User talk:DanielM/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, DanielM/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Norm Coleman's page and Galloway

I just wanted to let you know that we took off (and moved to the Oil-for-food page) those parts of the Galloway information that had very little to do with Coleman. Please see Talk:Norm Coleman for the discussion. Please let me know if you disagree and why. Thanks. -- MicahMN | Talk 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted from Wikipedia, but rather moved to a more appropriate place. There is an entire paragraph about Coleman and the Oil-for-food investigation. As for Galloway's testimony, it has very little to do with Coleman. There are two different links that remain in the Coleman article where people wanting to read more about the matter can. -- MicahMN | Talk 03:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought it was the same content. I will not revert the article anymore, but I may make some edits to it tomorrow. -- MicahMN | Talk 04:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he ever did. DanielM 02:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway

Your edit summary "Rm POV. The judge didn't see it as an attack" has me baffled. The edit is completely NPOV and no Judge was involved. Could you explain what you mean? David | Talk 12:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I responded to this some time ago. The edit was very problematic. DanielM 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that you regard edits by casual users automatically as "vandalism". This is very unpleasant edit commenting by you and also false. The piece about Galloway's comments later in the Iraq crisis are irrelevant to him liking Saddam a lot. Prove relevance, don't just resort to cheap points like "vandalism"! Reverted and it will be again if you counter-revert if you can't be bothered to come up with an argument. 212.183.134.66 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't respond on this person's talk page really as he or she is an anonymous IP. The vandalism, and only text I removed in that edit, was "died 13th september 2007" for a person who was still alive. The relevance of the other text this person is complaining about is in informing readers about Galloway (which is the purpose of the article), not in demonstrating "him liking Saddam a lot" (which is a POV). DanielM 09:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

I first want to say that I respect that you disagree about the relevance of keeping everything written about the George Galloway affair in the article. Discussing it is a great way to find common ground and consensus.

I want to clarify that you are incorrect to say that I am motivated in my call for a reasonable consensus on the matter because I want to make the article "Coleman friendly." I try not to bring my personal politics into wikipedia because to do so would be to counter-productive to writing encyclopedia. I happen to personally despise Mr. Coleman's politics, but that doesn't mean that I think he isn't entitled to a fair and neutral article in Wikipedia.

I don't want to sound accusatory, but it appears to me that you want to use the Coleman article to vindicate Mr. Galloway and criticize Mr. Coleman. This motivation really goes against the whole spirit of wikipedia, and that's what was so wrong with Coleman's staff coming on with an agenda to change what should be a neutral article in Coleman's favor. I should add that they really didn't change the Galloway stuff in their vandalism. -- MicahMN | μ 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be MicahMN's personal view, but I don't think it "it appears" that I want to vindicate George Galloway or anyone else. You can balance perspectives but you can't balance facts. If Galloway seems to come out ahead in the affair to some people, it may well be because of the facts. You shouldn't try to finesse facts or omit key details to ensure that each encounter like this each comes out looking like a draw. Having said that, I myself don't really think Galloway comes out vindicated. When MicahMN talks about the "spirit of Wikipedia" or having a "quality article" I've found that this is his way of saying he wants the article to reflect his own viewpoints and tastes. DanielM 10:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delegate Zero/The Other Campaign

Firstly, it is Delgegado Zero not Delegate Zero, I will try and change this. Secondly, and more importantly, just because he has changed his name does not mean it warrants an individual article, for example, there are not seperate articles for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. I will try and get the two merged. --Horses In The Sky 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the name, I can see where you are coming from but I think it would be best to use his correct name and have a redirect from Delegate Zero. However (although I do not know the exact wikipedia policy) I can see no example of pages being created for name changes. I have already stated one example and here are some others Left Party (Germany) and Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus as well as Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam. If you can find some examples in the other direction then I will be happy to debate this but as for now, I think the redirect should stand. --Horses In The Sky 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, perhaps it was a bit arrogant, bring back the page if you want, I just can't see any logical reason for it to exist. --Horses In The Sky 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect - Go to why do we redirect and look at the sixth one down. --Horses In The Sky 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree there may be a case to change the Subcommandante Marcos article heading to Delegado Zero but maybe not until the name change has become common knowledge and in any case, he may decide to change his name back at some point. --Horses In The Sky 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He was right about the one thing, there should be a single entry for this person, but we're not sure about the other. Judging by a popular news story search engine, english-language media refers to him as Delegate Zero much more often than Delegado Zero. Does this mean Wikipedia should refer to him that way as well? Not so sure. As yet have not found anything in the rules about that. DanielM 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Erik Balkey

Just a hint for next time - instead of blanking the content at Eric Balkey and entering a redirect, then creating the correctly spelled article, you could have used the "move" tab at the top of your page. This would have preserved the page history and done the redirect for you :) --BigBlueFish 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Coleman Pics

I got the photos from a friend who attended Hofstra University at the same time as Norm Coleman. He happens to still have his old class of 1970 yearbook. He mentioned it to me and I took a look -> whoa Norm Coleman, crazy. Anyway, that's the story. AaronRoe 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Coleman and Galloway

Please let me know how this can be about Norm Coleman and not about Galloway. This is very blantant POV and you appear driven by some agenda (I will not put an adjective in front of it but it is obvious what it is). Please refer to any standard biographical technique that would make the material you reverted relevant under "Norm Coleman" under circumstances. You seem to have personal/policical issues that are not relevant to objective biographical writing. I'll wait a few days for your response before re-editing. Rossp 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)rossp

These were warrantless allegations, he was irritated IMO that I reverted his wholesale deletions to longstanding compromise text. I responded at his talk page. DanielM 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Lmm c.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lmm c.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan

First off, thanks for the "sorry" at the start of the revert. Human touches are good. I felt that including the links to the three well-known events was source enough. They were three historical events during his tenure that are not mentioned in the comment of the housing bubble, and I found it lacking because of it. However, I do not feel strongly about it, and also do not feel like googling for sources citing these events in each of the reasons given for each Fed reduction, so I will let it drop.

PS: Daniel is a good name, my son has that name. CodeCarpenter 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sputnik Browser

All subjects must assert notability. It's best to read it as Unremarkable content. The discussion on the merits of software notability are still being debated, but is visible at Wikipedia:Notability (software). Logical2u_{Review me!} 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to assert notability, and relatively verifiable notability. (So, include sources if they aren't readily known) This is the rule for almost every subject on Wikipedia, and it looks like the software debate will turn out the same way. Logical2u_{Review me!} 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The applicable policies are WP:CSD#Articles, subsection 7, followed by Wikipedia:Notability. Logical2u_{Review me!} 18:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sputnik browser

An editor has nominated Sputnik browser, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnik browser and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

=Regarding edits to MorphOS

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, DanielM! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule republika\.pl, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik (browser)

...if you don't mind, could you please cite a reliable source that establishes the notability of the Sputnick browser. AlistairMcMillan 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The web-browser article was established over his objections that it was not notable. I responded to this at his user talk page. DanielM 10:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And in the two months since the AFD, what has happened? The article itself hasn't been touched (still only a single paragraph) and the browser hasn't been updated. AlistairMcMillan 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

Having been involved in the argument at this page for some time now, I appreciate another editor stepping in to voice some objectivity. I initially came to the situation with the same goal in mind, but got wrapped up somewhat in the seeming POV spreading going on. So thanks for your input- it would be helpful if you kept in the discussion, as the editor looking to insert the info in question (what appears to me to be criticism of Israeli policy spun to look like anti-semitism) hasn't embraced any of my reccomendations, and I was starting to feel like the lone voice of wiki policy. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Krugman/Lying in Ponds

Daniel, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I have added some remarks on the Talk page there. I really appreciate your willingness to be engaged on what I think is an important issue, and I hope that what I've said will make some difference in its resolution. If I can be of any help on the matter, please let me know. Jjb 05:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:H_miller.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:H_miller.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 06:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to reason together about Code Pink

Daniel,

I am really trying to be objective here, which I believe can be done when all sides in a conflict (I'm referring to the public political one, not Wikipedia) are, to varying extents, irrational. Code Pink raises strong criticisms, which will engender strong criticisms in return. In no way do I agree with Carlson -- or Benjamin.

Let me offer what I have long taken as a piece of wisdom, which often describes my POV in political matters. It comes from Carl Schurz, who started as a German revolutionary, emigrated to the US, and eventually became an outstanding senator. I only wish that more politicians shared his balance:

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

He later expanded on this:

I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’

Carlson, Tierney, and Code Pink all, to me, seem to be using mock patriotism. I have enough experience with the realities of Capitol Hill to say that it may take them a while to come to the correct position, but they usually do, and without benefit of stunts.

I'm saying this here, as the Wikipedia guidelines on dispute resolution suggest that an exchange on user pages can help establish good faith. That is what I am trying to do. It is not my belief that the Code Pink page can be more than a record of fairly extreme positions on different ends of the political spectrum, and providing both is a service to the reader. In my opinion, the article has tilted toward Code Pink.

If you still think I am engaging in OR synthesis, I encourage you to join with me in seeking arbitration. I assure you that I am doing my best to stay neutral in a situation where there are no neutral positions by the subjects and their critics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rescue at Riegel.

Link was removed because the page at Home of The underdogs included a link to download the game concerned. The game is not marked as being free ware or shareware. It is generally accepted by most contributors that links to copyright infringement should be removed from Wikipedia. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lmm c.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lmm c.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Spbu479.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Spbu479.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any pal of Cherry is a pal of mine

Hey, I added a bunch of reliable sources to your CherryPal article -- I've been waiting for this product to hit the market -- and that should satisfy any WP:RS concerns. Plus, its driving force is Max Seybold, who is quite clever when it comes to high-tech operations -- he needs to be added to the article. Let me know if you need additional input. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Prachanda

I'm afraid your latest edit also removed my infobox. I wish the vandalism hadn't gotten in the way and I've added it back in, but next time, could you look through the other edits to make sure you haven't gotten rid of those which aren't meant as vandalism? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's okay now. Everything's back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik Balkey

Greetings! It might've been nice if we could've discussed this entry before you reverted a handful of my copy-editing changes. I'm obviously not going to revert them back because that's not how we do things here, and I really don't have strong feelings, anyway. But here's what I was thinking about the three instances you picked. First, Erik is a singer-songwriter; there is really no separate intellectual category of "touring singer-songwriter." In other words, a "touring singer-songwriter" is not a different beast from a "singer-songwriter," and we generally go for the most general and apt category in our ledes. In any event, Erik is focusing on writing these days and hasn't recently toured. You'll note from his website that he has no touring announced for 2009. I took out "for the most part" because of its clunkiness; I certainly don't/wouldn't object to a less clunky modifier (generally, usually, frequently, often?). Finally, I'm puzzled by your placement of the word "his" back in front of "performances." I don't think anyone could read this sentence sans "his" and wonder if Erik was selling CDs at other peoples' performances! So it's really an excess word. Again, though, I don't have strong feelings about any of this, and I want to stress that the article is much better for your longstanding attention to it. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded, said I didn't revert him, explained the three minor changes I made to, as he says, a handful of his changes. DanielM (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing you, just explaining the edits that you changed back to your prior version (whether or not we want to call that a revert). Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Code Pink Edits

Hey Daniel,

I understand what you said about there not being any verifiable proof on Code Pink's website that they espouse a marxist-feminist/ecofeminist ideology. I believe that it you look at their overall message, you will find that it coincides well with these two schools of thought. However, my assertion that Code Pink "opposes the use of military force under any circumstance can easily be backed up by quotes from their very own website: "Now, we are dedicated to creating a movement that is capable of stopping the next war, whether it is in Syria, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else. We need to educate ourselves, expose the truth to the public and create a culture of peace and compassion before we are saddled with another expensive, unjust war." This is taken from http://www.codepink4peace.org/section.php?id=207. I also found this quote on Code Pink's website: "As outlined in our mission statement, CODEPINK works to create a world of peace. This includes ending war, of course, but also includes a government that does not bail out failed, greed-based corporations". http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=390 This quote suggests deep rooted mistrust of the private sector, much as one would find among Marxist-Feminists. I have edited Code Pink's page with footnotes in a way that I think is fair and verifiable. Thanks for your advice.

Rusty McTavish (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenspan

Just because something has been there a while doesn't make it holy grail in my opinion. I meant that in this moment there is obvious debate and conflict about whether the criticism should stay or go, so in that way at the moment there is no concensus for it to remain in. I will attempt to explain my position better in future edit summaries. thanks Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

reverts on greenspan

you have three reverts on the greenspan article, you are on the verge of a report, please take care. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC) for your information .. [here] and [here] and [here]

The second edit is commented to show that, beyond restoring what was deleted, I improved the text and added a citation in a good faith attempt to improve the text in response to the discussion. I guess I'd leave it to an admin to decide if that's a "revert" if it comes up. I'll respond on his talk page. DanielM (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Take care daniel, that second one is definitely a revert. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you an admin, Rob? DanielM (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, far from it, but I know a revert when I see one. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I am also watching mine, but we need to end this reverting not count them. I am sure that there is a better way to go than this reverting, I think it is not so important that this little thing is in the lede at all, it is already well covered in the article, would you please comment in reply to some of my unanswered comments on greenspans talkpage. regards Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on greenspan

I have opened a request for comment on the greenspan talk [1] in an attempt to sort this out. Perhaps you would like to add your case there Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly both is better, I will try to leave a note on the other page as well. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that better? Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP/Scribner

Though that last comment probably felt good, I would ask you to please retract the beginning or at least tone it down. I'm trying very hard to defuse issues and limit snark, and I want an argument like this discussed on the merits, as much as possible. This is just a friendly request, not an "Admin" demand. I don't think the comment violated any of our policies, I just feel it wasn't constructive (that is, the first part of it). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. :) Protonk (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Freezer Queen

A tag has been placed on Freezer Queen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Merlion  444  11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Freezer Queen page was not an attack page or unsourced, why delete it?

The page the log says you deleted was thoroughly referenced. It had five references that explicitly supported its text. It was not an attack page at all! It pointed to Freezer Queen's 50 year history and said where it was located and how many it employed and more. There was one sourced quote review of their food that said it was bad. That's because that was what I found. It was a minor part of the article. Your comment "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" was not true, Stifle. DanielM (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

I'm not sure why you created it with a hangon tag, but the article had a few sentences about history and then went into how it failed a safety inspection, gave out a load of pink slips, and complained about poor food (cited to Associated Content, a banned source). Even if I had not felt the article was an attack page, I would still have deleted it under CSD:A7 (company or corporation failing to assert notability).

I can userfy the page for you if you would like to work on it further before moving it back to the article namespace. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained the problem with what you said. You can't just point people to a great mass of text and links at your page in the face of such a problem and tell them figure it out on their own. I'll follow Wikipedia rules but am not obliged to learn and follow Stifle's rules. Their factory was closed for good after the failed safety inspection, how could this possibly not be relevant to the history? You have a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The notability was explained in two or three aspects, why not read before deleting? No, thanks, I'm not asking you to userfy anything. DanielM (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't come into this as it's not an article about a living person, but it was, in my opinion, an attack page. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An attack page would have an hostile tone. It didn't. The unfavorable review quote was a small portion of the article. I would have equally put in a favorable review quote, I didn't find any. There was nothing even arguably constituting an attack in the rest of it. Their facility was closed for good after failing a safety review, after many years. We can't just censor something like that and have any sort of decent history of the company. We were discussing it productively at the article, and it was pretty high-handed of you to just wipe it all out. DanielM (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with how I treated the page. I repeat my offer to userfy, which will allow you to move the page back to mainspace once you're happy with it; you can also file a deletion review, but that's likely to come out the same way (userfy for improvement), just a week slower. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)