User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 3

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Deletion of article "Paranoid Jed"

Dear Sir,

I am responding to your choice of deleting the page my friends and I recently created. It was flagged for speedy deletion due to no notability, and i responded appropriately by putting the ((hangon)) tag. I would like to know your reasons behind this deletion. If you would be so kind as to list the reasons on my talk page. User:Theredbanana. Thank you very much.

When I deleted the page Paranoid Jed I noted the {{hangon}} tag that was placed below the speedy deletion. After reading your justification for keeping the page that you placed on the talk page I did not find it provided sufficient jusification for keeping the aricle. The article still failed criteria A7 of wikipedia's criterial for speedy deletion. Namely, the article still failed to assert the importance of the subject. Sorry, but Wikipedia's criteria for deletion are pretty clear in this regard. Best wishes for your future contributions, IronGargoyle 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Admin

Safety_Nazi was nominated by me for speedy; I wrote the reason: It is an article that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. From talk page: "This is a flagrant and crass example of original research, exemplified in its use of urbandictionary as a source. It should be removed immediately. While some sources cited do amount to true information, the term itself and this article constitutes such." Please nominate for afd if you feel it does not fit the criteria for speedy. I see you have not bothered with nominating for afd and I also see it is not your responsibility to nominate it for afd, but just to remove the tag. I appreciate you work as a speedy admin, which means alot to Wikipedia. Here is a template to help you with you speedy admin tasks, which updates every hour. (respond here, if you wish to respond). Peace. --Parker007 23:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel T. Wellman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand

You told me I might be vandalizing but I'm not sure how. Please excuse me, if you can't tell I haven't been doing this long. I really wanted to help and when I went to put the db tag on the page, there wasn't one up. I didn't think of looking at the history because I found that it was posted by refreshing the 'Newbies Contribs' in recent posts and since there wasn't one when I went to the page I figured there never was one since it wasn't up too long. I'm very sorry, I will start looking at history though, it just never came to mind to look I suppose. Am I allowed a number of edits a day? I mean, I don't want to keep putting db tags on pages that I know need them if I'm going to get in trouble for it. I'm also sorry if this isn't the right place to ask, please delete it if it isn't. Cinnamonella 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't vandalize. My mistake. Just be careful to check the history of a page before tagging it for speedy deletion. IronGargoyle 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

iron gar goyle, please DO NOT DELETE my article about Pete BOOT, this is for PARKINSONS RESEARCH, and i think you should be more gracious about what you delete. I dont know why you did it, only that you did. I am writing it for this person, and it takes time to complete it. please refer me to someone else, if you have a problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordco (talk • contribs)

Personal information on userpage

A person has e-mailed the Foundation on m:OTRS requesting that a revision containing a personal name be deleted from the page history of your user page (vandalism, [1]). The person appears to be some new user sincere and regretful and says the name is his friend's name that he added without his knowledge. I am inclined to believe him based on reading the e-mail and, nonetheless, it is no great burden to satisfy this request, but what do you think? —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the edit that you requested. Thanks for giving me the heads up. I doubt they care about oversight, but if they want to I have no objections to that either. Best, IronGargoyle 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA

about that, I have 2300+ edits now. That rfa is old. I was wondering how I could do a second one. I think I am ready. ffm ^yes? 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest making the page something along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 2. If you still would like the page deleted, I would talk to one of the bureaucrats about that. Best, IronGargoyle 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kobra's Realm Deletion Questions

Forgive me if I take up too much of your time, but I would like to ask a few things. Please understand there is no underlying tone, Sarcasm or otherwise, in these questions; I am simply trying to get a few explanations submitted, and a few of them in return. Hopefully with knowledge gains from your answers, it can be properly used in future submissions, and therefore benefit us all.

I am the User who created the Original "Kobra's Realm" Article in the month of February, 2007; It was instantaneously deleted by User/Admin: "Redvers" under the pretense of CSD-A7 (notability not asserted) and CSD-G11 (advertising).

The First Claim is understood, and was being addressed as the deletion occured; My Only Issue against the CSD-A7 claim, was that as Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, which by it's nature is devoted to providing information on a given subject, that the "KR" (An Acronym for "Kobra's Realm") page was fulfilling this, Providing a summary of the site's history, descriptions of the site and it's sections, and a list of the founding and otherwise notable members.

If this is still deemed sufficient reason for not being included, then I can accept those terms, but I would like to request that the 'Protected' flag be removed, in preparation of the possible event that the "Kobra's Realm" community is indeed bestowed a mark of notability worthy of Wikipedia's Standards. The Community is advocative of regulations, and will happily follow these restrictions in with-holding an Article until these conditions are met. Methods will be taken On-site to prevent the re-submitting of the article until such qualifications meeting the requirements are met.

The Second Claim regarding CSD-G11, is false however. The Original Page of 02/07 was entirely descriptive, albeit filled with links (Which were removed by myself, the author with no provocation, noting that they were unnecessary and excessive.) and did not advertise any more than is necessary in order to describe anything. It was later edited, as said in parenthesis above, to remove every unnecessary link, leaving only the Source links, and a Single link in the 'Summary' Section at the beginning of the article. The Exact Wording was:

"Kobra's Realm is a Web-Community of various members in Amateur Game Development, Primarily using the RPG maker series."

The Second Link was an Internal Wikipedian Link to the "RPG maker" Entry, in order to clarify.

I would also like to note that, although under the first claim it was reasonable under Wikipedia's terms, The Talk Page was started, Asking for Any Problems with the article to be added, and they would be resolved. Again, I do not assert that this was necessary; I recognize that the Probability of the CSD-A7 claim being true will make this a null statement, it is just being added to show that we were open to correct anything brought to mind.

On the issue of the Re-Submitted Copy, This submitted by another member of KR, who felt that the Deletion was accidentally done, due to misunderstanding of the second claim of CSD-G11; It has been noted, and Sincerest Apologies for this problem are offered.

I thank you for your time, I would like to re-iterate that none of the above questions were attacks, nor did any of them have any underlying tone in them. I am simply representing the community on this issue, and am trying to find a constructive solution, as well as an Answer to take back to them.

Again, Thank you. Jwguy 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply to the deletion of Kobra's Realm, and I want to assure you that due to the length of the article and the fact that a {{hangon}} tag had been applied I seriously considered the reasons suggested for keeping the article. I did not find them convincing however, nor did I find evidence in the history or deleted history of the article that there was any assertion of importance for this website. I even did a google search here, finding only 42 unique google hits, none from reliable sources. Its prior vote for deletion also spoke against its inclusion. That being said, I will assume good faith and unprotect the article. If you wish, I can undelete the article (please request this on my talk page) and move it to your userspace under the assumption that you will not return the article to the mainspace until you have reviewed WP:WEB, WP:CSD and WP:SPAM, and are able to provide verifiable references that assert its importance. Hope this reply helps. Best, IronGargoyle 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it is indeed very helpful that you be as generous; I am currently alerting the community to the situation and it's Resolution, along with taking steps to make certain that all members of the community are to refrain from further submissions of the page until further notice from those responsible for the site. For the Prior article, it is understood, It was assumed that most of the issues had been addressed, but back to the point: Again, I thank you for helping us come to this resolution, as it is greatly appreciated ^^. I would indeed appreciate the move to my userspace, if only to salvage the content (The One Copy is from before most of the edits). Jwguy 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, article undeleted and moved here: User:Jwguy/Kobra's Realm. IronGargoyle 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Yes, Thank you again ^^ Jwguy 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

aversion bmx

why did you delete aversion bmx... I was saving it to the server so that i woudlnt loose it before inputting more information about aversion. It is not for advertising but for information about aversion.... I dont see the difference between having aversion and apple computers - of course the information on aversion cannot be as substantial btu it will grow as aversion does... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by aversionbmx (talk • contribs).

Aversion bmx

What does does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. mean exactly?

Just because you are not aware of the goings on doesnt mean that it is unaware in the industry it is involved in... You will find mentions of the company on national bmx magazine dig bmx, It has been in Ride Magazine uk. Both Cream european bmx magazine and Ride Magazine are going to be putting an article in about aversion.

Surely this means that the company is recognised by the industry it is in and therefore is worthy of a space on wikipedia?

If not why not.. tell me dont just delete.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aversionbmx (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see my reply on your talk page. Best, IronGargoyle 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process

You've made the decision to delete the article entitled Prometheus Process. I am the originator of the article and freely disclose that I have a COI regarding the subject. I have not contributed to nor do I intend to contribute to the article since the COI was brought to my attention. Being relatively new to Wikipedia, I admit my screw-up. That said, I strongly feel in good faith that the subject of the article Prometheus Process is worthy of a Wikipedia article because of its verifiability, notability and that it can be written NPOV. Unfortunately the COI has apparently trumped any attempt of my part to draw attention the the considerable body of references to the process and its creators which I've listed at [2] and noted on the talk page of the article. My repeated requests for those desiring to delete the article to explain why the body of references provided do not establish notability and verifiability have essentially gone unanswered. I find it very difficult at the highest level of Wikipedia abstraction, that a business process that was credited by Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell as a major contribution to success in the 1st Gulf War is not notable AND that a business process credited with contributing to the success of a National Institute of Standards Baldridge National Quality Award is not notable. If these facts as laid out in the over 60 references provided do not support verifiability or notability, all I am asking is WHY? Even if the solution is retention of the article stubbed out, I would be more comfortable with the Wikipedia process. --Mike Cline 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was simply following the consensus on the page for the deletion. There was only one weak vote to keep the page and several votes to delete. There were a number of factors working against the article. The conflict of interest, yes, but there were also questions about the notability (see WP:CORP) and the reliability of the sources (see WP:RS). If you have any further questions, let me know. Best, IronGargoyle 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

IronGargoyle. Thank You for taking the time to address my questions and participate in the debate on this article. I apologize for the lengthy response, but brevity has proven futile and counter-productive so far. First and foremost, understand that the “Prometheus Process” is a business process not unlike Balanced Scorecard, the process is not proprietary nor is the term trademarked. The process is used by Fortune 100 companies as well as many other business, government agencies and educational institutions. The fact that there is no verifiable list of those companies is a reality of corporate America. Many companies do not disclose their internal business processes. The process is taught by a growing number of independent consultancies. The article’s intent was to document this process in an NPOV manner with verifiable references that not only demonstrated notability, but referenced the origins, history and application of the process. Unfortunately, my COI issues became an obstacle to doing so and thus the deletion debate. So what follows are two sets of comments, one focused merely on the establishment of the notability and verifiability of the process and two, a brief comment on the deletion process.

• 1) There are essentially three themes related to this article that can be used as means of reference: All these themes are fully referenced in the links section of [3]
  • John A. Warden III, Colonel, USAF Retired
  • The Books “The Air Campaign”-Warden and “Winning In FastTime”-Warden and Russell
  • The Prometheus Process-a business process

John A. Warden is a noted and respected airpower theorist whose work the Air Campaign, Winning in FastTime and his role in planning the air campaign strategy for the first Gulf War is often noted and referenced in many military related articles, books and publications—the one referenced here is typical: Chapter 2, Fundamentals of Australian Aerospace Power, pages 56-57. or this one: David Mets Scholarly Treatise – John Warden and the Classical Air Power Theorists Or this one: Putney, Diane T., Airpower Advantage, Planning the Gulf War Air Campaign 1989-91, Air Force History and Museum Programs, Washington, DC 2004 a 480 page scholarly treatise of the 1st Gulf War that contains no less than 65 index references to John Warden and the Book the Air Campaign.

His book The Air Campaign, originally published by the National Defense University Press has been re-published by Pergamon-Brassey’s the noted International Defense Publisher, by toExcel Press (2 editions), and has been translated as well into Korean and Czech.

All the above support verifiability and notability of John A. Warden, III which leads to the next theme—Winning In FastTime.

The essence of strategic planning process that John A. Warden brought to the 1st Gulf War and his experiences in the White House when he was a military assistance to VP Dan Quayle, led to the writing of Winning In FastTime, which he co-authored with Leland Russell. Both John and Leland have published versions of Winning In FastTime. Winning In FastTime is widely referenced in many publications and bibliographies related to Strategy. For example this is typical: [4]

It was in Winning In FastTime that Warden and Russell coined the term Prometheus Process for the business strategy process that evolved from Warden’s Air Campaign strategy writings and was already in-use in corporate America. The following quotes from the dust jacket point to that notability:

"John Warden has taken the inherently complex and distilled it to an actionable essence. His insights on leadership and strategy make clear the fundamentals for winning in business. John understands the leader's challenge of creating and executing winning competitive strategies in a time-sensitive environment." --- Richard (Rich) K. Templeton, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Texas Instruments Incorporated

"The Prometheus Process has changed the way I work—my attitude, my perspective and my behaviors. Everything we do is not focused on the Future Picture we created by using the ideas in this book. Thanks Prometheus.” ---Mike Roberts, West Division President, later CEO McDonald’s Corporation

“The Prometheus principle were at the core of the transformation at Motorola. We used then to launch fast, fundamental change and they worked." ---Sandy Ogg, Corporate VP and Motorola Director, Office of Leadership

There are additional quotes from Norman Schwarzkopf in his book It Doesn’t Take a Hero and Colin Powell in My American Journey about John Warden and Winning In FastTime. I believe these and the many other references to Winning In FastTime attest to it verifiability and notability.

Finally, the Prometheus Process itself. Not only is this business process outlined in Winning In FastTime, there are a number of 3rd party references that attest to the notability and mechanisms of the process as well as its teaching beyond a single company. I am personally aware of at least 5 other consultancies that teach and practice the process to include Booz-Allen. Although the links at [5] point to all of these, most notable in my opinion are the references associated with The Bama Companies and Metro Technology Centers.

• In [6], the Bama Companies application for the Baldridge Quality Award credit the Prometheus Process and it mechanisms with its much its success. Bama eventually won this award. Praise of the process is evident in several post award articles and presentations.
• Metro Technology Centers, an Oklahoma City Career Technology center adopted the process in 2005 and has published official reports for its public and private stakeholders outlining its use of the Process. For example: [7]To conclude my comments about the process.

I am very frustrated that the COI issues got in the way of contributing an NPOV, verifiable, notable article on the process. But, I truly believe one is warranted. This is not about the company I am associated with or self-promotion, but about a significant strategic planning business process. I believe the above demonstrates that.

• 2) The deletion process: You said I was simply following the consensus on the page for the deletion. There was only one weak vote to keep the page and several votes to delete. Unfortunately it wasn’t community consensus, but merely the consensus of editors who only focused on the COI issue, one of which also participated actively when the topic was on the COI page. Most of my attempts to have a dialog similar to the information above with these editors was quickly trumped by the COI issue and essentially ignored. This may be the Wikipedia Way but it is extremely frustrating because once a COI is raised, so many barriers to effective collaboration are raised, that deletion of any article is very biased toward those whose duty they feel it is to uphold COI guidelines at the expense of all others.

Finally I will get to my conclusion. I believe an article on the Prometheus Process as a business process is warranted in Wikipedia. I would like your support in making that happen—either through your assistance in getting the “Deletion Review” process started (I found those guidelines extraordinarily confusing) or having you create the article yourself and then allow independent editors use the available reference material to develop and expand the article as appropriate.

Thanks for listening. It’s the collaborative thing to do. Sincerely--Mike Cline 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another completely independent and interesting reference: Asymmetric Warfare--Mike Cline 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hi. My Check User request confirmed The1uncle/Emperian sock puppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/The1uncle I'm not sure what, if anything, can or should be done now given. Emperian may now actually be creating legitimate pages (at least as far as I can tell). -- Regards Steve.Moulding 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know precisely what to do. The new articles look a little better, but they still seem a bit off to me. Some seem to be about real people and things, but they reference discogs a lot, which seems to be a less than reliable source (user created?). IronGargoyle 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The new articles also appear to be created in one shot...no corrections at all...possibly lifted directly from a website to provide legitimacy to the user IDs (though I havent found the source, if there is one). The writing style does seem a little too mature for this guy. There again perhaps I'm being overly paranoid, a result of the initial offerings. I'll keep my eye on contributions from both IDs. -- Best, Steve.Moulding 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

I have nominated a category you created, Category:User blksp and all its subcategories, for deletion. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Thanks, VegaDark 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking Black Speech

How can you justify the various userboxes about proficiency in Black Speech when Tolkien wrote far less about it than the Elvish languages? The sentences in the userboxes thus look dubious to me; I can only identify "snaga", "uruk" and "Lugbúrz" as authentic words. Uthanc 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Follow The AfD Discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestrator (strategy)

IronGargoyle - You'll notice how this one starts. It all about the COI and nothing about the subject matter. I intend to comment on the discussion page later today. If you chose to weigh-in, please review my comments first. Thanks--Mike Cline 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Page history of previous version of Lothlórien

Hi there. I noticed that you tidied up the Lothlórien mess. Thanks for that. I just wanted to check whether the page you deleted here, a previous version of the Lothlórien page, had any significant page history worth saving? Thanks. Carcharoth 12:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I had checked before I deleted it and there were 3 edits from 2003 that seemed to be a sub-stub fork between redirects (perhaps an attempt at a copy-paste move). They didn't seem substantial at the time, but I will undelete them for the sake of completeness. Thanks. IronGargoyle 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:UCFD

I've already asked on WP:AN a few days ago since I agree it could bee seen as a conflict of interest (a link can be found probably in the most recent 1 or 2 archives). Nobody else is willing. I left a ton of them open and they ended up staying open for up to 14 days, twice the length of time they should have been closed by. There were complaints coming in that they weren't being closed so I eventually gave in. I'll leave a message to User:Mike Selinker, who used to do almost all of the closing before I became an admin to see if he will help. VegaDark 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to my original request. VegaDark 03:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sequels are never as good as the original

It's the sophomore jinx, I tell ya! Anyways, thank you for noticing my idea. I really wish I could've come up with a more creative idea, but it's hard for a case like this. Hopefully, Messedrocker Solution III will be much better. Tell me, what do you mean by "it made [you] laugh"? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cebocap.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cebocap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:FourPlacebos.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:FourPlacebos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:AntiliriumPlacebo.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:AntiliriumPlacebo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

adminship

Sure, I'd be willing to do that. I haven't thought about it much, but I could probably be useful! Natalie 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have formally accepted my nomination, answered the questions, and listed it, so I guess it's off and running! Thanks for the nomination. Natalie 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Hey, I saw that you closed this TfD listing. I'm not sure if you accidentally missed actually deleting the template, though. There doesn't seem to be any record of deletion and recreation in its logs: [8], unless I'm just missing something obvious. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't miss anything. I must have been distracted by something else while I was closing late at night. Thanks for the catch! IronGargoyle 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

TFD

Hello, I noticed you handled this TfD, and also deleted the categories associated with those templates. The templates were not being used, but that doesn't necessarily carry over to the categories. At least one of the categories has already been recreated. Please undelete. Gimmetrow 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just following point 6 of template deletion process and the nomination statement included associated categories, but I apparently missed some that were populated outside of the template. I'll undelete them. Best, IronGargoyle 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Another TFD

Noooooooooo! You destroyed my greatest contribution to Wikipedia! :P Gracenotes^T § 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm joking, by the way. It deserved to get burned, although it would have been nice to save an off-wiki copy. Happy editing, Gracenotes^T § 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I appreciate that you reverted your edits to my user page, but what prompted you to make them in the first place? Αργυριου (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a slip of the hand and a click of the wrong rollback button while new-page recent changes patrolling. Sorry about that. Best, IronGargoyle 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Since you self-reverted pretty much right away, I was more curious about what drew your attention there, and RC patrolling makes perfect sense. I've messed up a few edits and reverts myself, so I understand. Αργυριου (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt AFD

I saw that you bit the bullet on that one. I don't think it could possibly have been better said, I just hope everyone listens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! That was a closing which will help save our reputation.DGG 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you did a hell of a job in closing the debate with as much care and tact as the DRV was closed (even though I voted for the stub/dab option myself). Keep up the good work!. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I love your idea of an article (essay?) on group polarization at Wikipedia! Kla'quot 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also came to commend you on a thoughtful and well reasoned closing of the AFD. I agree that the consensus was clear, so all that remained to do was to deftfully close the thing. You accomplished that, and made me think.--Kubigula (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For a calm, carefully reasoned closing on a legendarily contentious situation. Well done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books. Although I !voted keep, I never condoned the canvassing/spamming and will work towards that end. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well presented. Will you also be deleting pages that meet your (rough) criteria, or is that left up to others to interpret & act? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)