User talk:Regancy42/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Regancy42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -Rrius (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Diana Torres:The Baron's daughter declined

Hi, I removed the CSD A7 from Diana Torres:The Baron's daughter because as an article about a book it's not eligible for speedy deletion. The best options are nominating for PROD or AFD. Jarkeld (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use: {{subst:prod|concern= reason for proposed deletion}} and use Nominated for PROD as an edit summary. I generally use twinkle for these tasks. Jarkeld (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reply: I've seconded the PROD nomination. If the author removes the prod you can take the article to AFD. It cannot be renominated for a prod. I've notified the author of the article about the prod as part of the PROD procedure. Forgot to mention that earlier. Jarkeld (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Divi divi air fligth 014 not a test

You tagged Divi divi air fligth 014 as a test. I changed it to a redirect to Divi Divi Air, since most of the information was already present at the main article about the airline. The article was a good-faith submission about an airplane ditching at sea, but the creator's spelling and capitalization errors didn't help. - Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie McCollum

I have changed the speedy template--anytime an article starts with "someone is a jezebel who got knocked up" you're dealing with an attack page, and the first step is to remove the offensive content. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Marek69 changed the template again after the creator deleted it: you'll see in the history that I changed the wording of the article, in agreement with WP's policies on BLPs. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Optakeover's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UAA reports

You've just contributed to a large backlog at UAA, and I find many of the reports you left dubious. "Possible violation" is not the most confidence-inspiring block reason, and some of the "possible violations" I've looked into were not violations at all.

Could you go back to WP:UAA and take a second look at your reports that remain there? I've responded to some of them, but I may not have enough information. Look at the users' contributions and determine whether there is really a problem that requires blocking. For the cases where you decide a block isn't actually necessary, you can just remove the reports. And in the future, use UAA for confirmed violations that require blocking, not possible violations. Thanks, rspεεr (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bronx Science

Reg, Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. I had work to do today. I think there is some peacocking in the Bronx Science article, but the school IS world-famous and the students do score very well, etc. I think the edits have gone too far. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page and the substantive article: I ask you yet again to calm down, don't assume you know me and remember WP:Civil. I have been advancing the aims of Wikipedia for many years and edits, and I have edited the Bronx Science article when I felt it was out of line. Your comments verge on insults, and so I will wait for others to have a look at the article, and won't respond anymore to your personal remarks. I am so puzzled by your inability to accept that there may be different points of view. Good nite. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. Being [{WP:Civil]] is important in Wikipedia as a community of strangers (and I know that is a deliberate contradiction). Bellagio99 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Christina Collard

Hello Regancy42, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Christina Collard) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in short: Anything that could be seen as a credible claim to importance or significance would disqualify the article for A7, even if the subject is not necessarily notable. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's a tougher one. I would probably PROD it myself, but I can see the argument that her "cult short films" are utterly insignificant and therefore not a credible claim to importance. decltype (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

please point out

what did I deliberately deleted? In fact you have reverted massive amount referenced information. Africabalance (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Got your point. I don't know how that happened. That is like me deleting most of what I wrote. Thanks. Africabalance (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

re:Shiv Visvanathan

Hello Regancy42. I'm still not sure if this person is notable (per WP:PROF), but it surely isn't a speedy candidate. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

2010s

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010s. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Although the edits you are reverting are probably damaging to Wikipedia as a whole, only those edits which are clear vandalism or violations of WP:BLP may be reverted without possible blockage. I won't block you, but, be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Cheatin On Me

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Cheatin On Me. I do not think that Cheatin On Me fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because The article is a plausible redirect to Cheatin' on Me, and I have adjusted it to that. I request that you consider not re-tagging Cheatin On Me for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jodi Lapidus

Hey, do you personally think that user wants the article to be userfied? Just wanted to hear your opinion, in case there was any deny! :-) Schfifty3 04:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tapcent

Sir! Thank you for your concern. What I have been asking people here on Wikipedia is what is the difference between a "speedy" delete and the "Articles for Deletion"? I only am familiar with the Articles for Deletion at the moment. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But articles at AFD don't meet the criteria of inclusion either; I thought that's why they are getting deleted. Perhaps some examples are in order so I can understand. Do you have examples? Have a nice night. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can I do some reading on what CSD criteria are? Rasputin72 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Thank you for making a report about Hgfhjgfdfsdfgf (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. However, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Twinkle Edits

Hi, just a polite reminder, when you use Twinkle to revert vandalism please also remeber to warn the user. It only takes a second and helps to combat vandalism. Thanks though and keep up the good work!Acather96 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the note you left on my talk page. I got into that habit because other well-meaning RC Patrollers, sometimes not thinking to check, leave a tier-1 warning on a vandal's talk page if the vandal blanks it when they would have left a tier-2 or 3 warning if they had seen the earlier messages. The admins always check the talk page history once a vandal is reported, but I've gotten into the habit of restoring previous warnings for currently active vandals so that other editors don't miss them. A tiny bit of extra work, but every once in a while it pays off. Thank you for taking the time to help, and happy editing! (Wow, look at the time... I've got to RUN! Take care) 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My Favourite!

Acather96 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Acather96 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Thank you! You were just on time, I had just made coffee :) Much appreciated. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 12:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Edit

Hi, I seem to be in an edit war with a user on the Leeds Arena page. This user seems to be added personal views and foregrounding this as a widespread feeling and criticism. In effect, selling his own opinion as fact. This is titled under concerns and criticisms. This could be political smearing which is evident due to the political nature of the scheme. Is there anything to protect the page from such vandals and could it please be checked? Incognito2245 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Buckley

I am sure he will meet notability fairly easily. I had requested semi protection for the page. I listen to this guy on national radio fairly regularly. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:BIO not WP:PERSON? Polargeo (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your AIV reports

often put admins in an awkward situation - reported user seems like a vandal, but has not edited past first serious warning. Please do not rush with reports. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about user:Myleeajane who is still there and some reports right before. This is not about how to report them, but about when to report them - you reported too early. Some admins might block anyway, but this is risky for them. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be wright or wrong on AGF, but the decision is up to AIV admin, and he/she is taking all the associated risks, not the reporter. The current WP policy is to be tolerant to "what might be a blunder" and block immediately only for really blatant edits. It is so much easier to revert an edit (and warn properly) than to revert a block. Say, some good-faith editors accidentally blank pages which does not mean they should be blocked right away. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Digitalpheer

Hello Regancy42, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Digitalpheer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 applies to real people, not to fictional characters. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

81.155.22.183

Hi Regancy42 ! As you give the first warning message on the 81.155.22.183 talk page, I think you might be interested in this. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Regancy42 ! I reverted most of his edits, as his changes caused a lot of work for others (improper capitalization in section headings, removal of images, successions boxes, track listings, templates for certifications, categories or interwikis...). I'm not sure, but after reading WP:INDEF, can he be considered as a ban user, and his recent edits as a a circumvention of his block, since his account User:KirkleyHigh has been blocked indefinitely[1] ? Regards and sorry for my bad English! -- Europe22 (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the way we welcome new contributors?

See User talk:Hannahhgb. An incorrect CSD followed by a questionable PROD? Polargeo (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making the AfD judgement that she does not meet ENT. That is why it is questionable. PROD tags are not for making AfD judgements they are for uncontroversial deletions. Anyway, I said questionable, not wrong, and in my opinion it looks like a girl called Hannah has made a genuine attempt to add an article on the star of the latest major children's show which has then been incorrectly CSD tagged and then PROD tagged with no further help, therefore I have tagged the article for notability issues, as I believe should have been done at the start, I am more than happy for this to go to AfD if you wish. I may even take it there myself but am inclined to give it a chance first. Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly please do not split the discussion between our talkpages. Secondly I do agree with you to some extent. I just think too many people use PROD tags when they should not. Particularly when a new user is genuinely trying to add to wikipedia and notability is not clear. Remember, there is also WP:BIO and WP:GNG. WP:ENT is only a sub-guideline of these and does not overide them in any way. Polargeo (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

=

Talkback

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codf1977 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC) ..

Thank you

Twinkle is much better at restoring a particular revision, they should add that to huggle. Cheers -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Glitches in huggle or glitches in TW? -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Petiatil's talk page.
Message added 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Petiatil's talk page.
Message added 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edit?

Hahah - that was one of our long term socks going back to his home territory :| - SatuSuro 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Which edit are you referring to? I'm not aware of the history so I just assumed good faith. -Regancy42 (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems - no bid deal - no need to follow up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–Indonesia_relations - usually the socks of DavidYork71 a long time issue SatuSuro 07:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you for your request for Rollback Permissions at WP:PERM/R. After looking through your contributions I've granted you the bit and encourage you to use it when needed. If you haven't already please read Wikipedia:Rollback_feature and Help:Reverting to get a feel for the policy (in general it should only be used on obvious vandalism and NEVER as an edit warring tool. I'd also recommend having a little practice over at Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Rollback so that you can see first hand how it works. Rollback isn't a shockingly difficult tool to use but if used incorrectly can easily Bite new and old editors alike so you do need to be a bit careful :). If you have any questions please don't hesitate to let me know, I'll be happy to help out. James (T C) 11:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats - enjoy the new toy - just take care and be prepared for the odd comment like mine :) - SatuSuro 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. Thanks! -Regancy42 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: What is 1+1

Hello Regancy42, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted What is 1+1, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Native American Hip Hop

Excuse me but what was the rational behind reverting all the edits in this article? You just reverted it back to a lower quality article. For one, a few of the edits you reverted reintroduced promotional statements concerning certain artists, see the talk page, and the initial paragraph was edited to be more unbiased and actually had some interesting facts. I am at a student center with a shared IP so I hope you arent just reverting this one because some other student vandalised another article. Please revert this article back to what it was before you changed it. 142.217.214.194 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit that reverting was probably not the best action. However in regards to your concerns, I don't think that it had any overtly promotional statements and I don't think that the trivia is really an improvement. By the way, you should create an account.-Regancy42 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What trivia?

The promotional issue arises when unknown artists, who are largely irrelevant to the understanding of the theme, are including in the discussion. Too me, this looks like an attempt to validate their presence as native artists. Imagine a page called BLACK HIP HOP with a list of black people who take part in hip hop as artists, this is what I saw in the native hip hop page.

Since there is no hip hop genre that can rightly be called native hip hop, the article needs to aim to cover the history and influence of natives within hip hop, something that has been largely ignored. I admit the article still needs a lot of edits and citations, but the edits I did (only a few in my ten minute breaks here) were mainly an attempt to send the future editors into the right direction and away from an article focused on largely unknown rappers and rap music itself, hip-hop being much more than just rap. And yes I should get an account. 142.217.214.194 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MLH

BUSTER Olney said he thinks the Phillies win run-away with the NL East, but lose to the Colorado Rockies in the National League Championship Series. Your thoughts?

- Robbie Alomar, Sr.

96.245.43.48 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Koreans vs Korean

thanks for your comment. However, there's no plural format of Korean in dictionary. Korean, in Merriam Webster, is defined as native of Korea. Likewise, there's no plural of Chinese (Chineses) Japanese(Japaneses) etc. But I am adding thoughts on discussion page so people can talk/think about it. Clari 2010 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thread that might interest you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Past Sock IP off a 1 year ban creating issues again

I think you've done a tremendous service. Please be aware of the discussion at the above link. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Already blocked for a year so I guess there's nothing else to say. -Regancy42 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: FinanceQ

He is back:

• FinanceQ (talk · contribs)

I recommend his account be close and his website be added to the list of blocked websites.

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I need to do to keep him on here?

I received a message after creating a article about a musician one "ReLiX The Underdog" stating that it seems like it was an autobiography. This is the 2nd time I have submitted an article about this young man and then being told that I am him and am "appearing to be writing about myself". This is totally untrue and I have spent a great amount of time creating and researching for this article.So please do not deleteit before atleast telling me what I need to do in order to keep him on here. I asked this question on another question page and one of the editors asked why I used his name on my account? I just joined in order to make contributions for him. Should I have chosen another name? I apologize for my ignorance, I am new to this. I don't see how this should make it appear as if I am him. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiarramirez (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My User Page

Thanks for the vandalism reverts on my user page! Much appreciated! --ANowlin: talk 23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickson (surname)

I'm puzzled as to why you added the OR tag. Did you not see the extensive list of references? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Like many editors, I prefer to keep conversations in one place. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Proleva

Hi Regancy42,

A 'speedy deletion was' just placed on an article I recently created claiming it was promoting a product. It certainly was not my intention to promote this company. Everything in the article were facts and does not have opinions associated with them. I am wondering since I listed the company website as a reference that was considered a promotion? How can I alter the article to make suit the rules of wiki?

Antioxidants (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good vandal patrolling; drop a warning here or there suggestion

I've run across some of your vandalism fixes. They're good work, but would you mind, at least in the egregious cases, dropping a warning at those user's pages? Most of the recent stuff is test edits, and for those I think it's a toss up, and for ones like this, the same. I tend not to use them if I think it's a one-off situation, or if it's a small edit. But there were also a few that removed a lot of content with some other vandalism tells (among other things a change to "un"professional dancers here). A warning is surprisingly effective at making users stop disruptive edits, and it also helps Huggle users identify editors who are persistently warring. Thanks for considering it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found that warnings are relatively ineffective and is done simply as a procedural method in order to justify a block. -Regancy42 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the block is good too, but I've found them to work more than you might think. Maybe someday I'll do a statistical run to test the theory. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting. To them we're just an anonymous person leaving an automated message saying that they shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia. I really don't see how that is any kind of a 'deterrent'. -Regancy42 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Regancy42. You have new messages at Katherine Daisy Anderson's talk page.
Message added 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Damn it! :-)

Come on; an A7? She's the most beautiful women in the world :):):):) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)(this message is in jest; enjoy)

Ha, yeah. This has happened several times before. Maybe a little harsh but ah well :) -Regancy42 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Page

May I ask why my description of "Joe Pennington" was deleted off of the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp19091 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Page

Hello,

maybe im very new here and i dont know how to use coding, but i think i know some rules. For example, if a page was OK, it should be kept in wikipedia, not under a user-page, right? By the way, did you check what pages link there and could use that user-subpage as promo?. Thanks79.167.245.225 (talk)

Are you referring to the Fir-Tex page? Since it was deleted several times before, I think you should take extra time to build the article in the userpage before moving it to the mainspace. -Regancy42 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, about fir-tex. My claim is that it should not be at all even in a userpage, as it is used to promote a business, and this is not a role of an encylcopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.245.225 (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry. Well I don't think that it is overly promotional. -Regancy42 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure, cause even in their website, i see they declare that their claims about benefits of this product are not proven. Anyway, im not expert. Because i dont know, maybe we should mark it then to be an article in wikipedia, and not kept in user page? 79.167.245.225 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Userpages are an 'incubator' of sorts, where people can work on the issues that prevent the article from reaching the mainspace. It should be allowed to stay, provided that it doesn't violate the criteria of WP:USERFY.-Regancy42 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if i would prefer you to mark that page properly, so as others can discuss about that, if its as you said, propably i must apologize then..sorry... 79.167.245.225 (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not completely immune to deletion. If you feel that it shouldn't be there, you could nominate it under MfD, but don't blank the rest of the article. Make sure that you have a strong argument. -Regancy42 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Samantha Spiegel Wikipedia

How is it possible for ME, Samantha Spiegel, to make personal attacks against myself? That's the last thing I want to do! lol. I just want to be able to document the experience on my part, with the help of sources and crediting, so other people can read and understand and learn. Please elaborate!

Thanks! Samantha Alix Spiegel (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall the exact details of the page, but given that it was deleted several times under G10, it is clearly inappropriate. -Regancy42 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no... I'm not spamming

I realize you need to weed that out but I focus on a very specialized space around IT process consulting. I'm an ITIL Master and I do a lot of work in my tiny corner of the industry. I also happen to love wikipedia. If you check my history you'll see I write about multiple companies and have through the years. Companies that compete with each other in this space. So I'm not spamming, if you'd like me to verify my identity somehow I'll do it because I'm tired of this. Last time I wrote a similar article avbout the ITSM solutions from HP and I got a spam message too. Believe me I know how to write an article that is neutral. Check my articles on the history of Chicago. I've been doing this for awhile. For many years I was in the top 5,000 of wiki editors (out of millions)... so pardon me if I come across as a little offended but I am. I'm not making stuff up here. In the ITSM space Fred Luddy is an important figure and I was attempting to start an article about him. He was the CTO of both Peregrine (later sold to HP) as well as Remedy (later sold to BMC). I don't know if that means anthing to you but according to Gartner those companies hold a 19% and 28% piece of the market respectively. So... we are talking about an individual who created nearly 50% of the entire ITSM market and you are telling me I'm spamming because I'm writing an article about him? Please explain?

Response Here

Re: KCS

Deleted. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)