User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Od Mishehu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanx for offering to adopt me ...

... I'd practically given up in disgust after the baiting I was getting on the two pages I tried to contribute to.

For now, I'd like to add some info about the subjects Marv Meyer has written about, in the bio I created about him -- without getting it reverted.

Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion357 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The reverts were done due to improper referencing. To place a proper reference, please place a <ref> tag before, and a </ref> tag arfer. This places a proper footnote at the right place (the place has already been marked), together with links between the statement and the footnote. Od Mishehu 08:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

REDYVA hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove! You seem like a fantabolous person! I hope your skies are blue and your days are sunny.
If you get a chance, please take a look at Falls of Neuse Road. I would enjoy some Good Advice on how to improve the article. Master Redyva (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks+

Thanks for your comment. I had created that box with a bad name, and made it again on its correct one. Please delete it, thanks. Escorial82 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have declined the speedy deletion of this article as it asserts notability-- "the journal La Ondo de Esperanto named him as Esperantist of the Year for 2006 in recognition of his Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag had been placed on this article requesting its speedy deletion from Wikipedia under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion (because of apparent failure to indicate how or why the subject was notable, i.e., why an article about that subject should be included.) I suggest that Bertilo Wennergren is notable not just because he is the subject of articles in the Esperanto and Swedish Wikipedias, but because he meets at least three criteria suggested for notability:

1. The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography (Gramatikisto, rokisto aŭ perversulo?, by Sonja Kisa).
2. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors (Esperantist of the Year for 2006)
3. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (author of a 700-page scholarly reference grammar of Esperanto, Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko -- a book which he is making freely available for download on the Internet) Objectivesea 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work :) I've deleted it, don't forget to untick 'move associated talk page' when you move it out :P SQL^{Query me!} 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I spent a little bit, reviewing your contribs -- I think you're ready for adminship :) SQL^{Query me!} 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! :) Don't wear out your F5 key! :) SQL^{Query me!} 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, I would wear it out on Special:Newpages, not WP:RFA. Od Mishehu 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Od Mishehu, thanks for getting back to me. As to the article, I didn't copy anything. I summarised in my own words information I found and cited it as one would a university term paper. Please can you lift the 'possible copyright infringement' as I have not transgressed the regulations. Thank you for your time. Jc3schmi (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Od Mishehu. Thanks for checking out the Allogona page I just put up. I must admit, though, to being puzzled by your changes to the taxobox. Basically, you deleted the information relating to four taxonomic levels. You termed this a "correction". I don't know why. Does Wikipedia now have a maximum information content for taxoboxes?

I don't mean to sound argumentative (although I suppose I do seem that way). I have noticed, though, that gastropod genera use several sizes of taxoboxes. See Cypraea for a long one, Cepaea for a medium one, and Helix for a short one. I certainly prefer the greater amount of information in the long or medium versions, particularly since this information is not usually provided in the text. Do you mind if I put it back? Tim Ross·^talk 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Classification:

Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted.

For example, in the taxobox for the genus Formica, it's appropriate to include entries for tribe and subfamily, since those are an aid to understanding how Formica relates to other genera in the family Formicidae. But it wouldn't be appropriate to include the superorder Endopterygota, since all genera of ants are in that superorder; it isn't particularly interesting at this level.

Od Mishehu 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand entirely, and certainly agree with Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Classification on this point. The actual application of that reference, though, is anything but clear cut. As you are no doubt aware, gastropods are a large and complex group. Kingdom, phylum, and class are certainly enough higher classification for almost anyone dealing with snails, but the details of the lower taxonomic levels, such as Systellommatophora vs. Basommatophora vs. Eupulmonata, or Acteophila vs. Trimusculiformes vs. Stylommatophora, provide a great deal of information about the specific mollusks, even if one is not particularly familiar with the family in question, which is often the case. The Orthurethra vs. Sigmurethra distinction is also important, whatever name one applies to that taxonomic level. In other words, I would argue that in the case of gastropods, these intermediate taxa are both interesting and important for basic understanding. It would be cleaner and neater to limit ourselves to just the major ranks, but when dealing with gastropods, we would be eliminating a lot of important information which can be provided at little real cost. Does that sound reasonable to you? Tim Ross·^talk 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Stylianus Od Mishehu. VERY much appreciated! Jc3schmi (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI (unless you actually like doing it yourself), it seems the bot is back in operation, and you don't need to manually archive anymore. I did like your idea on the talk page of welcoming new users whose accounts you create yourself, instead of letting the bot do it; think I'll start doing that too. --barneca (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Od Mishehu, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I beat the 'crat on this one! :) Looks like you passed! And, I just cleared out ACC, too :( SQL^{Query me!} 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I really remove the hangon tag? I don't remember doing that. All I saw was that he deleted the speedy deletion notice, and I reverted that. I guess he put a hangon tag in there too. Oops. Eatcacti (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Could you please explain why you don't see this as an obvious CSD A7? Tijuana Brass (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I have some unresolved issues with East718, I appreciate you effort. Regards. --72.79.47.75 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Od, I just noticed you created User:UfukU, and was wondering if you really thought it an appropriate username? This to me, appears to be "YouFuckYou", simply abbreviated, and not really appropriate as a Wikipedia name. What are your thoughts after looking at the name that way? Ariel♥Gold 12:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ariel, this name should not exist. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate for the account to be blocked (account creation enabled so they can rename) and a note left as to the misunderstanding? Ariel♥Gold 14:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How's the message I left? Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very nice message. Thank you so much for your understanding. Ariel♥Gold 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since your signature ends with or consists entirely of characters which have a right-to-left orientation in Unicode, you may wish to consider putting the invisible control character &ltr; at the end of the signature in order to prevent it from causing the timestamp to become confusingly rearranged. —Random832 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have time yesterday to deal with all of the loose ends from the restructuring process; I have just put in requests for speedy deletion for the two categories that are now empty of articles. Dyanega (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block of the IP 76.223.30.65; are you going to leave a block message for him/her on his/her talk page? Badagnani (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed at this articles AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn valley elementary that it had been speedy deleted under the A7 criteria, which states "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I don't believe this covers schools, in all likelihood it would not have survived the AfD but it really should have been allowed to run for longer than 1hour and 19 minutes. My regards to you. RMHED (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the way I created this and now it includes women and men. How can I change the title of the article itself? Also, scores and stats of the players are good enough or should there be more to the article. Hurricane06 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Hoaxes qualify for speedy, do they not? Here's the giveaway: It is sometimes referred to as the culp-hole in honor of the artist who first named this important orifice. Zero relevant Google hits for any permutation of culp-hole or thread port and not-so-subtle scatalogical joke. I've been doing fiber crafts for over 30 years. Sorted hundreds of stubs tonight. This one leapt out; it's garbage. Durova^Charge! 09:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:HOAX:

Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax. There have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure.

From the list of non-criteria at WP:CSD:

• Hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism.

So hoaxes are not speedy-deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Okay, going the regular route then. Thanks for explaining it. Durova^Charge! 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I left this message at Ten Pound Hammer's talk page. He replied that it was you who deleted an article 90 minutes after it was nominated for deletion at AfD. If an article is nominated and up for discussion, how can you delete that quickly? It seems to me that this kind of deletion subverts the purpose of AfD. Why should I not nominate this for overturn at Deletion Review? I doubt I'd want to keep the article anyway, but I know I want articles at AfD to get a fair hearing. I'd be interested in your response before taking this further. Noroton (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer tagged it for speedy deletion under criteria for speedy deletion number 7 for articles - which says the following:

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

Looking at the page, I decided that it fits the definition of this CSD, so I speedy deleted it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of A7 seems to forbid just what you did:

Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Please reverse the deletion and relist at AfD. Noroton (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This sentence wasn't there at the time - see this version which doesn't mention schools. This was added about 30 1/2 hours later, see this diff. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected, and I appreciate your responses. But why should the speedy deletion process trump an already-started AfD? Once an article is listed at AfD, other editors start looking it over and investing time in it. It seems to me it's a waste of everybody's time to speedy delete once that AfD process is started. (If there had already been some support for keeping the school, speedy deleting it would have been much worse.) In addition, deletions of school articles tend to be controversial (even some elementary schools get kept), and isn't the speedy deletion process meant for cases in which there is a clear consensus or clearly delineated policy that forces deletion? Noroton (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Carry On London some time ago, where I apparently tagged it recently at Carry on London. Looks like I forgot that I had attempted to address that specific project in the past. Thanks for the heads-up! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Could I ask why you refused the speedy delete for the above article ? I requested the delete as an A3 which is "Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images." As far as I can see, the article is ONLY composed of external links. Do you believe this article is notable ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at all comumns beyond the second, you will see some content. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand this criterion. It states "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." It applies to stores as well as people. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any more than to schools? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, merry Christmas. As I saw your edit on category:Suicides by Asain-American and visited your pages which indicate no authority, I would've reverted your edit. But for precaution for myself, after looking through WP:LOA and fining your name there, I tagged the category with CFD per your suggestion. However, why don't you put an admin sign on your pages at all? It is confusing and unhelpful to editors because if someone needs a help from an administrator, you can be simply excluded and be misunderstood by your no sign of anmin.--Appletrees (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is "Type strain: strain ATCC 23366 = CCUG 37666 = CIP 104465 = DSM 43999 = HAMBI 2275 = JCM 6366 = LMG 19255 = NCTC 10437 = NRRL B-4037." not nonsense? I do research in chemistry and have done biology research, and its all greek to me. RogueNinja_talk 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I disagree; look at the current editing history of the article creator. He's going on a massive spam run with a very obvious COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowdart (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

COI violations isn't the same as CSD G11. Note the word blatant in the CSD definition - it must be obvious that the page is an advert, and in my opinion - it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please take another look at the protected edit request at Wikipedia talk:Upload#Preload description and use rationale templates? This change is very important as it will make a significant dent in the number of images uploaded without source information. Five users have come out to support a change like this. The only "opposition" is Carnildo noting that he will have to tweak his ImageTaggingBot to understand that empty information templates do not actually provide source information. Carnildo has not really argued against the change.

Besides, if it really becomes a problem, then the change can be reverted with no ill effects. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I point out to you that User:UBX was explicitly created to host migrated userboxes - read the userpage. Userboxes in this user's userspace should certainly not be deleted as "vandalism". Hut 8.5 11:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there that Mets501 created the account so that he can place userboxes there. He does this using an other account of his, but this isn't blanket permission for anyone who wants to do it. If you can show that Niaz had permission, or if Mets501 states that Niaz may place those pages there, I will happily undelete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted them. Mets501 has given people blanket permission to place userboxes in the userspace of User:UBX, and plenty of people have done so. Please use another deletion mechanism rather than speedy deletion if you want them deleted, especially as this userbox is not explicit vandalism. Hut 8.5 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give me a link to where Mets501 gave such permission? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The sole reason why I created User:UBX was to host userboxes userfied via the Userbox Migration., It was created to host userboxes migrated via the Userbox Migration. both on User:UBX. People have been adding userboxes to this user's userspace for almost a year now. If you want clarification, I suggest you post on User talk:Mets501. Hut 8.5 12:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I said explicit permission. This statement only explicitly states that Mets501, and his bot, are allowed to do it. I have no doubt that this is, in fact, his alternite account, but where's the explicit permission for other users to do it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I get it right now? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it's a pointless debate and people are creating userboxes on UBX space for a longtime - still to make this issue clear, I requested Mets501 to visit this page and express his view regarding this matter. Cheers - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I originally placed this on the userpage as an invitation for others to create userboxes in User:UBX's userspace, until I removed it due to complaints. The trend has been (and I approve of the trend) to just go ahead and create the userboxes. So Hut 8.5, you can feel free to continue creating the userboxes, and I'd ask Od Mishehu to delete undelete (sorry, that was a typo) the ones he has already deleted. Sorry for the controversy. —METS501 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the entry Muhammad Naeemulhaq Chishti, authored by the subject in violation of WP:COI, which you removed yesterday, has been reentered again under another alias (Naeem Chishti). I have tagged it again for speedy deletion under the same criteria. I try to assume good faith, but when it's apparent that's not happening, it drives me berserk. Thanks, Ψν^Psi_nu 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me like sock-puppetry - the first article was written by Drnaeemchishti, the second by Saadishirazi, both basically the same thing. If an other user creates it again - feel free to take it to WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea - I hadn't quite thought to do that. Thank you! Ψν^Psi_nu 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Od Mishehu. Article Anadol include a lot of non-free pictures. Is it normal? What do you thing about this? Kind regards.--Vikimach (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright issues aren't my field. My advice is to read through WP:FAIRUSE, or talk to an admin who deletes a lot of images. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "akdjaioodjosfd5sdgjgdsiu489eh4 ohe89dsgjoisdjgo4dgsjha[j'z", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed (or typed with the eyes closed). 2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever."

   from WP:Patent nonsense

Following this, I am removing my prod on mycobacterium aurum and renominating it for CSD. RogueNinja_talk 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined his speedy and started working on the thing. Dlohcierekim 20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Please undelete page Brandon Ruiz. I am trying to add relevant information and make this page into the correct format. Please aid in this process. What are your specific complaints? I have 4 links from 3rd part sources verifying the legitimacy of this article as well.

Thanks,

Bgoatcheese Bgoatcheese (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't explain what makes Brandon Ruiz important. Please read WP:BIO to see what sort of criteria are necessary for inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've replied to your message. See Talk:Alina Smith. Thanks. --Dan Leveille^TALK 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

hello, i'm wondering why my page has been deleted when it has three directly relevant links to other west end work and artists he has worked with? - i am currently gathering his tv work to put on aswell as his west end credits and short film work too. If you could shed any light on particular problems? - or re create the page, please get back to me - thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock Geek Guy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello! The article may or may not be Spanish (can't tell at first glance) but it's about the common sage. We have one on it already. What to do with the article. If I did something wrong, just tell me. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect, and consider nominating salve for deletion at WP:RFD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll redirect salva then. Salve is useful as a dab in the least, no point in deleting it, methinks. Thanks! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know enough about that subject to know how useful such a redirect is, I was telling you my understanding of the rules here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.

Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to notify me on this. Slapped a {{wikify}} tag on there, cat'd nicely, still looks bleak with all them ifs and shoulds and wills :) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You dleted a Hooligan Stew Info page as blatant advertising. I would like to know how it is advertising for a defunct band? It is merely an info page on the band and is no dfifferent than the many other wiki pages I looked at for many other now defunct 80's Hair bands. I would like to know what would need to b echanged in order to have the page not dleeted. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooliganstew (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong reason. However, the other deletion, as an unimportant band, was in fact a good reasion to delete this page. You didn't explain what made the band important. Please read Wikipedia's notability guideline, and specifically Wikipedia's guideline for notability of music-related subjects, to get an idea of what's necessary for inclusion of a band. In addition, when a user writes an article with a name similar to his/her account name, there is likely to be a conflict of interest involved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(feeling betrayed) Why did you delete my article on Jiro Saito? I only just created it! How could you? I worked really hard on it, it explained the importance, and my Eiji Hanawa article suffered the same fate! I have never felt so betrayed in my life! (starts crying) I s-s-seriously don't know why Wikipedia would just delete something that did explain the imp-p-portance of an article. :'-(

Please respond on my talk page, because I am not having a good first day of 2008. Also, I would like a barnstar if you have time.Kitty53 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mishehu! I made it as notable as I could, and whenever I lose such hard work, I get too nervous to create another article without fear of losing any future hard work! I need a barnstar really badly, because boy, am I not having a good day! (cries louder) Please respond on my talk page, and be polite, because I'm in a bad mood today.Kitty53 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Od, please try to understand! I feel very betrayed right now! I can't help it if my hard work is gone! I recently create something, and the next thing I know, it's gone! Will you please give me a barnstar?Kitty53 (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection of Landmark Education. Could you just use the regular protected notification template on the article page, instead of {{pp-dispute|small=yes}}? I think that would be helpful/informative. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Which template should I use? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you just remove the parameter "small-yes", and use the same template without that part? Cirt (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Od, I'm not having a good day. I don't know why the rules on Wikipedia are so strict, but I feel really sad today. Please, be nice, and I would like a barnstar, please.Kitty53 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't give barnstars on request. In fact, I almost never give barnstars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, will you? Please? If you don't, I'll feel like I shouldn't have joined Wikipedia in the first place! I need cheering up.Kitty53 (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're so mean to me! (cries even louder) You're the meanest Wikipedian I have ever met in my entire life!Kitty53 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't even care that I'm upset! In fact, you have no feelings for other people! How would you like it if you were upset and no one ever gave you a barnstar?!Kitty53 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I profoundly disagree with the abrupt deletion of the above article. This is a blog which has, as I posted, attracted praise from a variety of other blogs in similar spheres, the author has just appeared on national TV, and it's coming up for half a million views. If Girl With A One-Track Mind and Belle de Jour (writer) are notable, I strongly suggest that this one is too, particularly as the stub category I carefully sorted it into has been described as "eminently populable". This is exactly the sort of thing that should be going in there, IMHO.

In terms of the specific criteria under WP:WEB, it fulfils (1) per the comments on sites independent of itself which I linked in the article and the Channel 4 show which I also linked.

Thanks. Nmg20 (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh - and it was nominated for an award at the 2007 erotic awards, which gets it half-way to meeting criterion (2) on WP:WEB, too. Nmg20 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No incoming links on Wikipedia doesn't mean that no one will come looking for it by other means.

That makes no sense: it's not linked from anywhere nor is it an obvious search term or phrase, so how, exactly, is someone going to "come look for it"? Other than the "Random article" link, that is. --Calton | Talk 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone may have seen this article under its old name, and left a link to it on some other site. The "incoming links" only lists links from on-site, not links from off-site. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're being ridiculous: it's an obvious advertisement, not to mention the obvious violation regarding Meta:Role accounts. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Role account userpage isn't covered by any CSD, and then sentence "Magnus Blaze are a four-piece rock band from Ayrshire, Scotland" is descriptive, not an ad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clear this.

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 12:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When something doesn't apply to db-redirtypo because of a date please use the db-redirmisnomer to delete it. These articles uses quotes only for emphasis which is against Wikipedia's policy. Please be bold and don't just decline the tags. Yesterday, i tagged 100 redirects for deletion and they were deleted with no problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the text of R3, it only applies to recently created redirects - both parts. I, as a new admin, won't touch any between 1 and 12 months old; I think that 1 month is recent enough, and 12 months is too long ago. Other admins may disagree, but that's how I understand it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was searching the criteria yesterday. I can't find something that fits exactly in the case. Do you suggest to Rfd them? As i said yesterday i had no problem to delete (exactly) 100 redirects with R3, maybe i was lucky and all the articles were recently created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Keep in mind that frequently, there are pages/redirects/images which there is no real reason to keep, but which aren't speedy-able - recently there was a case of a user who uploaded several free-use images for A7-deletable articles, for example - and the best solution in such cases is probably to XfD such pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how can I suggest a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects? I want something for "Redirect that uses quotes just to emphasize". -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I put my suggestion here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And how do you verify that? Dekisugi (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To deal with speedy requests you don't need too much of a depth analysis, but the Archibald Prize 2006 finalists article does support this claim, and it hasn't been edited since September. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Amanda/Amanda (disambiguation) bits! I appreciate the help! VigilancePrime (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year!

Thanks for the heartwarming advice! Where on Wikipedia can I find an analogy of its structure? I don't get some of the geeky terms like namespace and portal. And while I'm thinking about this, is there a difference between clicking the + on the top of the discussion page and adding your comment at the bottom with "edit page"? Thanks again! Bjhyn (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough that CSD#A7 doesn't cover the nonsense in this article. I've been away from wikipedia and misapplied the tag. I will say, however, that no matter the bureaucracy that's imparted in this case, the article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. --Mud4t (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a question of running the AfD. To the best of my understanding, only someone with significant experience with AfD discussions should implement SNOW, so I shouldn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clear this again!

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)