User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro/Archives/10

Thanks!

Thankyou Yamamoto Ichiro! You reverted the vandalism on my user page. It's funny I didn't notice until now. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of 74.136.152.23

You may want to correct your reason for blocking 74.136.152.23 (talk). Talmage 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ibm44

I noticed you were one of the blocking admins for User:Ibm44. I just wanted to let you know that he is requesting to be unblocked. I figured you may want to respond or have input into this matter. As just an editor I believe he should not be unblocked as he has primarily been disruptive and fails to take responsibility, if in fact, his account was hacked. Tiggerjay 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Already reviewed and denied by another admin Tiggerjay 06:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. Gscshoyru 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

What information did I remove? I believe the only information was pertaining to Khalid Hosseini's ethnicity, which was false, he is not Tajik as the individual had added on his page, in his own book the kite runner it clearly states his ethnicity to be Pashtun. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.102.242.154 (talk • contribs).

This edit Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just created my account not even 2 minutes ago and as soon as I logged in for the first time I got a vandelism message. I can assure you it wasn't me. I think you may have mistaken the edits because I have a dynamic IP or because of similar reasons.

Thanks Sam

209.189.246.113

This IP has repeatedly vandalised pages recently, and I'm not sure if it's a shared address or not, but I thought I ought to report it. Cliff smith 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I received a vandalism warning... and I've never changed anything on Wikipedia. I also do not share this network with anyone. Not sure what happened.

Darkthrone

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Argyriou (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I Didn't mean to remove it sorry about that.

Vandalism

You gave me a warning about vandalism but what article was it for? and what did i do wrong?

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the vandalism to my userpage last May. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on Wictionary

Yamamoto, I'm wondering if you know anything about Wictionary. I was unrightfully blocked from it for abusing multiple accounts. Since they don't have unblock templates, how do I appeal for an unblock there?

Each Wiki's have their own policy on blocks, I'm not an admin on Wikitionary so I can't really answer your question, I would read the block notice carefully and look for ways to appeal for a block. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

i dont know why i would be blocked,the "information" on the ADL and kent hovind pages are biased half truths that do not represent the truth in any way,thats all im saying,i wont edit them anymore,but i would appreciate it if you removed the falsehoods from those pages,thanks

Vandilism warning

I recently received a warning from you for vandalism. I'm somewhat confused because although I do surf somewhat often, I have never edited wiki content. Is there anyway you can provide a link to which page I supposedly edited? And if possible the content itself?

Also, this is appearantly a last warning, although I have never received any other warning messages, nor do I believe I have ever edited anything.

I am on a network router but there are only two other computers connected through it, and I have very little reason to believe anyone has ever edited wiki content on either of the other two PCs, as I am the only person who ever uses wikipedia. It is a wireless router but secured through WEP encryption. If for someone on my network did in fact remove content then I apologize on their behalf, but I would still like to know which page/content was vandalized.

Feedback would be appreciated. - Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrit39 (talk • contribs) 21:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

confused..?

hey, umm i dont know where im supposed to tell you this, but i just received two messages telling me not to vandalise the information about Kelli Carpenter-O'Donnell... i've never heard of her, nor have i edited any pages about her. i was on Wikipedia looking at info about Harry Potter characters, not Kelli Carpenter-O'Donnell, whoever she is. I know all about IP addresses and such, but i think you've got the wrong one. anyways, i know you probably dont believe this or whatever but trust me, i have my reasons to hate misleading information and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.71.123 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Block - 169.244.143.119

Please unblock our IP addresess. I'm trying to teach my students to be good users and we can't create accounts.

- mnolette

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Samurai Shodown characters

Hi, I would like to inquire why you closed this as a "no consensus" rather than a "keep" or "delete". I merely want to understand your thinking. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I did closed the AfD a while ago so to be honest I do not remember exactly the way how I came to the conclusion. I would probably say it would of been leaning towards the delete side because the keep arguments are somewhat weak, but what makes this no consensus to me is that there is actually a lack of consensus for deletion. --Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of MMORPG terms

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on MMORPG terms, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because MMORPG terms is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting MMORPG terms, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

198.161.108.242 (talk · contribs)

Hello! I understand this is a shared IP, but I disagree that a 31 hour block is appropriate in this case. This IP has been blocked several times before, last time for 1 month. Vandalism from this IP resumes upon expiry of every block they've been handed out, even after they were blocked for 3 months earlier this year. I think they deserve a longer block. This IP has had no constructive edits and over 150 unconstructive edits since May 2006. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Ohayou Gozaimasu!

I'm a bit confused with your warnings on certain IP adresses' talk pages (regarding vandalism). Could you give a reference to how you found the vandalism (like a "diff" of the page being trashed), so I know what your warning the vandal for? You know, just so I can see if what I'm getting ready to warn the offender for hasn't already been mentioned? Thanks-- Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't have much time atm here on this computer so i can't give you detailed answer atm, i'll get back to you in full when I get home. I use the tool WP:VF for finding vandalism, and I would recommend either WP:POPUP and/or WP:TW for reverting and warning vandals. You can install these tools by editing your monobook, which is on the page User:INSERT_YOUR_USERNAME/monobook.js. If you have any questions regarding how to use these tools feel free to leave another message and I'll get back to you later. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was I blocked?

I'm not sure if I am doing this right, but I couldn't figure out how to contact you on your talk page.

I was browing wikipedia earlier and was redirected to this message:

User talk:89.242.160.74

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

- Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not even editted anything recently, and my latest edit which I think was on a Superman page, was perfectly acceptable.

Secondly, how can I be on my "last warning" when I never had a first?

And thirdly, why wasn't I told what I am supposed to have done to deserve this warning/block?

Lastly, what on earth is with the date? June?? If I was given this warning way back in June why am I seeing it now?

I suggest you reconsider your decision, as it seems to me you have made a mistake, possibly a case of mistaken identity. I have done nothing wrong and refuse to browse/contribute to Wikipedia while feeling I must walk on egg shells because of this "last warning" buisiness pointing a gun at my head.

Thank you and good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.160.74 (talk • contribs)

Please see Special:Contributions/89.242.160.74 for all the edits on that ip which you were holding. I don't know if you will still hold that IP when you reply so I'll reply here. Because some IP addresses are dynamic, the messages that was suppose to be sent to one user may not be sent to the person that is suppose to be directed at. I do not know if that is true in your case, but if it is, please create an account and edit under that to avoid problems like this in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

allah

i wish i could make a page but u wnt let me. Get a frekkin life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.80.141.11 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Yamamoto Ichiro. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for reverting my talk page. Regards Hammer1980·^talk 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice one!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Well done, you've beaten me to a few reverts tonight :D Cf38 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

UNBLOCK

Unblock me please as I was simply removing irrelevant issues I myself had posted.

FANSOFFANS1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were actually blocked, then you would have not been able to post this message, so I can't unblock you if you were not even blocked in the first place. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi Yamamoto,

I recently saw this when I went on the Wikipedia website to look something up:

"Current revision

Your edit to the page Heart rate was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Y.Ichiro (会話) 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)"

I've never edited a page on "Heart Rate," nor any other page on Wikipedia. And I do not share my computer with anyone. I am confused.

Can you explain what the above comment from you is about?

Thanks, Minga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.31.3 (talk • contribs)

That warning was given months ago, and probably a different user was using the IP you have at the moment. Chances are that the warning was directed at someone else. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Accused of "adding nonsense"

I was told by you that adding nonesense is Vandalism. Vandalism is only counted as vandalism if I were inserting nonsense into articles, which I wasn't. Furthermore "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I would have appreciated if you would have allowed me time to cite my sources before you removed the page I was working on.--Jeff —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Bottomley

I find it difficult to see how there was a consensus to delete when only 3 out of 7 comments actually voted delete. Feel free to reply here. --Rumping (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't give an explanation of your decision in this {{afd}} either. Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the comments that were presented were in favor of deletion. The person in questions did not have any citations to notable sources, nor major press coverage involved. There is a consensus to delete, not a huge one, although I could argue that this could of been leaning toward no consensus. If you can address some of the issues presented I am willing to reconsider. Sorry for not making a closing statement, I think I should of have in this case since the consensus was not clearly drawn. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain more fully the reasoning you followed when you concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida facilitator?

Yes, I realize the opinions expressed were overwhelming for delete. But, if I am not mistaken, {{afd}} is not a vote. Participants make arguments, and the concluding admin makes a judgment call, decides how to close the discussion, then briefly summarises their reasoning in a concluding comment.

You didn't give a concluding comment.

If I am not mistaken, the concluding admin is encouraged to discount arguments advanced that are counter to the wikipedia's policies. It seemed to me that most of the deletion arguments advanced were counter to WP:DEL. I am disappointed that you didn't state, in your concluding comments whether or not you agreed with my concern.

If you read through the discussion you will see I changed the conclusion I was advocating from keep to move to a title with a broader scope. In my user space I started to work on that broader article. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/list of alleged al Qaida officials.

If I am not mistaken, among your choices, as closing admin, would have been to ignore the counter-policy arguments for deletion, and base your decision around a different presentation of the material.

If I am not mistaken if I were to start an article like Llist of alleged al Qaida officials, your voice would not carry any more weight than any other administrators. But I would like to be able to say that I took into account whatever comment you made about this idea in your concluding statement on al Qaida facilitator. Of course I can't take the comments from your concluding statement into account. You didn't make one.

Can I look forward to having you give some thought to explaining your conclusion? Is there any way you can see your way clear to offering comments on the reworking of this material, to take into account the criticisms from the {{afd}} which were not contrary to policy?

I'd also like your advice on the actions of the nominator. The date-stamps on the nominator's contribution history strongly suggest that this nomination was made out of anger, rather than out of the best interests of the wikipedia.

I had left what I thought was a civil, reasoned response on Talk:al Qaida facilitator just a few hours before this nomination. Rather than give a reply the nominator initiated the {{afd}}.

The nominator's lack of a civil reply, or any reply, initiation of the {{afd}}, and lapse in not following the recommendation of the deletion policies, and giving me a courtesy heads-up all strain my ability to WP:AGF.

Unfortunately, just as in real life, it seems to me that some wikipedians just can't stand having their judgment challenged, no matter how civilly it is expressed. They see even the most civil questions about their judgment as insults, and react accordingly. I am very sorry to report that it has been my experience that even some administrators react to question about their judgment as if they were being personally attacked. I hope you won't interpret this note that way.

Yes, I know, some people think calling for an explanation for that which "is obvious", or "should be considered obvious", is an annoying burden, or even an insult. I wrote an essay on obviousness. I don't subscribe to this theory of obviousness. I am willing to risk triggering angry reactions asking for explanations of what some consider obvious, because what lies beneath what is claimed to be obvious is often the deepest, most fundamental, most useful questions.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin, I would have to say that the consensus was leaning towards delete. I am a person who is leaning slightly towards inclusionism, so I might view things differently than from deletionist point of view. But I do agree with you the fact that the people advocating to delete the article did not make a strong argument and this could be leaning towards no consensus or keep even. However, as an admin, we have to act on consensus, and the consensus in this article is delete, and I think am pretty sure a lot of other admins would of closed it as delete as well. I would encourage you to address the concerns with the article, there were definately concerns that were raised that could be fixed, although I do not agree with the fact that these concerns do warrant an article deletion nor I would in this case. If you feel you are able to address these concerns, you are welcome to recreate the article as long as you address the concerns raised in the afd. If you need the version of the deleted article, I am willing to undelete the article and move it to your userspace if you wish, but that is probably all I can do for you for now at least. Sorry for not making a closing statement, I should of wrote these things a lot earlier. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Local Church of Witness Lee

This is a duplicate (or a POV fork) of Local churches. Could you give some guidance on how or whether to merge these pages? Your closure of the AFD said nothing on how to proceed. Incidentally, the vote count is two unexplained "keeps", three "deletes" and a "keep, notable" that is easily answered by "sure they're notable, that's why we already have a different article about them". Can you look at this again? Thank you, Kusma (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that this AfD's purpose was rather confusing, mainly because there are two issues that were being debated at the same time, the copyright issue itself, and wether if the article should be included or not based on notability. Because of the lack of purpose, the dicussion failed to provide a clear consensus wether to keep or delete the article. There are good deletion votes, and although I can see that this AfD is somewhat on the deletion side, as some of these people did not provide any good reasons for keep, nevertheness I think the consensus for either deletion or keep could be more explict if we run this AfD after few weeks or so, as long as the nominator brings up the issues with the article that needs the article to be deleted. I closed it as no consensus just to be safe because it is disastrous to delete an article that don't have a strong consensus for deletion. As for the merge, I am not familiar with the topic in this case to suggest how to proceed, if that is to be done I would suggest someone who is familiar with the topic. Also, I would also think that a merge discussion would help? Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just redirect the whole thing to Local churches? Kusma (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think that would help? I'm not able to give you an advice in this area because it is not a topic I'm familiar with. If you really think that making it as a redirect is a wise choice, why not be bold and do it, as long as it is not opposed by other Wikipedians. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time

to look into my request and grant me rollback powers. I am so powerful now!:) Seriously, thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The attitude you have just displayed in this message somewhat worries me. Like adminship, rollback is not a status on wikipedia, it is meant to be a tool to help people to kill "weeds". I'll be monitoring how you will use your rollback, so please follow the guidelines on WP:RBK. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Shane Minor

You closed the AfD for this article as delete but didn't delete the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I already deleted the article, but for some reason only one revision was deleted. I don't know what happend there but it should be fixed now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Shane Minor

Could you please undelete Shane Minor? The AfD was related to an actor named Shane Minor, and was properly closed as delete. however, someone else moved Shane Minor (singer), a page I created, to Shane Minor over a redirect after the AfD had closed. The content of Shane Minor (singer) clearly met notability guidelines (multiple reliable sources, chart hits on two major Billboard charts) and never should've been deleted in either form. Could you please fix this? Thanks! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like there was a "minor" bit of confusion (I'm sorry... otters can't resist bad puns.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Afd on Userbar

I believe you closed the AfD on Userbar in error. Notability issues aside (and the "google test" is not a barometer of notability), the larger issues with the article are the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V which are core content policies. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that no reliable sources exist on this topic. Wikipedia, simply put, cannot have an article on a topic for which no reliable sources exist. I invite you to reconsider your decision on closing the AfD. - Chardish (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the issues of WP:NOR, although the article did not cite any reliable sources, but it is hardly original research, as there is nothing original in the article. Although there are no reliable sources, it is something that is widely used on the internet, as shown by google, and there are numerous semi-popular although not reliable, sources, on this topic. Lastly and most importantly, there is a lack of consensus for deletion either no matter how you interepet the discussion, maybe another person might interpret it as a no-consensus either way, depending on what views you have, but it is very unlikely that this article will be deleted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From the deletion guidelines for administrators: Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. An article on a notable topic that fails these criteria cannot be kept, no matter what. Reliable sources are required to have an article. - Chardish (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you claim that there is "nothing original in the article"? Since you read the AfD thoroughly before making up your mind, I'm assuming you read Uncle G's comments concerning his exhaustive research into the fact that the article is entirely made up. If you choose not to change your mind after my previous statements, I would like to hear your response to that. - Chardish (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamamoto Ichiro, I'm afraid I do not understand why this article was deleted despite consensus and your original judgment to keep. Chardish's strict interpretation of the rules was clearly not that of the community concerning this article, and even the deletion guidelines for administrators he references is subject to common sense and ignore all rules, which played heavily into the keep consensus. While he followed the Wikipedia's established procedure to nominate the article for deletion, he was unhappy that consensus did not agree and appealed directly to you, instead of simply accepting consensus and waiting to see if the article improves as stated in the guide to deletion. Chardish argues that Uncle G's comments exclude the userbars.be FAQ, userbars.com tutorials, ubdesigner overview and literally thousands of userbar tutorials that exist from Verifiability. If anything, Uncle G's comments only show that these sites may not be "Reliable Sources" as they are posted in forums, blogs or sites that are created by the userbar community.. which by his logic would seem to put them under Self-published or Questionable sources.. both seem to be allowed by Verifiability in this case. I would appeal this case to deletion review, but this doesn't appear to be a procedural problem, the procedure was followed, consensus was reached, the admin judged but then changed their judgment against consensus because one user complained? Userbars are popular, millions of people use them, the article existed for four years prior to this and will be recreated. If at that time Chardish decides he doesn't like the article again, we will be right back in the same place. In deletion guidelines for administrators there are four considerations for deletion, did this article pass any of them?: 1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" 2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. 3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it. 4. When in doubt, don't delete. Drunnells (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the verifiability policy (WP:V) or merely glanced at it? Self-published and questionable sources are not allowed; the exception is made when they're used in articles about themselves (e.g., userbars.com could be used as a source in articles about userbars.com but not in articles about userbars.) This is to prevent someone from making their own web page and saying whatever they want and then citing it as a source on Wikipedia.

I hope you are beginning to understand how Wikipedia policy fits together. The reason we have reliable sources as a threshold of notability is because without reliable sources, an article has no verifiability, and if this is the case, it must be deleted. The notability criteria need to be treated with the occasional exception; the exception is not an article such that cannot be written under Wikipedia policy. Understand that we, as editors, do not determine what is notable - we determine what the world has judged to be notable. If userbars are notable, they will be covered in published, reliable sources eventually. If they're not, no harm done.

Simply put, consensus cannot undermine core policies like WP:NOR and WP:NOT. I appreciate your vigor and enthusiasm for this topic, but this is not even a grey area. This is easily one of the most clear-cut cases of original research I've ever seen. I highly recommend you re-read the core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV) in their entirety, as well as the policy on what Wikipedia is not, so as to foster a better understanding of what we're trying to do here as a project. - Chardish (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Jseamless entry

I would like to know why the article I wrote for Jseamless was deleted? I complied with all rules submissions, I modified content based on suggestions made when deletion was suggested, and I followed up when any questions were asked. Further, there were others that agreed that the project had a valid place on Wikipedia. Finally, there are competing projects to jSeamless that exist on Wikipedia and have not been deleted. I posed the question what was distinct causing this entry to be suggested for deletion when the others exist but rather than getting valid information to help fix the entry I get it deleted instead?

I must admit I'm quite frustrated if this is the process of submitting content to Wikipedia. Please explain what I could have done to keep it from deletion and if there's anything I can do to get it back. Darkfrog26 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that there are no sources established, and there is no notability. If your project has been cited in any of the reliable sources, that will be enough to establish a basis for inclusion, please see WP:RS and WP:N. If you are unable to assert it's notability or cite any reliable sources, then the article has to be deleted. As regards to the other entry that exist on wikipedia, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)