User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2011/May

re: ETV pages

Please help me understand this whole ETV Network set of pages. I saw a bunch of moves, some reverted, some deleted, some apparently half-completed and nothing seeming to tie out correctly. All of the pages I looked at had some longevity so we don't want to leave the pages empty or we risk breaking inbound links.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia servers started acting up during the research and then got worse so I couldn't ask for an explanation until now. Things seem to have settled down some, though. So what needs to be done and how do we make sure that nothing fell through the cracks? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's all done at this point. Everything on this television network was spread across a single article on the India installation of this network and several other articles, mostly stubs, on language specific and location specific variants of the network. Those have been merged back into the main article. The deletion and revertion was due to the wrong page being tagged for move, my fault. I think we are good now.--RadioFan (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Page ETV 2 still needs to be merged into the ETV Network article. It does not appear to have separate distinct content. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that one, it's taken care of as well now.--RadioFan (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rukhsana Ahmad

Hi, please don't delete the page just yet because I'm trying to improve it. I have gathered some more information as well as obtained a high quality photograph of the author. She is a prolific writer who I really think deserves a wikipedia page. There is the Jan Axelson page that I wrote some time back, and that has even less information than Rukhsana Ahmad page for example. I also have exams just around the corner, so please try not to rush me. Thank you for giving me a chance to explain myself. I hope to continue working with you on wikipedia. Regards, Pale blue dot. Pale blue dot (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you see this person as notable? Specifically, do you think you can provide sufficient citations to reliable sources to meet notability guidelines? Normally I'd hold off on deleting but you've been editing Wikipedia articles for 6+ years, sourcing your work, especially in biographies, should be something you are very familiar with.--RadioFan (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

STS-134 scrub

Good job - hot on the trail of the STS-134 reschedule!

Just two things-

1) Info-box Launch Date - day ("2") has no space between NET.

2) The reference cites May 1. I know May 2 has been announced, but where did you get the time of launch?

Thanking you in advance for the information, SalineBrain (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Launches are performed within windows, Those windows are announced in advance of the first launch attempt. When listing NET (no early than) the opening of the window should be listed. The launch, at least for any mission headed to the ISS, will be targeted for the middle of that (10 minute for STS) window . That is the in-plane time listed in those windows. For STS-134, the windows are documented here: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/fdf/134windows.html Hope that helps.

Yes, it helps, thanks. I know about launch windows. Thanks for directing me to the Spaceflight Now window table. I'll edit spaces into the dates. SalineBrain (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit away. You never need to let anyone know before editing something like a whitespace issue.--RadioFan (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anime Boston

The closure of the AfD did not box the title; I am unsure of how to correct this, and am reading your contibs as having closed, so I'm bringing this to your attention rather than a help request at the talk page. Dru of Id (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Demolished public housing projects in Atlanta

Please provide details about where the article does not use a formal tone, thanks Keizers (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The tone of the opening sentence is much harsher than the supporting reference. The article needs to be written from a nuetral point of view.--RadioFan (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Africa

Please consider reopening this AFD, I beleive it was closed a bit soon. The references mentioned (which have been added to the article) are questionable. The references provided appear to be the result of a "lets find the name mentioned in Google News hit" with little regard to whether the subject of this article is the focus of the reference. If the AFD were reopened, this could be discussed among participating editors in more detail. Thanks for the consideration.--RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan,

Thanks for your note. I realize that the result that I listed is a little unconventional, but I don't feel the discussion was closed prematurely. The article was listed on AFD nearly a month ago, and was repeatedly relisted to try to attract wider attention to the discussion, which never happened. In this type of debate, where there is so little input from editors despite several relistings of the debate, it's especially important to focus on strength of argument. user:Anarchangel's keep rationale was that there is a lot of coverage in Italian sources. He backed that claim up with Italian sources. And there can be little doubt that WikiAfrica is the focus of this reference (which has the subject of the article in the title) and this reference (which mentions the name WikiAfrica no fewer than 20 times). In the 15 days after Anarchangel made his argument, no one disputed his rationale. If there was to be a discussion about these sources, it really should have happened during that 15-day extended period when the discussion was still open. AFDs aren't meant to be left open indefinitely. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was redirected, which I think was the correct result and I thought the matter was complete. I dont agree that the sources provided constitute significant coverage as Wikiafrica is mentioned in passing in most of them. This seems like a case where the search engine test was used as a keep rationale. Not worth taking to a deletion review though. Thanks for the consideration.--RadioFan (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I did notice that the article was redirected on April 13th. That redirect was made in error, as the article should not have been blanked while the discussion was open, and the AFD tag clearly states that it must not be removed during the discussion. When the article was redirected, the AFD notice was removed. This prevented anyone visiting the article from knowing that the article was nominated for deletion. That is clearly not the correct process, and may have caused the low turnout for the discussion. Although you are correct that several of the sources provided mention WikiAfrica in passing, others (listed above) provide significant coverage. It is not a requirement that every reference listed in the article must provide significant coverage. I appreciate your comments, though, and can understand your POV. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the redirect was premature and just confused matters. Thanks for your time.--RadioFan (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. gz³³ (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your note and the dilligence you put into new page patrolling as well please be aware that others patrol new pages in a slightly different style than you do. While the vast majority of pages I patrol, I do mark patrolled, I (and other editors) sometimes leave pages that have just been tagged or prodded as unpatrolled to ensure that another editor looks at them. There are a lot of new page patrollers these days giving us the luxury of a second look when warranted. If you look a bit closer while patrolling, I think you'll notice this is something done by multiple new page patrollers. It's not always an oversight.--RadioFan (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. No offence ment, I'm sorry if I have caused any. gz³³ (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

None taken, just educatin'--RadioFan (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello RadioFan; I'd like to thank you for the advice you gave me on my talk page: it is really appreciated! I was a bit hesitant to agree to be interviewed (I was actually thinking about declining to participate). Your words have helped me make up my mind and, for that, again, I want to thank you. See you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KGRP logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KGRP logo.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Rebecca Garfein, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whats the issue here? The article identifies her as a recording artist, --RadioFan (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan, the issue is that there is a credible assertion of notability, so it doesn't qualify for CSD-A7. That's not the same as verified evidence of notability. If you still have concerns, I suggest AfD is a more suitable approach. Cheers, Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Boardwalk and Marina Casino Dealer School"

Third party Information on this school with the information herein are from The Atlantic City Press articles as well as The Casino Journal in New Jersey(The New Jersey Casino Journal has been bought out and older articles are not available on their web site.). These articles predated the years available when they were archived for online viewing. This information can be gleaned from these publications microfilms. Please advise. Thanks' ~isitmeto~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isitme2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

sources that are not available online are not necessarily excluded from use as references as long as they are verifiable . However I'm still not seeing this subject as meeting notability guidelines. Not clear if the references provided are significant or not. People in Business and Business Briefs type coverage is generally very very short and does not meet notabilty guidelines requirement of significant coverage. There are no references to The Casino Journal in New Jersey in the article so it's hard to judge that as a reference.--RadioFan (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Space Talk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space Talk. Since you had some involvement with the Space Talk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Student7 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society

I think you may have judged the book by the title--turns out its a major title--NY best seller & therefore notable, as a trivial search in just google news shows. . Next time, pleasefirst look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you also reminded the creator of this article that it is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to reference it and make it clear how the subject is notable?--RadioFan (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are so many naïve articles about notable books that I have learned to always check them. (unless of course it's obvious they are self published). DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Swamp Thing Set

Hey. The AfD page got archived and I saw this was still open, so I just moved it to a new page. If there's no comments in a couple days I'll go ahead and close it, since as you say consensus is pretty clear. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WILW logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WILW logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiknic Raleigh

Sounds great!. I've left a couple of comments on this at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Raleigh 2.--Pharos (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: [[WP:PROD| prod of Communication_309_(CSUSB)

heads up for you, you forgot to place a notification on user:Cxdantes's talk page, i took care of it for you kthxbai Keastes ^know _thyself 08:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

About Sydney Improvised Music Association

Hi RadioFan - looked as hard as I could but couldn't find anything to get the article over the WP:GNG, but that's just my efforts. Gets 14 600 GHits, so it's not like it's completely obscure. I'm leaning towards an AfD - your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to deprod it and take it to AFD, I'd be fine with that.--RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Martins Creek Elementary Middle

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martins Creek Elementary Middle. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor with 30k+ contributions should know better than to post something like this on another experienced editor's talk page. Please look at the history on a page before making baseless accusations such as this. Both you (TerriersFan) and I have reverted this page twice, not 3 times. If question my editing, leave me a note here, dont slap templates here. --RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

John Smith (businessman) PROD contested

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from John Smith (businessman), 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! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic in Raleigh

Hi RadioFan. Can you create a Wikipedia:Meetup/Raleigh 3 with the Wiknic info?--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure I'll be attending. I was just suggesting a good location.--RadioFan (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ecosse Heretic Titanium for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ecosse Heretic Titanium is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecosse Heretic Titanium until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane Page

RadioFan -

I am the owner of GingerBread Lane. I had someone create the wiki page for me, and she did a terrible job. On the flip side she does great art work for the covers of my brochures and signs each fall. Anyways, I am presently paying a web designer who is very versed in wiki to create a new wiki entry that you know, looks like a wiki page. There are presently 7 valid reference points on there. I understand in your opinion that some of them are by the place that hosted the exhibit, but 5 are not. 5 of them are valid news sources, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Washington Post, Martha Stewart Living. There used to be more. I have learned that news stories posted online dont last forever. Now I know that. I am presently looking for a few more. When I find them, they will be live. In short, since you have influence in all things wiki, can I ask the piece not be deleted whilst the web designer finishes it. It is visited by over 100,000 annually, that is actually quite remarkable, and deserving of a wiki page. I am not having this done for self promotion. I just think an exhibit of this size, with this sort of foot traffic, needs a wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Paganistan

Hello, I made some comments about this article on the talk page of MelanieN. Your opinion would be welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OneTravel Speedy Deletion

You marked the page OneTravel for speedy deletion. The talk page is now gone so I am looking for an explanation here as to why it was marked as such. After issues of notoriety were raised, edits included several sources from reputable sites including Gadling/AOL. Can you please tell me what more needs to be done? Thank you. MikeTravels (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OneTravel was deleted after a discussion where the consensus among several editors was that the subject did not meet notability guidelines. You can see that discussion here. I see that you did not participate in there. If you disagree, please review WP:CORP and WP:RS and if you still feel that an article can be written on this subject that meets those guidelines, you may request that the article be restored. I wouldn't recommend that however because there was a sufficient number of editors participating in that discussion that restoration is unlikely. If you do choose to request restoration, you should respond to the unanswered questions about your connection to this company. 2 editors asked for clarification on your connection with OneTravel but did not receive a response so it's hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to advertise the company on Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonardi_Framework

Hello, I have removed the 'W4' commercial reference to LEONARDI FRAMEWORK, which is indeed an open source software platform. As such this technology contributes to and is recognized by larger notable European aceademic projects such as Serenoa. Verifiable references to this extent will soon be added. Please reconsider inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Many thanks Kristeen2011 (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Kristeen2011

There are still no citations to references to reliable sources and no claim of any notability, simply that it exists. Unfortunately thats no enough for a WIkipedia article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, will get to work right away in order to rectify the notability and references ! Kristeen2011 (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Kristeen2011

That article is still a mess and still has no references. Adding a couple of external links to other projects isn't helping it meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Gongju National University of Education

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Gongju National University of Education, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a single sentence that does nothing more than restate the title, how is this sufficient for a stub? The reader knows nothing more after reading that sentence than they knew just but the name.--RadioFan (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A3 is literally for articles that repeat the article title and nothing else. This is sufficient to be a stub, containing wikilinks and clarifying the information in the title for the reader. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How does it clarify the information? It's nothing more than a restatement of the title.--RadioFan (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not just a restatement of the title. It also writes that it is in South Korea, which is not in the title. I have just improved the stub to include external links to make it a bit less repetitive and more independent, though. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I'll take it to prod. This article is a drive-by creation that is unlikely to be improved beyond micro-stub status.--RadioFan (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane

Can you look at it one more time? Cirt put the wrong version up. Right one is up now. 19 sources. The last 5 sources are new ones completely independent of first 13. All link to different news pieces. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources are judged on quality, not on their numbers. I dont see this subject meeting notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're a notable wikipedian. I really wish you would take an objective look at this. I have the source on there that indicates 400,000 people saw it in 2010. that is impressive, and worthy of a wiki piece. I will not bother you further, but wish you would objectively look at one more time with an open mind and please reconsider. Kcdcchef (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You aren't a new editor here and I wish you'd respond to concerns about your connection with this subject. Wikipedia is not here to promote this.--RadioFan (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I am it's owner. No doubt about that. I will not deny that. I wanted a wiki piece done on it based on the reccomendation of the editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. His reccomendation was that it is a newsworthy event and newsworthy events are on wiki, people searching wiki sometimes stumble across things like GBL. I can direct you to hundreds if not thousands of pieces on wiki that arent to dis-similar. I am not using wiki to promote. I am using wiki to make it an encylopedia entry, which, is what wiki is. Kcdcchef (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

When the owner of a business creates an article, it's viewed very very negatively on Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not here to promote your business. If this is notable, someone will write about it, just not you.--RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be very clear with you on this one more time. I did not write it. I passed on the critique and feedback from wiki admins and a wiki employee to a third party. Was advised by wiki admins to have third party do it. IN fact, I have never edited the peice one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdcchef (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As someone with COI, you should avoid editing it or commenting in the AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was advised by the admins and wiki to stay out of the AFD this time. I was told sometimes an AFD can get nothing but delete votes and stay live. I am however talking to the no votes via talk like this. And again, dangit!!!! I do wish you would be more objective about it! There are a ton of wiki pieces that are far less notable, just looked at numerous pieces on local crap festivals for one. And theykeep their wiki piece. Now that you are clear I didnt write the dang thing, can you please reconsider? You are a very respected wikipedian from what I can tell. Kcdcchef (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I and other editors disagree with you. That does not equate to not being objective. I have looked over the article again and I still dont see it as meeting guidelines for a dedicated article. A section in the hotel's article, sure, but not a dedicated article. Again WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument that is considered in discussions like this. It's seen as sour grapes. Either your article will survive or it wont. Other articles dont factor in at all.--RadioFan (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

About Kcdcchef

Hi, RadioFan! Please let me express my respect and admiration for all that you have done and continue to do for Wikipedia. In that spirit, I am going to make the same suggestion to you that I made to Kcdcchef: You need to chill out, back down, and let the discussion take its course. Your suggestion that there was some kind of meatpuppetry going on in this case makes no sense to me, and seems a bit over the line. I think you may have allowed yourself to be carried away by your passion and frustration over this admittedly marginal article, which really isn't worth this much of your attention. OK? Still friends? --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and assume you are referring to the sockpuppet investigation. It's an opportunity for the actions to receive some additional scrutiny. At the very least the account created by the for hire editor needs to be blocked. I'm not sure what the outcome for Kcdcchef will be, that's what the investigation and involvement of other editors is for. Hiring others to edit wikipedia is over the line. I'm all for not biting the newcomers but this has limits.--RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think so? I did some reading when this first came up, and I discovered that Wikipedia has no policy against paid editing. See Wikipedia:Paid editing which links to several inconclusive discussions on the subject. And I don't find anything at Wikipedia:Blocking policy that provides for blocking a paid editor. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WBOG logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WBOG 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Paganistan

Hello RadioFan, I want to commend you for all your thoughtful contributions to the Paganistan deletion debate. Though I opposed you for administrator back in March, I think you have done a really good job here, and I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. --RadioFan (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Korean College articles

Just a heads up that I decline A3 CSD tags on the boat load of articles created by User:Tsuchiya Hikaru. You can find the articles listed in the editor's talk page history. I declined the deletions due to clear presence of article content. While the articles are stubs in need of references, content was quite evident (however scant). Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Limbeck prod contested

Hi RadioFan. Just to let you know, I removed the prod you placed. You wrote that there was no significant third-party coverage, but multiple sources were fairly easily found through Google News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)