User talk:BigHairRef/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:VideoJug Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:VideoJug Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi am Canada 10010 can you fix my hot boys album page i suck at this and i dont seem the idea of deleting this page.It be a waste if yo delte all tha tcollected info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada 10010 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Hello, you just left a warning on my talk page for vandalizing another editor's talk page. If you wouldn't mind looking again, I think you'll see that the IP blanked his/her own talk page to remove the warnings I had left. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Do you mind if I delete the vandalism warning from my talk page? Thanks for looking into this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Boone

Hi, I'm assuming that warning you left on my talk page was for the unregistered user causing the vandalism? Regards, RaseaC (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have VP but never really use it, just as well it seems, I've noticed it playing up today for a few other editors. I assume you won't mind me deleting the warning? Take care RaseaC (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal warning on my talk page

With this edit you left a warning for me when the edit you indicated in the warning was clearly made by someone else. As a matter of fact, I reverted the edit in question. I know VandalProof has its bugs (I used to use it), but I just thought I'd let you know. If you're looking into a less buggy vandal fighting application I'd recommend Huggle (I personally like it loads better than I ever liked VP.)--Dycedarg ж 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumper: Griffin's Story

Um... Not sure how that happened, but you warned the wrong person. Grandmasterka 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Vandalproof has a bug. (Look at who you reverted.) You might want to stop using it for now, it looks like I'm not the only one you warned wrongly. Grandmasterka 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest Twinkle? :-) Grandmasterka 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk: George W Bush

Hello,

You left a warning on my talk page stating that my edit to Talk:George W. Bush was a vandalism and has been reverted. You have made a mistake. The edit you reverted was indeed vandalism, but it was not my edit, but rather done by 67.232.82.180

Please check the history log. Here is the diff: [1]

Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Chavez

You notified the wrong guy. The redlink [2] is the one who blanked the page, not Wknight94. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you a rollbacker? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me? That tool might be dangerous in my hands. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. No, I was asking BigHairRef. BigHairRef, if you're interested, let me know. I haven't heard of any minimum requirements, just a clean history and a good record of using edit summaries when reverting non-vandalism. Check and check from what I can tell. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A clean history, eh? Well, that rules me out anyway. Glad I didn't ask. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

huh?

Just like the messages above, you notified the wrong person. My edit restored the page after it was blanked. See the edit history of Asia. Please be more careful. Enigma ^msg! 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears it's a bug in VandalProof, per what it says above. Enigma ^msg! 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPRF.

I suggest you abandon VPRF in favor of WP:HUG, for a couple of reasons: 1. Huggle has been unanimously called better than any other vandal fighting tool; 2. VPRF seems to be buggy. If you'd like to apply to huggle, just add your name here. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The minimum count for huggle has been reduced to 500 mainspace; 1000 was too much. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi there. I have approved your request for rollback, and you should see an extra [rollback] button next to the (undo) button. I recommend that you take a quick look at Wikipedia:Rollback feature, and test rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you would like to add a userbox to your page stating you have rollback: {{User wikipedia/rollback}} or {{rollback}}. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

I noticed you reverted this edit. I had intended to delete the section as it clearly violates WP:ADVERTISING. I had typed in the word unencyclopedic in the main box to check its spelling and mistakenly saved the article before removing it. Coaster1983 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Can I remove the vandalism warning from my talk page? Coaster1983 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Likely sockpuppet edit warring

I see you reverted an edit by an anon here. This same unwarranted deletion of sourced material that you correctly reverted has been going on all day. In part it is an attempt to goad me into 3RR violation. There is a sock puppet case here. If you could return to the page in question and assess, it would be appreciated. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I hesitate to revert myself and risk a block. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus (minus the edit warring likely sock puppet) is that the material is properly sourced. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of sock-puppetry

On what grounds do you make this charge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzer19 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism article and Wikipedia bias

First of all, I have complied with the 3 revert rule after I edited more than 3 times by mistake, unlike Boodlesthecat but for some reason he seems to get a free pass. Secondly, the discussion regarding this is actually in my favor. All Boodlesthecat and a 1 or 2 others 2 is repeat the same discredited argument again and again. The sources mention nothing of David Duke being someone who tries to revive Nazism, just that he was a Nazi as a teenager. Because others have passed by and agree with me does not mean that they are me. I'm sure if someone checks their IP's they probably live hundreds of miles away from me and even if they don't did certainly did not use my PC and I have no idea who they are. Perhaps you people should show some more appropriate conduct for an Encyclopedia and have David Duke removed because the sources are either biased or mention nothing about him trying to revive Nazism and block Boodlesthecat for a certain term of time for his repeated violation of the 3 revert rule.--Spitzer19 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer19 is now edit warring (really vandalizing, by deleting sourced info and replacing with his POV) over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

Why is it nobody has blocked user Boodlesthecat when he has repeatedly violated the 3 revert rule after being warned?

Mercury Cougar

This sentence needs to be removed "according to their official website they will be continuing the 'Cougar' name with the 'Ford Kuga' in 2008" from the ford cougar section.

This is incorrect, Yes the named a crossover SUV Kuga but its not related in any way to the Mercury/Ford Cougar and in fact the work Kuga means "plaque" in Slavic.

The link makes no mention that they are conitnuing the name as they are unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.177.2 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your warning of Shannonez

I've removed your warning from Shannonez's talk page, because it was mistaken. Shannonez was reverting vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Counteracting systematic bias

This is the best thing that can possibly done for wikipedia. To avoid an American way of looking at the world and to cover places evenly. The article you tagged is likely to be as adequate a settlement as any of the thousands of articles on small settlements in the various states of America and Canada that exist on wikipedia.

Given the very large size of some of these central asian countries, the fact we only had 10 articles a few weeks back shows how uneven the coverage is on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it will be kept as an article on any settlement. Ther eis even a notice at the afd page that articles on any settlement has a claim to notability. Try reading Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). If you can't see that we are missing many articles like Karakol then thats your problem ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are trying to make out as if I am trying to find an excuse. Not at all. If you want to waste your time taking it to afd to hear that an article with three map sources is valid then go ahead. I think it would be a real eye opener for you to see what these places really look like and not the hamlet of two houses that you seem to be imagining. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that the articles on small villages in America and Canada shouldn't have articles?? All I am saying is that the geographical coverage on wikipedia is incredibly uneven and that there are many notable places that exist in such places that we have never heard of ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Blofeld is one of the most active contributors to Wikipedia and this is a major fault to the project. Editorofthewiki 10:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that about geographical locations in the future that they will ALWAYS be kept. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

David maron

I'm the one who marked the page for speedy deletion in the first place. Why did you put the warning on my talk page? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about that! its been a long day and when i get not only a trivia section but a trivia section who's main points include "the bands logo is a banana" i get a tad peeved. but thanks for pointing out the lack of civility, i'll try and calm down a tad!

i guess its just probability if nothing else; there are more stupid people in the world thank wikipedia editors. WikiGnome, Elf or Fairy, we're all just human :P

I tend to use far ruder words than "editor" when i think about them! if you follow the different wikipedia fauna species i guess they count.

O keyes (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Some-one did vandalize my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sainik1/J3HaaD

But everything's undone now. Thanks for the message :) Is there any way that I can avoid this other than logging repeatedly to check my article every 2-hours? --Sainik1 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Zelda

Hi there. I will, of course, be glad to revisit the AFD on that article. I can't do it immediately, but will sometime in the next 24 hours or so work for you? - Philippe | Talk 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the updates in your evaluation. Don't worry, I don't feel like you're rushing me. I really do appreciate the thought you're putting into it. - Philippe | Talk 00:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for not getting back to you sooner on this. As you may know, I was appointed an election official for the Wikimedia Foundation yesterday, and that has sucked up all available time pretty quickly. I also want you to know that I haven't forgotten and will absolutely look closely at this again. - Philippe | Talk 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series

OK, I've spend some time really looking into that, and have come to the conclusion that I must have been daft. You're right, there was no consensus to delete. I've undeleted and restored it. Since someone had requested that I userfy it, I've actually un-userfied it, but it's back to its original location. I strongly encourage a merge in this case, but I'm declaring the RfA invalid, because of my bad call on the closure. Further attempts to RfA it should be considered independent, and to that extent I've left a comment on the RfA page.

I'd like to thank you for the courtesy you showed in addressing this, and again apologize for the time it took to get back to you. Best wishes, - Philippe | Talk 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your block of RBIS24

I understand your concerns. Generally a user with two cases of vandalism wouldn't be blocked, but I decided that because his first two edits consisted of vandalism and he showed no remorse, an indefinite block would be a good way to end the vandalism. I reasoned that if he requested unblocking on his talk page and was sincere, (showing that he actually cared and wasn't a vandalism only account) then he would probably be unblocked and would contribute positively from then on. If he didn't request to be unblocked (like what happened), then it would be shown he was acting in poor faith.

Now that I do look back on the whole situation, I think my whole reasoning was slightly skewed. I should have used a 24 hour block and waited instead. Thank you for catching that and bringing it to my attention so that next time I'll think in a better manner. For that, I present to you this:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for making sure that I get it right next time! =D Malinaccier (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for it all, Malinaccier (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Blocked for profanity in the form of BS on my talk page. Lol, JK of course. Malinaccier (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reinstating speedy tag

just delete the page Xp54321 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Module Vanier Elementary School proposed for deletion

I'd recommend skipping such notification for bot accounts (or at least for those whose bot status can be inferred from the last three letters or so of their account names...). Alai (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem! Alai (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

edits

I merely removed my own comments. Surely you don't object to that?--S7740 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

edits

I own the copyright to my own comments and therefore have the right to remove them from the internet.--S7740 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirected talk pages and Module Vanier Elementary School proposed for deletion

I see you already know this is a bot account, but I don't know if you're aware that the notification has been placed on a redirect page, and is hence not even visible.

Might it be a good idea to amend whatever process you use for notifications to either follow or ignore redirects? — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

... as also reported below, at #PROD_banner.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Thanks for looking after my archive. Ty 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing?

Hi, you placed an vandalism warning on my talk page. I accidentally double posted something which I personally wrote, which I then deleted. If I deleted something I shouldn't have, my mistake and I am sorry, I am simply going through the very tedious task of amassing evidence for a AfD. thanks for your diligence in checking recent edits for vandalism. this is the second time someone has accidentally thought my edits were vandalism. If necessary, Can you show me the edit differences? Please message me or email me to clear up any misunderstandings and resolve this issue to both our satisfaction. Trav (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work. I would find vandalism watching boring and a thankless job. But it is a necessary and vital part of wikipedia. If you are not an admin yet, you have my vote :) Best wishes I hope you never have to get involved in an Arbcom, I hate them so much. Trav (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD banner

Hi !

Please see this !

I don't know what tool you were using to do this, and if you maintain it or not. But it actually appended a message on a redirection page instead of the target page, and it is a little bug :)

Also, if you are able to whitelist DumZiBoT, I'd be grateful.

Thanks ! NicDumZ ~ 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

I undid your undo of my edits to the Gundam 00 character article, as there was no explanation of how or why it is vandalism. This seems to be a fairly regular occurence with your bot, judging from this talk page. Please use more prudence in the future, or work on a better AI for your ill-mannered bot =P 69.243.158.192 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding webpage to encyclopedia

Hey, I have constantly worked on a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sainik1/J3HaaD , I have made on my team for the last few weeks. After loads of editing, I think it is finally ready to get uploaded on the actual encyclopedia. Could you help me in this matter? What is the actual procedure? --Sainik1 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/BigHairRef/Archive 2, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor.

If you want to talk about your review, I'll be watchlisting your review page for a time. If you request feedback later and aren't sure if I'm watchlisting it, you can check my editor reviews still being monitored section on my userpage to see if I'm watching yours, or just take the bull by the horns and leave me a note at my talk page. :D (Actually, you can do that at any time.) Happy editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Intrepidity

Hi Big Hair,

Intrepidity is not a misspelling. Type it into Wiktionary; the definition given is The quality of being intrepid; bravery. The word also occurs in plenty of Wikipedia articles. It is a valid redirect.

Neelix (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ingersoll (baseball)

Is it normal to Huggle-tag a page that's only been up for ~1 minute? I've never seen something go up that quick. Yes, it is a short article and has all the flaws attributed to it (although the reason there's no footnote is that, essentially, all the information currently on the page is from the source listed), you could at least give a guy a chance to put up more than a placeholder. Perhaps you could give me some guidance here? Dewelar (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm still new to doing editing in more than a token amount, and am working on getting a handle on how things work. Thanks for the info.Dewelar (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Dude, you need to chill out with adding speedy deletes automatically, it's uncivil and cause for conflict - or it simply drives newbie editors away, frustrated. There are appropriate times to add speedy deletes, but many of the ones your doing (literally within seconds of the article being posted) are inappropriate. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Roberts

Easy there tiger.. the page just wasn't quite ready yet.. its better now, although it needs some work! i put some info on the guy, last time i checked, being one of the largest importers of cocaine from columbia in the 1970-80's is notable.. so delete that stupid speedy delete tag.. bully Bambinn (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it vandalism? I'm editing boldly. Please stop accusing others of vandalism when they are making legitimate edits. 75.3.149.237 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as recreation

Hi - please note that G4 only applies if the article was deleted at AfD, not via speedy or prod. See WP:CSD. In the case of Velocity scene, it should have been tagged A7 again. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - not everybody knows, but it's an easy mistake to make even if you do know! I tend to use the tag placed as a starting point, rather than the only possible grounds for deletion, anyway. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Make BigHairRef an ADMIN

do it dood Merde Brains (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nominate yourself for the mop TODAY Merde Brains (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Зияющие Высоты

Hi. Зияющие Высоты got tagged CSD R3, but it's exempt from R3 as a link from the common title in another language. It may have gotten tagged because I had forgotten about Template:R from alternative language until I read the R3 criteria. --Closeapple (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Power-Plate

Hi, I think you should re read the piece I put up on Power-Plate. I do not believe it reads as an advert, and I think that if you feel that way you should edit it rather than delete. I have commented in the discussion page. There are multiple articles here on the topic of exercise equipment, and I do not see how this is any different. Daviegold (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Muslim outrage

You put on a dated prod which the article creator removed, so when I saw it it was then untagged for anything. I speedied it since it appears to be a neologism unsupported by references to the phrase, rather than the "outrages", and was clearly being used as a platform. Let me know if you need anything else jimfbleak (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Speedy Deletion Warning?

Hi BigHairRef, can you please remove the speedy deletion warning on 'Huangshan Longevity Tea'? Edits have been made to answer commonly asked questions about the online store's origins and the history of the ancient street. Gusniles (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the heads-up. I've protected the talk page; unfortunate, but necessary. FYI, based on his/her posts, we may well see this editor again in the near future. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

That is an old instruction that really needs updating. I'll try to get to it in a couple of days. And yes there is a backlog, primarily because no admins want to be coaches, so at this point all I can advise is to toy around with Other Options and wait it out. Sorry I can't be more positive atm. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at you as well... there are a few things. First, because of the backlog at Admin Coaching, the few coaches that are looking, a are a little more selective right now. I do like your going in search of a coach, that's a good thing. But I doubt if you will get a coach right now. I do have some advice for you:

1. Start keeping conversations on the page where they originated. This means watchlisting other people's talk pages and looking for them to respond to you, but it also means responding to comments left on your page on your page. I suggest this because as it is right now, following conversations on your page is difficult. You want to make it as easy for a reviewer to see what happened as is possible.
2. Get more experience editing articles. Your article edit count is on the low side. I would particularly suggest working on a few articles and get them into a decent quality---perhaps GA. Content building is huge on the system.
3. Get involved in "adminly areas" for example and in the talk section of wikispace (Eg places where policies/procedures/etc are discussed.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Deletion

Chazzwazzer is a reference to the Aussie term for Bullfrogs from the Simpsons episode Bart vs Australia. Not a misspelling. Please remove the deletion and find something better to do with your time than nitpick redirects.

Please explain yourself

Why exactly have you marked User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV for speedy deletion?

You realise that this is the talk page to a userpage created by User:Aaron Brenneman as he is trying to figure out his thoughts on a current arbcom case? What exactly did I write that makes you think this is an attack page? I will look forward to your response. Risker (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Doppelmayr Cable Car

This is the startings of a good article, but I was holding off diving in and cleaning it up in order to try and get the history rescued. First; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#History from User:Wikifox20 to Doppelmayr Cable Car; the speedy-delete has made a complicated situation even more intricate... —Sladen (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• moved back from User_talk:Sladen#RE: Doppelmayer cable car

Sorry if I jumped in the middle of anything but it's hard to know the history in userspace of any article which appears for the first time (or at least looks like it has) and it was pretty poor when I did tag it. Obviously as you mentioned the on the noticeboard it got deleted and recreated by pasting but it looks considerably better on the new version, I'm not tempted to even consider tagging it now. Hope the issue is sorted a bit. BigHairRef | Talk 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings; thank you for being so fast off the mark. From a glance, I can't tell any difference between the articles (other than two extra links at the bottom on the new one and the previous version having {{advert}} to the top).

The timing is perhaps a little unfortunate/coincidental; I carefully did not add/remove anything on the Article itself, or it's Talk: age, in order to avoid avoid making the diffing harder. Certainly, with such a large article, it might be worth checking over the article History, or contributions of the author/import to try and mitigate the likely-hood of stamping anything. Certainly I may have been able to mitigate the situation by leaving a message on User_talk:Wikifox20, ...something which I had not bothered to do as I (had hoped) that the response on WP:AN would have been speedier in itself. Hopefully we'll get this sorted eventually and Wikifox20 won't feel too disenfranchised by the end of it! —Sladen (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that it's hard to glean from the AN messages exactly what the issue has been, at a guess I'd say a continutally deleted page perhaps but without trawling through past talk pages it's unlikely I'll get the full picture? Either way, from the point of view of my involvement it's not vital to understand the intricacies. The main thing I'd say is that at the stage at which I tagged it it consisted essentially only of what is now the lead and some of the features asdn technologies section. I might be wrong on that but since it's now been deleted I can't say for certain, although I can say for certain there were no pictures or links when I did tag it.

The main thing is that now it seems like a servicable page as it actually has some info on it. Maybe it's a bad habit I'm forming, but generally speaking when I tag a page like the original it's because it consists essentially of what I would desribe as a lead and nothing else except mainly a description of its "features" which looks like a classified ad. Obviously this is a general point but usually artilces suchc as those usually never get expanded beyond that except one recently where all the info added was "where can I buy X?" and then "Who can I conctact about X?" etc.

Here it would appear I've stumbled in to a wheel war perhaps? If an admin is aware via AN in any event then I'll keep out of it. As far as I'm concerned the initial page was deleted on merit (I assume that in the the time between tagging and deletion there was no improvement) but now the article appears to be something that can be worked on even if it's far from the fninished product.

If I've completely got the wrong end of the stick please let me know I'm being an idiot and hopefully I'll sort myself out but would it be fair to say you don't want me to do anything mrore noe? Thanks for the heads up. BigHairRef | Talk 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over at the logs[3], I'm beginning to suspect that the (probably twice-) botched/failed history import lead to an earlier (and lacking) version of the imported draft article being displayed. I'm really hopeful that somebody with the skills and knowledge of how to debug what has happened is able to come along and pull the pieces back into place.

So the last time I viewed the article it was identical to the (new) one; however, I'm quite happy that it was inadvertently altered to an earlier version (by way of the history import) and this is the version that you duely tagged for speedy deletion. If it's beginning to make sense now! —Sladen (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (PS. as noted on my Talk: page, I do have this page on watch).

re speedy deletion tag

i removed it, but i had placed it because i wasent sure if it still had a tag...im new to wikipedia. thank you though=)Swindler305 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RFA, which has closed as a success. I note that you initially supported me because Kurt opposed, along with some latin gobbledygook (res ipsum loqitor?). I must confess that I don't know any latin - I just ad lib. Seriously though, your support (both initial silly one and the more thoughtful one that followed on from it) does mean a lot to me, and I look forward to working with you in the future. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)