User talk:Mike Rosoft/archive8

Deletion of Erythrus

In 2007, you deleted the page on Erythrus. Would you please be kind enough to return this article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.30.146 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.99.

[1], [2], regards -jkb- 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Time Cube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Time Cube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PA

[3] - cross wiki (de.wiki, cs.wiki ...), regards -jkb- 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs) [reply]

Deletion of The golden cue

[4] I'm not an admin, but you can nominate me... Buggie111 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hajra

Thank you for your recent edits to Hajra. Unfortunately, that page appears to be the subject of an edit war. Please see Talk:Hajra#Controversy over page content and consider contributing to a discussion there before making additional edits to the page. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mike Rosoft. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodland disease.
Message added 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

austin radford article

thank you. i'll review the notability info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auswald (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR on Vietnamese view of health and illness and utilization of health care

I left some comments on Talk:Vietnamese view of health and illness and utilization of health care. Just wondering if the content of the article could be reused in some way (rewritten, edited, sourced?), since it could be used to beef up the Health in Vietnam article, which is pretty short right now. Your comments would be much appreciated, as dealing with OR isn't my area of expertise! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Peña

Hello Mike, and thanks for the star. A 16 years old retired boxing champion? It is a really strange career. This kind of articles is very damaging for Wikipedia, since everything (formatting and referencing) looks OK at first sight. Thanks again. Greetings to Prague :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls V: Alinor

Hello Mike. You deleted The Elder Scrolls V: Alinor. However, another user has created the article. What should be done now Thanks, Davtra ^(talk) 00:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when the article is deleted and someone creates it again, is there a policy to address this issue? Cheers, Davtra ^(talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page for the second time, and protected it from re-creation. I admit that I may have gone a bit beyond the speedy deletion criteria, but an article based on an obvious April Fool joke has no place on Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

de

Všiml jsem si včera tvé žádosti ohledně bloků na de.wiki, dík, s pozdravem, -jkb- (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jPCT

u deleted the article without even checking the web page isn't copyrighted... wikipedia's policy is about copy-cut of copyrighted materials.. not unprotected ones.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleenex1337 (talk • contribs)

Holy Land USA

How about the fact on the "discussion" page where there wasn't a lot of discussion happening, just forced opinions, more users agreed it should be removed... but I guess no one cares, it's all abuse of athority, see you tomorrow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.26.183 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimstEnders...

...is back. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Neon Sarcastic

Hi, I noticed that you deleted this article while I was in the middle of improving it; the article made clear claims that the band had performed in some large venues throughout the UK, and as such claimed importance, passing A7. Could you restore this page (and nominate it for AfD if you feel that is appropriate) please? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Neon Sarcastic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neon Sarcastic. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:2005 Bali Bombers Heads JP.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2005 Bali Bombers Heads JP.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Jay Cost

Hello Mike Rosoft. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Jay Cost to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Ged UK 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR DELETION OF KOKU ADOMDZA RECORD

YOU ARE LISTED AS THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO DELETED THIS SUBMISSION TODAY WITH FACTUAL BACKING.

YOU HAVE LEFT NO REASON FOR DELETION OF SUBSTANTIVE RECORD THAT WOULD BOOST THE APPEAL OF WIKIPEBIA TO A WIDER AUDIENCE AND IS COMPARABLE TO A LOT OF OTHER ENTRIES IN ON WIKIPIDEA.

PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ACTION TO DELETE WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH A VIEW TO RESOLVE.

MANY THANKS,

DUNAMISPOWER.

SUBMISSION ON KOKU ADOMDZA

Thanks for your response to initial enquiry.

May I make the following corrections:

1]- There are over 42 references at the end of this submission. Please clarify. 2]- Your suspicion is baseless as the submission was not copied from anywhere. You mean you base a decision to delete a submission on your suspicion? Un-believable. 3]- Use of capitals in headings is commonplace ad in any event a minor matter - simply to be rectified by changing caps to Title wording; and does not form part of the basis for deletion. Please clarify. 4]- The words used are descriptions of fact as the subject of the article is a world expert on subjects mentioned.

Perhaps, your extreme decision is motivated by other reasons unmentioned, if so please table them.

Before submission, there was a trough of wikipedia and the submission made today, is not too much different.

I would ask you to consider immediate reinstatement as there is no need to enter into a long drawn out tussle to contribute to 'the people's' encyclopaedia for which reason we so generously donate.

Many thanks,

Dunamispower —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunamispower (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR DELETION OF ARTICLE ON KOKU ADOMDZA

Your second feedback is acknowledged. Your taking back of misrembering that there were references,including books, and web links to source documents is noted. Similarly, yout taking back of the submission meeting the 'immediate deletion criteria is also noted.

I'll make not comment about your 'unfounded doubts' about the authorship of the article, or the insinuation for that matter.

Having eliminated the above, as part of a problem-solving methodology, it appears your main problem is style or format of presentation no matter how factual [neutrality, peacokish terminology]. It is proposed to rework the submission based on this specific of your concerns to resolve. Please advise to whose attention the reworked version should be made to, if applicable.

In alternative, please advise.

Meantime, may I suggest that you reinstate the submission, declassify it from 'subject to immediate deletion', pending review.

May I also reiterate, that prior to publication, there was an extensive trough on wikipedia and the submission is no different from several others of its character. Further, wikipedia is what it is because of the generous donations and contributions that we make and therefore its administration needs to take this into account.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunamispower (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to say 1 in greek

You deleted How to say 1 in greek as "Complete non-topic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary". I'm not requesting undeletion; I just have a question. I am under the impression that any article that does not meet WP:CSD must be either prodded or brought to AfD. Is your speedy deletion of this article proper? Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think your speedy deletion WAS improper. WP:NOTCSD states that "Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are not "sufficient to justify speedy deletion". Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR RAPID DELETION OF SUBMISSION ON KOKU ADOMDZA

Hi, this your reponses are not being helpful in the sense that they are becoming very confusing, perhaps you'd be kind enough to clarify. May I humbly submit the following:

1- Is is the standard as you state the as an Administrator, you can delete outright, submissions based on your OPINION and BELIEF? Please confirm.

2- Quality of English - I am not inclined to make comment on your quality of English language.

3- Even more confusing, you keep citing a different topic from what I wrote on.

4- My understanding is that Wikipedia guidelines are no rocket science nor rule of thumb, but principally guidelines. Even then, neutrality is not properly defined from excellence or facts.

5- Thanks for a possible way forward, if considered worth the while of equiping encyclopaedic knowledge for public benefit.

6- To your information, your rash and harsh decision, has led to my account being blocked under some irrelevant pretext, since my username is pretty much distinct and does in no way suggest group identity. It appears a trend of exclusion is emerging - from outright deletion to account blockage.

I look forward to a speedy resolution with you in the first place, prior to resorting to other grievance channels you suggested even before attempting to resolve.

Thanks

(90.192.119.219 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Language like, "Known by associates as of razor-sharp intellect, unwavering conviction, uncompromising integrity and unflinching courage" is never going to be acceptable in Wikipedia. Full stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Paulat

I know there is something veary simmilar to the one I made but can you please stop messing with Mythological Creature list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaEmon X 555 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC) WTF!!!!!! WHY DID YOU MAKE IT SO I CANT EDIT THE PAGE I MADE MYSELF!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaEmon X 555 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Quarter Law

Why was my One Quarter law deleted so rapidly? Did you even take the time to check the sources or did you just assume it was nonsense. Are you such an expert of Political history that you decided to take it upon yourself to delete it? I suppose you have a phd in political philosophy. You are a joke. PostMasterColonel (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)PostMasterColonel[reply]

Adoi Magazine

Has been created again. I see that it was previously deleted at least once. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted it for a second time and that it has been re-created. I wonder if perhaps protecting this page might be possible,to prevent further spamming? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help upgrade M734 Fuze rating

Mike Rosoft...back in 2005 you rated the M734 Fuze article as Stub-Class.

I stumbled on the article in July 2010 and noted a request for contributions.

I was the Branch Chief at the US Army Harry Diamond Labs that transitioned the Fuze out of R&D and did the first production run.

I modified the article, and editor Rcbutcher recommended reducing the technical language to a training manual for an Army Sergeant.

This was done. In addition, the article has been lengthened, pictures have been added, all components of the fuze have been

addressed, unique features identified, references added, external links corrected, history added, and the next generation fuze

identified.

It was reviewed 565 times in September 2010. Could you please review the article and upgrade the rating to G?

Best regards, George K. Lucey Jr.

Luceyg (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA versus Euroleague games

The article has an error in it. Half of the games listed are not FIBA games. They are Euroleague games. The Euroleague is not FIBA, just like the NBA is not FIBA. But the article lists them as being FIBA.173.216.221.29 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance

Hi, Mike I wonder if you could revert my images, which were deleted by you Silverip-badger.jpg and Pure-badger-shaving-brush.jpg. i was authorized to use the images on wikipedia by the owner of the website, i can ask the owner to contact you if you need, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forresttsao (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream opinion on global warming

Hi, you modified this page to a redirect, but it still really needs to be speedy deleted. The redirect isn't really of any use, and is potentially misleading (Mainstream opinion != Scientific opinion, obviously) diff ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sasa Macura

The Article on Sasa Macura, can the page be updated by proper facts? It was made in 2007 with false details and now it needs to be changed with the real facts ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Google1103 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden age

I understand your rationale, but there is no golden age of relativity. There are no sources which support this topic. I even did some minor copy editing to take this "golden age" out of the text before the merge. Hence, it is someone's made up topic from a point of view. Therefore, it needs to be deleted. Does this make sense? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I refered to the edit history of the recent previous edit: "This article appears to be WP:SYN , it appears to be mostly a commentary expressing someone's point of view. Hence, copy edit and then merge to History of general relativity. Add {{noreferences}} and {{cleanup}} to timeline section."

That explanation is in the edit history. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

grudge

Though I could understand the deltion of all those notice about this, first I am sure it should stay for the record, secondly, see [5] and [6], so far. Regards -jkb- (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+[7], -jkb- (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thx. In fact, when the user is blocked so it is ok for me, hiding of his edits, summaries etc. is not necessary, in contrary, :-), I like to keep them... But I think about the reason for his sudden contributions today - might be it is a reaction on the mentioned deletions. Nevertheless, we shall overcome, I guess, regards -jkb- (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnificent Diplomat and Ethics Coach

Hi, Mike. Thank you again for your help with my difficulties with the etiquette of the Call for Papers page. I thought I had indeed asked the question in the right place and in a civil enough matter. But things got testy. Whoops!

I very much appreciate the adroit and tactful intercessions of you and Erik Haugen. I am grateful for the links to the relevant policy pages of Wikipedia. Hope Leman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.106.84 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Yegisaryan

Mike, you reverted 91.202.96.246 (talk · contribs) five times, and they already had a level 3 warning on their talk page for blanking--all the same (sourced) content, all in the same article. Why didn't you give them a final warning, or simply blocked them after the second or third time for vandalism and/or edit warring? I had to wait for two more instances before I could report them to AIV. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started using Huggle - I am only learning about its interface. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please press your "block" button on this IP--he's removed that content eleven times now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of mevement

You are wrong. There is a section in the article right now which discusses Israeli freedom of movement. The lead should summarize the article. 208.54.86.35 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timiras

Hello the statements issued on the Timiras discussion page must be remove because they are slanderous and misleading statements. Wiki is not a place for personal attacks, and these must be removed.

Arpad Rimler Oct 27th, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpadrimler (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on List of unsolved problems in philosophy

I'm not sure this edit could be construed as vandalism, Mike. Skomorokh 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I should have provided a full edit summary. (I am just learning to use Huggle.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to Dan Savage entry

Whilst I understand that this page it probably subject to a large number a vandalism attacks, my edit was, in my opinion a valid one. The oxford English dictionary defines husband as "a married man in relation to his wife" therefore Terry cannot be defined as Mr. Savage's husband without defining Mr. Savage as a wife. Unfortunately the language has not yet evolved to handle this type of marriage and I believe that Wikipedia is not the forum through which language should evolve.

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia vandalism free!!

Regards 59.101.142.16 (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your CSD on Sunshine Suites

I have removed the CSD template from the article as the author is attempting to salvage it. The author appears to be making a good faith effort to improve the article via a Talk Page discussion. If you disagree please come to the talk page. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation requested

My edits are made in good faith, and I believe they improve the articles, so I'd like a little more explanation regarding their reversals. Ironically, the one mistake I did make you didn't reverse. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You block people for making a joke? It should have been obvious that this was not "defamation", if you had just clicked the link. [8]

Thanks & good luck in the war on vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of I hate whitespace (talk · contribs)

Hi there. I was asked to look into your block of the abovementioned editor & to be honest, I'm not seeing any socking going on with this account. User:Beyond My Ken filed a SPI report here which has come back Unrelated - Alison ^❤ 09:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour

Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.

Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.--180.191.54.108 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pagaruyung Kingdom exist??

Pagaruyung Kingdom is actually not exist but the Palace of Pagaruyung Kingdom still exist and there are many King as symbolic in the palace such as Sutan Muhammad Taufik. You can read http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutan_Muhammad_Taufik_Thaib_Tuanku_Mudo_Mangkuto_Alam Marajo (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

It is a fraud. It is ineffective yet it is sold as being effective. It is the most salient fact about the subject and deserves to be the lead in the article. The science is clear. There is no controversy other than argument over statements made by people committing the fraud; the controversy exists but is auxiliary information. To make it the lead is fallacious. To support the facts I cited material already in the article. Please correct the article to reflect the facts. 198.207.0.5 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion. It is a fact supported by all of the probative evidence I can find about it. 198.207.0.5 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you said, but you did not understand what I said. It is not an opinion. It is a fact supported by all of the probative evidence I can find about it. It is the single most important fact about the subject and refusing to place it at the top of the article is intellectual dishonesty and a repudiation of the goal of this website. 198.207.0.5 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see [9]. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi! I ask of block the users "Dr Claudio", "Windask", "Komorosky", "Dottor Claudio", "Kaiodviskok", "Peroskyv", since they are all mine, and since I created them because I liked some of these names, it was better to create them now. I've tested as contributions, if they had problems in the unified login. Hey, do not think they have created for evil purposes! Thanks. --87.18.82.32 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan

There had been repeated playing before the first warning - tried the big one - looks like it wants to play - its your hand - I have to go back to real world in a minute or so Satu Suro 09:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Haddad

Mike, you are technically in violation of WP:3RR on that article. The edits aren't actually vandalism. As you could argue that this falls under the explicit exception for biographies of living people, you may have leeway. But I recommend not reverting any more. I'm going to give the IP a final warning for edit warring, revert, then report if xe edits again. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Kirby

Hello, regaurding the edits to the Will Kirby article, I think that under further investigation, the edits that 71.200.39.145 made are correct, and can be confirmed. I will go ahead and add the necessary references to the article. --TwistOfCain ^(talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Esten

Hi, the change made by me (65.92.54.231) to the article "chip esten" on his full name are correct and can be confirmed by performing a simple google search. The edit was NOT vandalism.. I was simply trying to provide users with correct information.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.54.231 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up games

I would like to know why you can't put made up games on Wilipedia. Waters69 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, because Wikipedia is not a personal website. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about user possible not following WP:CLEANSTART

User:Waters69 admits his previous account was blocked, and the new account is already looking troublesome. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 17:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction.

Out of curiosity, does this edit meet revision deletion Criteria RD3? mechamind 9 0 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, I'd say it's just simple vandalism. On the other hand, I have now permanently blocked the user as a vandal account. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.168.167.102

Hi there - the history of this matter makes me have some sympathy for the blocked user. It is not at all clear that this is a reversion of vandalism justifying the use of rollback and a vandalism warning. That may have triggered his - admittedly unacceptable - personal attack. The IP made three edits - the first with no edit summary, the second with a helpful edit summary, and it was on the third - after two apparently unjustified rollbacks - that he cracked. I'm not defending him, but perhaps it affects the atmospherics of the situation that led him to be blocked? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the edit was indeed vandalism. "Democrat Party" is a political slur, see Democrat Party (phrase). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thanks - given that context I agree. Thanks for explaining. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Christian Churches of America

Hey, I saw you on the page history... I'm wondering if you'd be willing to do a peer review of the article? I've requested a peer review here, as a precursor to putting the article up for GA status again. I'm looking for a reviewer, and they're hard to come by :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amish

Just to let you know I undid your reversion to Amish as it was not vandalism; it seemed to be a good-faith attempt to split the article, albeit without prior discussion. Part was moved to Amish way of life. Since Amish way of life will also need to be deleted if the information is put back into the Amish article, it's probably best to discuss the split in talk for now and establish consensus on whether the article should be split, and how a split should be performed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticine

While I disagree with this user about the image, its quality and its use in the article, there appears to be no justification to using Huggle to revert the Plasticine article. We should be discussing this issue at the article's talk page, not just reverting (myself included). Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay vs. Mumbai

I agree that there is no reason to change occurences of Mumbai to Bombay, but should we be using reverts (as at Maharashtra Navnirman Sena) to change these edits? Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Black Cock

Hi. I see you turned down my speedy deletion tag on this redirect, with the edit summary "not vandalism", but G3 is not just for vandalism, it's for hoaxes as well. It probably would have been helpful to you if the person who created the redirect hadn't removed my explanation from the tag, which was:

Probable hoax or deliberate crude humor: Ghits all track back to one article, which seems to be referring to a larger animal, not a bird.

This is the case. A Google search for "Caucasian black cock" turns up essentially one hit, with several copies and mirrors, and that article clearly refers to a large terrestrial animal, not to a bird, such as the grouse. There is, in fact, no evidence at all that the caucasian grouse is called the "caucasian black cock". Since the editor involved, User:MrsSunDoesntShine has made questionable edits to several articles, I believe it's possible that "Caucasian black cock" may be an attempt at humor, or a hoax. I would ask you to reconsider the speedy deletion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've asked for additional information from WikiProject Birds, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a procedural nomination for the redirect at redirects for deletion/discussion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page disabled

Please consider blocking User talk:67.252.30.48 with talk page disabled as he is currently vandalizing his talk page. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Committed identity

Hi, I noticed that your template gives your committed identity algorithm as SHA-512, but that your string is only 160 bits — I'm guessing it's really SHA-1? The default algorithm was changed to 512 a while back due to concerns about the continued security of SHA-1. Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dramatic Chipmunk for deletion

The article Dramatic Chipmunk is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dramatic Chipmunk 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jewel aich

I am actually very warm to Jewel Aich but this article is constructed almost entirely from non verifiable sources! so i started from the beginning. please revert your revert. SuddenGLUB (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I have found new materials. thanks SuddenGLUB (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

hi sorry to bother you but you seem neutral are people allowed to change other peoples talk comments like here [10] ? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

never mind someone answered it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSunDoesntShine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]