Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ah, the mysterious 72.228.3.244. Thank you for registering and hashing this out with me. I want to make Wikipedia a better place, not an ugly mess. I am sure that you can understand that anon users just can't be taken at face value since they are mostly likely just trying to cause trouble. Spike 17:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the same thing. :-) Alpha characters look better than numeric IP's, I guess..

It is more or less the same thing, but using a big ISP, anyone could be using that IP address in a few days. Having a registered user shows you are dedicated to working on here and making it a success. Spike 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have broken WP:3RR (counting previous anon edits) at St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Please don't do this again or you will be blocked William M. Connolley 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the policy, and just did it to present factually correct, and verifiable information. How may I add this back in, or dispute the fact that it's not there? Leuko 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to wait out the 24 hours and watch ourselves for the future. There isn't much that can be done. We also can't log out and do an anon edit since the IP is linked in logs to our registered users, and it's also a violation of the Sock Puppet Rule, which will get you banned but good. Spike 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone managed to anyways. Leuko 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many more people than just you and I involved in this. Spike 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC

You had better watch your edits, you have violated the 3RR rule again. Spike 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by cowardly AOL proxy users is not a violation of 3RR. Leuko 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's really not vandalism. It's more of an edit war and that does fall under 3RR. Regardless, cases that are not clear cut vandalism should be reported and handled by a mod. or admin. for wikipedia, not an average user. Spike 21:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since their is obviously a dispute over the factual accuracy of the article, I would welcome an admin to lock the article with the current dispute banner in place. Leuko 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Leuko.. who the hell are you and who made you an authority on what should and shouldn't be included in the SCIMD page? From what i can see you are only adding things to the page that can be used negatively against their students and hurt them. If you would do some research on the pages and the people you are helping (ie azskeptic) you will see that he is already the target of several lawsuits pending and future, for doing such things as what you are doing. I'm simply leaving out negative things being put onto their wikipedia article that was the result of actions of "azskeptic". I'm trying to show the positive things about the school and help them with the future while you seem to be on a mission to try to ruin the lives of these people?

if you are so confident in what you are posting then please post your real name and contact info as i'm sure the students of the school would be much more than will to at least attempt to sue you for slander and defamation at the very least.Gubica 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a sad attempt at influencing the truth by threatening lawsuit. --Azskeptic 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not hear to help or hurt anyone. I am here to ensure that Wikipedia articles are as accurate as possible, including all verifiable information, be it positive or negative so that future students can make a fully informed decision whether they should attend the school or not. If the purpose of the St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine is to only exalt the positive and sweep the negative under the rug, then the article should be deleted as patent advertising in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Also, you have been warned for your comments in accordance with WP:NPA. Please don't do it again. Leuko 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Leuko, please refrain from changing the SCIMD article without a consensus on what is to be done... I think this needs to be a group decision. Please do not change the article again as I have given you very obvious privacy reasons and some technical reasons on the discussion page.... Sir, you doing this takes time out of my day for reverting the post back to normal. I would strongly appreciate for the third time to discuss it on the talk page until a decision is made, before finally reverting it. Thanks and now I have to go check on that Rectal bleed on North 8.--Vtak 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see why there needs to be a consensus on it. Without citations, the content is clearly in violation of WP:V, since no other editors can verify your claims. Have fun on the proctology service. Leuko 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well as i have said before man, it can be checked but we are not gonna do it without the graduates' permission... all other minor colleges are doing that here, however, how come we are the only singled out ones? The reference to a graduate without his/her permission in the article is a violation of Wikipedia's Five Pillars as well... its not proctology service, called HSO and its his case now, med cannot bovie.--Vtak 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we keep going around in circles, and obviously do not agree on the correct course of action, I've solicited a 3rd opinion to see what a neutral party has to say on the matter. Leuko 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be diplomatic in your edit summaries (like St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine). Removing information from an article isn't vandalism per Wikipedia:Vandalism, and remember it's always preferable to discuss disputes instead of reverting edits and starting an edit war. Diplomacy can go a long way sometimes. Fagstein 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I read WP:Vandalism differently:

Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit

A user has already be blocked for the continued blanking vandalism of significant information from the article, and now it looks like he is continuing with anon ip's. I am sorry, but I believe I have been very diplomatic, and have not resorted to personal attacks. Leuko 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your input... this is exactly what the "article" needed. The parts of the article that are being removed are not significant parts and rather are blatant negative attacks. While i agree that lying to prospective students is not correct, why must negative parts be highlighted? Keep the "facts" (and i use this word lightly with this group) positive and help the school advance and produce better and more qualified physicians. Prospective students can always call up their own state board, or the school's offices and ask questions. If anyone has proof that the CURRENT administration or school officials are lying to students (prospective or current) about possible licensure issue or charter issues or anything for that matter then yes the school should have something formally brought against them. From what i see the school has been and is currently being investigated by the GMC. Should the GMC find problems that are beyond repair then the school will be closed, and then no need to bash anymore because the school will fade away. Portraying the situation as constantly negative helps no one at all. Help correct the problem instead of being a problem (I'm looking at 2 of you and you know who you are) and portray the positive side of things that several students despite this situation have gone on to be very successful. thank you again for impartial imput. Azrealist 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias reflect reality,not positives alone. --Azskeptic 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere did I see a blatant negative "attack." In accordance with WP:NPOV all sides (both positive and negative) surrounding an issue must be presented. I fail to see how including verified facts which are verified as reality can be an "attack." Also, I see nothing on the GMC page that indicates an investigation is on-going. AFAIK, the investigation is concluded and the decision is final. Sweeping reality under the rug does future students no good at all - they should be fully informed before investing the massive amounts of cash that medical school costs. If the intent of the article is to only portray the positive, and hide the issues, then the article should be deleted, since its purpose is blatant self-promotion, and not fit for an encyclopedic entry. Leuko 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Leuko, I bring up verifiable information about Mr Hughson and you call that a personal attack. Since when is something verifiable, your words and rules, an attack. Again, I have presented in the discussion forum information you choose to ignore. This is blatantly siding with Mr. Hughson who is verifiably, under investigation for his role with Oregon ODA in collusion. He has no credentials anyone can verify and is nothing more really, than an unenlightened consumer claiming all kinds of expertise he should not lay claim to!! If you like, I can arrange a conference call with the students attorney firm in NJ and we can discuss the issues so that you can understand far more than you currently do depending only on web citations and the like. The real story is far more in depth than you currently know and Mr. Hughson is way behind the curve. --Doctorcane08 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not "siding" with anyone, only with the facts which I can verify. I am not interested in speaking with any attorneys, since even if what they say is true, it is likely not verifiable, since they would be trying to make a case, and nothing has been proven yet. Leuko 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion, the group's members have an apparent notability, over 2 million google hits between them. User:Pedant 07:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I originally agreed with you that the article should be speedy-deleted, but I double-checked WP:CSD and "This is advertising/spam" is specifically listed there as something that isn't a valid speedy-delete reason. Kickaha Ota 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed that, thanks for the heads up. I'll change it to just plain delete. :-) Leuko 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You prodded the article Ralph Winter (judge). I made some changes to it (removing some of the attacks and adding some references), and removed the prod. Regards, TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is a waste of time. If we could work through this without admin input we would have done it by now, obviously we can't. Arbitration is what will allow a final ruling about the validity of .gov sources that use unverified and undocumented research and sources as well as all the other issues regarding this article and allow for a final entry to be constructed for SCIMD. Spike 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

True, mediation requires that editors be willing to go through the process and work towards an amicable solution. I'll put in the arbitration request. Leuko 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{unaccredited}} template and removed from the UK medical school templates, "Spike" is (of course) edit warring over it. Feel free to pitch in, and feel free to add to the WP:RFAR. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Several days ago, you prodded the article Joel Hedgpeth. Please take a look at the latest version of the Joel Hedgpeth article, and make any changes that seem appropriate. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now -- I can actually see some notability in the article vs. the first version. I've made a minor contribution of removing an extra ] on a link. :-) Leuko 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

i see on your little boxes on the right side of your page that you are against personal attacks. then i ask what will be done about them. i was personally attacked mrphyzyx or something like that, on a talk page for a proposed deletion. my username is The03Era15Strong, and a comment he left for the proposed deletion of the article "43228" was that people should look at my user page. he did this because of old comments of mine left there, and he was trying to make me look bad. i have a problem with hypocrits, which is why i think you should look at this problem im having, because there is nothing i can do about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The03era15strong (talk • contribs)

If you feel that you have had a personal attack made against you which is a violation of WP:NPA, you can report it to Wikipedia administrators on the notice board: WP:PAIN. Leuko 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

why do you feel it's necessary to get this article removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tparker393 (talk • contribs)

Please don't take it personally, but the reason why I proposed the deletion is probably listed in the proposal. It would help to know which article you are talking about so I could discuss it with you further. Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~), and remember no personal attacks. Thanks. Leuko 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

alright- there are some references for the Larson Plan article now- are you happy? by the way, looks like you found out my name anyway- but here's the sig as you requested, why are you wiki freaks so uptight anyway, do you think people are going to care about this in a few years, when the world is reduced to ash and rubble? Tparker393 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Like I said before, please don't take this personally. Please see my comments re: the references on the article's talk page. Leuko 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You remove my link http://card-magic.blogspot.com because you think it's a blog. Do I talk about current events? Do I talk about my life? It's not a blog FYI. It just have a blogspot domain so you think it's a blog. The site is a collection of card tricks that users submitted.

Well, it's still a non-notable website on blogspot (so yes, technically it is a blog by format). You note that you put it there because it's your site. According to the External Link guidelines, you should not link your own sites because of POV concerns. If it is notable/useful to the Wikipedia community, then another, neutral editor will add it. Also, your link not be in WP since it is link spam. Prominently on the top of your page is advertising which you get paid for. Using WP to increase your Google PageRank, visitors, and ad revenue are not acceptable. Leuko 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Following your recent reversion of my edits to the Howard Barnett article, I contacted the article's creator User:Rougher07, and suggested that he cite a source which is compliant with Wikipedia policies governing NPOV and reliable sources. --TommyBoy 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Now why didn't I think of that? :-) Leuko 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me please. I notice you have donde excellent work with SC. Can you help me with UHSA (university health sciences antigua) I am trying to post factual information that is provided on some official state websites and other potential valueable sources of information. Thank you.Robo doc 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Robo doc has nothing meaningful to contribute and he isn't even qualified to post about a foreign medical school. He is copying and pasting links and copyrighted material into my article from other websites. I’m surprised to see he is asking for your help. Notice, he recently registered his ID for the sole purpose of posting his nasty remarks in the UHSA article. DrGladwin

Sorry it has taken so long for a response, but I have been without internet. I will take a look at the article to make sure it conforms to Wikipedia policies. Leuko 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you propose my first article get deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VeeRob (talk • contribs) .

Please don't take offense, but I just didn't feel that the article as written when I read it met the guidelines of WP:MUSIC for inclusion into Wikipedia. From the article, it sounded like a 17-year-old made a mix tape and then went on to record some bands no one has ever heard of. If you can provide the multiple independent mentions of the company in mainstream media that WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP requires, then I'll be glad to rescind my proposed deletion. Leuko 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi...saw your deletion listing for the article I just added HS Produkt. Please see my response on the Talk:HS Produkt page.Urban011 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look over there thanks. Leuko 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about; I didn't remove the notices from the article, so maybe you should look into things before making false accusations. Not to mention the fact that this article is a completely new article, unlike the one that was deleted. Maybe if you spent a minute checking into it, you would have figured that out, but I guess you were too busy trying to get good guy badges. You really shouldn't let this power go to your head, after all; it's just the internet. Maybe if you spent less time worrying about people trying to make articles about people who do good deeds in their home town, and more time about real life, you would have a girlfriend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waldorf Goodhue (talk • contribs) .

The article still does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please try and be civil, and don't take it so personally. Leuko 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go mind your own business. Do you really have nothing better to do then sit here and watch what I do? That's kinda sad.Waldorf Goodhue 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see yet another NPA warning on your talk page. Leuko 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how the "Rim Jim" article is inapproriate. I didn't write it with the intention of being a vandal. Tall Boy

As the Speedy Delete notice says, I feel that the article is patent nonsense. It doesn't make any sense, is non-encyclopedic, and is written in a non-journalistic manner. (i.e. the "Racist shop"). It is also not notable. Leuko 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have nominated it (i understand why) for deletion.. but i am in the middle of researching this topic..copro records had mentions on the official desecration bands website as being the record label for most of their studio albums

sorry..if ive..done something wrong or whatever Fethroesforia 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I am new to wikipedia and the short "robert greenstein" article is one of my first efforts. I would like to know more about why you tagged my contribution as unsourced. The information in the article comes from sites for which links are provided. Please note, he was already listed (red link) on the MacArthur Fellows Program page.

I understand and agree that there should be an especially high standard for biographical material about living people and (hoping that you have time to explain!) would like to know how I could modify the article to remove your qualification.

Thanks!! Jobrill 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenstein's role at the FDA is mentioned in the Spanish version of the history of the food stamp program on the FDA's site. The English version doesn't mention names. Here's the source -- http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Legislation/sp-history.htm. Here's a New York Times article attesting to his role -- http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20911F9385F0C718EDDAB0894DC494D81. Here's a NYT article naming Greenstein as a member of that commission -- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9807E6DF1738F936A25751C1A962958260

Advice welcome on how to mention this in the article. Jobrill 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed you 'undid' some vandalism from SGU, despite the fact that the 'vandalism' in question was actual correcting some POV additions made by the previous edit. Just thought you would like a heads-up on the situation. Cheers, PaddyM 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Leuko! I removed your PROD notice from that article, and nominated it for deletion via afd instead. It had been deleted via PROD once, and the re-creation by the author qualifies as a contested deletion. Feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeping on Gaming. Joyous! | Talk 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice it had been deleted before. Thanks for the heads-up. Leuko 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

what —The preceding unsigned comment was added by O2ZY (talk • contribs) .

Please see my comments on your talk page. They are pretty self explanatory. Please don't remove speedy delete notices on attack pages that you have created. Thanks. Leuko 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Leuko,

This is in regards to a proposed deletion of Denison & Porter (a recently formed hedge fund and real estate investment trust). I take offensive to the proposal to delete the listing of a legitimite corporation which is registered in the District of Columbia as well as a GmBh in Muenster, Germany. The description that was placed on Wikipedia was modeled after those of nearly every other non-public corporation listed.

Feel free to visit our up-and-coming website or to google us at Denison & Porter.

Thank you, Christopher Andrade chrisotpher.andrade@denisonporter.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonpor (talk • contribs) .

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry that you took offense to my proposed deletion of the article that you started. It was not meant to be malicious, and it does say in the deletion notice not to take offense. My concern with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP for an article in Wikipedia. You note that it was recently formed, which is probably why I couldn't find any mention of the company in Google past its own website. Wikipedia is not a business directory, but rather it strives to be an encyclopedia. Therefore, there is a threshold for which things should be included, and those that should not. In any case, I've submitted the article to the AfD process, where the community of Wikipedia users will decide to either keep it or delete it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Leuko 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Leuko or Bula in my Language

topic written on Mere Tuisalalo I do not understand why you think it needs to be deleted?? individuals and intermarriages played a big part in Fiji's documneted and oral history. this item has relivance as to the connection the family has with the Turaga Na Rasau Title. at the time the marriage to Ratu keni signified the joining of two tribes, her details and family background are relievant to the article and to the people of Lomaloma and their history. Thank you Maikeli

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leuko and thanks for your note.

To start with, I re-posted this article [J&P] as I had the impression that the site was never saved (I was working on it in “preview mode” and thought I had not saved it prior to logging off last night). In fact I was kicking myself as I had to do all the typing again.

Which brings me on to the more important point; which is the basis of your deletion. I can’t see the justification for this (sorry never been come across a situation like this so far) so I summarise my argument below:

J&P is a household name in the Middle East having build most of the infrastructure in several countries, information which I started outlining in my article. It has a turnover of more than £1 billion. If companies such as George Wimpey, McCarthy & Stone and Barratt Developments some of which which are miniscule in comparison are listed in Wikipedia I don’t see why larger companies that have had a more significant global impact (albeit in other regions of the world than yours) should not be featured. Please note this was not an attempt to advertise J&P as I have no affiliations to this company whatsoever. The information I included was very similar to what's posted on the companies I site above.

Regards, StephP 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the reason that I tagged the article as spam (and two administrators agreed to delete it), was that the article read like advertising and had no references cited to indicate that it met the WP:CORP notability criteria. If evidence can be provided that the company meets WP:CORP, then a balanced, WP:NPOV article would be welcomed. Leuko 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again.

The company meets no.2 of the WP:CORP criteria, if you had followed the reference I had provided in the original article (and that is why I provided it) you would have ended up here: [1]. Scroll down to no.41. Companies such as Acciona and Techint that feature on this very list (some ranking lower) have their own Wikipedia space.

If you want to verify that this source is not a mickey mouse journal itself, just read about it on wikipedia here: Engineering News-Record.

I cant see which part of WP:NPOV this article is breaching and I would be grateful if you could point it out to me. In my humble opinion the content is no different to the accepted article on say Crest Nicholson. Is it the fact that I presented it within an infobox template rather than as a narrative? Or is it the fact that this is not a British company? StephP 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leuko. Just to save you some time, the original article has now been accepted (by both administrators) with all the original information. I have pasted everything on the talk page of J&P’s wikipedia article, if you care to read it. If I were you I would refrain from proceeding with similar hasty actions in the future and instead would take some time to thoroughly read the information provided first. It would save us all a good deal of time and allow us to concentrate on contributing more constructively.StephP 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when I first read it, it sounded like spam. I did not mean anything malicious by it, just trying to make sure Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, rather than a WP:NOT a business directory full of spam articles (which is what it was becoming before the addition of WP:CSD#G11. Leuko 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that, so thank you for the note! | Mr. Darcy talk 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why you slapped the article with a speedy deletion label?? I wrote an article describing TEN, which is an adult TV network, don't see how any part of the article is an advertisement. It merely describes the Network and what type of programming it offers. Need explanation or the template will be taken off.HeMan5 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Also, please note that as the article's author, you aren't allowed to remove the speedy delete notice. Leuko 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the article should come back up and go through the AFD process? It might be notable enough (I've certainly seen worse). But there is just enough content that some other opinions might do some good before deleteing it outright. --DanielCD 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. I have no problem with having an article on this subject, but it read like an advertisement and had a lack of any references which indicate its notability or meeting of WP:CORP guidelines. Leuko 04:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

K. I went ahead and put it up for AFD, so we'll see what others have to say about it. --DanielCD 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What about say, Paul_Otellini ? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gkklein (talk • contribs) .

As far as I can tell, that article is not directly copied and pasted from another website. Leuko 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find anything to cite the fact of the site's size beyond MPOGD itself, which probably wouldn't do as it's hardly impartial. Wouldn't the fact that I referred to it as 'one of the largest' as opposed to 'the largest' offer me a bit of leeway? It does have close to 2700 games listed currently and it literally gets larger every week or so. That's pretty big. HalfShadow 02:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability, so if there is no external reliable source to prove that it is in fact one of the largest sites on the internet or otherwise meets the requirements of WP:WEB for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it should be deleted as non-notable. I have no problem with the article, but in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, the policies and guidelines must be applied uniformly and fairly. Just add references to the article to prove that it is notable and meets WP:WEB, and then I would support keeping it. Leuko 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way I can word this so I won't need to cite it? I'm having a real problem finding anything 'official'. I was hoping what I used would be good enough; the guy's a programmer. HalfShadow 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait. No, If I could do that, then it wouldn't be notable, and then it'd get deleted anyway. Ai... HalfShadow 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, if a reliable source could be added to prove it meets WP:WEB notability criteria, then it wouldn't get deleted. In its current state, with just a claim of notability, but no proof, it would more likely be nominated for deletion. I am sorry, but WP:RS specifically mentions personal websites as not being reliable sources. Leuko 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just call it a day then. The place is mentioned all over the place but almost all of them are just standard links. The few places I've been able to find that mention the site in any detail wouldn't be considered reliable. I don't think this is worth the effort any more. HalfShadow 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. In that case, if you want the article deleted, just blank it, and add the {{db-author}} tag to it. Leuko 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I only added it for convenience's sake anyway. 'Every mistake I make is a lesson learned.' HalfShadow 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a mistake. Sorry to see the article go, but my wiki philosophy is making sure Wikipedia maintains the highest standards of being an encylcopedia, rather than a web-directory, vehicle for spam or vanity. I'm definitely not saying the MPOGD article was any of these, in fact I believe it might be notable, but the policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:WEB must be applied fairly and equally. Leuko 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm going by the fact that there are dozens and dozens of articles in existence. Anyway, I don't feel it falls under speedy deletion. Until consensus is reached, it's best to leave it there. -- Merope ^Talk 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I believe it to be spam is because the user had done nothing but post links to about.com on multiple pages. You'll probably want to revert the rest of them too. Pizzapotamus 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) = Pizzapotamus

Ok, but what about the link itself is spam? It seems to be a relatively reliable source with pertinent information... Leuko 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed the links on those pages because the editorial content on the linked pages is relevant. I didn't see anything in any of the articles that was distinctly wrong or in need of editing. The information I write covers all first aid and CPR topics; professional EMS is only one of the subjects. Brouhardr 12:38, 10 October 2006

p.s. It is not o.k. you deleted my page without warning at first. Then I must typed it twice. Pressume my good intentions first and come to my page to talk before you delete anything. Greetings from Belgrade. --Mladifilozof 02:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted your page, I have just listed on Articles for Deletion, where a discussion will ensue for the next 5 days to see whether a consensus of WP editors think we should keep or delete the article. Leuko 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hi leuko! i also do feel you could have perhaps initiated a debate over the article before listing it as AfD, as suggested here. i made a comment to that effect here on the actual debate, and it seemed fitting to mention it here too. nice pic of the day btw! cheers, Mujinga 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but this is much more effective. With AfD, multiple editors offer their views in a quicker period of time, rather than just me and the article's author on the talk page. I was just trying to get a consensus, and this seemed to be the best way to do that. Leuko 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that testmasters was even up as an article or had even been deleted. Is there any place that would tell me this? I am wondering also why Testmasters cannot have an article on Wikipedia, but The Princeton Review, and Kaplan, Inc both have articles on Wikipedia. This doesn't make sense to me. 64.131.205.160 06:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you click on "History" and then "View logs for this page" you can see it's been deleted twice before, once as a result of an AfD discussion. The reason the article was deleted was: 1) it was blatant advertising spam for the company (WP:CSD#G11), 2) it was a repost of advertising material already deleted (WP:CSD#G4), and 3) it is a non-notable company. Kaplan and Princeton Review have aritcles because they are notable. I could find no way in which Testmasters met the WP:CORP notability criteria required for an entry on enWP. Leuko 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the addition of ...Netherlands and ...Spain to the original UK squats AfD was not, imo, carried out in accordance with AfD procedure and I was unable to delete them as part of the same process. The titles of any and all articles in an AfD listing should be in bold at the top of the debate, and in the case of non-near-as-dammit identical articles they should really be listed simultaneously to ensure they all receive the same consideration. Please relist them again if you wish. Thanks, Deizio talk 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've managed to list them all under a unified nomination. Leuko 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just started the School for Robots article, and had just added a summary.. I paused to upload related images, and in the meantime it was marked for speedy deletion by you. I did not have time to add more information. I am curious when you say I should cite external information to make it know that my entry is valid. However I did have a band website link to a full page. How else can I validate that the band actually exists? I am new to this site, and have read the FAQs, and it still remains unclear to me how I prove that this entry is relevant. Thank you for your information, Blake

Hi, while one of the major principles of WP is verifiability, that is not the issue here. What is at issue is notability: please see WP:BAND. Does your band meet the criteria for a WP entry listed here, and can that be verified with valid, external reliable sources? (Which do not include the band's website, but would include bonafide media coverage/reviews). Let me know if you have any more questions. Leuko 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to note other article creations by the user Erzherzogin. All are covered under articles with English names. Charles 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. :-) Leuko 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than tagging something for deletion for lack of context, would you please next time try to give me a few more minutes to add some? Incidentally, this article has enough context, as it is! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, but I didn't feel that a dictionary definition translating a foreign language term into English was context per-say. Also, en.Wikipedia already had an English article on the subject. Leuko 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)