User talk:Wknight94/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

American vs. United States

Ah, okay...didn't realize it was settled. Last I'd heard the debate was still ongoing. Bearcat 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Argentine TV networks vs. stations

Well, Canal 13 is more of a network than Canal 2. But I think the confusion just comes from Argentine writer using the wrong term to describe them. Most of them air from Buenos Aires and syndicate their shows into the rest of Argentina. But I left 4 years ago and things might've changed. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Hello there Wknight94: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator of the Mediation Cabal; I'll be handling this request for you from now on. I have merged the following two cases, 2006-01-14 refusal to remove personal attack from Wknight94 user page (a similar request made by Dryguy on the same conflict) and 2006-01-16 Cyberstalking by Dryguy (the request that you made).

I merged the two cases because they appear to deal with the same conflict issue and would be best handled as one case rather than being duplicated across the two separate requests. Both of your requests are as you made them, but are placed on one page and will be dealt with as one mediation issue. The merged page is at:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Dryguy & Wknight94

You may wish to bookmark this page in your browser, and add it to your watchlist, for ease of access. Mediation activity will take place on that page, although any mediators involved will make periodical status notifications on your talk page.

I have not yet looked into the issues of this case, as it will take me some time to perform the investigation. I should be able to publish my initial analysis and suggestions on how to proceed within the next 24-48 hours. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mets pages

Thaks for your note. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki, and I think your project would be better served there (although there's no reason it can't be in both places). Let me know if you want more info. --DNL 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if you're interested --DNL 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You _and_ you are right! <g> -- I agree with your edit, such that NY Mets article doesn't just become a current-events blog. I also agree that older stuff needs more (not enough on 1969!). Also, your season-by-season stuff is good. Where might that go? Imagine a baseball project with something like that for every team? (Hey, it's easy to 'be bold' when one is just thinking). From a fellow Mets fan, Sholom 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Block

The user whose talk page you wrote on might not get to see your message in that he might have been absent for 10 minutes. Georgia guy 00:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Scriptless in Seattle

Hi, I'm not sure if this where I put this, if not my apologies.

I guess I'm the main author of the page so far. A member of the team was notified that they had a page on Wikipedia and decided to add the infamous "members" part of it. It seems they treated it more like an online journal, rather than an encyclopedia, but I did my best to clean it up and "wikify" it. Any advice on more to do to keep it would be appreciated, but for now I will continue to try to fix it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scriptless_In_Seattle" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AMac2002 (talk • contribs) .

It says I gave the initial inclusion of the members page? That's impossible. Granted it was by someone without an account, but I don't fully understand how wikipedia tracks those, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. In any case, I see you're point, however I will continue to clean it up, as I know that it certainly is a valid page, from the note on "list of improvisation theatre companies" which says: Please only include established and notable companies with regular performing schedules (at least once a month), and do not list sketch comedy groups. Our group fits all the guidelines as it has been established for some time, and does perform more often than once a month. That is atleast what I based it on. The validity of including notes about one members genitalia can be argued, but in any case those are being deleted. Your comments are appreciated, and if in time you still see need to delete the page I will understand! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AMac2002 (talk • contribs) .

Simon Conover

I've been filing in some gaps in Category:United States Senators from Florida tonight and I noticed you had an unposted article on a subpage that looked pretty good, so I thought I'd be nosy and ask if you were going to post it. Gamaliel 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD for bands

There's been a change of rules and you can speedily delete bands just by putting a {{nn-band}} tag in there, and it will save us a lot a work. Ruby 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you again but where is that new rule listed where bands can be speedily deleted for not meeting WP:BAND? I know I've seen it but now I can't find it. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Articles section, item 7. Ruby 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've heard there was a recent change regarding WP:CSD which says that not adhering to WP:BAND is a criteria for speedy delete. Where is that mentioned? I swear I saw it somewhere but now I can't find it. BTW, you voted on one of my Afd's in case you're wondering why I asked you in particular.  :) Thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for taking the time to ask me about the speedy delete of bands on WP. As Ruby has said above, this is in Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Article 7. The reference was at the top of the pages for deletion special page for several weeks at the start of the year, although it has since been removed. Best wishes,  (aeropagitica)  22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm afraid that I don't know the name of the special page within which this information was contained. As long as it is in CSD A7 then you should be all right using the {{db-band}} tag, provided your reasons for recommending speedy delete are justified in the first place! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  07:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lengsel and WP:MUSIC

You tagged their article for speedy deletion, but I think they did in fact meet WP:BAND. They are a side project of Extol, who have released four albums (plus two EPs), the last two with Century Media. At minimum, there should be a redirect from their article to Extol's. I have edited Extol to mention them briefly. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I've forgot to ask you one question, who's idea to create the Entertainers who died in their x0s categories?

Spencer Karter

RE: Todesfaust speedy

Thanks for the heads-up, didn't look in the article history. The consensus of the vote was for the speedy, though, so I was bold and put it on. Hopefully the next admin who sees it will take the AfD vote into consideration. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really - the worst that could've come from my sticking with the speedy was that the article got un-speedied again and had to suffer a unanimous Delete vote -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Category Creation

Hello Wknight94,

I was really wondering how one creates a category. The reason to why I am asking is because I have done many "Japanese Military Strategist" biographies in the past, and I believe it would be a very appropriate category to have. If you could please look into this I will be truly grateful.

by the way, I very much thank you for the past suggestions you have given me.

-Darin Fidika

Cat Butt

I have undeleted Cat Butt, which you tagged for speedy deletion. My logic is laid out on the talk page there, and is as follows:

This article was speedy deleted on January 27 after having been listed. The reason noted in the edit history is: db-band - article states that only one full-length album has been released. This doesn't meet WP:BAND which looks for two.. I restored it on the basis that WP:BAND is a guideline only, and not in itself a speedy delete criteria. Notability is asserted in the article through the discography and Although not achieving the success of other Sub Pop bands, they maintained a loyal cult following in the Pacific Northwest.

I note that you listed a couple of other bands for speedy deletion, but since they would have had a snowball's chance I won't restore them. Have a good weekend. Leithp 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

tagging band articles for speedy

G'day Wknight94,

first off, thanks for your hard work tagging rubbish articles for speedy deletion. You're helping keep Wikipedia beautiful! (Or, at least, more beautiful than it would otherwise be). However, you've tagged a few articles that aren't speediable with speedy tags, and that's a no-no. The expansion of A7 to include bands still mentions "assertion of notability", and that's the important thing: not whether or not the tagger believes the band is non-notable, but whether or not the article claims notability. The band passing WP:MUSIC, for example, is only relevant to AfD, not to speedying. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that those who tag articles for speedy deletion incorrectly aren't admins; admins will just delete the article straight off without bothering with tags and such. That said, admins can sometimes disagree. For example, we used to have an article on a bloke called "Terry Carlino", which I thought should be speedied and User:Tony Sidaway thought shouldn't be. There are grey areas to the CSD, and they should be taken to AfD; however, there's also a lot of times when people (rarely admins, fortunately) misunderstand the criteria. Basically, certain articles can be speedied by any admin because they're obviously rubbish. However, many articles should go through the AfD process just in case they aren't. The CSD is very restrictive because we don't want to be deleting valuable articles by mistake; generally, if you need to research an article on Google, or compare with WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or equivalent, or do anything similarly strenuous, the article's not an obvious enough delete to be speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A fair point, and that is likely the cause of much of the confusion we see (I have my suspicions about some of the other causes). I would like to point out that A7 doesn't say "establish the notability", but rather, "assert the notability". The bar for what is and is not a valid assertion is far lower than the bar for actual notability. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Crikey! I've never noticed that before! The primer at the end (what tag to use where) contradicts the actual policy ... no wonder ... I've fixed it now. I hope. Thanks. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Band Criteria

I just wanted to be sure you knew of those criteria and didn't delete based on just one of the many. And for what it's I think a tour constitutes at least 3 performances spread throughout a country in as much notable venues as possible or at well-known festivals. - Mgm|(talk) 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ifd2 broken?

Hi. I'm trying to use ifd2 in accordance with the instructions at WP:IFD and it doesn't appear to be working. I notice you made a modification to that template just yesterday. Is the usage of that template different now? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I broke it! Fixed now. dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

no license template

Hi. I had another question about a template. Wouldn't the no license template have to be used with a subst:? If not, won't the date just update to the current day every day? Maybe I don't know enough about the inner workings.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to use {{no license|month=June|day=11|year=2008}}. That is, when you add the tag, you hard code the current day, so it doesn't change. (I think there's a bot that fixes cases where people simply use {{no license}}.) A shortcut to do that is {{subst:nld}} (nld is short for "no license date"). dbenbenn | talk 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tyler carter

Really it's a hoax? Of course that is grounds but I need some reasons. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. It's been deleted. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAND

It was just a reminder to people to not just vote based on a band having only one album and to actually read WP:NMG or WP:BAND. Going over every point in the list is indeed undoable. I find it a lot more convincing if someone can tell the band's audience is limited (lack of sales, concerts or gigs) or that the band has verifiability problems rather than focus on that particular item in the list. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrology

Please see my page for reply.--TracyRenee 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

TracyRenee 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Antisystem

I think I've got the mystery sorted out on Antisystem. See the AfD page. The original text of the article was such a mess; someone apparently unfamiliar with the group did the clean-up and ended up distorting the facts, through no fault of his own. They don't have two songs called "Bollox to the Gonads" and "Here's the Testicles", but instead they put two songs on a compilation album called Bollox to the Gonads - Here's the Testicles. I'll make some changes to the article to reflect the new info. StarryEyes 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ahmed moosa 2005.png

Re: this

The image was sent by its creator to me, over IM and was granted permission for it to be used on this artile. How do I cite the source? --Oblivious 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Haradinaj.jpg

This image isn't orphaned (or at least it shouldn't be). Someone keeps removing it from the Ramush Haradinaj article. Thanks for your effort in informing me about the status :) -- Obradović Goran (talk 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:62171.jpg

WP:CV seems like the right choice, since User:Bøllefrø is uncommunicative. While it's remotely possible that a Norwegian news channel might not restrict the use of its images, it's so unusual that we're going to need an explicit statement, preferably both the original Norwegian and a translation. Stan 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Strategywise, you can just list one, to get precedent, then have something to apply to the others. Stan 13:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Clay Sun Union

FYI, I have asked for this article to be undeleted. I'm letting you know, since you were the nominator of Clay Sun Union (album) (AfD discussion) and Distance (Album) (AfD discussion). So, feel free to vote at WP:DRV. --Rob 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Kappa Psi

I don't want to get into a revert war, but the founding member of Kappa Kappa Psi was Iron H Nelson, not Ira. See [1]. Cmadler 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Maryland edit which you reverted was almost immediately restored by another user. Cmadler 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Carlos Delgado image

I'm not much of an expert of this kind of subject. I just tagged and nominate a sports image because the uploader didn't provide hardly good source information regarding the photo or it is not used in articles. I only tagged image an {{unverified}} like I did with this Image:TroyAikman.jpg is because the person provided a "source" but didn't put an image tag such as "fair use." I really don't know that much about the legal issues. I do know you provided in-depth sumarry where you got the image and you put a "fair use" image tag. I wouldn't tag your image for deletion or marked it {{unverified}} (I let someone with more of the legal knowlege to decide) because the image is probably did came from the Major League Baseball/New York Mets office.

However, if the photo was taken by a stock photo agency like Getty Images or Corbis then it probably have some legal issues because it is their business to provide photos for news sources such as ESPN. I would think because how would they make money if sites such as Wikipedia don't pay them? The Carlos Delgado image you provided I think probably is a publicity shot by Major League Baseball which qualifies Wikipedia:Fair use#Image. --J. Nguyen 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Plantation House

I assure you that the Plantation House article is not a Hoax, i fixed it so it is more relevant now, someone else came in and edited it poorly. The house really is a historical landmark and if you wish to varify the date of constructed please check the butler county, ohio website. The link is http://propertysearch.butlercountyohio.org/butler/ProcessSearch.asp?cmd=GetProfile&p1=H4000004000001&addr=RIEGLER+JUDITH+H+ETAL&cp=1&tp=1&port=0. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshNel123 (talk • contribs) .

Jewish Americans

Last night was a major attempt to overhaul this category completely, since it's become too large for its own good. I created a few new categories - Jewish-American politicians, Jewish American scientists, etc. in attempt to make "Jewish Amerians" become a "category for other categories", and not for people specifically. I thought "Jewish American history" would be a good place for the "Misc" people who could not be otherwise categorized - but some don't belong there, either, it seems. Vulturell 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone like Leo Frank would probably fit under Jewish American history, not sure about some of the others. Is there an actual physical problem with the two categories being sub-categories for each other? I mean, it is confusing in a way, but is it really that impractical? Vulturell 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamal Badawi

Hi. No actually I referred it to the disambiguation page instead. See Al-Badawi. There are three different uses for the Bedawi/Badawi name. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Red vs Blue

Thanks for reverting the misinformation that was added to Red vs Blue. It's hard enough to keep the facts straight without people sneaking in deliberate inaccuracies. -- TKD 10:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Patriots

I noticed your comments on a fellow user's talkpage about a postseason summary. When I posted the FA nomination (after extensive rewriting and whatnot, as you probably saw from the edit summary), I don't think anyone had an issue without it. So, I think before we add it, we should post it word for word on the talk page and vote on it; that way, stability isn't violated to the people who are paranoid about FA articles being altered. Deckiller 14:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's already featured and all, and I don't mind the addition whatsoever. I just meant that some of the FA watchers may like to see large additions be discussed on the talkpage first; perhaps you can write up the section and post it on the talkpage so we can vote. I think it's a pretty good idea, myself. Deckiller 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Basically, a featured article remains a featured article until it reached a poor point in quality, which is very rare. In other words, FA articles are generally featured forever, but there's always room for additions. Deckiller 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • About a postseason summary: Basically, the gist of it is already there in the season-by-season records table, although not as extensive as the ones on the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks articles which list every postseason game on the table. And in all three, the scores of the playoff games have not been listed yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I do like the idea of adding the games to the table. Deckiller 16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

VolksZone

Howdy! I see that you've nominated VolksZone for deletion, but have not employed the AfD or speedy deletion mechanisms. If you'd like an AfD discussion, please refer to WP:AFD for instructions on how to do it. I'm not certain it can be speedy deleted as the # of users it lists seems to be a borderline claim of notability, which discounts an NN delete under WP:CSD. I removed your tag once with a message to that affect in the comment, but I fear you may have missed it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter, as I agree that the article should go, I'm just shy to pull the trigger with the possible claim of notability existing (which is why I suggest AfD). Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. I often use {{prod}} as a second attempt, i.e. one step down from speedy but one step up from Afd - where anyone that wants to vote keep can vote keep by just removing the prod tag. That's my understanding anyway. If I can get away with that and not bother anyone with Afd, I figure that's easier. If not, I go ahead with Afd. (I'll watch here for responses). —Wknight94 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I removed the tag the first time before you put it back, does that count?  :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put it back. The first time I did a speedy tag, {{db}}. The tag there now is {{prod}} which is very different. This is a fairly new process described at WP:PROP. It's kind of an intermediate process between WP:SD which can be deleted in minutes and WP:AFD which requires a weeks-long voting process. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! You're absolutely right. I was working a PROP issue with someone else, and I mixed your original nomination up with theirs in my head. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kathleen Lake

That was a nice catch. Bless! --Lockley 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh

Hi, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but can you please read the article carefully enough to see that user Wiki4Life's vote has not been removed, and is still there? I'd appreciate it if you could revise your comment as well, after you confirm that. Thanks. TrinityC 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev

I have added material explaining his contributions to the field. I hope you will reconsider your delete vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Governor of NY

I agree! It looks like it was someones college project. There are still missing dates, and some of the dates overlap. That's why I didn't change the numbers yet, or fiddle with the colors. I am sure with a little work we can find the missing people and firm up the dates. We also need to integrate the three lists better. There is the Dutch, British, and Post colonial lists. Any ideas? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the correct list. I see already several mistakes. [2]

Carl Tanzler

I was watching HBO and saw an episode on Carl Tanzler on Autopsy. I started the research and even was bold enough to contact the family, some helped, but another member went in and deleted references to their side of the family. I used all my powers of research. I went into the census and the Florida death index, and searched through historical papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In the timeline you can click on the obituaries I found, and where I found him in the census. I also debunked the three madeup stories about him by reading the obituaries and the original newspaper accounts. I have a subscription to ancestry.com and the New York Times archive, so I can access papers from 1841 to the present. I found three movie stars that lied about their birth dates, and Encyclopedia Britannica has the wrong dates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed Links

You removed two links I had posted. How are these spammy?

- * Clinically Psyched (psychology news for clinical psychology students and clinical psychologists with a forum and user articles)

BrainDoc 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Electoral calendar

No prob. That particular template was put into use so as to avoid duplicating (and de-synchronizing) content on the master Electoral calendar article (which presently uses 2006 and 2007, but was 2005 and 2006 when the templates were set up). The Tom 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

List of environment topics:F-G

Hi, List of environment topics:F-G was deleted and the edit history lost for some time (which goes against the GFDL) until I contacted User:Xaosflux, the admin who deleted the page and it was restored into List of environment topics:F. From the restored edit history, it looks like the edits [3] and [4] were instrumental in the deletion.

Instead of blanking the page and deleting, a redirect to List of environment topics:F should have been placed. Now that the edit history is restored, nothing else needs to be done. I just wanted to inform so that care is taken in future to not delete such pages without checking the history. Thanks! -- Paddu 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Demilich (band) and my RFA

Thanks for your contribution to my RFA. I just wanted to clarify the situation that you described, which has arisen earlier today.

While on new pages patrol this morning, I came across Demilich (band). At 10:05 [5], I tagged the page with a speedy deletion tag under CSD:A7 as it was a repost of deleted material. The speedy deletion was contested [6] and after discussion on the talk page, I removed the {{hangon}} tags (which say they should be removed once the contester has placed their objection on the talk page) [7] at 11:14, and removed the speedy deletion tags [8] at 13:22 as it appeared that the article's speedy deletion was contested, and it probably did not meet CSD. I then listed the article on AFD here at 13:31.

Meanwhile, at 12:00, Johnson542 listed the page on WP:DRV here. I was not made aware of this until I checked my RFA a short while ago. I don't know if it's correct to list articles that have already been recreated on DRV, but please accept that listing the page on AFD was not an attempt to venue shop — I was genuinely unaware that a DRV existed and updated the AFD page [9] immediately with this information.

It is obvious to me that you consider this a very serious matter as you have opposed my RFA on account of this alone. I thank you for your feedback and I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me what I should have done in this situation so that I can do that next time.

Regards, Stifle 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was put on WP:DRV after I mentioned the process. Recreated pages should be deleted on sight unless they've gone through WP:DRV. That's what {{db-repost}} is for. Otherwise, what is the point of having WP:DRV at all? I went through the work of originally listing the page on Afd and it sat out there and got a unanimous delete --- why would we need to go through that again just because now there's someone yelling louder? Page re-creation should only happen after WP:DRV, not before. Exceptions should only be allowed by someone who is already an admin, not by a non-admin - and only with a reason better than "suddenly there's a really adamant guy". Just my opinion. If you can cite a policy that disagrees with me, let me know and I'll reconsider my vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I still think it should be deleted. I did not "allow" someone to recreate the page. The problem is that the content is now significantly different from what was previously posted.
The policy that appears to disagree with you is WP:CSD#General, criterion 4. To be eligible for speedy deletion, a page must be a "substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy". Therefore, unfortunately, it cannot be speedily deleted. Stifle 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it's my ignorance. How can you see what the content was previously? I thought all versions of deleted material were gone forever except to admins. I never paid attention to that clause because I didn't think I had access to see what it was previously (and my memory isn't good enough to recall one article from six weeks ago that was deleted without any fight). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the previous version of the article, but seeing as a load of additions were made to it between 11:00 and 13:17 today, I assumed good faith in guessing that it would not be substantially the same. Stifle 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well I'll remove my objection since you've at least tried to clear things up - and because now suddenly everyone loves this article (go figure - I'm not sure where all these supporters were when I first nominated all of 4 weeks ago). I'll be keeping my distance from Afd in the future since the process is clearly a total disaster and can be undone so easily - but I won't hold that against you... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know where they came from either, but it may well have been the RFA :/ I'll leave you with this: the idea of AFD isn't to salt the earth against any future version of the content, simply to remove articles that are poor or non-notable. Comparatively few pages are permanently excluded from recreation. Stifle 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK.

Sure, no problem. I was just frustrated because it seemed to me that new evidence was being excluded, but now all seems fine. I was even more frustrated because I was not involved in any previous Demilich posts, and the previous deletion did not make sense to me. I'll try to take out all the nasty comments, if I miss any let me know. +Johnson542 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jazzer3

Jazzer3 is jazzer2, I just signed it wrong..

William Cosby

Dear Wknight94. Im really glad you like the article, took a lot of time... uff!!!. About the italics, I think are cute, allowing to separate names from the sentence clearly. Yours anytime. --201.235.8.119 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)wimbit

Zenger´s trial

Dear Wknight94. tell´ you what I think: Zenger´s trial was chopped down broadly by me. The article is featuring about one fifth of all what I found. A complete article about the subject would be long, because both the stirring of the society around that time and the consequences of the event. I resumed the things a lot. Yours anytime. --Wimbit 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)zzzzzzus

olympic diploma discussion

I just wanted to apologize for accusing you of something when you didn't deserve it; perhaps i didn't fully understand your impressively unrelated analogies to explain the situation.. phases of jupiter? hungarians who's name begins with J? halitosis? that's what i call left field! hehe :) Mlm42 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Sager Weinstein

CSD G4 says "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space, or undeleted per the undeletion policy". I don't find the page to be substantially identical at all. It's a new creation, not an undeletion, so DRV isn't applicable either. Guettarda 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Recreating a page with substantially different content is acceptable and does not require DRV. With regards to tagging things for speedy deletion - if you aren't sure whether the content is the same or different, it's probably not a good idea to use that tag. It may be appropriate to AfD it (there are people who would argue that, having been deleted for lack of notability once, it should never be in Wikipedia), but not to tag it for speedy deletion. Guettarda 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Weinstein has now had two books published, which wasn't the case when he was deleted before. He clearly has become a notable person. David Hoag 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

my mistake

I didn't know the date would automatically autoformat in the format you used, I thought it just worked with 2 formats (DD Month, Month DD). Sorry... --W.marsh 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Phil Linz

Why him? Because I wanted to mention a utility infielder whose notability would be defended, but who wasn't "important" in baseball history. Now if the Yankees had won the '64 series, I'd have had trouble arguing his unimportance. . . . Monicasdude 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My deletion suggestion

Adolf Hitler is unquestionably worse than Peter North. But he is a major historical figure, whereas Peter North is not. Vote what you wish, but do not make inane and questionable analogies. Alethiophile 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

BB cards

Thanks for the adice, WN94... Good look, and enjoy the upcoming season. 8-) MusiCitizen 10:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Baseball records subcats?

Hi. I'm the closing admin of the CFD regarding this category, and while I have the reverse merge properly decided...I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what you said needed to be done with the various subcat proposals. I'm contacting you three (Gene Nygaard, Mike Selinker, and Wknight94) who were most involved with the subcat discussions in the hope that between you all the subcat scheme can be accomplished. I'm sorry for being thick. ;) --Syrthiss 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for collaboration.

Hello,

Thanks for tagging the Anarchic Adjustment entry for wikification. There is a newer tag which is rather similar in format to the {{cleanup}} tag you used. In the future, could you please use the {{wikify-date|April 2006}} tag in place of the {{wikify}} tag? There is an effort underway to make it easier to sort through articles that may require wikification, and using the suggested tag would be very helpful.

Your assistance with this effort will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers. Folajimi 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)