Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:04, 18 January 2010

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Archives (Index)

2010 1 2010 2 2010 3 2011 1 2015 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

		The GAYWAT Guy Of The Year
		For the serious lulz here. Pcap ping 11:45, 15 December 2009 (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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages already ; it's not my fault if you can't use Google correctly. ADM (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages (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, I was just wondering why you are deleting Julianium

• WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP.

Terry Urban

I've got the article drafted. Could you please take a look at the article and either give me pointers or, if it's ready, move it out to the main encyclopedia? Thank you! User:Shazleton/Terry urban —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll take a look now.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Well, to be honest what I'm seeing right now is pretty minimal evidence of notability. Better than most of the Myspace bands that show up on Misplaced Pages, mind you, but the references in the article are to a RollingStone.com blog post, an announcement from Urban himself, what I would consider a minor article from MTV.com, and the Grey Goose "rising star" mention, which is hard to discern but may be purely commercial in nature. It's definitely enough that I wouldn't nominate him for deletion, but others may have different ideas. Other than that, the article looks fine, though the "Discography" section would be more meaningful if it at least had dates of release or something. One other tip: if and when you move the article into the mainspace, capitalize his last name in the title. I've never figured out why so many articles are created with titles like "Joe smith" or "Mary o'henry," but it generally cries out for deletion. I hope this helps--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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 /_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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 /_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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 about this organiztaion and Wendelin von Winckelstein considers this organization as the successor of Sabbatean movement in his book thanks.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

You disgust me keep your scroller off my hard work you nosy clown. --TheRightfullEqual (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)