User talk:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/IPs

Note if you are here to mention about a speedy deletion I did, read WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS, and the WP:CSD criteria. I am very lenient with deletions, your article was prob deleted because it failed one of these guidelines, read the guideline and recreate the article if you believe it still meets it. IPs, and new user talk page. Secret ^account 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note I'm no longer an adminstrator so I can't restore articles. Secret ^account 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Whitmack Page Restoration

You previously deleted the Charlie Whittmack page under the grounds that he wasn't important enough and the fact that the previous author did not cite his sources correctly. Now that he is much more famous, (attempting a "World Triathalon"; which is a swim across the English Channal, a bike ride across Europe into the Himalyas, then a summit of Mt. Everest; this earning him a spot on the cover of Momentum: Endurance Sports Magazine and many other magazine and newspaper wrote articles featured about him) and I will proparly cite my sources, will you give me permission to restore his page? Rishishah8 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Valparaiso University School of Law

You have recently protected the Valparaiso Law page while blocking one of the administrators of the institution. Could you please revert the page back to its original by Rachelbirnbaum? The current page has been vandalized and is without the majority of its original and accurate information. If further confirmation is needed, please call the law school at 219-465-7821.Nickpoteres (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTRS could be a better help in this situation. Also see WP:COI Thanks Secret ^account 15:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ROX (musician)

Hello, earlier today you deleted the page for Rox (musician) under the reason A7. I work for the record label of Rox and we are willing to make the necessary alterations to fit around Wikipedia's policy, we have plenty of citations and references from international media to prove the relevance of Rox. So could you please restore the page so that we may change it accordingly. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoughLloyd (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:COI, WP:MUSIC Secret ^account 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold & Wood

Hi Secret. I noticed you have deleted the article based on (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - The article has been online for a month now and I based myself on other eyewear brands like Rayban, for example to rewrite it after it got deleted the first time for G11. Gold & Wood has been around for over 15 years, is one of the leaders in the luxury eyewear category, is worn by many celebrities and has won almost every award there is to win out there. We would love to rewrite the article so this time it actually meets all the criteria. it would be good to get some advice on what to add to make this happen - the awards (with references) perhaps? Thanks - your advice is greatly appreciated. also, isn't there a way to 'hide' an unapproved article rather than delete it? it would save a lot of users time and energy. thanks! Sincerely, unknownlab (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

John adam Hardman

Hi You just deleted this - did you read the hang on and talk bit? as I'd only saved it seconds before you deleted it. I explained the significance. Thanks ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8music (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Raptor (chess) deletion

Why did you delete my page I spent quite a lot of time on that. Just post what I need to fix no need to delete an hours worth of work you jerk. I refuse to contribute any more to wikipedia knowing jerks like you can run around and delete it without even a real reason. Please fire this guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsonday (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why your article was deleted, See WP:WEB. Secret ^account 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kate Hackett deletion

Kate Hackett was completely deleted before I could even save the content.

Additionally, like an awful lot of actors, Kate Hackett's biography and information was written by her manager. It is not an autobiography and she has been working on projects that are available for everyone to view -- ergo, notoriety. Please restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katehackett (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that she meets WP:BIO, or any reliable sources. If you are looking to promote yourself/your client, go to IMDB, here is not the place. If you need me to email the content to you, I could give it to you. Thanks Secret ^account 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please E-mail me the content, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katehackett (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done Secret ^account 23:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Golgoth Studios- Page deletion

Hi Secret, I created Golgoth Studios today and i don't understand why but the page was delete. The first reason seems Golgoth Studio don't have a rename. It's strange because i add link to different interview, we have many link on google etc.. so can you explain how get our Golgoth Studio page on wikipedia. Thanks. Golgoth21 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CORP, look for reliable sources, not facebook etc. Secret ^account 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Sachs - Deleted article

Hi Secret, I created Arthur Sachs a few days ago using a slightly modified text from another webpage (Picassonet). I was given permission to use text and pictures used in the article - but I didn't know I had to upload the permission. When the article was flagged for "speedy deletion" I entered a holdon-tag while I tried to get the appropriate document. I wasn't fast enough though... So is it too late to upload the permission (which am I sure I will have within 24 hrs)? Sincerely Cblomqvi (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Go to WP:OTRS for permission. Secret ^account 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi,

I recently created an article "Sir Thomas Picton School-Year 10 Portal" and it was "speedily deleted" for not containing any real meaning, even though it did contain valuable content and other information about the topic in question. Is there any chance it can be restored, even if its just to let me ellaborate more? TGLewis (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a local webhost. Secret ^account 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PAGE DELETION

Hello, my article about the MPPUTP organisation that i started just a while ago has been deleted by you. The information was not much, i know, but i was planning to add much more stuff to it these days. Can you restore it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harakiri real (talk • contribs) 07:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:GROUP Secret ^account 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion - Please Userfy

Hi Secret, Please send me the Common Soles page you so quickly deleted. It is a work in progress just like everything else on Wikipedia and we are working to make it an even more valuable resource on social ventures. Common Soles is unique in its business model and thus worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The article is of importance and not A7 as you indicated. The importance being of explaining a new business model. The article is also about a notable social venture. Two contributors are currently working on the page that I am aware of (I am one of them). Both holding MBA's and wanting to expand great knowledge about for-profit social ventures which you accidentally are confusing with blatant self-promotion. Thank you. Wild09things (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Secret, Please send me the content you deleted on Common Soles. Thank you. Wild09things (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page for cool site

Hey Secret. I was trying to add some more information on the ClinicalTrials.com page for study volunteers. I thought it would be a cool site to share, but I added the

tag to the top of it, so it wouldn't be deleted (again). I tried to use a lot of the stuff that I actually saw on the site as references, but I think that's why it was deleted - because it looks to advertisey. I really don't have much experience writing stuff for Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you had any ideas as to how I could make this page less salesy? I am looking for other external links to use as references, to make it more reliable information and not so much like advertisement or self-promotion. At any rate, with the little experience I do have on Wikipedia, it's kinda hard to keep it all straight. I just started trying this out and it's cool to see something you did in the world wide Web. Wow, you have added/edited a lot of stuff on here! Thanks for any advice you can give me for the page.

• WP:CORP and WP:WEB, try to look for reliable sourcing, if there is none, try to expand the clinical trial page using reliable sources. If you could give me some sources, I'll be willing to undelete and place the article on your userspace so you could work on it. Secret ^account 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

James Chatters

Hello you deleted the article for Dr. Chatters because it didn't say it was important. Well I said it was important on the talk page and somebody else said it was too, and I put in news articles and a book he wrote but it got deleted. I don't think you should have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKole (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Boxwish.com

Boxwish.com is a social shopping website and a Wikipedia page would help users to learn about what it does. Similar sites such as ASOS.com and Coolspotters have Wikipedia pages, so why not Boxwish? It will help users looking for a place to find the latest fashions/gadgets/etc. in movies, as well as acting as a community site for film lovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloisestreet (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:WEB Secret ^account 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article: LawyerCompare.com

Hi Secret, could you provide more details as to why my articles about LawyersCompare.com was deleted. I see no differance about what I posted to most company profiles on Wiki. Note I did not even go into how the company generates revenue to avoid advertising, I notice most companies do included that.

Deleted article: Telsis

Hello Secret. You deleted this page because I had not shown how the subject was significant - a fair observation, I accept. I am new to Wikipedia and still feeling my feet. Your colleague kindly restored the content, without it being published, so that I could work on it some more. I have now done so, stating in the first line why Telsis is significant, adding the key patents that the company holds (to substantiate its claim to be the inventor), and adding two further media references to mobile network operators that have adopted the technology. I would much appreciate your guidance on whether my draft page is now suitable for publication. With thanks.Sagepart (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Secret. Sorry about this, but it seems that, unless in my ignorance of things Wiki that I have misunderstood the process, you've enough free time to delete my page but insufficient to answer my question about how acceptable are my revisions. May I at the same time ask that if I have failed even now to show notability for my subject, how US privately held company Airwide Solutions,for example, has a page with fewer references, all of which result from company press releases?Sagepart (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cornell International Affairs Review Deletion

There was no reason for you to delete the Cornell International Affairs Review. After the page was marked for speedy deletion by another of you over-righteous wikipatrollers, I added the "hangon" and explained that I was in the process of donating the copyright to Wikipedia and rephrasing the site; in fact, I copied the info so directly for the sake of expediency, so that others could contribute to the page and so that I could not be accused of a conflict-of-interest. I expressed these things clearly, and you nevertheless erased the page in less time than it took for me to create it. You were more than welcome to list on the talkpage what you felt needed to be rephrased or redone; it is completely unnecessary that you should erase the entire article. And I see this isn't the first time that you've completed such objectionable deletions. So please get off your high horse and restore my article. Thank you, and completely unapologetically Thucydides34 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really copyright issue here, it's more of a notability issue, see WP:ORG Secret ^account 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article: Reset 2010

Hello Secret. I see you deleted Reset 2010. Appears that RHaworth nominated it based on view that the entry does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Apologies. I'd be grateful if you could resort the page, so that I can work further on this. Happy to fix this. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptodateinfo (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEB, right now it's a brand-new website so I doubt it meets the guidelines. Even if I restore it, it's going to be deleted per WP:AFD, or WP:PROD. Thanks Secret ^account 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Reframe It

Hi Secret. Why did you delete Reframe It? It was previously deleted due to lack of notable sources back in July. It is now November, the page was created with SEVERAL notable sources and new information, including the New York Times, and there was no discussion over whether it should be deleted now. It doesn't fit the G4 guidelines for deletion and at the very least there should have been a discussion about it, as it was a new version that fit Wikipedia standards. Thanks, hp4life —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Also, please userfy the article. Hp4life (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for MogileFS

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MogileFS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#MogileFS for more details) Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Demon Pact

I note you have speedily deleted my entry. My own background is in the music business, and I think you have missed the point that any band which was considered to be part of the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal and which left a legacy of commercial recordings is worthy of recognition via Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I failed to include a link in my article to the existing Wikipedia article headed New Wave of British Heavy Metal, which would have given more context to the significance of Demon Pact (I was working through the early hours and not thinking straight). I should also have emphasised the fact that Demon Pact was not a schoolboy band (although it started that way, like many others) but it was effectively a professionally band by its demise which didn't get the right breaks.

On a personal note, please correct the spelling of "contributor" in your own blurb - it looks bad. Almostimpossible (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC Secret ^account 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob Kaay

Please explain why you deleted the Australian Author/Musician page of Rob Kaay (aka Robkaay). His books are currently available from Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Angus and Robertson. Here is the Amazon.com link - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rob+kaay&x=0&y=0 Here is an article written on him - http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=1872 Here is an interview with him - http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=7608157&blogId=204792001 He is featured in a documentary DVD here - http://www.fullmoonnyc.com/ I courteously invite you, the admin, to take a second look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.76.91 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robkaay Secret ^account 16:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

expressor

Hello Secret, I am writing to understand why you deleted the page for expressor. I have read the relevant guidelines noted in the original AfDs, and attempted to engage several of the editors who posted opinions regarding the expressor page in conversations to arrive at or determine consensus -- but thus far, none have engaged directly, or responded in any way, other than your deletion. Please see my comments on the expressor AfD page and my own talk page -- as well as the comments I posted on the Talend AfD page -- and respond if you could, to the points I have raised, so that I can better understand your thought process. To summarize for you, the most common opinion expressed by editors in the expressor AfD discussion thus far has been that the company is non-notable, with contradictory comments citing both the company's coverage in "general interest" and "IT-only" publications as proof. My perspective -- backed up in my edits by numerous references to the kind of objective, knowledgeable, third-party sources of secondary analysis required by the Wikipedia guidelines to confer notability -- is that the company is an emerging player in a significant market, and if its page is deleted for "non-notability," then Wikipedia users will get a skewed picture of current market reality that includes only the biggest "notable" companies. (Sccasey (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expressor Secret ^account 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion review

Hey Secret,

You deleted an article written on me. I was wondering if you had it in your archives. It may not be important, but it was factual and atleast interesting to me. Please let me know if you could find that. Thank you

Harrison B. Avart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison.avart (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer an adminstrator, ask an adminstrator. Secret ^account 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Expressor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Expressor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sccasey (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Novastor Page Deletion

Hi Secret, I am writing because of the page you deleted called NovaStor which was blatant spam. I work for the company and was interested in creating a neutral page for the company (Novastor), but also want to avoid the COI. I've reviewed the previously deleted pages and created something unrelated, and hopefully neutral, relevant and appropriate, and per advice I received from another editor who deleted another later revision (also not by me), I wanted to contact you to see if you would be willing to look at it, or what the best way to post it somewhere as either a stub or "in progress" page would be, to see that it can be edited and kept rather than deleted as spam/advertising (which is not the intention in creating the page).

Thanks for your time

DaOgre (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Aww...we can't vote. I'll do it in my account later, then. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted picture

You have deleted pictures from Alan Page's page, stating that:(rv single-purpose account, who is socking on commons and dubious copyright status of these photos).

These pictures were posted by the actual photographers who took the pictures. They created their own accounts to post the pictures and have given their permission to use the pictures. Could you please explain what else needs to be done to keep these pictures from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbln.88 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Polite Jnr

Hi - yes i am aware of the BLP criteria, i believe that due to the very high profile of the Lloyd his involved in the incident is note worthy enough. It is not necessary to 'prove' he was involved in the assaults. the victims/police may not have wanted to press charges but nonetheless a series of assaults on men and women took place, and the fact a witness identified his bodyguard as one attacker is sufficient. Lloyd is also visible on one news source as one of the attacking group fleeing the scene. however, if you feel the need to further edit the inclusion for balance, please do so according to the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundst (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

questions about the ban-hammer

Hello secret, I hope you still peek at this section from time to time. I understand from your userpage that you may be in semi-retirement, and have not been an active admin for some time; I'm not here looking for some sort of administrative pull, so that's fine by me, but I bring it up in order to state that I'm not sure whether you have any interest in this sort of meta-wikipedia conversation. I picked you to contact because I've seen your username in the past, and because you were on the admins-willing-to-block-controversial-cases list still. Anyhoo, if you are not interested in my questions, I can prolly find somebody else to answer them, so no problem, but I'd appreciate a short note -- as I'm not sure you're still reading subpages of your talkpages. Clear as mud? Alrighty-then.

I stumbled across a ban-incident from this past weekend, which I was not involved with in any capacity... had never heard of any of the editors involved (admin or otherwise and direct or indirect). But recently I have begun trying to figure out how to make wikipedia less bitey, and reading various essays and talkpages discussing such things, and when I went to ask a question of a particular person that wrote an essay, found them banned. I think that the ban-hammer is over-used, and I have a hypothesis that a big reason for that is the revert-reflex is overused,[1] which gets editors frustrated enough at each other to call an admin for a ban in the first place. I have a ton of questions, but my main one that I'm having trouble getting answers to is this: where is the invisible line which causes a ban? I asked the admin who performed the ban I stumbled across, and also the admin who reviewed the appeal and confirmed the ban, but neither one of them is very talkative. I'm not sure if that's because of unwritten rules about Ongoing Investigations, or because I'm an anon, or what exactly. I don't care much about the specifics of the case in question, I'm just trying to discuss that invisible line, but I never get far enough to ask about that.

From what I've been able to garner, topic bans seem to be *way* less common... just whack, banned from wikipedia itself, days or weeks. This is true of individual editors that get involved in disputes, as well as entire IP addresses (there was a discussion of high-school-network-nodes that have been banned for many *years* ... so long that the junior high kids when the ban was put in place have now graduated... yikes). Disputes that reach arbcom level are totally nutty to my naive eye: a bunch of valued editors are quitting over whether infoboxen are allowed, and the ones that remain are forbidden from adding an infobox, and if somebody not even under the ban adds an infobox then they are assumed to be acting on behalf of the banned folks and themselves summarily banned. None of these problems by themselves seems fatal, but all together, and with new admin RfA not replacing the workforce, and new editors fewer and further between...

So, I'm trying to work with the WP:RETENTION folks, who seem interested in the same issues as myself, with the goal to serve & protect wikipedia and her editors. But I'm also trying to understand what I've come to call the WP:BADCOPs, with the goal of protect & serve, but unlike real-world cops, have no judges, no juries, no internal affairs, no televised ride-along reality-show hosts, and no independent journalists hunting departmental corruption, and no Commissioner Gordon to call in Batman when required. Although I use the phrase Bad Cops (from the Good Cop Bad Cop interrogation routine), I actually think such admins are useful, necessary, good, and helpful. Deletionists are bad cops: they want to keep out vandals, spam, unverifiable info, quack science, quack philosophy, copyvio, and so on and so forth. Inclusionists are good cops: they want to retain editors, polish articles, add content, nurture the beginners, and so on. Both groups are essential... both groups either protect&serve, or serve&protect, wikipedia... but my sense is that the deletionists not only have the upper hand in the admin-world right now, they simultaneously don't even know they have it... nowadays they are feeling more and more pressure as the admin-pool dwindles, so they use harsher and terser bans/reverts/bots... which in the long run drives away beginning editors, and makes the admin-pool dwindle even further... a vicious cycle. I'd like to break it, but I've got to grok it better.

So, there's the pitch. If you feel like gabbing with me for a couple minutes, or an hour, or whatever your schedule and interest-level permit, I'd be grateful. Ping me on my talkpage if I don't respond promptly. If not, that's fine of course, but please leave a quick note saying 'busy' or a generic 'nak' or whatever the relevant reason is, so I can know you saw this subpage at least. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)