User talk:Blowdart/Archives/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Blowdart/Archives/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blowdart. Just to remind you that 'advert' is not a reason for speedy deletion. I recommend using {{prod}} or {{afd}}. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See I'd disagree, the very existance of a template where you can specify the reason would lead me to think that any reason is fair game :) --Blowdart 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There are actually very strict rules regarding what can be speedily deleted. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. If they don't fit then you can use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. DJ Clayworth 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blowdart, While it seems that you are a strident user of this system I am new and wonder how to react to you tagging my first contribution on fish lures (a very mundane and trite subject)with this ADVERT tag with no way of understanding what brought you to this decision. While it may not be of the highest publication quality I believe this is a bit of a rash judgement.

First of all, according to the Wikipedia standards, I believe it meets the satndards. I quote "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic..." The base of discussion was concerning Akron, Ohio (a town I lived in 30+ years ago) is credited with the first commercial fish lures according to the Wikipedia Akron, Ohio listing (check it yourself) and that caught my curiosity. It also became the stimulus to investigate this subject, and inso became an intregal part of the story I felt.

Secondly; I not only do not have any connection with any of the companies discussed, hell I don't even fish! I found out the topic existed in my curiosity about the I-76 route of the U.S. Interstate system. I was just surprised anything of much note other than rubber and Lebron James came out of Akron.

So if you might be so kind, could you take a few minutes to guide me to what might be so offensive about this article and what you might suggest to improve it. Other than that I might be led to believe your action may be assumed to be just something to do out of boredom. This being based on your response to DJ Clayworth, "the very existance of a template where you can specify the reason would lead me to think that any reason is fair game :) --Blowdart"

"Platique"

Thanks for catching and fixing my typo so quickly! --Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NRSRO

Thanks! I'm new to this and didn't catch that I had included the plural in the article. (Epstein's Mother 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Re: Crazy Monkey Games

Sorry about that... I was watching the "recent changes" and saw an IP vandal add obscenities to a URL. As it happened, the original URL itself was also bogus. I didn't see your revision, and the "popup" reversion tool didn't warn me another edit had been made in the meantime – I'll have to look out for that in future! JRawle (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cappagh

Fair enough. I did make the original version controversial to try and attract some interest. ;) I've a few days off next week so might have a go at making a template table for NI villages/towns.

Were you referring to the James McDade article when you said "active service makes you seeth"?GiollaUidir 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Kuki Gallman deletion

Although it may have had the "hoax look", the content of the Kuki Gallman article was true, so I removed the speedy deletion tag. Ardric47 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Subtext

Hi. I replied on my talk page. Cheers, CiaranG 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And again. CiaranG 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for stopping those two word new articles. does he not know what an encyclopedia is? some of them may even be notable but if you create a two word under-stub you can't expect it not to be deleted!

Your db tag on Dave Carnie

Please take the time to read the history page before automatically adding a speedy deletion tag. There was only one edit with the edit summary as "page creation, more coming...." before you added the tag. Please assume good faith, I am still creating the page. - Ocatecir 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but every time I see more coming it usually doesn't. Unless you're going to mark it as a stub, rather than rely on creation comments, it's fair game in my eyes. Why didn't you just wait and submit it as a "complete" article rather than a single sentence. Even now you filled it out I really don't see what's notable about him at all, until you finally justified it with imdb and jackass links --Blowdart 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Daithi McKay

He is a candidate for the 2007 elections, and an elected councillor etc, and may be a MLA soon. To fully develop the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 article, isnt it a good idea to have an article about each candidate? Frainc 11:21 14 February 2007

Not convinced to be honest. Merely being elected isn't, to my mind, that notable. Feel free to remove the db if you feel otherwise. --Blowdart 11:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your db tag on Ellen Hanley

Please check the date and time when consider nominating an article for deletion. I am in the middle of creating this article, based on the official biography template - which needs to be saved empty first before I can work on it. Please consider this before add a speedy to a new page. I see you've been reminded above about the policies and procedures regarding nominating deletions, and the strict criteria required for a speedy deletion. These are official policies, they are not optional - even if you disagree with them - so I suggest that you read them again Madmedea 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, expect of course you can happily create a user page using the template and edit that before add the new article, which would cull the number of misunderstandings. --Blowdart 11:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rasul_Bux_Palejo

Can i know the reason why you tag this artilce for deletion.Please be carefull while putting tags.Khalidkhoso 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple; no assertion notability. As the tag says. Even if the attributes suggested are true there are no references to prove them. Careful? I find the tag entirely justified. --Blowdart 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
this artilce is taken from other language of Wikipedia check this[[1]]. Khalidkhoso 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then translate it and put the full article and picture in, rather than create what is an empty article. If you are worried about your english then you will find other people will correct minor mistakes. But right now a one line article and a link to another wikipedia is not an assertion of notability. --Blowdart 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
will you give me time to do some work on it.rather then i should get warning from you.Please Khalidkhoso 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
will give me little time to do some work and put some work and links.Khalidkhoso 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If deleting artilce makes you Happy then you can delete it.Khalidkhoso 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
B the you can check these links [[2]],[[3]],[[4]],[[5]](Dawn News Papers),[[6]],[[7]](gulfnews),[[8]].Khalidkhoso 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not about just adding links. You must add more details. One line about someone without pointing out which link justifies your opinions is simply not suitable. Take a look around at some other politician articles for good examples. --Blowdart 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I just started artilce next second it had warning i am not machine ,i am searching and adding stuff on it.it work with steps rather then i should copy-paste from some other site.Khalidkhoso 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ,piece of advice just give little time to other to make some thing.Khalidkhoso 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rasul_Bux_Palejo

Hello Now can you have some grammatical improvements in article.Khalidkhoso 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

new articles on Accounting

Howdy, I noticed that you tagged a number of articles about accounting concepts for speedy deletion. I have added hangon notes to two already, but I am somewhat unclear on the CSD used. I think is was fairly clear that the articles were about accounting (in fact one was even linked from the accounting article). Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Your CSD tag on Online Idol

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is strongly encouraged, and this is mentioned in the various speedy delete templates themselves. please consider notifying article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notify authors about speedy deletion? where this issue was discussed. B1atv 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin allen speedy delite ?

Hey just wondering why did you tag my article about kevin allen the author for speedy delition? trfccurt —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple, it said little and no proof of notability. See WP:Notability for what editors would find acceptable. Listing two books is meaningless. Reviews of the books would be a better indication of notability. --Blowdart 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Bunting

Hi. You put a csd on Sarah Bunting, and left me a message about it. The subject is the founder of a major website which itself has a wikipedia article. What assertions of notability did you require? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meansarea (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an admin agreed with me. Simply founding a web site isn't enough. News articles. Awards won. Stuff like that would help your case. --Blowdart 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Derry-Londonderry-Doire Naming issue

It is unfortunate that so much time is still being spent with arguments over these Derry City and Londonderry county articles. Wikipedia, as an international organisation have made an excellent and impartial compromise with the naming issue. DERRY is the name of the article relating to the city as the majority of Derry's inhabitants and indeed the council wish it to be named so. LONDONDERRY is the name of the county article as this is how the people have voted in the article. I know unionists may argue that the official name is Londonderry and this cannot change, however the name was made official undemocratically by the British government of the time and not by the will of the Derry/Londonderry people. If there is going to be unsolicitated edits to change these articles to agree with others POV's then these problems will never cease! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with the article name at all, despite having come from a family with a tradition of marching bands (*cringe*). However legally the city name itself, the official name is Londonderry, and to my mind that should be the infobox text. And in fact it has been for quite a while, through numerous revisions of both proddy and catholic editors. The infobox is a different matter to the article name. It clearly says "Official Name" --Blowdart 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Irish mayors

Glad to see someone's been looking at the lists I've been creating! I can't see an article emerging on your aunt, unless she is notable in some other field; I suspect that only those linked names are likely to have the sources available to demonstrate sufficient notability. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not actually expecting her to be turned into an article. Her ego is large enough as it is; not that I think she'd understand what wikipedia is :) --Blowdart 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Infoboxes

An unofficial invitation to interested parties.
Folks, it strikes me that the current state of infobox warring going on needs to stop. Right now we have a choice between UK infoboxes, and Irish infoboxes and both political strands want one or the other. Neither have the same information, and by forcing your own choice we're missing out on useful information. For example, the County Londonderry article uses the Ireland County info box. This misses out a mass of information that is applicable, UK National Office of statistics references, UK MP information, ISO codes and so on.
The map is perfect, it no longer has NI floating in space, but the current use of an Ireland info box simply isn't applicable, it ignores the political reality that the north is administered by the UK.
So I propose a compromise. Specific Northern Ireland county, city/town/village info boxes. If we can merge the UK and Irish ones I think we'd come to a solution that everyone can agree with.
I'm willing to put the work in for this, but without broad agreement from people who kick with each foot it'll be useless, and reverts will continue. So I'd like your thoughts before I even make a start.
I'm going to seed a pointer to this bit on my talk page on a few of your own talk pages. I assume you know your "compatriots" better than I do, and I would encourage you to forward the link to them. If you've come here and I didn't leave a note on your talk page, then please accept my apologies. I wasn't ignoring you, there's just too many people to cope with! --Blowdart 13:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is in the Irish infobox that is needed? Essentially what is the point of all that effort?Traditional unionist 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from compromise? Acknowledgement of the old county division, making the Irish names a first class citizen. Right now the country maps are using the Irish place info box. It's missing a bunch of applicable stuff. Certainly the basis for the new info box would the UK ones, however by renaming and tweaking to be NI specific we avoid the politics of the infobox name and hopefully put an end to the childish infobox revert wars that break out once a week. --Blowdart 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be rude, but could that be surmised as "to appease childish Irish Nationalist editors"?Traditional unionist 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Irish name could be used with the British box, see Cornwall.Traditional unionist 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And you know fine well they'll say the reverse for you. Perfect NI compromise, it pisses off everyone. More seriously it gives note to both the current political reality and to history. Yes the Irish name could be put in the UK info box by manually massaging it but strictly there's no field for it. --Blowdart 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to do it, go ahead, but I don't necessarily see the point.Traditional unionist 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry for crashing again, you're still on my watchlist TU.) I'd be on for a merger. There's far too many things that could be handled more effectively with more eyes looking at them if they were merged on a pan-island basis. I would also get Northern Ireland out of its current limbo where it often ends up with the worst of both worlds. This is one basic idea that could be floated. I had a couple more but this would be enough - only three groups have to be convinced by it - southern Irish/Northern Irish/British. --sony-youthpléigh 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blowdart and thank you for asking me if I would like to participate in this discussion. I agree whole heartedly that a compromise should be reached and for your method of creating a Northern info box containing both Irish and UK styles for Northern information. I both admire and aplause you in this for your level of compromise, something I would like to see more of from others both Nationalist and Unionist. I applaude you also for wishing to acknowledge the Irish people who make up ~42% of the norths political opinion and making efforts to respect that rather than deny it like Traditional Unionist user is doing. I wish he would understand that Irishness is a reality just as much as Britishness in Northern Ireland and BOTH need to be equally respected and catered for in this new settlement for our peoples by all sides. With respect to the Irish names, I want all unionists to understand that i know why they take offense to the language. they see it as a Republican propaganda, as well as the flag of Ireland. I am going to campaign on this to show Unionists that the language is something to be cherished as a beautiful part of Irish AND Northern Ireland culture and history. The flag of Ireland was originally drawn to represent catholics (green) and protestents (orange) and the hope of a lasting poeace between them (white). Such is the symbolism of that flag relevant to today, that i cannot but recognise it as the best flag to represent me and this island, not because of any Irishness but of the comming together of our peoples in peace. This is my POV but I just want unionists to know that because i have green on my page, it does not make me a terriorist, nor a person to be distrusted. Blowdart I would like to work with you in the future with regards to edits of both nationalist and unionist persuasion that may be biased and hopefully this discussion can be the start of resolving all politically motivated edits on articles relating to Ireland (north & south), the UK, Unionist culture and Nationalist culture! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at the UK version of the county box and there is some facts i would like to point out, in the Cornwall UK county article, it gives certain elements that would be difficult to include for Northern Ireland, such as MP's for the area. This would be difficult for the Northern counties area as MPs are elected differently here eg. Newry and Armagh MP area ALREADY has an article talking about MPs for the area, and Newry is part of county Down, but NOT the South Down MP constituancy area! thus i will argue for this part to be left out. The same goes for MLAs inclusion as this is also pointed out in the Parliment constituancy areas. Like it or not, northern Irish counties ARE and where designed by British authorities like every other Irish county, and thus it can be argues that the version of the infobox we are using at present should stay. However I respect Unionist fears of Irishness being shown on Wiki pages and would be happy to have the Geography, Demographics and Ethinicity being included in a northern county infobox, HOWEVER I do not believe Executive or MPs apply. Nor do districts, as most northern Districts are spread over more than one county Newry & Mourne District could not be shown in county armagh submap (as only part exists and would create the illusion that the small bit in Armagh is the whole district!) this also applies for the County Down submap (if drawn for districts) thus i would not agree with this inclusion also. Looking at the Scottish county infobox for Fife also. It also includes a "Scottish Gaelic" section which we could not add as we know this would be offensive to unionists. So in that regard isnt Scottish Counties somewhat different to their English counterparts but similar to northern counties in our shared gaelic history? to take it further then why not add Scots Planters also? lol I am highlighting this point Blowdard to show you that there will still be a degree of argument in the makeup of the county box and think that, even though you mean well, small minded people will still argue like our friend Traditional Unionist (user) above. Could I also say to Traditional Unionist (user) that the term "childish Nationalist editors" is both insulting and mocking and shows your utmost contempt for Irish people including myself. You have let yourself down and shown your level of maturity and respect to others. Can you not see why Irish names are needed in the info box? Are you that ignorant to where the county/town/city/village placenames came from (including your OWN areas placenames?) in the first place? The Irish name for the area is ENTIRELY relavent for the history of the anglicised county names we hear today. Please encourage yourself to look into the history of the topic before you comment further and not rely on your bitter and sectarian judgements on the Irish language and its people! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Lord this is turning into the pig fight I wanted to avoid by compromise. On MPs etc; some English "counties" (in quotes, because Berkshire isn't a real county anymore) span multiple parliamentary districts, and that's simply done by listing the MPs that cover the area. The inclusion of MPs (or MLAs) doesn't indicate they represent the entire area, it is (to my mind) perfectly acceptable to have MPs listed in more than one infobox if their area spans two counties. I agree the Irish name is relevant (the whole Scots Irish thing set to one side), my point is so is a lot of the UK info box stuff, OS map co-ordinates, NUTs and ONS codes etc. The area of "Ulster" to my mind isn't, or could be "relegated" to a "Historical" section. Heck it's rather fictitious these days (in the same way Berkshire is). The Irish info box just ignores a lot of useful and encyclopaedic information. However if it's going to become a Unionist/Nationalist pissing fight there seems little point in doing it. In order to work it needs broad agreement from both sides. --Blowdart 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Irish info boxes could and should be expanded also to include map co-ordinates etc. However I do not understand how the Provincial area of Ulster is not relevant and would like you to explain further on this issue. As I understand it from a Nationalist mindset, the provinces of Ireland come as you say from a historical background - A division of ancient Irish Kingdoms, however these provinces are still widely used in an all Ireland and international basis in terms of competitions such as sport (provincial Rugby teams, GAA organisation, Irish Dancing competitions, Special Olympic Teams organisation etc.) In my opinion for northern counties, adding the province of Ulster to the historical section would also allow for the argument to adding the northern counties to an historical section, this is because no northern county (except Fermanagh) is an administerative reigion anymore and, like the provinces, are used purely for sporting teams organisation (eg. GAA). Historically they were formed by the old British administerative divisions but this has become less relavent now with the use of District councils in the north. This is my POV and I would like your take on this. Thanks, --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends how you view the infoboxes, geographic, political, socio-economic etc. Ignoring the political representation would probably annoy the unionist side as much as relegating "Ulster" to a historical view (and in political terms, lets face it, that's what it is). District councils are handled reasonably well in the English infoboxes, harking back to Berkshire that's no-longer a county at all, but it's part of the Thames Valley authority area. But it does exist on maps, and in post office addresses. Oxfordshire has a bunch of councils, heck I have a town council here, and I'm part of the South Oxfordshire district council, and yet another NHS PCT. But none of that takes away from the existence of the county itself. --Blowdart 14:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me a no-brainer. Thank you for being prepared to put in the effort. Very John Major of you. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Calling me grey is supposed to be encouragement? *grin* Still waiting to see if a vague agreement bubbles out of this discussion though. --Blowdart 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well i for one hope that it does not bubble out and an agreement does indeed arise on this proposal. I still agree in principle with the proposal as it will add increased county details to the articles. Can I just ask you however do you see my point in that classing the Provinces as purely historical can also be assumed for the county political systems also? I am interested in your POV on this matter as it is good to see how other people view the political systems of the island. thanks --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that towns in Northern Ireland are ‘special’. They have dialing codes which can be and are used from the Republic of Ireland, and from mainland UK. Whereas the rest of the United Kingdom do not have such codes. I have been made aware of this information as someone who regularly crosses the border between the two jurisditions. As Northern Ireland can be connacted in two ways, not one, from beyond the British Isles, I thought it would be fitting to have both codes appear on the page. I am indifferent towartds their positions on the page with reference to the codes from England/Scotland/Wales. I did not apply this to other towns within the UK, as this does not apply to anywhere else in the UK. I genuinely do not know what you are trying to suggest by a ‘pollitically motivated’ edit. If you are tying to suggest that I am of an Irish nationalist/Ulster unionist persuation, I suggest you think again. As it happens I am English, living in Northern Ireland, and obstain from voting in NI elections, due to their sectarian nature and other personal beliefs. If you believe it proper to place “+44 28” before “+353 48”, and “028” before “048”, good. With hindsight I probably would have done the same thing myself, if I were to do it again. As it happens, you have deleted the information from the page, for your stated reasons, and I am not going to retype them all out again. That said, I must ask, out of morbid curiousity, why do you believe that they should not appear on the relevent pages at all? And if you do not believe this, why did you delete them? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.147.49.229&redirect=no 86.147.49.229 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.49.229 (talk)
Actually it's simple. No other towns in any other country has the a dialing code other than the the standard international ones, and what you added wasn't really useful; instead of the full dialing code, you simply added the NI country prefix from the ROI, rather than a combination of the country prefix and the town code. So you added the same, incorrect, information to a bunch of towns. --Blowdart | talk 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly erroneous A7

David Jacobson - list of films is a clear assertion. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - David Gerard 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah well the list of films wasn't there when I tagged it, that came later. The original page just had that he was a screen writer and director with no real claim to notability (lets face it, an IMDB link is nothing these days). --Blowdart 16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Explosive Child

I'm a newbee in wikipedia and I got your tag about my article on Explosive Child. Not sure how this work but I start a talk about it. Need your help. Thanks --Chrix Bedard 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK; you need to assert notability. Simple existence of a book isn't enough. You need to provide references, reviews, citations etc. Take a look at WP:Cite to see how to go about it. Read WP:Note to see what people will find notable --Blowdart 12:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I did an update, let me know if that better now. Thanks--Chrix Bedard 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah much better (a few grammar mistakes though *grin*). Now it reads not as an advert for the book, but as a description of the condition. Well done! --Blowdart 07:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I fix (as I can) the grammar mistakes. English is not my first language. Thanks for the guidance. --Chrix Bedard 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading "Embryo (jazz band)"

Well done! Thank you for proofreading the article! — Tirkfltalk 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Student Youth Network

Blow dart why do you keep deleting the Student Youth network page! You have no reason to do so! If i9t happens again mI'll will be contacting wikipedia about the matter. If you want to help FIX THE ARTICLE, instead of deleting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Any12345678 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point you in the right direction last time; pushing you to WP:BIO and WP:CITE but all you did was remove the noref and speed delete templates again and again without actually changing anything in the actual article. And again, back you come, posting the same thing again, with no changes whatsoever, hence it being marked as a repost. What exactly do you expect if you ignored every piece of advice last time? --Blowdart 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


May I ask then, why haven't any of the wikipedia articles on other Melbourne radio stations not been deleted as many of them if not all, contain very few references, and I doubt highly if as important as SYN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Any12345678 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the point; I only saw your article the first time because it appeared in the new list; and if I'm bored enough I may well go through the rest. You keep talking about importance but you simply don't prove it and your reposting of the article again and again without making any changes or paying attention to proving importance does not indicate any acting in good faith. Anyway can edit articles and ask you to prove importance. If you don't believe the other stations are important then you can ask their editors to prove it; the request will be treated just the same as this article. Don't view this as anything personal, it's not, but using the other articles as an "excuse" isn't helpful. If the station is as important as you think it is then please, prove it; give us 3rd party links talking about it. Again please read WP:Note to see what is expected when proving notability. --Blowdart | talk 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


why did you remove the tag? Please explain! --Any12345678 05:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you're trying (very trying *grin*) I've removed the db-repost for the time being, but don't be shocked if someone else adds another tag in. So what you need to do is look at why the station is mentioned in those links you put on the talk page, and work that into the article (looking at the links however every single one of them are documents or pages produced by the network themselves. They're not 3rd party links and so cannot be used to prove notability). So you need to find something like a newspaper article talking about the work of the station; it *must* be 3rd party and it must prove notability (again see WP:Note). Until you can prove notability with mentions by 3rd parties, and not press releases etc. as you have linked to above your article will fail on notability grounds. I wish you luck! --Blowdart | talk 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

rampage

It's hardly your fault. The actions of others can't rest with you alone. They stopped as soon as they started anyway so no real harm was done. -- Longhair\talk 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

I am also trolling the new pages right now and I noticed you speedied some without putting a note on the author's talk page. Please remember to notify the author in fairness. Just a head's up, keep on keepin' on.--Old Hoss 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I do it, depending on the user, if it looks like a speedy one user, one edit, then I let the bot do it :) --Blowdart | talk 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Student Youth Network

This organisation isn't even in a grey area in terms of notability. It's well known and culturally significant in my home state, although I've never listened to it myself. I have little patience for people who insist on challenging the notability of topics they know absolutely nothing about, even in the face of previously uninvolved people who actually do. Rebecca 05:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Except as WP:Note specifically says you must prove it. There's no proof offered, hence the tag encouraging people to actually edit and offer proof. There's no citations other than self referential stuff. If you had taken the time to read the talk page you'd see I've been trying to encourage the author to actually provide some decent proof of notability. Until that happens the tag is perfectly valid, and indeed it's inclusion is there to encourage others to edit and offer such proof, not as a prelude to deletion. By removing it you're doing a disservice to the article. If you're that bothered find something that will count under WP:Note instead of just removing the tag. --Blowdart | talk 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it needs references, as do a great many articles on Wikipedia. The references tag remains on the article for this reason. The claim of non-notability, however, was utter bunk, and I called you on that. Simple. Rebecca 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah that may be my fault. See the talk page for Student Youth Network. It's the user's 3rd attempt to create this, the previous two having been culled as non-notable (and again they just cut and pasted the previous article in). In their whine over why the article should stay they tried to use the existence of other stations as justification. I pointed out this wasn't the point, and anyone could also mark those as non-notable. *sigh* That backfired --Blowdart | talk 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What ramage?! I note (and with some amusement!) that you pick on people who try to make wikipedia better by creating articles. --User: Any12345678 | talk 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah your little sulk and tagging of other articles, as picked up by an admin. I've tried to point you in the right direction in the talk page for the article, but rather than take that advice you decided to run amok and tag other articles. Hardly helpful. --Blowdart | talk 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and adding a prod tag to a talk page; oh dear. Grow up. --Blowdart | talk 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
They're well within their rights to be recreating the article. It's a significant radio station, and that it's been speedied says a lot more about the willingness of one or two admins to violate the speedy deletion policy than the notability of the article. If you are, as you state, so concerned with the referencing of this article, how about doing it yourself, rather than making utterly bogus claims of non-notability? Rebecca 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Because I don't know the topic. The article as it stands does not claim any significance at all. How can it, there are no external references? Instead of sulking if it's so important to you then *improve* the article by proving something that is acceptable under WP:Note. You've edited a shed load of articles, you know how this works. The existence of a {{notability}} tag is not a bad thing, it's there to encourage others who know the subject matter to help improve and provide proof of significance other than the fact it has a broadcasting license. --Blowdart | talk 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeburners

Hi,

I was looking through the history and noticed you'd tagged The Bridgeburners for speedy deletion. I'm trying to work on it along with the user who created it (he's a newbie), would you mind holding off for a bit to give us time to expand it? Another user redirected the page to Gardens of the Moon (which isn't really appropriate either) and the reversion deleted the speedy tag. Also, if you still feel it should be delted, could you take it to AFD rather than speedy? I'm not certain what the community would say and it would have implications for other pages extant and still to be created for other fictional people and groups. WLU 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea no worries, when I tagged it it was a list without any real explanation of the fact it was fictional etc. I'll give it a while :) --Blowdart | talk 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Lurvely. I'm actually curious about what the AFD debate would say irrespective, as there are many, many articles on wiki that are essentially walled gardens on ficitional topics, and really how do you link it to any other article? How do you link Gandalf to Luke Skywalker? How do you break out and link to fictional universes from the outside? Really, no-one is going to find a notable discussion on Richard Rahl off of wikipedia, so does it deserve it's own page if The Sword of Truth does? A strong application of WP:N or even WP:FICT with fictional settings and people would eliminate large swaths of wikipedia. The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Sword of Truth, A Song of Ice and Fire, large chunks of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Gives me the shivers it does. WLU 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
*grin* I'm one of those with the opinion that a large knife removing large swaths wouldn't be a bad thing, given the amount of {{inuniverse}} cruft there is. It's funny the more detailed fictional sections are on sci-fi and fantasy books, which shows the underlying user base. However given the definition of encyclopedia even fiction is a particular branch of knowledge. --Blowdart | talk 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm struggling with it - normally I'm a policy nazi, in favour of a rigorous interpretation even if it means my pet articles are erased or articles I dislike are kept. But I really, REALLY like the Malazan Book of the Fallen (and ASoIaF, though TSoT could be buried in a shallow, salted grave as far as I'm concerned). I've got groin strain from having a leg in two very far apart canoes. A second review of WP:FICT seems to support there being some rational for keeping the in universe near-cruft (or even cruft-cruft), but it's almost a loophole and I hate loopholes.
Incidentally, {{tl|inuniverse}} gives {{inuniverse}} and saves the nowiki tags. WLU 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Turnerzworld

I am an employee, though I didn't write the original article. Should I have an outside revise the article? Turnerzworldcorp 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean Mathias

Blowdart, I've removed the speedy deletion tag from Sean Mathias. Since you nominated the article for deletion, the author has greatly expanded the article and has made sufficient assertion of notability to preclude it from a speedy deletion. If you feel the current revision of the article still merits deletion, nominate it at AfD. Thanks, Caknuck 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Information Card

Hi Blowdart,

Thanks for adding the content about the managed card authentication methods and for saying that some of the post felt too marketing-esqe to you.

I expanded the managed card authentication info into its own section describing the details of managed cards, also including information about auditing versus non-auditing cards. I also changed the (possibly marketing-esqe) title "Benefits of Information Cards" to "Sign-In with Information Cards" and edited accordingly. More facts are good.

I am going to push back on one thing you wrote to me on my talk page, however. You wrote about "different keys are used at each site":

Whilst on a basic level that's true; it depends. With managed cards it's certainly not true, it's only for unmanaged cards that PPID are guaranteed unique, an STS may choose not to implement PPIDs at all.

Actually, even for managed cards that provide a PPID claim, they're required to use different keys for every site. As per An Implementer's Guide to the Identity Selector Interoperability Profile V1.0, where it talks about the privatepersonalidentifier claim, "An identity provider issuing this claim must do so using data present in the RST request." This can be done either with the target scope information from the RST or the ClientPseudonym. But in either case, a pair-wise unique PPID is required to be generated by all managed cards that provide this claim.

Cheers,
-- Mike

Actually no; that line does not require unique at all; look at the phrase target scope. It's scope, not web site. So, for example, if company A has 20 web sites, all with different domain names it *is* acceptable to serve the same PPID to every site because the realm is the owning company, not the domain name. (Guess what I've been spending the last 6 months doing *grin*). So yes it's pair-wise unique, but the RP pair may not be the web site itself. Make sense? --Blowdart | talk 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you know the spec well. I can guess what *kind* of work you've been doing for the past 6 months but I'm very curiuos what the actual work has been. You won't, by any chance, be at IIW this coming week will you? If so, I'd love to chat with you about what you're doing. If not, maybe you could drop me a note at mbj@microsoft.com and tell a little bit about it if you're willing. Anyway, back to Wikipedia issues...

I took another stab at accurately describing the unique pair-wise key generation behavior of information cards, this time incorporating your correct observation that realms need not be sites. I believe that it's important to document this property of information cards in the article.

Do me a favor, if you still believe that the wording is inaccurate for some reason, take a stab at fixing it rather than deleting it this time. Or tell me what you still think is wrong and I'll fix it -- your call.

Thanks, Mbjencyclopedia 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dramatic

How can I certify the page and properly display its purpose?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dramatic

thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedramatic (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Diner

Thank you very much for your kind help cleaning up the page on Tokyo Diner. Thank you also for your advice on references and citations.

I was delighted to see that members of the Wikipedia community had made improvements to the page. Unfortunately, however, someone has now deleted the whole page before I had a chance to save a copy of all the improvements [see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Tokyo_Diner].

Is there any way to find the page from just before the deletion?

Richard Szumlicki 10:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh bugger, I put some work into that. Not that I know of I'm afraid --Blowdart | talk 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again.

I am now beginning to understand the power of the peer-review process.

Other user’s deletions were very effective at getting me to read and digest WP guidelines, particularly the ones concerning notability and neutrality. I finally managed to produce a contribution that other users were willing to accept.

However, almost as soon as the page was accepted, a user called Irishguy decided to put up a COI banner. I did not like this, because I thought that I had removed all the COI from the page.

Nevertheless, I am totally committed to following the guidelines, so I do not feel that I am in a neutral enough position to remove the COI banner and have not done so.

Blowdart, I understand that you know Tokyo Diner as a neutral observer. Now that the page has had contributions from other users, do YOU think the COI banner should stay?

Thank you very much for taking an interest in this.

Regards,

Richard.

P.S. I've noticed that the protocol in these discussion pages is for each new response to be indented slightly to the right. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. Where can I find out how to? Richard Szumlicki 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Woops! I've just read the helpful comments at the top of your page, so I see that you had answered my question before I even posed it.
Thank you. Richard Szumlicki (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Coaches

Well....I wouldn't call two a bunch :D. But yes, they have no real information yet, but I was hoping to simply enter them in before I forgot again. I'm going to expand them later today. But I figured that their jobs have enough notability for them to at least be in as of now. Cheers! (mastrchf91) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I thought you were about to start a run on them *grin* We'll just have to agree to disagree on if their job makes them notable. After all it's not real football ;) --Blowdart | talk 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

If you've got an anonymous email address to hand, drop me a line. Not urgent or important :o) ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Donedid :) --Blowdart | talk 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Wegman

He's definitely "notable" and I added a decent amount of material. Wasn't sure if I could delete the "notability" tag or leave that to you. Sn14534 (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Culled the tag; thank you for expanding it! --Blowdart | talk 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

William Adam Trellis Award

Excuse me? How is the William Adam Trellis Award 'made up'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.53 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove to me it's not, above and beyond a silly little personal web site on a free host with a foundation that google cannot find. --Blowdart | talk 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The website is the Foundation. What on Earth has the fact that it is a free domain got to do with anything? Similarly what has it's absence from Google got to do with anything? Also do you have any grasp of (n)etiquette? Reverting an edit you disagree with is one thing, doing so and then threatening to ban the contributor is something else. If you disagree with an addition fine, that can be discussed. If, however you are disagreeing with a relevant, verifiable claim then what right do you have to threaten to ban the one making it? Please at the very least use some common courtesy.

Yoshi525 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Yoshi

Verifiable? It most certainly is not. I suggest you go read WP:Cite to see what counts are verifiable. A single free hosted web page and a yahoo email address is not verifiable. --Blowdart | talk 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading at 'This page is a style guide'. Style =! policy. Now do you have a more substantial challenge or are going to continue your bad manners by citing entire, and ironically irrelevant material as your entire argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippytrout (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa now!

Hang fire a little! Please don't be quite so over-zealous when nominating articles under construction, such as Tumblagooda sandstone, for deletion. I'm going now going to have an edit conflict to resolve when I save the page! Anyhow, thanks for new-page patrolling so thoroughly, and all the best, Verisimilus T 12:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I have to admit some puzzlement *grin* Creating a blank page that just contains the under construction tag is well, a little, errr, blank *grin*. If there had even been a single sentence beyond the tag I'd have left along, but as it stood it was just too bizarre! --Blowdart | talk 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritic

Worked on getting the page up to spec. It's one of my first pages so please bear with me. Also would appreciate not having it deleted but rather get some help.

thanks 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiding behind an IP doesn't make your case any better; it's pretty obvious that you're still Gkleinman, owner of the site in question. wikipedia is not your advertising medium. --Blowdart | talk 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)--Blowdart | talk 11:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not hiding behind any IP. Nor trying to hide my identity. Just wasn't logged in. It's the same IP as when I started it. Again, I'm working on the content to make it of value, please don't penalize me for being a newbie!! Help don't punish. 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

funny, you were logged in a hour ago, then suddenly logged out after people starting putting warnings on your talk page. That smacks of attempting to disguise yourself while you attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising medium for your new site. --Blowdart | talk 11:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

not at all. I'm sorry if it seems this way, but it's not the case. I've been working on the page off and on through out the night. I didn't realize I was logged out until I went into the history for the page. I removed the deletion notice as I didn't know you shouldn't. Again I AM A NEWBIE. I think it's important that you give some leeway to new people who are learning how to wikki. I know you get a lot of crap of people spamming the wikki and perhaps you are jaded, but realize that not everyone knows how to effectively wikki, so rather than make accusations here, help a newbie learn! 24.21.183.177 (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive118#Issue with user Blowdart. The XCritic article is now on AfD and the self-bio has been reduced in size by 80% to remove most of the self-aggrandizement. He also waved WP:BITE at me, but that policy is not a licence to abuse the 'pedia, as you know. Cheers ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Noticeboard link edited to reflect archival process. --Blowdart | talk 11:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
And looking at his edit history I think someone that had their first edit 2 years back can hardly claim newbie status *grin* --Blowdart | talk 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. But seriously. WP:BITE It's not a license and i'm not abusing. There IS a learning curve. I just wish that there was a path to INFORM before rush to delete/criticize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway we can call a Truce here and not have you reverse all my edits? Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When your edits smack of spam, no, I'm afraid not. --Blowdart | talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography‎ before proceeding with deletion. There are issues that need to be addressed. Gkleinman (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritic again

Hi, I don't think referring to editors as "muppets" is helpful. For what its worth another user did create a pretty defamatory version of the xcritic page after it went through DRV and before User:Gkleinman recreated it. The defamatory page was quickly deleted but unfortunately Google crawled and cached it in the period it was up. So you can still find the inappropriate page on Google. I don't think Gkleinman is correct to say that the page has to be recreated in order to clear the Google cache, bu his complaint about the defamatory page is valid. The question of notability of the page is still completely valid. The page does make an assertion of notability so shouldn't be speedied under A7, but the AfD seems perfectly reasonable. Best, Gwernol 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Kleinman is a fun editor, attempting to use bite and other interesting rule interpretations to stop his company page being deleted. It was fun <grin>. Interesting to see he's still pushing claims for notability that are in fact about another web site. His complaint about the defamatory page is valid, if made to google; not here IMO. --Blowdart | talk 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree that he needs to complain to Google not us, I made that point to him a couple of times already. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you have had interactions over this article and its creator before, however, that does not mean that its appropriate to make personal attacks. Please try to deal with this in a civil manner. Shell babelfish 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart, it doesn't need to be personal between us. I'm more than willing to work within the confines of WP. BTW there is a renewed case for notability for XCritic. Another Citation in a Major Trade Mag for the industry and now pending membership in the Xrated Critics Association. If that goes through would you be willing to take another assessment at notability? (provided of course I don't write the article? Gkleinman (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly I wouldn't consider that linked article anything near notability, it's a single line quoting something Xcritic said. It's not a review, it's not something that says XCritic is notable because. *shrug* But I hope the google link was useful. --Blowdart | talk 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It was thank you.Gkleinman (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we're over the hump on the notability issue. We're now a member of the X-Rated Critics Association XRCO. Need more convincing? Gkleinman (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't know. It doesn't seem more than an industry group. Does a budding author who joins a group for budding authors automatically become notable? Doubtful. If it had been a group that had taken worth and some proof of expertise to join (for example becoming a booker prize judge) then I'd be less dubious. But as I don't know about the industry, I don't know how notable judging in that association makes you. Someone else could make that call. Of course the COI issue still stands. And really asking for the article to be created by others makes me worry. A bunch. --Blowdart | talk 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not anyone can join the Association, you have to be nominated and only the top in the industry are accepted. Also almost every org listed under the membership has WP articles. In terms of next steps, I think the appropriate thing is to continue to make the case for notability with the Porn Project team. Ultimately they're going to be the ones who are best suited to figure out when a WP entry is warranted and who is the best person on their team to author it. It wasn't my intent to repost the page to be an ass, if you read what was posted and cached by Google you'll understand why I felt the need to act.Gkleinman (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah that's interesting; certainly looking more "notable". But is membership granted to you as an individual, or to XCritic as a company? If it's *you* then its you that is notable, not XCritic. A good start might be to expand out the XRCO article yourself and document the nomination procedures/how they choose members. Then list the current members, and link to their pages and add XCritic, but leave it as an uncreated page. Then see if anyone picks it up.
And being an ass? Well I'm awfully good at that; but hopefully you can see my point. You recreated a page that was already deleted, with no new claims to "fix" a problem with google, rather than asking google to remove the cached page. Considering the instructions I found were easy to find it looked like you were using the whole cache as an excuse to recreate the article again, rather than acting in good faith. --Blowdart | talk 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did add some 'juice' to the XRCO page, but more to give it some references than anything else. I think the quote on IMDB's page is the clincher for notability of the members "The organization is an amalgamation of established reviewers representing a wide range of adult publications, including Adam Film World, Hustler, AVN and many retail Internet sites." Link to IMDB. What do you think? And yes it's XCritic who is a member not me personally. Gkleinman (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UltraBac Software

Thanks for your help. Do you now see my notability references as sufficient and properly done to take off the notability warning on UltraBac Software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetechguru (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Rating articles help

I noticed when I click on my watchlist which contans articles I created and edited ,there are green theumps up and a number. I was wondering how I could also rate other articles.--Gia Primo (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoxs64

Please say you were joking saying that a gaming review website is a good example to back up statements about the accuracy of a C64 emulator :( Apparently you have no idea of the subject. To be able to compare the C64 emulators in terms of their accuracy, you need to see tens if not hundreds of demos and have a really good eye for tiny details. A reviewer from a "gaming review website" playing Last Ninja to relive his youth will not be able to tell a difference, sorry. You may want to discard CSDb as a trustworthy source, but then again you're discarding the most trustworthy source about the C64. Abc64 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

patent nonsense

Careful with what you're calling nonsense out there ([9]). That one is better candidate for {{db-web}} or {{db-context}}... Nonsense is reserved for things like 21340923afdsh089//afds09234 and the like. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --Nsevs • Talk 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DPI Labs, Inc

Thanks for tagging this article with a G11 advertising tag. My own tag was (In my eyes incorrectly) previously removed by a third user. You just saved me from having to spend 10 useless minutes to create an AFD for this, since the rules forbid the origional tagged to retag when a third user removes the speedy. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD notices

Thanks for helping with the new pages. Please notify, however, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the article creators of the tagging, e.g. with the template message displayed on the tag itslef or e.g. with {{firstarticle}} for articles created by new users. Many tags (e.g. A7) point at issues that can be remedied if given the chance. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi blowdart, please note that "non-notable" is not a speedy deletion criteria. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

nor is dupe! – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 11:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, duplicate, please put full word in future. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 11:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Activa

Hey -I have just updated the article. Citations have been added where possible. Some of the comments are difficult to cite since there are no articles in wikipedia yet about those subjects or there are too many articles and liks scattered throughout the web... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinima (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I've switched the citations to use templates; but I've removed the youtube link as it doesn't really prove anything. --Blowdart | talk 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)