User talk:Dethme0w/archive/Jan 15 2008 to Apr 03 2008

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your script recreated the article right after an admin speedy deleted it for being nonsense. That's why my script sent you the notice. Redfarmer (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank Ghod for Twinkle. Maybe. I'd be inclined to change it into a redirect to Internal consistency of the Bible should it reappear. Dethme0w (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Twinkle's been doing some strange things to me too. When I nominated a page for

WP:AfD the other day that had been nominated previously, it completely wiped out the previous nomination discussion. I don't know why it's acting up. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk

) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

why did you do thsi??? you have absolutely NO right to do this. this is mine and i should be able to do perfectly whatever I want to do with it. GOSH!!!!! what type of idiot are you???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21mandy21 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my right, but my *duty* to tag inappropriate articles for deletion. Dethme0w (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notified use of

^{REV LIMITER}

19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been nearly a month since this occurred, and in fact the redirect page I created to help solve the problem has since been replaced by a disambiguation. The user in question has apparently not brought the issue up since then, and I consider it closed. I am not sure how you think this helps. Dethme0w (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those "just in case" things. Some people will forget about something, go about their own biz for a few months, then they see something that brings back those memories and WHAM! Flamewar. I've seen it happen before, so I decided to tie up anything that could possibly re-spark her fury. --

^{REV LIMITER}

17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry if I am posting incorrectly on this page, I am new to Wikipedia. I just posted my first article entitled "Pussy Beer Pussy". It was tagged for speedy deletion. I understand and I am sorry for the obsene title, but I would still like to make this article, perhaps clean it up a bit. Would it be okay for me to just change the title to "PBP"? If there is a way I can resume work on this article please let me know because it took me a while and I didn't save it anywhere else, and I can't figure out how to resume editing the page. Please let me know.

It was tagged for deletion, and the admin who actually deleted it agreed, because it was not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Speedy deletion is not the only way we deal with articles that do not meet the standards for inclusion however; normally we tag them with notices indicating what needs to be done to fix them. But in the case of articles that are deleted, the article is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia and really cannot be fixed. See

Wikipedia is not censored. Dethme0w (talk

) 08:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because despite our names, brother, we are all Anonymous. The internet is the ultimate mask, a shroud under which you can justify yourself with little effort, a shroud under which a self-righteous basement dweller can feel as influential as the greatest revolutionary. Perhaps that is why you feel my actions were unjust? Whatever it is, I feel something isn't quite right. So what's the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.43.18 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because your edit removed a tag that was valid for the article. "In-universe" doesn't mean that people might mistake it for reality, only that the content of the article may not be understandable to those who are not already familiar with the subject. Dethme0w (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a professional response, Dethme0w. Bravo. And thanks for clearing up the issue. -KAPPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.43.18 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s)..."; so could you please explain to me what is wrong with my citations? Callelinea (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to know which of them pertain to which claims in the article. Use inline citations, preferably to online sources. Dethme0w (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of putting all the inline citations when my references were taken out by Corvus who has had numerious editorial fights with me. And the sources were correct in the bottom of the article. I would like to reques that you reinstall the sources. Callelinea (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It probably won't be necessary to restore all of them. The inlines you have already added are enough to remove the {{unsourced}} tag. Just go through the article and your own copy of that list and put in as many as you think are needed to support the points of the article. A seemingly indiscriminate list of newspaper article titles and dates that happen to include the subject doesn't really help, and I think that is what Corvus Cornix's point was. Dethme0w (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Callelinea has re-added his bogus references to Dexter Lehtinen. Corvus cornix_talk 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that they're in-line, we can match news pieces to article claims. If you still think they're bogus (i.e. that they don't support the claims in the article) the onus is really not on Callelinea to show that they're not, but on a concerned editor who has access to the relevant newspapers. Of course that's why we prefer online sources, using {{cite web}}. Prefer but not require. Remember to

assume good faith. Dethme0w (talk

) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please review the article again. I think Corvus is just acting up. Callelinea (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had too many interactions with Callelinea in which he has applied bad faith, for me to assume good faith. Callelinea believes that Wikipedia rules do not apply to him. Corvus cornix_talk 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Dethme0w (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that they're in-line, we can match news pieces to article claims. If you still think they're bogus (i.e. that they don't support the claims in the article) the onus is really not on Callelinea to show that they're not, but on a concerned editor who has access to the relevant newspapers Disagree. The newspaper is online, Callelinea admits that he pulled the references out of an online search, the onus is on him to provide links. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which references any of the notability claims you make in your edit summary. Therefore, the article, on its face, is a speedy deletion candidate. If you want to add those refs, then please do so, otherwise, it should be deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 06:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is unlikely to be speedied, because it does assert notability by its claim (which a quick googling verified) that the band is signed to a major label (EMI). See the info box in the article. If I were an admin, I'd decline the speedy. I do agree that the creator of the article needs to enunciate the band's notability better and I was just thinking up a non-bitey way to get that message across when you placed the above. Dethme0w (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'Sa'right. Corvus cornix_talk 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me find a source on the section I added in? It's very important to me that I put it on there, but I'm having a hard time with the 'resources' thing as I'm new to wikipedia and that was my first edit.

Can you tell me how this is relevant to Oak Bay? I don't see the relevance. Dethme0w (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

-I don't know where to put this, but I thought Pedder Bay was in Oak Bay and that it's important, so I wanted to put it there. Can you redirect me to another article that would suit my add-on's purpose better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamuren (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks.I must have goofed up somewhere as while a user I do not make many edits!I was meaning to place this on teh deltion review colunmn and woudl welocme your help.

thanks.

(Delhite (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

I can assure you taht I did not mean to create a new page but place thsi in the ongoing deletion review..Sorry.

(Delhite (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

The subject is not a personal attack, Glacier Capital Group refers to an organization. I noted that there was originally an article posted about glacier several days go, which referred to Glacier as a legitimate company with $300M in assets. The article was removed as "advertising". I did a simple check and confirmed that it was not in fact advertising, but fraud. Had they said "the best", or some other qualitative praise, then it would strictly qualify as adverstising. But the original poster made a statement of fact. The statement, through verifiable sources, turns about to be false, and knowingly false. Also, the organization has ties to a ring of fraud that has recently come to light. There is no attack or tone; at least not intentionally. How would you recommend that article be adjusted to reflect the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasong27 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article started off by calling an individual a "con man" without a source. Basically it takes a conviction to be legally clear to call someone a con man (and even then, one would be playing with fire). But that is academic; the article was deleted by an admin for being about a company that is not notable. When you make accusations

verifiable. There is no wiggle room whatsoever on this. Dethme0w (talk

) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage, I really appreciate it. Cheers, LAX 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Break you now, my fist will allow... blah blah blah. Man, that guy doesn't give up. :) Jmlk17 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder where he gets all the IPs from. He must be driving around with a laptop. Dethme0w (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! :) Somno (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I hate it when people are too busy being

WP:POINTy to make useful contributions. Dethme0w (talk

) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. WP:POINT was the least of that user's violations though - I think their favourite was

WP:NPA! :) Somno (talk

) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm contesting your proposed Speedy Deletion of the Freakangels article on the grounds that it wasn't even a minute old before you slapped it with the speedy delete notice. I maintain that this is a bit too soon to judge an article and maybe you should wait a few days and see what the article becomes after it's been worked on a bit before trying to get rid of it. If you don't believe me about the timing, check the edit history of the page. According to the edit history both the article and the speedy delete notice were made ON THE EXACT SAME MINUTE. I would suggest that maybe you could wait a while before leaping for the eraser. --Stenun (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't show how it was notable. This article was about web content that didn't even exist yet (article created Feb. 6, launch date Feb. 15th). That is practically an admission that the web content is non-notable. If the web comic catches on, and the site gets lots of hits, and most importantly of all, if it is reviewed or otherwise written about by

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dethme0w (talk

) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You nominated it for Speedy Deletion LESS THAN ONE MINUTE after it was first created. Are you seriously suggesting that every article meets wikipedia standards that soon after being created? While no wait period is strictly necessary I think it is absurd to pounce on an article that soon after it is created; surely common sense should play a part as wel but evidently not. But whatever, it's gone, you win. But it will be back sooner or later. --Stenun (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article sat there in your edit box for however long it took you to type the initial text. I'm sure that was much longer than a minute. Policy is clear: an article that does not assert notability may be deleted at any time. You should have included why the subject was notable before the very first time you clicked the "Save Page" button. Note that just saying "this is notable" is not enough - you have to indicate how the subject meets

the criteria for web content notability immediately, even though you don't have to actually back it up with references right away. For example, if the site had been reviewed in a major magazine, you could include that fact in the inital draft and then later actually dig up the needed references and links. Dethme0w (talk

) 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well gee, and here was I thinking that we were allowed to work on and edit articles over time. I don't suppose it occured to you to try asking me why it was notable and then waiting for an answer? No, of course not, that's not "policy"... --Stenun (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this speedy deletion thing is a careless habit with Dethme0w. It makes no difference how long the page sits in an authors edit box when you, the deleter, take less than a minute to read the article before deciding it is not worthy. That's not editing, that's censoring. BTW, I had a look at those criteria, and I can find no basis for deletion of the page I wrote about Charles Stanley McGee. Would you care to enlighten me? Levelor (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Elegant solution to the Push Pull Factors article RfD...thank you for taking the time do to the research Legotech (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooo, that's gotta be the shiniest Barnstar ever! Thanks! Dethme0w (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was unaware of that. I'm a new user of Wiki, and I'm still learning. Thanks for the help. By the way, can you please remove the vandalism warning? It wasn't intentional vandalism. → SuperROFLMASTER (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Slakr's Acetone Award For excellent effort in reverting scrub out the toughest of attempts at turning articles to mush. Plus, if you ever need to get nail polish off, it'll help with that too. :P Thanks for helping out. =) --slakr\ talk / 00:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Would you mind giving me your opinion about the

I've reverted your edit here as most of the article was filled with unsubstantiated claims and name calling. Please feel free to re-add the tags you wanted to the clean version. Thanks, Nakon 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I had added a lot of {{fact}} tags to the older version in hopes that we would be able to present the editor(s) who added those claims with a choice: either source them or withdraw them. It had been my intention to remove the chat-like comments on the next edit. Dethme0w (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have approved you for

  jj137 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that!!! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not even slightly amused by my header link, huh? No TV? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't noticed. Not sure what the significance of Capital One is here, unless you're asking if what's-in-my-wallet is cats. To which I would have to take the fifth. Dethme0w (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, there's a create-your-own-card commercial wherein a cyborg military commander asks his superior if it's actually war kittens he wants for his image, to which his superior rebuffs, "No, regular kittens -- baby cats!" I just love the way the commander feels the needs to growl the question, "WAR kittens???" Trés funny. ... Oh well. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dethme0w=war kitten.... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That I got - the link target is what left me scratching my head. Especially since I thought you were talking about Shaw_Preservation_Society. Dethme0w (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Words such as "colosal", "paralelism" and "italian" were not misspelled because they were Romanian words in that article. bogdan (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Still working out the kinks in AWB, of which I am a new user. I intended it to take the hyphen out of "extra-marital" and nothing more. Dethme0w (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i am, relavtively new to wikipedia, but the cause is just and i want to help out somehow. you fight vandalsim, and thats a really slick thin gto do, but how do you find it? i just cant seem to find any, so its hard to fix it if its not there. any feedback apreciated... Knowledge lover1123 (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! On the left-hand side of most Wikipedia pages is a column of common features. One of them is "Recent Changes". All I basically do is click Recent Changes fairly often, and from the list of recent edits I simply choose one that looks fishy and click the (diff) link. Dethme0w (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Dorftrottel (

I'm sorry. I'll Stop. Thanks for the notice. I was just messing around. It won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.19.53 (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're too late. Dethme0w (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Add my thanks to the bunch. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time maybe I'll bump your vn- counter for you too! Dethme0w (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And spoil my one pleasure around here? Just kidding. =) That was a weird vandalism though. Been called lots of things, but first time I've been called funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, someone deleted an article I had in my sandbox that I was preparing to publish. This person was an administrator called NawlinWiki. I have since learned that people cannot be trusted, so I added protection against vadalism to my userpage. Please don't go after me, go after NawlinWiki. I only try to improve Wikipedia. Thanks,

     BluWare  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BluWare (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 

I will remove personal attacks wherever I see them, including on someone else's user page. You need to read

WP:CIVIL and then read it again. And learn to sign your messages. Dethme0w (talk

) 03:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whois reveals he is using a dynamic IP and threatens to come back on another. that IP is blocked but he's bound to come back.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting my talk page when it was vandalized by a stupid user who criticizes himself, even if you used TW ☺. Thisisborin9talk|contribs 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider personal attacks and userpage/usertalkpage vandalism a priority, and without TW it would not be possible to keep up =) Thanks for the ornament! Dethme0w (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to give you a barn star for your many efforts beating me to the revert :-). Stick at it, and well done on keeping a cool head (nice response). Cheers, Pumpmeup 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that you placed a speedy deletion tag on Image:Alberta License Plate.jpg stating that the image was vandalism. The uploader placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page, and from what it looks like to me, properly justified that the image should stay. Thus, I've taken the liberty of removing the template. I just thought I'd let you know this, since you placed the original speedy deletion tag. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it with CSD G3 which includes pure vandalism, but also obvious hoaxes. Please understand that at the time I tagged it, there was no explanation at all, the image had already been deleted once before under the same criterion, and the resolution was so low as to make it impossible to tell if the licence plate really was a colossal blunder on the part of the government of Alberta, or just a Photoshop job. Dethme0w (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. But I just thought it would be courteous to let you know that I removed the template. If you still feel it applies, you may add it again, but add the {{hangon}} in deference to the person that uploaded the image. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. The edits were good faith, sorry I'm still getting used to this. Joelster (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This can happen when more than one editor is trying to revert a vandal at once. I reverted back to the actual user's last edit. Dethme0w (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism on my talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal help

he's just having fun I actualy asked him to do it

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have offended you. I am not "humour-deprived", as you smugly suggested. I did not know that you added it; I thought it was the IP user's vandalizing. I am sorry, and, for the record, I understood what it said. I just misunderstood. Please assume good faith next time. :) Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I always assume good faith. There is no policy that requires that I assume that good-faith edits are made by someone on the same wavelength as me, and in this case I think my assumption on that score was probably spot-on. In other words, I acknowledge that you were thinking completely differently than I - that fact doesn't diminish the value of either contribution, and for the love of Ghod I wish more editors would keep that in mind - we'd have no need for

WP:CIVIL if they did. Dethme0w (talk

) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, it's all my fault because I misunderstood the context? I admit, I was partially at fault, but you're blowing this way out of proportion. You responded in a way that seemed quite rude, and I'm trying with all my might to be polite to you. Let's just move on; it's ridiculous that this would need further discussion. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your edit was less valuable... Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to see eye to eye in spite of mutual best efforts, I agree that moving on is probably best. Cheers, Dethme0w (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I apologize for my actions, and I hope that we can work together in the future. Cheers! Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I reverted my own edit and I put the text back there. :) Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting accurate content before anyone has had the chance to even give a proper citation to the content. Allow the chance for citations to be addes (how about at least one miunute) before you revert accurate content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiinjapan1984 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're POV-pushing, and refusing to discuss it. Edits like that should be reverted.

Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core policies and is not open to interpretation. Dethme0w (talk

) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can tell me these are not facts, then fine. They are facts so they must be in the page. Stop vandilizng the kurashiki page. Kiwiinjapan1984 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one vandalising that page is you.

neutral point of view and other elements of its basic integrity. That is what I am doing. And all along I have been inviting discussion on this issue, which you have ignored. If you're trying to claim you're not POV-pushing, this behaviour doesn't help. Also, the burden of evidence (references) is on you, as the editor introducing claims that are being questioned. Dethme0w (talk

) 05:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show notability. It doesn't appear to have made an impact on the industry. If you can show otherwise through references, you still have a few days to do so. Also,

the fact that other articles exist is not a defense of this one. You'll need to save it on its own merits. Dethme0w (talk

) 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, when i was talking about other articles, i wasn't talking about articles related to this one. I was just looking at other software articles that are in the clear and i couldn't figure out what they had that this one doesn't. I don't see where they list a source which shows it's impact or anything. If you want an example you can look through the multimedia software stubs. Sorry i'm not too familiar with editing wikipedia but i like to contribute here and there. Thanks

talk

) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i put all facts about that band and its real so why was it tagged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric bourgeois (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article does not meet

Wikipedia is not a directory - people and groups aren't automatically entitled to an article. Just showing up and being real isn't enough. Dethme0w (talk

) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Levelor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelor (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I only tagged it as a candidate for deletion. I did not delete it, nor do I have the power to restore it. Oh, and please read

WP:OWN - it is NOT "your" page. Dethme0w (talk

) 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it may not legally be "mine" but I did take the time to create it and was very careful not to violate any laws or, so I thought, wikipedia rules in the process. Is it possible for only the offending portions to be removed rather than summary dismissal of its entirety? Could you at least tell me why you tagged it for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelor (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you (or someone) let me know who has the power to restore the page that was tagged for deletion? I'd like to make my case to whoever it is that makes these decisions.

Thank you Levelor (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you take up the discussion at

Hrm, scratch that. You seem to have gone away, and I took care of it. Cheers (and sorry for the now-spam on your talk).

talk/contribs

07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't go away, I was typing, and then fighting edit conflicts, on that very page. Dethme0w (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha. You just edit conflicted with me. Whatever. I'm going to sleep. *yawn* Happy editing.

talk/contribs

07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If I continue editing tonight, I'll be doing so in my sleep. You must be in the same time zone as me. Dethme0w (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

-5, US East. It's 4AM where I am.

talk/contribs

08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you flagged my page Socialroster for speedy deletion. I made this page and I own the site www.socialroster.com. It is a legitemate page and new startup social network that is listed on google and yahoo and all of the information I put in there is accurate. Can you please take the flag off. I own the url and feel that I should be able to list an accurate wikipedia entry about it. Thank You. Btomasette

No, you should not be able to "list a wikipedia entry" about it because you have a

notability criteria. Dethme0w (talk

) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That policy clearly says that I cannot do that UNLESS it describes and is about the software or method in which the website was made. I have now updated this and another editor has commented to keep the listing. Please remove the tags you placed for speedy deletion. Thank You! Btomasette —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another editor who says he knows you, which puts him in a

Wikipedia is not a directory and this article is not a listing. You don't get to have an article/advertisement about your company just for showing up. You must show that it is notable, and this you have not done. The tags will not be removed unless an administrator does so. Dethme0w (talk

) 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a good call tagging that article. Keep up the good work. Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vivio was just trying to be helpful. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 09:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I please request the information from the deleted article for

Sorry, I only proposed it for deletion, I am not the admin who deleted it. I must admit I didn't think it was going to be deleted, you were doing a pretty good job of unspamming it. However, if you were in a

conflict of interest, then there was probably no argument you could make to keep it. The admin who deleted it is Orangemike - make your case with him. Dethme0w (talk

) 03:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, you took away my warning! I don't get warnings very often, and I was seriously entertained by it, and you just had to take my little toy away from me, didn't you? Meany-pants.  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't (knowingly) template the regulars, especially admins. Although you ought to have had an inkling when you created the article that there might be a

WP:NOTE challenge. No worries though. Dethme0w (talk

) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You did work out what happened, right? I was prodding the article just as someone else deleted it, and accidentally recreated it. It happens sometimes when two people are smacking down an article at the same time; you just are tagging so fast tonight that you caught it before I had a chance to delete my zombie article, which I did a second or two later. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'm working too fast even for that. Either way, removing the warning was the proverbial Right Thing To Do. G'nite... Dethme0w (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was, because people who use automated vandal-smacking programs have warned users light up in red when they make new edits. It makes it easier to check the edits of people who are vandalizing, but when someone who is working actively and usefully gets lit up from a warnings, it can really mess up those editors using the programs. I was sort of waiting for one of them to come and complain... but you were right to remove it, and I was being unnecessarily whimsical in leaving it up. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the content with more cites and references to further my claims that this is a legitimate club that should be recognized by wikipedia's standards. If you feel it needs more editing, please let me know, and I will adjust the wiki accordingly. --Aridnyk89 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Still up for deletion

I believe I have submitted more than enough information to prove its notability. Why is it still up for speedy deletion? --Aridnyk89 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was retagged by someone else, probably because you have NOT shown notability. In other words, I am apparently not the only Wikipedian challenging this article. Fan clubs are not inherently notable just because the object of their admiration is. All your references but one are to the fan club's own website. This was tagged because it appears not to be a notable organization, and I am beginning to doubt that you can show otherwise. Dethme0w (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, you can't have just a bit of randomness that actually has to do with the game for just 24 hours? I've seen much worse on here... Necro-File (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and the much-worse stuff gets reverted too. Dethme0w (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for a speedy recovery of my userpage! Bob (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a 4chan concerted attack. We're talking multiple users, not one. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)