Older archives: 1 - 2 - 3

Thanks for your time and patience.. --larsinio 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have created KalSezginenderhane title. And I have added an external link. But i cant edit the main text now..Can you help me?

Thanks

sezginSezgin

I think it must be the sig parser, because my sig is all screwed up today too. Witness...D[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Denni|nni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of this redirect is undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot. As Radiant! might put it, it's more valuable in context. Kappa 09:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to sign in from my school account (the 147.226 IP address). I had marked the page for speedy deletion because I suspected it was nonsense and didn't realize at the time that there was such a page already in existence on Wiki. I do apologize for my haste! Take care! --Martin Osterman 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa, I noticed you oppose the most recent proposal for school articles? However you didn't spell out your objections. Can you be specific as to what you object to on that proposal? It seemed reasonable to everyone else including some inclusionists as no information is lost and all schools will still be represented. Plus it keeps school articles within general WP policy per both WP:STUB and WP:NOT.Gateman1997 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I object because although I don't think schools should be given a harder time than universities and villages, I am prepared to accept it for schools in countries like the US and the UK where we have a large number of articles that people feel are causing a problem. I am not prepared to accept it for schools in underrepresented where it will make the problem of underrepresentation worse. Kappa 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how what they're suggesting will do that. What is being suggested is that school articles be held to a VERY minimum and reasonable standard for inclusion as separate articles based on existing wikipedia policy and that ALL articles must adhere to anyway. They are simply codifying it for school articles specifically since as we both know when it comes to school articles both sides of the debate seem to ignore the Wikipolicy does apply to school articles too. Honestly I don't think asking that an article have 3 sentences of independently verifiable information is unreasonable, nor is saying that if they don't they'll be merged to a district or city article.Gateman1997 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop misrepresenting "wikipedia policy". A university stub which says "x is a university in (city), founded in (year), and has 10000 students" will be left in peace. A stub which says "x is a village in (district), (country), population 1000 at the last census" will be left in peace. A stub which says "x is a movie director, he won a (notable award) for his film y" will be left in peace. You want to give school articles a hard time, OK I accept that, but don't pretend it's some global policy and don't expect me to consent to rules written to enforce that. Kappa 22:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually what is being proposed is often applied globally already. Often times your "x is director of such and such a movie" sentence if he's not a very notable guy will be merged with a movie he directed or he'll be deleted for failing to meet WP:BIO. The same goes for villages. I've seen a fair share of those crop up on AFD as well for failing to be of sufficient size or notability. And lets not loose sight of what these guidelines will ulitmately do, cut down school AFDs to nothing while preserving ALL school information while eliminating substubs. It's a win/win/win for inclusionists, deletionists, and those fed up with the debate in general.Gateman1997 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also as for a university article we would hopefully apply this guideline to them as well as they are schools. However I've also never seen a university article that is THAT incomplete. However any examples you could provide would prove enlightening.Gateman1997 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never seen a winner of a notable award merged, and I would unmerge if I saw it. I've never seen a village merged or deleted on AFD. It's a win for deletionists because it hides school articles from "random article", it's a lose for inclusionists because it puts school information in the wrong place with less chance of growth. Also if this was a general policy it would destroy huge amounts of work by the people trying to cut down bias in our geographic coverage. I'm terrified by the idea you would try to apply this to universities too, it's getting worse and worse. Kappa 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kappa I'm getting the feeling you think we're trying to destroy existing school articles. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. That's not our intent. The intention is to remove the small number of substubs that exist as one or two sentence blurb attempting to pass themselves off as articles and put them into a larger article where they will do more good while simulatneously avoiding said articles ending up cluttering VFD and starting all manner of harsh debate as they have been. The information they contained will be preserved and the article can be recreated at a later date once someone is willing to take the time to write the actual article. And while you think it may be "harder" for the article to eventually grow, I disagree. As it stands most substubs, even ones that go up for AFD, have been remaining substubs with no one touching them even after a year or more in many cases. Centralizing them as parts of a larger whole will actually increase the amount of articles that get developed at a later date in my opinion by making them easier to access in a central location.Gateman1997 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa, you may be more knowledgeable in such matters then I, but how would ComCat's RFC be taken to arbitration? His latest nominations were being made in obvious bad faith, both in light of the discussion at WP:SCH and the fact that these newest nominations are much more worthy articles then his usual targets. He's no longer acting in good faith IMHO and the overall consensus at his RFC has been steadily growing against him per some of the latest votes.Gateman1997 20:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't know what the procedure is for that. Kappa 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you remember the AFD for Politics1? Well, it has been nominated again.

Punkmorten 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry. It's been restored. I slapped a wfy tag on it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa. I was thinking of re-nominating you for adminship. You've probably bumped into my votes on AfD and, if you've noticed that I almost always vote against you :), you can be assured this isn't a cliquish comment: you should be an admin. You know the wiki and you've contributed enormously. I realize that you had a vote a month and a half ago and I'm half expecting "thanks but no thanks," but I think it can happen if the nom is presented properly (ie., a more or less "deletionist" like myself admits that "inclusionist" Kapppa has earned his stripes and can be trusted). You don't have an e-mail set (near as I can tell) but I do. Honestly, if this makes any sense drop me a line. (Really...;) Marskell 23:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My name is Bryce and I created the choose-life page. I did this w/ the collaboration w/ Russ Amerling from choose-life.org. He was unfamiliar w/ wikipedia (I am familiar but have never posted anything before so I wanted to have something to post). I don't even know if I am doing this "talk" correctly. Can you let me know what I have to do to clear up the Copyright issue? Thanks. Also, will I receive notification on this or do I need to check "my talk" pages?

• Replied on your talk page [1] Kappa 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, If it survived a vote for deletion and was then edited by someone else how do I "wikifi" the page? How do I remove the copyright problem? When I search on "Russ Amerling", "Amerling", or Choose-life why doesn't my article show up? I sorry to sound stupid on this but I am a rookie but learn quickly. Bryce

Hey. Thanks for the tip in the Terminus (band) talk page. ill definitely check out wikinfo. You're a lot more easier to talk to than that Rasputin dude. I definitely feel a lot of hostility from that guy. Apparently theres also a wikipedia-ish page centered around Kuwait which I am planning on placing this article in, check it out. Once again, thanks. Zer0fighta 04:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that an RFC has been established for the purpose of resolving incivility issues between Harris and other members of Wikipedia. As you are one of the parties named as attempting to resolve a dispute with this person I wanted to bring this matter to your attention directly. Silensor 18:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nashoba Regional High School was written as an attack page - an invertive hoax about a fascist school. It was then stubified, but is being constantly vandalised back to the attack page. NOw most of the stub info has been removed as POV advert - and we are left with a title and a link. If it were anything other than a School, I'd Afd it at this point, but that won't end well. Would you, or others who like working on schools, perhaps pre-emptively do something with it, and certainly watch it for inevitable vandalism? --Doc ^ask? 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've hopefully upgraded it to an acceptable stub, it'll be on my watchlist. Kappa 20:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That's the second time I've done that. Still learning the ropes. I'll be more careful to convert them to valid stubs and tag them with the appropriate stub caregory in future. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you might want to take a look at this one. Though it doesn't state where the town is. A second oppinion would be welcome. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already recreated and moved the article, do you still want me to restore the old history at Micky yanai? It's not much of a history... Either way I'd recomend expanding it a little to explain why he is notable. Supposedly inventing a technique doesn't strike me as a very strong "asertion of importance or significance", so in it's current form it could very well end up speedied under the 7th article criterea again. --Sherool (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The history undeletion is necessary for copyright reasons, Micky Yanai is probably the best place. It's disturbing that someone might consider it to lack any assertion of importance or significance, and wish to eliminate an article which made such a claim without submitting that decision to community scrutiny. Kappa 20:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I restored and merged the histories. --Sherool (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Kappa.

The same folks who didn't like the books critical of Islam are trying to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term) which has over 500 Kilogoogles (in various forms). Perhaps you could take a look and give your input. Klonimus 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dude, I plan to goggle at a ton of google sites on lakes found in China. I have some info to add to most of the Lakes that I have added to wikipedia. Some of the lakes are a little more obscure but I am not afraid to dig deep into print material and contact the tourism boards and what not! my dream is to have every lake in China here. haha Electronicpaule 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to that, I hope you didn't take my offhand comment about the phone book inclusionism literally. I really was only kidding. Your work is truly phenomenal. Best, Lucky 6.9 04:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When requesting moves, please create a place of discussion on the talk page of the article you wish to move, as instructed at WP:RM. People can't vote or discuss the move unless this is done.—jiy (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kappa,

You had marked my contribution "Varadvinayak" as a copyright violation. I have rewritten the same and it is under "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varadvinayak/Temp". Can you please activate the link back? I am pretty much new to wikipedia and learning things the hard way it seems so please bear with me :)

Kedar

I deleted the page not just because it wasn't in English, but because it also appeared to be an advertisement for a personal website. I probably should've written that in the deletion summary as well. --Merovingian 12:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the CallingID AfD nominations I made. I'll remember to sign my contributions in future - and I might even get an account. --62.31.82.2 13:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[2] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I am really worried that an article I wrote Planes of existence (chat site) is going to be deleted. It is stuck on 5 keeps, 4 deletes with 4 qualified deletes (which some could suggest mean they are deletes) and that is bordering on consensus. The thing is that it is important in the history of talkers, as it shows why talkers stopped being used in favour of ICQ. Its important for a lot of other things, but that is the most important element. I think a case could be made that it has relevance within the ICQ article as well.

The vote has been severely manipulated by a number of false assertions, insistence that the only qualification is that its web site (which doesn't exist as its been closed for 2 1/2 years) has an alexa rating that's high. Its web sites are archived on alexa, meaning it had a high rating (they only archive old web sites), and besides which it wasn't a web site, it was a talker, which is entirely different.

I've also got a second article Lintilla (chat site) that is similarly being rushed through. Whilst that one isn't as notable in terms of the wider community, it is notable in being the first adult chat site, the first multiple worlds talker, the first all-woman talker, the first lesbian talker, the most popular adult talker, and its spin off is currently the 3rd most popular talker going, at least according to alexa.

These things are important historically, which is all that the encyclopaedia is meant to be for. I put it to a lot of people that the popularity should not be the overall factor. I dare anyone to nominate Cat Chat (talker) for deletion, because it was the first ever talker released on the internet. It was only about for 6 months and never had more than 5 users on at once. But its notable, both for being the first of something and also of deriving the code. I dare someone to delete UNaXcess as well, which is the first ever talker (on the intranet - only for people who connected via a BBS). Again, it was only ever used by about 10 people at once, and its been many many years since it existed.

I am writing to you, I admit, because I saw you on Wikipedia:AFD_100_days as the number 1 inclusionist voter. I myself think that if there is any doubt that an article should be kept. I mean, short of things that are obviously illegal, I don't see why we can't keep everything. Why are we deleting anything? Server space? I think that we should just ask people to clean things up.

Anyway, if you could vote, then it'd be appreciated. And see if you can get someone else to have a look at them too. Thanks. Zordrac 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw someone had removed the Speedy Delete tag from the Ryan Batkie article and assumed it was the author (as it is in 99.9% of these cases), and put the tag back. By the time I realised my mistake an admin, Bumm13, had deleted it. I still don't think the article ever successfully asserted the notability of Batkie, but I guess my standards are a bit more harsh than some. Meh. See you around. Reyk 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Assertions don't have to be successful, only plausible.

Kappa 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the link - I had looked for an article but obviously not hard enough. Must have been asleep without royal permission ;-) --QEDquid 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was Hipocrite's position that I found indefensible, and which inspired me to write the things I did. Also, the BEEFSTEW criteria seemed excessively liberal to me. If Rambot comes along and writes a bunch of school articles, the comparison you made at User talk:Freakofnurture/Wikipedia is NOT Classmates.com might be more valid. Uh-oh... I have more messages. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the one from Karnatak_University I was just thinking education related as opposed to school related. Obviously, I only meant to tag schools. Just out of interest do you think such a strategy could be used to avoid Afd noms? David D. (Talk) 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. Do you think WP:MUSIC is a good guideline? Jkelly 00:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really, it's too strict and will eliminate many bands that users would like to be able to look up. Kappa 00:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that was your position. Thanks for clarifying, and enjoy your editing. Jkelly 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tagged the tmage Agartala gi1.jpg as Fairuse.Basically I am a new user of Wikipedia and often at a loss what to say about the copyright.Could you please advise what should be th elicense of photos from other websites? User:Dwaipayanc

Isobestic point version as of November 23 2005 has been changed into a new version saved as temporal, it has passed many days and the new version (without copyvio) has not replaced the previous one. Will it take long?HappyApple 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the copyvio page is backlogged, but I tagged it for speedy deletion, that will probably help. Kappa 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid creating headers at the top of articles, like you did at The Gift (song). -- user:zanimum

Seems un-encyclopedic, borderline advert. It's a brand name, not an actual type of food. Thoughts? | Klaw Talk 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a well-known food product which wikipedia users should be able to look up. It adequately describes the topic and there is no promotional content. 00:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this is a well-known food product at all; can you source that claim? Regardless, it turns out that there is a dish called "crispy pancakes" popular in Thailand, so I'm going to create a dab page. | Klaw Talk 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I'm impressed that you created a complete, well-sourced and categorized stub in only one edit... and with no typos! (It's a feat I have yet to accomplish.) -- SCZenz 05:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL thanks, I was just lucky that time... Kappa 05:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, you deserve to be an admin, and this project would be much better for it. I intend to nominate you and fight vociferously for your promotion, whenever you are ready - be it tomorrow, a week, a month, or a year from now. You just say the word. BD2412 T 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BD2412. It's a crime that you are not a admin as you are the best non-admin in my opinion. Please accept BD2412 nomination and I would co-nom and fight for your promotion as well. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I third it. -- DS1953 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fourth it. You do a lot of good to this project, and regardless of policy interpretations, no one can deny that. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fifth it. Superb Wikipedian.--File Éireann 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kappa, in case you change your mind, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3 is waiting for you. I noted you as having 20,000 edits, by the way, because I anticipate that you'll reach that threshold before you come to a decision on another RfA. BD2412 T 23:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop torturing us and accept already. :( —Cryptic (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No pressure, Cryptic - I just want Kappa to know that if and when he chooses to stand for it, he will have solid support behind him. BD2412 T 20:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just curious, but why does everyone want to be an admin? David D. (Talk) 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because eventually you discover that you need things done that only an admin can do, like deleting a page (if, for example, you create a page, then move it to a different title, then decide that the original title was correct, rather than cutting and pasting the info from the moved page, you could delete the resulting redirect from the move and just move the page back). Also, as an admin, you can block vandals, protect pages during edit wars or periods of heavy vandalism, delete nonsense articles, and quickly revert vandalism edits. I've seen Kappa work long enough to know that he would have plenty of reason to put these abilities to good use. BD2412 T 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• People thank you for the confidence you show in me. My difficulty is that there are influential wikipedias who will definitely oppose me. I hope I'll be able to use that page BDAdramson made but I think it will be best to wait for a while. Kappa 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh gosh, why would they oppose you? Unless it's because they think you'd abuse your new buttons, you shouldn't pay any attention to them. -- SCZenz 04:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange eons even death may die (translation - things change).

Kappa, I completely understand where you are coming from (after all, I resisted similar pressures for nine months, and things turned out dandy). I suggest that you make an effort to make peace with those whose paths have crossed yours badly. Even if nothing comes of it, at least you'll have tried. Also, sample all of the Active Wiki Fixup Projects and you'll surely meet a lot of Wikipedians who specialize in those various pursuits, and will appreciate your help and recognize your dedication. Finally, a great way to show your mettle is to help close AfD votes, to the extent that this is allowed for a non-admin. Some things to ponder, while you wait. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kappa, as someone who has often opposed you on AfD debates and the like, let me say this: I may disagree with you most of the time, but I trust you. No doubt your RFA would meet a lot of opposition, but I'm sure there are plenty in the "opposition" that share my view. I wouldn't blame you for not accepting, but keep this in mind. android79 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that comment pretty much exactly sums up my thoughts on this as well. Friday (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Kappa I normally disagree with you but I know that your RFA will pass very easily and I know that it's a crime that you are not one. Please accept the nomination BDAbrarmson offered you. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As they all say. I don't share your viewpoint, but I respect it. Pilatus 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories were a nice touch. --24.221.8.253 04:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Kappa 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted delete. See Saint Thomas Christians. Clinkophonist 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thomasine Church wasn't about Saint Thomas Christians in general, it appeared to be about a particular group who called themselves Thomasine Church, and the information in it was unverifiable. Kappa 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As your request was a straightforward history undeletion request, and those don't even need to go through DRV, I've undeleted the deleted versions myself. The process-bound nature of DRV is such that they'll probably attempt to overstep their bounds again and order its deletion, so when you check they may be deleted again. Feel free to make a personal request to me and I'll be happy to undelete again. This has absolutely nothing to do with DRV and they cannot prevent this kind of undeletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have in the past commented on Image Galleries nominated for deletion. Most galleries are nominated because the nominators feels that galleries violate WP:NOT. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion (here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa,

You voted keep on Consumerpedia. I have lodged a comment on that page disagreeing, with I think a little new information. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

DanKeshet 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've changed my vote. Kappa 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thats fine, i would suggest in the future making a note of it on the article talk page instead of user pages so there is a record of the reason for its removal (the history log still shows it). --Silent Lamb 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see an anon put you in the Inclusionist category, and I've noticed that the category marks users as members of the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. But when I've looked at the membership list and the honorary members, I've never seen you there. I've heard you refer to yourself as an inclusionist, so I'm just curious why you haven't signed your name to the list, unless I missed it.

By the way, I've placed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3 on my watchlist and intend to support should you accept. CanadianCaesar 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed it. I don't normally join associations, but I signed up to the local chapter, mainly because people kept try to delete it :) Kappa 07:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a regular school editor, I wanted ask if you happen to come across some good sources of notable alumni for different schools, and you can't immediately use it in a school article, you may wish to add info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/alumni and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Notable alumni sources. Often, when looking for famous alums of one school, I find alums of another school, and this is a way to preserve the info; allowing me and others to use it later. --Rob 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest you request deletion on this page whilst you are still the only contributor. The request had an invalid purpose, and if you look at the edit history on Micelle it may be clear that this is likely to fall under one of the primary reasons given by Jimbo for not allowing original research, if the requestor is allowed to contribute to it. --David Woolley 17:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite an interesting compound, hopefully some else will expand it. Kappa 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the problem with cetrimide? People use it every day in labs all over the world. Pilatus 05:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was requested at AFC because someone wanted to add their own orginal research, but hopefully they've changed their mind. Kappa 05:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People will look after it and clue the guy in. Doesn't seem to be necessary, though. Pilatus

Sorry if I sound snippy on my response to you at that highschool article. I was actually referring to the delete voters. It's obvious on this article that they're not reading the article, but seeing "school" and voting delete. Blind voting like that just bugs me.Gateman1997 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are you an admin?-Reid A. 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Kappa 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL people keep asking me that. I might try again at some point. Kappa 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, give it some thought. I'm fairly sure you care at least as much as I do about making Wikipedia better, and I've been made an admin somehow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for creating AfDs from my AfCs ;D 68.39.174.238 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Kappa 04:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you copy vio the text? WHilst the edit history incorrectly stated there was no copyright, the immediate source is GFDL 1.2, so, according to Wikipedia policy, it may legitimately be used. The source is also a Wiki, so my reservations about Wikimedia's GFDL compliance don't apply. If you believe that the source page is, itself, a copy vio, its discuassion page, at least, appears to permit anonymous edits, so you should note the problem there. --David Woolley 12:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS technically it is a violation, but the nature of the violation is the same as that in a copy and paste move within Wikipedia, and, in part, relates to the problems that Wikimedia has with GFDL comliance in general (non-complient handling of copyrights and History). --David Woolley 12:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Umm.. I moved one of your db tags. Normally, they're placed prominently at the top of the article. D.valued 12:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a policy on that? Kappa 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on where to place the speedy tags although putting them at the top is the most common. Best to avoid putting them at the bottom of a very long article however, because the creator may fail to notice such a tag. By the way what is up Kappa? I have looked at the list of your deleted edits and I think you must have nominated far many more articles for speedy deletion than you have created, your reputation as an "extreme inclusionist" will be shattered into a million pieces if this continues. (I was also scared the last time I looked at my deleted articles vs. created articles ratio.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I put nn-bio tags at the bottom because I don't want to spoil the look of the page, while it lasts. Maybe I should put it higher up to make sure they see it. I tag a lot of stuff for speedy deletion because I do a lot of new page patrol - people put a lot of things here that don't belong. If I see any way to fix them, I do, but some things are unfixable. Kappa 12:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Good work on the New Page Patrol as well. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping you this note, as I'd seen you vote on Emil Christensen that was up for deletion and you probably have an interest (if not in gaming, at least in AfD's). Recently, the article for Sturmgrenadier met with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmgrenadier (2nd nomination). I would appreciate your input on the article and comments on the AfD page, whether you see fit to retain it or delete it. --Habap 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four Chilbo-san in Korea. See ko:칠보산. -- ChongDae 07:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Which one is our article about? Kappa 07:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the info. Source seems credible, if not the most notable (or positive) of the people with that name. I will create a disambig for other people with that name. In the future, you may want to report Poland-related new articles at Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements. Tnx for the note!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You rv'ed my speedy tag, which is fine, but I don't understand why. I suggested speedy on grounds of A1 as well as A7-band. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What context is lacking? It says it's an alternative name for Tatsuya Furukawa when he works with Hideo Suwa, then it establishes notability by listing a bunch of songs which reach a wide audience. Kappa 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Who are these people? Are they two professional musicians, two disc jockeys, two singers, two random people? Where do they perform? When did they begin so doing? Any music article ought to say that more than "John Doe works with Aaron Doe," followed by a song list. I don't know whether they are a band, except for the article title. They could be DJs, or producers, dancers, professional readers... the verb "perform" is the only thing that keeps them from being two construction workers. I call that lacking context. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That seems pretty harsh, if people need more context they could just click on the link up. Kappa 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The link to Furukawa actually confuses me more, since it says he is a producer. Do these two make music together, or is this a band of one with a superstar manager. Again, sorry, but I am sincerely unable to decipher what the article means. Xoloz 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• They are two people who make songs together. Furukawa is a record producer in the sense of : "In modern electronic music (not to be confused with "electronica" music, but any music created using electronic equipment, which can include rap and r&b, as well as the many different categories of dance music and new age), the producer is often the only person involved in the creation of a musical recording, and is responsible for both writing, performing, recording and arranging the material. The term "producer" is nearly synonymous with "musician" in this field." Kappa 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cool with me, and you've done your usual excellent job of cleaning up. :) I stand by my original tag though, because without your fine work, I continue to believe the thing made very, very little sense. Xoloz 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input on the racism article... I'll be the first to admit that starting that article was perhaps not the best approach to this issue. Do you have any interest in starting a WikiProject about this topic?? Best to you, Djbaniel 08:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I support your right to discuss the topic somewhere on wikipedia but I haven't really noticed it myself, and I try to assume good faith in apparent cases. So if you start it, good luck, but I won't be able to provide much input. Kappa 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind gift, Merry Crimbo to you too. 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you during Christmas time, but do you have any idea where can I report a User (FuriousFreddy namely)? I saw you dare to disagree with him...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajbi (talk • contribs) Kappa 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry about the mass nomination, but I don't think Freddy has done anything you can report him for. To be sure your work isn't lost, I recommend you go to wikinfo or yellowikis and import the articles you made, they will be safer there. Kappa 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kappa... I just wanted to drop a note -- it seemed like the right time, as sufficient time and sufficient health are finally briefly coinciding. It's clear that we've had our differences in the past, especially over AfD matters, but as of late it seems that every time I see a vote from you on AfD, it's accompanied by a clear and well-reasoned argument for whether the article should be kept or deleted. And it's an argument about the article itself, the existing precedents and the precedents that would be set -- not whether it fits in with some plan of "the deletionists" or "the inclusionists" for that matter.

There's an old story about an archery contest. The first archer steps to the mark, aims his bow, and fires his arrow; it thunks into the tree below the target. The second archer steps up, aims his bow, and fires; his arrow flies into the branches above the target. The third archer steps up, takes his aim, and fires, striking a bullseye. The rajah who ordered the contest says "Congratulations to you all! I shall present the prizes now, but I also wish to know -- how did each of you aim, that two of you missed the target and one hit it with such precision?"

The first archer says, "I knew there were birds in the branches, and I did not want to risk them, so I aimed to err on the side of shooting too low." The second archer says, "I saw that the archer before me shot too low; so in order to outdo him, I aimed to err on the side of shooting too high."

The third archer says, "I aimed not to err."

That's really what it comes down to; all this stuff about "inclusionists" and "deletionists" is really a distraction from the true goal, which is finding the right fate for each article. And as I said, I've noticed a change in your voting behavior, more of an attempt to find the right decision for each case independent of such generalizations, and I've been impressed by it.

Happy Holidays! -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a nice analogy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and Happy Holidays to you too. Kappa 21:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've overcome some great hurdles on Wikipedia this year, and things are finally looking up. You've made a positive difference here, and I want to wish you and your family happy holidays and all the best in the new year. Bahn Mi 23:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Happy Holidays Bahn. Kappa 23:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting Mong Cai cleaned up and wikified so quickly!!! Search4Lancer 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely right. Did not realise kula has a hawaiian context too. Shivraj Singh 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just graciously overlook it. signed Amsterdam 20:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

aRE YOU all LIKE THIS? THIS IGNORANT?

• Please reply on Talk:Signa Vianen, Journalist. Kappa 20:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add the bios on Mcleod and other's as deleted previously? These are truly noted local veterans.

• I'm not familiar with these articles, but you might be able to recreate them yourself, depending on why they were deleted. Why don't you start by making an article on De Ware Tijd and list the most important journalists there? Kappa 21:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed you have started marking the stubs. I've gone through California High Schools upto 'M' so don't waste your time looking through them.

• Yes, I started at the other end of the alphabet, so hopefully they are all done. Kappa 06:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that way. This is quite a large project. Quite monotonous as well. I think I'm done for the night.

G'day Kappa,

What would you say if I offered to nominate you for adminship next year? I've just taken a look at your last RfA, but it was a few months ago now and I think enough of the community has gotten over its strange phobia. As an "extremist deletionist", I think a Kappa with adminship privileges would be a great asset to Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3, but... no acceptance yet. I think the great amount of noise about it (see above), though, indicates that the time is ripe. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You created a category for "The Bee Gees singles," but there is one for "Bee Gees songs" already. With your permission, I can go ahead and delete "The Bee Gees singles" and you can go ahead and place Tragedy and Love You Inside Out into the "Bee Gees songs" category. Mike H. That's hot 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all Bee Gees songs are singles, for example Islands in the Stream (although it's not categorized). But go ahead and delete it if you want. Kappa 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know 'pedia had it in it. especially liked the snoop speak link. Ish ^{(shoot some)} 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Actually I just started it off (the snoop speak thing isn't mine), but it's great to see how well it's grown. Kappa 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kappa. Since you seem to often be the first person to tag for cleanup or as a stub many new school articles, how do you feel about telling new school editors, on their talk page, about WP:PJSCH? Currently, just putting something in the proper cleanup category gets slow results. Often the creator is in the best position to improve the article, as they're most familiar with it. Linking people to the project, also promotes voluntary standards and co-operation. --Rob 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I put {{WPSchools}} on the article talk page, but your idea sounds good too. Maybe there could be a modified form of the {{welcome}} for someone who just made a school article? Kappa 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, that might be a good idea. In many cases, I've added both {{welcome}} and my personal User:Thivierr/new school editor to the talk pages of new school editors. A standard "school welcome" would be nice, as it would mean the message has support from more than just one person. Also, just to clarify, adding this message to talk pages, is of course a compliment, not a replacement to existing article tagging. --Rob 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where deletionist from the WP:SCH debate are acting in bad faith.Gateman1997 05:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering if this is not a suitable candidate for deletion? The history page reasons why I think it is -- please let me know on my talkpage, if possible. ImpuMozhi 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a candidate for speedy deletion, but you can nominate it to Articles for Deletion if you want. It looks like very useful article on a title to me, like the others in Category:Honorifics. Kappa 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, could you be a little more careful next time you fulfill such a request and keep redirects in line with naming policy? I created Screen burn for ya. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of AFC requests you fulfilled in which you didn't leave a note on the AFC page. Could you please leave a note you created it, so we know whether to check and tell the requester the article already existed before they asked for it, or to tell them it was created for them? - 131.211.210.11 09:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll try harder to do that. Kappa 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you recently created some African football club articles to prevent the deletion of the {{Africa-footyclub-stub}} stub tag. To help you, I translated from the French Wikipedia five African football club articles (four teams from Angola and one from Mozambique). Maybe, if you want, you can translate some more football articles from the French Wikipedia. The articles are small-sized, so, it will not be hard to translate them. Hope that helps. Regards, Carioca 04:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's an excellent suggestion and will really help with WP:BIAS. Kappa 07:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source/cite for the hands being buried elsewhere? Wikibofh_(talk) 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how should Afd's be formatted? WillC 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've better check over the instructions on the main AFD page, I do it the old fashioned way so I can't explain it to you. Kappa 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, I know you've declined the nomination in the past, but would you accept an adminship nom if I put it up? We have diametrically opposed views of deletionism/inclusionism, but you're civil, you work to make things better, and your work on AFC is outstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• *ahem*. Agree with Zoe. How is it that Zoe and I end up opposed and Kappa and I? Kappa != Zoe, Zoe != Wikibofh, Wikibofh!= Wikibofh. This is troubling. Regardless, I'd support Kappa for admin. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow thanks Zoe, I didn't realize you had so much confidence in me. I will try again, but it will have to wait for the moment, there are a lot of other things to do. Kappa 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kappa, I'll also chime in. We have had our differences in the school area but your work has always been constructive. I would vote support for sure. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know when you're ready and I'll put up the nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say you would have my support as well. We're also on very different sides of the fence on deletion issues, but I have no reason to believe you'd abuse the tools. Friday (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong support me too pile on. Small suggestion though, I have perfect confidence you'd use admin tools well, but I know some people will have unfounded concerns about giving you the 'undelete' function. If you gave an assurance in your acceptance that you would be careful with it (and never on your own articles) you might head off much of the opposition. --Doc ^ask? 00:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wow thanks. I'll be back later, so we won't bump into each other, and I need to go to sleep. I was going to format the category page just now, but looks like you did that for me as well. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the birthdate from the lead sentence of this article. Can I ask why? Most biography articles I have seen on WP include this info (where known) in the first sentence? Camillus (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Put it back if you like, but I don't think the fact that she was born on June 27 is the first thing readers want to know. It's in two other places in the article where they can find it if they need it. Kappa 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the article per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your version [3] was even more crufty that the MoS recommends LOL. I still think my minimalist version [4] is clearer and more elegant than the original/MoS version [5]. Kappa 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Puhlease...Cruftiness shows up nowhere in the MOS.  ;) I think perhaps just ( date, year - date, year) is more elegant, but the unofficial style really seems to support (date, year in xx,YY - date, year in AA,BB). I think wikification of the years is good, as if someone is notable they they'll show up in the births/deaths for that year. I wouldn't object to removing the in's but check out for instance our recent battleground (together, not opposed) at Louis Braille. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copies from that discussion page, FYI:

Alex Elementary School (Comerica City)

Does anyone have any idea what this is? Or what Comerica City is? See also the contributions of User:Gerald15 [6]. Thanks. Kappa 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only that user knows what it is. I know it's bogus, though, because there is no such reference in A Charlie Brown Christmas, despite that guy's assertions. I see the article is already marked for deletion. Long may it vanish. Wahkeenah 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also suspect, though cannot definitively prove, that User:Gerald15 is a sockpuppet for User:Janet6. Their pages appeared within hours of each other, and they have both put weird and untrue stuff into the various "Peanuts" articles. Wahkeenah 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the SfD for {{US-street-stub}} (a redirect to {{US-road-stub}}), you voted to keep the template, saying "easier to type without any capital letters". However, there are capital letters in the nominated template (Note: {{us-street-stub}} is a different template). Directly below it is an SfD for a template without capital letters ({{us-rail-stub}}). Was your vote perhaps intended for that sfd? Yours, Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops thanks. Kappa 23:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please consider returning the redirect to Sharon Tendler. People interested in Sharon would be equally interested in the Dolphin *and* would wish to see the ongoinng AFD. The Cindy the Dolphin article is older, and probably more widely found through google (and linked on the web), and more are likely to see it. Also, seeing the AFD improves the chances of people paricipating in the discussion, and achieving a conensus, one way or another. Also, note that I have already done a partial merge (moving text and references), and hence, the two articles will have to be processed together (either no deletes or both deletes). If I knew of the duplication, I would have done a redirect instead of an AFD. Also, I submit, more time is needed for the AFD, as some voters (like howcheng) conditioned their vote on the verifiability of the legal status of the relationship (but info on the status changed since those comments). --Rob 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced, however if the dolphin's article is older and more widely found/link, the redirect should go the other way. If you have merged material from A to B, B can be still be deleted without deleting A. Kappa 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toc-H_Public_School back. It is not copyright violation. :X I'm off to write an article on why people should think twice before contributing to wikipedia. :X thunderboltz 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Responded at Talk:Toc-H Public School. Kappa 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you discussed this before, people are trying to delete it AGAIN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keyra_Augustina_%28third_nomination%29

In this AFD (closed with no consensus) you conditioned your vote on whether the school was verifiable (you mentioned the need for third party sources). I would like your opinion, on whether you feel that test was met. I would ask, that when possible, you look into whether you feel it really is verifiable, and if not, consider renominating (or indicate support for renomination). If you, and other "conditional keep" voters, honestly feel the school is verifiable, then I'll respect that decision, and consider the matter closed (e.g. I won't renom myself). I would just like a conclusive determination as to whether you feel it's sufficiently verfiable or not. --Rob 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't think it is sufficiently verifiable, in particular there is no evidence that it is what I would describe as an "established school". I won't renominate it immediately myself because I sympathize with the argument that verification should be given more time, but I wouldn't object if you went ahead. Kappa 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks, I'm glad to here. I'll give it some more time to be fair, leaving the {{verify}} tag there. Hopefully, somebody can find something, but if not I think I'll renominate it later. --Rob 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, I like the idea of this article being stubbified (for lack of an actual word) because others may be able to improve it. But for the sake of trying to clean out the zillion military stubs that are out there, I have to disagree with your stubbification. Wikipedia's guidelines say, "a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub." This is a pretty narrow topic. They go on to define a stub as, "an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub." As far as I've ever seen, there's not a lot more known about it than what is already there. The exact date of its writing isn't known. There isn't a lot of symbolism in it. A Google search doesn't bring up any additional information. As far as I can see, this isn't really a stub by Wiki standards. What do you think? Thanks for your input. Kafziel 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, if it's very hard to expand there's not much point having the stub tag. Kappa 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star). OMG! User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ROFL you must be going soft :) Kappa 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclusionist on athletes, "actors" and movies. And real places. What's your view on Tom Emanski? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did to Nowheremom after you. Please see WP:CSD (A8) for details. -- Perfecto 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure if TheRegister was a commercial content provider. Kappa 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

As you have noticed I have been going through NZ School pages adding an infobox. I have also been taking the opportunity to try to cut out the stuff which is of only local interest (e.g timetables, location of buildings), just puffery (you have no idea how many leading schools NZ has, or how many of them are prestigous), or just plain wrong. There are two problems: 1) I have done a lot of editing and may have added lots of new typos; 2) it is easy to delete almost everything on a page as being irrelevant. If you are feeling bored then it would be very helpful if you would take a look at some of the pages, and see if material needs to be replaced. I'm working backwards alphabetically.

Eventually I intend to tidy the New Zealand Secondary Schools page. I've also formed the opinion that most of the NZ schools pages are very uninteresting.

Neil Leslie 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I came across the article Stewball acidentally, wanted to see more and found that there can not be found a single word about "Stewball" at the external link http://www.frankspicks.com/ ... could you help me navigate, or remove the link if it is no longer valid? (p.s. extending the article would be nice too ;-)) --Kavol 10:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I can't find it any more, so I've replace it with another link. Kappa 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out, my rationale for the CSD nomination was a mistake. I did not see the "award winning" claim -- I guess I was reading the article to fast and drew some conclusions. (On the other hand... ~400 google hits for "Adam Keisner".) I still think that, given the name of the page and the fact that it was a copyvio (note: so are many of the google hits), a CSD is appropriate. N Shar 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, sorry for moving here. I was just waiting for a response and I didn't get one so I thought this might be better. N Shar 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, why is this not a CSD A8 (blatant copyright infringement)? N Shar 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, one more of these: I have to go away from the computer right now, so if the speedy tag really does need to be removed, please go ahead. I am new and still learning and it is more likely that I have made a mistake than that you have. N Shar 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source looked like a mailing list or something, not a commercial content provider. The subject probably owns the copyright, so it isn't an infringement. Anyway let's leave to be speedied. Kappa 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Indonesian coffee, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note at Talk:Religious leaders by year about the AfD for the 1946 article. I've added the note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Leaders by year as well. -- Jonel | Speak 08:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]