User talk:MER-C/archives/9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Bible College==

I don't understand what's happened to this - have you redirected this article to itself? I tried several times to add a comment without success; then got to it from a different route. Were you trying to stop me editing in wrong place? -- MightyWarrior 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, that particular nomination showed up on the deletion log as a red link. Yet the deletion debate itself existed at a page with (as far as I can tell) the same title. I had no idea why, even when copying and pasting the page name and doing multiple purges. The redirection was a crude hack to get it to show up, which worked. MER-C 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NBAwire

Just when I'd taken it to AfD (finished 12:22UTC), it was speedily deleted anyway (12:21UTC). How do I get rid of it off the AfD page now? Ha. Bubba hotep 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I closed the discussion. MER-C 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Top man, I'll have to figure out how to do that. Bubba hotep 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stellarium

i've pointed out some major systems it's part of, so please reconsider your recommendation. :) qwm 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. !Vote changed. MER-C 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Thanks for the revert to my user page. It's been vandalised a lot in the past few days. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. MER-C 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deleted article - Water Crisis (Australia)

Hi!

How do you think I could change the following article - Water Crisis (Australia) to comply with wiki policy? symode09 08:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is an essay on the Australian water crisis, as in it presents an argument. Essays, by definition, promote a non-neutral point of view. The last part of the article is a how-to. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. It's also unreferenced and unwikified. It may contain original research, especially with the solutions to the problems. And you'll need to take a new picture of Mundaring Weir (preferably in a couple of months time).

Being an essay, violating WP:NOT and consisting of a majority of original research are very deletable problems. The rest can be fixed later. MER-C 08:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the how to sections, added referencing and have all my sources referenced.

I will leave the teg however,at your discression, please remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symode09 (talk • contribs)

There's still the problem of original research, as in are these really the solutions to the water crisis (or is it something you made up?) Someone else will come along and possibly comment on the prod, and the deleting admin still has the final call. MER-C 09:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be kept. It refers to a subject which is largely covered across many high schools (including my own) and, is cited and referenced

symode09 08:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(note: merged from below) I've sent it to a formal deletion debate where the concerns I will raise will be addressed and it will be determined whether deletion is the most appropriate solution. Feel free to express your opinion, but disclose that you are the author of the article concerned. MER-C 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for your reversion on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. MER-C 09:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Bondi Junction

You recently voted to Delete this article because it made no claim to natability. It does now, and there article has been quite substantially added too. You might like to take a look and please tell me what you think. Todd661 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The concerns have been addressed, so I have withdrawn my delete !vote. MER-C 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RC and New Page Patrol

You are probably the only wikipedia I run across while on Recent Change patrol that beats me to a revert and the second later when I go to new page patrol realize you beat me to tagging that vanity article as a speedy a7. Keep up the great work! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. MER-C 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Absent_referent

Hi, I have vastly improved the article Absent referent to address the concerns of you and others. The ghits should now include the expression "absent|missing referent|antecedent". I will include redirects for these variations if needed upon closure of AfD. Please consider changing your vote to KEEP. Thanks for your comments! I feel the article is much stronger now, and I have learned much in this process both about the concept and WP in general. --Bhuston 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed to neutral pending further referencing. MER-C 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll continue to work on the article. --Bhuston 14:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Collins

Hi. Just a query about your recent reversion of the Michael Collins article. It's been fairly well established that Collins was exceptional good at both avoiding capture and mingling freely around Dublin. Would there be a way to weave this into the article? Lochdale 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources. When I reverted, what I reverted looked rather suspiciously like an unwikified text dump from somewhere on the web. Perhaps you should prepare the section in a personal sandbox and copy and paste when ready. MER-C 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

CVSS

Did you see the note on the talk page that claimed permission to use had been received? RJFJR 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the guys over at WP:CV deal with it. MER-C 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism done to my talk page, it was much appreciated. If you need anything, just ask. Yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. MER-C 02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nabs

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

Please do not delete the article "Nabs" (Snack Cracker) co-authored by myself. Since Aug of 2006 this article has been created for the sole purpose of defining this term, with sources cited directly from Nabisco & Lance Inc. No other such article exists anywhere that can be found on the world wide web.

Since mid-Oct 2006 an Indian firm referred to as "NABS INc.", rather than creating their own article in Wikipedia, decided to vandalize this one for the sole purpose of marketing their company, which already has its own website (http://www.nabs.com). Responsible contributors who performed these unauthorized and malicious modifications were "Ekeeran", "Ashwathaman", "125.22.158.109", & "59.144.22.194".

Thanks and best regards.

Ms. Christina Fellows, Executive Representative Kraft Foods, ~~TLXEA_13861319~~N

I've bought it to a formal deletion debate, where the problems of the article are discussed and it is determined whether the most appropriate way to solve them is deletion. If you're discussing a term, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As for the Indian company, before I prodded the article, I reverted it back to the original due to copyright and spam concerns.

Did I mention that I'm not an admin? MER-C 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copied and pasted the above onto the deletion debate. MER-C 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of articles that are going through AFD

Please atop tagging articles for deletion when they are already going through the AFD process. Particularly if they are not obvious speedies. Proto::type 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could, but the only way to get a speedy deletion on AfD is to tag for speedy deletion. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there's no point waiting 5 days when an admin could come along and nuke it for meeting CSD. MER-C 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you are tagging articles that are not obvious speedies and have already gone to AFD. For example, The noob, and Neko the Kitty. Only tag them if they are obvious speedies. Proto::type 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding your speedy tagging - you tagged PHPCow as blatant advertising (G11) - this is clearly not the case. It doesn't assert notability, so it's been prod tagged, but it's not a speedy. Here, you tagged Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey as containing no assertion of notability, when it obviously did. Please, take more care whilst picking which articles you are going to speedy, and learn to apply the criteria correctly. Proto::type 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Look who created PHPCow, the username of the creator and main editor makes it obvious that the sole purpose of the article was advertising. It's cases like this which led to the introduction of CSD G11 (see here). That's exactly why I tagged it. As for the New Jersey one, I don't see an assertion of notability. All it says is what it examines, what it's mission is and who created it. MER-C 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles about places

If you see an article about a location such as Green Bluff, Washington that is not recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau, the best thing is to visit http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic to confirm the location. This site can also provide the county name and the latitude and longitude for the location, which can then be used to provide a link to various map sites. This is just for the U.S., but there are similar geographic name sites run by the governments of other countries.

• I was able to use the usgs.gov site to confirm details about Green Bluff, Washington, so that I was able to expand the article and remove the prod that you added. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Punarama

[You're getting this despite your talk page saying you are not presently an admin and that you're on wikibreak, because your name appears next to User:Rschen7754's as a deleting admin on this AfD.] Why was Punarama (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 24#Punarama) Speedily Deleted? It only had two responses (one of which was one of the deleting admins - conflict of interest!) to the AfD, which was only just filed, and both of them were nothing but notability claims. Aside from the specific topical notability guidelines enumerated as actionable under Policy at WP:DEL, non-notability alone is not deletion-actionable in and of itself, and even WP:NN is currently Disputed, so it isn't actionable either, only topical ones are. Aside from all of that, even the WP:DEL-blessed notability criteria do not justify WP:SPEEDY deletion. If something else justified Speedy Deletion it should have been recorded in the deletion log at the link above. I haven't even seen the article, but if the only identified problem with it was that the nominator thought it was "non-notable comics" then this article should be undeleted and subject to a full AfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no assertion of notability (as opposed to a questionable one), qualifying it for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Yes, the deleting admin left a bad deletion summary but that can't really be undone. MER-C 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:Prod

Please check that page for a proposal to extend PROD to user pages. (Radiant) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

International Journal of Ecological Economics & Statistics (IJEES)

If you look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria item 12 it would seem to fit under that. So it's deleted. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit conservative on those copyvios, but a deletion was the intended result. It's all good. :) MER-C 13:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jagmeet Singh Brar

You recently tagged Jagmeet Singh Brar with a {{prod}}. In fact, as a former member of India's parliament, he is automatically notable. I cleaned up the article, and I think it's now an acceptable stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs)

I agree, though as a resume it was extremely deletable. MER-C 13:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page candidate for speedy deletion

Hi, I'm the author of Elizabeth Del Mar's page that you have suggested for speedy deletion. I (obviously) disagree and I have given my reasons in the discussion page. Lizdelmar fan 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It no longer meets the csds, so I've removed the speedy tag. MER-C 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About this "anon" you've encountered

165.21.83.240 has been engaging in excessive cruft vandalism as per the link I provided you. Definitely check out his link as he might be a possible obvious vandal. Cruft Vandalism is a term I use to describe an edit that has no credibility and/or verifiability whatsoever. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Reply to me. Thanks for your understanding. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have put the IP into the "clueless newbie" basket, except for the rather bad track record. I'd keep an eye on him. MER-C 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam Cohen

I realize that the article did not represent a important or influencal person but I was attempting to use it to convey the area where the Memorial was to be held I know that the article should be deleted but please allow it to remain up until Dec.2nd when the Memorial is over. Thanks St.daniel

It's already gone, so you're in the wrong place. Deletion review is over there. MER-C 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei RFC

Mer-c-- thanks for commenting about the AFD of those Opus Dei pages. I think your suggestion to merge them all into one new page is a good idea-- I wish I'd have thought of it :).

Since you were looking at the page, I was wondering if you'd care to comment. After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. The rewrite, however, has been opposed by a group of Opus Dei members who are on the page. I think the rewrite improves the article, but a lot of very dedicated people have been edit warring on it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 11:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:149.135.95.120

They got the message. Please don't bother edit warring over it. There has been some discussionon WP:ANI about removing warnings and the conclusion was that there is noting against it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings is somewhat disruptive. I couldn't care less about warnings more than two weeks old, but one placed two minutes ago should not be removed as it disrupts RC patrollers when it comes to issuing further warnings if appropriate. MER-C 14:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But when doing RC patrol you should be looking at the history anyway. Even a removed 2 week old notice may be useful to see in the case of a returning vandal. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. It is much appreciated. Jfingers88 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. MER-C 05:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the blanking of my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've thrown in another support on your RFA. MER-C 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page five times. Persistent that vandal was. =\ I appreciate the support, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

my reasons for the edits

The reason why I edited the STar Wars archives was to aviod some embarrsesing content that I and user:The Filmaker exchanged.

Since most of the content on that archive was written by me,I have the right to edit them.

Oh and vandalizing is removing all the content and replacing it with oyur own.I only edited the discussion.Thankyou.

74.98.241.189 06:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Perhaps you could have replaced it with "comments removed due to privacy reasons". This happens all the time, see Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking (but we on the vandalism patrol need to know it's a courtesy blanking).

"Oh and vandalizing is removing all the content and replacing it with oyur own." - nope, I've seen edits just like yours that are vandalism. MER-C 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lakes United

I have added information to the article in an effort to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the AfD run it's course, since I'm not really convinced yet. MER-C 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

StockWrap Express Chart

Hi MER-C I refer you to the following points which were not addressed:

1. A page has been created for TA software as per Technical Analysis Software, and admins have contested every software placed on this page? what is the point of a TA software page if every article is contested?
2. Requested assistance for rewrite of the article yet no help has been offered.
4. "You have not demonstrated why this software is notable. MER-C 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" - I again refer you to Merchant of Venice (computer program) by Brick Thrower - who is a notable java programmer and the program is written in java. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this meets proposed guidelines either under Critera - How is the StockWrap page created any different from this ?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.205.210 (talk • contribs)

1. It's a list. Lists may have red links. A list is a starting point for articles that assert notability according to the relevant notability guidelines. Some things, by default, are notable such as towns. Software is not one of them.
2. You cannot really take part in the construction of the article, doing so represents a conflict of interest. Best to have someone completely unrelated to you to write a neutral article on the software in question.
3. I've already answered this point. As for the mentioned article, did you see the big grey notice on it? You can get rid of similar articles by following the procedure at WP:PROD. MER-C 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. (I didn't even realize it until now...) --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls

You have recently commented on AfDs for Shopping Malls. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashby School Legend

I'm not entirely sure who you are (I assume you are quite a hefty power in the Wikiworld) but I highly doubt you have any knowledge of the school in question, on which you have removed my edit twice in the last few moments.

Wiki is indeed a site of fact and information, but with fables and legends recorded on hundreds of included pages, it seems unfair that a similar piece of history cannot be included merely because it is not deemed suitable by yourself. Could you perhaps explain your persistent intrustion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainDave (talk • contribs)

It's unsourced. I am entitled to remove it under Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the key policies of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Would what you added be found in a print encyclopedia such as World Book? If you come across unsourced legends, feel free to do so and specify that you're doing so. MER-C 10:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I accept your concern, but even so - isn't robbing this specific entry of heritage and interest defeating the point of Wiki slightly? I'd draw your attention to the following reverting notes:

1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

1. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.

Also, if you take a look at my contributions, you may notice that over the last few months, it's been mostly through my efforts that the page in question has developed from a stub. Dave 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to create an free encyclopedia. This means that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Being interesting and useful doesn't save it from deletion. As for the points above, this isn't a content dispute yet and the above is a guideline.

The main point is, I'd like to see some reliable sources cited to back up the story. Otherwise, it just seems to have been made up one day... MER-C 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I'm not entirely sure how I can present you with proof of a silly story known only to a tiny school in the middle of Leicestershire. Dave 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You can do this by citing reliable sources. Otherwise it fails WP:V and thus doesn't belong here. MER-C 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right then, well I suppose I'll have to wait for some school literature to be published incorporating this then. Dave 10:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nate bartley

Muahaha. I finally beat you to a db, although just barely! :) Gzkn 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding you message to me

I didn't mean to delete content in that article, I was trying to make the paragraph make sense. If you read those sentences they are not even grammatically correct. I'm not sure how to fix it. Also, the references are in Japanese, you can't even verify or the references cause their are no english references. Some of the sentences in the bottom of the article with english references contradict the sentences I deleted that whole section needs lots of work. I was just trying to make the article make sense. Maybe you can copy-edit more. Thanks --4.23.83.100 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to restore the version immediately prior to my reversion? MER-C 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What Wiktionary is not

Please do not nominate articles with non-idiomatic titles, such as facial analysis, for transwikification. Wiktionary only accepts words and idioms. It is not a dumping ground for short articles. "short" is not the same as "dictionary". Uncle G 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

dj5dj

I am not sure whether the proposal for deletion is still ongoing.

All I can say is that I am still learning the use of wiki.

What may seem a jumble does actually have some purpose from my end DJ 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew the deletion nomination, so it's safe for the time being. Sorry about that, I was trying to purge the user space of stuff that doesn't belong there, such as spam pages, user pages which aren't, myspace pages and pages which belong to users who think Wikipedia is a free web host (it isn't). Your page showed up in one of my Google searches. Just take note that user pages are meant to abide by the guidelines mentioned. MER-C 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Q

Hi Mer-C,

We're about to be signed and wanted to add content to wikipedia. Which would be the best way to go about it. As the letter Q seems to be a dominant search, How could we then set this up?

Thanks for getting back to me. Apologies if I caused any trouble.

J

Q the band

Firstly, does your band satisfy the notability criteria on bands? Do you have verifiable information to back that up? If not, stop here and wait until you can meet both of these policies.

Next, one would create a page such as "Q (band)" about the band and link from the disambiguation page.

Did you say we? That represents a conflict of interest, which is to be avoided. Might I mention that Wikipedia is neither myspace, an advertising service nor a crystal ball.

All the best, MER-C 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Will do.

J

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardhouse

When you get a chance, you may want to drop by the Guardhouse article and its AfD discussion. Uncle G has made some fairly significant improvements to the article. It looks like I was mistaken when I said it could never be more that a WP:DICDEF. Have a good one, Satori Son 14:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gopeking.net

Please do not delete the article about Gopeking.net it's about how IFK Norrkopings first fan site and it's non-commercial and non-profit. The fan site has had a big impact in Norrkoping in regards about the debate about the club and have had an active role in IFK's history during the past years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskimsil (talk • contribs)

The question is, can you cite reliable sources to prove that? MER-C 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

208.53.138.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user hasn't been warned at all and there are no diffs to show that personal information has been introduced. Does it require admin intervention before test4? I'll remove it for now, evidence pending. (aeropagitica) 13:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The contributions were oversighted due to their personal nature, see User talk:Essjay#Oversight. And it's one of those "straight to AIV" cases. MER-C 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Already permabanned as an open proxy. MER-C 13:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

United Islamic Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago

While I article is in desperate need of cleanup, I don't quite see what you mean re notability. Could you explain exactly what you see as a problem with the article? Thanks. Guettarda 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There no longer is one. I've removed the tag. MER-C 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jackie sumell

I see that you prodded this article, and referred to it as an autobiography. By my reading it is patent nonsense, or even pure vandalism---the majority of the content is lifted from other articles, rearranged haphazardly, with titles that are random, etc. It simply makes no sense. I am going to remove the prod and tag it for speedy deletion, unless you have a specific objection to this action. Thanks. ---Charles 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to deprod the article. From WP:PROD: "Appropriate alternatives such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence. However, when tagging a PRODded article as a speedy candidate, the PROD tag should be left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected." Feel free to tag with a speedy but we don't want this rubbish ending up on AFD. MER-C 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I got caught up in other editing, and completely forgot about this. I will take a second look at the article and decide what I will do. One of the two links that she provides is dead---which makes it difficult to prove a copy-vio. I may just let the PROD run its course, because I do not feel any improvement will be made in the meantime. Thanks again. ---Charles 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei: a section title and balance

Merc-- thank you so much for helping out before by lending your eyes to Opus Dei. This is an issue that attracts lots of passionate people on all sides, so true outsider eyeballs are greatly prized by all. :) If you have a second, could you look things over and give us some feedback?

Here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are they are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" in the section titles is so prejudicial that we shouldn't cut it from the header. I say that if the allegations are notable enough to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but there are some good editors who have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. I think we're doing pretty good on that at the moment, but there are a lot of different ideas all over the spectrum on what those sections should look like, so anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!

Thanks for all your advice and help, Merc. --Alecmconroy 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help

Please see User:Breannarox's contributions to Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County. Despite two kind warnings each from myself and User:Dina this user will not stop adding unencyclopedic, biased content to the article. I have reverted her edits twice today already, but she ignores warnings and I can't stop her (I'm not sure she looks at her talk page). As you may be able to tell from her username, she has a clear bias in favor of one of the characters on the show (specifically Breanna, whom she beleives rocks) and adds the same fairy tale prose in Breanna's section over and over. She also vandalizes the section describing Breanna's said "rival" on the show. I come to you because I find you consistently helpful. Thank you. --Tractorkingsfan 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he/she's using an IP too. This is a case for administrator intervention on WP:ANI. MER-C 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AMC - thanks

Thanks for fixing my error. I did not find much in the way of guidance re the mechanics of renomination other than a mention that one can renominate. Perhaps I will write up a section on renomination. --Justanother 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I've been issued a shiny new mop. Thanks for pointing out that Essjay's links were broken to the instructions on the mop. You're a great vandal fighter. Many times you've beaten me to a revert and I appreciate all the hard work you do. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your good edit on Open access. I hope to reduce some of the other excesses there with time and help. DGG 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's accumulated a bit too much spam. That last post put the bread on the spreadable ham. MER-C 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

articles for deletion: video the vote

Just out of curiosity, had this been deleted previously? is that why so quick to prod? Thought it passed the ORG test as it's non-partisan, active nationwide, etc. I'm not affiliated, was just researching and didn't see it here.

Revolute 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking a second look at it, it does. Deprodded. (Which reminds me, I've got some more burning to do, this time uncontroversial). MER-C 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, no worries -- I probably quick saved a bit early in fear that browser would crash (but that only seems to happen when you're deep into an unsaved entry/blog, etc).Revolute 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick tip, anyone can deprod articles if they object to the deletion. MER-C 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA

When are you thinking of running the gauntlet? yandman 09:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In a couple of weeks time. But I want to get a few Wikipedia related things out of the way first. MER-C 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. Your Moral Support vote and comments was very greatly appreciated! Have a nice day. -- Chris is me 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of characters in the Super Smash Bros. series

No longer redundant. See here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Prodded user-page pictures

Personally, I'm uncomfortable nominating these for deletion BEFORE the pages themselves have been nuked. I have nominated some post-deletion, but I guess if I'm going to make a habit of using the PROD tag, I'll have to at least start keeping track of the images that get orphaned. Same for speedies, too. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it's kind of hard to use the OR label when the images are -- in theory at least -- still being used. --Calton | Talk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)