User talk:Wafulz/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 8 |
Archive 9
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

As a user who has edited the Rusty Nails (filmmaker) article, please read this and help me. You can continue the conversation on my talk page.

This is a place for the discussion of the article Rusty Nails (filmmaker) until the issues regarding it are resolved or the article is deleted. I am inviting any and all wikipedia users to state their opinion in this case. Here's my side of the story:

  • I created the article at the request of the filmmaker. He was happy with the article. Then other users decided to vandalize the article adding faulty information. The article also attempted to reference IMDB, which itself has wrong information concerning the director. The filmmaker's request is to have the article deleted. I recommended the article for deletion and the article was deleted. Then vandals undeleted the article and added more wrong information. If anyone can assist with this issue please do. I'd like to see the article deleted permanently or written according to information supplied by the filmmaker himself. Either way it may be necessary to lock the article so it can't be altered continually as it has been. Xsxex 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not claiming ownership.. I am merely calling into question the existence of an article which I started... which has become rife with misinformation. The article was deleted and then brought by the user "Lisa55k" (who also doesn't maintain an active user page, nor will respond to my attempts at communication. As I said in the opening statement, the first priority would be to deleted the article entirely and somehow lock it so it can't be re-created. If this is not possible than I am letting everyone know that any information on the article is most likely false. Xsxex 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So where do you want this conversation? You've messaged about a dozen users telling them to reply on your talk page, so having it here would be pretty disjointed.-Wafulz 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(in response to the above, - keep it on the article??? wherever is fine for me.., also im copying the response to the main issue below.. )

  • Again, let me reiterate myself. (this is for the benefit of Wafulz, and others in regard to this article). I wrote the original article months before this "Lisa55k" user. This user does not maintain their user page nor do most of the people who have vandalized this article. My number 1 priority is have the article deleted since it is a source for faulty information. AGAIN, let me be specific!!!! - All the information in this article is referenced by websites which according to wikipedia guidelines is not an acceptible source for this material.

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)." [1]

Unless this can be remedied shortly, I will take the next course of action which will be to contact Jim Whales. Xsxex 06:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Username

I have read the pages you linked. Since my username translates to "item", I have redirected that user and talk page to mine and changed my signature to link to it. There has been an account registered under that username, but that person only made two edits in December of 2005 and they never had a user or talk page. Is this an acceptable solution? 品 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good- I don't think that person will be coming back.-Wafulz 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article on Priroda, A DFT Code by Dr. Laikov

Dear Wafulz,

You seem to have deleted an article on the Priroda code, referred from "Density Functional Theory" page. The reason sayd was "blatant advertisement". I assure you that 1) I'm not affiliated with the code developer in any way and 2) the code is not commercial (while copirighted, It distributed freely among academic users) and 3) technical superiority of the code about which my article was written is a hard fact.

So could you please restore my article? If it doesnt match any formal criteria, I would be glad to fix it.

-- Best regards, Dr. Shamov

You should probably rewrite it in a more neutral tone in your userspace at User:Gas5x1/Priroda. If the code is actually technically superior and as popular as you assert it is, you should be able to find independent reliable sources that say so. Also, the article title should be something simple, like "Priroda (code)" - nobody is going to search for "Priroda (fast relativistic RI-DFT program by Dr. D.N. Laikov)"-Wafulz 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Slam Poetry

Hi Wafulz - You left a weasel words tag on Slam Poetry a while back. I've gone through and narrowed down the entire article fairly severely. I'm wondering if you'd swing by and see if we can get rid of the tag now. All the best, ProfJeFF 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the weasel tag. I agree that the article has a long way to go, but at least we're moving towards that now... ProfJeFF 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Horizon

Hi. I put a "hangup" on Stargate Horizon and had left a msg on the Stargate project to see if they thought the article would meet WP criteria. So, couldn't you leave the article up a bit longer? (Granted, I know nothing about fan fiction, just trying to help a newbie who created it. Seemed reasonable to me.) Thanks. HG | Talk 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your good intentions, but it pretty clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for web content notability or verification standards. I'll leave it up for another few hours, but I don't want to give the new user the impression that everything belongs here.-Wafulz 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your responsiveness. Take care. HG | Talk 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Molly McKay

If the article Molly McKay should be taken to afd, should the other article the person made: Davina Kotulski be undeleted and put up for afd as well? Just checking. -WarthogDemon 19:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check with the deleting admin.-Wafulz 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait until the deleting admin replies to you, in case it'd be best to put both these articles in one AfD. -WarthogDemon 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Both done. I decided to afd them separately if that's okay. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Space Jam article

You may want to watch that article closely for a while, there are a few vandals inserting a sentence about a boy with a small (body part), who lives in Escondito (blah blah etc. ad nauseum) and I've overlooked it accidentally; your revert to the previous version restored that version with that offensive material. I'm wondering if the initial IP vandal isn't making usernames to do additional vandalism. Perhaps consider restoring a version prior to that? Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't even noticed what I did. I guess I was up too late last night.-Wafulz 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though Ross Murphy, Hibernian is editing my edits 'out', out of some other reason than accuracy on Energy Accounting

On the article Energy Accounting. Wafulz there is no way that I am wrong about energy accounting/energy certificates in my edit of the Energy Accounting article that Ross has reverted. He reverted that article without citing examples or posting on the talk page. My edit is accurate. I am asking you to put my description of Energy Accounting back the way it was written before Ross`s edit. Also I deleted a reference to TechCa, in external links, as I believe this to be the 'wrong reference point' that Ross is citing. That reference was written by another editor here Kolzene, and cites Energy Credits. To my knowledge that term is a misnomer and not used elsewhere to describe energy certificates. Please change this edit back to my more accurate information.

The same cabal of people are attempting to control Technocracy related material on Wiki in regard to the article as on Technocracy movement.

Also when exactly is the article 'Technocracy movement' going to be up for more scrutiny by more unbiased editors ?

It has been some time now. It is my hope that a team of wiki editors can intervene in this article and edit according to the actual Technocracy material presented by Techinc, and not use The TechCa information, which does not reflect Technocracy concepts.(skip sievert 04:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

The other editors on the Technocracy movement page don't have to submit to the RfC. Personally I think you should accept that not all information about a subject has to come from the subject itself- reliable third party sources work just as well. There would be a lot of problems if the article on democracy only worked from the definition from ancient Athens. About the energy credits: you're still waiting on sources from Hibernian, and I'm not going to get involved right now. He does have to present reliable sources proving the term is accepted though.-Wafulz 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz here is an example from the Net site about energy accounting not being energy credit related, except perhaps mistakenly

" The usership right is a part of the social contract which is the technate. It is physically manifested through an energy certifikate. The available capacity is divided into energy units, which could also be called energy credits although it might be misleading. Why? Because the units, since they most correspond to the available consumption capacity in the technate during a given time period (minus of course usage during said period), would not be possible to save over that period. Instead, the certifikate will be reloaded with a new share more corresponding to the new total production capacity of the technate." http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats

I am going to site more examples also from other sources, but I thought it would be interesting to site the NET site, one that I have endorsed, just as an example how energy credits is a misnomer. Ross has been very quick to reverse any editing I am doing, but very slow to offer any defense of why he is doing it.(skip sievert 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

ZeldereX

You deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelderex

There were numerous poeple working on this page, and it was only a day old.

I'm unsure as to why you deleted it. Please tell me why.


Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.87.17 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZeldereX Online. The community deleted it. --Boricuaeddie 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that. But it was a year ago they voted for it to be deleted. This was a completely new page, just becuase it was on the same topic doesn't mean it should be deleted.

Is there a way to restore it? Or may i just repost the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjb15 (talk • contribs)

If you do, it'll just be deleted once more per WP:CSD#G4. --Boricuaeddie 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So what. Just becuase a year ago someone made a bad page, the game can't have one at all? Mattjb15 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The content was more or less the same- either way, the subject was deleted, not just the content. To get it undeleted you have to go to deletion review and present reliable sources to show that the article meets web content notability standards and the verification policy.-Wafulz 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AugustaUpdates

Can you check on User:AugustaUpdates. I'm concerned this is being used as some kind of promotional account, but I'm really not sure. Definitely not sure enough to report to AIV, but enough that I'd like someone to check. -WarthogDemon 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gave a warning.-Wafulz 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Linguist's Toolbox

You deleted my entry 'Linguist's Toolbox' for copyright infringement. It is an entry about a tool that is freely distributed and used by linguists all over the world. I copied a page I wrote about Toolbox from another site and placed it in the Wikipedia so that it could be edited by others. The Wiki entry was to have provided much needed resources and information for this community. I can't see why you have deleted it. Please restore it so it can be added to by others working to record the world's languages using this tool.

Thanks

Nick Thieberger Department of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics The University of Melbourne Vic 3010 Australia—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.thieberger (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear: the material is entirely yours and written by you? Copying material from other websites is problematic, even if it's from your website- you have to prove to us that it's actually your material. If this is the case, you should read this. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia has its own manual of style.-Wafulz 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy (director)

Hi!

Please advise as to how Kevin McCarthy (director) is notable in any way. According to Jeopardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy%21#Gameplay) the only staff worth mentioning are:

  • Creator: Merv Griffin
  • Hosts: Alex Trebek · Art Fleming · Jeff Probst · Bob Bergen
  • Announcers: Johnny Gilbert · Don Pardo · Jay Stewart · John Harlan

Otherwise the McCarthy article really should be deleted.

Yours, UncleAlfred 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Being the director of Jeopardy and Oz (TV series) is an assertion of notability, so it can't be speedy deleted. Feel free to nominate it at WP:AFD.-Wafulz 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasek

Thanks for the interest in the Hasek article. I can see you are one of the leading editors of the page. I just wanted you to know that WP:CHICAGO add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to all articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. This includes all former Blackhawks. Although many of these may not have had significant roles as Chicagoans or to Chicagoans, that is our plan. We often contribute to {{ArticleHistory}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}} cleanup and lend a hand where we can with such articles. I have had discussions with {{WikiProject Illinois}} on why they should not copy this strategy and have asked that they attempt to revert some of the work that was done if it is possible. I do not believe that their tag will be reverted. If you have any interest in why Hasek has any significance to our project you can see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:FAC

OK! --A cool night green owl 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

hi

thanks for cleaning up the sekhmet article, this is my first serious day on wikipedia and I appreciate the help =)

Request

Hi Wafulz. Can you take the tag off Assemblages of plants and invertebrate animals of tumulus (organic mound) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain? The rest will take a little while, but will come out all at once. They are similar to threatened species, see [list]. They have a hard enough time as it is, without you calling 'em names :-) Thanks. Fred ☻ 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can take it out whenever you want.-Wafulz 11:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred ☻ 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey August 2007 Newsletter

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter}}Animum Delivery Bot (delivered on 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

Protection of Bill Gates

You semi-protected this article in April. Is it worth experimenting with unprotecting again? GRBerry 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot.-Wafulz 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if it needs reprotection soon. I've added to my watch list. GRBerry 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hubier sock part 3

Bond.jamesbond.007ltkill (talk · contribs). He's certainly not getting any more creative with his user names.--Atlan (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.-Wafulz 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Monsoon HAVA

Hi Wafulz,

Hope all is well. I wanted to find out if the article on Monsoon HAVA is going to be deleted. It has a flag on it for speedy deletion but I noticed that you had said, on it's history page, nobody is proposing deletion.

Will your contributions help keep the article on Wiki? Will the flag be removed? Thank you for all your help.

Suzyshanahan 16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been flagged as an article with a promotional- this is not a deletion flag. While I can't guarantee it won't be deleted, I can say it probably won't be deleted because of the {{db-spam}} tag. You should avoid phrases like "[software] alows users to..."- these set of flags for users searching for spam.-Wafulz 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 31 30 July 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Unexplained edit by Hibernian in energy accounting (Ross Murphy)on his insertion of 'energy credit' concept link to TechCa.

An example of Hibernian referring to a term that does not exist in Technocracy circles, except on a website that was referred to as not a good source in and of itself, by the editor Wafulz on Technocracy movement. The deleted material, leading from the deleted link, was written by Kolzene, and Hibernian is a key player on said website ( he is Icarus on TechCa.) This self generated, (a wiki editor produced it and it is promoted by another wiki editor)and non connected concept, has no bearing in Technocracy related material. If the TechCa site has not been allowed to present original conclusions on Technocracy movement site, why then here ? Could you monitor this situation Wafulz ? Wafulz please do not interpret this as edit warring or tendentious editing on my part. It is not. This is a subject that is based on a scientific view of creating a social structure.(skip sievert 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

To state again, Energy Credit IS a legitimate and used term. Skip may not think so, but that's Skip for you (Let's remember, there's lots of things he's said that have also been shown to be garbage of a similar quality). This was already talked about for DAYS on the Technocracy movement talk page, weeks or months ago, and the consensus was that it stays. As for the Reference from Tech.ca about Energy Credits, what exactly is controversial about it? (other than the fact that it mentions the dreaded "credits"), it just summarises stuff from Technocracy Documents. The only real issue of-course is Skip's obsession with Kolzene, and his irrational hatred of anything coming from his site. Besides, this was all resolved weeks ago, and decided upon, was it not? Skip's just coming back with the same old stuff again, and if you want my opinion, yes it is the same distributive and tendentious editing, Big Time. --Hibernian 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and as said before it may be possible to find an obscure reference in Technocracy to energy credits, even by TechInc that is used to make another point, but almost all of the actual information describes those units as energy certificates http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm

The Energy Certificate. This point was never 'argued' as you say but 'forced' into the article by a couple of editors that did not present their reasons, or cite an array of examples and could not refute that the vast amount of connected information uses the term energy certificates.(skip sievert 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't have the time right now to read through that entire document, but could you please point out to me the part you think invalidates Energy Credits? As for Certificates, yes I am well aware that they are an equally legitimate term and mean exactly the same thing. But as I stated before (weeks ago), Certificates were invented in the 1930's and were intended to be actual physical pieces of paper (i.e. that's what a certificate is), where-as Energy Credits are the more modern form, they are entirely electronic. When it became apparent to Technocrats that paper certs would be archaic, they moved over to talking about electronic Credits, nothing else has changed. It's just an example of the movement modernising, a process that has apparently passed you by entirely. But that's what you get from reading only the 1930's documents. Anyway, I'm going offline now and won't be back until tonight at the earliest and possibly not for a few days, so don't expect a quick response from me. --Hibernian 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the time period of the 1930`s, it has to do with basic ideas connected to Technocracy. I cited an example written several weeks ago by a member of the NET site to make that point http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats. I also have cited a whole lot of other written words to make that point, mostly by TechInc. Credit is a misnomer because it is a money term, and I do not see that term used in any large way in Technocracy circles, except as written by another editor here who is the webmaster of TechnocracyCa. No one has 'moved over to talking about Energy Credits' as you say, except on that site which is not a site that Wafulz has said should be used in the article to present original material from. As said only a very few references exist in TechInc material to back the claim that energy credit is a viable term, and those reference are usually used to refer to money and as an explanatory device. (skip sievert 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

If the term "Energy credit" is not defined in a reliable source, then it is not valid. If it is published in a reliable source, then its definition may be appropriate.-Wafulz 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not in a reliable source beyond as an obscure reference point used as an aside mostly to describe a different reference. The TTCD document cited by Hibernian does not seem to use the term even. The edited material from TechCa, and the link to it are not a reliable source. This site is the only site that touts this concept of energy credits, and while as said, it has been used as a reference for mostly what energy certificates are not, this needs to be changed, which I will do in the next day. Offering up a document that was written/edited by a wiki editor does not qualify as a reliable source. The TTCD Faq`s material. Even that material does not mention energy credits, that I can see, and Ross has not specified a paragraph that uses the term energy credits at all. The energy accounting article which is up for a rewrite, and the Technocracy movement article need to reflect Energy Certificates and not Credits. Also the rest of the Technocracy movement article especially the beginning need to be rewritten.(skip sievert 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is another 3rd party description of Energy Accounting/Energy Certificates http://gloryoftechnocracy.blogspot.com/ Glory Of Technocracy This site makes it very clear that the term credit is not a good description. (skip sievert 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes, thank you Skip for that diatribe... Ok I'm back now, so I'll try to explain the situation again (Skip already knows all this, so this will mostly be for the benefit of Wafulz), There have been many publication by Technocracy Incorporated over it's 74 year history, throughout that time the movement has proposed a system called Energy Accounting. The units to be used in that system were named "Energy Certificates" when the system was created in the 1930's. The idea was the energy would be accounted for, by giving citizens pieces of paper which would represent energy they could use, as the article Skip has provided says, they're was even a definite plan on what they would be like, etc. This was the system that was used by Technocracy Inc. for many years, Energy Accounting and Energy Certificates, until that is, in around the 1970's (I don't know the exact date) it was obviously felt (rightly) that using as system of paper accounting for a Technate would be archaic and ridiculous in a Computer age. So the entire Energy Accounting system was to be computerised and totally electronic, so the question that must have been asked was "The term Energy Certificates has no meaning if there is no physical paper system, what can we call the Electronic equivalent of Certificates?" and the answer the organization came up with was... Energy Credits!
Now is everybody following me so far? The reason that all the old Technocracy documents exclusively used the term "Certificate", is because "Energy Credit" had not yet been invented, and not because it was seen as "wrong". So today the term Certificate is a historical term, and not used unless you're talking about a paper based system. When talking about Energy Accounting electronic style, we say Credits. Now I didn't come up with the term, maybe a better one could have been adopted, and people are free to have whatever opinions they want on it, but the fact remains that that is the word the Organization chose and uses today.
Now on to why Skip Sievert is opposed to the term. Skip's official reason for opposing the term (or at-least the one he's given on Wiki) is that, it is not "Mainstream" Technocracy. However the real reason is quite different, as was stated previously, several years ago, Skip Sievert was thrown out of Technocracy Incorporated and subsequently preceded to embark upon a one-man Internet Crusade against the organization (His activities on Wikipedia have recently become a major part of that crusade). Skip recently stated that he does not recognize the organization Technocracy Inc. as the true representative of Technocracy in North America. Skip's particular opinions seem to involve a belief that a Technate should have state imposed atheism, that ONLY the Technocracy Study Course (circa 1934), is a legitimate Technocracy document and that anything written past the 1970's is apparently a travesty, etc. Why is Skip the first person to object to the term Energy Credits here? Because he is the only person who objects to it! Indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find any Technocrats who think the same as Skip does. Skip has many opinions, and he's entitled to them, but none of his opinions would be considered "Mainstream Technocracy", not by a long shot!
As for Energy Credits in a reliable source, well as I said, go to page 68 of the TTCD and you'll find it there in that section on terms. Now of-course I assume Skip won't accept this as it comes from the TTCD, however Skip's opinions on that document are totally irrelevant, as it is an official Document of Tech Inc. Other than that, I frankly cannot be bothered trawling through every Document it may be used in, just to please Skip, as far as I am concerned, the matter is over.
To address Skip's posts above, you still have not pointed out any part of that document you presented that states anything about Energy Credits, are you planning to do so? All that I can see in there is a detailed description of Certificates (but as the little addendum at the end states, it is now obsolete anyway).
Now as for your, "3rd party site" (I can't help from laughing at that description), the paragraph in which you say discredits the term Credits was obviously written by you (In-fact I think you posted it on Wiki a while ago), and the style screams Skip (only a bind man could not see that). That blog seems to be run by one Dennis Cradock (presumably at your instruction), and interestingly, if one looks up his profile there [2] he states that his favourite book is... Surprise, Surprise, "Beyond The Cloak Of Deception" By Skip Sievert. What an amazing coincidence! A word of advice Skip, when trying to make a fake site as a way to fool Wiki Admins, try to make it a little less obvious who wrote it. --Hibernian 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find fault with the insulting derogatory explanation here. Why is it that Hibernian can give no examples while I have given multiple examples ? How is that ? Also how is it that it is ok to insult here instead of editing the article correctly. How is it that someone is saying as an explanation of something that I want to outlaw religion, or have a phony blog set up ? Those are both lies. Wafulz could you please restore the edit I did ? Could you also ban Hibernian for his insulting behavior ? I would like to officially complain also that Hibernian is attacking me personally for whatever reason. BTW, the basic logic of what he is saying is not correct. The term energy credits is not the same as energy accounting. Credit cards were in wide use in the middle 1960`s, and this document was updated in 1967 or so, as it says in its body, http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate so what he is saying does not make logical sense. Also I am wondering where the other editors are that might be looking at this article. I thought that was the plan. (skip sievert 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is the edit that Hibernian did on another section that I expanded. Technocracy Incorporated Publications

   * Technocracy Study Course [Technocracy, Inc.] (1934)
   * Technocracy Handbook [Technocracy, Inc.], (1939)
   * The Sellout of the Ages, Howard Scott, (1941)
   * Our Country, Right or Wrong, (1946)
   * Continentalism: The Mandate of Survival, (1947)
   * Technological Continental Design (TTCD) [Technocracy, Inc.] (1975)

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Could you please restore my expanded edit Wafulz. I added more publications. All published by Techinc that Hibernian removed. Could this be considered vandalism ? (skip sievert 02:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
Vandalism Skip? No, because I had a reason for it. As I've already said to you on my talk page, I removed those entries you put up because they are only essays, not Books. All the others in the list are books that were published, essays are not in the same category as that. Perhaps we could have a section mentioning some of the important essays, but where would such a list end? there's dozens if not hundreds of essays. And who would select them? Besides, all of those essays (or at least the majority of them) are already linked to, in the external links part of the article (Archive material from Technocracy Incorporated). People can actually go there and read them for themselves, isn't that a lot better than just having a list of names with no links or explanations? I think so.
As for the main issue, again you say you are presenting your evidence that Energy Credits are wrong, yet all you have presented is a document explaining Certificates. That does not invalidate credits! I even asked you several times to state were in that document it says anything either, for or against energy credits, and you still have not given any answer. As I said, I didn't invent the term credits, someone at CHQ must have decades ago, if you have a complaint about the term and think it is wrong, I suggest you go and ask them to change it, there no point in trying to argue about it on Wikipedia, you can't change the fact that that's what the organization uses now. Oh, but of-course, you can't go to CHQ, seeing as they banned you, oh well...
I must say, I find it interesting that every time I mention your "distortable discharge" from Tech Inc. you call it a personal insult. This of-course coming from the same man who is currently running several smear websites, personally insulting and attacking me and many other people. Absolutely laughable. --Hibernian 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is better information and less conflicted by current wiki editors presenting material they have edited http://www.technocracy.org/technocrat/The%20Energy%20Distribution%20reduced.pdf The Energy Distribution reduced.pdf (application/pdf Object) Also ' I am the Price System was originally printed as a booklet. Also the TTCD would not qualify under the criteria you are giving. It is an information brochure. Like many of the briefs. It is officially called an information brief. A parody site is different than a diss blog. (skip sievert 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Amelia Earhart

Sorry for the brusque response. I will write back in more detail but these pop culture references have been the source of a great deal of attention and revising. I will re-look at it in the near future but rest assured, the area has been very strenuously addressed by at least three editors who have contributed the bulk of this article. Many, many entries in this pop culture section have already been removed. FWIW Bzuk 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi Wafulz (Waffles, Waffels, etc.) In the revisiting of this section, you actually got me thinking (a isolated occurance, let me assure you) that there may be something to some of the issues you raised about non-notability. I spent an hour or so going through each entry and lo-and-behold, you were right that a number of the submissions did not meet the standard of being notable. I "pruned" this section and those that were left in place have at least been verified as having some significant connection to AE; in some instances, I revised the note to add information that more clearly stated the cultural connection. The trivial and erroneous entries were deleted and again, thanks to your oversight, hopefully, a major article such as Amelia Earhart can one day be considered for "good article" status. Thanks again. FWIW Bzuk 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Counter-Strike Manager

Case: Counter-Strike Manager Can you tell me the reason why you deleted it now? The content is completely different since it was deleted the last time. I expect that you've read it's deletion logs.You should have marked it for speedy deletion, so that I could place a hangon on it. Why on earth didn't you start the discussion on the article's page? TobiasK 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source? How do you define a reliable source? I'm administrator on the God damn site. TobiasK 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. That kinda describes me.

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 32 6 August 2007 About the Signpost
Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

William R. Carteaux

Hello I am contacting you in regards to the article William R. Carteaux. You deleted this article because it seemed to be promoting a person/group. I have since rewritten the article. I work in the plastics industry, which impacts almost every person on this Globe. If you google William Carteaux you will find hundreds of articles referring to him or the policies that he and SPI deal with. I feel he should remain on Wikipedia due the great impact and influence that he and The Society of the Plastics Industry have on the plastics industry in the US and all over the globe. If you look there is also an article about the Society of the Plastics Industry - I have a link on the article I wrote. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks --Nick.greco 03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You should read some of the other biographical articles on Wikipedia and note the differences between how you write and how material on Wikipedia is written. Currently, the article on William R. Carteaux reads half like a press release and half like a resume. It should be written according to the manual of style for biographies.-Wafulz 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian atheists

Re deletion of the above category, it was created and the articles allocated by a person who is a known vandal in Lithuanian wiki,who is normally blocked from editing as soon as is identified. He normally does this as anonym user however Pionier is one of his/her new usernames. You can see he's already put many Lithuanian people he does not approve of under atheists category, that is ridiculous. --Katoa 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Noted.-Wafulz 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Electric Cloud article

You deleted the Electric Cloud article (Expired PROD). I can see why the original terse article appeared to lack notability, however I'd like to argue for its reinstatement. I arrived at the entry wanting to know what Electric Cloud is, and I would rather read a Wikipedia entry (which tells me what I want to know in 10 seconds, with little or no bias) instead of wading through the Electric Cloud website for 5 minutes. Also, the Electric Cloud article still appears in the Compiling Tools category, along with several other similar free and non-free tools. It belongs in that list. If the article merely needs to be expanded to make it less a candidate for deletion, I'll do that. -- user keno 2007-08-13

Okay, it's been restored. No guarantees it won't be listed at WP:AFD though.-Wafulz 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More transparency in edit summaries, please

I noticed your recent revert to J.M.Barrie: at first glance, it looked like you were deleting a large chunk of excellent material. It took a bit of detective work before I realised that the reason for deletion was copyright infringement. Please, when making such major deletions, don't just hit the rollback button: use edit summaries, make life just a tiny bit easier for the rest of us. Thanks. --woggly 20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrs Chambers Westgarth Upload

Hi,

As discussed previously, I have sign off to publish this page as an official wiki page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yichen123/Corrs_Chambers_Westgarth)

Greatly appreciate your help in all this.

Thanks!

It's at Corrs Chambers Westgarth now. Good luck.-Wafulz 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 33 13 August 2007 About the Signpost
CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s" News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Gene Burns

I'm puzzled as to why you deleted Gene Burns without an AfD. He's one of the San Francisco Bay Area's premiere broadcasters on KGO (AM) talk radio, with 40 years in the business. Note that there are Wiki pages for numerous other talk show hosts from this station -- why was this one selected for deletion? -FeralDruid 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This one was the only one tagged for speedy deletion, and it didn't have any real assertions of notability. It said he was a talk show host, and he was Libertarian.-Wafulz 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Gene Burns" deleted

I just noticed that the article on the San Francisco Talk host "Gene Burns", who is today celebrating his 40th year in Talk Radio, has been deleted, while none of the other articles on KGO hosts have been.

See above.-Wafulz 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Return of an old "friend"

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that a past acquaintance has resurfaced. Not causing any problems yet, but if past history is any indication... -Ebyabe 23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Woooooooooooonderful. I still haven't received any e-mails from those "journalists."-Wafulz 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning Chad. Those 'Journalists' had a job to do. You were instrumental in their work. However, they were never going to contact you; why would they ? you are not Wikipedia. Neither are you the chief Investigator or Senior Administrator. Ergo, a sweep of the recent news and magazine articles should provide you with all you need to know.

Thanks for everything,

Richard. The Stealth Ranger 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'll get right on to sweeping every recent news and magazine article then, because I'm sure whatever cryptic article you refer to actually exists.-Wafulz 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gray Hair

I Was searching white hair went to discussion saw your comment and saw it was worded like you knew something about that. So im wondering i've had White hair not gray since I was 8 is there a medical reason or is it gentetic i was wondering if you would know beacuse i ask around and no one knows and my grandma is like 79 and has never had a single strand of white hair in her life. Secondandonly 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about hair, I just copyedit. My best guess (assuming you aren't albino) is that you have very, very fine blonde hair that will gradually darken as you get older.-Wafulz 11:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


hardy boys deletion!

one of the articles that i wrote on the hardy boys was deletd PLEASE NOTE THIS BOOK WAS ANNOUNCED BY THE COMPANY SIMON & SCHETER PLUS ON THERE OFFICAL SITE! i did alout of work on that article please remake this article if not i will REPORT YOU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andi 01 (talk • contribs).

Threats rarely work, you know...and its kinda rude. I just wanted to say that. Silver seren 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You can recreate it if you want (it was deleted via proposed deletion), but please put some effort into it- it was 14 words long.-Wafulz 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

link keeps being put back on energy accounting and also technocracy movement

Wafulz, when you have time could you look at the energy accounting article, and the other technocracy movement article ? Hibernian keeps reinserting the link you deleted to TechCa. It would seem that there is a conflict of interest by Hibernian, (Icarus) In regard to the TechCa site as regards posting it here. http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21497&POSTNUKESID=a75b01cf42e4b110f2eef44e041f5cc1 Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. He is an administrator there, he answers forum or blog traffic, and promotes himself as a person that does that on the site. The article link which you deleted some time ago, has been reinserted by Hibernian multiple times. I think it may violate neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue, and it would seem to be more of a gratuitious link, since the desired information from TechInc is posted here, and also the information from the brief in question shows up in multiple places on the web. It is not a unique source. I can site multiple sources and have. Also your opinion on a special link to the TTCD material ? It seems like over kill since it is in a special box and already displayed on the link that goes to the Technocracy Incorporated site. Also because that document was edited by an editor here,(Kolzene) it would seem that special attention is trying to be drawn to it, when there is no need to. As said it is already in a special area, with its own intro, on the TechInc site, which is already linked. (skip sievert 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Your ascertains are so plainly ridiculous that I shouldn't even respond, but for the benefit of Wafulz, I will again state my reasoning. I am going by exactly what Wafulz stated and by general Wiki rules in relation to this. The article in question from Tech.ca is not (as far as I am aware) available anywhere else, and it is an appropriate and legitimate source. I have asked you several times to either, show me where it is available elsewhere online, or stop deleting it. You have not responded to this and have simply continued to delete, BTW you have never offered any specific reason why you are opposed to that article, other than the site it comes from. In my opinion you're coming very close to vandalism with that Skip.
Now we move on to the second issue, which is sheer vandalism, Skip's continued removal of the TTCD reference. Now as you may be aware Wafulz, it was agreed on the Talk page weeks ago that the TTCD was a good source, and I've already explained that again recently. Skip's removal of it comes down entirely to personal reasons (as I've explain before), and there is absolutely no justification for what he is doing. Therefore, I would officially ask that you monitor him in this regard and take steps to prevent him from performing this type of vandalism again.
Oh and if Skip still can't get this trough his head, NO I am not an administrator of any Website, nor have I written any articles for any Website, etc, etc. --Hibernian 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll bring this up with some other admins later tonight or tomorrow.-Wafulz 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not like being called a vandal. I complain about that now. I have listed other places where that information is available. Multiple places. Wafulz you took that link off to begin with, as far as the article from TechCa, and I was just restoring your edit, if you look at the actual recent history of the edit in question (the 1955 information brief). I am not edit warring. Here is the front end of their site wafulz, and no, someone would not have to "go quite a ways into their site to find a thread about you", as you say on the talk page. It is on the cover. http://www.technocracy.ca/ Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. And no, I took the TTCD off because it is already linked, at the TechInc site which is already linked information (skip sievert 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC))


Hair thing

My Bad I put it wrong i'm dark skinned but not black and have pitch Black Hair with some white pitch hair so you could see it from a mile a way. Sorry for the trouble i might have caused you for my mistake. By the Way have a great vacation! Secondandonly 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know

Hi, just thought you'd like to know you were in a Sydney newspaper published this morning. Some journalist who wrote an article about themselves, and you deleted it. Don't worry, he had only good to say. ;) •97198 talk 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a copy of it online, but they don't appear to publish their articles online. (I was just on my way to let Wafulz know as well, but came across your message.) In any case, the article was called "The Knowledge". — Jeremy 12:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted

Hello -

You deleted an article I posted. I’m not complaining. Only want to explain myself and ask for clarification from your side. The article was ‘Livewire (protocol)’.

I’m a fan of Wikipedia and saw the article ‘Audio over Ethernet’. There was an open link to Livewire. As a co-inventor of the tech, I figured, hey, this is something I know about. It happens we have an in-house wiki, so I’m pretty conversant with the mechanics of posting, as well. I saw the prohibition against “writing about yourself or your company” and knew I would be on the edge. That is the reason I signed the article with my full real name, and didn’t try to hide under an alias. (And I did not delete my account, as you mentioned in your justification. Using it now.)

But here’s the thing… I was not writing about myself, or my company. Rather, the article was about a technology. Perhaps a subtle distinction. But consider a thought-experiment. What if, say, an Intel employee who was on the development team for hyper-threaded processing were to write an article on the topic? On the one hand, he would be in some sense promoting the tech by explaining its purpose. OTOH, he would offer value to the reader by sharing his specific expertise, no? Would such an article be deleted without discussion? Isn’t the ultimate goal to serve the interest of the reader by providing accurate information?

There was nothing controversial in the article. It was "just the facts, maam". And should anyone dispute a point, they would be free to change it, of course. That is the power of Wikipedia, no? Someone starts, then the effects of collaboration kick-in.

Back to the specific case. There is a tech very similar to Livewire called Cobranet. (Livewire is popular among broadcasters and Cobranet is popular for the “installed sound” market.) I saw that the Cobranet article had been nominated as a “good article,” so used it as a template for mine. If you compare the two, you can see the similar structure. I was pretty careful not to use a promotional tone. Indeed, the Cobranet article reads more marketing-ese to me.

As an aside, another similar tech is called Ethersound, which also has a Wikipedia article. It was written by the owner of a marketing firm under contract to the company who developed Ethersound. (I have no inside information – just followed the author’s web link.) This article is flagged for re-write, but has not been taken down. Why the difference?

I was thinking about contributing some other articles in the field of audio and broadcast engineering, but am shy to try now. Would anything I write be deemed promotional, owing to my working in the industry for a company that sells products related to article topics? Could you offer some guidance on this point? Were I to re-write the Livewire article, with yet more care to avoiding a promotional tone, would it be likely to stand? In other words, is the problem the message - or the messenger?

Thanks.


Stevechurch2 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Email regarding Livewire

Just wrote you a note (regarding the Livewire article). Realized I had not included my email. It is: steve@zephyr.com. I guess the wiki has an internal email system, but I'm not yet sure how to use it to receive messages.

Stevechurch2 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


See the page WP:EMAIL for more information. — Jeremy 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 34 20 August 2007 About the Signpost
Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat" News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 35 27 August 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent" News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing TJ Norris

Hi, my name is Evelyn Danson, I'm an old art historian and Pacfic Northwest-o-phile living in SW Washington, right outside Portland. I've watched this man's career over the several years since he moved to this region back in 2001. The Oregonian has lauded almost all of his artistic endeavors, not to mention all the other local papers. His background fits well into the burgeoning arts scene going on here. In fact, I recently attended Commissioner Sam Adams citywide "Creative Capacity" forum and he was one of the few artists in the community who stood up to make some very salient points for change. He has been subsequently invited to join a smaller panel to help Portland grow its sense of cultural tourism on a much wider scale. Since he opened and closed his gallery in downtown he has served on boards of local non-profits and city-based organizations, and just really helped get our city noticed by outsiders like the New York and LA Times, among others. I've tried to edit his profile, but the Wiki keeps a COI parse on the site. You had mentioned you would do some edits back in July, so if that helps to clear up the headers, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the community here. Anything you can do would be great. Much peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.141.141 (talk) 15:46, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend

Deleted Article - Marcelo Del Debbio

Hello,

The article "Marcelo Del Debbio" was deleted for WP:BIO, but I checked the headlines for a person still living and it says the following:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. "

Marcelo Del Debbio is considered the most important Role Playing game writer in Brazil, having published over 45 books and sold over 250.000 copies. His works serve as basis for several other writers including Marcelo Cassaro (who is also in wikipedia) His name is mentioned in several other articles inside wikipedia, regarding roleplaying games and board games.

Thanks in advance,

Fabricio GiZmo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.168.22.109 (talk) 17:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Article has been restored. If reliable sources about the subject are not presented, it may eventually be deleted via articles for deletion.-Wafulz 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

afd for simtropolis

about the afd for simtropolis, i think your reasons of starting it where flawed, check out this thread: http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=32&threadid=92012&highlight_key=y&keyword1=simtropolis%20rules

and what would be considered reliabile sources, does every news channel have to say simtropolis is the biggest, no, they dont, reliable source is that you realy cant find a bigger site for simcity. so not finding a bigger source is your proof that its the biggest, and who said it needs a source, plus the site owner got personaly invited to ea to talk with scs developers.

i know you didn't say some of this but this is some of the basic ideas that will show you why this page should be restored, i would support this being restored, i would also recommend registering on simtropolis and posting that if people want it to stay to update it and post reliable information in it so that it will stay.--Superchad 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)superchad

Reliable sources are detailed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All articles, without exception, require non-trivial reliable sources. Using personal research and opinions is not acceptable- this would clash with the core policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I also think some members on your forum are misinformed about Wikipedia and its purpose- a lot of what they are saying is either misleading or completely untrue.-Wafulz 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

guys4men

Hi, I understand that you deleted the guys4men article. I don't know what it included, but I was trying to look them up and by alexa ranking alone, they are significant. They have a community of tens of thousands. I was hoping for some backstory on them, as wikipedia tends to have that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.37.78 (talk) 17:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I personally deleted that article, but websites should meet website notability guidelines. I'm sure their "About" page has whatever you need to know.-Wafulz 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First posted article removed

Hello,

I have used Wikipedia for years, but I have only recently attempted to post to it. My first article was posted on August 7th and by August 13th, it was deleted. It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Cassidy_Artist and it was about an airbrush artist who has been on TV, won awards and rivals Jesse James and Orange County Choppers. It is funny that the show MTV's Pimp My Ride is mentioned in Wikipedia, but I could not list Mick whose work was seen on that show.

Do I need to get references from Easyriders magazine for whom he wrote articles and other things to verify the information? Or can you contact Mick directly? I am guessing that the article needed verifiable references. Please let me know.

The Wikipedia web editor feels strange to me. I write code and would rather type or cut-and-paste HTML. I did read the website and make a test in the sandbox before making a post, but it is still new and unfamiliar to me. Thanks for your help.

YvetteKuhns 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article and cleaned it up a little bit. However, to keep from being deleted again, it needs secondary reliable sources. If other publications have written about him, then the article can probably stay.-Wafulz 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BUPC

You correctly deleted this per CSD. However, the deletion of the page it was redirected to was out of process, and the MfD is still ongoing. Would you mind restoring it since the page has not been deleted? Thanks. i said 02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks. i said 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Caught me online on a Saturday night :) -Wafulz 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)