User talk:Bobak/June 2007 - December 2007

Re: Tom Malone

That's not the point I'm trying to make. Rather, it's that no NFL player infobox is going to list which NFL Europa teams, if any, the player was on. For all intents and purposes, they're irrelevant. All of them lists which NFL teams the player has been on, and that's it. It's all fine and good to mention that the player was allocated in their article, but I think it's taking it a step too far by adding their current/past teams in the infobox for a 4-month vacation (or nightmare). Pats1 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Village pump

Hi Bobak, I have included one of your statements at Meta:Avoid copyright paranoia to an argumentation that I just added to the village pump (policy). Please remove it if you think I misrepresented your position. Cheers! Malc82 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I had put a category up for renaming awhile ago but it never got renamed: [1]. Could you rename it to Category:Treaties of Iran (Persia) please? That way it will conform to the title format of treaty categories.Hajji Piruz 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Hajji Piruz 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you put up one of those merge tags? Yea, I agree, there should be a discussion.Hajji Piruz 16:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Bobak, once more congrats on your recent promotion to administration. I think the user right above (Hajji Piruz, aka Azerbaijani) is in need of mediation with me, after editing my user page without permission, obviously intimidating me, and further having courage to accuse me and even demand apology :) when I complained about his disruptive behavior to various admins and noticeboards. One of the admins suggested using CEM, so should I get even involved with this and could you be a mediator in this case. To be frank, dealing with this user is a waste of time for me, he is only after hunting and blackmailing certain users rather than contributing anything useful to the articles. Perhaps, page by page mediation of content instead would be more useful. Any suggestions? Thanks. Atabek 07:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This isnt how you get a mediator, there is a list for mediators for CEM. I have contacted two users whose job here is to mediate, I'm waiting for their response. This user is canvassing Bobak, he has gone to three previous admins in the past couple days making up false accusations. Atabek, I have told you this several times, either bring the evidence or dont make the accusations, but ofcourse, Atabek never brings the evidence. I'm thinking of either doing an RFC or re-opening the arbcom so I dont think we'll be doing CEM.Hajji Piruz 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on Atabek's page... I already referred both him and Piruz to WP:CEM (a relatively recent alternative to the Mediation Committee and Cabal). A mediator is needed for that process, but a list of mediators is available on the requests page. You, of course, are not listed as one of them and so there was no reason for your help to have been enlisted (unless, of course, you want to be involved). -- tariqabjotu 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian people

hi bobak, i wonder what is the "Notable features" for the Persian Men and Woman, thanks.Balu2000 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Villa Getty

Hi, I just wish to thank you for the useful pictures you've added to the Villa Getty article which is on my watchlist on the French Wikipedia. They are awesome. Cheers. --Jibi44 07:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bobak. Yesterday, I requested to block a user who broke the 1rr parole yesterday. I putthe request on "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement" page. [[2]]

I am still waiting for a feedback from an admin. Is there any way to make the process faster.--behmod talk 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 18 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2004 USC Trojans football team, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edith Rodriguez

I added sources stating that CNN and CBS News covered the Edith Rodriguez case. WhisperToMe 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 25 June, 2007, a fact from the article Frieda and Henry J. Neils House, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammer

You don't need a citation for something in the introductory sentence that is referenced later on. HTH HAND. -N 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh... Actually I think gamers *are* the only ones who use the term. Feel free to leave a note on the article's talk page about it and someone (possibly me) will look into sourcing it a little better. -N 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Bobak, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks for conversations about skylines. -Susanlesch 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

College football school page names ("American")

Thanks for reverting back the pages for Michigan, ND, and USC. However, their talk pages still include the word "American". Can you migrate those back as well?

• Talk:Michigan Wolverines American football
• Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish American football
• Talk:University of Southern California Trojans American football

Thanks, Jweiss11 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Only going to say this once

I do not think your personal attacks are constructive to the goals of the project. That's all I'm going to say on that. Polite discussion would be appreciated. You've said your peace, please don't cast aspersions in my direction. I'm not going anywhere. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• And i didn't even notice that you are an admin. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. It was grounded observation that you had not addressed questions or conveyed your argument in a way that I found convincing. This has nothing to do with personality or other irrelevant factors. Because you have failed to gain any consensus in the WikiProject, yet continue to push as many angles as you can, you fit my interpretation of gadfly (social). --Bobak 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So citing wiki policy and guidelines (both of which support this) is not enough for you. Okay, that's fine. But that comment has done nothing to help the situation. I'm not pushing as many angles. Someone else pointed out three wiki policies and I explained how they apply to the situation. You should know better than to make comments like that. As an admin you should be much more sensitive to these types of things and the fact that you don't shows just how low the bar is when considering adminship here. It's unfortunate, but I don't really care anymore. Your attitude toward me has been hostile and I feel no reason to be polite to you anymore. Buzz off until you can act better. And per WP:MULTI, I'm keeping this discussion here. But you'll probably ignore that too huh. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a breather, it's the internet. Why are you getting so wound up? --Bobak 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I-35W Bridge collapse

I hope that you, as the editor who placed the "current event" template, will remove it in a timely manner after the "current event" status fades. The template is perfectly within Wikipedia policy, although my personal opinion is that they should be banned because most people who are eager to place the template never bother to remove it. The result is a very distracting, unsightly template at the top of the page for months after the event is no longer current. I'm not singling you out, and I trust your good faith intentions. I have placed this message on a number of talk pages. Thank you. Ward3001 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HCMC

Hi. Thank you again for making an image of HCMC. The photo looked so dark the ambulance image went back in a while ago. I tried brightening and lightening or something in place and failed so made a copy here. Does that look all right to you? Someone who has image software and knows how to use it could surely do a better job but it looks more in tune with the article to me now. Please see what you think if you have a moment. -Susanlesch 12:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Glad you didn't mind. It looks good now and we are lucky to have it. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

University of West Los Angeles

Hi, I thought you might want to take a look at University of West Los Angeles. Were you aware that the section about the school losing its WASC accreditation in 2006 was removed from the article? I've not been able to find anything to indicate that it's been reinstated, and (surprise!) there's no mention of WASC on the UWLA website.

In case you're wondering, I'm not connected with UWLA. I'm looking into the background of Pres. Robert W. Brown, because he also sits on the board of Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena, which is in a serious crisis of its own right now, with concerned faculty & students fearing that it may be closed or sold. Cgingold 11:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suicide Race, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on a rating

I changed it to start. I'm fine with changing a rating from stub to start/B as anyone can de-stub an article, so whynot just change the rating too? Sorry it took me so long to reply. Good luck with getting the article to GA/FA. MECU≈talk 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Erickson

And thats the 3rd RR for our anonymous friend. I think a block is suitable at this point. I feel bad for him - he has mostly legitimate information, and I assume he is editing in good faith, but he is just not listening to what we are saying. Perhaps you or I can start a stub for the Fiesta Bowl game or the Oregon State team and point him there when his ban is lifted. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CFB

Did you notice that there are a few other CFB related articles up for AfD besides the one on Appalachia State vs. Michigan? I am curious what your thoughts are on the other articles. Johntex\^talk 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you. I think that all bowl games are clearly notable. As to regular season games, I think many of them are also notable if a record was set or if it was a rivalry game. As a UT fan, I would love to be able to read a full game summary of some of the great games from 1963 or 1970 or 1885 for that matter. It is too bad Wikipedia did not exist then.

I'm not going to rush out to create 2007 TCU vs. Baylor football game or even 1988 Baylor vs. Texas football game, but if someone wants to take the time to create a good article on one of those games I see no harm at all in it. The more comprehensive we can be, the better, in my opinion. It gives a more balanced understanding vs. just focusing on the biggest and the best. Johntex\^talk 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Sanchez arrest section

I do not believe this conversation was privileged under any rules of Wikipedia (in good faith), so I am writing my own comments (not those of others) here for the sake of record (but not including the other editor's comments since he believes otherwise):

Original Comment First off all, thank you for updating the infobox, I threw it up pretty quickly. Here's my concern over the 2006 arrest: it's much to overblown for the actual weight, and I think the section is a marked example of (now old) Recentism. It's no longer mentioned on ESPN, SI, LA Times, Daily News or anywhere whenever they talk about Sanchez (which does happen, esp. pre-season), only to say that he got in vague trouble. Why? Because he was accused and the charges were dropped --and, although the legal wording has developed a popular assumption of implied guilt, having charges dropped for a "lack of evidence" does not imply that he raped a 19 yo but they couldn't make it stick. Alas the way its written comes close to that (and I'm not implying you intend it to be that way), but extra details make the section more sensational than any recent evidence warrants. So you can probably understand why I have trouble with how much sway this section is getting. If you run a general google search ""Mark Sanchez" USC arrest" you only get articles from the month surrounding the arrest; if you do a google news (past several months) search on "Mark Sanchez USC" you get 7 pages, ""Mark Sanchez" USC arrest" you get 1 hit which is not actually about his arrest a year earlier. What hurt this article was that previous "debate" on this issue was actually a very hostile group of sockpuppets who were following both the Mustain and Sanchez article and countering every edit I made, they even followed me to my RfA where other admins smelled them out and they were all revealed to be the sock puppets of RPrinter (all of them were banned, since it was one troll, now banned) --let me be clear I'm not saying that you are a part of that nonsense, or that you would ever risk getting in similar trouble for disagreeing with me (I just realized it might come off that way), its just that the entire side dedicated to writing an extended, overwrought version (which resulted in the still overdone "middle ground" it was until my edit today) was the result of a banned troll, and I think the version I propose includes all the controversy with cites that can take an interested reader to sources where the charges are detailed. Frankly, this section could be further condensed into a several sentences within his college career, instead of the Recentism trend that created it its own section --as though it's been a scar on his career like, say, OJ's brush with the law. --Bobak 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Comment The issues of Mark Chavez' arrest are not equal to the somewhat odd activities (alleged emails from the USC Athletic Department ordering Wikipedia to strike sourced information that has not been countered in the media by any official USC statement) surrounding Mitch Mustain, and I cannot treat them the same: this arrest reeks of recentism and I believe my opinion has every right to stay in the public discourse on the Sanchez article, as the current version, I believe, makes him out to be a criminal who "got away from justice". That is not what Wikipedia stands for. If these kids don't commit any serious crimes (Sanchez has not committed any such crime) and go pro, no one will care about more than a sentence on the subject --or even a footnote in that particular year. An Athletic Department should not have sway over Wikipedia for the very reason a corporation should not: there are two extremes here: the Mustain article was about removing information that might put him into a negative light, here we are seeing the addition of information that puts Sanchez into a worse light. Very odd indeed. --Bobak 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Comment Further "talking to myself" (my point adapted from emails): My position on the Sanchez article is not based on the thought that he is being merely "picked on", this is professional resentment: I hate when legal wording like "lack of evidence" is used in context to imply that a kid raped a girl and got away. Why not simply turn the section, the story that never developed, and put it into a shorter blurb in the inevitable 2006 season section? The situation now is everything that's wrong with Recentism, and I haven't heard an adequate argument otherwise. --Bobak 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nice Heisman photo

Thanks. I dunno. I only got the Heisman because they had it on display at the game. I'm sure they do if I could manage to get time to go visit during the day in the off-season. I think they have a whole display case. I'll try and worry about that in the off season. MECU≈talk 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AP / Coaches poll?

On the UCLA football page, I saw that you switched from listing the AP poll rankings to using the Coaches poll. Any particular reason for that? I generally think the AP poll is the standard when people refer to "the rankings," so it seems like that would be the preferred one to list if there are no other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrawford620 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Meetup RSVP

---

Minnesota Meetup

Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

---

Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 14:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments re people's law school

Quite right. Noted that entry edited. However, in in reality, no one goes to the "Peoples Law School" without the intent to practice law. It's not a "distinguished law school" that one attends for intellectual stimulation. --Pupluv

College GameDay rankings

Keep LSU @ #1 on the College GameDay Page. The standard procedure in rankings is to use the AP Poll before the BCS Poll comes out. LSU had 34 of 65 1st place votes (the majority) and that lists them as #1. I was not vandalizing, I was doing the sanctity of the game justice.

That position is flawed because the entire page is run off the Coaches Poll, and as you can see here (or from being a college football fan) the Coaches and AP Polls are released on the day after the game. The poll that had LSU #1 in the Coaches Poll was released the day after the game. --Bobak 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Imaginationland‎ Merge

User:Sceptre has started to unilaterally merge the episodes together, not waiting until the poll has closed. As there is a 3:1 opinion out there that this should not occur and I do not wish to break the 3R rule I was wondering if you could help me with reverting his edits? Thanks. -- UKPhoenix79 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 6 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OTRS 2007072910002927

Do not put back information on Mitch Mustain that was part of OTRS 2007072910002927. This has been through the Wikipedia process and the issue was concluded and resolved not to be included in the article. Caffehamp 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not always about what is legal; sometimes it's about what is right. For example, if Sports Illustrated printed a short, factual article in 1976 that a secondary coach for a minor league team had been arrested for drug possession, we don't need to include that - even if it's respectably sourced, because it adds nothing to the portrayal of the individual. (this is based on a real OTRS incident I dealt with) That said, I don't know if that applies in this case, I was simply responding to your wholly legal interpretation of what is allowed.

Looking at the OTRS record, I don't see a direct correlation between the complaint (which is several months old) and the recent additions you've attempted to make to the article, especially since they are reasonably sourced. I don't think it's appropriate to delete sourced material dated Nov 8 2007 based solely on an OTRS complaint dated July 29 2007. The complaint cannot be reasonably considered to outweigh all future issues, in my opinion. I also suggest that those enforcing the OTRS issue like Caffehamp realize that the complaint is now nearly four months old, and if you follow the conversation thread that followed it, did not appear to end clearly in favor of the complainant. A better reason than simply parroting "OTRS!" is required to remove these changes. (note that there may be a better reason - I'm not saying the content should stay, I have no comment - but OTRS is not that reason) ---- Golbez (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think this can be straightened out. Nobody is evil here. See article talk. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, James Blake Miller, was selected for DYK!

On November 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Blake Miller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Question

Minneapolis meetup. You are standing at left, I am seated, almost invisible, with dark hair.

Hello, Bobak. I recall meeting you face to face at the Wikipedia meetup in Minneapolis recently. About 1.5 months ago I posted a note to WikiProject Minnesota asking for help with an article. I believe you told me in person that your degree is from the University of Minnesota. Your user page says "(B.A., USC ; J.D., University of Minnesota; Esq.; Admin)". Can you tell me please if you can read the text at "Economics help needed for Leonid Hurwicz on main page" (full URL)? I was hoping for a reply from anyone who attended that school and who is a member of of the project, but have not heard back from you and it has been quite some time. -Susanlesch 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I left a note and spent quite a long time on archiving it too. I noticed your edit to George Lucas and see you edited that article before I did so this whatever it was that again left me out of your loop was surely all a coincidence. Good luck with your football game. 1,539 pages on my watch list and counting. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Further, is there some reason you could not have helped me on the talk page of Star Tribune where you added one of your photos? -Susanlesch (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, nice of you to reply. I never did read what you said because it was so far away from my situation at the time. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Excuse me but this feedback loop is so out of whack I am really not going to be able to cooperate with future projects you may have in mind until the balance of input and output here is restored. Sorry. No offense intended but this is not cool (a whole series of responses from me, and you reverted vandalism to place my username in your edit comment--surely not intentionally but I have to watch out for this as I have not seen much in the way of a response). Are you still a member of WikiProject Minnesota, Bobak? -Susanlesch (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Susan, I answered all of the above points here (along with responding to the point on your talk page you noted above). I assumed your response meant you were going to respond again and I've waited. I apologize if I've created confusion. --Bobak (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I expect this will continue. I told you a number of things at the meetup, based on my nearly twenty years experience in computing, and approximately seventeen years experience online. I see no evidence that you recognize that. But that is perfectly your right. Take care. Even though in the old days I would have called that a rip off, as I near death it is more like R.I.P. and give credit where credit is due. To Creative Commons, Science Commons, GNU, Sourceforge, anyone. But today most people take these things for granted. They are lurkers--the majority who cannot participate online for whatever reason. Some are extroverts. They are, from what I am told, the majority. But they cannot win. From a concert poster circa 1986 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a distant paraphrase: "People want to be entertained." Yes, I personally graded your article for some bartending WikiProject and did not receive a thank you. You're welcome, because that edit is in my edit history. Nice how that works. Thanks to a few people who I have never met. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Susan, I've always appreciated all the work you've put into the Project. I think all of us in the WikiProject do. From meeting you at the meet-up, you come across as a very kind and genuine person. I guess a negative aspect of the so-called web 2.0 is that contributers end up more anonymous than they used to. With that said, I've come to the Wikipedia Project with a different perspective from my previous online experience: as someone who's admined a rather (how to put this delicately, "lively") video game forum for the past 7+ years with a different set of online social norms. On Wikipedia I generally don't interact as much, not because I don't appreciate the work of others (or yourself), rather its because I tend to narrowly focus on whatever I've logged in for and I don't assume/realize that I'm causing offense by not mentioning what other dedicated editors have accomplished. Please don't think I haven't appreciated the massive amount of work you've done for the Minnesota articles --you're one of the best contributers on this encyclopedia. --Bobak (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. "This is the air where everybody creates" was recorded only about 28 years ago. That is an Amazon.com link to an album owned by the Patti Smith Group and Arista Records. That's fine. Maybe some other year. Toledo, heh. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobak, by the way. I do not see any response to my question, are you a member of WikiProject Minnesota? If so or if not, you missed the Steele family singers last night at the Fitzgerald Theater in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Good luck getting tickets to The Roches tonight. God bless them. Each and every one. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a member --I was just saying that I've been a bit busy with the CFB wikiproject for the past few months and that's why I haven't been participating as much recently. I'm not much of a concert-goer, I usually try restaurants and see movies (though not as many movies as I used to, regrettably). --Bobak (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dodi Al-Fayed

Nice pics. Have you thought about incorporating those photos into the Harrods article? Something could be written there about the memorials in Harrods to Diana and Dodi too. Sue Wallace (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, look forward to seeing them. ;) Sue Wallace (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

With regards to your November edits to Mitch, could you tell me which agent reviewed the ticket for you? Here or or privately as you prefer please. Thanks, Mercury 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

How do I access the standard templates? 71.3.210.131 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! 71.3.210.131 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Error

I was reverting a bunch of vandalism. Didn't see that there, sorry. Weirdy (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Weirdy (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about you

Just thought I'd make you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#unfair_block_.3F which is a discussion of a recent block of yours. Metros (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Strayer Education

A tag has been placed on Strayer Education requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DB was a bad call --especially since it was done during the vacation period and (luckily) I got back after 1 week away from the internet to restore this page. If you really have an issue, go AfD. --Bobak (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorate

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)