User talk:The Kinslayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kinslayer is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when he damn well feels like it!

Click here to leave a message. Any replies to messages on the talk page will be on my talk page to avoid fractured conversations
The Kinslayer

/Archive 1
/Archive 2 28/11/06 - 17/01/2007
/Archive 3 24/01/07 - 09/02/2007
/Archive 4 09/02/07 - 13/03/2007

Contents

[edit] Deleted articles

Just back after trip and I see your last statement:

I agree that those sources do prove you and your companies notability, but the picture your showing us is a computer generated image? What the heck is that supposed to prove? Your company can produce an image using a computer? Well done. Moving on, I suggest a compromise. I'll change my opinion to keeping both articles, but I must insist that the claims of creating the Silicium escapement wheel stop. There are multiple readily available sources of other companies who also make the same claim, and theirs goes back further than 21 days, such as this one. More are available on demand. Is this acceptable? The Kinslayer 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as far as I know, following brands have introduced or announced silicium parts for watch calibers: Patek Philippe, Brequet, Ulysse Nardin and Frederique Constant. Please let me know if you have found more.

Frederique Constant is the only watch brand in the Middle Segment (core collection retail Euro 500-5000) that produces its own movement (a Manufacture Caliber) with a silicium escapement wheel. I do not yet have any feedback that others will have similar in nearby future.

Above is not intended to have another heated discussion on what we claim. I fully follow and agree with you that we should not claim that we were the first to come with a silicium escapement wheel. As mentioned before, created to me as a Dutch, meant that we developped and produced such wheel. The picture was only intended to show a screendump from our CAD CAM system showing this part (the FC Silicium Escapement Wheel).

Meanwhile, both articles are deleted. Do you have a suggestion how to proceed? Pcstas 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page where I have placed a draft for two articles. Can I ask your assistance to check. Once you agree, I would like to ask if you can re-create deleted articles to avoid I make another mistake. Thank you in advance. Pcstas 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just back from Japan and see that you have not replied to above. Feb. 22 you proposed compromise to keep both articles when we stop claiming that we created silicium escapement wheel. Believe I have done so in draft article and asked you feedback. Hope you can answer {{helpme}} Pcstas 08:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why

why was my article deleted it makes absolutely no sense. The comment said something like it was spam, but i am not working for the company but am a subscriber. If I am a subscribe to the magazine that i wrote a wikipedia article for is it therefore not allowed. What made the article that i created spam as apposed to anything else on wikipedia. Do i have to be someone that hates the organization in order for my article to be received? The article was no more or less partial then almost any other article on wikipedia. Do you actually have any criteria or do you just sort of randomly select what you think you like or not? Also what credentials is required to be on the article selection team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgilisleading (talk • contribs)

Perhaps. The Kinslayer 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: list of haunted locations

Yo

I felt you were a bit quick to delete numerous entries in this page. I refer in particular to the Ireland section which was deleted in it's entirety. While citations may not have been forthcoming all of the instances are well known either in local or national folklore. Perhaps you could allow more time for citation in future.

Besides, they are ghosts, is it not a bit ironic that you are deleting them out of suspicion that they don't exist?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.40.126 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

A) 7 days prior notice was given. B) The entries were unsourced, and the list is now zero-tolerance for unsourced entries and C) They wern't even deleted. All the entries (as stated on the talk page you obviously haven't read) have been moved to a sub-page where they can be recovered from easily should sources for them turn up. The Kinslayer 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict:_Middle_East_Political_Simulator

I want to put the tactics section back in. You took this out citing NOR and the Wiki is not a game guide. I dispute this. There are no articles on the web describing the game to the extent the wiki does, so all the material on that page is in that sense OR; it's not quoted from elsewhere. The page describes the game and the material that was removed describes part of the games behaviour just as much as (for example) describing that other countries can go to war by themselves. Toby Douglass 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help on my recent edit. You're right I didn't mean to delete material. I got a bit confused with the codes being there and that is what I deleted, thinking it was unnecessary/typos. These codes are harder than I thought. Whoops! Janeybee 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haunted Places

Hi... Think you could add places from Ireland? Far as I'm concerned, the castle ghosts there are numerous.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altazen (talk • contribs)

At the moment, all the removed entries have been stored here. They were removed due to a lack of sources for them, but you are more than welcome to re-introduce them to the article if you can find reliable souces to cite. The Kinslayer 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shade (Undead)

My sources seem to be accurate, so why delete the article? I could change some things in it, but if you'll delete it, at least tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altazen (talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Middle East Simulator

Where can I download this, by the way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altazen (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Some help

Hi, I saw your edits to issues related to Teabing-Leigh and would like to get your attention to a matter of serious misrepresentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League%27s_Civil_Disobedience_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League%27s_Direct_Action_Day (presently redirected)

are both POV forks of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day

Some of them have been AfD'ed, but others remain.I suggest in the strongest terms that these articles be deleted immediately. The references cited in Direct Action Day by this editor are falsely represented by him and not in the citations given (I am well-familiar with them). In contrast, he has removed numerous references that did, in fact, exist before that were reliable.

In particular, this website: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html

cited by him across these numerous articles,

Is an Afrocentric pseudohistory website with no mainstream credibility.


Thanks for your attention. Kjartan8 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMA

Is there a reason why you did not notify people who had edited Institute for Mathematics and its Applications when you decided to delete it? Your deletion of that article was vandalism. Michael Hardy 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, you spend your time editing things about punk rock guitarists, doom metal bands, disk jockeys, and then you say an article on a major research institute should be speedily deleted as something unimportant? Wikipedia is supposed to be for people who know how to read. Michael Hardy 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You'd have thought someone who has been around for a while such as yourself would know by now that only Admins deleted articles (This is especially amusing in light of your 'Wikipedia is supposed to be for people who know how to read' comment). And one admin agreed the IMA was unimportant. Have you accused the deleting admin of vandalism yet? (Ah, I see you have. Well, at least your misguided zeal is consistent.) Yes I didn't warn you. I didn't have to warn you. There is a difference between 'You should consider warning' which is how it is on the speedy tag and means it is a voluntary action to take, and 'You MUST warn', which would make it an enforced policy (which it isn't.) I sometime warn people and sometimes I don't warn people and will continue to do it how I see fit for the near and not-so-near future. Any other wikipedia issues you'd like clarifying? The Kinslayer 07:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So because the tag says "should" you defend to the death your decision not to warn? How about applying the principles of common courtesy instead of WP:Wikilawyering? And about "how you see fit": why the attitude? I agree that User:Michael Hardy went too far in the words he chose, but you have now told the mathematics community that "how you see fit" supersedes our collective understanding about the notability of an institution. How about taking the high road next time? VectorPosse 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your taking 'how I see fit' out of context. I meant I will continue warning (or not warning) users about deletion tags as I see fit. Nothing more. Ansd a slight correction, I am not 'defending to the death' anything. I'm not on trial here. I was merely clearing up the rather fuzzy logic used by Michael Hardy (You tagged the article for deletion, The article was deleted, ergo, you deleted the article.) As for WP:Wikilawyering, name-call and quote mere essays all you want, it won't change how I decide to handle my nominations. Unless of course common courtesy is now a wiki policy. When you get right down to it, past the bad-faith name-chucking by two recent editors to this page, the only issue here is that I didn't warn someone about tagging a page for deletion, meaning they were unaware of the pages subsequent deletion. Oh my god. Call the wikipolice, lock me up and throw away the key. The Kinslayer 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Can some one point me to the discussion about this deletion? All I could find was the admin action with something like "nn-institution". It sounds to me like none asked a mathematician if it was notable. Although name-calling is not appropriate, it seems at the very least User:The_Kinslayer you have some agenda for deleting articles that is not compatible with the writing of a good quality encyclopedia. Please be more careful in the future. Billlion 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The Kinslayer's placement of a speedy deletion tag on an article that did not assert the notability of the institution is justified. Anyone may place such a tag if notability is not asserted. It's not an "agenda", it's deletion policy. Leebo T/C 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Leebo, he's right. In one post he's managed to completely unearth my conspiracy to eradicate mathematics from the earth, starting right here with wikipedia. AHAHAHAHAHAA ahem. The Kinslayer 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand the need for all the sarcasm. This is an important issue. And don't confuse me with Michael Hardy; I did not engage in name-calling. I am pointing out that you are following the letter of the law (one of the points in WP:Wikilawyering) instead of appealing to rational principles of common courtesy. No, it's not policy. That's not the point. It doesn't have to be policy to be the right thing to do. I am asking you (also a common courtesy) to refrain in the future from tagging an article for speedy deletion in topics for which you have no first-hand way of assessing notability, at least not before consulting people who do. Based on your explanation, I think I put "how I see fit" exactly in the proper context. Your going about your tagging "how you see fit", with or without warning, puts people out unnecessarily. Look, I'll leave you alone now. I'm really not trying to put you on trial, as your defensiveness and sarcasm seem to indicate. I'm just trying to see to it that everyone have a positive experience here. VectorPosse 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Well, I'm surprised to see that Kinslayer is arguing the issue instead of simply telling us all where to go, since his actions in this matter did appear to be in bad faith. It has NEVER been a widespread practice for Wikipedia articles to say "This subject is notable because..." in language that would be understood by persons unfamiliar with the subject. The administrator who deleted the article has told me that the present version does assert the notability and the one he deleted did not. Just what assertion of notability he thinks is in the present article that was not in the one he deleted I can't guess and I've asked him to explain it. However if either Kinslayer or that administrator, Coredesat, had asked anyone actually familiar with the topic, they'd have found an assertion of its notability that could then have been added to the article. It still looks to me as if Kinslayer was simply rushing into things he did not know enough about to judge, and he should have realized that. Michael Hardy 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics: "A town of 300 people: no problem; a minor sports figure: no problem; a major mathematics institute: kill it." Michael Hardy 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if you insist... The Kinslayer 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that IMA is notable and should not have been deleted. We all make mistakes, the important thing is to learn from them. No one is suggesting you be locked up, just that you try to be more careful. Regards, Paul August ☎ 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Speaking of mistakes, sorry about my previous edit, which inadvertently deleted some comments by others, I was accidentally editing a previous version of your talk page. Again sorry.
I still dispute this. The article did NOT assert the notability of the IMA. As has been said, it's very much likely someone familiar with it would have known it's notability, but they would not have known it's notability from reading the article. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, both about notability and in general, to non-familiar individuals who are seeking further information about a topic. Now, I'm not saying this has to be worded 'It is notable because' but it should have some clear indication of just what is so special about the topic. The article when it was tagged and deleted had no content to suggest it was any more notable then the shed at the bottom of my garden in my view, and that was why I nominated the article for deletion. The fact that an admin deleted the article (and more to the point, still stands by his original decision despite the article being restored), to me, validates my claim the the article as it was at the time failed to establish the notability of the subject. The Kinslayer 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Which part of my comment do you dispute? Paul August ☎ 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the version that was speedied. The only possibly notable part is the affiliation with the University, but that alone is not notable. Many things are associated with colleges and universities, but they are only notable if they have been written about in reliable publications. The article gave no indication that any such sources had taken note of the institute. A stub needs to have some kind of source beyond an official website in most cases to lay the groundwork for notability. Leebo T/C 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Kinslayer,

Contrary to my previous estimate of you as being unjustifiably partial for some reason, I must however rescind my earlier comments to you and admit that I was wrong in the said estimate.

As someone who does not understand Wikipedia policies a lot, I'd like help and guidance to improve my articles on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why are you such a dick?

Honestly, why? The Cock-a-doodle Fetus article does not need to be deleted. They are an important piece of American history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroskate 714 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, if your retarded, or in the band. The Kinslayer 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Euroskate 714 as being a disruption only account. It is best not to respond to insults with insults thought. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi's views on race

Dear Kinslayer,

Since you nominated the article Gandhi's views on race for WP:NPOV and WP:NOR... I have since then made an effort to finish these two things from the said article.

Kindly have a look and see objectively if this meets the criteria now with all the changes and the additions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Dear Kinslayer,

I request that you kindly close debate and remove tags from Gandhi's views on race, if indeed you are satisfied with the outcome.

Yours sincerely,

Teabing-Leigh 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions.

Please read WP:AGF and do not assume that my motives are for the sake of that. It could not be for:

I removed it as soon as I had posted didn't I? Back off. The Kinslayer 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRVs

You may have been abusing the DRV process for List of Mario Party minigames. Please read this extract of WP:DRV#Purpose

This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

As you can see, saying that the content was unacceptable doesn't fly during DRVs. Bowsy (review me!) 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how this is supposed to enlighten me. Quoting random scripture at me isn't going to achieve anything, and even in the context of the link it only seems to be guidelines on valid reason for staring a delete review which I, as someone who has never started one, find highly irrelevent to anything I've said. The Kinslayer 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, after a second reading I am now clear that you have referred me to something completely non-sensical, as it is indeed just describing the only reasons that are considered valid for calling a review, and none of it is relevent to anything I said in that review. I did note this sentence however:

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome

which seems far more relevent to the review in hand. I ask you, what do you really think this deletion review is about? Procedural correctness, or some people being unhappy their article was deleted? The Kinslayer 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet issue...

Dear Kinslayer,

If you recall a case was launched against me by user:kjartan8 about 3rr and Sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry vis a vis my IP address was essentially inadvertent and the user:YLH shall not be using this computer again. Furthermore I am operating under one account which is this one. In addition to all of this my accuser kjartan8 was found to be a sockpuppet of hkelkar and was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Given these issues and more, I require your help in the clearing of sockpuppet charges.

Teabing-Leigh 06:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ajexus

Hi Kinslayer

I will leave the page till (our) morning. (I am in NZ) If you don't like it then delete it (but do a goole search first please). If you are happy then i will remove the db corp in the morning.

Thanks Andrew

PS I am sure it will get expanded on in due course —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajexus (talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Project Manhunt

Why did you remove the link to Project Manhunt, and want to get the site blacklisted? It seems a rather good site to me, with lots of relevant info. I don't know if it has comparable status with No Mutants Allowed for Fallout or diabloii.net for the Diablo games, but I think it's a relevant link. — Graf Bobby 10:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It provides no information that isn't already available directly from primary sources for describing the game or from reliable independent (this is important, becuase as a fan site it cannot be considered independent of it's subject, it's inherrently biased) media sources and WP:NOT an internet link directory. The site provides no inforamtion used in the article and is therefore of no benefit. The blacklisting is just to stop fanboys adding the link again every other day. But I'm not bothered, I can revert them any day of the week while I'm supposed to be working instead. The Kinslayer 10:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Janeybee

Please note that users have the right to remove warning messages from their talk pages. The warning messages I removed were made to restore the user's talk page to the condition in which that user had last left it. In short, I was reverting edits made by someone trying to enforce a non-existant policy. Rklawton 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ajexus

OK... I see it has disappeared not to worry, interesting experience. Any pointers to how to make it more acceptable?

Cheers Andrew Ajexus 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your comment on AN

At that point we were using two different computers, I told real life Bowsy that that conversation wasn't necessary but he wouldn't listen. WE ARE NOT PUPPETS!!! Henchman 2000 08:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted it on Hench's page so that it wouldn't seem supicious to the WP community when he stopped mentioning my name. I also did it so, if necessary, I could show users who comment negatively on this that I don't like it. Hope you understand. Bowsy (review me!) 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Save it for the commitee. I don't care and personally think wikipedia would be better off if you two were banned. Hey Bowsy, I see from your talk page you accused someone else of something you knew f**k all about. Your not making many friends are you? The Kinslayer 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean sockpuppetry? If you are mentioned as someone's sock on their page, why wouldn't you accuse them. Plus they have had some similarities in the past. Bowsy (review me!) 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Try a different issue people have taken up with you on your talk page. Guess you got more than one group of irate people to choose from. The Kinslayer 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I said that because I thought you had because you did so in the past, but you didn't. I am very sorry for saying that about you when you hadn't done it. Please accept my apology. Bowsy (review me!) 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online Basketball Association

Hi

I saw that you put a speedy deletion for the Online Basketball Association. I left an opinion in the talk page. I think the page about the league should be kept but the individual team pages created by yellow lime should be deleted.

DCUnitedFan2011 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, as I have explained on the article, none of the reasons for keeping it are valid. The Kinslayer 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
yES THERE ISYellowlime31 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop making us seem like idiots

Bowsy and I fully understand anything we put on a page, and read it before we do so. We are not the idiots you're suggesting we are. Stop it. Also, why did you mention Bowsy on the npa template, that was me and me alone so stop dragging him into it. And what did you mean by all the dust we're kicking up. Henchman 2000 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to make you seem like idiots. Your doing fine by yourselves. Any further direct communication from you two will be reported as harrassment. Good day. The Kinslayer 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre of Tragedy

Are you kidding me? Quoting you: Reverting vandalism. I said discuss, not unilaterlally edit the pages to suit your perceived genre. Do you realise that I am an administrator and have been part of the project for three years? I don't think you do. Foremost, do not attack users needlessly and keep your cool, see WP:CIVIL. Second, do not impose what you perceive as correct and do not order other editors, have respect for people who are merely trying to make the Wikipedia better. Third, the genre was not changed. The genre stayed exactly as it was. What I changed was the definition that "Later works" encompass only Industrial metal and Electropop, as Storm is a gothic metal album or rather some crossover of gothic metal. Either way, do not accuse me of being a vandal. If you want to discuss this in a civil manner, do contact me and explain what you perceive as wrong in what I said. --Sn0wflake 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking about you. Who ARE you? I was talking to someone who has repeatedly been changing various bands genres based on what he thinks they should be. I suggested if he wanted to change the genre he should initiate discussion on each bands talk page. Instead he went round and just changed each bands genre. This had nothing to do with you and still doesn't. I'm sorry if I inadvertantly caught one of your edits in a revert, but that's all it was, inadvertant. The Kinslayer 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CN

(copied over cause I realize there may be a misunderstanding :)) Fair enough. I'll go with that. The Kinslayer 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after reading your comment, there may be some confusion. The proposal mentions all poll-like and consensus gathering. You seemed concerned that they would be allowed on drv in the same debates. This is not the case. I take responsibility, I use XfD as shorthand :) --Mask? 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postal (film)

Sorry about the first of two edits there - I have not played either of the games, but going off Boll's past adaptations, I just automatically assumed that it would be a "loose" adaptation. Just thought I'd mention that it wasn't a bad faith edit on my part, or anything like that. :) --Dreaded Walrus 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's cool. It could well be 'loosely adapted', but based on what I've seen of the trailers so far it actually seems to have more story than the game does! The Kinslayer 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kushies

I removed your {{db-spam}} because it was actually G4 - that failed an AfD previously. More likely to be a no-brainer for the admin to decide if it stays or goes. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Man

Dear Kinslayer, I apologize for the confusion. I was given prior approval for this social-concept experiment. It is fully within propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OKSoda (talk • contribs)

Call me cynical, but I don't believe you. Still we can follow the standard procedures and see wont we, because if this has indeed been sanctioned by Jimbo Wales, I'm sure it will be made known when an admin comes to delete the article. The Kinslayer 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinslayer,

I am an undergrad at UC Berkeley and am doing this as part of my senior thesis in sociology. I have an e-mail correspondence with Jimbo Wales and would be happy to forward it to you if that is necessary. I understand that you are doing your job but just judging by the content of my submitted page I am not doing vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia in anyway. Thank you for your time and I apologize for the confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OKSoda (talk • contribs) 19:57, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll reiterate my disbelief that you have received any word from Jimbo about this article specifically. Even if Jimbo sanctioned it, it clearly is not acceptable based on our policies and guidelines. As such, that would make Jimbo wrong and the community (editors like Kinslayer and me) can overrule such a decision. Jimbo can't arbitrarily allow articles that break policy. Leebo T/C 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Wise Old Owl

Hi, I removed the {{db-empty}} tag from the page A Wise Old Owl as it seems to offer sufficient context to be understandable and could possibly be improved to become a decent article. Let me know if you disagree with this. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section about the rhyme's use in World War II and a reference for it. That should assist with notability concerns too. Leebo T/C 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate in the WikiProject Dragon Quest

Hello, since you occasionally edit video games articles, I thought I'd inform you of a debate currently taking place in the WikiProject Dragon Quest. It is about whether we should use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest or Dragon Quest Heroes for the slime spin-off series of the franchise. There are currently not enough people involved to actually reach a clear consensus, so you are invited to read the discussion (or have a look, if it's too long) here and here and give your opinion on the question. Thank you! Kariteh 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mkunga lalem

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Mkunga lalem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Silicium work

The Editor's Barnstar
Just wanted to say thanks for your work protecting WP from Pcstas's articles promoting his watch company and himself. --Chetvorno 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am advocating editing down Pcstas's remaining article, Silicium escapement wheel, and merging what's left into Lever escapement. Would welcome your comments on the talk page. --Chetvorno 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)