Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:40, 27 January 2008

User:VirtualSteve/Status

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 1 month and 25 days.

This user has been an admin for 17 years, 6 months and 14 days.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ed O'Loughlin

Since we can now salt deleted pages, I took the liberty of deleting the article entirely and then protecting it, since this leaves it as a redlink and removes the history. While I argued, unsuccessfully, for its remaining as part of wikipedia, once it was judged inappropriate, I believe salting the deleted page is a better way to go than protecting a blank page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Avi - I appreciate your logic and actions.--VS 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

You recently closed an AfD for Michael Q. Schmidt where you stated the result was RESULT. Little confused on the "logic" there. — BQZip01 —  07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the pickup BQZip - since fixed - obviously my mind was in keep mode but my fingers were asleep. Cheers! --VS 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time I've done that... — BQZip01 —  08:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy message

Hi Steve. I wanted to thank you for the "courtesy message" left on my Talk page. Much appreciated! Johnfos (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pleasure is all mine.--VS 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga Question

Thanks for the answer to my question mate. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

syngrete

y did you delete Syngrete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrio (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Answered on your talk page already - please also heed the warning.--VS 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural Edge Project

User:Johnfos was not the original author of the article. As a TWINKLE user, that is done automatically. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I understand about TWINKLE and I appreciate your feedback - but what am I missing here? Isn't this the earliest edit? - and if it is ... it appears to have been made by User:Johnfos - who wasn't warned about the impending speedy? Please let me know on my talk page.--VS 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I offer you an apology Realkyhick and I hope that you will accept it. I have been going in to bat (so to speak) based on a mistaken belief that you or TWINKLE had not warned Johnfos about an impending speedy. That is clearly incorrect and on closer digging I see that Johnfos has not been forthright in his returns on this matter. I copy for your information from his talk page his and my response upon my questioning him with the same material I provided to you as detailed above

I haven't read your Talk page, Steve, and don't intend to. Seems like my little article has caused a lot of fuss, and I am moving on to more important things... Johnfos (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes fair enough - I can see why it has caused a lot of fuss - specifically it seems because you deleted the original CSD template warning message that was placed by Realkyhick as per this edit. You could have of course let me know that at the time you replied to my courtesy message - and you would then have showed a return courtesy to both myself and that editor!

I note that it is Johnfos who should also be apologising - but for now mine might be the only one you get?--VS 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no problem. User:Johnfos was also questioning my qualifications for the Veteran Editor ribbon on my home page. He was doing so in a snide and insinuating way, IMHO. This editor appears to be working in borderline bad faith. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am forced to agree with you on your last point - and am at the same time disappointed considering the duration and quantity of his editing credits. Thank you for your forbearance. --VS 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Per this. I've done everything I can without losing my cool, which has taken extraordinary measures. Now I'm told I'm a coward and not a man for going to ANI. I obviously am not going to block the guy myself for incivility, but his trolling my talk page is entirely unprovoked. He's had his final warning so I'm going to rely on your judgment. the_undertow 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made my point clear at ANI (in conjunction with User:Kurykh). This type of name calling is inappropriate. As detailed previously further offences (especially within such a short time period) would result in blocking. That task is now completed as a first block - I trust (and sincerely hope) that Hoserjoe will reform once he cools down. I also have left what I believe to be an appropriate comment regarding his second account User:BomberJoe - and a strong suggestion that other admins may wish to take a second block on that account if Hoserjoe edits from it during the blocking period.--VS 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing technical info on the Doman-Fleet L2 5 helicpter since I've only recently been advised of the whinging from from the youth wing. I object to their persistent puling because they're using it as a cover to vandalize my quite competent & reasonable contributions. The worst action is simply deleting an entire template from an article with no explanation, and then refusing to address my civil request to discuss the destruction. If WP caves in to this sort of adolescent destruction, then WP will have to do without my useful contributions. But I'm not apologizing to destructive special interests. That's simply giving in to destructive & temperamental adolescents.

I would like an apology from this organized gang of sycophants (who publicly declared their "love" for each other on their respective Talk pages) for their destruction of my contributions, but I'm not holding my breath. Note that I'm NOT asking that they be banned (a cowardly and bullying request), but would like them to respond to my request as to why they vandalized my contributions repeatedly. I'm not holding my breath - they know they've "done wrong". Hoserjoe (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ever touched one of your edits. But calling me a sycophant has put you on the road for block #2 for incivility. the_undertow 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your love partner was the one who torched my contributions, and you rushed to her defence. I'm assuming that you work together on these adventures? Be a man - tell us why you did it. Stop hiding behind VirtualSteve Hoserjoe (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You insulted her, I asked you to remain civil. You insulted her again, I requested your block. As a man, I could just block you myself, but seeing as schadenfreude is frowned upon, I'll request it again. I don't need to hide behind another admin; it's done out of courtesy to you, so other users can review your actions without bias. the_undertow 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you have to be told that I didn't delete the template. What don't you understand? Show me where I deleted the template. You can't. So get off it. And stop with the insults and ageisms. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Your baseless accusations and claims are proof of that. Lara❤Love 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah - see what happens when I step away from my computer for a couple of hours. Look I'll make this as clear as I can Hoserjoe ... If you have an issue with LaraLove or Undertow then show me the proof - without resorting to their age, their sex, calling them sycophantic or any other such nonsense. Also I couldn't give a raspberry if they declare their love for each other or even practice that love so please don't come to my page with such churlish "out-of-wiki comments". Furthermore - just in case you feel the need to rush to an assumption about my dealings with you on their behalf - of which I would do again if East718 didn't beat me to it and block you for 2008 minutes - I wouldn't know either Lara or Undertow from a bar of soap - other than their presence in the wiki-community and my duty as an administrator. Finally threatening the wiki-community with the loss of your valued knowledge holds very little weight here I'm afraid and so I would ask that you do not so comment again. You have two choices (1) co-exist within the rules, or (2) depart. Hopefully this next block put on your page will give you time to reconsider your allegations, the associated comments arising from those allegations, and whether you couldn't next time just walk away for a while?--VS 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The diff Joe posted shows I only reverted his edit, I did not delete the template. His example of what the template now looks like includes the show link which he must click to reveal the information. I've told him this multiple times; why he keeps ignoring this is beyond me. And this is, of course, not something I did. It's a project-wide template change affecting all such templates. Additionally, regarding his unfounded claim that I've taken ownership and am abusing my admin tools, my reversion of his edit was per this conversation in which I did not even participate. However, this is not the first time it had been discussed and consensus reached against him, as I detailed at AN/I here. I view his continued personal remarks, unfounded and inaccurate accusations and refusal to acknowledge sound explanations as harassment. Lara❤Love 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BomberJoe

• Having also looked at your alternate account at user:BomberJoe and noticed that you have started re-using it since the first block by me (when it had laid somewhat dormant until that time) I have placed a similar block on that page - also of 2008 minutes.--VS 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

• Sorry - have just woken to this message. User has been blocked for 1 week by another admin. I have also removed his edits at Steve McQueen. Keep me informed if further action is required and if available I will be ready to assist.--VS 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin (2)

I'm puzzled by your close of this AfD given that O'Loughlin is highly notable and is a extremely willing public figure. If we are having trouble writing an article about him, that means we need to be careful about it. That doesn't mean we should salt it, otherwise we'd quickly have almost no articles about controversial people. Could you explain your close in more detail? Thanks, JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your question Joshua. To answer your question in two parts (a) this was the second deletion of the article in 20 days, and (b) during the 2nd AfD process clear breaches of WP:BLP were raised - most specifically by Ed O'Loughlin himself (as detailed here. To my mind and as a result of the overall consensus reached, the combination of those factors required a salting - certainly at this time, and were agreed with by another administrator who had actually argued for retention of the article during AfD. That said I understand your point and the future may see an appropriate reconsideration of this outcome but IMO that should only occur if (1) an editor can start such an article in sandbox which (2) an administrator or other senior editor can see is the start of an article that does not infringe BLP. Then when posted (after reversion of the current protection) the article can be protected again if necessary to stop the type of BLP concerns that had occurred earlier. Your thoughts?--VS 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm divided between wanting to DRV this (in general, I think the long-term deletion of willing public figures is a really bad idea), and of making a draft that is more BLP compliant. I think there were actual BLP issues here, but I'm not sure if they were large enough to justify the complete deletion. I may try to make a draft of a BLP compliant article. If so, I'll let you know. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds positive. I note also (whilst there would be COI issues to be handled) the subject of the article has a user page and could perhaps assist with your sandbox page....?--VS 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw the note on Ed O'Loughlin's talk page. Shouldn't any attempt to recreate this go through DRV? Also, there was an extensive search for reliable sources and the AfD hinged on whether the sources provided satisfied WP:BIO. A large majority of editors said they did not. If an article appeared without substantial, neutral mainstream press coverage, I would expect I or someone else would take it to AfD. Perhaps as a first step, Joshua, before investing a lot of effort in DRV or a new article, you could identify what reliable sources were missed. If I missed something, I'm certainly willing to backtrack on this. Regards, --A. B. 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks A.B. - I will maintain an arms distance on this issue at this stage- although I suggest DRV would be unlikely to assist the return of the article in its previous state; and that there is nothing to absolutely prevent return of a factual article in the future just because of the closing of 1, 2 or 3 past AfDs. I am however happy for you and JoshuaZ to continue the thread of the discussion here.--VS 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also saw the note on Ed O'Loughlin's talk page and fully agree with A.B.'s comments. There was a strong consensus that Mr O'Loughlin does not meet the relevant criteria for an article. Given that it proved impossible to maintain a neutral article on him, I don't see any reason to encourage a new one at this stage. I'd also add that WP:BLP explicitly applies to user pages as well as articles, so it may not be appropriate to create a trial page there either without a deletion review first concluding that an article on Mr O'Loughlin would be justified. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well made although WP:BLP issues can of course be addressed on user pages a little more easily if they arise there. Also of course user:JoshuaZ is a long standing editor and admin and I would suggest would be most unlikely to write edits of BLP concern - and of course he could protect the article whilst it was being written. All of that said - I remain at arms distance on this matter - and welcome the continuing conversation and interest.--VS 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it didn't seem that I was accusing user:JoshuaZ of potentially violating WP:BLP. My concern was that other users could edit this article when its in user space as easily as when it's in article space. There appears to be some kind of politically motivated campaign against Mr O'Loughlin which will make any kind of article on him vandal/POV warrior bait. As there was a feeling that he doesn't presently meet our notability criteria, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain JoshuaZ would not think that of you Nick. Your excellent editing and general work are sure to be as noted by him as they are by me. --VS 09:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't see a consensus in the AfD that he doesn't meet WP:BIO, nor did VS make that claim when he deleted it; if that claim is being made also as a reason to delete, VS can note that (I'm divided about whether or not he meet WP:BIO given the sourcing from the earlier drafts but right now at least lean towards him meeting it). . Otherwise there shouldn't be much of an issueThe BLP concern is serious if one makes a draft, but if we applied that argument we'd never be able to make any drafts of any BLP in userspace or talk space. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, actually looking at this further, I'm still convinced he meets WP:BIO but am uncertain enough about it that this shouldn't be a high priority unless I can find more sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, given the history already of 2 AfDs and the subject's BLP complaint, I think any draft created in user space needs to meet our content requirements from the get-go or face a likely MfD. I think most community members would see a consensus on the AfD page after subtracting out the comments of WP:SPAs. Essentially just Avi, Brewercrewer and 6JS7 wanted to keep it the second time and there was just one weak keep the first time.

If you're still unsure about the consensus, I suggest taking the AfD to DRV. --A. B. 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. On the other issue, I didn't want to jump in too soon but enough was enough. Always fun! Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blocking on user:Hoserjoe

I'm not sure I like that call - they were only editing their user talk page which is generally allowed unless they start abusing {{helpme}} or {{unblock}} - and I'm not sure why their alt account was blocked for evasion when it didn't edit at all post-block. east.718 at 08:20, January 25, 2008

• Okay yes my bad perhaps? I certainly see you point - I will return his edit - Your call if you want to change your block back - certainly not trying to "wheel".--VS 08:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nah, I don't really care if you choose to extend their tariff for incivility or mess with my block (or yours) any further - it just strikes me as a bit unfair that it got extended solely because of something that they didn't do. east.718 at 08:26, January 25, 2008

Fair enough - will adjust back your block back though - I was also trying to be fair (and wish to be seen that way). Alt account should be blocked in my understanding otherwise isn't it just a sock?--VS 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Admins willing to admit potential mistakes are in short supply around here. :-) east.718 at 08:53, January 25, 2008
  • That's not true. 70% of the time, I'm wrong every time. the_undertow 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Afd NIRS

Thanks for your understanding about my deletion on the NIRS page. I mainly made the explanation because it's an unfortunate notice to have on one's talk page, but I'm glad that you checked back to read it. I definitely would not intentionally do something like that. :)Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowen Staines

He is a musician, with a record contact and sponserships with over 10,000 copies is current sales. His father's music carrer might not look to famous on wikipedia, but he is a featured artist on Cat Steven's greratest hits album, the same album that won Rolling Stones' 500 Best Albums Ever Award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielndavis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. If you read this page carefully you will see that I was acting as an administrator and only placing a procedural nomination based on other people's views of this article. I actually do not have any view on it personally BUT my job (amongst others) is to push a contested speedy deletion request (in this particular case) to Articles for Deletion. I suggest you go to that page and comment as to why the article should remain. Others will consider your input - but stay calm, civil and keep editing the article itself. Cheers!--VS 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Great Banquet - deletion

You recently removed the article The Great Banquet citing "blatant copyright violation". The copyvio is inaccurate, as I did cite the source, and even received explicit permission from the originator for my paraphrase (permission for a paraphrase is not even necessary, anyway) on the article's discussion page? Furthermore, the website cited by Redfarmer, and agreed to by yourself, as having been infringed was not the originator of the description that was paraphrased to begin with! DJ Clayworth's assertion that the scope of the movement is limited to one event at one church is ignorant (this is not an insult - just factual, showing a lack of any fact checking at all on his part), and completely unfounded, as easily evidenced by the link I provided in my "Keep" response on the deletion log. that link show the location of hundreds of Cursillo movements, including The Great Banquet. (That link, by the way, was also included in the article.) The copyright violation assertion is simply wrong - period. Just because a website has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, does not mean they originated all the text within the page. They paraphrased Lampstand's description of the movement on their site, just as many other communities have: , , , , , , , , et.al. I did get to wondering, though, if my article might be appropriate as a sub-article under the Cusillo article, anyway, as the Great Banquet, as is noted in the text, is a "spin-off" of the Cursillo movement anyway... Continuing to contend that the article was a copyvio is simply irresponsible. I understand you are absolutely swamped with articles to review, and may not have time to research each perceived violation; and I understand it is reasonable to trust your regular contributors/editors before some "newbie". But please take just a minute to look through the references I have provided, and reconsider reinstating the article. I will do my best to make any additional edits to make the article more palatable. But the historical information and description of the movement is factual, and not contested in any way. The scope of the movement is hugely noteworthy, with a 60 year international history, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of worldwide "Cursillo method" weekend alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsphoto (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) -Sorry - forgot to sign. Rmsphoto (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. I appreciate your recognition that admins have 100's (nay probably 1000's) of articles to review and other such tasks. I will add however that I personally do not trust regular contributors any more than I trust newbies - insofar that I check as thoroughly as I can the actual request for speedy deletion. In this case your article consisted almost completely of the following information:

• To become familiar with the Great Banquet, look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Roman Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. The Great Banquet is governed by an ecumenical board of directors, using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the parable of The Great Banquet, from the Gospel of Luke. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in a growing number of American communities. Lampstand Ministries was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.

The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience based on the Cursillo method. The cursillo method focuses on training lay people to become effective leaders over the course of a three-day weekend. The weekend includes fifteen talks, some given by clergy and some by lay people. One emphasis of the weekend is on preparing those undergoing it to take the movement's methods back into the world, on what they call the "fourth day". To assist alumni in after the weekend, the Great Banquet community offers specific opportunities. First, "fourth day" "reunion groups" may be established to examine their goal of spiritual growth and encouragement. Second, alumni may assist in future Great Banquet weekends. Third, guests are made aware of community needs via communications with other Great Banquet communities, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

• The page that was stated as the copyvio link at stated:

The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience, beginning on Thursday evening and ending Sunday evening. For three days, guests live and study together in a worshipful time of singing, prayer and discussion. During each of the fifteen talks given by laity and clergy, the theme of God's grace is presented. Guests participate in the daily celebration of Holy Communion and examine more fully the presence of Christ in His body of believers. They personally experience His grace through the prayers and acts of a loving, Christian support community.

To become familiar with the Great Banquet, let's look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. Governed by an ecumenical board of directors and using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the Great Banquet continues to emphasize personal Christian discipleship. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in these areas. Lampstand Ministries was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.

• As I hope you will see I did do my research and, well I'm sorry but in a nutshell your content is a copyright violation. Best wishes --VS 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I might just quickly add that your content was not in fact a paraphrase - it was in the majority a word for word copy and actually fits more closely into the definition of plagiarism. Cheers. --VS 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted here also for sake of maintaining the thread Yes I can accept the latter part of your argument - (latest one put on your talk page). But that will mean that you point me quickly and easily to the original site that has the exact content you had put up (which you agree is plagiarized at this time from the page I was referred to in the first place) and (a) prove to me that it was written and posted by that site first, and (b) that it is not copyrighted - so that it can be put up on wikipedia. If you do that and return to my talk page with that prove I will restore the article and place a note on its talk page and as a a part of its restoration edit summary.--VS 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, VS, for continuing the thread. Well, those are quite some hoops to jump through... I cannot offer documented proof of law. One cannot create a historical log of the web server time-stamps and archives from the past many years to prove such a thing. But it is certainly implicit that the originator of the movement precedes the locales to which the movement spread. The discussion page for the original article (which I can no longer access) contains a statement from Lampstand Ministries giving permission to use the text from their site. I contacted Lampstand directly, asked them to register with Misplaced Pages, asked that they check the article for accuracy and acceptability, and provide permission to use text from their copyrighted website if they felt it appropriate; they did so on Friday afternoon - USA East time. I'm sure they would be happy to place the "I am the owner..." statement on the article if it becomes reposted - I would definitely contact them again to do so... Quick and easy original site link: http://lampstand.net/about_great_banquet.html Again, I do commend you for going to bat for intellectual property owners; I know that is a thankless job. I owned a photo lab for several years, and constantly explained (and sometimes argued) why it is not OK to copy your kids' school photos, or your best friend's wedding photos, etc.Rmsphoto (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthetic Entertainment

Hello Steve,

Thanks for flagging the few pages of mine you did.....to be honest they did need some work! As you can see some of my other pages are more detailed and referenced out/flushed out for starter/stub pages. I'm trying to develop my pages all up to a high standard. My Central Heat Distribution page I created recently I think is pretty solid and I hope to be my new standard for new pages.

As for the Synthetic Entertainment page and the 2 others (Denyss McKnight and Mark Sommer) you flagged I have done lots of work tonight on them! I have dug around the web and found lots of references to back up the validity of the 3 flaged pages. I have also rewrote and restructured most of the articles! Can you help me out and smooth out any other rough edges you see or if its ready can you take off the AfD alert please? Let me know your thoughts Cheers Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. Good to see you taking such a keen interest. As you probably know I was only flagging these pages as part of a procedural nomination following the request to speedy delete the first by another editor. I would rather remain at arms distance at the moment - mainly because as an administrator trawling through hundreds of 'duties' I just don't have the time to be able to re-write each article. That said the AfD should stay there for its 5 day nominated time-slot but you should rest assured that other editors will see your work and nominate keep, delete or merge as a result of the changed pages - and in many cases take a moment to adjust the 'rough edges' you speak of. Again well done on your work. Cheers!--VS 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogged.com entry

Greetings VirtualSteve,

I appreciate your time in evaluating my article. I am taking into account all of your comments and would like to address some of the concerns regarding the article. Most importantly, the question of "notability" is a valid one and I would like to address that if possible.

Would it be possible to give me a little time to provide some useful references that may address your concerns for notability? I do feel that my article has a place in Misplaced Pages because it discusses a new trend which is very significant to the ever-evolving behavior we call social networking.

Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback. It is my first wikipedia article and I am definitely learning a lot from my first attempt.

Cheers,

-Kenneth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellidyr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Kenneth - good to see you taking such a fine interest in your first article. As you will have noted I have posted a welcome banner on your talk page with heaps of links to reading material that will help you create the perfect article. In particular you should start by reading Misplaced Pages:Five pillars which as you will see provides other links to Notability and Verifiability. I should also note that as an administrator on wikipedia I only tagged your article as part of the normal process that occurs when an editor puts a request for speedy deletion up on a page and another editor asks for the community to "hang-on". I do not have any personal view about your article. I suggest that you might get some more help from DanielRigal as he was the first to put the tag up. Normally editors who have taken the time to tag an article for speedy deletion are happy to provide more information. I will post a note to him about this conversation but also you can at any time contact him and ask questions. Just remember three important rules, stay civil, stay calm and keep editing. Best wishes. --VS 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One other tip perhaps - go to .com and have a look at the list of ".com" sites and links about half way down the page. Click on one or two (or more) and have a look how the numerous editors have written an article based on fact and have removed the style of advertising spiel that will make an article more brochure and less encyclopaedia. Don't worry about being as good as this straight up but try and get more of this style into your blogged.com article. You have about 2 or 3 days to sway the reviewers who will come to post a suggestion of keep, delete or merge on the AfD discussion.--VS 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock attacks on celebrity pages

See: 92.8.159.121 and an MO that matches Harvey Carter. Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

• Thanks blocked for one week. Both this one and the recent one you referred to on my talk page (and banned by another editor) are also tagged as suspected socks of HC.--VS 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocol on user home pages

I'm not up on the conventions related to use of user talk pages but is it appropriate to remove admin's message on a user's talk page? I think it's okay because it shows that the message was read but a questionable aspect could be a removal can sometimes "flavour" a "message string" or even putting a "spin" on things by use of controversial comments, see: Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

• It seems quite certain he is attempting to flavour his pages - especially with his moves of removing some posts and copying other conversation from my page above. Its absolutely certain that he is not a very rational contributor when it comes to his concern over LaraLove and the_undertow. In terms of his removal of messages - the convention is that he is entitled to (although they should be archived) and if he does it defines that he has read them and others can act accordingly. Thank you for your interest. Cheers!--VS 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rack N Road Deletion

Hi VirtualSteve,

I just had a question on why my Rack N Road entry was deleted. I'm not quite sure how it could be considered blatant advertising because it was just going over the history of the store as well as the services it provides. Looking at REI's entry, I don't see a real big difference, and if anything REI's entry is much more "blatant advertising" then my entry was. I also noticed that a peer in the industry "Rack Attack" also had their entry flagged. REI's has never been touched. Maybe their entry should be looked over once again. Please let me know what I can do to change our article to fit within Misplaced Pages's guidelines. I definitely read through the different Misplaced Pages sections on good editing and I felt I had follow them quite well. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Biligas74 1-26-2008

• Thank you for your question Biligas74. I note the following history in relation to this article. Firstly it has been deleted 3 times, once on January 20 and January 27 last year, and then again on January 21, 2008. I deleted the article because user:Kesac had nominated it for speedy - which was not contested and the article was by and large written as an advertisment. Almost at the same time user:Figma put it up as a part of an article for deletion discussion here which as you will see was closed by another admin when a consensus of delete was reached - this time on January 26. I would suggest that with that many editors commenting that the article did not meet wiki's guidelines that it probably was not ready to stay up on this site. Particularly I note that the article had problems with notablility. You should also consider carefully the Wiki guideline on conflict of interest. In terms of your comment relating to REI - I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are referring to.--VS 09:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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 (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)