User talk:Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 1

Rollback?

Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the Zanesville, Ohio article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Wikipedia clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Real Aggression

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Real Aggression - a page you tagged - because: decline speedy; fails A7 -- article asserts importance "oldest one Serbian WP band". Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, although I found that to be a statement of fact (and a vague one) rather than a genuine claim of the importance if a band. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

D.A.S.H.

Dash is a very important social network in Newcastle that is supported by its local community!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosswell79 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

not a newbie by any stretch

I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment of me, Glen, especially considering the edits I've done under this username in no way represent the edits I've done since I started being a regular on the site in about 2005. I've edited under several logged IP addresses (most of which I no longer remember, so I can't list them here, and they've all been different computers and/or connections over the years so blah to all that) as well as other usernames I lost the passwords for. So although I appreciate you bringing the matter to my attention, I find it basically unwarranted given that my history is much more extensive than the username would lead you to believe.\

And in that same vein, I assure you I need not be thanked for my contributions. I've been contributing, lurker and not, for quite a few years now! But I appreciate the sentiment; I just don't wanna be taken as a 'newbie'.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on Schmooz-a-Palooza

Hi Glen, I think your Twinkle bot is nominating redirect articles for speedy deletion under Criteria A3, even though A3 specifically excludes redirect pages. Not sure how Twinkle bot can be corrected on that. More discussion is at Talk:Schmooz-a-Palooza. Thanks Infoman99 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about this - no idea how it happened. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And you are doing an excellent job! – ukexpat (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Virtualschoolbc

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Virtualschoolbc - a page you tagged - because: A7 clearly excludes schools. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. From the edit as I'd seen it, I thought it was some sort of online business calling itself a school. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: T-Pain Presents: Nappy Boy Mixtape Vol. 1

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of T-Pain Presents: Nappy Boy Mixtape Vol. 1 - a page you tagged - because: no valid duplicate article provided. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 10:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, well, that's because the duplicate got deleted first on on my db-album nomination. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Robin Drinkall

Although I declined the speedy deletion tag attached to the above-captioned article, I wanted you to know that I looked into the edit history and specifically noted that none of the information that led to my decision had been provided at the time you tagged the article; the article received a large number of additions/edits after your tag. There was enough notability asserted for me to decline the tag, but none of the assertions had been made when you saw the article and there was little that I saw in the draft you examined that was worth saving. So, you made a good call based on what you saw. I hope this meets with your approval; if you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I tag 'em as I see 'em and you were right to call it as you saw it later. Thanks for the heads-up. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Noir

Thanks for userfying that, I should of realized that he was attempting to make something for personal use. Beach drifter (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no trouble. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yung VL

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yung VL, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung VL. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mitsuyoshi Takasu

I've declined the speedy deletion for this stub. A quick look online revealed lots of sources, and he appears to be quite notable in Japan. This is not your first declined nomination. Please take a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: A9

Please use care when tagging articles for deletion under the A9 criteria. That is reserved for albums where the artist's article does not exist. In the case of Thug Legacy, there is an article for Spice 1. Other than that, keep up the good work. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad, the revision as I saw it didn't link Spice 1 and I incorrectly assumed its "multi-platinum" claim was pretty much a hoax. But I should have checked harder, so thanks for catching that, redirecting the article, and letting me know. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tre' Newton

this is a perfectly legit article of a starting runningback for Texas, he gets plenty of media coverage as texas is going to a BCS championship, but you probly wouldn't know that You are most likely a loser who thinks he's cool patrolling wikipedia, good job your the PoPo, 5-O Get a life --Jumpman Jordan (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Optipictual Art

Hi, I don't know if I should write here. But I'm trying to write about a new art form--I'm an art student--but Wiki users keep thinking it's an advert even though the artist isn't selling any of her work. She's a local artist and has some really cool displays. What's the best way to get Wikipedia not to think this is an advert?

Thanks! User 24158 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bug you again. Just wanted to clarify on the article. There were some news sources written on it, objective publications. It is a new art form but it is recognized. Would Wikipedia not accept it just because it's only a few years old? Also, I see what you're saying about being more objective. I've taken out some extra adjectives.

User 24158 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Bearian#Terry Buck

I responded to your User talk:Thecurran/Archive 2009#Speedy deletion nomination of Terry Buck edit on Bearian's talk page linked to above. Feel free to + your POV.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 09:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hello! I apologize for posting on your talk page, but I do not know if you have the discussion watch listed. Anyway, please note that I am undertaking a significant revision here using sources found on Google Books to add definitions of the characters as well as academic analysis of the concept in general. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris lager

When I saw the page, it appeared to be an attack page so I tagged it as such. If it needs a different CSD tag (like the one you added earlier), please revert it to that. Sorry. GSMR (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that but just picked the more toned-down tag b/c it's going either way. No problem. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the db warning

Hello. I did not contribute in any way to that article. Please withdraw the warning on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! Unioneagle (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I added an unreferenced tg to that article, as you can see in the history. (cur) (prev) 20:53, 10 December 2009 Unioneagle (talk | contribs) m (35 bytes) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article using Friendly)Unioneagle (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a Twinkle blip. It happens when the circumstances are just right. The speedy notice gets posted to the wrong talk page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Sorry about that -- Twinkle had notified you automatically; there must have been some glitch with the page history. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly

And this is why the software-exempt-rule is bullshit. Thanks! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. You're welcome! --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Learning jazz piano

An article that you have been involved in editing, Learning jazz piano, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning jazz piano. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jesse Van Hamont

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jesse Van Hamont - a page you tagged - because: "played in many popular TV shows" is an assertion of notability. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Shows

Damn. Knew it. Hi Glenfarclas, thanks for your work patrolling new changes. You left a proposed deletion tag on a page I created. I am just informing you that I accept the proposed deletion tag :) I knew I'd done a completely horrible job. Should have been better. I actually saw a lot many pages internally linking to international shows. So thought why not :) Now I know why not :) I do believe it should be a category than maybe a wikipedia article.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do leave a reply on my page in case you do. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 17:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

just for reference [1][2] Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Category:Lists of writers by language

Perhaps you fail to understand the English language. Writers by language means by language. Danish Authors means by nationality. Big difference! By your criteria you should also delete all the pages in the Category:Lists of writers by language. I look forward to watching you tell them all that their Category is no longer valid. By the way I really appreciate you wasting my time like this. (Ice Explorer (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

The page is now deleted! You people are the reason why so many are leaving Wikipedia. You didn't even give me time to write a reply on the Talk Page some 10 minutes later! WAKE UP! (Ice Explorer (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Question about Police Bodyguard

Hi, My Son was killed in combat in Iraq and after researching companies that help veterans I found this one; The Police Bodyguard Group and www.PoliceBodyguard.com please help me fix and improve my new page before it gets deleted. Thanks You Very Much, Dr. Richard Davis

Contest

I have contested your earmarking of my article for speedy deletion.Mod mmg (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay! --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

it was a double war --Σύμμαχος (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs1

Thanks for taking care of it. I really had no idea what it was about! Regards, PDCook (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alexander Filippou

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Alexander Filippou - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• It needs translating, and I'll list it at WP:PNT, but professorships at Berlin and Bonn is good enough to avoid A7 and should enough to pass WP:PROF. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd considered WP:PROF but he doesn't seem to meet the criteria. The closest is criterion 5, "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor' appointment at a major institution of higher education and research," but isn't that. At least, not as of 1994, which is when this CV appears to date from. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chris Shar

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Chris Shar - a page you tagged - because: Member/played with bands/artists with articles. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  15:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Nicoye Banks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicoye Banks JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Al-Farabi's origin

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Al-Farabi's origin - a page you tagged - because: Al-Farabi is evidently notable. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I had tagged was a page about his "origin" that gave absolutely no indication who he was and did not link to his article. I see it's been redirected to Al-Farabi already, so no worries. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

When I caution editors, or come across an editor who's been recently warned or had an article tagged for speedy deletion, I usually keep an eye on that user's contributions. That's how I saw the edit to your user page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yup. Added db-author on top of the page on international shows. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Advance Centre for The Scotson Technique

How's it looking now? Johnalexwood (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha

[Moved barnstar to top for uber-prominence.]

Myth of the islamic golden age

Hi, just FYI: I contested your prod, and suggested merging to Islamic Golden Age instead. LadyofShalott 01:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem for me, but good luck trying to get that info back into Islamic Golden Age because according to the author "[t]his page was created because Islamists delete the content from the main Islamic Golden Age page." --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PS The article is now at AfD. Warrah (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. LadyofShalott 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Rolls

Hi. I have taken your db tag off this article because (since you tagged it, when it just said "is an amateur boxer") a credible claim of importance ("on national team"} has been added, and a quick Google suggests that's not a hoax. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good catch-- Glenfarclas (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change

Hi. Just a note re this AFD... I wonder if you might refactor your last comment there? I'm pretty sure the creator of CCC did so in good faith, and the discussion at that AFD has been so polite so far it would be a shame to spoil it (err, not that you're being abusive, but if I were the creator of CCC I woudn't be happy to read that) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. You are right, and although I didn't mean to imply that the creator with bad faith (a POV fork can be created in perfectly good faith), I chose my language wrongly and sounded snide when I didn't mean to. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Estarlin De Los Santos

I created Estarlin De Los Santos' page because he was one of only three players on the Twins' 40 man roster not to have a page. I plan on making a page for Steven Tolleson next. there is no question they both meet notability guidelines. I'm not sure why you proposed it for speedy deletion.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just PRODded it, which anyone including you can remove. But he has never played for the Minnesota Twins, right? just some of their farm teams? If so, then as I said he doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. You can remove the PROD if you like (ideally while explaining what I'm missing and providing some sources to show his notability), and then if I'm still not satisfied I'll nominate him in WP:AFD. Again, you say he's on the "Twins'" 40-man roster, and the top of the infobox says "Minnesota Twins," but nothing else in the article indicates he ever set foot on the Minnesota Twins' diamond. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've written tons of articles on minor league players. I have a pretty good idea what does and doesn't meet the guidelines. One guideline is that if they've played in a minor league All star game, that adds to their notability. Also, having been included in a major trade (Deolis Guerra, for example) helps. I'm almost certain that being added to the 40 man roster is in and of itself enough to be considered notable. I know Alex Burnett was on the Minnesota Twins minor league players page, and was given his own page once he was added to the 40 man roster. Anyway, I'm not all that Wiki-savvy, and don't know what that date thing you were talking about is.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm not all that baseball-savvy, at least as regards behind-the-scenes trades and so on. So is getting put on the 40-man roster the same thing I would call "getting called up from the minors"? At any rate, if you say he's notable then I'll stand corrected. And you can just remove that whole notice. Go on, do it! --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your comment on the deletion page for Johanna van Beethoven, which I thought was unusually thoughtful (both the Monteux analogy and the star metaphor). Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're more than welcome! --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reverted

Hi! Your revertings and other were wrong. Thoose image were moved to Commons and must be deleted as duplicated. :) --Paukrus (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I saw an anonymous IP nominating a bunch of pictures for speedy deletion without specifying any reason, which seemed bizarre and inappropriate. A third or half of them had already been reverted by User:Dudesleeper and I did the rest. Sorry if that put a crimp in someone's plan! --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me. :) I forget to enter my account. ;) Sorry. Be attentive! I wrote and writing articles about New England in Russian Wiki and it's reason to move some pics to Commons. Best regards! --86.102.144.2 (Paukrus) 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries -- it just seemed so strange that an anonymous user would want to delete public-domain images of Maine! Sorry to make you do the work all over again. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And please delete moved images --Paukrus (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? I didn't move any images and I can't delete them. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

dePROD - List of Nitrome Limited skins

You PROD2-ed this, and I too agree with the reason given (utterly, boringly non-notable); however, though the newbie author didn't dePROD it, he did write "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted... " on the talk page so, though greatly tempted to IAR, I have AfD'd it here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up John, I've noted my view on the AfD-- Glenfarclas (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Grady White deletion

Funny you should propose deletion for Grady White, I was going to AfD him in a couple of days. Alex (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was glancing through articles about to slip of the end of Special:NewPages. I remember having seen another 20's-era manager from the same team on AfD or the PROD list, so I assume that was you. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: ah right, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockhart.

City of St. Louis vs. St. Louis City

In 1876, the City of St. Louis succeeded from St. Louis County. After that, a great deal of tension was created and a city vs. county rivalry ensued. When we locals talk of our Independent City, we say St. Louis City to distinguish from St. Louis County. Yes, City of St. Louis would be just as applicable and more fitting to a national standard, but it doesn't St. Louis City is a standard term if you happen to be from St. Louis (and thus curious to know who your alderman is). Besides, I've been systematically dropping links left and right. Unless there's a bot to change them, I'm not upfor the task. :o) DaronDierkes (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alan Pearsal

I dod not create the entry. Also, all other presenters on 3aw have entries so Alan should have one too. He is famous in Melbourne. You are not Australian and shouldn't make judgements about Australian radio personalities. There is a whole category for 3aw presenters. Please butt out as you don't have the necessary Australian background and are wasting the time of the people who work on improving the category 3AW Presenters. 120.19.215.222 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia Online

Hi Glenfarclas I am Charles Baldwin and just created the article on Multimedia Online, not sure why you flagged it other than I went back and forth through the save page option a few times to correct spelling errors, please don't be hasty and have the articale flagged for deletion as it is accurate. Thanks CRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRobertBaldwin (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reply is on the article's talk page. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Glen, thanks for the speedy reply. I believe the article is notable since it discusses the origination and coining of the word multimedia , and further it is somewhat verifiable as I have a Dunne and Bradstreet number created in 1998. Thanks. CB —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRobertBaldwin (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oyster Bar Restaurant

Hello, actually there are a number of additional references aside from the NY Times mentions. One of these lists a rare ashtray for sale from the Oyster Bar.--Robert (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Салех Рафат

I've declined the A10 speedy on this one and turned it into a foreign-language redirect with the appropriate template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized my mistake right after I hit CSD, and was in the process of making it a redirect but you beat me to the punch!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Susan Crown

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Susan Crown. I do not think that Susan Crown fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because There are multiple claims of significance, such as "a director of Illinois Tool Works[1] and the Northern Trust Corporation", "trustee of the National Resource Defense Council", "chairs the Facilities Committee of Rush University Medical Center", "co-chaired CARE’s national conference", "served for a dozen years on the Yale Corporation and is now a Co-Chair of the Yale Tomorrow Campaign", "Chairman of Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Visual History Foundation, the largest video archive in the world containing the testimony of survivors, rescuers, perpetrators and witnesses of the Holocaust" and several are even supported by references, which is not required to avoid an A7, but helps. Any one of these should be enough not to have an A7 speedy tag placed, and all of them together... Do you really think this is a proper A7 speedy delete? Whatr wopuld happen at an AfD is another thing, of course, the bar is higher there.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Susan Crown for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Digimon 2.5

But those articles have a cartoon is Digimon 2.5. Digimon 2.5 still have.--Digimon Adventure (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think this article meets the guidelines for notability to be included in an encyclopedia, as you can read at WP:N and WP:NBOOK. However, as you seem to disagree with my proposed deletion, I'll nominate the article for a deletion discussion and you should make your comments at the article's deletion page which will be linked in new template at the top of the article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Qomdu

For future Qomdus, we have {{db-nonsense}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

True, true!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The other user

Hi Glen. FYI User talk:NikolaDDimitrov is a spammer, I had seen it before in another account. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Richard K. Hulse

Hello Glenfarclas, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Richard K. Hulse - a page you tagged - because: I think there's probably enough for A7, especially if the references provided are focused on him. PROD or take to AFD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please re-consider your proposed deletion

I ask that you please re-consider your vote and, if possible, deletion case against the Derek Murawski article. All of the facts you used in your post on the deletion page are untrue or invalid. There are millions of viewers for Murawski -- this is confirmed by a reputable major metro publication -- and Google hits are not valid Wikipedia sources. I don't know how you found "172 unique hits" (again, not that it matters, it's not a valid source) but when I search I see "about 654,000." Not saying they're all for him, but are all Chris Crocker hits for him? Britney Spears for her? Please think this over. Iongatherer (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, if you don't use quotation marks around the name you'll get every page where the names "Derek" and "Murawski" appear, however unconnected. I'm looking at these results. Also, as far as I can tell, ABC Newspapers amounts to the "Anoka County Union, Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life, Coon Rapids Herald, [and] Anoka County Shopper." For a high school kid, getting some coverage in his local town paper isn't bad, but you've got to admit it's not exactly the New York Times. Heck, if the Strib covered him it might be a different story.

I'll admit he's somewhat more notable than most of the Myspace bands and YouTube kids who try to create articles (we delete as many of those as possible). However, I don't think he's at all notable enough (yet) to pass WP:BIO, or for his videos to pass WP:WEB. I couldn't care less about YouTube celebrities, and yet I've seen Chris Crocker probably a hundred times—now that's notability.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I must point to the article. "High school kid"? Maybe when the article came out, but not now. I think it's kind of... interesting... that because you couldn't care less about YouTube celebrities you have proposed the deletion of the page, ignoring the fact that other people do care. I just hope this well-written article doesn't get deleted/over-looked when there are such trainwrecks as Blaine Hogan running free, sourceless. Iongatherer (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Backflip Studios - declined speedy

Just a note, I declined the speedy of this article as, from what I saw, there were some sources that may infer notability. Then again, they may not. IAC, I did not feel this was a slam dunk deletion candidate as a CSD tag implies. Vulture19 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Per your comment [3], I have filed a sockpuppet investigation for you. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AKUSTIK ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily Life Practice

Hello Glenfarclas,

This is a copy of text I posted on Mangoe's talk page - and that was my first ever post, so please bear with me....

I am no expert on Daily Life Practice and I know even less about the inner workings of the Wikipedia community. I understand that input from new users is generally ignored when arbitrating on whether or not to delete an article. I can easily imagine cases where this makes sense. Nevertheless, I find it frustrating in this particular case because I know Dr. Sherlock personally and I am familiar with his work.

But perhaps I'm missing the point?

The public high school my daughter attends has a Wikipedia article - and surely it's not the only such school. Over the years Daily Life Practice (also under its earlier designation "Adaptation Practice") has made a tremendous contribution to the lives of more people than the number of children who attend my daughter's school.

Is Wikipedia about information, or is it merely a catalog summarizing YouTube and Google hits?

Verification through valid sources serves the purpose of filtering out disinformation. Perhaps measures other than G-hits should be applied when assessing importance or notability? Otherwise the Internet risks becoming inbred.

Your objection to this article suggests that either you doubt the veracity of the information in it or else you find it insufficiently important. I might find lighthouses and trains utterly uninteresting, but I would never suggest deleting articles about them simply because of my personal attitude.

Thanks for your patience. Featurelessmind (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on User talk:Featurelessmind. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Christina Carrera

You flagged Christina Carrera for deletion. I requested that time be alotted to modify the article and asked for assistance, but instead you just deleted the page. I see numerous pages on here that are senseless. What's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coutureagency (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the deletion (which was done by an admin, not me) was the result of a weeklong deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Carrera, as you were notified. If you didn't log in during that week, you wouldn't have been able to contribute, but after you look through the arguments at the AfD page you can explore your options at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sorry the page got deleted, but I didn't think the actress met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at WP:ENT.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this account is a publicity agency, The Couture Agency and a search on their website shows that Christina Carrera is one of their clients. I have therefore spam-username-blocked the account. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gun barrel

Wtf man? Why delete Gun barrel page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohzy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't indicate that this band meets any of the notability criteria set forth in WP:BAND. If I'm mistaken, you should edit the article / supply source to point out why.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy - with four albums out, and a mention on an independent site, I think there is enough there to pass WP:CSD#A7. I don't know whether they meet WP:BAND, though - no objection if you want to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks for letting me know.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I didn't remove the tag from a page I made myself, I edited a page in existance. I did not create it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmacinnis (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please review WP:SOCK. I like to WP:AGF, but the likelihood that you randomly came along, created an account two minutes after the article author did, and have done nothing but edit the article to tweak formatting and remove speedy tags, is so vanishingly small that it's really tough to do so.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I understand your suspicion, as considering how you described it, it is suspicious, but I simply know the creator of the article, who asked for help with the editing. I read the speedy deletion warning, assumed I was free to delete it as I was not the creator, so I deleted the tag. I apologize for the suspicious activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmacinnis (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not a huge user of Wikipedia, and have never had much interest in editing, but I was asked by my friend to help him with the page, so I created an account for that purpose. I did not think it qualified as a puppet, so I removed the tag. If this assumptions was in error, I will refrain from removing the tag in any later instances of it's appearance. I apologize for any inconvenience. Jkmacinnis (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, and I'll remove the warning from your talk page. However, as to recruiting friends to do things you would like to do, see WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. For what it's worth, this article has absolutely no chance of staying up, so I'd ask you to ask your friend to replace the article's content with {{db-author}}, an indication that the author would like the page deleted, as a good faith show that he made a mistake. See WP:FIRST to check out starting guidelines for creating your first article; a page stating that your random friend is "jaked" is pretty obviously not suitable for an encyclopedia.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree, and thank you for your understanding. I've sent him links to the reading material you have sent me, and I will inform him of the guidelines that I am already familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmacinnis (talk • contribs) 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Glenfarclas

User:Glenfarclas, why speedy deletion? User:Glenfarclas Dian-Lou-Aopa25 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the article doesn't currently indicate how this corporation is notable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Keep. --Dian-Lou-Aopa25 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BD ball - speedy deletion replaced with PROD

Hi Glenfarclas. I ended up declining your speedy deletion tag of BD ball, because I felt A1 was not applicable. The article was clearly about a ball sport called "BD ball", which is described in the article. That being said, it clearly is contrary to WP:MADEUP, so I have PROD'd the article. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Hi I noticed your tag on Evo merchant services this is a real company and so an A1 tag is not really appropriate. Also we are advised not to post A1 or A3 tags within moments of an articles creation. However, I think you are correct to speedy it. :). I am trying to learn the ropes myself so am interested in what is correct tagging and what is not. Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD->AfD

Never mind. I was watching the article anyways. I keep running into your edits a lot while patrolling. Nice work. Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion - Dewald v Clinton

I see you have tagged this article for deletion. In principle I do not object to deletion but since it adds to the body of knowledge on 42 USC 652(k) as it pertains to US citizens permanently residing abroad which is otherwise only represented in Risenhoover v Washington it would seem better to improve it so that it meets appropriate standards. These cases are not easy to find, in general, and they are particularly hard to find at the District Court or state court level. If you would be so kind, please be more specific regarding your objections and suggest what, if anything, could be done to improve the article. Thanks. JKJ Moscow (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it's just that the case is not notable, and there's no way an article can be rewritten to make its subject more notable. Theoretically, any case could be written up and add it would add something to the body of knowledge, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a compendium of all knowledge. This is a pending case with no decision, and as far as I can tell has not been the subject of any legal commentary. So in addition to not being notable, I'm afraid the entire article is original research or synthesis. I can't suggest anything that would improve the article, since as best I can tell it's the topic that is problematic. If you really object to the deletion in any way, you (or anyone) can remove the PROD template from the article, no problem. I would then nominate the article for deletion at Articles for Deletion, where it'll be discussed by others. I appreciate the work you're doing on these legal topics, so if I'm missing anything about the notability of this case please let me know.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's the law (42 USC 652(k)) that is notable as is the current unsettled state of the level of scrutiny required to restrict the right to international travel (see the three way split in Eunique v Powell). To date, every federal court analysis of passport restrictions have turned on entry or exit from the US, e.g. travel. Risenhoover is the only other case that I could find in which a passport was seized or revoked while the citizen was residing abroad with no apparent interest in returning to the US or leaving from it. Risenhoover's complaint(s), while raising some novel ideas, is/are so poorly articulated that the Wisconsin US District Court really had a difficult time piecing together his points. If the Dewald case can be considered notable at all, it is because he presents similar but more cohesive ideas in opposition to the exercise of 42 USC 652(k) against citizens in similar situations. It's not as though this is just another of 10,000 similar arguments. There are only two. And while the US District Court case in Dewald is pending, there are decisions on record in the Michigan Circuit Court that could be cited and are available for download. I can and will add these cites and others but I don't plan to swim upstream against the wiki community. If you feel it important that this article not appear just now, please let me know how to move it to my sandbox and we will just wait for the District Court to rule. I don't need this article for me. I need Apotheker, Aznovorian, Zemel, Kansas v US, and a few others a lot more than I need Dewald. JKJ Moscow (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the article to User:JKJ Moscow/Dewald v. Clinton. I'll point out, though, that it's not just a matter of waiting for the district court to rule before this becomes notable. Under the relevant guideline, a topic is generally notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I doubt that'll happen for this case—or maybe it will, who knows—but notability will require more than your own subjective view, however well education, that this is an important case in this area of law. I hope that explains my thinking about this topic.

"Germanocentric" Article Revised and Could Possibly be Merged into "Ethnocentrism", "White Supremacy", or "Nazi Party"

Glen, how about instead of being so quick to consider articles for deletion, consider merging them (See my suggestion for "Germanocentric" in this post's subject.)? Also, every one of the groups listed in the Germanocentric category (as I cited) are listed on the ADL website as White supremacist, Neo-Nazi, and racist skinhead groups. Nickidewbear (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Two problems: the article is called Germanocentric, which basically cries out to be a WP:DICTDEF, instead of Germanocentrism, which is actually the name of a concept; second, I'm sorry to say I don't think the article contains any material worth merging elsewhere. If the concept of the article is, "Groups criticized for being Germanocentric," it's not a very notable concept, but really this has WP:COATRACK written all over it. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't think this patient can be saved, which is why I didn't suggest a transplant operation. Obviously you can remove the PROD if you like, and if you have other ideas for this I'll hear them, but I must also say I don't think this article would survive the inevitable AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read our article????

You deleted our article on high school student Jason Witt, classifying it as an "attack". I believe you have no basis in making this accusation and I demand that our article be put back up immediately. About our "sockpuppetry", we had no clue we were violating any rules, we only wanted to keep Jason's birthday present up at least until he could see it (which he didn't) and he could know how much he means to us.

Thank you for ruining Jason's birthday. Love, us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovegrendel (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you generally don't say it's surprising someone isn't a homosexual in a context like this unless you're trying to make them look bad. Also, I didn't delete the page, and you were warned not to remove speedy deletion templates from articles you created. Finally, Wikipedia is not your webhost to create birthday messages on. Sorry.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging of Royall Advertising

Royall Advertising is a somewhat dubious article, but "has won national and international awards" is a claim of significance, with at least an attempt (inadequacy but an attempt) at citation. I think it is well out of the A7 zone. An Afd would be another matter of course. DES ^(talk) 04:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Wood (actor) & 6 January

You placed a comment on my talk page that I shouldn't write articles about myself. I am not Greg Wood the actor!! We just happen to share the same first name, but thanks anyway!

Okay, my mistake then. I hope you'll forgive me for thinking it was likely; you may of course remove the notice from your talk page.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Andreas Stenschke Page

Glenfarclas, in case you didn't see my response to you on my Talk Page (or see the Article Discussion Page) please go to my talk page for further discussion so that we can hopefully end this matter. Thanks.Andymickey (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

Glenfarclas, thank you for that information. I did notice that my username was added 'automatically' along with instructions for creating a signature, which at that point seemed extraneous, but I will test my signature chops here. --Eric Solstein (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know why they don't change the system so our signatures are always added automatically without the little notice, allowing us to do away with typing tildes, but they haven't. Looks like your signature works!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have been leaving extraneous tildes on all my edit summaries, but I'm done with that, and thanks for your assistance. BTW, may I answer your query regarding the Isaac Jin Solstein page - where you ask for better confirmation of his casting and ask why he does not appear in the imdb "Last Airbender" cast list. Well, I can't tell you why he doesn't appear (and I have been told several times by the editors at imdb that they would fix this), but I ask you to note that the fan site which announced Isaac's casting, is the single site that receives regular updates from the films producer, Frank Marshall, and it notes specifically, "We’ve received word from Paramount confirming that young 10-year-old Korean-American actor Isaac Jin Solstein has been cast as ‘Earthbending Boy’ in The Last Airbender." I am adding that specific link to the article presently. Hopefully, this will make a better case for his being cast then a second-hand reference to an unnamed fan site.Eric Solstein (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly looks better now. As to your questions, well, different people can have different ideas about what constitute reliable sources. I personally think the article from The River Reporter makes a better source than any fan site. The other issue is whether this is a significant part. You say it is, this guy, for instance, calls it "a bit role." Looking at the articles on all the characters at the Last Airbender Wiki, Haru (assuming that's who your son is really playing) has a pretty minimal article compared to almost all the other characters.

I guess I just find it too early for this article; there's too much we just don't know. Or, rather, you might know it, but we, the rest of the general world, don't yet. The deciding issue for me is that it took Isaac's father, not an unrelated fan, to create his article here. Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself covers this (writing about your minor son is not technically an autobiography, but the principle stands): "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later."

I definitely appreciate your honesty about your relation to the subject and your willingness to to engage in discussion. I'm going to put a version of this comment on the AfD page suggesting incubation or userfication of the article until his notability in light of WP:ENT becomes more apparent in reliable sources. Thanks for your consideration--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If, "The deciding issue for me is that it took Isaac's father, not an unrelated fan, to create his article here...." then I must insist you examine the article's history. I most certainly had nothing to do with its creation. Apparently it was created by a Philippine man living in the UK, whom I have never heard of, and would seem exactly the unrelated fan you are looking for. His username is Nemogbr. I only found out about the page from Google Alerts. When I saw how clumsily it had originally been put together, I felt I had to step in. If fan reception counts, than please note I have added an independently produced fan site among the external links. The young lady who started this site is also from the Philippines, and built it on her own volition, then approached me, and we now stay in touch.

On the subject of how big the part is, I have actually spared you and Wikipedia the information I do have that might settle the matter. Why? Though I have read the actual shooting script, attended the full read-through, and even stood behind the director on the set for the entirety of Isaac's commitment, I am bound under a non-disclosure agreement. The information I shared was all I am permitted to, and I realize it is not authoritative with respect to "reliability," which I accept. However, what The Angry Asian Man, whom you cite says, is informed by absolutely nothing, except his political agenda as it concerns Paramount's choices regarding non-Asian actors. It is in his interest to diminish any contribution made by Asian actors... I guess so he can stay angry. He has never been on set or seen the script, I can assure you. Regarding a comparison of Isaac's supposed part with the cartoon, if one is going to look at the original 20+ hours of animation, which becomes two hours of live action on the screen, they must anticipate significant changes. Imagine if you will, that a single episode (of approximately 22 minutes) from the tv series is incorporated into a two hour film - this will give you a much better sense of the screen time or import of any given character from that episode within the context of the new, much briefer production.

And, as you have seen, I have put significant effort into providing documentation to take this out of the realm of personal history, original research or opinion. Anyway, I am not here to arm twist, but to provide good information in support of a position I believe to be correct. while I hope you find some of this compelling, let me thank you for all your good effort no matter where you end up. Eric Solstein (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right about the article's creator, I fault my memory. As to the size of the role (remember that WP:ENT looks for "significant roles in multiple notable films"), I not saying that I think it's insignificant, or that an AngryAsianMan (whoever he is) has any particular claim to credibility, only that the uncertainty emphasizes that this was created too early. Anyway, I'm sorry to imply that you created the article when you obviously didn't, and I'll take a bit of time to consider my view on the overall issue. Thanks for your reply, Eric.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am growing tedious, but perhaps this information, which was part of a comment I placed on AshcroftIleum's talk page might help address the question of "significant roles in multiple notable films," if one may consider theater together with film: The Forestburgh Playhouse is not community theater. It is a Actors Equity playhouse, it employs union talent in all except juvenile roles. And three of the four roles cited for Forestburgh are in fact, major roles: Tam, Gavroche & Prince Chululongkorn are three of the most important juvenile roles in the entire legitimate theater. Let me add, Isaac's most recent role is with the American Repertory Theater (ART), which is one of America's leading theater companies, Diane Paulus being one of the theaters most celebrated new directors.

And I hope you realize that I entirely appreciate what you are trying to do, and the constraints within which you operate. Eric Solstein (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jelena Dorotke

Hello Glenfarclas. I've changed your speedy deletion nomination to {{prod}}. See relevant discussion here. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vistagy

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vistagy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Links provided offer sufficient notability for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN Error

I fixed the grammar. See the ITN Error talk page for more information. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: LUSFiber

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LUSFiber, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. SoWhy 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

wtf?

you aren't notable to this world. THE END time to delete your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricyCPSC1000 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you play warcraft 3?

Tell me the difference between Dota and Enfo's you haven't answered my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricyCPSC1000 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This is like arguing to a cop that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because the car ahead of you was going just as fast but didn't get pulled over. I don't know what else to tell you, really; read WP:N and its subpages, and WP:V and WP:RS. You're just not very close to meeting them, I'm sorry. Anyway, the reason I tagged your article was because you recreated material that had been deleted moments before by an admin, and did so under a slightly different name so it wouldn't show up on their watchlist. Don't do that.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkmarx deletion

Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding.
I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike).
Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here?
A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion.
The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements.
The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses.
(correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads.
There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Augustana Catholic Communion

There are three links to this on Wikipedia already ; it's not my fault if you can't use Google correctly. ADM (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia (it sounds ironic, I know) is not a reliable source. So an anonymous IP editor creates links to a topic from other articles and thereby makes it encyclopedically notable? Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. See WP:N, WP:ORG.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I think I'll redirect it to Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church in case notable coverage ever pops up here and there. The organization apparently changed its name not too long ago from Augustana Evangelical Catholic Communion, hence the problem in searching for the correct title. ADM (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured out the name issue, there are 50 results on the other name. A redirect seems appropriate. Sorry if my reply above looked snarkier than I meant it to, I was just writing quickly and wasn't thinking about tone, so I'll forgive "it's not my fault if you can't use Google correctly" if you forgive "Unfortunately, that's not the way it works." :)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your reply. ADM (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Homes Of Football

Hi there. You tagged this as CSD A3. The article creator removed your tag, then got into a little war with the CSDbot, and eventually it was removed. The article has now expanded beyond A3, so it wouldn't. Isn't promotional enough for G11 (or is it 10?), and is notable enough for A7.

The User was brought to AIV, which is where I saw this. There's no action needed on the user either, as now there's no speedy deletion tags for him to remove, he's not vandalising.

I thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you want to take the article to AfD (though I've a feeling it would probably survive). GedUK  11:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice; yeah, when I tagged the article it consisted of two links, so it definitely looks a bit better now.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing wrong with your tagging when you tagged it :) GedUK  12:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Julianium

I was framed,, and how do you signature stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian854690 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply is on your talkpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 1, I was just wondering why you are deleting Julianium

• WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP.

Speedy deletion declined: Meera Nanda

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Meera Nanda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A review by William Dalrymple (historian) is a valid assertion of importance; PROD or AfD if notability not proven. Thank you. -SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. I stand by my tagging, but it's not an unreasonable argument that this asserts enough under WP:AUTHOR #4 ("The person's work . . . has won significant critical attention") to pass speedy. Thanks for the notice, I'll take another look at it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed deletions

No worries about making the mistake of proding previously declined articles, its pretty easy to make, especially when pages are not flagged as reviewed correctly. It is also easily cleaned up by people who watch the listings, so its not a big deal. Keep up the good work in deletion, regards, --Taelus (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pig City (song)

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pig City (song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, or is not a musical recording. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rachel Echelberger

Hello, Rachel Echelberger is a noted fashion model, she has a large fan base and is not an aspiring model, but a signed, well known model. STUBX (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) STUBX STUBX (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you can find independent, reliable sources (i.e., not online forums, fan pages, etc.) to show this, then by all means add them to the article and note the fact at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Echelberger. I looked before nominating the article and couldn't sufficient reliable proof of her notability, but maybe I missed something.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I tried adding a reference, here is a reference to her contract with BMG Models : http://www.bmgmodels.com/nyc.php?page=2&div=4&k=0&sx=F As you can see, Rachel is on the list under New york fashion models represented by BMG Models. She was also the first contestant, except the winner, Nicole Fox from America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 to get signed. This youtube video shows her large fan base and her appearing on the Tyra show, receiving her contract: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdRP4UW1zfI Thank you, i hope you consider this! Please, because I am not very used to Wikipedia, could you please add on the references in the suitable places? thank you so much. STUBX (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)STUBXSTUBX (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do so shortly!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

University of N&Z West

Good catch. I speedied it and salted against recreation & indef blocked the ed.; the decisive factor was the non-existence of the instructors. Do you recall the other names it was created under? I would like to salt and block those also. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm glad you speedied that—anyone who makes a website that looks that professional is much more likely engaged in a scam than a joke. I think the other page was Unzw, at least that's what Googling, rather than my memory, tells me. I typed a few variations with "Univ.", or without capitals, into the search box, but I don't see any that've been deleted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IMSuccessful C.A.T Approach

Dear Glenfarclas, the user has ignored your suggestion and removed the speedy deletion tag again. Please do something. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop busting my balls

Please? I'm trying to put up an article here. Lyndbranch (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply is on your talkpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Bubenheim

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Bubenheim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm going to assume (a) this user is Alexander van Bubenheim and (b) he is copying from his own website (www.avbmusic.com). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, I was just restoring a tag placed by another editor.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Augustana Catholic Communion

There are three links to this on Wikipedia already ; it's not my fault if you can't use Google correctly. ADM (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia (it sounds ironic, I know) is not a reliable source. So an anonymous IP editor creates links to a topic from other articles and thereby makes it encyclopedically notable? Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. See WP:N, WP:ORG.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I think I'll redirect it to Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church in case notable coverage ever pops up here and there. The organization apparently changed its name not too long ago from Augustana Evangelical Catholic Communion, hence the problem in searching for the correct title. ADM (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured out the name issue, there are 50 results on the other name. A redirect seems appropriate. Sorry if my reply above looked snarkier than I meant it to, I was just writing quickly and wasn't thinking about tone, so I'll forgive "it's not my fault if you can't use Google correctly" if you forgive "Unfortunately, that's not the way it works." :)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your reply. ADM (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Homes Of Football

Hi there. You tagged this as CSD A3. The article creator removed your tag, then got into a little war with the CSDbot, and eventually it was removed. The article has now expanded beyond A3, so it wouldn't. Isn't promotional enough for G11 (or is it 10?), and is notable enough for A7.

The User was brought to AIV, which is where I saw this. There's no action needed on the user either, as now there's no speedy deletion tags for him to remove, he's not vandalising.

I thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you want to take the article to AfD (though I've a feeling it would probably survive). GedUK  11:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice; yeah, when I tagged the article it consisted of two links, so it definitely looks a bit better now.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing wrong with your tagging when you tagged it :) GedUK  12:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Julianium

I was framed,, and how do you signature stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian854690 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply is on your talkpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 1, I was just wondering why you are deleting Julianium

• WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP.

Speedy deletion declined: Meera Nanda

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Meera Nanda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A review by William Dalrymple (historian) is a valid assertion of importance; PROD or AfD if notability not proven. Thank you. -SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. I stand by my tagging, but it's not an unreasonable argument that this asserts enough under WP:AUTHOR #4 ("The person's work . . . has won significant critical attention") to pass speedy. Thanks for the notice, I'll take another look at it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed deletions

No worries about making the mistake of proding previously declined articles, its pretty easy to make, especially when pages are not flagged as reviewed correctly. It is also easily cleaned up by people who watch the listings, so its not a big deal. Keep up the good work in deletion, regards, --Taelus (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pig City (song)

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pig City (song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, or is not a musical recording. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rachel Echelberger

Hello, Rachel Echelberger is a noted fashion model, she has a large fan base and is not an aspiring model, but a signed, well known model. STUBX (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) STUBX STUBX (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you can find independent, reliable sources (i.e., not online forums, fan pages, etc.) to show this, then by all means add them to the article and note the fact at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Echelberger. I looked before nominating the article and couldn't sufficient reliable proof of her notability, but maybe I missed something.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I tried adding a reference, here is a reference to her contract with BMG Models : http://www.bmgmodels.com/nyc.php?page=2&div=4&k=0&sx=F As you can see, Rachel is on the list under New york fashion models represented by BMG Models. She was also the first contestant, except the winner, Nicole Fox from America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 to get signed. This youtube video shows her large fan base and her appearing on the Tyra show, receiving her contract: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdRP4UW1zfI Thank you, i hope you consider this! Please, because I am not very used to Wikipedia, could you please add on the references in the suitable places? thank you so much. STUBX (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)STUBXSTUBX (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do so shortly!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

University of N&Z West

Good catch. I speedied it and salted against recreation & indef blocked the ed.; the decisive factor was the non-existence of the instructors. Do you recall the other names it was created under? I would like to salt and block those also. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm glad you speedied that—anyone who makes a website that looks that professional is much more likely engaged in a scam than a joke. I think the other page was Unzw, at least that's what Googling, rather than my memory, tells me. I typed a few variations with "Univ.", or without capitals, into the search box, but I don't see any that've been deleted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IMSuccessful C.A.T Approach

Dear Glenfarclas, the user has ignored your suggestion and removed the speedy deletion tag again. Please do something. Sasank Sleeper (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop busting my balls

Please? I'm trying to put up an article here. Lyndbranch (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reply is on your talkpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Bubenheim

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Bubenheim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm going to assume (a) this user is Alexander van Bubenheim and (b) he is copying from his own website (www.avbmusic.com). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, I was just restoring a tag placed by another editor.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

what I want

Well Sir, I do remember reading something that 'disambiguous pages' must have some same such items related to them, but I thought that 'Okazaki fragments' would cover that , thinking that it was "a primary topic". A modification would stop the proper prose (in 'semi-discontinuous replication') from being passed over without a properly brief and positive perusal ! ~ Betaclamp (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages are used when two or more things have the same name. So John Smith is a disambiguation page because there are dozens of notable people named John Smith. It sounds like what you want is just a short article about your topic that explains how it fits into the topic of Okazaki fragments while making it clear that the reader looking for specific information about Okazaki fragments should go there. I've left the redirect in place for now so that you can work on the article a bit more before it goes live. Check out User:Betaclamp/Sandbox/Semi-discontinuous replication — I've moved your content there with a couple of formatting questions, and also a few questions for further development. One crucial question you'll want to explain is, what is a semi-discontinuous replication? Right now the article just states that that, whatever they are, they're necessary, and then it explains two reasons why that aren't very easy to understand for a reader who doesn't have training in molecular genetics. You'll also want to provide references to reliable sources that back up what you have to say. I hope this is of some help to you. If you want to continue working on the article, I'll be happy to look over it later on; then you can "move" it back into the mainspace just by copying the code from the version in your sandbox and pasting it over the redirect code that currently exists under Semi-discontinuous replication.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is what happened. While composing beta clamp (bc) when I came to the part 'this machine can do the same job in opposite directions', I just put in as a Note the name of this process semi-discn..relp'n (s-dr). When I went back into bc, s-dr was highlighted in blue. Very interesting that s-dr was not highlighted in red as you'd expect from a "file does not exist". This leaves 2 possibles - either s-dr was existing, empty, or it was created just by my naming it in a Note. Many Thanks, and as for your Notes --- noted. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, as far as I can tell Semi-discontinuous replication didn't exist until you created it, and just linking something in a note won't cause it to be created. If what you say is true, I can't explain it!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell by my tone - there, just by the end - that I'm an experienced troubleshooter. So for now all I can say is 'noted' and whatever else surfaces it looks like you are on the top of my list. Many Thanks ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, say that I was distracted and s-dr was highlighted in red from the beginning. Then, could my clicking on this red entry have caused the appearance of ""editing: Semi-discontinuous replication"" which appeared otherwise unbidden? Thanks again ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. For example, click on Hey, this isn't really an article!, and you'll get the page-edit window (just don't hit Save Page). Even so, it wouldn't appear as a bluelink in another article until you had created text for it and saved it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The source of most of your above 'confusion' : the first letter of bc/sandbox/s-dr - a capital A - mustn't be there. Sorry Thx ~ Betaclamp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

• As a matter of English grammar, I think the sentence can work either way, although you're free to pick the way you think makes the most sense. And I must say that I don't think the indefinite article (or its absence) is causing my confusion about what "semi-discontinuous replication" is; the draft article doesn't actually describe it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that "A s-dr is" points to a thing, while "S-dr is" points to the process. No 'what is a s-dr' nor any 'they' nor 'they're'; knowing that s-dr is not a thing should address most of your concerns. Much obliged. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think, then, that in ordinary English "semi-discontinuous replication" would refer to the process, and "a semi-discontinuous replication" would refer to an instance of its occurrence. Even if not, this doesn't really ease my concerns about the draft as written, because the draft still doesn't describe the process, doesn't explain why the two circumstances you address make it necessary, doesn't mention how it's related to Okazaki fragments, and doesn't cite any sources. Hope this helps explain my thinking—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

'Hear and Harken' : re writing ( not over people's heads ) effectively - I've Heard (read) that Articles should be written for high-school readers. I see I need to Harken to that. Have the additions to bc/sandbox contributed to this aim ? Merci ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• It definitely makes more sense now. I've taken the liberty of making a few formatting changes; also, I moved the text on semiconservative replication to the bottom. You don't want the first thing in an article about X to be a couple of sentences about Y. I probably can't go too much farther with this content-wise, but have you considered running the draft by the members of an appropriate WikiProject? We have a Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject, and I bet if you left a note at its talk page you'd get some helpful feedback. You might also consider joining, since it sounds like you have expertise to contribute.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD, oh, I just looked at the bottom of that talk page and see you've been there about your previous article.

Have I considered... well if I follow your advice I guess our considerations would be the same! Later though because for now I can't forget "When an author redirects a reader, they had better know...". So I'll turn the bottom of Sandbox into what, a Compendium?; a list of all the linked links that appear, so they can be sorted and processed. For instance, 'complementary Dna' is fine, wonderful, a Separate Topic; others I will rate - - but here's one just for you - i.e. you look first - - - " central dogma of molecular biology" . Regards ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize, but I've read this comment a couple of times and I'm not quite sure what you're asking.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, please, the fault was mine. Too much brevity ... ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User ErwinKnopfler

Before I review his user contributions to uncover all erroneous edits, have you already done so? –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. This one seems vaguely legitimate. Did you notice the dozen barnstars he fraudulently displays on his userpage?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD'; I should say, legitimate only in that the entire article is unsourced, like two out of every three articles on Wikipedia. Also, he didn't tag it for speedy deletion, depite the edit summary, continuing his pattern of erratic behavior.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed the "hoax" confusion as well. Honestly nothing on that page indicated to me that it was a hoax of any kind. I found a quick source (stating that the camp has been closed), and jammed it into the article real quick. I also tracked down one of the users who gave him a barnstar, and found out that it was given (at that exact time on that exact date) to User:Rjwilmsi, whose user page is similar (and has nearly four hundred thousand edits, undoubtedly with the help of AutoWikiBrowser). I guess we're dealing with a rename-via-new-account. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, can you believe that Battle of Stuart's Pond really, seriously, actually has to go to AfD? What a joke. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, no kidding. I wish your PROD had stood, but I guess you can't call it a blatant hoax when it takes some searching to figure out it's a phony. As to ErwinKnopfler, I seriously hope it's not Rjwilmsi's new name, because Rjwilmsi has edited after ErwinKnopfler started editing—and because ErwinKnopfler's edits stink.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I contacted Rjwilmsi to tell him his userpage had been copied. I didn't even check his edit history to see he was still quite active (even right now). Interesting indeed, I'm assuming/hoping just a new user in need of some direction. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• On second thought, I probably would have reverted to your db-hoax instead of writing it up for AfD if I'd known how erratic and bizarre ErwinKnopfler's edits were. Oh well.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose he removed the notices perhaps not intending to contest the deletion. But of course, only "obvious vandalism" justifies re-PRODing an article. Oh well. Yet another article that has had to be dragged through all three deletion processes before receiving justice. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Purposed deletion for Donmeh west

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the purposed deletion of Donmeh West, a page you tagged for purposed deletion, because there is a newspaper article[4] about this organiztaion and Wendelin von Winckelstein considers this organization as the successor of Sabbatean movement in his book[5] thanks.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Read and understood. I haven't the foggiest idea how my trying to add two sentences to one section screwed up and reformatted such a significant chunk of the page. You have my apologies.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Probably an edit conflict. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you must have been viewing an old version of the page, from late December, and accidentally replied to an old thread from that version. Here's the diff. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Well, my bad. I had clicked over to it from another user's contribs list, and I guess I clicked the version date rather than the page title.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Hi Glen. You'll find a new proposal I've suggested here. Drop in and leave your comments whenever. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwendolen Clarke

I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwendolen Clarke. Nobody else has yet. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I hope you know there's nothing personal about my nomination, it's just that she doesn't seem like a politician who's notable in terms of an encyclopedia of global scope.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Majestic27, About Barnstar

Hey Glenfarcias, I already removed the barnstar. How can i earn a barnstar??? Majestic27 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that. How to earn barnstars? Easy! Just be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia until another editor decides to reward you by giving you a barnstar. It can be for anything: creating a good article, fixing a lot of spelling mistakes, performing boring chores that need to be done.... there's a full list on the page Wikipedia:Barnstars. I suppose you can also award yourself a barnstar, but most people wouldn't think that was appropriate. The real problem, the reason I left the note for you, was claiming that another actual user had given you a barnstar when he hadn't. Don't worry about, this is how we learn to interact with other users! (You might want to read Wikipedia:Etiquette if you haven't already.) So just keep on contributing! Sooner or later (probably later rather than sooner, but you never know), someone may totally surprise you with a barnstar. Just don't worry about it: they're not trophies, and since anyone can award one they don't really mean anything. What's more important is the record of your contributions to articles and to the community. Hope this helps—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Glenfarcias, Can i reward myself a barnstar?? Majestic27 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but why? Two problems with that: (1) other people will think you are vain and self-promoting, and (2) because awarding barnstars to others for appropriate things helps foster community spirit, awarding one to yourself cheapens that and goes against the spirit of community. You would gain nothing, and stand to lose the respect of other people. Imagine if you saw your friend wearing a crown he had made for himself and walking around like a king—would you think he deserved more respect, or would you think he was a loser? So, you can award yourself a barnstar, but I would both recommend and ask you not to.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Last question...Are you a mod or what?? Majestic27 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. I just keep an eye out for things that need fixing or attention and try to do it when I can.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference of badge and barnstar?? That's the same??? like the barnstar?? Majestic27 (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you mean service awards, you can read about them at Wikipedia:Service awards. These are for a combination of how long you've been editing + how many edits you've had. No one will be keeping track of your edit count and length or service, so for these you're in change of updating them yourself. If you want one, that is—some people find them stupid, which is why for each level there's a "badge" version and a humorous version with a nonsense name.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Elder-Geek Page Deletion

Just forwarding you some sites that quote Elder-Geek for reference.
http://kotaku.com/5435473/batman-comic-book-writer-advocates-more-video-game-violence
http://tale-of-tales.com/blog/2009/12/03/interview-with-an-elder-geek/
http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-389389.aspx
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/community/blog/11637
http://www.obsidian.net/news/obsidian/oe-coverage-20091001.html
( zkylon 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC) )

oakwood law article

new article discusses the nyc downtown revitilization program and the role that this company has played down there. References are included and this total rewrite addresses the importance issue that the prior article under same heading lacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotsummer 9 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree, and I still think that no matter how much you say you want to talk about building vacancies or downtown revitalization what you are really after is an article about this law firm. Anyway, you're free to take it up with the deleting admin (at User talk:C.Fred), or in general to follow the advice given at Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it. Continually recreating the article after it's deleted, however, is probably not the best way to go.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brad Jolly

If this went to AfD, I would !vote weak keep. Jolly wrote a moot court question, and he has gotten some notice as a notice Indian Law lawyer. I don't care which way or the other, but thought you'd like a 2d opinion. I'm a lawyer, FYI. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, a friend of mine wrote George Washington's moot court question a few years ago that Roberts was on the panel for; it got a bit of press too, but he's definitely not a notable attorney (yet). I would have been slightly more ambivalent about this article if it weren't so transparently a law firm bio—but then thinking about that fact prompted me just now to check whether it actually was his law firm bio, and indeed it was. Tagged G12.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A lawyer who violates copyright law! Oy vey! Koyaanisqatsi! Bearian (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I deleted it on sight, as per my ongoing practice. Pardon the pun, LOL. Bearian (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent -- but I thought we were supposed to assume it was just a random miscreant going around posting someone else's copyrighted content, right? :)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)