User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive33

Diff. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine if it's worth the effort this late in an AfD to try to save the Lakers-Kings article. You mentioned that you wanted to see sources; I put a few up on the AfD page for it. I think the article can be properly sourced and salvaged, but since it's late in the week, I'm just wary of putting a ton of work into it without seeing if there would be some keep support if I work on it. So I'm just sounding you out to see what you think of the sources and if you think I should go for it. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the previous version of Swami_Premananda_of_Trichy was formally a BLP violation, but all was uncontroversial and also described on the websites of his followers. I had signed a petition for his release from jail. Andries (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Secret, I was wondering if you would be so kind to lift the creation-protection from this article title. I would like to start working on it so I can decrease the size of Brett Favre and have it resemble List of career achievements by Michael Jordan. I hope all is going better than it sounds for you. Thanks in advance.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal, if possible. Thanks. Thör ^hammer 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, were you supporting the candidate or responding to me? I was reluctant to change fix the format in case it was a response instead of a support. Thanks. Acalamari 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Secret ^account 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure. Acalamari 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine if you still favor delete, but I wanted to see if you had re-read the article now that it had reliable sources rather than only YouTube and MySpace pages, as you had noted. Lawikitejana (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you please reverse that uncontested prod? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My rollback was taken from me and I did not know. Why was it taken from me? Was it my inexperience? Supergodzilla^20|90 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! In line with the process defined at WP:DRV, as the closing administrator on the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer. My reasoning for this is two fold - that only 4.5Hrs were allowed before its extension debate and your closure; and that at as there were 16 references for someone with 40 medals, across 20 promotions and three wars, I believe that his notability under WP:BIO is established. I also note that there is no comment on the closure notice except "The result was delete." Thank You! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't 16 sources in the article, there was only 5 and a bunch of unrelated external links. Three of the five sources are other wikipedia articles explaining what the metals are, the other two are passing mentions. Sourcing was a concern that was never met in the AFD. Obvious consensus to delete. Secret ^account 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful in your responces of WP:AGF. I'm looking at the cached version, counting - three notes, seven external sources, six external links - I'm not counting the See Also section. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did WP:AGF, check the links closer, almost none of them talks about the subject of the article Secret ^account 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome a co-nom if you so wish! Hard to believe that was less than two weeks ago, but - To your credit - your comment got me seriously thinking about an RfA, and now here I am. SO, really, this is all your fault. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Secret, I just wanted to say a quick thank you for your support at my RFA. I will work hard to live up to the expectations of the community. Thanks again!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If possible, do you think you could possibly just change the result to redirect? The amount of merge and delete votes almost doubles the amount of keeps, and as you said, they were mostly irrelevant. They really shouldn't count much towards anything as none of them provided anything constructive. If the no consensus came from the merge and delete votes being split in places, the article would have had to stay a redirect to retain the history anyways. Either way, it would really help, as none of those people are going to let the original merge stick. TTN (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus to keep, merge, or delete. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, stop going through TTN conribs, let some other users in the talk page settle the merge. Secret ^account 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I participated in the AfD. When someone asks the closing administrator to change the result, it gets my attention. I will participate in this discussion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If it could be done, I would love to just go by the original discussion to merge them. The problem is that I have many anons, some single purpose users, and the bad type of inclusionists trying to wikilawyer by using consensus as a means to stall and keep the article. The related projects are fairly dead at this point, and an RfC rarely gathers a number consensus large enough to ever get around the wikilawyers. That's why I turned to AfDs in the first place. TTN (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would deletion review be applicable in this case? I really just want to get this over with somehow. TTN (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV wouldn't be acceptable, i'll try to make a merge in the talk page Secret ^account 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN has redirected Meta Knight and it has been two days with no discussion so I think the matter has cooled down and unless someone reverts and complains I think we can consider this matter resolved. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there has been a few complaints about it in the Talk:Meta Knight and Talk:List of Kirby characters talk page I don't know if you want to act on it by opening a new discussion or just leave as is but I thought I should let you know anyway. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sisters (TV series). 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. --W.marsh 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Four or five people who probably know nothing about Rugby Union and you delete a really interesting and informative entry about a very significant new initiative in UK and Irish Rugby. A perfect example of everything that is wrong about Wikipedia! Admins playing God! Paste (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm confused. I just saw Confirmed as a sock of User:Travellingcari per a checkuser so blocked indef, butWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimo_Williams very strange though. Secret account 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) and I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I read the forums to get an idea of what's going on since I'm still learning but I have no idea who Kumqat is. I edit from an unsecure wireless connection at times, could that cause a similar IP address? I'm really not sure what's going on here, but I believe I contribute productively to Wikipedia and intend to continue doing so but I have no idea who this user is. Can you help me out? Travellingcari (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's supposesully a sock of you per Checkuser, please don't create extra accounts please, even if it's to test articles you created. That could get you in trouble in the future. Secret ^account 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I swear that this is my only account. I thought I had signed up back in 2006 after a friend mentioned adding photos under User:SKingList but since that account doesn't exist, I don't think I ever signed up. I assume via your use of supposedly that you're assuming good faith, and I thank you for that. I'd be happy to do whatever I needed to show that this is the only account I edit under. Travellingcari (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am WP:AGF, it seems strange that a checkuser result had connect you two together, I also noticed a talk page listed of CSI New York article that you made, and that Kumqat nominated another one for deletion, and with recent AFD debates you two made that resulted in WP:SNOW or speedy keeps, it's fairly obvious. Just consider yourself lucky though. Secret ^account 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I've been in a discussion about the notability on CSI: NY characters that stemmed from me proposing Stella Bonasera for deletion and mentioned it in the context of an AfD just to establish that there was consensus about the issue. I don't know what else to say since you have a tool that says I have a sock and I know I have only edited from this account. I intend to go back to what I have been doing, contributing to Wikipedia as I feel that I have been productive. If you or others think otherwise well... I have no idea. Travellingcari (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to comment a entry you deleted as Jaranda: 1-800 New Funk. It's a music album by Prince (mainly) and other artists.

Perhaps it was deleted because it was considered an advertisement of a phone line. But it isn't, it's an album (you can see these links: Prince_discography year 1994, album songs and lyrics, and even a link to buy the album). During some time Prince used that phone number to sell his music, but now it's not working. So I think it had to be undelete (perhaps with a disclaimer explaining the different meanings of the entry).

Yours, --El Pantera (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the logs anywhere, better link please? Secret ^account 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the link is this one: 1-800 NEW FUNK --El Pantera (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article I deleted was a WP:CSD#A1, as lack of content (just a track listing, didn't tell anything else, even the artist) it's very easy to just recreate the article. Thanks Secret ^account 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to ask for a clarification, if I may. On January 12, I added a note to the Charlie Witmack deletion discussion indicating that I was going to transwiki the article to Wikipopuli.com. You wrote: "Transwiki is only for another wikipedia project, not a private wiki." I was basing my suggestion on this line in WP:GD: "Transwiki is a recommendation to copy the article to a sister project in Wikimedia (such as Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, or one of the foreign language projects) and remove it from Wikipedia, either by deleting it or redirecting it to another article. It has also been used to recommend a transfer to a wiki aimed at a more specific audience (for example, Wookieepedia for Star Wars topics, WikiFur for furry fandom topics)." In that context, do you think it's reasonable to transfer an article that was bound for deletion to a site more friendly to it? My follow-up question would be a philosophical one. I basically created Wikipopuli because I saw that many biographical articles were being deleted from Wikipedia for non-notability, and it seemed like their ought to be a home for such articles, so long as they aren't libelous, nonsense, etc. I understand why articles with basically no external sourcing can't be allowed on Wikipedia, but do you think there's a reason why something like Wikipopuli shouldn't be allowed, or even encouraged? Thx. TheYellowCabin (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's because of licensing of the history and such Secret ^account 04:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you not tag blocked socks on their userpages? I've noticed several times that you have blocked users as sockpuppets, citing checkuser, but leave their userpages in place. Just curious, as you are the only admin I've encountered who handles blocks in that fashion. Horologium (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respectfully disagree with that closure. Examining the quality and validity of all the keep rationales combined, this is a clear-cut delete. User:Dorftrottel 02:30, January 30, 2008

I think Secret was right this time as it was definitely a no consensus to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You just believe that encyclopedic standards should be completely abolished. And your own rationale to keep the article is completely invalid and should have been disregarded accordingly. User:Dorftrottel 02:44, January 30, 2008

We just have a disagreement about what encyclopedic standards are for an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am definitely willing to vote delete on occasion, as I did here, here, here, here, here, and here. In any event, no one's argument should be dismissed when submitted in good faith. My concern is that we do not alienate our contributors and readership. I whole-heartedly agree that sources are important. I just prefer to see more effort made at finding those sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are in disagreement with the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's all. Arguments should be evaluated by their quality and validity to gauge consensus. Alienating the hoi polloi is very necessary indeed. User:Dorftrottel 03:39, January 30, 2008

I totally agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as described by the five pillars of Wikipedia (i.e. it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs") and by its founder (i.e. "the sum of all human knowledge"). I agree that hoaxes, personal attacks, opinion pieces, etc. have no place as articles in any good encyclopedia, but verifiable information on notable topics as broadly understood by our large community of contributors is acceptable. Please do not dismiss thousands of editors who volunteer their time in good faith to better what many of us still believe is a worthwhile project with such remarks as "Alienating the hoi polloi is very necessary indeed." And for what it's worth, if you would ever like to work on improving any particular article, I'd be happy to help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Acually it's was a confusing AFD, with alot of merge comments and such so I closed as no consensus, discuss a merge in the talk page Secret ^account 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Can you explain please why our page has been deleted? We had only just started entering copy. We are a not-for-profit organisation funded by Arts Council England and have taken over a funding scheme producing films that has been running for 17 years. Please can you restore it so that we can add more information about the artists and films that have benefited from the scheme?

Many thanks Abigail

AbAddison (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:COI and WP:N, and WP:ORG Secret ^account 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As you say the main issue was the question of reliable sources, as raised by the nominator. Looking through the other comments in the discussion:

• Mh29255 just stated that it was not notable, without any direct discussion of the sources and why they may not be valid.
• LADY GALAXY initially stated that the sources were insufficient, but then changed her opinion on whether the article should be kept (albeit without indicating why).
• Eastmain then claimed to have added references
• Gavin Collins and you both stated that the claimed that the sources were invalid as press releases (although Gavin did not suggest that the article should be kept or deleted)
• Eastmain then claimed that the articles only used press releases, and should not be considered press releases
• You then said that *if* they were press releases they would not be sources

My view of this discussion was that there was no clear consensus on whether the references were valid sources, which was the main issue for its nomination. Perhaps a relist may have generated more discussion, but in my opinion there had been enough (albeit not a lot) of discussion without consensus on the key issue.

I would have no objection to you raising this at DRV, if you felt that a review would be useful, although I do note that somebody has actually opened a new AFD for the article anyway. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea I meant to say it's still a press release those sources. Secret ^account 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The January issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore that article and let it go up for AfD? I thought the article was okay. --evrik ^(talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All streets are not "inherently notable". Yet once again you have badly misinterpreted our criteria for notability. I appreciate your enthusiasm for saving articles, I really do, but you need to slow down on the PROD tag removal and please take some time to properly educate yourself. — Satori Son 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Satori Son, you removed quite a number of prods that I did (as an anon), even though the articles has serious sourcing issues and won't survive an afd for life. Secret ^account 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I have de-prodded a number of articles which have either not gone to AFD or have gone and survived and many of them were very obviously articles that should have been kept. I don't understand the negativity of some people for giving articles a chance. I certainly do not unpord articles randomly and you seem to forget that if the article is discussed somebody often comes forward to provide sources. Satori is unhappy with me, I believe, and making a point about interpreting criteria because of the decision he made to speedy Trium which was overturned by a large majority at DRV. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Roads aren't notable unless they are a state route or an highway, there is long standing consensus on that issue. Same with Geneva Red Wings‎, teams from minor college leagues never survive anything, some prods were valid removal, like phone brands, etc, but try to read up on WP:OUTCOMES, and all our policies, as you do have some confusion on our notabilty guidelines looking at your prod removals. Secret ^account 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They are open to interpretation, and will also change of time with more discussion, so maybe we see them differently - that is not a difficulty in understanding. You seem to be trying to pressurise me to err on the side of not de-prodding articles, where I believe we should err of the side of de-prodding where a discussion could be helpful. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, if an article has no sourcing, and no reliable sourcing can be found, and it's long standing consensus to delete those types of articles, it's easier to prod and delete, than to keep, as AFD is backlogged as it is. Secret ^account 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's easier to delete without discussion than discuss and maybe keep, but what adds more value to the encyclopedia? Wikipedia would be richer with the occassional extra discussion than with fewer good articles. I don't think that a backlog at AFD is a reason to not try to keep potentially good articles, even if they do need a bit of work. Also, each discussion is valuable in reviewing the criteria, just because "we have always deleted articles of type X" doesn't mean that "we always will delete articles of type X", none of this is set in stone, unless there is never any more discussion. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Try to find sources though, having weak claims of notabilty would take it out of WP:CSD area, but still isn't a good reason for a prod removal, again while consensus can change, you have to check would it survive an afd or not, as removing a prod just for the article being redeleted in afd is more or less process just for the sakes of process, and we try to avoid that. Secret ^account 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the real thing that we are trying to avoid, at any cost, is good articles been deleted. Sure, a few I de-prod may end up getting deleted at AFD, but a whole lot don't - so I don't think that is a bad outcome. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I had agreed with MrStalker's reasoning, and restored the prior version, thus closing the review. Could you please re-restore it? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets see what the community decides first, i endorsed the deletion, if anything, let another admin close it and relist it on AFD. Secret ^account 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid your blanking/redirecting of the articles for NHL one-gamers Jerome Mrazek and Shane MacEachern. WP:BIO clearly states that biographies are warranted for "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league." At WP:HOCKEY, we have decided to limit that to players who played in the NHL, WHA, or other top-level league of its time and/or made a serious impact at a minor-league (AHL, IHL, ECHL, etc.) level. Please take this up at the WP:HOCKEY talk page, or at another appropriate venue, before just turning articles into redirects. Thanks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

These edits here look very suspicious to me, as I've reverted this persons edits on the [Alex Rodriguez] article when it looked like it was promoting a cell phone company. Best, Googie man (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Onome Sodje. 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've added citations to the Robin Graham page. I also included the URL for each of the L.A. Times article PDFs but, as only ProQuest members can view them, I'm not sure that's helpful--

The Great Pumpkin King gave me some formatting pointers and you may want to provide some further direction. My thanks to all you good Wikipedia folks. LynnMaudlin (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article for the album Sewn Mouth Secrets ? The LP has a 4.5 on All Music Guide, was released by Relapse Records, an important indie label and the band that made it is, Soilent Green, were the first to combine sludge metal and deathgrind. It's been re-released so I don't think it's a "forgetable" album. Gothbag (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I've unblocked Support wikipedia so he or she can get a username change. Also I think by accident you marked prevent username creation for the user when you blocked the user. Since Support wikipedia doesn't seem like a vandal's name, it could have been easier for the user to just create a new account instead. Anyways, I just thought since you were on a wikibreak and the requested name wasn't a violation of username policy you wouldn't mind if I did the unblocking. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The February issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong template. Anyway, you closed the AfD for this article on (I think) January 24th. I recreated it today in response to a message I saw on Wizardman's talk page. It looks like the article has undergone some revision and improvement since it was deleted, but about simultaneously someone else created a DRV and a third person CSD tagged it as a recreation of deleted content. Please weigh in if you are interested. (My opinion is that the article meets the article meets the MILHIST notability guidelines, marginally meets WP:N and is relatively high quality - and so should be kept. Also, since it isn't technically an identical copy of the deleted article, a DRV isn't really necessary at this point). Avruch ^T 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Leo J. Meyer. 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.

Hello, I think I goofed and confused you as the nominator and User:KrakatoaKatie as the closing admin, for which I apologise. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Leo_J._Meyer, I think a lot of the concerns about WP:N and WP:V have been addressed there. I'd appreciate your input in the discussion, I'm not an editor of the article, but my personal belief is that it meets the WP:MILHIST notability guideline, which both includes and supersedes the WP:N guideline. Mrprada911 (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was reviewing a DRV when somebody stated you were on indefinite wikibreak, and it was struckthrough, so I followed my curiosity to your userpage. Now I have this need to know what is "ED"? Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to personally thank you, Secret, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Secret, On January 13, 2008 you deleted our posting titled “National Center for Technology Innovation.” The National Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI) is funded by the Office of Special Educational Programs at the U.S. Department of Education and we seek to help education technology innovators create technology solutions to help students with special needs. We are unclear as to why our post was deleted as we simply would like to inform web users of the different ways we can offer free resources and work with others to help students with special needs. We are therefore requesting that our original post be undeleted. Thank you for your assistance. Please feel free to contact us on our talk page. Regards, AsNCTI (User:AsNCTI [1]) (User talk:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AsNCTI]) Note: We (AsNCTI) edited this comment after posting. Thanks. (User:AsNCTI [2])

If the article is deleted, unlink it, but I suggest you not alter history. — Κaiba 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearllysun, who you blocked indef over sockpuppetry, has made an unblock request. Looking over his records (talk page, contribs, etc), I see the following:

1. He was never warned about using multiple accounts.
2. He seems, in general, to be a good-faith user, although he does pretend to be a different person from his apparent sockpuppet (Бриллиантжемчуг).

I think, given the above, that his block shouldn't be indef. What do you think? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that our offices represent University Christian School. We hereby request that you provide our office with a detailed written explanation for the deletion of our client's wikipedia page. Please forward your response to jhenry@wellsmar.com.

Wellsmar (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

______________________ J.P. Henry Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC 300 Concourse Blvd. Suite 200 Ridgeland, MS 39157 P.O. Box 131 Jackson, MS 39205-0131 ( 601.605.6900 (main) ( 601.605.6928 (direct) 6 601.605.6901 (fax) y jhenry@wellsmar.com 8 www.wellsmar.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential. You are prohibited from copying, distributing or otherwise using this information if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail or phone and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system.

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Treasury Department guidelines, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, or any attachment, does not constitute a formal tax opinion. Accordingly, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, or any attachment, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties

You didn't give me any chance to respond. Less than one minute. That was incredibly unfair and bad practice for an administrator. And notability was there. Opera Deleware is a professional opera company and a very old one at that. It is also a part of OPERA America and part of opera wikiprojects goal to create pages on all of America's opera companies.Nrswanson (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article recently deleted titled "Prestonism" is in no way patent nonsense. Wikipedia itself defines patent nonsense as "gibberish." Had the article consisted only of "18y0ouha[qopqiuhfq[[aahiuh1oiuqhosy7oa87ys" I would understand the deletion, but the article clearly defined Preston's idea, and provided graphical support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmillard10 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty old block (set twice, so will ask both blocking admins). Seems to have something to do with the username. Currently requesting unblocking. Any insight would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. They tipped their hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Confederacy of Independent Systems. 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. Blueboy96 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC) .

Hello! :) Late last year, Phyton was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can either obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Selena-DreamingOfYou-wiki.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Phyton. 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. BOZ (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Hudson george thomas, I accidentally recreated the page 'cause I took too long to put the speedy template on it.

Thanks again!

_(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that non-sysops weren't supposed to close No Consnsus AfD's. I was trying to help clear a backlog and went with my gut on it, probabally relisting it might have been a better idea. If you want to take it to deletion review, you are more than welcome to. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, are there any times when non sysops can close AfD discussions. I've been chided now a couple of times, first for tying to close a delete discussion, then for closing a merge, now this one. Not being an administrator, am I limited only to clear cut keep discussions, or should I not be closing discussions at all. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Son of Stimpy. 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. Catchpole (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The March issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemed amusing a user called Secret resolving the Secret pages MfD. :D Orderinchaos 09:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Hurricane Allen • Haile Selassie • Wild Arms (video game) • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • USS Texas (BB-35) • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The NBA WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1 • April 9, 2008 • Written by: Basketball110
News Project and league news: As of April 8, the following teams have clinched a playoff berth: Boston, Detroit, Orlando, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Washington, Toronto, New Orleans, San Antonio, Los Angeles (Lakers), Utah, Houston, and Phoenix. Heat coach Pat Riley, former Knicks center Patrick Ewing, former Rockets center Hakeem Olajuwon, former Rookie of the Year Adrian Dantley, Pistons owner Bill Davidson, and college coach Dick Vitale were elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame.	Features Featured NBA articles of the week: National Basketball Association Boston Celtics Michael Jordan	Project Collaboration This feature isn't available yet. You will be notified when it is ready.
Archives • Newsroom

A User:Secret closing an mfd on Secret pages... Cute. -- Cat ^chi? 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I had the same thought Hobit (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Secret

I've created the stub for PyTables article and filled it with content from its homepage. Yes, I've noted the bot message concerning G12: Blatant copyright infringement, but I've put appropriate tag and message, that I'm going to expand it in near future. After some hours I found it deleted. Could you please undelete it? There is no reason to force me do a job twice.

thank you

Zeliboba7 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted a request, at WP:DRV, for PyTables to be restored temporarily to Zeliboba7's user space. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saavedro. 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. -- OranL (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Irish National Teachers' Organisation. 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.. (I asked for it to be temporarily userfied. I am not starting a formal review.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I, however, have requested a full review as I don't believe the article was deleted according to deletion policy. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! :) In March 2008, Destrachan was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? BOZ (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Hurricane Allen • Haile Selassie • Wild Arms (video game) • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • USS Texas (BB-35) • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The April issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The NBA WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2 • May 5, 2008 • Written by: Noble Story
News On May 5, the first round of the NBA Playoffs were completed. In the East, Boston, will face Cleveland, and Detroit will face Orlando. In the West, the Los Angeles (Lakers) will face Utah, and New Orleans will face San Antonio. For more up-to-date information, visit the 2008 NBA Playoffs. The end-of-the-year awards are now being handed out. So far, Byron Scott has been awarded the Coach of the Year award, Kevin Garnett has been named the Defensive Player of the Year, Hedo Turkoglu has won the Most Improved Player award, and Kevin Durant has been named the Rookie of the Year.	Improved Content On April 9, Dirk Nowitzki was given Good Article status. On April 19, Yi Jianlian was promoted to Good Article status. On April 29, Yao Ming was given to Featured Article status. On May 4, the List of Houston Rockets first and second round draft picks was promoted to Featured List status. Current Projects Update all the 2007-08 Playoff game logs that are located in Category:National Basketball Association game log templates As the playoffs continue, keep the 2008 NBA Playoffs article up-to-date.	Collaboration of the Month Magic Johnson has been chosen to be our very first Collaboration of the Month article. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. The goal is to improve this article by the end of May so that it can be nominated for Featured Article status. In particular, free-use images should be found for the article, all Manual of Style guidelines should be followed, and a neutral point of view should be maintained throughout the article. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out.
Archives • Newsroom

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Destrachan. 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. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)