User talk:NickelShoe/Archive6

you've sent me a message that you'll delete the lik I've put on the "term" of Sylvia comic strip... the thing is that it provides informations... as I told you, elsewhere, I don't know how to use this thing put I certanly know that this link could be helpful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emanating One (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the message. Please remember to sign posts on talk pages with ~~~~--it turns into a link to your user page and the time and makes it clear who says what.

I don't have the power to delete--I just added the tag that puts it on a list. You need to put information in the article. A link isn't helpful if you don't tell them what the link is. Add info to the article exactly like you add the link or add words to a talk page. Just type something, anything is better than nothing. The article clearly falls under speedy deletion criteria as it stands. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I need to be famous and it needs to bewriten by someone else?

Oh, so all cause wherenot famous alright thnks I guess. I followd ther rules and all, but moderator knows best.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derian is 786 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Please restore the article on the band A Spectre is Haunting Europe. This article was unfairly deleted on the grounds of "Notability". The group satisfies the notability requirement for several reasons, not the least of which is that it contains former members of other notable bands (Skinny Puppy, Download, aLUnARED) [1]. If you could restore the article I will gladly edit it to reflect this.

I also think that the "notability" standards for musicians are problematic (I see no clear rationale to discriminate against bands, subcultures and genres that are under-represented in mainstream radio and press), but that's a seperate issue. Who should I contact about that sort of thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeandjinni (talk • contribs) .

---

Thanks for the heads-up, unfortunately I was not able to access Wikipedia for five days since I started the article so it was already deleted when I got back on. I half-expected that, considering that does not have sufficient information to warrant notability. I will create a new version of the article, and this time, before releasing it to the servers I will pass it as complete, like I did with Wayne Boden. RashBold ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having an unusual problem. When I log-on, I am automatically redirected to log-on again...does this mean there is a problem/change done to my log-on page that indiscriminately allows others to access my personal password? Or am I experiencing the ghost-in-the-machine-newbie complex?Wednesday101 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its my band. Thats all and we wantd to be on wikipedia to add our histroy and such information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derian is 786 (talk • contribs) .

NickleShoe,

I originally replied to you only because I originally got email from you.

Now that I understand more about "no original research" as the goal of the wiki I actually like the idea!

I think I am just "no darned good" at this. For example, somebody is complaining about the references I gave. On technicalities? I haven't yet figured out why.

I was trying to backfill the references to show there was some pre-existing university research being done. I sure as heck didnt invent that! And I surely didnt invent the talks PZ Meyers gives all across Minnesota about designism.

On the other page, perhaps my use of the term "ordinary" is original and must go. Has anyone suggested another adjective? The mathematicians probably just call it math. But they also perhaps dont label it anything. Does that alone make it a neologism? I mean, if differentiation, for example, wasn't called calculus, would calculus be a neologism? Can a term be a neologism while the underlying concept is not? I wonder. I have never heard of a neologism before. How long does a term or concept have to be in use before it becomes "prior art"? In trademarks and patents that takes nothing more than a filing or public disclosure. But perhaps wiki's (or this one) have more stringent rules.

Let me ask this: have the concepts I described been covered in the various pages on design elsewhere. Were they addressed? I think these math professors have added something to the world. But perhpas their time hasn't yet come. When they publish in a math journal, THEN will their ideas qualify? I'll wait. It will happen.

I wonder if the objection is actually based on the idea that the idea of designism "doesn't really exist" (in the opinion of the objector)? It could be the objector simply believes all design is by definition some form of religion. Thats a common mythology. Quoting a court case doesnt demonstrate that mythology. Quoting scientific research papers would do so. But the intelligent design articles didn't seem to do that latter part.

Well, maybe someday I'll learn enough about the rules of this project to be of some help.

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

70.100.26.34 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I am not getting email from any discussion. Am I not subscribed?

I remember the article clearly, but I can't find it, so I don't know if I can be helpful without maybe you linking me back to it? In general, my guess is that if you have come up with the term, even if it's a logical term to describe it, WP:NEO applies, and it's probably not a good idea. If the subject doesn't have a name in the literature, it'll be hard to write an article about it that doesn't rely a lot on original synthesis, which is difficult for non-experts to judge. Which, as I think you understand, is a major reason Wikipedia doesn't allow original research--because we're just not experts, so it's hard to tell what's reliable.

Sorry I can't evaluate your sources, because you didn't link to it and I can't find it. I don't know why I can't find it, but if you want me to check it out, I guess you'll have to show it to me.

As far as emails, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to your email account off Wikipedia, or do you just mean the orange bar that says you have new messages? You weren't logged in when you posted me this message, so you won't get the new messages notice for your regular account. I'm posting this message to your "IP account", so you'll get a new message notice if you're not logged in. If you mean discussions other than your talk page, you'll have to "watch" those pages. When you're logged in, at the top of the article there'll be a tab that says "watch", then on the upper right there's a link that says "my watchlist", so you can see whenever there's been a change to a page you're watching. But you can only do that when you're logged in. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, so maybe I dont know all the wiki rules.

I got ordinary design theory from an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune earlier in 2006. It extensively quoted an interview about art forgery investigation being done by the UofM math department. I can try to find that quote if its important. I figure anyone investigating will simply ask the applied math department. But I myself may have a hard time finding the original newspaper article in timely fashion.

I originated the word "ordinary" to differentiate what they are doing from something like intelligent design theory. There has to be a difference, but I an unsure what it may be. That will take research. I'm not sure whats being challenged? Is it the fact that *any* design theory is used by scientists? I know differently because I am a biomedical engineering major at the university of minnesota. Or is it the fact that ID proponents may object to some sort of design theory being distinct from their ideas? I don't much care if IDers object. Can they show reasons why all design supports only their viewpoint?

I'm the only one I know who seems to have noticed this type of design. Its perhaps my original idea (I doubt it). The math isn't of course. But if I am the originator of the observation then why do I need to quote someone else's work? There's an interesting idea...be original by copying someone else?

The math of course is not original at all.

Anyway, I suppose I could re-post later after finding the math departments publication in math journals rather than relying on the newspaper article.

In other areas, I can quote statistical mechanics books galore about probability theory. (I'm thinking Donald McQuarrie's Molecular Thermodynamics.) In fact, I'd like to do that. I'd need math symbols of course.

Cheers. PS, Star Tribune doesnt like it if anyone quotes their articles within Minnesota. Maybe the internet is ok though? Let me know.

PS.PS. If you need a quote on what a designist is then I can quote a public debate between a professor at Ohio State and a proponent of intelligent design. This would be probably no more and no less authoritative than the wiki's article on ID in the first place. Is it the case that what the media says is not authoritative at all? Where then does one go to get information on design? I wonder? Scientific literature?

For example, Dr. James Curtsinger, professor of EEB (Evolution,ecology, and biology) at the University of Minnesota, published that his exhaustive search of scientific literature shows there is NO scientific literature addressing design. How then can anyone say scientifically, in the absence of any scientific literature, whether there is a case to be made for -- or against -- any form of design in nature? Whats left over is what the media *claims* but this doesnt come from scientific literature. I'm not trying to be critical, but the wiki's case made about ID is not derived from authoritative scientific literature at all...because there is none...so says Dr. Curtsinger. May I ask whats left over? As a true source of knowledge, that is? I hope this explains why I may have taken just a tiny bit of licence on reporting the situation with design. If thats over the edge I apologize...and will of course return with a fully quoted article soon. But, may I ask in return, and I think this is a reasonable request, that the scientific stance on design be revamped to include whats actually in scientific literature, and not whats rumored among either scientists or science buffs? Again, wouldn't that be reasonable?

And, if what the math department is doing with respect to detecting design patterns in nature cannot be called "ordinary", then what is one to call it? Scientific design theory? Mathematical design theory? Special design theory? What? To me its just ordinary everyday math.

Cheers, --Postdesignist 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- i added a bit of content (very little, actually) to this entry. There just isn't a whole lot available out there, but this info may be desireable to a collector.--jmootz20 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the deletion of this article. Now that I think about it, it is redundant. However, I also created an article called "Cain (fictional character)" which describes the identity assumed by Webb as that separate identity, which I hope will not also be deleted.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whamilton (talk • contribs) .

Hi I wanted to query the deletion of the entry on Scottish music magazine is this music? on grounds of "notability". (I didn't access Wikipedia after i submitted this, a few weeks ago, so wasn't able to contest the deletion. I'm not sure exactly what 'Notability' means, but I can see many items on Wikipedia which are less well-known, in general terms, than this magazine (which I admit, isn't widely distributed in America). You only need type the word 'fanzine' into Wikipedia to see what I mean. There's also our main 'claim to fame' in our fetauring the first ever interview in print wiht Franz Ferdinand (the popular music group, not the historical figure). I believe they're doing quite well for themsleves all around the world, and is this music? is referenced in Franz's own Wiki entry, which was the reason I created the deleted entry, to helpe elaborate on the Franz piece.

I also note that there is some mention of 'web-only' content. I didn't really understand this. itm? is a print magazine - we have a website, yes, but who doesn't these days? Anyway, if you could restore the piece that would be great, or I can recreate it again (but don't wnt to get into a create/delete cycle - if you have any hints on how a new piece could be retained within WIki I'd be grateful)

Thanks

Stuart editor@isthismusic.com

Stuart McHugh: Aug 02/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smchughuk (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for adding the prod warning to the user's page. I went to do it, and you had beaten me there. Mr Stephen 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentos Eruption & user:Toritaiyo too Mr Stephen 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an awkward choice of words on my part. Please feel free to add those messages as and when you see fit. Regards, Mr Stephen 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your welcome message and wanted to say thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to greet me and suggest some tips. Warm regards. Harvey. .. Onero 11:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Responding Heads article? I'm not advertising anything, it's a free software. A bunch of people requested an article to be made and so I did. Pwr.max 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I thought I'd get in touch since you did say I should if I had any further queries - on the subject of the is this music? article deletion - unfortunately I approached KungFu Adam, but for some reason he didn't pick up on the initial message, and then when I reposted it (it was lying, untouched, in his archive) he gave the following reply:

"I have no clue what all this about. The article was recreated for quite some time.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)"

Obviously, it's not present in the system, if that's what he meant. I doubt I'm going to get anywhere with him, so thought I'd ask your advice. Should I maybe reconsider just starting an new entry, and hope that he isn't the deleting editor? - Smchughuk 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC) thanks for the message. I was unable to find the topic in a search, and had assumed that it wasn't there. Thanks for all your help. - Smchughuk 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Howard, and I am a Doctoral student in neuropsychology. I just got the message that my article on the Test of Memory Malingering was deleted. The cause was cited as a possibility that my article was based on my own conclusions. Too bad, as the article was short enough that you should have seen the test author's original normative research cited IN FULL IN APA CITATION at the bottom of the page. Please get it right if you are going to delete articles. I adhere firmly to Wikipedia's goals and guidelines, and am not an armchair author or scientist. -Howard Budd1nw 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You de-prodded this article, due to comments made by User:Slxpluvs on its talk page.

This user has made no other contributions to wikipedia.

I have renominated this article for deletion, and would appreciate input here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments.

Awexome--ZayZayEM 05:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out who posted the original article with the mention of "Reductio ad Stalinum" because I am trying to trace the factuality of the claim there that Stalin abolished corporal punishment for children. I can't find it in any Stalin biographies. It would be of great psychological interest if true. I am new to Wikipedia and can't figure out how to contact that contributor. If you, or anyone reading this, knows anything about the reference, or can simply tell me how to identify the person who wrote that, I would appreciate your posting to the talk section of the "reductio ad Hitlerum" article, where I have posted my query. Thanks.

In July, the article I posted on the Bradford Center for Educational Freedom, Inc. was nominated for deletion based on lack of notability.

I had not logged in before the deletion expiration date, so the article has been apparently deleted.

The article should, however, be undeleted.

While the Bradford Center itself focuses on publishing paleo-conservative student newspapers (currently in Florida, Texas, and New York), its activities have been written about in publications such as SCJ Reporter, Albany Times Union, North Texas Daily, U.S. News & World Report, Chronicles of Higher Education and Windy City Times, among others - as well as having its activities lampooned in a major motion picture with A list stars.

Most notably is that in August 2005 Judge McAlvoy of the U.S. District Court of Northern New York declared the State University of New York's student activities funding system unconstitutional - a decision that directly impacts the New York Public Research Group (NYS's largest advocacy organization) potentially to the tune of $2,000,000 in a case filed by Bradford Center's wholly owned publication College Standard Magazine. This ruling affects all SUNY's and every student organization that receives student activity fee funding in the SUNY system. It's importance making it clear that SUNY's appeal will more than likely end up before the United States Supreme Court. You can call the Student Press Law Center for more information.

A piggyback lawsuit filed by a former CSM Editor/Bradford Center intern and Vice Chair of the New York State College Republicans was awarded summary judgment based on BC's lawsuit. Should they successfully fight back an appeal, BC's lawsuit will ultimately create the second largest advocacy group in New York State equalling or coming close to the NYPIRG size. (NYPIRG having been created by some unknown guy named Ralph Nader)

I don't know how much more notable an organization needs to be impacting Hollywood, Mainstream Media, Education, and the Law (our judgment established precedent). If you need more examples, though I think this one should be more than enough, let me know.

Okay, this might be smaller, but one more example... BC successfully stopped the New York State Police from charging fees for protecting controversial student group rallies or events. Now, every student group across the State of New York - be they PETA or conservative, doesn't have to pay the extra $4000 to put on a big event.

Nyukid 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that Kungfuadam deleted my article on Barefoot Deep Tissue, so I wrote to him. Just because one hasn't seen a tachyon, doesn't mean that another can't write about them, right? Thanks. Psnack 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have nominated this article for deletion; I noticed you had edited earlier. You can discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laromlab --Aleph-4 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, im not an english contributor, but i just find this image Image:Ewa Sonnet crop.jpg. You already talk to Briankaz (i dont realy well understand engilsh), thus do you trust this license on this image ? Can you do something ? I just add tag wrong-license, i realy can't do more. Remove this tag if it need, thanks a lot. 193.248.37.156 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NickelShoe 

I hope you 're doing great..

This is my email: antoniagriva@yahoo.com i want to ask you some things about wikipedia and how to deal with it... if you have a spare time i would be grateful if you mail me..

thank you in advance

Antonia

Hi,

I notice that you contributed to the Systemic functional grammar article a while ago. Split infinitive is up for review as a FA, and I wonder whether you are critical of the content. I am.

[2]

Tony 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know enough to have a strong opinion...NickelShoe (Talk) 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thankyou for the welcome! we're trying our hand at contributing to a few business bio's for people we're working on at university.. I'm new to this, and instead of creating the bio first in sandbox i just kept saving small changes on the article - is there any way of deleting the previous posts to start from now? - as we have about 15 which are all small and within 30mins of each other - specifically this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Picken which we're still working on... any way of deleting those previous posts? ie. from creation through till now.

noted your comment on this entrepreneurs family, and inserted additional information found in another article.

Whoswhoaustralia 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)whoswhoaustraliaWhoswhoaustralia 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me about the citations. I realized that what I said about the "Tim McGraw" article, were false, and I have changed it. As for Ed Bruce, I really don't know where they came from, they were in my book on Country Music. Thanks for you help! I'm sorry for deleting your citations! (LovePatsyCline 21:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hope this is correct:

About prospectiva, I think not as you think Well, I have no extra time to write right now more then I wrote. if this "kind of society" doesn't agree, is too pity for all, not for me

See ya

VL

I fully understand locking Holoku but I could not figure out how to fix the formatting so I wanted to simply delete it. I have Lindas written permission to republish it. If that is not acceptable or against policy please accept my appoligies and remove it for me.

Ok, the request to add Laurence James was a little odd. Apparently he's one of many authors that use the shared "house name" of James Axler to publish their books, but he's also published several books on his own. Do you know the precedent for this type of arrangement? He seems semi-notable on his own - would love feedback. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings. Feel free to get rid of the merge request. My concern was that his article says nothing about him except that he used this name. Maybe you could make the article about him say that he wrote other books? NickelShoe (Talk) 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a request from WP:AFC, my enthusiasm approximates yours. I will add the additional information I found while verifying the source, add a few refs, and drop the merge request. Hopefully the anon will notice the activity and join up to flesh out the remainder of the article. :) Kuru ^talk 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NickelShoe - Thank you for your message regarding the Temple University Amber site. Although my univeristy is the author of the original document, we have decided to take another approach to the wikipedia site and therefore find that it will be much better to just start over. How do I do that? How do I submit a new article with the violation page still existing? TempleAmbler 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NickelShoe - Again, thanks for the information regarding the TU Ambler site. Now that the Temp Page is started, when will it replace the original page? Do I need to do something? TempleAmbler 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you don't have to do anything. If the old article is deleted, an admin should move the new one to replace it. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will they delete it?TempleAmbler 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't know. If you're in a hurry, you can add {{db-author}} to the top of the article to request it be deleted as a mistake. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Baker&oldid=17289391) wasn't even about the same Jonathan Baker. The current one looks un-notable but the one it was originally about was a short stub about a professional race driver. Esteffect 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a chance to comment on this. We could take a hardline and ask for citations on all claims? --meatclerk 08:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, man, doesn't make me a difference either way. I only took it to AfD because it had been reprodded. That way I didn't deprod it and then someone else reprod it or take it to AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for categorizing The Impression That I Get. It slipped my mind. ◄HouseOfScandal► 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, it is a good practice to notify people about this. Cheers.--RF 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm here to try and stop you from deleting the article about respected music producer DJ Doughboy. He is an idol to me and my friends (mostly because of his young age) and we like to know he is regocnized on a world class website like this one.

I do think the article needs a little cleanup, and it seems very biased towards Anderson. Please don't delete it though, as I said it's nice to know he's recognized.

Thankyou very much :) -- Hugha 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about H-Net.--ragesoss 20:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NickelShoe. Concerning the message you left me about the article Zahran Mall, I support the deletion of the article.

--Meno25 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article last year as I was doing a school project. I was writing a thesis paper regarding the voting age in Canada and found that Wikipedia did not have an article regarding the most recent attempt to change said voting age. I will look at improving my article or perhaps amalgamating it with another article into which it will fit. --Rockapoc 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created another page without the typo...so the 'Fell' page needs to go...Zigzig20s 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting vandalized by a whole bunch of leftists. Even though the section has a piece by a mainstram paper The Pioneer, all my changes are vandalized by threee POV pushers (the ip, Hornplease (talk · contribs), and Soman (talk · contribs)) . Though two of the controversy links are not mainstream, they are used in conjunction with the mainstream paper to show the general controversy that Reddy is involved in, and are used to show Hindu groups' point of view.Bakaman 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call it vandalism, but certainly there is a tendency for POV edits that don't seek consensus. I don't know anything about Indian politics, so I can only be of so much help. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there has been lot of vandalism with disgruntled caste fanatics and leftists on Dr. Reddy. May be it is time to temporarily disable editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.116.69.163 (talk • contribs).

Again, I'm not sure I'd call it vandalism, considering that everyone seems to be trying to improve the article, even if they're misguided. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really opposed to the Reddy worshipping on the article. I'm opposed to my sourced section on controversy being vandalized by what the IP address succinctly summarizes as "disgruntled caste fanatics and leftists". I do appreciate your work, and your neutrality on the issue (ignorance is bliss) is amazing, considering the fact that all other editors have a view on Reddy.Bakaman 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman, I'm not ignorant of the facts, but when people did start maligning up and down, it is better to project facts. If you read every line, there is clear bias to praise or deplore him. And some made quite a mess without any citations and facts, but mere mudslinging. i'm relieved, it is protected for editing. let's go down to discussion page. 203.116.69.163

Dude, this is my talk page...probably if the comments are for Bakasuprman, you should put them on his talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you AfD the article, please copy my comments over from the talk page, since I won't be around much over Christmas. Guettarda 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion at Permanand Mohan. I'm a little hesitent to put it up at AfD only because I can't really find any guidelines on the notability of businessmen (assuming that's where this person would find his notability, as chief examiner of CAPE). Do you think it should go to AfD? My inclination is that yes it should, but it's not a clear cut case for me. Thanks for your time! Sparsefarce 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me...I have inclusionist tendencies, so I wouldn't personally send it to AfD, but it may well be deletable. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized it after the fact (edit was done while I was doing a series of minor edits in a row involving categorization). —EdGl 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First W entry. But will not leave it half-assed. Relgif 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check ongoing progress at "Grossman" page. And I ain't half done, Nic'...

This fellow is a mentor, albeit from afar; any chance of lifting that stigmatic "clean up" tag at the top of the page? I've made a good faith effort so far...can I be trusted me to follow through? Relgif 10:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT JOB ON THE CLEAN UP. IT COULD NOT HAVE LOOKED SO GOOD WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. I think I pulled a no-no: I messed with the caveat tags. It was late, I was feeling full of myself, quite proud of the improvements I pulled out in FIVE continuous hours of heart-felt effort. The first tag I screwed with was the "no citations" tag: I'd added several, yet there it was, staring me in my bleary eyes! Then, IF MEMORY SERVES, I just lopped off the "formatting" tag, since I was certain I'd made it look 600% better by then. My face is RED in any case, and in light of your brilliant help. I will remember this episode, and will endeavor not to repeat my rather spineless act. I hope the fact that I freely admit my errors counts in my favour with the Ed's. I will have learned from experience in the future. Thanks, Nic'. STOP BY "ROBERT GROSSMAN" ANYTIME YOU LIKE, with my deepest thanks and welcome. Relgif 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for godness sakes, delete the thing. I don't want to get constant messages from other moderators about this thing! Why does it matter so much? Hugha 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, I totally forgot. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, relisted with reason. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the deletion a little aggressive? This is as notable as other pages on wiki, when it comes to the same topic of North American Zen Master:

Yamada Koun, Ruben Habito, Paul Genki Kahn, Enkyo Pat O'Hara, Joan Halifax, Dae Gak, Joko Beck, Dennis Genpo Merzel.

Thanks, BA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benabramov (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's pretty hard to tell whether she's notable. Did you read WP:BIO? If she meets those standards, simply edit the article to make that clear. As far as those other pages, I don't know. It's not really helpful to say that one subject is as unnotable as another--if those other pages fail WP:BIO they should be deleted. Just because they haven't been deleted yet doesn't mean they meet Wikipedia standards. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ha! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magatouche (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for making the MS CRM changes. I am new to Wikipedia, so I am still learning the ropes. Dogbert01 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation for deletion of the article J. Kristian O'Daugherty needs to be considered carefully. The recommendation to delete was made by Steve Magruder aka stevietheman who has a personal connection with Mr. O'Daugherty and has not made his recommendation objectively as Wikipedia should require. Please review the discussion page connected to the proposal for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilsonlakosky (talk • contribs) 06:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Technically it is correct, but you're right he was Czechoslovakian 1986-1993 and Czech 1993-2000. But it is not a big change, it's easy to forget. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I just created that page so there wouldn't be one article talking about two people. Would you mind telling me where the article's entry in the Articles for Deletion is though? --The President of Cool 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]