User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 9

It's been a while, but...

I got this a while ago, and asked for a reply on my and your talkpages, and even on IRC. And I still do want a reply to my rant. Thanks Saebjorn! 06:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saebjon. It's wonderful to have enthusiasm, but can I suggest that you only welcome users who have made a constructive edit. That way you avoid welcoming vandals and clogging up the New Pages log. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind stopping, but I do remember that when I first joined Wikipedia, I was very confused, and did not know what to do at all, far before my first edit (constructive or not.) I believe that welcoming newcomers is important, as does Jimmy Wales, in his second statement of the principles of Wikipedia, and that welcoming a vandal is not an issue at all, because it takes barely any time, and welcoming them can only change their ways. They won't do anything more if welcomed. If they take the time to make usernames, they should be respected. Being new to this site is very difficult, I wish to ease the transition as much as possible. What I do agree with you on is the clogging of the New Pages log. I do not have any previous experience with this, and do not know how bad it is. That is up to you, and if you still do not agree with me, I'll still listen to you, and not welcome others, but I believe that you should listen to my arguments first. Thanks so much for listening to my rant!:D

Saebjorn! 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you check my talk page archives? I already responded. Where did you think your edits to my talk page went? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale redux

Since Mr. Beale is still complaining at my talkpage, I restored the G4-deleted article and took it back to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jono101b

Thanks for your comment about my incorrect warning. But what did I do wrong with the warning? I would like to know how to do it correctly for next time. Thanks. HumphreyW (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:WARN. That page outlines pretty much everything you'll need to know. Let me know if you have any problems. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. From what I can tell the warning I issued was okay, as least it looks okay to my eyes. Although I am still struggling to understand all this template stuff so perhaps there is something subtle I missed? Should I have used a different "level"? I don't like the idea that someone can do more vandalism just because I made a mistake with a warning. HumphreyW (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, just give users each warning from 1-4 each time they edit. If they vandalise after the 4th warning (final), report them. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. Thanks for taking the time to explain. HumphreyW (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Regarding the Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri article I posted the link to the original page on the talk page and in the external links page - I wasn't sure if I should or could insert it somewhere in the banner. Supertouch (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It can go in the banner - it saves some time. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Postino

Hello, I'm wondering why my Postino (artist) page was deleted? What did I do wrong (again)? - Keneticshark

Hi. The page was deleted because it failed to assert notability, a standard for a subject inclusion on Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to go to WP:AFC and place your article there, so that other editors may provide more specific feedback. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon CJ Graham

Hello, I was curious as to why you closed this deletion discussion as "no consensus" when the only editors who argued for the inclusion of this article were single purpose accounts who provided their recommendations based on weak arguments that contravened guidelines such as WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on labeling User:The Edit Corrector as a SPA, and wasn't satisfied that there was a consensus. Feel free to relist. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt

The original article was merged in 2008 when List of Queer as Folk characters was created, so the history is probably still needed. snigbrook (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dunkley

at least indicates some possible importance, and is therefore not an A7 candidate. Please restore it--and presumably send it to AfD, because I too rather doubt he is actually notable . DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LMEP merge

I'm really not sure the decision to merge as a content fork is good. While two people supported it, the topics are different and don't belong together AFAIK. This is about a rate of entropy production or an approach to equillibrium and is separate from the state that maximizes it. The differ by a time derivative among other things. Indeed, in extreme form these would apply to situations where temperature may not even be defined although current forms are restricted. Apparently some authors address both, I think Jaynes was mentioned, but if you look at talk page for target you an alrady see problems with disambiguating thermo and info etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Then merge what you can. There was no consensus for separate articles and I didn't want to close as delete on the off chance there was useful information. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you merge it here? This is where the only active editor went?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremal_principles_in_non-equilibrium_thermodynamics Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge it wherever you like, just follow the spirit of the article not being kept as a separate article and all will be well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not like to see mention of Swenson put into the page on Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, because it doesn't belong there.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it really doesn't belong on suggested page and I wouldn't suggest taking much of it but you'll probably make a mention of Swenson at some point in a list as the review articles do. I'll take the talk page is someone wants to move it into my user space. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian Keohane

Your comment said you would take this page to Afd, but I don't know how to find it so can you pass along my comments? I searched for this person on Google, but I think every "source" I found was just a copy in some way, shape, or form of what is on this page -- right down to the typos (like "first zear" and "BLassey"). I'd also found something called boxrec.com that has stats on a LOT of boxers. They claim that "[they] do original research", and there was nothing in there for that name. So even if there actually was a real boxer by this name, the fact that nothing seems to be (easily) found other than what was propagated by wikipedia, seems to indicate that he's not very noteworthy. Also, the user who had created this page doesn't seem to have done much else, so maybe the "hoax" claim is true? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Instructions on listing pages for AFD are available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to list it. \ / had said that it was already there, and it was that entry (which should already exist) that I couldn't find. Shymian (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Take to AfD was directed at you. I very rarely take declined nominations to AfD myself. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh :-) I wasn't the one who nominated it for speedy deletion in the first place, but I got curious so that's why I looked into it. I'm still trying to get a handle on how to support/remove speedy tags, and not knowing your history, I mis-interpreted your comment. Sorry about that, and I'll try to follow the steps outlined. Wish me luck! :-) Thanks, Shymian (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried to nominate it. Since that was my first time doing this, can you check to see if I did it correctly? There was one step that was a little off: the directions on the "how to" page said to just replace the word "category" with a single letter, but the directions on discussion page said to replace the phrase "cat=U" with a word. Are they actually equivalent? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User page

Back in my RFA, you mentioned that my user page was "Myspace-y". Would you elaborate? ZooFari 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, the flashy images, and button bar. As soon as I think it would take a lot of effort for me to replicate a userpage, I begin to think that a little too much effort has gone into it. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Helios deletions

WTF is up with the deletions of Keith Kenniff and his albums under his Helios moniker? How can you claim A7 when every album I created had multiple reviews from notable sites illustrating their notability? They weren't well fleshed out, but come on, they were stubs. Helios is quite a well known artist within the ambient genre (over 100k listeners on last.fm), and I find speedy deletion instead of an AFD to be quite insulting. This action deserved discussion.--Remurmur (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles were deleted because the original article failed to illustrate notability. I can restore them and send them to AfD if you'd like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think that would be better. Please do that.--Remurmur (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up. I'm a bit of a grammar/spelling Nazi and copyediting on Wikipedia has become second nature to me - to the point where I correct typoes on talk pages without thinking... BlazerKnight (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jon CJ Graham

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jon CJ Graham. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gleich

Thank you for your decision on Jonathan Gleich I want to improve the article, but there has been mention of conflict of interest with me editing, I would like to re-add the references that where removed by the previous editor, But I want to make sure that I am using proper protocol in removing the {NOTOC} with {Article issues} {article = y, notability, coi,orphan, refimproveBLP, primarysources}

Thank you Lscappel (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order Deletion Nominations

Thank you for the feedback. I started by noticing on the List of Law & Order episodes page that even shorter articles had already been created with only the six main cast members and the short summaries. Since these shorter articles had been created and not challenged, I added guest cast to them and then created other articles by following the same pattern. Now that at least some of my additions have been reversed, these articles remain in their originally shorter form. I will add more detail to my future submissions. But I'm not clear as to why these originally skeleton articles were created or remain unchanged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlankin (talk • contribs) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Northern Artsakh

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Northern Artsakh. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Grandmaster 11:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comparison of Canadian and United States governments

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I do hate the deletion review process, though I will go there if I must. I'd much rather if you, as the closing admin, would reverse what seems clearly to be an erroneous deletion. The voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Australian and New Zealand governments do not seem to have much considered this particular article. The main argument for deletion was that the pages were original research. For the other pages nominated this may have been true, but the comparative politics of Canada and the United States is a huge field with many secondary sources. Looking at the sources used for the page there are works such as The Origins of Canadian Politics: A Comparative Approach, Party Movements in the United States and Canada: Strategies of Persistence, Continental Divide; The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada, "Comparing Canadians and Americans after the American Revolution", The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values.. - SimonP (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't erroneous. 'Delete all' is fairly explicit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was erroneous, as it is evident the commenters did not look very closely at the page, and did not notice that the main reason to delete (original research) did not apply to this particular one - SimonP (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

I'd also just like to note that I appreciate how much work it is closing such AFDs. Many years ago I was the only person processing AFDs, and it is a lot of work and frustration. It's great to see new users like yourself helping out in these important areas. - SimonP (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I still stand by that closure. Try DRV. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, DRV is for reviewing the actions of the closing admin, not for restarting deletion discussions. It's thus not a great option here. Could you please take the courtesy of at least discussing why you reject my arguments, rather than simply dismissing them. - SimonP (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You restored the article saying it deserved its own discussion. The article was nominated for the full seven days, and was in the AfD the full seven days, so the result in that is binding to the article. The delete voters didn't just say "Delete Australia Canadian relations fail the GNG", they said Delete all. They made a conscious effort to include them all and as such I can't create on a whim an excuse to keep one simply because you think their arguments don't apply to your article. Either the consensus in that discussion was 'keep all' or 'delete all', and if you believe I was wrong WP:DRV is the place to go. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Backslash. Just a note to let you know that you are being discussed at AN, here. –Katerenka ^☆ 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

hai

[FYI]. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark von Herkomer

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI for Rjanag

Draeco has reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what he believes was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that in my comments I referred to you as well, and what I view as the innappropriately close relationship between you and the nom of the AfD that you closed. Regards.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your arguments in the mass nominated for deletion comparison articles...

In all the comparison articles you mass nominated recently, you make the same arguments.

• Unnecessary list. That isn't a reason to delete something. Most articles that exist would be considered unnecessary by someone.
• You complain about setting a bad precedent, but Wikipedia does not follow precedent. Just because one article exist, can be used for an excuse for other things to exist. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST
• You complain about "US-centricism." There are articles concerning people and locations around the world, which only concern those nations. Just because someone is only famous in one nation, or the building only exist in one nation, is not a reason to be deleting the article. Dream Focus 11:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have issues with the whole "Comparison of" article class, but your US-centrism assertions are on the parochial side. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• For better or worse, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is used as a rationale, and perhaps I didn't use the right words to express my concerns regarding systematic bias. As for the unnecessary element, I would prefer to call it list cruft, but I have a feeling nominating something as 'cruft' doesn't go down too well. Keep in mind, I only nominated the comparison articles which had no merit; there are many valid ones that I didn't nominate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore Userpage

I have read what you have sent me and i Understand what you mean i will have the Userpage restored and i shall remove the personal information i know your not being rude and you have not scared so don't worry mate we all make mistakes and this is one i have made myself by which i shall intend to remove the information you said.

StephenPaternoster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenPaternoster (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

can LMEP be re-opened?

No one is happy with the proposed merge destinations and it is possible that Team Swenson can eventually comment,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What need be done? It looks like one pro-Swenson editor has returned. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Input request

I'd appreciate your input on this page. I've created a template for a single RfA row, with the further intention that it would be usable at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship as well, by use of any of p/passed/promoted to suppress that column. Comments appreciated on my talk page...I'm going to ask others for input as well. I'm trying to make it neater and I want to make sure the process is reasonable before going all-out; I am considering converting the entire history.  Frank  |  talk  18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Regarding your closure of this AfD, I don't have any problem with the consensus but I think you missed the extra 2 redirects that were also part of the nomination. Those still need to be deleted, and should be totally uncontroversial (they were nearly-identical copies of a previous revision of the original article, and the original is now restored and has been further developed). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with redirects. If you really want them deleted go to WP:RFD. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dean_N_92

Hi, it is me. I want to know exactly why you deleted my page.

Dean_N_92 (Tuesday October 27, 2009 5:30 PM)

Did you read my note? Your userpage released personal information about yourself (real name or age etc), which could be used against you in the future. Protecting your privacy, and remaining anonymous while on the internet — on any site — is a good idea. I have deleted some revisions of your userpage in respect to your privacy for the time being, just in case you wish to reverse on your decision to have such content on public display. As an aside, four tildes (~~~~) adds your signature to talk pages. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you restore the page so I can edit the information? I only registered to Wikipedia cause I thought making my own page would be cool. I never realised there was so many implications involved. What in God's name am I supposed to write on my page then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean N 92 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really need a page? If you are interested in becoming an editor, fantastic! Create a new page and write a few of your interests down if you like. If not, then I should point out Wikipedia is not a web host and doesn't have the space to run myspace-ish pages for every person. Either way, giving out your real full name, age and school is most definitely not a good idea, and it's best that that information is not viewable my any man and his dog. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to edit other pages. I just wanted my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean N 92 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Try MySpace. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I HATE MYSPACE!!! Dean N 92 (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Dean_N_92

Facebook? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a Facebook profile, but I wanted a Wikipedia page like celebrities have theirs. I thought it would be cool, but obviously you aren't letting me do that. Dean N 92 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Dean_N_92

Regular editors are given slightly more latitude, but if you just want a page like Triple H try an external wiki, such as wikia \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying I can create whatever I want at this site? Do I need to register there, or can I just log in? Dean N 92 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Dean_N_92

Wikia is unaffiliated with Wikipedia, am I am sure you can find some pages to play with there. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for losing my temper. I was at school when I was given first notice that my page was deleted, and it has been has on my mind all day. Dean N 92 (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Dean_N_92

Can I at least make a new page, and not reveal personal info about myself? Dean N 92 (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Dean_N_92

Absolutely. Feel free to. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit complicated deletion case: doubt sorrounds deletion

You have deleted Armin Shams, which according to the discussion and the regulations means you are not in "doubt" that there's a "rough consensus" that etihter
1) the problem solved in his mentioned paper is not widely considered to be a major one
2) or its solution is not widely attributed to Armin Shams

"1" is disproved by the peer reviewed journal paper's abstract and conclusion mentoned in the discussion which has the peer reviewed approved claim that "the theorem has been extended far beyond the previous extensions" and that it is a fundamental theorem in the field (according to the paper's "conclusion" part). The result has appeared in a renowned journal indexed by Thoson Reuter's web of knowledge which indicates to "wide acceptance" of the results, i.e. a disproof for number "2".
According to the regulations, the above notability (based on solving a major problem which is widely accepted and considered to be notable, although not much referenced to, yet) may be enforced by the national/international awards won by Armin Shams and few other (almost) notable results gained, reference to which has been provided by keeps . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivemountain (talk • contribs)

The majority of editors believed that notability was not met, and a significant portion of those who did were clearly single purpose accounts. Given the weights of the arguments, I found those wanting deletion to be much more convincing and in line with the consensus in that discussion. If you disagree, raise the point at deletion review. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you should not be associated to the delete fans and the numbers and contribution counts in wikipedia can be made and are not the main basis for the policy. Could you please think about the above reasoning and mention any flaw it may have or change your mind if you do not find one? Given the strong reason, it is extremly surprising that someone is not in 'doubt' about a 'rough consensus'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivemountain (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that for deletion there should be a 'rough consensu' without 'doubt'. Please revive the page or at least allow the discussion to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.197.216 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before. I do not believe there is any doubt surrounding consensus with that deletion. Deletion review is your only option if you want the article restored, as I don't believe doing so would be correct. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Request: undeletion of Arora (web browser)

I see no consensus in the deletion discussion, and in any case it clearly satisfies notability for web content: it recieved mention on lifehacker and was briefly considered for the default web browser in Kubuntu 9.10.

I apologize if this is not the correct location for this; the deletion review page didn't look easily searchable and is sort of scary. O_o

--Nonsensicality (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority of keeps used arguments that were clearly invalid 'Arora is upcoming' and 'just starting to get known'. The other keep votes failed to provide sufficient reliable sources. I am confident that the consensus was delete; if you feel otherwise I'm afraid you will have to list it at deletion review. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Backslash Forwardslash ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD and Citation Needed Tags by a user

I have witness that User:AurangzebMarwat has removed the AfD tag from his article Mullazai thrice and citation needed tag for twice, without providing any reference, by himself, through edit. Despite warning him, he did it again. Please take some serious action. The user wasl also previous blocked for doing such with his another (thice) created article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. You culd see and visit his talk-page 119.153.57.156 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Warned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite your warning, the abovementioned user, has for the fourth time removed the tags. For proofs, see the History page of the article Mullazai. The user, as it seems, have no other intention but to keep alive the name of Sarfaraz Khan Marwat, who might be his sibling, as you could see the last name of his I.D and Sarfaraz's. Please step-in and restrain / prevent him from doing such. 119.153.136.127 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, for the fifth time, he is doing the same. Now, he needs nothing else but an indefinite block, regardless of who I am or he is.It is the matter of policy. Please jump-in119.153.62.244 (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no talking about the AfD tags but about the citation and reference tags, placed. The Dispute tg is even removed.

Re-consider your following warning.......

October 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do something, he is continuously removing the tags and {{dispute}} tags. Please help out. 119.153.62.244 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you bring the issue up at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are an administrator and you warned him for the last time, so why don't you tackle him? I am extremely sorry but reporting for 3edit wars, as you recommended, is something hard to be created. Please help out. To prevent further edit warring. 119.153.58.83 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You seem to be the one in the wrong, judging by edits like these. Please stop disrupting that user, as I can't see him doing anything wrong after removing the AfD tags. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is perfect example of hypo. I hope you are not blind, otherwise you could have clearly seen that he is removing the citation tags, tagged as per Wiki's policy. 119.153.54.121 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you give me diffs, I'm not doing anything. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have placed citation tags for the claims made in the article. Now tell me could he remove the tags by undoing and without providing any links for those? I enormously request to help out. 119.153.78.131 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

I got the email and have changed the personal information.

User:StephenPaternoster 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed

AurangzebMarwat (talk)Some one is trying to ruin the precious work done .User from 119.153.57.156 ,119.153.62.244,119.153.75.118,119.153.69.202 is same person using proxies,sabotaging articles. Complaint against this specific person is launched to PTCL.

Can "The 404 Podcast" be unprotected?

I've written a new article for "The 404 Podcast" and started a new Talks page for discussion. Please Help!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_404_Podcast —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maynard 321 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The new article hasn't made any new claims of notability, nor has it got any additional references which would suggest it has grown in terms of notability. As such, unprotecting the article would be inappropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List of global warming skeptics

I was intrigued to see how this would be closed; I think your decision on closure was the only way to go, so thanks for being even handed even though I'd rather see the back of the article. Any more nominations would definitely be flogging a dead horse, so Wikipedia will have to live with it. Fences&Windows 23:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• agreed, nice close and nice closing comments. Not just because "my side" won either. :-) Hobit (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  I would hardly say you won. You just didn't lose. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

The vast majority of the keeps state reasons that go directly against policy, and should have been ignored, no strategy for bringing this article in line with policy was proposed, and core policy should not be allowed to be violated. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your AFD closing

Re this: I just wanted to express my appreciation for your excellent closing summary and for conjuring an elegant conclusion to a very non-elegant situation. Manning (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Hi \ /, your name has come up for inactivity at the ACC tool. I decided to drop you a quick line instead of suspending you. Would you like to log in? Maedin\^talk 09:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

kangaroo

More sources were added to the article after most votes were made, there was not one unreliable source in the article when it was deleted. James4750 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't still doesn't overcome the fact you were the only keep voter, and that there were other, convincing arguments by the delete vote. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There were three keep votes (one changed to delete even though it mentioned the attacks in general have been covered in sources), a merge and a comment that sounded like a keep. James4750 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That didn't have any substantial impact on the consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kangaroo attacks in Australia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kangaroo attacks in Australia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. James4750 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alert

Richard Tylman is listed at WP:DRV Triplestop x3 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jumping out of windows (whose AfD you closed) is still there

No merger with defenestration has taken place; instead, the article continues to be edited. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article's content was pasted into "defenestration" several weeks ago, so I just BOLDly redirected it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job!

Hello! Two reasonable closes in a row: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (2nd nomination). While I obviously thought they should be outright "kept" per strength of arguments, "no consensus" is a reasonable read of the discussions nonetheless and something any reasonable participant would view as acceptable and understandable. Happy All Souls Day! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rjanag, by his name in this list. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA and a number of the prior AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

If a second user certifies the dispute within 48 hours, it will be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.

Once it has been certified and opened, editors (including those who certified the RfC) can offer comments, either by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement, and/or endorse Rjanag's response, and endorse as many views as you wish. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI--it has now been certified and opened.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK is backlogged

Followed the instructions on Template talk:Did you know and found you on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins. There appears to be a backlog. Cheers, BlazerKnight (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

this should do it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Human Disguise

Hi, I see that you just closed the AfD for human disguise. I beleive that there was sufficient oddity surrounding the nomination and the way the debate was pursued, including the odd result ("no consensus - default to delete" - as far as I know unprescedented) and I would like to request that the result be modified to a more regular "no consensus" so that improvement work that was already underway on the article and making significant progress can be continued. A follow up AfD with less drama could easily be carried out if that improvement work proves to be insufficient.

(If the article remains "no consensus - default to delete" I'll most likely be requesting a userfied version of it so that the work that has been put into it can be salvaged and reused in other articles)

Thanks, Artw (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to overturn the result; as I do believe it was the right call given the circumstances. However, I can see no harm in a userfied version... I'll put it here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

It's possible I may raise this at deletion review, though TBH I am not sure I want to go through with that given the likely fightyness of the debate. If I do so I will let you know. Artw (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Disagree with closure reasoning. Thanks. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with my closure, and don't see an outstanding reason to overturn it. If you want it changed, try the consensus at WP:DRV. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Human disguise

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Human disguise. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Artw (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)