pointers and please, please don't delete me. I'm trying here, I'm not trying to push God on you or advertise anything, just history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorseTrooper859 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact the building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places did it for me. Thanks. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Search yourself about her in english google

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aofficial&hs=Llc&q=v%C3%A9ronique+billat&btnG=Rechercher&meta=lr%3Dlang_en&aq=f&oq=

This is not because you dont know her that she is not realy famous. To know this person it was necesssary to study sport physiological at high level or to bee a very good form conditioning coach.

She's famous in all off world in physiological speciality , and all form conditioning trainer's use the result off 15 years off physiological research and study.

an exemple off US webpage speeking about her job in athletiq training:

[1] [2] etc...

Something is funny , she is more famous in sport training in USA than in France... And english wiki dont permit to create a personal page speeking about his study anr research.

Something mysterious but not realy important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent colas (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for setting me straight! Drmies (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prod because it seems to be notable based on google news results. While the article isn't well written, I will put it on my to-do list. If you object, feel free to post why on my talk page, and/or nominate this at WP:AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind having another look at this article? I confess I'm baffled -- not by you, I hasten to add. When I speedied this it was apparently by the artist listed in the infobox on the right, something-Yung, who only briefly had an article which was speedied for non-notability. Now this album's body copy suggests that it's by someone named Lil Brother -- I can only find a redirect for that name with an apostrophe added. What it looks like to me is that someone has copied an article about Lil Brother for format and forgotten to change the names, but frankly it could be just about anything, because the assertions about the album itself seem to be radically different than the article I speedied. Part of the article seems to be saying that the album has been released, and part of it that it won't be released until next year. I'm not actually sure which artist it is whom you're suggesting has an article in the most recent edit summary. Please give me the benefit of your thinking. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to the artist was incorrect. It should have been to Yung VL, and I made the necessary correction. Now I've taken a look at the article on the artist, and even though I don't think it would survive an AfD, it is not speedable IMO, given this artist's label. Perhaps a group AfD is in order here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that; I think I get what's going on (sort of). I am leaning towards the view that Yung VL is speediable -- a previous version seemingly was -- but I'll consider it carefully given your opinion. Much obliged for your extra trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As near as I can tell by going to the MySpace page which is the "official" page of UTP Records (and to the Wikipedia page), this individual isn't associated with that label. His stated age of 17 makes me very skeptical of how the facts seem to be very fluid here; I think an AfD will sort it all out. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)\

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yung VL, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung VL. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted my recent addition to the Dick Clark article and I do not mind at all. It was one of those "spur of the moment" edits that at the time I thought would add clarity to the article but on reflection I realize that it really added nothing at all. The first time I saw the Dick Clark article I was appalled and shocked to note there was no mention at all of his Saturday night TV show from the 1950's, which in my opinion had as much an impact upon American culture as did "American Bandstand". I did the intial edits adding that paragraph, which I was pleased to see was later expanded upon by persons much more expert on the life of Mr. Clark than I am. OOPS! I didn't realize that I wasn't "signed in" when I did the most recent edit. Sorry about that! Nghtownclerk (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)nghtownclerk December 9, 2009

How is the Ajax Academy not famed? It has produced some of the best players in the world, like Sjaak Swart, Johan Cruijff, Johan Neeskens, Frank Rijkaard, Dennis Bergkamp, Frank de Boer, Ronald de Boer, Edgar Davids, Clarence Seedorf, Patrick Kluivert, Rafael van der Vaart, Wesley Sneijder, and Gregory van der Wiel. It is internationally known as the model for youth academies. See:

• http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=627320.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/features/newsid_2858000/2858785.stm

The message you left me was rather offensive, it's not like I'm vandalising Wikipedia. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:PEACOCK. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The message you left me was rather offensive, it's not like I'm vandalising Wikipedia. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is so famous is of extremely important encyclopedic value, since most readers will have no knowledge of the fact that the Ajax Academy is any more important than the Chelsea Academy (for example). The Chelsea Academy has in fact been modeled on the Ajax academy, and has been implemented by Piet de Visser and Henk ten Cate (well until Grant was fired). The Barcelona academy was totally based on the Ajax Academy and was implemented when Cruyff was manager there. These are historical facts and it's not like I'm some kind of marketing executive from Dubai trying to say that Manchester City has the best academy ever. Incidentally, the Ajax Academy in it's current form was originally set up by Rinus Michels, who is credited with the invention of a major football tactic known as "Total Football" (as played by Ajax, Barcelona, and Arsenal today) and was named "coach of the century" by FIFA in 1999.[3] It is not a peacock term if it has been widely recognised and acknowledged and can be referenced by multiple sources like the BBC and Fifa. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Famed Ajax Academy" links:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/sports/soccer/27iht-SOCCER.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/thomas-vermaelen-wenger-pulls-another-rabbit-out-of-the-hat-1804821.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenals-troubles-matched-by-ajax-508520.html
• http://www.sigma-sports.net/newsEvents/youngAjaxTalent.html
• http://www.sportingindex.com/extra-spread/sports-zone/top-ten-great-teams.htm
• http://www.caughtoffside.com/2009/08/29/everton-agree-5m-fee-for-dutch-international-heitinga/ ... direct quote from the article: 25 year old Heitinga is a product of the famed Ajax academy.

Those are just the result of five minutes googling "famed Ajax Academy"... BTW, your edit left a grammatical error in the article. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I just don't think people will look into those. I won't. As I said earlier, the word "famed" brings a connotation of undue importance. Whether or not you think that importance is undue is irrelevant: you use of the word carries that negative stigma whether you like it or not, and whether or not it is deserved.

And that is precisely why Wikipedia has introduced the WP:PEACOCK guideline in the first place. Believe me, "Ajax Academy" (with internal link) is a lot better than "famed Ajax Academy." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read WP:PEACOCK, I'm not convinced that you understand its meaning. It's not like I'm speculating that the Ajax Academy is so great. It's that reputable organisations like The New York Times, The BBC, FIFA, The Independant, The Herald Tribune, and others have stated that it is a "famed" academy. When so many reputable organisations agree, it should be safe to include it in Wikipedia. 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And what I'm telling you is that the average reader will get the impression that you are speculating that the Ajax Academy is so great. Even if you're not. Actually, especially if you're not. Do you get my point? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A widely-held opinion is still an opinion, but by writing "famed Ajax Academy" in Wikipedia you are putting it over as fact, which still violates WP:PEACOCK. "Ajax Academy" is better then "famed Ajax Academy". If you want to elaborate, don't state that it is famed, but demonstrate why it is famed. --Jameboy (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you participated in the third AFD, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi I didn't appreciate your nomination of Linda Jackson (designer). If you look at my work, including The Pheasantry which I created from scratch, including photos, and in Granny Takes a Trip and other articles such as Jenny Kee, you see I am creating a lot material on designers and the counterculture of the 1960s. I still have work to do on the Jackson article - she was a business partner of Jenny Kee who is undoubtedly notable (there is a film appearing about her next year) and she has featured in exhibitions at the V&A. Obviously I need to do some further research on Linda and I don't appreciate having to store it on my own computer in case it is deleted. Could you please wait a bit until I consolidate the article. West one girl (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Billy Faier worked with Seeger, travelled with Woody, recorded Dylan, played with John Sebastian and other, influenced thousands of folk singers and musicians. Whoah there on the delete button, buddy. --scruss (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, if I take a look at your article, I get the impression that the only person who thinks Faier is influential is Faier himself. You need to show that Faier was notable independently of the people you mentioned here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Never saw anything from you on the talk page, as the whole shebang was deleted before I could get to it. Anyway, fixed now. --scruss (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't drop words from a direct quote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Meier (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you a real person or a machine? You can't drop words from a direct quote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Meier (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You violated 3RR. If you undo back to my last edit, I won't report you. Qikr (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you handle a WP:MEAT investigation? The timing of your edits is suspicious. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please accused me when you're guilty. Bye! Qikr (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm done editing that article, so have it your way. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Queer Fist. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Benny, please don't take this personally, but I gave you a chance to back off and you didn't take it. You were wrong about direct quotes, wrong to edit war and wrong to accuse me of vandalism. Mostly, you were wrong to think you could just get away with it again. I mean this in the most civil way, but you are a very aggressive editor, which sometimes crosses the line into bullying, especially when you take a bite out of noobs. I hope this helps you understand that Wikipedia is for people who play nice. If not, your next block will be even longer and more frustrating. Have a nice life. Qikr (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read this. Kiwiteen123 Please reply on my talk page 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda unlikely; he's blocked for 24 hours. HalfShadow 22:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware you can still read wikipedia when you are blocked. Kiwiteen123 Please reply on my talk page 22:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the 'reply on my page' thing. *cough* HalfShadow 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a 24 hour block means that, you can't edit for 24 hours. I'm pretty sure you can edit after that again. Kiwiteen123 Please reply on my talk page 01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The "reply on my page" thing is Kiwiteen's standard signature. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

hi , I am trying to create a space to complement the article of the province of Toronto. It is right that this topic is not discussed seriously at the moment, but I do not find better way to offer solutions for the oversize population of Ontario in respect to the other provinces.

Even if I personally believe that Toronto and the rest of Ontario will do better separate, I just want create a space of reference for people whit any opinion about this possibility. Can you propose a better format for this Idea?

Sincerely Lys de Quebec

Because there are several proposals for the partition of Ontario, the most notable being one that draws the border roughly across Algonquin Park, there can be no way to include information about a nonexistent province without it amounting to speculation. This said, unless you have solid sources that are not connected with either the partition movement or the opposition thereof, your analysis qualifies as original research and cannot be included in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, Chief. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:-D -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blanchard,

we did you propose the VisualCron page for deletion? I am still working on this article page. It is an application being used by a lot of users in the area Task_Scheduler.

Please remove the deletion or advise me what to change. I expect to finalize the page today.

best regards,

deserialized —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserialized (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable third-party reference to back up your assertion that it is used by a lot of people? Something like a review in an authoritative magazine or webzine... -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

deserialized - not sure how to reply here as I am fairly new to this. There is a review in IT World Canada which is both online and in their magazines here: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/the-demo-automate-anything-with-visualcron/136479

VisualCron is also available on all download sites. I would say it is a nisch market but it is definitely in top 3 schedulers/automation tools. It is smaller but comparable to Automate and ActiveBatch listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_scheduler

I promise to improve the page and give non-biased information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserialized (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that seems to be good enough. I must tell you, however, that links to download sites are frowned on by the Wikipedia community. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

deserialized - ok, thanks for the feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserialized (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of NOTA (Vocal) - a page you tagged - because: SPeedy declined. Won a seemingly major competetion is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I missed that part. Thanks. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found plenty of sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can identify the language and the subject, yes. It's a blurb about a locale in Tanzania or something therein if I'm not mistaken. No context or anything though. There wouldn't be a translator for that language online though, I'd imagine. Zelse81 (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good enough. It's just that we don't tag foreign-language pages for speedy deletion when we have no idea what they're saying, that's all. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I declined your speedy deletion request because it makes claims of notability. I converted it to a prod instead. LadyofShalott 03:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I've added it to my watchlist, and will monitor it for addition of references, etc. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CR1928 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read our notability guidelines for people and tell us which one of these does this person meet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It was made in the wizard. Thank you. Iongatherer (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is about the same as if you owned the only newspaper in the world, each commanded you what they can and can not write, and yet you said that your country is freedom of speech. You hypocrite, who, like your country (if you're a citizen of the United States) - still say that your country's freedom, while you are on the verge of a fascist dictatorship, which reconciles own people, censors the media manipulates public opinion and all under the guise of protection " freedom " --Fredy.00 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. You can create an account at Blogspot. I mean, you can, so don't bring up a hypothetical situation where it would not be possible. That's where your opinions should be stated in accordance with your First Amendment rights. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir. please get a life and stop deleteing my articlesDrkylelambert (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand why you declined the speedy. Could you please explain? The pages appeared to have the exact same title and content. If it is my mistake and I'm missing a policy, I apologize. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One is a plausible redirect to the other. See WP:REDIRECT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just delete it already, I've admitted I was making it all up twice. --CF90 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete Paul Dunay? He seems notable and every paragraph in the article is sourced. I worked hard on that article and it seems like everyone hates it. Dharokowns (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the references you used only qualify as primary sources. You should try redoing the article from scratch using only references over which neither Dunay nor his publisher, agent, etc. have any control whatsoever. Preferably, such sources should be reputable newspapers, marketing journals, etc. but not in the blog sections. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I have some more time to find better sources then? Dharokowns (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion discussion normally lasts seven days. That should give you plenty of time. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've been going through edit filter requests in an effort to clean out stale requests and noticed your outstanding request for the "Rush is Right" sockpuppeteer. Is this issue still ongoing? If so, could you provide some diffs or information on where it's happening so as to identify patterns for the filter? Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any recent incidents involving this sockpuppeteer. In any case, I think it would be best to wait for a listing at WP:BANNED before this particular sockpuppeteer becomes the subject of a dedicated edit filter. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's the name of the stalker. He's bugged me over a 3-month period, with numerous 166.205.xxx.xxx IPs. Though recently, not as often. PS: I thought I was his only victim. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To date, he's used 13 IP accounts, against me. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge you, then, to file a report at WP:LTA. I am asking you because you know better than I do what this individual is doing. But if you need help putting your report in proper form, I'll be happy to assist you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've sent my report, feel free to add to it or make proper adjustments. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, it got in a bit of a mess there! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That happens. No harm done. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Flavius" is a sort of a title for high-ranking consuls, not a name. For this reason Constans (consul 414) is the correct name for Flavius Constans. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but somehow I don't think the Romans gave numbers to their consuls, like 414. I'm saying this because the title you gave reads more like "Consul number 414" than "Consul in the year 414" which is what I think you intended. If that's the case, you do not need to specify that number. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation "consul XXX", where XXX is the year, is the one used for ambiguous consuls (see List of Roman consuls). --TakenakaN (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to specify the province in such situations. "Consul XXX" sounds too much like "Consul number XXX" to be used in that form, even for disambiguation purposes. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Province? I do not understand what you are saying. However, this is the way consuls are disambiguated, check by yourself if you don't trust me. --TakenakaN (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking of Roman governors. Anyway, when a consul only needs to be disambiguated with others who never became consuls, adding the year as a simple number just looks weird, that's all. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this page has been deleted. I'm really trying to build up a broader body of knowledge around the FSA in the UK. Please explain.Ianrobertmclaughlin (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple. You created an article that does not give enough context. What "FSA" stands for was added by an administrator who happened to know what you were talking about. Remember, you are writing for a worldwide audience, not a strictly British one. Also, in the end, the article was not deleted, but redirected to the article on the FSA. The redirect rationale was, "Wikipedia isn't a general website to hold an indiscriminate collection of information." There was a clear consensus, I think, that whatever information you wanted to post does not belong in a separate article, but should instead be added to the main article on the FSA.

A "broader body of knowledge" means nothing if people have to find different tidbits in different articles and each and every one of them is hard to find in the maze. Better put all your eggs in the same basket. See WP:SIZE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think everyone should know what FSA stands for (please do click on the link), I will counter by saying that you should know that when I talk about the CPP, it is obvious which CPP I am talking about. Why should I believe that? Well, you do read Wikipedia, don't you? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your note asking for a more brief explanation - but I do not see where my outline went... Perhaps I posted it incorrectly?

In a nutshell - I respectfully dispute the flag that my article is advertising. There's nothing to sell.

My article is about a notable person and details their accomplishments over the past 20 years. Credible news agencies such as CNN (globally recognized) and Sports Illustrated (more specific to his industry) assert that he is notable - and frequently assert that he is the leader in or the "face" of his field. I have cited 30 references at this point and have many many more articles to source and content to include. (work in progress!)

A point I noted in my previous response was that this is not advertising - as there are no products listed in this article or anywhere else (except for one - the book called "The Workout") that are even available for purchase. The athletic equipment is no longer available, G-Force has been replaced by The Workout, The Core Secrets and other video series are no longer available for purchase. You can occasionally find used videos on craigslist or ebay - but these products are no longer available. They are mentioned as points of accomplishment. Much like an article about a musician might contain details about a song or album - and might list subject matter, influences or lyrics.

If you have a concern about something else (the flag just noted advertising) please let me know and I will happily address!

I modeled my article taking into account other pages - as wikipedia recommends new users review. I am happy to send you the links if you care to see similar existing articles and/or what my thought process and article design was based on for suggestions, but else won't add additional length to this comment.

I trust if I have not answered your question, you will let me know.

Best! Freddie.Bauer (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the promotional stuff from your article. That reduced it to about half its size without any sacrifice to its encyclopedic comprehensiveness, making my deletions a positive gain for your article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Samuel Sevian. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Sevian. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much, but how do I deserve it? All I did was reverting blanking, without doing anything to mark it as a potential hoax or to alert anyone about it. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The blanking was already a couple of days old when you reverted it. And a nearly one-year-old abandoned article (if I remember correctly) was nominated for deletion only hours after you reverted vandalism on it. Think of the barnstar as a thank you for your recent changes work in general :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say Thank you SO much for you help. The guidance is much appreciated!! If only I had asked before I went through ebay auctions trying to read cover titles off DVDs to get a full list. Ha!  :) I have another question for you. I have recently inherited some very old books and pamphlet type pieces from my great grandmother. I'm wondering if any of the information would be something appropriate to submitting on wikipedia? i.e.: There is a book on tatting instruction. (a method for making types of lace) I see that wikipedia has an article on tatting. It covers types of tatting and how the stitches are written in patterns. But I see no "how to" instructional notations as to how to perform the individual stitches. Would adding this be considered beneficial or inappropriate for wiki? Freddie.Bauer (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can use those books as sources, but make sure you cite them properly (to make sure no one suspects original research). See WP:CIT for the technicalities; no need to fill all blanks, just the ones that are relevant. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. That doesn't mean the information you have is unwanted, just that it has to be presented in a way that does not imply that you're writing an instruction manual or a recipe book. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Blanchardb... Thanks for your notice on my "Hawaiian Music of Israel Kamakawiwoole" submission. I presume that any topic on "Hawaiian Music" or "Israel Kamakawiwoole" at this point would be considered covered on Wikipedia. I did write the content of the article so it is my original composition. Is there anything I can do to modify the contribution to make it acceptable..?

If not do I need to do anything else or will it just be deleated at this point in due course..?

Thanks for you reply, Michael

Michael AngelOh 17:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-angeloh (talk • contribs)

Since Israel Kamakawiwoole is primarily known for Hawaiian music, there should not be, under any circumstances, an article on his Hawaiian music that is separate from the article on him. Note that this concern is the deletion rationale here. So, instead of writing a separate article, you should incorporate the information in the article Israel Kamakawiwoole. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Blanchardb...

Thanks for your reply... I guess I'll need to do a bit more reading and research about incorporating content in the article Israel Kamakawiwoole.

In the meantime do I need to do anything else or will my contribution just be deleated automatically at this point..?

Thank you kindly, Michael

Michael AngelOh 17:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your contribution will probably deleted. So the best thing to do would be to just pick up some information in it and try to find a proper place for it in the main article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Blanchardb...

Thanks for your reply... Now there's some kind of notice about possible copyright violation which is inaccurate...

Would it be prudent for me to voluntarily delete the article on my own at this point..?

Thank you kindly, Michael

Michael AngelOh 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-angeloh (talk • contribs)

Technically, it can't be done: only an administrator can delete articles. But yes, you can tag it with a {{db-author}} template. Alternatively, I suggest you move the article to your userspace as a "work in progress" although technically it would be more of a repository of information to be integrated. If you need help with the technicalities of that, just ask me, and I can do it for you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha Blanchardb...

Well I did save the article on my hard drive and was able to remove the content on the page although the notices are still there. So whenever you wish you can complete the deletion. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your time with me...

Thank you kindly for your assistance, Michael

Michael AngelOh 19:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-angeloh (talk • contribs)

If you look at the other railway stations in the V/Line network, you can see that they have larger text on the station signs, as they appear like this in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.79.106 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a Wikipedia-wide consensus about that. If the consensus states that it can be done this way, the formatting should be part of a custom-made template, not repeated in every individual article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re, your message, I was pointed out to that edit by another user off-wiki, and as I skimmed it, well.. I never got half-way through. I immediately saw that it was a violation of WP:FORUM and reverted it, not to mention BLP(I saw this after checking out the history tab). I never saw the date, but, now that I look at it ....... c.c; oops >.> .. Oh well.~ Thanks for the note either way. :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Minisaga, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12: Other website is clearly a Wikipedia mirror. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elektrotwist, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Allmusic review is probably enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You put an advert tag on this article about a year ago, and I finally had a chance to address it. I used Freedom_Scientific, a company in the same field, as a model. Please review the changes and remove the tag if you are satisfied. Thanks. Robsavoie (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shish taouk (Montreal), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK Project (nominate) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a Freemason isn't an attack anymore than calling someone a Knight of Columbus or a Rabbi. I replaced the attack tag with a {{db-hoax}} tag because Bill Gates is an agnostic, and joining Freemasonry requires a belief in some sort of deity. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact: User "Exit404," creator of the article "Imam Thug" you tagged for speedy deletion, is an account created by someone representing "Global 360." Some tiny marketing/promotional company. He created an article for "Imam Thug" about an hour ago, but it was speedily deleted and his account was blocked after his userpage advertised him as marketing and promotion. Cheers! AlexHOUSE (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat 05:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The link in the afd template leads to the afd in 2006, not the current afd. Don't know why it happened or how to fix it, but perhaps you do. --PinkBull 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my attempt to fix an earlier mistake of mine. It's fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Blanchardb. I noticed your involvement on 5 Days: How I Survived Hurricane Katrina. This isn't a very productive way of removing spam links. Leaving the article with the text "spam removed" doesn't really support the point of an encyclopedia. I think it would be better to just delete the offending links altogether. I know how frustrating spammers can be, but we should always leave the articles in as good shape as we can, don't you think? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This falls under a category similar to what I had in mind a couple of months ago when I created the {{Contact info}} template. But now that you mention it, feel free to nominate said template for deletion. I have just edited the template's doc section to insert a warning against abusive usage of it, and I will start looking for such misuse of my template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that in May of 2009 you nominated an article for speedy deletion about a school on Barbados written by user Mikevf (talk). The user argued that the template for speedy deletion specifically says that schools do not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Well, I read an article on St. Elizabeth Seton School Naples Florida and found it completely un-noteworthy. However, the warnings on the speedy deletion template forced me NOT to nominate it for deletion. Could you give me some guidance here? Akuvar (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (WP:CSD) is deletion without discussion, and is used only on articles that meet specific criteria. For articles that do not meet such criteria yet are still unworthy of inclusion, there are two more processes. There is proposed deletion (WP:PROD) which consists of one editor inserting a template explaining he wants an article deleted and why, and if no one objects within seven days the article gets deleted. If that fails, there is Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD) which consists of initiating a discussion meant to reach a rough consensus on whether or not the article should be deleted. For these two processes, all reasonable requests will be considered without need to invoke a specific criterion.

If you need more information, I will be happy to help. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see those processes, thanks. I still don't get the school exclusion. Are schools allowed to be listed even though they do not meet eligibility for noteworthiness? Since posting, I have searched for several schools in my area, and I have found a lot of them, and 99% of them do not list anything noteable about the school itself. The CSD wording specifically excludes schools, and I am trying to get to the bottom of it. Are schools allowed to be in the encyclopedia even if they are not noteable? Akuvar (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no accepted notability guideline specific to schools, but historically, secondary schools (or equivalents) have passed deletion discussions while grammar schools have failed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that gives me something to work with. If I run across a grammar school with no noteability, should I use the CSD template or something else? Or do you advise me just leaving them be for now? Akuvar (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it is true that WP:CSD does not apply to schools, then the first course of action would be to follow the (very simple) procedure at WP:PROD. Should that fail, the more complicated WP:AFD procedure should be your next step. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. You cannot even get my name right on my web page. One thing though is that I am extremely litigious. And unless your attorneys are better than my attorneys, you could find yourself in a bind for several years. Believe me, I can say from experience that you would not like it at all. So don't touch my page except to correct my name. Got that? Besides, I seriously doubt that you can defend Wikipedia from Canada. These people over here are begging for money because they are broke. I can practically shut the whole thing down, if you want to try me. And I will do it too. So back off. Now, I am a religious author. I write my books for the paranoid and parapsychological conspiracy people who won't hear the truth of God's Word any other way. Knowing all that, let us see if you "call my bluff", which is no bluff at all. And straighten up my name! Russell Dan Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russelldansmith (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb. You deleted the Kartik_Gada_Humanitarian_Innovation_Prizes article. On reflection I'm not sure whether I was completely neutral and whether I provided comprehensive information. Is there a way I can look at the deleted text? I couldn't find the option. On to other matters - I do feel that the $150.000 prize for scientific solutions to two difficult problems is noteworthy. However it's balanced out by the fact that the prize is very new and unlike many other prize pages no teams had openly announced their participation, goals nor history and there has not been a lot of coverage (apart from Make magazine [a reputable magazine] and some partner sites). Any good tips what to watch out for? Or whether it would be prudent to wait for more action around the prize? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharapita (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I nominated your article for speedy deletion, I am not an administrator, and I did not perform the actual deletion. That was done by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He/she can email you the text of the deleted article.

Please be aware that, in addition to the neutrality concern, there was also a notability concern, that is, the contest should be mentioned non-trivially in reliable third-party sources before Wikipedia can have an article about it. That is to say, Wikipedia being a tertiary reference, its content must be based on sources at least one step removed from the subject of its articles. So if your goal is to tell the world about the existence of these prizes, then Wikipedia is not the right place to do that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

beurk Les fleurs d'oranger , au parfum de horripilant , cette douleur que j'ai en mangeant de l'ouillant , alha alha alha soiksoik qui boule boule , sort la cuvette je montrais mes couilles , flive ou flive ou flive la flèche , wat wot wat on en a rien a foutre , alhaahaliliya , ahahaliliyo , whouhoute , aliyaaaah , frezzp . Emir Spahic (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you either prodded or endorsed prod on J-Ethinomics. The article creator left a note on the article talk page indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Therefore, I have opened an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. Please opine at that discussion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there,

While I understand the concerns of notability regarding the article and your point that I did not go to great lengths to discuss the radio station itself, I would like to point out that the article about the radio program Loveline, is very similar to my article, and that article does not go into great detail about the station it is carried on. That article is about the program itself, and it's hosts.

The emphasis of my article is not necessarily about the station, but about the program itself, and the hosts,(Jim Alvarez is not considered a guest host, but is the producer and permanent host, and the co host Lydia Belton, is considered a permanent fixture, and both are notable persons in their own right).

I have read the notability requirements, and feel that I have met those standards. I do, however, appreciate any guidance regarding how I might go about improving the article to effectively address your concerns.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Scarlett Lee (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Scarlett Lee

For a start, the most basic notability criterion speaks of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Showing that such coverage exists would be the first step to save the article from deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not use spaces to indent the first line of each paragraph, as you did when you posted your concern here. That forces the reader to edit your entries to remove them just so we can read what you're saying. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Blanchard:

You have nominated the page titled "Laree Slack" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laree_Slack) for deletion. I felt compelled to write that page because I have seen numerous reports about Christians killing their children during corporal punishment.

It is probably true that the "Caution" I included on the page about Laree is not the kind of advice that is usually found in an encyclopedia. I nevertheless believe that the page about Laree should remain in Wikipedia. We Christians have a duty to protect children from being beaten to death in the name of our God. MementoLaree (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered at the relevant AfD page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Tupelo Chain Sex, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Rationale constesting the removal of the tag is on the article's talk page. 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! --Quartermaster (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your use of {{prod}} on the Tupelo Chain Sex article which has spurred me to add some additional citations bolstering their notability. Specifically, reviews of the group by the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. Let me know if this raises the article to a level with which you are comfortable. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The references you added pass WP:RS and show that this band qualifies under WP:MUSIC. Expect no further action from me. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blanchardb! Please state your reasons, why you think that the article Sublime Text has "no assertion of notability". If that was so, than I think that problably half of all articles on text editors should be deleted as well. I think that with software the requirements for notability are very low and the editor in question has enough notability just because of being an actually existing editor, still being developed, and therefore useful as a piece of information to anybody searching for text editors. Since the prod-tag should not be replaced, once somebody deleted it, I want to give you the chance first, to give me a really good reason for it's lack of notability. Maybe I overlooked something. But if you cannot convince me, then I will delete this tag. Kind regards, Autocart (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability, by our definition, implies that the subject of an article has been discussed in a non-trivial fashion in reliable third-party references that are independent of the subject. Not will eventually be. Has already been.

You should be aware that due to its nature, Wikipedia does not, and cannot, apply its policies consistently as it should (lots of stuff fall through the cracks), but if other articles on text editors also fail the notability test, then it is only a matter of time before they, too, get deleted. Because of this, we cannot consider the existence of other articles on similar products to be a valid argument in deletion discussions, except with regard to the outcome of deletion discussions (if any) on said articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. See my comment above under J-Ethinomics. Same applies here; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summary of Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issues. I should have waited till I have more public info. I will be able to expand this within just a few days as reliable sources start publishing them.

So is it ok to have a separate page when I have expanded this sufficiently ?

Thanks again csesl (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced sufficiently would be more important. Please see our guidelines on reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) As Sri Lanka's first mobile telco, and one of the current "big 5" in the country, Etisalat (formerly Tigo and Celtel before that) passes notability criteria. I'm going to rewrite the article a bit as a stub. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will expand and add reliable sources once more info becomes available from sources as per the guidelines. csesl (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Samah anwar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Actress in various movies. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, then. I've inserted my usual long-term notability concern tags. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I've changed one of them to unreferencedBLP as presumably she is still alive. ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I had loaded the article intended to be called "The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral" under the heading "The exterior of Guildford Cathedral". I have now corrected my mistake and hope you will agree that a merger into the main "Guildford Cathedral" article would not be appropriate. Is it okay if I remove your suggestion? Many thanksWeglinde (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen on your talk page that the merger I proposed would not be uncontroversial, so I'll stay out of the debate. However, I made another change to the article title, one that was required for the sake of Wikipedia-wide consistency. You should also summarize your article into the main one regardless of the outcome of the merger discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Weglinde (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed your prod on Amy Sanders as she just barely meets the letter of WP:ATHLETE having played a whopping 9 minutes over 6 games for the Detroit Shock of the WNBA in 2007. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I seconded your motion, but I will agree to a merger into Time management. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Blanchardb,

Please give more details on the quotes, sources and references that are needed for the Bruna Caram article. Right now I've got no clue what I'm supposed to add.

P.s. There is only 1 quote (with source) in the article. Which references are missing?

Beste regards, @jeand99 --Jeand99 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, every assertion that can be disputed in the article (like, for example, the awards she won) must be backed up from reliable sources. Right now only a quote is so referenced.

Please keep in mind that your article does not have a deletion tag at this point, but if you cannot back up this person's notability assertion using third-party references, it is only a matter of time before someone inserts a deletion tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blanchardb,

I am new to all of this and this is my first post/article. I wish to protest the deletion of the Bohdi Sanders article that I posted. I thought that I provide ample references for this information and do not understand why it is to be deleted. Everything that I posted is accurate. Mr. Sanders is a notable martial artist who has actually been nominated for the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame this summer and his books are widely read and highly reviewed. Please let me know what I need to change or do to the article to avoid all of my work being deleted.

I went in and made a couple of changes, but I am not sure what you are looking for...

Thank you,

SoutherSage —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernSage (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy was not the problem, and in fact was never questioned. Notability was (please click on the link). Notability is the make-or-break criterion by which Wikipedia decides whether a certain person should be covered in the encyclopedia. So Mr. Sanders was nominated for the martial arts hall of fame? You need to mention that in the article and back it up from a reliable third-party source. His books are read and reviewed? Back it up with the kind of reference that didn't let Mr. Sanders have a say in what it says.

If Mr. Sanders's notability cannot be backed up, then Wikipedia cannot have an article on him, regardless of whether the article is accurate. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)