User talk:Peter/Archive14

You threatened to block somebody for disruption, citing "personal attacks."

While I am no defender of personal attacks, "disruption" means "making the encyclopedia difficult to edit or read." The guideline is quite clear that PA -- even repeated PA -- does not constitute disruption. Disruption would be things like erasing large blocks of text, adding large blocks of random text, messing with system functions, etc. If someone can simply skim over a distasteful comment, and continue on his way, then that's not disruption.

[BTW I am not defender of the user in question, either. I just want all admins to learn the rules they're supposed to be helping enforce.]Tragic romance 11:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whilst I'm no longer actively editing Wikipedia (including use of admin functions) I still feel I'd better reply to your message. In short I disagree. Your description of disruption sounds like vandalism, which is one form of disruption to Wikipedia that results in blocks. However, blocks for personal attacks are also fully supported by the blocking policy: "Protection... Persistent personal attacks". "Disruption... their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I don't find anything that supports "The guideline is quite clear that PA -- even repeated PA -- does not constitute disruption."

I think personal attacks fits the descriptions above pretty well, and admins routinly block for personal attacks with support from the community. Some editors take them far more seriously than others, and whilst some just skim over them, others will leave the project because of receiving them. That certainly is disruptive.

Incidentally the message you say was a standard template, {{npa4}}, so if you disagree with it you should be raising the issue on the relevant template talk page. Petros471 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

did you edit my user page? It has you on the history.HHS.student 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I edited your page, but only to revert it to the last version you edited. You can see the changes I made by comparing versions in the history. The edit before mine was by an IP, looking like they were vandalising your userpage. Petros471 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS. While I'm here:

(my welcome template)

i edited my user page, i just was not logged in at the time. i was trieing to make it like some of the other user pages i've seenHHS.student 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

: Ok, that's fine. In future it is always a good idea when editing your own pages to be logged in so others know it's you :) Petros471 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re [1] - As far as I remember there was a table in this category, providing information such as the names of the companies, market capitalisations and industries. Was there a vandalist edit before it was deleted? — Instantnood 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (This message was actually left by 219.77.105.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Petros471 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC))Reply

Restored the history, as you're right, there was much more content in the history than in the version I speedy deleted. However, you are evading a block, so if it wasn't that someone else got there first I'd have blocked your IP... Petros471 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how I missed it, but the James Curcio article was deleted and recreated as a redirect. The page had been created for an elected official, and was either overlaid or hijacked to reference the author of the book Join My Cult. I'd like to userfy the history, so that I can create separate articles for the politician and the author. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Alansohn 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Restored and moved to User:Alansohn/James Curcio. Hopefully I've done it ok, but I'm a bit out of practice ;) Petros471 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I promise to help put it out if you will be my admin coach! Alan.ca 11:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see below. Petros471 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed. Petros471 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, you're still on there. Microchip08 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not as far as I can see. Petros471 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Might be, by but I somehow got through to your page. Microchip08 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, maybe that was through Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status, which I've now updated as well. Let me know if it was somewhere else. Cheers, Petros471 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Haven't spoken to you for a bit over any channels, so was wondering how you were. Still enjoying University? ;) —Xyrael / 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

(replied by email a while back Petros471 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC))Reply

You just blocked this user, but I don't know if you noticed that the last act of vandalism was 1 minute after the last warning. I'm new, so I don't really know what should be done in this situation; please explain to me, if you have time. Thanks! · AndonicO ^Talk 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well considering there was a test 3 (or whatever they're called now, the one including "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing") warning a bit before with several vandal edits after that I think a block was still justified. Petros471 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, there was several warnings to this user to stop, but this user ignored the warnings and continued to vandalize pages. You warn users with test1, test2, test3, test4 warnings, and after the final warning (test4), they can be reported to an administrator to be blocked. Based on this users contributions, a day is probably good. Hopefully this is helpful! Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you both very much! · AndonicO ^Talk 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for repairing vandalism to my user page. Good to see you again. --Guinnog 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rather ironically I'm becoming slightly more active now just when I really, really shouldn't ;) Petros471 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the speedy AIV block against Slip lip. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was in response to seeing it on my watchlist (see message above), but no problem all the same :) Cheers, Petros471 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused ... first you change a {{db}} to a {{prod}}, and after it's been seconded, you remove it ... what's up with that?? —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changing the db to prod was because I didn't think there was a strong enough case for it being a speedy candidate. Removing the prod was because a hangon tag was added. I took this to mean the prod deletion was contested (especially taking into account the talk page comment). So probably the article should be allowed to develop, and if it doesn't can always see what people at afd think. Petros471 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You tagged this image for speedy deletion. As far as I could see (from the human readable version) the CC license given does not restrict commercial use or prevent derivative works. Could you please clarify why you think the image should be deleted. I'm no expert on copyright issues so I welcome to opportunity to learn more if you can help. Cheers, Petros471 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Click on the flickr link, and then the license link from that page, and you'll see it is a non-commercial license. Not a dog 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, the link you've given is NC, but the image was incorrectly tagged (the version on the image did allow commercial). I've deleted it now. Thanks. Petros471 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to reject that autoblock: Both they and the original blockee, Latigid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Rocksandfossils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edit on topics of Hong Kong public transit and things in Florida, so the accounts are likely related. I suggest you restore the autoblock. —dgies^t_c 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looking now, I'm not convinced they are the same person. Also Rockandfossils has not edited outside of userspace this year. If that account starts doing things that are worthy of a block then it can be blocked for that. Petros471 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was Tetris Zone deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlienRage (talk • contribs).

It met the criteria for speedy deletion for G11: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" and/or A7 "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. " Petros471 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

To save me doing the research, any particular reason why you're not an admin? Petros471 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Perhaps it would be better if you did do the research – then you'd discover I was an administrator for six months, but resigned – Gurch 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thought there had to be some good reason like that- I just thought it'd be quicker to ask than trawl through a load of talk archives ;) Petros471 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petros,

I see that you have deleted the article relating to an Iranian co. recently. I was wondering about your motivation to do so.

I placed the tag "hold on" on its page, so the speedy deletion process would be delayed, in order to allow people to respond to my comments. This co., the Iran International Exhibitions Company, is a legitimate organization. and it was neither "advertisment" nor "spam" as I was told, and I have no personal relation to it whatsoever. It was deleted precipitously because of a political reason a month ago because Iran has come under international sanctions. I was discussing the same subject with Pejman47 before your deletion.

Could you 1. restore the article so the discussion can take place on the text of the article and its overall legitimacy?

2. If not, could you explain on Pejman47's talk page why not, and how (where/with whom) I can solve this problem so that Pejman47 can also be informed about your response by the same token.

In advance thank you for your prompt response.

SSZ 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Restored and listed on WP:AFD to allow a full debate over deletion to take place. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran International Exhibitions Company. Petros471 09:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, You recently deleted the page SolarWinds, I wondered whether you had taken the liberty of looking through the history of amendments to this page, clearly a particular contributor had some axe to grind against this company as could be seen from his bitter comments. The page started out in my opinion as informative and in my view no different to others of it comparable standing (see "Juniper Networks") SolarWinds has a long standing historical relevance to the network management industry, originally in my view the first revision was not entirely spam or a ploy for advertising but informational and as correct as it could have been. Could you please revisit the log and aquaint yourself with the contibutor DonYonce who is pretending in name to be one of the existing board and founder member of SolarWinds.

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

Looking through the history now, I do indeed see better versions, with less advertising style language. Though I don't think those versions particularly assert notability, hence they may well still be speedy deletable under A7. If somebody (like you) says they will work on the article, to make sure it asserts notability in a neutral way, citing sources, then I'll restore the article. Petros471 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should probably add that the status of other articles is not really that relevant- there are loads of articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted/improved etc but aren't yet. That doesn't mean the correct thing shouldn't be done to another article. As for any user disputes, I'm sorry that I don't have the time to get involved. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if needed. Petros471 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand the reasons for your deletion of the The Skull Defekts article. It/the band fulfils quite a few of the criteria listed in the notability article for bands. For instance 5, Members were previlusly active in Union Carbide Productions, Kid commando and Anti-Cimex and 6, the band is the most prominent act of both the Gothenburg and Swedish electronic scenes. Qmwpeto 17:18, 6 May 2007 (CET)

Restored and listed on afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skull Defekts. Petros471 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You indeed performed all three steps, but the third one has been then reverted, presumably by accident [2]. Tizio 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, glad to know neither me nor the bot is broken ;) Petros471 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Petros471, my userpage has again been vandalized by a sockpuppet of DenDeZ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). I would prefer not to post the user's name as it is vulgar, so please check my talk page history. This stems from an incident late last month when I removed copywritten pictures from that user's talk page due to the WP:FU violation. Following that incident, he posted a "middle finger" using keyboard characters on my talk page. He has since trashed me with other users. I would appreciate it if you would please ban the offending sockpuppet and beging to take action against the puppetmaster. A general notice soliciting help with the {{helpme}} template was also added to my talk page. --Daysleeper47 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have proof that the abusive accounts are sockpuppets of DenDez? If so I'll block him as well. I see your userpage has already been protected, as as far as I can see all the accounts that have vandalised to your userpage have been blocked. I've just blocked the IP in your userpage history as well, as that looks like the same person. Anything else you need doing? Petros471 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Those measures should take care of this issue. Thanks for the assistance. Cheers, Daysleeper47 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heya, good to see your name again, if only in passing.  :) --Elonka 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I took a look again (at what was happening here), and saw lots of vandals needing blocking, massive deletion backlogs, and I've still got finals not to get too distracted from. Oh well... Petros471 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Bolivian Unicyclist 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the warm welcome to Wikipedia, even though I've been here a week or so it still means a lot to me, as well as this - thank you for the barnstar, that too means a lot too me, its good to know your contribs are being noticed, thanks you very much!! Kindest regards - The Sunshine Man 11:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petros471 I would like to state that I am a new member starting just a few moments ago please don't put those warning signs on my user talk. thank you. --Hey its me9999 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why you removed a comment from someone else's talk page? Petros471 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What comment did I delete from it was probably a message I put there. Thanks. --Hey its me9999 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can see the link in my message above. Apologies for the harsh warning if you are just a newcomer. The edit looked like vandalism, however if you just made a mistake please be more careful in future (use the 'show preview' and 'show changes' options before 'save page'). Petros471 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I thought it was alright my friend had wrote that and then she told me it was alright to delete it. I am really sorry. But I still love her ( Not literally). Bye.--Hey its me9999 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I do understand that my previous article regarding this topic was deleted, however I do feel that I had created a far superior and Wikipedia-suited article this time. I disagree with the speedy deletion that you have applied to this article, and would like a discussion opened on the topic.

This very article has really given me a bad rap regarding the "openness" of Wikipedia, and I feel that it somewhat contradicts the "Be bold" motto that Wikipedia has. I did not feel that the article or me as a new editor were given a fair shake last time, and I of course do not feel so this time around either. Please let me know what can be done. Mattygabe 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I deleted this article (in it's latest form) as meeting the criteria for speedy deletion A7: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead."

In this sort of situation (i.e. contested speedy deletion) I would normally restore the article and sent it to articles for deletion. However, in this case, I cannot see any claim of notability at all in the article, and I can assure you that people at afd will say it should be deleted (probably speedily). If you can tell me how this company has verifiable, third party sources, which show that it is important to have an entry on it in a worldwide encyclopedia, then I will restore the article. You may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) useful. Petros471 12:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The page isn't in any deletion categories, or any categories at all for that matter. I have quoted the category on the page, and it doesn't transclude any templates that add categories. What do you think the problem is? --ais523 13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened, I was using Table:Example as an example and someone tagged it for speedy deletion. There shouldn't be a problem now. --ais523 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Petros471 13:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know this seems like a waste of a message but thanks for fixing a typo on my Userpage, much appreciated! Kindest regards - The Sunshine Man 14:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You recently closed the deletion debate on the Pub standards article that I have written, without any reference to what WP policy this article was breaking, in fact, in The Debate the Delete camp provided no reference to Wikipedia policy as to why this article should be deleted, but the Keep camp (none of whom I know personally) was able to provide links to WP policy that reinforced the argument for keeping the article. I realise the article needed a bit of work on citing references/sources, but many Wikipedia articles do, and I was busy sourcing a more important WP article I wrote at about the same time, Tabubil, and could not focus on this one just yet. If the delete is reverted, the article can be brought up to scratch, otherwise, rewriting this article is going to take a lot of time that would have been better spent on improving other articles/projects/templates I am currently working on. Aliasd 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those suggesting delete said, correctly, that the article did not provide secondary sources. They linked to relevant guidelines to show what was required. If you can provide Reliable sources then I'd be quite happy to restore the article and either re-list or start a new afd debate (depending on how substantially changed the article was). If you wish a copy of the article restored into your userspace I'd also be happy to do that. Petros471 16:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would be more than happy to work on the article from my userspace, thankyou. Aliasd 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Aliasd/Pub Standards. Cheers, Petros471

Thanks for doing this so quickly. I will repost the article when it is properly sourced. Aliasd 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A clean up - which was suggested - would have dealt with the lack of sources. It's not like there aren't many other pages with the same issue that await clean up. Sounds like you had a personal beef here. That undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. 84.70.25.207 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope, nothing personal. That's all I have to say, as I think the rest has been amply addressed above. Petros471 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pub Standards. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 84.70.25.207 10:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Commented there. Incidentally, could you please make use of the 'show preview' option before saving your edits to check they appear how you want them before I get told I've got new messages :) Petros471 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deletion endorsed. Petros471 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was this page deleted? It was clear from the page itself, as well as the comments that the subject was notable- or was there another reason? Btline 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

My job in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wilderspin was to determine consensus, taking into account the strength of arguments and the possibility that opinions from unregistered (or new) users might be less reliable and/or aware of Wikipedia's policies. I read and took into account what everyone said, and decided the consensus was to delete. Whilst I think the decision was very much borderline, and it is quite possible another admin would have closed it differently, I stand by my closure for now. If you wish to dispute it feel free to raise a deletion review, I have no objections to one being opened on this, but please let me know if you decide to. Petros471 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Wilderspin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Thanks. have re-opened debate. Please consider. Btline

It looks like the DRV is going the way you wanted. Might as well see it continue to normal conclusion, which may well be the right one :) Petros471 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deletion endorsed. Petros471 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, it looks like the page goes. However, I still feel that the decision was based too much over "single purpose account/ vicar in Florida" etc. As far as I am concerned, User: Calvein could have made them up just to make my arguments seem worse off. I think that the user has been "slinging far too much mud", and he should be formally advised to stop this!

Thank you for informing me about WP deletion review and being a bit more pleasant about the articles than others have. Thanks- Btline 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Rugrats.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

(reply on Talk:Rugrats) In this edit quite a lot of text, and an image was removed. Could someone who's more familiar with this article decide if it should go back? I only discovered this because a bot told me the image was now orphaned fair use as I reverted the image when it was vandalised over a year ago. Petros471 08:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the block. I can't really see someone spending $3000 CAN to get here though. If they apologise then I have no problems with an unblocking. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I love Wikipedia and I find it the most outstanding project that I've seen in a long time. But this really bothers me: I included myself into the list of ambient electronica musicians. I realized that there was a good chance that the article would be deleted because my music is not well known yet. I am perfectly ok with that.

But stating as a reason for deletion "This appears to be a vanity page for a non-notable individual" is outright insulting and condescending. Actually it is paradoxical: Wikipedia tries to be unbiased but at the same time it puts a value to a person: "non-notable".

I am ok with the deletion but not with the arrogant justification.

BTW, I couldn't edit this page with my user "g8d9f08g" since it got banned because someone didn't like the name I've chosen. I never imagined that such an open-minded project like Wikipedia could be so narrow-minded at the same time.

I am very disappointed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.121.206 (talk • contribs).

• G8d9f08g (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I'm glad you think Wikipedia is a great project. It's true it's not without it's problems, but lets see if I can help with some. Looking in my deletion log (link at the top of this page) I can see I deleted with the reason "Criteria for speedy deletion A7". A7 reads "...An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject..." I.e. the article did not contain any information to suggest why there should be an article on it in an encyclopedia. I did not (and would not) have used the summary "This appears to be a vanity page for a non-notable individual", which was given by Stephen Burnett (talk • contribs), who tagged the article for speedy deletion. What was there seemed to be written in a fairly neutral, not vanity, style. I'll drop him a note about it in a bit.

As for your username, it was blocked because of this part of the username policy: "Inappropriate usernames... that consist of a lengthy or apparently random sequence, of characters, e.g. "aaaaaaaaaaaa" or "ghfjkghdfjgkdhfjkg"." The main reason for this is that unfortunately most users who register similar usernames are vandals (i.e. they are creating a disposable account for the purposes of vandalism), so blocking them on sight is a fairly effective way of cutting out one section of vandalism. I've now unblocked it, though you may wish to consider changing it here. Petros471 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Petros471, thank you for taking the time to look into this. You have restored my faith into the Wikipedia project. You show the attitude that I was hoping for of a Wikipedia admin.

Regarding the article: I might go back and rewrite the article at some point making sure to include a section that "asserts the importance or significance of its subject".

Thanks for unblocking my user name. As you might have guessed I didn't take the time to search for a user name that has not been taken yet. Not realizing that a random name might already be a reason for deletion. If I post more on Wikipedia I will take the time to find a proper name.

Again, thanks for your time, take good care!

Rettward von Doernberg - g8d9f08g

Hey there. Although I am quite new to Wikipedia, I appreciate the helpful links you left me when you deleted my page.

I have now created a new one with loads of info and legitimate links and I believe I have made it or nominated it to be a musician stub...

I truly hope it doesn't get deleted for some reason that I didn't know about. I think it is comprehensive enough to at least salvage it for a few days even if it needs a bit more - perhaps with a comment on where it went wrong so I can fix it more speedily than a speedy deletion....

How'd I do??

Roadsteamer <--- That is my page, by the way. It should be linked to Robby Roadsteamer as well but my updates were almost completely reversed and I would never want to start an edit war —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nay Nay 429 (talk • contribs).

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. If the subjects are the article are different (i.e. one about the person and the other about the band, they should probably stay as separate articles. However, if it's the same band, and they have just changed name you (or someone else) should merge the articles. Let me know if you need any help doing this. Petros471 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please undelete this article. Ramaswami is a noted mathematician. I will add more content to the article when you have restored it.

Thanks, -- Dominus 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. I did do a (very quick) google search before deleting which didn't seem to turn up many results, but I'd be happy to see the article expanded. Cheers, Petros471 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. -- Dominus 14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I did a little housekeeping as I usually do after renames. I've moved your talkpage history to this one (User talk:Peter) and the following pages now redirect here User:Peter, User:Petros471 and User talk:Petros471. Can't have you evading the orange bar of doom by having your talkpage somewhere else :-) ! Have a good break, WjBscribe 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I was wondering what the best arrangement of userspace was (I was probably just going to update redirects). Peter 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominator and nominated have now both changed their usernames :) —Sean Whitton / 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and quite a few others I noticed on rename page are heading towards using real names. Different direction from the previous mass renaming away due to privacy concerns. Though that and length are also why I'm only using my first name :) Peter 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for tips. That was my first closure. Carlosguitar 14:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

- Hi, I don't understand why this page keeps getting deleted, seeing as it fulfils the notability criteria under WB:BAND, and I have clearly stated the case for it's inclusion. It was previously deleted without any oppurtunity to argue for it's case, and when I did outline the below points, they were ignored. Further to point 6 from WB:BAND, the band is also about to go on a national tour, which I believe is another enabling point from WB:BAND, and doing a google search on them currently displays over 10 pages of results. I could go into more depth concerning this within the article, but would that not make it look like an advert for a band, rather than an encycopedia entry? Gus Peterson 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

- Why was this page deleted? The band features past/present members of Cursive and the Arcade Fire, both very notable bands, and as such fulfills the Wikipedia band notability criteria. Gus Peterson 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - - : From WB:BAND - A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria - 6.Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. - - Twin Thousands fulfil this criteria. Gus Peterson 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok restored. It might still be nominated for afd therefore I suggest editing the article to include secondary sources. Peter 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Peter. I see that someone has now updated the infobox now too. Gus Peterson 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A vfd was conducted on the club in October 2006 due to the site being down and no recent activity. The reason for this was the fact the city of Haifa was under attack in the 2006 Lebanon War, combined with technical trouble on the club's main server which led to its temporary suspension. The club is now active again, and is still the oldest and most regarded linux club/user group in Israel. All the reasons listed in Talk:Haifa Linux Club/deletion are still valid today. Please consider undeleting. --epsalon (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Haifa Linux Club. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. epsalon (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply