User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2011/June

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo (film)

Article has been improved. Through a little work, the 117 word unsourced stub that was nominated has become a 922 word well-sourced start class film article. Topic meets WP:NF. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the wihdrawal. It was fun to fix up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rukhala

I have created the link Rukhala and now have updated data with the referenced link for the population statistics. Please do let me know in case if things are in line now and how can I improve this article in future. I am also looking forward to work to improve the other pages that I feel contain insufficient or wrong data. Can you please let me know the best way to do it. You can contact me on my mail address jagdeepsekhon@gmail.com or my wiki user (wikijagdeep).

Thanks & Regards, Jagdeep Sekhon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.46.67 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference you have added is a good one. You can make it clearer what in the article was created from the information in that reference with a citation rather than just listing it in the reference section. I've left some welcoming information on your user talk page (User talk:Wikijagdeep) it also has good information on how to cite sources. I notice that you weren't logged into that account when you left the message above, be sure to log in to your account when editing wikipedia, there are lots of benefits for doing so. Also dont forget to sign your posts on talk pages, it makes it easier for us to get back to you. I left a tip on your user talk page on how to do that easily.--RadioFan (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New Frontiers program#MoonRise

Are the South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return mission and MoonRise logically separate? They both have the same target--RadioFan (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

The New Frontiers program is a PI-led mission program like Discovery, but unlike Discovery, you can't just propose to do anything you want. There are always 5 or 6 options for kinds of missions you can propose, like a South Pole Aitken sample return. "MoonRise" was a specific mission proposal that a PI submitted to the last round of selections, but it wasn't selected. That team may submit it again to the next round in 5 years, but other teams may also propose a South Pole Aiken sample return mission as well. IntrplnetSarah (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of what New Frontiers and Discovery are. You shouldn't get too caught up in the programs as missions are discussed in the context of multiple programs (but are ultimately formally proposed for only one generally). The issue here isn't New Frontiers vs Discovery, it's South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return mission vs MoonRise and my question above still stands. Are they the same mission with a progression of names or totally seperate missions similar targets proposed by different PIs perhaps under different programs (Discovery vs. New Frontiers). Sources aren't helping clear up this confusion. South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return mission covered in the current planetary science decadal, Moonrise has it's own mission website. --RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to distinguish between New Frontiers and Discovery, but just explain that NF proposals are limited to be one of the specific kinds of proposals on the list for that particular call. "South Pole Aitken Basin sample return" is the generic mission type that was on the list in the last round (NF3) and will be again for the NF4 round in ~5 yrs. "MoonRise" was a specific mission proposal that was proposed for NF3, but it wasn't selected, so now it no longer exists as far as NASA is concerned. The proposers may (probably will) resubmit it again in 5 yrs (the website is hosted by the team that proposed it at JPL and they may leave it up because they are continuing to work on the proposal), but just like in the last round, other teams will probably propose a South Pole Aiken sample return mission as well. So to sum up, SPA sample return is a generic kind of mission that people can propose to do, while MoonRise was a specific mission proposal that was rejected by NASA when OSIRIS-REx was chosen instead, just like "SAGE" was a specific mission that responded to the "Venus In-Situ Explorer" generic kind of mission and OSIRIS-REx is a specific mission that responded to the "Asteroid sample return" generic kind of mission. Hope that clears things up a bit better. IntrplnetSarah (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mute Nights Festival

Wow... you're fast! Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

the magic of monobook tools.--RadioFan (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Game Change

Why delete Game Change? All the cast is confirmed, the movie's coming out soon, it's politically accurate, unbiased, I'd appreciate it if you undid your revision. LtMuldoon (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "delete" the article on the film, I redirected it to the existing section in the book's article, that's sufficient until it can meet WP:NFILMS. Until then it's a bit of crystal ball gazing to think that it might meet notability guidelines. Maybe once it's released, but not now. I see you are heavily involved in editing movie articles, you should not be news to you.--RadioFan (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

non-notable primary schools

FYI, primary schools that are Blue Ribbon award winners are considered notable. I'd noticed this redirect was a Blue Ribbon. tedder (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Blue Ribbon program is self nominated and has recognized over 5,200 schools. which doesn't lend weight to claims of notability. While I'm sure the parents and teachers there are pleased by the recognition, it does not bestow automatic notability. There is still no claim of notability beyond the award in 2000. Also the article is completely unreferenced so there is nothing else there to build a notability case on. The redirect has been restored. I can userfy the article if you'd prefer so that you may work on it and add sufficient references and notability claims to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-nomination is a spurious rationale- politicians and olympic athletes are "self-nominated" too. Feel free to add {{cn}} tags and/or take it to WP:AFD. tedder (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Started a discussion on the project's talk page on Blue Ribbon as a sole claim of notability, let's see if there is a consensus. Feel free to weigh in.--RadioFan (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Interface Descriptor Block

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Interface Descriptor Block, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Teledyne Brown Engineering

On 29 March, you eliminated the page for Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), merging some of the information into Teledyne. Please see my note (below) on this.

The original Brown Engineering (1953), and later Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. (1967), was a notable firm. Among other notable activities, they provided 20,000,000 manhours to essentially every aspect of the Apollo Lunar Landing Program. As one of the company developers, I strongly feel that it is due more than a brief paragraph under a firm (Teledyne Technologies) that was only established in 1999. I am preparing a full article, but will not be able to place it because the title "Teledyne Brown Engineering" presently redirects to simply "Teledyne."

You (or someone) has placed a partial list of all of the companies in the original Teledyne Incorporated (dissolved in 1993. I have the full list of such firms and will add they in a proper listing (teo separate corporations).

Raymond C. Watson, Jr.; Ph.D., P.E.

Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the company was not demonstrated in the article. There was no claim of notability nor were sufficient 3rd party references to establish the notability. You are welcome to edit the existing Teledyne Brown Engineering, if you are unsure how to do this see Help:Editing but make sure that you've added sufficient claims of notability coupled with citations to reliable sources or your changes are likely to be reverted. I've taken the liberty of userfied the old article, you may continue editing it at User:Raymond C. Watson, Jr./Teledyne Brown Engineering until it's ready for the production area of Wikipedia. I hope that helps.--RadioFan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Schmitt

I meant this. While not a reliable source it still precludes the use of BLPPROD (according to my reading of it). doomgaze (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I'll take it to AFD--RadioFan (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd happily vote delete once I'd done a couple o' background checks. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ON second look, it can probably meet notability guidelines but now suffers from being poorly written and even more poorly referenced. His work is highly cited.--RadioFan (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

International space station

Hi RadioFan,

It is good to see you've taken an interest in the ISS, I have concerns about the section you inserted, It's a brilliant idea, I wish I'd thought of it myself, but basically, the sources you've included are problematic. The first one is more advertising than fact, for example,

Like most busy commuters these days, astronauts need to take their laptop computers with them on the road - even if they are travelling at 17,500 miles per hour in a billion dollar space shuttle between Earth and the International Space Station. Given that NASA often touts itself as being at the cutting edge of technology you'd expect that they'd lavish nothing but the latest and speediest laptop computers on their astronauts. Alas, that isn't the case.

That's advertising spiel really, I'm sure there are better sources you can find to improve your good idea.

According to the IT staff, the space station is equipped with 68 IBM ThinkPad A31 laptops and 32 Lenovo ThinkPad T61p devices. The laptops are all connected via Wi-Fi access points, and “there’s also a dedicated IP phone for phone calls and some limited video-conferencing abilities if astronauts need to see their families.”

That's 'quoting some IT guy', which is not in itself a problem, there are inclusions where an unnamed source is quoted, but the person saying it's an unnamed source is usually very reputable to make up for it. Like NASA named an unnamed souce, or ESA, or BBC is ok too, unfortunately this is just a blog, and blogs can make any claim they like. So the combination makes the source of too poor a quality to meet wiki standards.

I expect your section would become an instant target for deletion, with people who might not mention these problems to you, and further, next time they see it they'd be even less likely to tolerate it as a result, so I've deleted it myself for you, for the same reasons listed above, but also so it's more likely to be accepted after you've worked on it a little, because other people won't see the draft-level article. Penyulap _talk 13:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I also thank you for your interest in the ISS article. The reference for the count and model information for laptops aboard station is not "just a blog" as you appear to be thinking. Also the quote is based on an interview with an unnamed NASA IT representative and as you point out, being an unnamed source isn't necessarily a problem. I'm guessing you are judging this as "just a blog" because of the word "blog" in the URL. In this case it's a New York Times blog written by a professional journalist and [{WP:RS|reliable source]] tells us that such a "blog" is permissible as a reliable source based on the source. This is mostly because journalists are presumed to be held to the same standards in their electronic writings as they are in their print writings when done under the newspaper's name. As for ref that concerned you as a speil,, I also see that opening blurb of the http://spaceref.com reference as a bit silly, that's what journalist do sometimes. If you continue down that article you'll more complete detailed coverage of this history of laptop usage aboard station. Not really an advertising spiel . While appreciate your ferver here, the subject of laptop usage aboard station clearly belongs in the article and has been reliable sourced. I hope I've addressed your concerns with the references and welcome further expansion and copyediting of the section. --RadioFan (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, you've read up on it, and please edit the page as you wish. I won't try to help you twice on the same issue, I do look forward to helping you in future though, I do like editors who at least take time to read up and articulate their thinking, it's brilliant. I love discussion ! :D

Also as for sources, take a look at the media section of the page, it was just a new section I had inserted as a response to numerous 'the station is finished' edits, those sources are MSNBC and YAHOO, or at least they have that in their names, and the information in them is blatantly incorrect. I am not saying your info is right or wrong, I have no idea just how many computers they actually need up there for the half dozen crew, spread out through all the modules, but I'd tend to find a few sources, ones that don't read like advertising. Advertisers as you obviously know, are far from truthful.

But once again, I look forward to working with you, and please do as you wish. Penyulap _talk 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about "reading up" on referencing, contributions to Wikipedia must be done within the relavant guidelines and policies. If you've not "read up" I encourage you to do so, especially before judging other's contributions. I appreciate your amenable tone (not all wikipedians, especially new ones, take so professional of an approach) but feel I must offer a bit of advice: look at an editor's contributions before assuming such an authoritative tone and offering to "help" them. Like thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other editors I have been editing many times (18 times in my case) longer than you have and have hundreds of times more edits that you under my belt (150 times more in my case).--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

done! or at least i think it's done, if i missed anything let me know and I'll clean it up.. Penyulap _talk 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion June 2011

This notice is to inform you that an incident in which you may have been involved is being discussed on the incidents subpage of the administrators' noticeboard.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

/* International space station */

Brilliant work with the new link to your new page for a list of satellite tracking websites, that is brilliant ! Hats off to you. It solves problems relating to the inclusion of heavens-above completely, I just had to say thank you. Penyulap _talk 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, please expand it with additional notable examples--RadioFan (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much to do as it is ! I've put RL on hold too long as it is ! anyhow, the magnitude problem is solved, my poor memory forgot I got the figure from the magnitude page !!! OMG! but please keep helping with providing proofreading and consensus on the rest, there are some new sections I made, I would love it if I had someone to help out, correct and toughen them up as well.Penyulap _talk

I appreciate your help as well, trying to keep the ISS article neutral. The Count seems much more focused on winning an argument than improving the article as he continues to harp on the -6 number which was corrected many versions ago.--RadioFan (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

He was right to harp on because he simply wasn't convinced, I would expect you to do the same, or at least I would hope you would. After all, all the crap that goes unchallenged is just useless crap until it's carefully inspected for validity. I failed him and I failed you because I couldn't recall the deciding argument that convinced me, which is the magnitude page, it takes an editor with great talent to be so dumb as to overlook and forget that whole page being the reference, and so help me, I have that great talent for overlooking and forgetting. Please, can you help me fix things so this doesn't happen over again ? I've also written more on Counts talkpage.Penyulap _talk 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please do not falsely label edits as vandalism when you are in a dispute. --John (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I felt it was vandalism. This editor clearly broke WP:3RR and was removing sizable sections of the article without sufficient explanation.--RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism. Vandalism is when people deliberately compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly deliberate and compromised the integrity of the Wikipedia by removing significant portions of an article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed Twinkle from your monobook.js, under the assumption that monobook is the skin you use. This action was done instead of blocking you for personally attacking an established user by calling them a vandal. Do not re-enable and use Twinkle in any way before clearing it with the community at the appropriate noticeboard or with another admin. NW (Talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont you think that's a bit harsh? I've been editing for years, have been very very active in new page patrolling and after one dispute and call for administrator review, you've removed a reporting tool from me? I'm feeling a bit like I'm being punished for engaging in a dialog with you about the appropriateness of labeling as vandalism. Please reconsider.--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The removal is not intended to be permanent. I would be happy for anyone to restore it as soon as you acknowledge that you understand that your actions were unambiguously wrong. As the lead of Wikipedia:Vandalism says: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. NW (Talk) 02:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm missing here. Please help me understand how you see this editor as acting in good faith.--RadioFan (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your rollbacker right as you appear not to know what is vandalism and what is an editing dispute. This was clearly the latter. Once you have had a chance to think about it you may ask any admin to restore this flag. --John (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd hoped to learn a bit more more about you and NW's view of the situation. I assure you I'm not being argumentative, I am trying to learn here. How did you see this editor acting in good faith?--RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of an established editor especially, we have to assume good faith. Vandalism is when an IP or a newly-created account adds "penis" to an article. I can't see how you aren't seeing that you were wrong to label this as vandalism. --John (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can see your point of view. This editor wasn't acting much like an established editor at the time but as I look through his user and talk page I see that he is an established editor (who is involved in multiple arbitration cases apparantly) but approches that editing quite a bit differently than most editors (such as several statements about viewing failed proposals as policy). Policy on established editors is pretty clear and they do deserve some "professional courtesy" if you will and should not be labeled vandals. What I couldn't see in this discussion is how you and NW seemed unwilling to discuss the issue. I would much rather completely understand what went wrong here so it doesn't happen again rather than just sorry "I'm sorry", what good is that?. Understanding what I did wrong is far better dont you think? It seems like you are assuming that any questioning of the situation is denial, I assure you it is not. I would appreciate if you restored twinkle and rollbacker. --RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I mostly edit articles on scientific topics (particularly those that explain things form first principles) and they are edited petty much as my failed policy page describes. I actually wrote that up after a similar experience on the entropy page two years ago. What happened was that some editor with very little physics background had an advanced book on this topic and he was editing in misleading statements in the article. I had a difficult time dealing with him, because he was saying that I was "removing sourced statements". The problem is then that to show that he is wrong, would require me giving a thermodynamics course on the talk page. I actually tried that, because I thought that he knew some thermodynamics, but it soon transpired he knew too little for that to work.

The only way Wikipedia can be edited properly on non-trivial scientific issues is to try to understand the fundamentals and that requires taking into account all the relevant issues. You can't narrowly focus on some particular statement in a particular source, arguing only on the reliability of the source. In this case, the magnitude -6 is a red herring thing, because the ISS does not reflect the amount of light required to make it appear -6 in the direction of Earth. There are some "reliable sources" that make a blunt statement about the ISS being magnitude -6 and then they go on to say that -6 makes only the Moon and the Sun brighter. But if you read everything that there is to read about the ISS, you would know that this is simply wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see my twinkle and rollback privileges are back this morning. Not sure which editor did this but I appreciate the gesture and will do my best to use these tools and priveldges more wisely in the future.--RadioFan (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond after my comment of 02:21 last night; I have work today and I had to get to bed at a semi-reasonable hour if I had any chance of getting myself there on time. Glad that everything worked out fine in the end. NW (Talk) 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to have [rollback] back, but Twinkle might be appearing. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Odd, both are working for me. At any rate, I'll hold off on their use until this is resolved.--RadioFan (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to restore your privileges if you state unequivocally that you will be more careful in using them and will not misuse the term "vandalism". I don't mean this to be in any way punitive; I'm just uneasy with you having them if you are likely to misuse them again. --John (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be more careful in use of these tools particularly in the identification, rollback and any ARV of vandalism.--RadioFan (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored. --John (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KCNP logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KCNP logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi RadioFan,

If you have a moment, could you please drop by the ISS talkpage and express your contempt for my lack of referencing in the Costs section, it was so bad, so terrible, and my 6 week old concerns were like 'oh who cares' I just had to do something, so I put up a framework, hoping it will inspire some help, (although I bet the devil my head I'll be doing a lot of the work), so I put up a list of as-accurate-as-I-could-find costs, and will continue from there. But at the moment, it's use of WP:BB and IAR is overwhelming. Plus, I'm talking to myself in there a bit, so if you could have a check with your superhero editor skills, please do! Penyulap _talk 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

STS-135 TriDAR removal

Hi RadioFan, I found a reference for TriDAR being on STS-135, but didn't have a chance to add in the reference before you reverted my edits. Would this suffice: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/06/sts-135-final-flights-timeline-takes-shape/. Please let me know if you're okay with me adding back my changes. Thanks!Generacy (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't impress me as much of a reference. It mentions that the TriDAR is among the payloads on 135 but nothing else. The section removed had a lot more information in it. I'd like to see some better references for the material that was in the section. This would resolve original research concerns.--RadioFan (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The other information in the section was taken from the TriDAR wiki page. No original research was performed. :/ 216.239.77.204 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The references used on TriDAR can certainly be used on STS-135 as well. The problem was that it was completely unreferenced. Also I dont think a dedicated section is warranted here, it gives TriDAR undue emphasis and implies that this is a major payload for the mission, which is not the case.--RadioFan (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if I add in the references from TriDAR, may I put it back in STS-135? Regarding undue emphasis, could you please describe what your criteria is for major payload? Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking test flight payloads have been listed on STS-127, STS-128, STS-131, STS-133, and STS-134. Generacy (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's reference then certainly you may put it in. A dedicated section is appropriate here but no higher (3 ='s I think) than other sub sections in the payload section.--RadioFan (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will do.Generacy (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Laman Jegan Joof Article

They are calling for the deletion of the Laman Jegan Joof article just like they are calling for the deletion of all Serer related articles E.g. Xoy Ceremony, Sererism etc. I told that admin I will remove them since she/he doest want Serer related articles here. Hence what I did. There is no point in you bringing that article back to live. It will be deleted by these people as they have deleted most Serer related articles. By the way, please don't refer to me as a vandal. Do you honestly think that, it gives me satisfaction to spend hours and hours researching and writing these articles and then having to delete them? I will not be contributing any more articles on Wiki and I would urge all Serer people to stop contributing on Wiki. I will aslo try to close my account because this is getting ridiculous.

Tamsier (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You received that notice because you blanked the page. How do you think others who have contributed to the article feel when they see you've removed their work?--RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No one contributed to the pages. It was I who created them. Admin asked for their deletion. Tamsier (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several other editors in the history for that page. If an admin planned to delete the page, they would do it themselves. It is never appropriate to blank a page while an AFD discussion is ongoing.--RadioFan (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier, you should also see: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You do not own the articles you create and you should not take their deletion personally, it is not an attack against you. I do thank you for your contributions. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent]] For what it's worth, I should also point out that I have no interest in this article or any other Serer articles. I have no opinion on the notability of any of these and trust that it will be handled appropriately by the editors participating in the AFD. I got involved with this when I noticed the blanking of the article. --RadioFan (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ireland's Vanishing Triangle

The article here you nominated for deletion is a "work in progress" that I am going to expand upon soon. I attempted to involve some other editors in the project, but I have not yet had any feed back. I would ask for some patience as I do plan to expand the article greatly. Erik the Red ^(Talk) 01:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saw your edit... thank you so much! The content is important to me. Erik the Red ^(Talk) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you may continue editing under your user account. Once it is ready for the main article space (including sufficient citations), it can be moved back.--RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stage Door

Hi RadioFan

I see you requested protection for Stage Door Mag (Magazine), stating that it had been recreated repeatedly. I was unable to see more than one deletion in the article's log, and was unable to find any AfD discussion (despite the edit summary upon deletion). Could you please point the way?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

This is the 2nd name this article has been created under, an attempt to avoid protection already placed on Stage Door Mag after being recreated multiple times. Makes sense that this one be protected as well. --RadioFan (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unees-Bees

Please do not delete Unees-Bees, as I have added one more link Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Star Asia International Inc

From my understanding, this page was deleted for not having any indication to how or why the topic was important. I was posting it to tie into third-party logistics/freight forwarding companies in the United States. I was curious if categories linking to such bigger groups would help for this page to be better suited and possibly reposted?

Kidquatro4 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some claim of notability associated with citations to 3rd party reliable sources is needed. You are welcome to recreate it but I'd suggest you start under your user account first User:Kidquatro4/Star Asia International Inc