KennethStein

Hi there, you recently uploaded an image,Image:Silentwaterloo001.JPG, which you didn't tag with any copyright template. Please let me know if you are willing to release it under no restrictions, or under the GNU or GFDL licenses, such as the rest of Wikipedia's content.--Orthologist 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Silentpic6big.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Silentpic6big.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Polycarp (2007 Film)

A tag has been placed on Polycarp (2007 Film), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Polycarp (2007 Film), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Non-notable film per WP:MOVIE

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 23:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polycarp Poster 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Polycarp Poster 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of speedy delete tags

Do not delete speedy delete tags from articles you have created, it is considered to be vandalism and can get you blocked. Additionally you are also close to contravening the WP:3RR rule which is something else that can get you blocked. If you contest the speedy delete then use the {{hangon}} tag below the delete notice. An administrator will then review the article. WebHamster

I tried to use the "Hangon" tag, but the article was deleted, before I could edit it to use the tag!!!

August 2007

The article Ken Stein has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MKoltnow 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ken Stein, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. MKoltnow 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Ken Stein. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. MKoltnow 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ken Stein

A tag has been placed on Ken Stein, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Smashville 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Ken Stein which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. MKoltnow 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Ken Stein, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. MKoltnow 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from an article, as you did with Polycarp (2007 Film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MKoltnow 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Sasha Callahan 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Silent (2007 film)

Silent (2007 film), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Silent (2007 film) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent (2007 film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Silent (2007 film) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sasha Callahan 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Trees (film)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Trees (film). For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://www.mediacircus.net/trees.html in this case) or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Trees (film) with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Trees (film) with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. Ohconfucius 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polycarp (2007 Film). Accusing an editor of hunting down every article you've written when they were clearly not the one that requested deletion is not good faith. Smashville 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Lay Down Sally. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Making a bad faith deletion nomination because a fellow editor nominated an article you created for deletion is uncalled for and unacceptable. Smashville 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith AFD nominations

If you are going to instigate bad faith AFD nominations please learn how to do it correctly.

For your education The Hamsters exceed the criteria (by quite a margin) in WP:MUSIC. All you are going to do is get yourself blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. WebHamster 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: These are not bad faith nomination. I truly believe these are non-notable artists in a non-notable band. They don't meet a single point of the 12 set forth in WP:MUSIC. If they do, and that reference can be verified. Feel free to add it and I'll publicly change my opinion. Additionally, the pages were created my the band's webmaster.KennethStein 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• What you believe is immaterial. They meet laid down criteria, criteria that is objective and not open to interpretation. WebHamster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 18:59, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• I find it intresting that Sasha used almost the exact same words to describe her own nom of my article, yet you failed to respond to her as such. You easily could have said, "What you believe is immaterial. They meet laid down criteria, criteria that is objective and not open to interpretation." But you didn't. Instead you chose to offer your own "interpretation" of WP's criteria, just blatantly ignoring any inconvenient facts that did not jive with your own predetermined opinion. KennethStein 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a matter of what I believe. My belief has nothing to do with it. There were no reliable independent sources references indicating that they met any of the 12 points set fourth. If they did, in fact, meet #'s 4 and 5, where are the sources demonstrating it? Just you stating that they do is not an independent relaiable source. And if the noms had been left open long enough, I think the consensus would have agreed. Wikipedia is not the Hamster-pedia. If you're confident that they were notable, you should have made a good faith argument in favor of keeping the article, not shutting everything down without any scrutiny. KennethStein 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello KennethStein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is obvious why you have nominated those articles and it is nothing to do with notability. Any further disruption will result in a block. Thankyou, ELIMINATORJR 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Response: As I stated above, these were not bad faith nominations. I truly believe these are non-notable artists in a non-notable band. They don't meet a single point of the 12 set forth in WP:MUSIC. If they do, and that reference can be verified. Feel free to add it and I'll publicly change my opinion. Additionally, the pages were created my the band's webmaster. The article speak for themselves, there were not a single reference or source in any of the four articles asserting any kind of notability at all. Not one. WebHamster's mere assertion without any cited sources does not establish notability. This is not Hamster-pedia. If the discussions had been left open, I suspect the consensus would have agreed with me. KennethStein 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was talking regardless of notability. For what it's worth, I believe that the band article is notable, and the band members probably don't merit individual articles. But a dim view is taken of editors nominating articles created by someone they have had a dispute with. ELIMINATORJR 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you mean by "regardless of notability" that I am forever precluded from nominating an article for deletion solely because it was written by someone who has previously nominated one of mine, "regardless of notability" of the subject? KennethStein 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: When Sasha Callahan (after she started making personal attacks, which she admited) and WebHamster went on what I asserted was a bad faith nomination spree, I was admonished and told to "assume good faith" and allow the articles to stand for themelves in an AfD discussion. No one took a "dim view" of Sasha. All they did was admonish her to stop the personal attacks, which she openly acknowledged. No one protected me. No one Speedy Closed the AfD. Instead I was told that regardless of any possible bad faith, the AfD should be allowed to continue. My articles had far more assertions of notability than all four of the articles I nominated combined, which didn't have any - combined. I did not nominate the articles because they were written by WebHamster. I nominated them because the subjects were non-notable by any reasonable standard of WP:MUSIC. Just because I looked at them and noticed them because they were written by him doesn't make them bad faith. Look at the articles and judge for yourself. KennethStein 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So which did you find more interesting the music of the Hamsters or their entry in my contribs? Then go to the time and trouble to issue AFDs on each and every page? I think not. If you wish to buy any of their CDs to see if they're real I'm sure I could organise a discount for you. As regards my "spree" I made one AFD nomination that affected you as a result of my customary new page patrolling activities. I then made pertinent comments in that AFD as any nominator would. The articles were looked at by several administrators and although they do need work, they adequately satisfied the criteria of WP:MUSIC. As for me being the webmaster, so what, I'm quite open about it, it's on my user page, and "WebHamster" may be a clue too. IOW I do not do it surreptitiously. The fact remains that all evidence points to a series of bad faith nominations on your part. You did it with Sasha and now you've done it with me. A picture of you editing activities is starting to appear and I'm afraid it doesn't look too good. WebHamster 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response. I find it somewhat ironic that you're criticizing me for taking the exact actions you took. I noticed a page which I honestly felt (and still do) does not meet any of the 12 pts. in WP:MUSIC. I have no interest in their music or their entry. I only noticed them because I took the time to research the type of articles you wrote while nominating mine for deletion. When I looked at them it became obvious that they are non-notable per WP:MUSIC. I nominated the the articles and I then made pertinent comments in that AFD as any nominator would. I never accused you do doing anything surreptitiously, just pointed out that you had an interest in the outcome of the decision beyond simply being the author of the article. I even broached the bad faith subject. If you were confident that the articles satisfied WP:MUSIC then you should have stated so in a reasoned, sourced, referenced argument and allowed it to stand up to scrutiny. If the consensus was that they met notability standards (beyond your simple assertion that they did) then the articles would have withstood review. I even offered to change my opinion if you could demonstrate notability. Last I heard, "because WebHamster says so" is not any reliable independent source that I am aware of, nor is that stated anywhere on in WP. (note: You'll notice that I took no action on Mo Foster - because a quick search revealed at least a prima facia notability, which The Hamsters could not assert) KennethStein 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the admission of stalking, and for your generosity in not inflicting yet another bad faith AFD on Mo Foster's page.

• For the record I did not "wind up" the AFDs, that was done by administrators who saw through your transparent attempts at revenge. I even had the decency to inform you on this very page that you had made mistakes on your AFD formatting. I was quite happy to go through the process as I knew quite categorically what the end result would have been. My responses were truthful, concise and accurate. The fact they weren't what you wanted to hear isn't my fault or even my concern.

• Once again for your total clarity, my assertions of notability were not based on any subjectivism (mine or anyone else's) I knew there was more work to do on the article, I also knew what the notability criteria was. I did enough for the article so that it would meet WP:MUSIC giving me time to do other things without the page getting deleted and giving other editors time to expand it.

• If you look at The Hamsters article history you will see that it wasn't me who created it, I merely improved it from what it was initially. Maybe this answers whatever strange assumptions you were coming to with regard to me being their webmaster.

--WebHamster 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked

Dear Ken,

You're not being helpful at all. You're harassing other users, and I've blocked you for 12 hours to allow you to cool off. Please don't take this as a punishment; this only enables you to cool off, and feel free to return to constructive editing once the block expires. Feel free to contact me via e-mail to discuss your block. Maxim_(talk) 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Content userfied

An article you requested at deletion review has been placed in your userspace at User:KennethStein/Trees (film). The restoring admin also said: "Please mark with {{db-userreq}} when you're done. Thanks - Alison ☺ 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)" Cheers!--Chaser - T 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Silent logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Silent logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Silentpic10big.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Silentpic10big.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Silentpic3big.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Silentpic3big.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Silentpic8big.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Silentpic8big.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:T19597s70nd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:T19597s70nd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:News051607c.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:News051607c.jpg. 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 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trees 2: The Root of All Evil

An editor has nominated Trees 2: The Root of All Evil, 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/Trees 2: The Root of All Evil 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. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)