User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive6

I have been going through various comments poured on you by so many writers. In spite of that you appeared to be a calm, cool, sobre but positive minded soothing Guru in this area! I was also fortunate enough to receive from you valuable piece of suggestions. On the basis of this conception, may I request you of reviewing your outlook honestly? 1. You have said that "We already have an article Goud Saraswat Brahmin about the subject I have written about. You suggested that I add to that article instead of creating a new one. On this background, please advise Wikipedia as follows, if possible: Let Wekipedia have only one article as follows: Goudd Saraswat Brahmins in India 1. Goudd Saraswat Brahmins in Goa, 2. Goudd Saraswat Brahmins in Maharashtra, 3. Goudd Saraswat Brahmins in Karnataka State, 4. Goudd Saraswat Brahmins in Kerala, 5. Goudd Saraswat Brahmins and Diaspora.

This scheme the aim of creating a single article on the subject, not different articles by different people, but knowledgeble people wil be made available.

(Vardeborcartadcodcar (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)).

Please add comments at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Thank you.

TubeMaster

The article in English of Tubemaster was a machine translation as well as this text. If you are in Spanish and Portuguese why cannot be in English?. I want to give the reason which this article is erased. It is a bad translation while I accept that the change but I do not remove, costs me much work it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrocaro35 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub Club deletion

A well written and informative wiki entry on the Sub Club Glasgow was deleted by you under the title "nonsense". I note that there are not only dozens of less relevent articles on nightclubs internationally but several very poorly written pages on other Glasgow nightclubs with neither the history or cultural relevance of the Sub Club. The venue has played an integral part in the growth of House, Acid House and Techno music in the Uk since 1987 and has been the venue where many, many international djs, musicians, bands and artists made names for themselves. The club continues to play a national and international role in the music industry with coverage of it's events by the BBC Television and Radio on a regular basis as well as garnering international accolades across a diverse range of media. All of this was outlined in the Wikipedia article (not posted by any employee of the company I may add) along with relevant internal and external links and photographs. I would like you to answer why this page was deleted and why others of a lesser nature still stand.

Thanks for your enquiry, but since I haven't edited Wikipedia since December 2006 I really can't comment. And please sign your posts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Xmas Lights deletion

Hello DJ Clayworth. Thanks for your fast response. So i am able to add them again the moment their debut album is out? Without fear of it being deleted again? Thanks - DataBrain

Continued on User talk:DataBrain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Xmas Lights deletion (cont.)

Thanks again for your reply DJ Clayworth.

I read page you directed me to and it stated this:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following:
               o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
               o Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
               o An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

So technically if i was to direct you to a couple of instances where Xmas Lights sucess has been published in a magazine, this would surely make them elligable for Wikipedia in conjunction with the above criteria. The Oxford music magazine Nightshift has uploaded PDF versions of every issue published, to it's webspace. - DataBrain

Continued at User talk:DataBrain DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwernyfed football club

It's ba-a-a-a-a-ack! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FBAus

Hi DJ, he was originally at User:FutureBrand creating spam articles on Future Brand (Australia), and then he moved to User:Fbaus when username blocked, ignoring all the warnings and starting again. He's emailed to ask how to get the company article submitted, and I've provided links to conflict of interest and notability guidelines. So you're right in questioning Fbaus' block but it was a company named account as I saw it? --Stephen 16:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Carmchael (hockey)

Can you reinstate the article Matt Carmichael (hockey). I wasn't done working on the article and forgot to add the inwork template. If not at least send me the source code to my User sandbox. Thanks DustStorm (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of the article being in work, it's a case of whether the player deserves an article at all. I'm not sure who the 'Huntsville Havoc' are, but I'm guessing they are something like a Senior B team? In any case a player not in the OHL is almost certainly not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD and namespaces

Please don't delete categories using any CSD beginning with "A". CSDs starting with "A" only apply to the main namespace. I did mark several categories for deletion under CSD#C1 (applies only to categories) and G7 (applies to all namespaces). Od Mishehu 14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Emir Sokolović

I can't see an encyclopedia article here even if the copyright issues are fixed ... a grand total of 13 Yahoo hits and 67 Google hits for this guy. Blueboy96 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but the claim is he has published several books and given lectures; he's not OBVIOUSLY unnotable. Writing in a non-English language makes people difficult to track on the web. Feel free to try prod or afd. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Eurobird 9

It looks like spam to me; did you see the original version, complete with a "Here's how to subscribe to Eurobird" text and linkspam? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the original version may have been spam that doesn't mean this version is. It's not a great article, but I don't think it's speedy. Feel free to prod or afd. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

137.99.122.27

I don't understand why I am getting messages about advertising, especially since these messages are repeatedly misspelled "advertizing". I am trying to enlighten the wikipedia community about MathScriptor, a government NSF-funded program that is attempting to provide, free-of-charge, Mathematica and MATLAB functions. This is not advertising because there is no product for sale. Please stop deleting my edits, especially since you are not checking the validity of my statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.122.27 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A simple read of the MathScriptor page in fact reinforces my statement that MathSciptor offers Mathematica and MATLAB functions. As a member of the academic community I have long feared sites like wikipedia where false information maybe published. However, I've recently come to see the incredible value in sites like wikipedia. I don't understand your merits for deleting my edits but, because reposting my comments will not help in validating wikipedia as an information source, I will not engaged in an "edit war". What can I do to convince you, and the wikipedia community, that MathScriptor is a program similar enough to Mathematica and MATLAB that it deserves to be mentioned on those sites? Would you like me to site NSF documented sources? I am new to wikipedia and have difficulty with the process so I welcome help. I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.122.27 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:137.99.122.27. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article about Justin Tanner

Hello Mr. Clayworth -

I am the author of the article about Justin Tanner.

Here is your deletion record, as far as I could find it:

"# 18:07, 10 December 2007 DJ Clayworth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Justin Tanner" ‎ (content was: '{{db-spam}} This biography was gleaned from an interview with Justin Tanner himself, and from articles in many publications, most of which are available for verification online. The sources include Variety, Back Stage West, and the L.A. ...')"

I would plead that your reasons are mistaken and your decision hasty.

Justin Tanner is a highly noted Los Angeles playwright, who has received numerous industry awards, and one of his plays "Zombie Attack", ran in Los Angeles for over ten years. A quick trip to the Google or Yahoo search engines will verify that.

Justin Tanner has had lengthy profiles in the Los Angeles Times (more than once!) and the L.A. Weekly. His plays have been produced in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington D.C.

When I first posted an article about him, it appeared with a disclaimer that said I had to name my sources or it would be considered "spam".

As a result, because I of course wanted to comply with Wikipedia specifications, I extensively re-edited the article, naming numerous sources, including Mr. Tanner himself, members of his cast, the owners of the theaters where his plays have been produced, and various published articles from respected publications like Variety, Back Stage West, the L.A. Weekly, and The Advocate.

I also included direct quotes from the articles that summarized his history most succinctly, and links to the actual articles on-line so the quotes could be verified. I also included a link to Mr. Tanner's website, which includes the various articles in toto, numerous photos of his various productions which include many well known actors from television and film (so they could not possibly have been "faked" for self aggrandizement!), and a much more extensive biography including a list of the many awards Mr. Tanner has received from the L.A. Weekly and Pen West and like institutions.

I don't understand how this can be considered spam. I also see that in the course of less than 3 minutes, you summarily deleted 7 different articles!

I do not think this reflects a very thorough or thoughtful reading of the content of my article, to say nothing of the other 6.

If you have some suggestion for me to re-edit the article so it would be more appropriate to your personal standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would be most grateful. Maybe I did not put the sources at the right section of the page, so they were not easily accessible? I didn't find a guideline for precisely where or how they should be named. So I may have been clumsy in that regard. I am willing to update it and correct it to your specifications if need be.

But I completely and sincerely aver there is nothing facile, superficial, or ill-researched in my article (which I did not save personally, so I don't know how to retrieve it - this cavalier deletion came as a surprise to me). It was not a puff piece nor an editorial. It was a statement of fact. I admit I am a fan, but as such I made it very dry.

Justin Tanner deserves an article in your research resource.

I would be grateful if you would re-instate mine, or give me some understandable reason as to why you choose not to do so.

Thanks, Jeff Wilke

Just in case - Once again Targeted for Speedy Deletion? Protesting Deletion of Article about Justin Tanner

Hello Mr. Clayworth -

I am the author of the article about Justin Tanner posted a couple of days ago.

I am removing the deletion record quoted directly from your deletion of page in my original letter, since a big default window popped up from the Wikipedia search engine as soon as I tried to post it, and declared the original letter objectionable for some arcane reason, calling it a "Blatant Advertisement". Someone needs to rewrite Wikipedia's quick scanning protocols! Apparently the scanning protocols can't tell a blatant advertisement from the Bible or a cry for help.

At any rate, at about 6 O'clock PST you deleted my article about Justin Tanner. Here is the rest of my previously posted letter, which may or may not still be posted. Wikipedia moves in mysterious ways

I would plead that your reasons for deleting my article are mistaken and your decision hasty.

Justin Tanner is a highly noted Los Angeles playwright, who has received numerous industry awards, and one of his plays "Zombie Attack", ran in Los Angeles for over ten years. A quick trip to the Google or Yahoo search engines will verify that.

Justin Tanner has had lengthy profiles in the Los Angeles Times (more than once!) and the L.A. Weekly. His plays have been produced in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington D.C.

When I first posted an article about him, it appeared with a disclaimer that said I had to name my sources or it would be considered "spam".

As a result, because I of course wanted to comply with Wikipedia specifications, I extensively re-edited the article, naming numerous sources, including Mr. Tanner himself, members of his cast, the owners of the theaters where his plays have been produced, and various published articles from respected publications like Variety, Back Stage West, the L.A. Weekly, and The Advocate.

I also included direct quotes from the articles that summarized his history most succinctly, and links to the actual articles on-line so the quotes could be verified. I also included a link to Mr. Tanner's website, which includes the various articles in toto, numerous photos of his various productions which include many well known actors from television and film (so they could not possibly have been "faked" for self aggrandizement!), and a much more extensive biography including a list of the many awards Mr. Tanner has received from the L.A. Weekly and Pen West and like institutions.

I don't understand how this can be considered spam. I also see that in the course of less than 3 minutes, you summarily deleted 7 different articles!

I do not think this reflects a very thorough or thoughtful reading of the content of my article, to say nothing of the other 6.

If you have some suggestion for me to re-edit the article so it would be more appropriate to your personal standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would be most grateful. Maybe I did not put the sources at the right section of the page, so they were not easily accessible? I didn't find a guideline for precisely where or how they should be named. So I may have been clumsy in that regard. I am willing to update it and correct it to your specifications if need be.

But I completely and sincerely aver there is nothing facile, superficial, or ill-researched in my article (which I did not save personally, so I don't know how to retrieve it - this cavalier deletion came as a surprise to me). It was not a puff piece nor an editorial. It was a statement of fact. I admit I am a fan, but as such I made it very dry.

Justin Tanner deserves an article in your research resource.

I would be grateful if you would re-instate mine, or give me some understandable reason as to why you choose not to do so.

Thanks, Jeff Wilke

On reflection it looks as if Justin Tanner may deserve an article. I'll allow it to be recreated. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Client Path Marketing

Could you please add a reason to your PROD nomination for the article Client Path Marketing. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You just deleted my article on Racial Formation Theory with the comment "essay not article." It is, in fact, not an essay. I just summarized Omi & Winant. How do I tweak this so that it does not get mistaken for an essay and deleted? Thanks. --Mmesandrine (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Mmesandrine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Houston High page

The page for Houston High School was deleted on your part when a few simple revert would have worked also. I have started the article again and will set it up better. I apologize for not keeping it current and correct but I am very busy right now and will be for the next 3 months also. Nescio sed Scio (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

fightfortomorrow.com deletion

Why do you all continually delete our page? This a movie we are making! I would appreciate it if you would NOT erase our work. Thank you. (unsigned by User:Manofsteelforever)

Thanks

Thanks for watching out for this user. He has made some db-bio and db-spam claims which were overturned by other administrators. Miranda 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

London Aviators

I don't think it is that uncommon, though it does seem to have some unique charecteristics. It needs sources. As it was, it was the most blatant spam I have come across, I think the section about "how do I get in" and quote (More stuff to add, but didn't have time, if any LA staff are reading this feel free to edit it, but please only LA staff) gave it away. ;) I have no qualms about you recreating the article if it comes close to WP standards. As it was, it couldn't remain in my opinion. (also copyvio problems of [1].) If you need any help developing the article, I would be happy to help, but I am having a hard time finding sources. Woody (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to develop the article the article - I'd never heard of them before it showed up on CSD. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither had I. Looking into it, it is not that rare either. I wasn't suggesting that you were, more of an 'if' you were. Just another piece of spam on wikipedia, and there seems to be more and more. Woody (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Interesting concept. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Malformed prod on Client Path Marketing

I removed the prod without taking any action for this article because no concern or reason for the proposed deletion was listed. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stormwarrior speedy deletion

Hi, could you please undelete Stormwarrior? The band certainly meets the notability criteria. (I will amend the article to this effect.) —Piet Delport 2007-12-17 03:40

(replied here —Piet Delport 2007-12-17 18:33)

Book of Mormon changes

Hello DJ Clayworth:

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

Here is my message which I was composing to put in the Book of Mormon talk page when I found your message.

I'll put the message here rather than there for the present.

Hello DJ Clayworth: I am sorry you think I undid valid changes without cause. I believe that allowing for an orderly discussion of the changes is a valid reason and I tried to explain that.

In support of this view, I point out the "controversial" tag near the top of the Talk page. Here it is for reference:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

I know that this note suggests that "substantial" changes should be discussed, and that your change comparing the Book of Mormon to the Bible is not substantial. The problem is that that change is in the midst of a batch of others.

I had no intention of allowing your changes to quietly be forgotten. In fact, to ensure this would not happen I pointed out those changes to a number of other editors who are interested in the article, as evidenced by past work on it. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of an orderly discussion. However I think your method of undoing changes whenever they occur is counter productive, and very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. You claim that you had "no intention of allowing your changes to quietly be forgotten", but I only have to go back to December 15th to find a batch of changes which you undid, again with no reason, and which you did not put back.

Let's continue this conversation at Talk:Book of Mormon. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing the discussion there. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete my page

Hello, if you are an admin, can you please delete my wikipage? Thank you. Masterhomer File:Yin yang.png 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regading the Wisdom of Crowds

DJ Clayworth

I thank you for your sincere and warming response, I haven't logged into to the site since my last negative engagement, which I missed a date for(I was really excited about my first major contribution). But I couldn't help it, took me only 11 days to stumble back here, but I had to add a Fahrenheit conversion, to the Thermophile page, I stumbled on while researching. I will read the material you have suggested, and I now feel I have a friend in WikiWorld. thank you for your time.

On another personally important note. You critiqued the value of one of my holy books, the Wisdom of Crowds. I appreciate your interst and have a response.

context: Your words, Incidentally, in my personal opinion, The Wisdom Of Crowds doesn't necessarily apply to encyclopedia writing. 99% of people don't know the birth year Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, for example, and it's much better to get the article written by the 1% who know rather than the 99% who don't. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I offer: Of the 99% of people who dont know a specific questioned fact. The ones that know they dont know, wont answer the question. The ability to know what one knows is called metacognition and is one of the definitions of sapience. We as a sapient species apply this strength to our daily lives. Therefore the answers will come from those who think they know. As these people who think they know, all get there information from a shared real earth experience, their aggregated answers will create a picture of earth from many perspectives. Unless there is an active disinformation campaign about the queens birth date their answer will be accurate.
The book speaks more clearly to how one would select an audience, question, record and asses their responses. It details models that produce accurate answers and those that produce incorrect answers so the reader can evaluate the audiences they selected and the method they use.
In the case of wikipedia, where the crowd orchestrates itself. The aformentioned audience to the question of Queen Elizabeths birth date, both those that thought they knew and those that thought they did not, will all be valuable perspectes to aggregate as an answer. As they will all, independently evaluate the quality, and sources of the answers put forth, and edit accordingly. The book, the Wisdom of Crowds, probably was inspired by wikipedia's example of the wisdom of crowds. Moped45 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish Whip Wrestling

You deleted this article under CSD G4 however, the page does not fit the criteria for a deletion under this rule. The page was not identical to the version that was deleted, in fact, it was substantially different and the problems with the page had been addressed. I feel your deletion of the page was unwarranted and that it merits a recreation.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dylan Brosnan

I'm disapointed..

Dylan Brosnan is an actor, son of pierce, loads of info, the picture can be used because it has permission from the people

why cant you leave the page how it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent007ravi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dylan Brosnan

dylan is doing his first works and acting and filming a few projects when he does his first film, can i add his page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent007ravi (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

DJ Clayworth, if you dont know, I'm actually a 10 year old...Agent007ravi (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Agent007ravi

You deleted Power Electronics International, Inc.

I don't understand why this company was deleted, when other companies in the Crane industry have similar pages. See North American Industries and Konecranes. I would be happy to edit it, but it is a legitimate company and heavily involved in the Crane industry.--Loudes13 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wargames Research Group

Wargames Research Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed that you recreated the article without new evidence of notability. That's of course a reason for immediate redeletion per WP:CSD#G4, so I recommend that you userfy it if you need time to add sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article you will find that WRG was one of the best known and most popular publisher of wargames rules in the 70s and 80s, Pretty much everyone in the hobby, especially in the UK, used their rules. I updated the article to show this, and also added an explanation on the talk page. We also have articles about their individual sets of rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should challenge the deletion at WP:DRV. It's quite possible that they're notable, but the evidence in the article or the discussion is insufficient. We haven't made decisions based on assertions at least since mid-2007. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been through this once, the AFD was a marginal call and the admin who made the deletion agrees with the recreation. Let's not get too bogged down in bureacracy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with people restoring articles when they have new evidence that has been ignored during the discussion. All you're doing is to repeat the claims made during the AfD. I'm sure as an admin you understand the difference between assertions and evidence. Again, I recommend you userfy until you find evidence of notability or I'll re-delete as a recreation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do a simple Google search, which should be enough to tell you that the rules of this group are in widespread use even to this day. A look at the history pages will assure you of notability. I simply don't have time to track down proper references at this time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not doing your work. Retrieving supporting evidence is the task of the editors who want the article kept. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you do do my work. I'm asking you to leave an article in place for a short while until it can be improved. Have you even looked at the references that are already there? They're pretty good. Please don't get so procedure bound that you lose the point. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this alone until tomorrow. I'll expect the article to look substantially different by then I'll redelete it. If you don't think you can improve it until tomorrow, userfy it. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe first you could explain what is wrong with the article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not doing your work. The article is promotional in tone and the sources don't establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources list the publications, and several of them are histories of miniature wargaming that mention WRG. In the "significance" section there is a footnote that gives a reference. There are plenty of other articles in worse shape than this. Why are you obsessing over this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because as an admin you should know the rules of inclusion. The current sources are crap and the closing admin agreed that they are crap. There is nothing in the references that establishes that the WRG was the topic of substantial coverage by independent sources. If you have evidence that counters this, add it to the article. If you don't, leave it be. Your admin bit doesn't give you the right to ignore community consensus. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When did we start deleting articles because they lacked references? Put a "needs references" marker on it if you think they aren't good enough. As for community consensus, you are the only person who has suggested this article needs to be deleted. Myself and the deleting admin agreed it should come back.DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Card Football

Hello, i added speedy deletion tag to Card Football because i could not find a vote on its proposed deletion. Is there a vote? If so, where can i find it? Thanks TheProf07 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is a process where a marker is placed on the article, and if nobody objects to the deletion for five days it can be deleted. I believe that time is almost up, so you don't need to do anything if you think the article should be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag does say its time is up. Thats why i added the speedy tag. It actually wasn't me who added the WP:PROD, it was a unknown user useing an IP. However, i do agree with them that the article isnt required. Thanks TheProf07 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth - You have no grasp of the English Language as used by the English. People like you make Wikipedia seem like a pointless project. I am not suprised teachers don't want it to be used as a reference tool when people like you ruin it for all with your bad use of language. (unsigned comment by User:Dominic stevenson)

Maybe you could be a little more specific in your criticism? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Insignificant band

'The Locals' band' wiki page was deleted; you said they weren't a notable band. I think this band's wiki needs deleting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEPODD

I thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlocal (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Heiss

Do you have any sources on Martin Heiss? WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only say that for a person with so much power to delete at will, DJ, you are very hard to speak with directly via email, etc. I can only say that it is very sad that you deleted a wonderful Foundation's page that helps so many- especially children, and had documented footnotes and mass media articles. It is also amazing that as I have said before that Coca-Cola, Budwesier, even EXXON, and many well-known for profit companies have full and very large pages that are never deleted... not even by you. God forbid1 I see that you enjoy wargames and the like; well, we were called in to help someone from a real war (not a play one), to re-shape their lost appearance after trajedy. It is sad that from such an easy vanatge point that you and other teccie "kids" who seem to run this wiki (I assume you are under 30) can take away the chance for good, non-profit organizations to cooperate in wikipedia. It is very sad, indeed. This is not a personal attack, from one from frustration over injustice. This WIKI has little credibility anymore to myself and many others over this censorship based on whims.

Debbie Anne WCGF

Thanks for your contributions, Debbie Anne, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a way for anyone to publicise their cause, no matter how worthy. I wish your foundation well, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to publicise it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"any" further edits?

i thought that 3RR applied to the material in contention. are you saying that if i were to copy edit part of the article unrelated to the disputed material, that would constitute a 3RR violation? i'm unclear here. note that i have no plans to edit the disputed material. Anastrophe (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I was over-inclusive here. Further edits are OK as long as you steer clear of the contentious areas. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

10-4. thanks! Anastrophe (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

John McDonald (mayor)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article John McDonald (mayor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Caricatures of Catholicism and Orthodoxy

In the Mormonism and Christianity article, there are a couple statements that I presume you're at least sympathetic to, based on the discussion, that seem to reflect fundamental misunderstandings of Roman Catholicism, and which presumably extend to Orthodoxy as well. The first is that these two institutions believe that they "exclusively" comprise the Church. This is not true of either body. They generally recognize each other as Christian at the very least, which by itself is enough to refute the statement. Many Orthodox bishops recognize Trinitarian baptisms in Protestant churches as well. The second statement is the idea that the priesthood is recognized "fully in the bishop, partially in the priest and not at all in the laity." First, we distinguish between the "priesthood of all believers" and the ordained ministry of the priesthood; we certainly do not deny the priesthood of all believers. And while it isn't common, baptism at the very least can be performed by a layman if no priest is available, as can various other prayer services.

On the Talk Page, you suggested that in the Roman Catholic Mass, that the priest was taking the place of Christ, and mediating between God and man. That might be true of the Roman Catholics or it might not, but it certainly isn't true of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. In the Eucharist (Divine Liturgy), Jesus' sacrifice is made present as you said; the consecrated bread is called the "lamb", and it is the bread that is cut with a "spear" as was Jesus' body, and the wine that is mixed with water as was Jesus' blood, that becomes the body and blood of Christ. This is the sacrifice offered to God "on behalf of all and for all", namely Christ himself. In this, the priest represents the people. As we partake of the body and blood of Christ, we become again "temples" of the Holy Spirit, not separated from God by any intermediary but united with Christ.

I agree with you that the 'Mormonism and Christianity' article isn't the place to belabor differences in Christianity, but it shouldn't mischaracterize them this way either. Wesley (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wesley

I'm aware that these are complicated issues; one of the things I'm trying to do is get a description of "Mainstream Christianity" that better represents the variety of views within it. I don't want to misrepresent anyone. I'm not as familiar with Catholic doctrines as Protestant ones, and even less so of Orthodox. Feel free to fix anything I wrote about those two that you feel is wrong.

I didn't intend to write that Catholics believe they are 'exclusively' the church. I did write that Protestants don't believe that, and I didn't intend to imply a comparison. I certainly agree that Catholics and Orthodox accept those outside as Christians. You will, I think, admit that Catholics believe that the RC Church is the best and most complete form of the church, and posesses an authority that Protestants do not. That goes further than Protestants mostly would about themselves, and that's the difference I was trying to get at.

The statement about priesthood occurring "not at all in the laity" was not one of mine, and I would have disagreed with it if I had spotted it. Please change it to something more accurate.

I have virtually no knowledge of the priest's function in the Mass in Orthodoxy; again please change the article to reflect it, but that may be a details that isn't necessary. To me the core of that section is contrasting the Mormon position as I understand it, where they seem to think that some sort of priestly authority is necessary to salvation, with the Protestant belief that is entirely between Jesus and the Believer. I don't think the article is so long that we can't cover the three main divisions within Christianity. I think my understanding of the Catholic position is correct.

Incidentally I admit that if I'm trying to explain a concept on a talk page I do sometimes oversimplify peripheral issues to avoid going off at a tangent.

I would be grateful if you kept an eye on this article if you have knowledge of the RC and/or Orthodox positions. Some of the LDS editors seem to want to contrast the Mormon view with "the Christian view", ignoring the idea that there may be more than one "Christian view". One suggested that only the Catholic view is considered, since Catholics are in the majority. A balenced article requires more, and my knowledge is too limited to give a complete one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Email4jonathan

Hi. Please stop restoring my messages to User talk:Email4jonathan. I know it's only an essay, not a policy or guideline, but please consider Don't restore removed comments.

User:Email4jonathan hasn't had any cautions or warnings. He and I had a disagreement, and anybody who is interested in seeing the history of his Talk page can easily do so.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

please explain your reverts

Why did you revert me.Quack Guru 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the diffs and I thought you had removed parts of sentences. Feel free to re-edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in reverting at the moment. I want to see if 0rr works (no reverts). I am trying to discuss things and see if discussing works. So far you are the first person who has been honest. Quack Guru 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your delete of Proteus (design software)

Can you undo your delete of Proteus (design software)? I was just about to add much more information when the page was gone! Fnagaton 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a more detail now. As for "notable" I was filling in a dead wikilink found on another page so evidently someone thought it worth wikilinking but didn't have time to add content. ;) Fnagaton 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on block

I'm not an admin, and I might be way out of line here, but only 1 day for User:097ihuhoj8998 with the racist and vulgar constant vandalism they were doing? I'm not sure if this is anything more than a vandal

== TubeMaster]]

The article in English of Tubemaster was a machine translation as well as this text. If you are in Spanish and Portuguese why cannot be in English?. I want to give the reason which this article is erased. It is a bad translation while I accept that the change but I do not remove, costs me much work it

account to be honest. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, and he will probably end up being blocked again, but I try to err on the lenient side wherever possible. His kind of vandalism won't last five minutes if he comes back, so don't worry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just was curious! Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Other admins might well give him a permanent block. If he comes back again, no question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A World At Arms

I checked the other title you suggested "A World At Arms", and it makes no reference to gays in the Nazi Party or to homosexuality. I did'nt think he mean't this book because the Cambridge histories are a series and although this book was published by Cambridge University it is'nt one of the series, and there is'nt one on the subject of WWII. I have to conclude that neither one of his sources exists. Common sense would tell you that people did'nt check a box for gay when they joined the Nazi Party. Nazi Germany had the death penalty for homosexuality. If more than 20% of the membership of the Nazi Party had been gay there would be no way to know this. He made a similar comment about gays in the SS. The implication seems to be that far from having been victims of the Holocaust gays perpetrated it. This form of Holocaust revisionism, which is currently being promoted by right wing Christians, is aimed at exposing gays to hatred. There are no statistics which show that there were any more gays in the SS than in the British Army. Any that were discovered in the SS were shot. He has also claimed that Hitler was an atheist and that the Nazi regime was atheistic. There's no evidence for either assertion. What purpose do you think it serves to make these kinds of assertions? His views in his newspaper columns are consistent with those expressed in Frank. I just wanted to inject some facts into the article. ~~hegemonycricket ~~

I'm all in favour of facts in articles. If Michael Coren's views are indeed consistent with the references you gave then there will be other references to them in his writings. Better to quote them than something he wrote for a humour magazine. I'm not going to get into the whole 'holocaust revisionism' thing. It's far too far off the topic. I'm also not generally a fan of the style of writing in which you just pick up quotes and drop them into the article. It doesn't make for a good encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~ hegemonycricket ~~

Cloak and Dagger

The quote you removed from Michael Coren regarding blacks in Africa and AIDS was from Cloak and Dagger. The next one you removed was sourced and you removed the quote and the source. Incidentally he is also wrong about who has AIDS in North America. It is'nt just male homosexuals and drug users. I believe that about 50% of cases are heterosexual African-Americans who are contracting the disease through heterosexual sex. The article has gone back to being a whitewash. It is'nt neutral. It's shamelessly pro-Michael Coren. I said I would'nt make any more changes and I will keep my word. I don't care enough to argue about it. I admit I would'nt know how to write about a bigot and be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hegemonycricket (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Hegemony. There was no reference to Cloak and Dagger for any quote I removed. If you have a reference for one feel free to put it back. But which Cloak and Dagger are we referring to? this one? Or this one? Or this one? None look like they are reliable references here.

Not being able to write neutrally about a subject is a common enough issue, and most editors simply avoid writing articles where they are unable to be neutral. Again I recommend writing about some other subject on Wikipedia, something you know about but don't feel so strongly about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it was this one: Osvenny, Christopher, Cloak and Dagger, Ryerson Review of Journalism Spring 1994 http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1994/spring/187/ which has already been used in the article. I know it was'nt referenced. In Aesthete he also refered to a TV Show called "The Fags In The Hall", to a gay policeman as a "puff", and to San Francisco as "the fair(y) city." Thanks for the reply. I agree I'm not the person who should be writing this article.

Hegemony: if you want to keep editing at Wikipedia you need to get used to signing anything you write on talk pages. You've been told about this several times. It's the rules - like stopping your car at a red light. You just put four tildes at the end of what you write, like this ~~~~.

You also have to remember that Aesthete is a humour column, and intended to be provocative. It's really not a good source of someone's real opinion. You wouldn't accuse Jonathan Swift of really promoting cannibalism of babies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you gave me the reference I've put the full Ryerson quote back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of quoting him when what he is saying is untrue. It is'nt true that nobody cared about black Africans having AIDS until middle class white Californians started to contract the disease. Another statement he makes is that AIDS started in the gay community and took a long time to reach the heterosexual community and the majority of sufferers are still gay. All of this is false, but you let him get away with it. You put this quote in "While everything must be done to find a cure for this plague" While I'm sure this makes him look good this statement in contradicted by the rest of the article. He is actually saying that he is opposed to funding for AIDS, that the money could be better spent on other things. This is the theme of the column. You removed the part about AIDs appearing simultaneously in Tanzania, Haiti, Sweden, and the United States in 1978. It is'nt true that people suddenly cared about people with AIDS when middle class white Californians contracted the disease. It sounds like he's saying that anyone who cares about gays having AIDS is a racist who did'nt care about people in Africa. Do you remember what was being said about AIDS in North America in the 1980s? "It's killing all the right people." It took a long time for people to start to care. I'd have to go back and look at the article, but I think he said that AIDS started in the gay community and then was passed to others. The opposite is true. AIDS started in the heterosexual community. Virtually all of his facts on any topic are wrong. I'm sorry about the signing thing, but I don't intend to comment any further on this article or having any further involvement with wikipedia. I will retire my username and be done with it.Hegemonycricket (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC) hegemonycricket Hegemonycricket (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hegemony: I'm sorry you are going to retire your username. I'm sure you could make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Again I recommend you try editing an article you don't feel so strongly about - Michael Coren is the only article you've tried editing so far. Please give something else a go - maybe an article actually about AIDS.

You have to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to record facts about someone, not to portray your opinion of them. It doesn't matter if your opinion is true or false, it doesn't belong here, any more than mine does. It certainly wasn't my choice to add quotes by Coren - in fact most of the quotes I added you put in originally. In almost all cases all I did was extend the quote to ensure it wasn't taken out of context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a q

I've got a quick question for you. I was new page patrolling and noticed that bin larden article on vandal proof. Now, when I tagged it as speedy vandalism, I noticed it created the page. Any clue why that happened? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None at all, I'm afraid. The title looked like it was meant to be a particular change, and maybe trying to access a particular change of a deleted article caused Mediawiki to create a page with the rc included. Either way, it's done now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just didnt want anyone to think "I" created the page, thats all. But thanks. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've done the same when someone deleted a page while I was trying to add a tag to it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Johnny carino's

Hi, I noticed you speedy deleted Johnny carino's - in fact you did so just as I was about to decline the speedy. This looks notable to me, see: http://www.carinos.com/location/search_world_map.aspx so I think it should at least go to AfD. Would you consider undeleting it and I'll keep an eye on it. CIreland (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Make sure we give a better description to how notable it is. The original article really didn't indicate that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I realise the original article didn't really assert notability, but as often happens, a new user typically starts a page with a small amount of text expecting to expand it with subsequent edits. In this case it was begun at 17:51 and tagged at 17:52. I think this happens far too often with new pages, especially in the use of criteria A1 and A3. CIreland (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fergie (singer)

Thanxs for cleaning my edit up a little. I appreciate

John Allen Shaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznaw (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Always glad to help. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Clay

So to add a comment/question on a talk page of a user I just edit the last section and add three = sign on either side of my Subject? Beamathan (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

haha, that's apparently it. Thanks a lot for the help. I'm actually starting to edit articles...very scary, I know! ;) Beamathan (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You've pretty much got the idea. If it's an entirely new subject, not related to any previous post on the page then you should add a subject (technically a new section) but put TWO equals signs either side of it. If it's a reply to something indent your reply using : characters. Then write your question and sign it, like you did above. Good work. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CS Lewis

I stand correct, my error. Darkieboy236 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you are a long way from being the first person to do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Chris George and Company

I rewrote the Chris George article so as to not be classified as "blatant advertizing." Yruzer (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen - Amon Ancient Egyptian God Origin of the present day word "Amen" used in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

DJ Clayworth Wrote:
"The article you edited, Amen is currently a contentious one. Please make sure you read the discussion on the talk page before adding to it.
The view you added is not supported by academic references, and consensus is currently against adding it to the article."

Anyone who comments in this manner on facts of history which are 6000 years old either needs to go back to school or should justify the agenda behind such expression.
I do not have time to be subjected to the hide and seek game that favours the present day insanity of religious battles.
History is at the fingertips of those who can admit and delete the input.
The references are at your disposition.
The question is: " do you want to general public to be kept ignorant of historic facts or is it your duty to inform as objectively as possible"?
All the best to you.
Observer HG13 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Observer. I don't know which references you mean. You didn't add any, and I have seen no reliable references to back up your viewpoint. It's also very strange that your second edit on Wikipedia is to attack me so strongly, and in a style which is so similar to that of User:Luckynumbers. Did you read the article Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DJ Clayworth, I have no knowledge of what you call a 'Second edit'.
I have also no knowledge who or what User Luckynumbers is about.
In fact, it is rather insulting that you wander off topic to get into some personal mumbo jumbo of your own confused state of mind.
As to the references of "Amen":
Encyclopedia Britannica, Archaeology and the Patriarchs by Charles N.Pope United States Library of Congress,
Professor Shayne Cohen Harvard University – History of the Judaism – Ancient History,
Professor Sola Wittmeyer Baron University of Columbia – Antiquities and Jewish History,
Gary Greenberg President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York [able to separate much historical fact from biblical fiction],
National Geographic Television has produced a series entitled Science of the Bible.
I can give you a longer list of References especially when I go back in time and refer to classical writings but I would assume a person like yourself in charge of this topic would have this basic knowledge.
Best Regards Observer HG13 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by "second edit" is that Wikipedia tracks all the edits you make to the encyclopedia. For you they can be found here. You have made precisely four edits as I write this - the first to add contentious and unsupported material to the page Amen; the second to write what you did above, suggesting I need to go back to school. The third and forth are your replies above. That doesn't read like someone who is new to Wikipedia.

To reiterate what I've said about references: you need to provide references to places where reputable sources say the things you are trying to get included in Wikipedia; not something which you take to imply means that, but where they say so directly. It shouldn't be just "National Geographic Television has produced a series entitled Science of the Bible" but in what episode did they say "Amen is derived from the name of an Egyptian God" and what exactly were the words they used? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Clayworth,
I am totally new to Wikipedia and appalled at the aggressive behavior of some people, who are in charge of a topic.
I expect of those who believe they should be in charge of a subject to have the basic knowledge to judge, edit, complete articles and data given by interested parties.
I have taken the time to browse through the various inputs of other people.
The perpetual personal attacks and arguments, filling up one webpage after another leading nowhere is rather unproductive.
In your case your continuously distraction off the topic onto personal issues -without any apparent reason- discloses your weakness to handle the matter.
Of all the data that is in your possession your judgment on the word "Amen" as is produced for the general public leaves much to be desired. Of course, from the outside looking in, one does not know the instructions you receive to do what you do.

This brings to mind the following story that once upon a time it was decided to write down the intellectual achievements one generation would make, the discoveries of Science, Astrology etc , with the intention to inform future generations. The name of this book was ‘The Bible’. History shows what certain elements in society did with a book that was supposed to inform….
It would seem that the same destiny/fate is awaiting the History/Religious department of Wikipedia. I have no intention of further replying to your comments. It is a waste of time, an exercise in futility and quite frankly insulting.
In responds to this experience I will exclude History/Religious findings of Wikipedia from any further research. Best Regards.Observer HG13 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much. I was sure that is has to be speeded but was a bit confused about criteria. Next time I gonna tag this kind of material as non-sense. Cheers! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A rather prolific sock

Check out the suspected and confirmed sock list here. I'm sure God is proud of his work! Thanks for double-checking though. Community is what makes this a great project. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Van Buren reversen

Dear DJ CLayworth, Why did you revert my reversen of vandalising edits of the Talk:Martin Van Buren? As you can see ip 68.190.243.54 edited talkpage posts of other users, this was a clear attempt to vandalise this page. Please revert your own reversen of my reversen of 68.190.243.54's edits regards Mach10 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit appeared to introduce things that were clearly wrong, including "ggg-grandfather", "museaum" and "beleive". I didn't notice that they were reversals of another change, but it's hard to argue that what you were undoing was "vandalism". If you feel strongly you can make the edit again, but I would think it best to leave it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the things 68.190… changed that couth my attention was in the capitalization of ‘van’. 68.190… changed the discussion be ‘letting’ people argue for the case they were previously arguing against. About the other stuff, including "ggg-grandfather", "museaum" and "beleive", it might be wrong, but it is wrong because other users typed it wrong. This is a talk page not the article page, users should not ‘violate’ posts by other users. I will revert your revision. Regards Mach10 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Minnesota Thoroughbreds

An article that you have been involved in editing, Minnesota Thoroughbreds, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Thoroughbreds. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at Characters of His Dark Materials

Hi there! You removed the etymology of the name of Lake Enara from the article with the motivation This is a fictional world - it's not a name for a real world lake. From that comment I take it that you may not be aware of the fact that a fundamental story element of HDM is the geographical links between Pullmans's world and ours. Am I mistaken? – Adrian Lozano (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of that. It read like it was someone getting overexcited about a naming similarity. Do put it back it it's well attested. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. – Adrian Lozano (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Terry Wolverton

Not that I'm questioning how far you searched but did you search the website hard? I admit I could not find the page, but big lines of text I saw from google results. -WarthogDemon 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that hard, I admit. If you can give me a link to a Google search I'll look again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one. Also further searching I actually found a second site which might be more helpful: the WACK site. -WarthogDemon 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That certainly merits removal of the 'works' section (which is largely puffery anyway) but I'm not sure we can justify the removal of the article. You can always try prod or AFD. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -WarthogDemon 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Terry Wolverton

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Terry Wolverton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"DeepSpar Disk Imager" Deletion

Hi there,

You recently deleted my article for "blatent advertising" and I was just wondering why you deleted mine and not this one for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinRite

The two articles are very similar in all aspects, yet mine is gone and that one stands... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeShirobokov (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article you reference is a lot more detailed than the one you created. If you think this article should also be deleted feel free to nominate it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Darwas Artile Deleted...

Not sure when you deleted my article on Brian Darwas, I cited a number of references some are where his name already appears here on Wikipedia as a muscian! I also cited numerous references that cover Hot Rods that he has built and documentary films that he has made. Please explain.

- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clean Linen (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article read like he was a guy who built hot rods (and was not notable for it) and played some music in his spare time. If you want to write an article about him as a musician ( in which he might possibly be considered notable) then I'll let you recreate it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Bora

Hi, you deleted this as an A7 speedy, but the first line says he's a Goldie Award-winning film director. That seems to be an assertion of notability to me. I've undeleted the article. (FYI, I'm handling an OTRS ticket by the article creator, so that's my interest in the article.) howcheng {chat} 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A local arts award doesn't really make someone notable. The only movie he claims for his notability has no article, and has gone straight to video according to IMDB. Also it's a very bad article indeed. "He liked to watch spiderman when he was a kid". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Counselor Magazine

The entry for Counselor Magazine needs to be republished. I am the Associate Editor of the magazine and am in full rights to post information about our magazine on here. If you look on the site under contact us you will clearly see my name and information there. Please republish it. http://www.counselormagazine.com/content/view/156/57/ Thank you. -- jbensous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbensous (talk • contribs) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are instructions on your talk page for what to do if you own the copyright of work you want published on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is stupid except me

Joking or not, there was a strong likelihood that the humorous intent of such a username would be lost on other editors and would lead to breaches in civility and otherwise disharmonious editing. A provocative enough username can be blocked that way regardless of the intent or actual conduct of the user. That has been my understanding of policy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were necessarily wrong, and I agree there was that liklihood. Maybe it would have been worth waiting for a while to see if the provocation was going to happen. I prefer to be lenient if possible. In any case it was your call at the time, and I back it up. I just wanted to ask the question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Dexter

I checked the rules for how notable a person needs to be to have their own entry on Wikipedia - Bernie fits the bill where it says "cult following". She is incredibly well-known on the rockabilly scene at an international level and is, pretty much, the most famous 'nouveau' pin-up there is. therefore, deleting the entry for Bernie not being "notable" isn't true. You might not have heard of her but plenty of other people have! I also used the "hangon" tag, and had only just started to put the page together. I was even using references! So please undelete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helvissa (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to undelete this; there seem to be enough Google references to convince me that she isn't obviously not notable. I would suggest that you find some references to support her cult following from mainstream media, or the article is probably going to get deleted again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just added one from German tabloid Bild - apparently a newspaper with the 7th largest circulation in the world. ;) I'll dig up some more, though. --Helvissa (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gesche Gottfried deletion

Hi DJ Clayworth, you just deleted my article on Gottfried because of lack of content - which was true, since I neglected to add that I was working on it at that very moment. *g* If you could please undelete the article, I will quickly add the content in question and try to be faster next time. Tahnks - Sylphe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylphe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As you discovered you can recreate the article yourself, and while this isn't normally encouraged the article now has enough content to ensure its survival. In future I recommend always ensuring there is a one or two sentence summary in any article you create as soon as you create it. If you are not in a position to do that I recommend creating a draft of the article as a subpage of your userpage and then copying it to the main article space when you are ready. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HeadQuake deletion

Dear Dj Clayworth, First I want to thank you for the great effort you (and all Wikipedians) are doing to upgrade and expand "Wikipedia The Great Encyclopedia" . I knew Wikipedia about Three, four years ago and i am a Wikipedia addict (i like to call it Wikiaddict) and i really want to participate with something. On 1st of April I created an article, it lacked a lot of things I know (It was my first Try). The article was about the HeadQuake band. It's an Alternative Rock band well Known in Greece they have been active since late 90's. The Band members are: (Dallas K.– lead vocals Banasios T. - lead guitar, backing vocals Manolakos A. – lead guitar, backing vocals Papadakis L. – bass guitar Dalidis B. – drums) their official web site is http://www.headquake.gr/ or http://www.myspace.com/headquakeband please listen to their music, and tell me what do you think. so what i am asking for is another chance, i made a better article (I hope, and of course i need your opinion) Thank you & Best regards, RobRoy (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob

The reason the article was deleted is that it gives no indication of how the band satisfies the notability criteria. It says they are well known, but doesn't reference any media reports about them or even list their albums. What I suggest is finding enough references to show that they are really famous and then recreate the article. If you are not sure, create a draft article as a subpage of your user page and let other people look at it when you think it's ready. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

hi Clayworth,

wow that was quick, i wrote a new article (actually i updated it). so what i'm going to do now is re-write it in the edit page and if you like it then we can keep it. if it needs more update then re-delete it (i don't know if this is the right thing to do, but i just want you to see the new article, please advise if ther another way to show it to you.)

thanks for your quick responce,RobRoy (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bennie and the Jets

Rather than just deleting the section you consider to be trivia, perhaps a rewrite could have been entertained. I was considering doing that myself when I had more time. Amy (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought some of the trivia was pretty trivial, but feel free to put some of it back if you like. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Love Seed Mama Jump speedy

May I ask why you removed my db band tag from Love Seed Mama Jump? Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To be speedy deleted a band has to be obviously non-notable. It seemed to me that someone could make a case for this band being notable on the basis of their X-box inclusion. That doesn't mean the band is notable, just that we need to talk about it rather than just do it. May I suggest using prod or AFD if you think the band doesn't deserve an article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Riddance live album

I understand that the small intro text should have been converted into my own words, but by deleting the album page so fast you make me have to build the whole page with all the album info from scratch, which is a lot of work...

So why the speedy deletion of the whole page, why not just the small text intro???

P.M.A. (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any copyright violation is a breach of Wikipedia rules, as well as being illegal. If you had rewritten the intro in your own words it would have taken you only a minute or two, and the article would not have been deleted. Or you could have left the article without an intro and written it later. Please note that admins are deleting hundreds of articles each day for copyright reasons and it is not always possible to do a detailed examination of each one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry could you delete as well Talk:Kürt. I was commenting while you were deleting it seems. Thanks. --Mskyrider (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

why you reverted my edit?

you reverted my edit of "Canada" - why? you said it's too detailed for intro, but i just copied it from "New Zealand" - apparently it's not too detailed for that articles intro... what's up? --Topk (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already left you a message on your talk page. You can reply to me there - don't worry I will see it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Thanks for assisting with the Chris Jones (filmmaker) page the redirect was a nice touch. As a novice it may take me a little time to get the way of things around here. (User talk:Brokenarrowfilms) 19 Apr 2008

Glad to be of service. Let me know if you could use any more assistance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sole author deletion?

Hello DJ Clayworth, The Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico page was deleted upon the request of the supposed sole author. I remember contributing a substantial (by my accounts) portion of the information to the page. What exactly happened? Thanks 70.45.101.116 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can find no record of a page with that name, and no record of you contributing to such a page. If you contributed to it under a different username or IP address please let me know what it was and I can try to track it down. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to append the 'party'. The article's title was Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party. I couldn't tell you an IP because it could have been anywhere. I hope this helps. 70.45.101.116 (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did a little research and this is what I found. The article was created early this year and then deleted on 29th February because it was largely a copy of the party's official website. In March User:Niwrek94 created it again as a stub with nothing more than an infobox in; hardly anyone else contributed, and a few days later User:Niwrek94 blanked the page, an action which is usually taken as a request for deletion. At that time the records of the previous version would not have been available to most users and it would have looked as if User:Niwrek94 was (almost) the sole author. A speedy deletion tag was added and I deleted the article as a matter of course. As far as I can tell there was never a time when the article had substantial content that wasn't a copyright issue. There were no anonymous contributions, so if you did contribute it was under a username.

If you want to go ahead and recreate the article I would say feel free to do so. I don't think anyone will try to delete it. While technically recreated material can be deleted on sight this usually applies only to articles that have the same problems the old one had. I would suggest that you make sure the first version of the article is at least a couple of paragraphs in size, and that nothing in it is copied from anywhere - not even the party's own statements about itself. You can always rewrite their principles in your own words. If anybody tries to delete it, refer them to me. Have fun, and happy editing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I guess I had participated on the first version of the article. I'll see if I can salvage the parts that weren't copywritten and start anew. Thanks again. 70.45.100.251 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

I saw the article Con-Man's Law of Hunger and was looking closely over the possible csd reasons and it just didn't fit any. I decided to prod it as WP:MADEUP but you, by that time, had already deleted it as patent nonsense, which it patently wasn't. I see this on a regularly increasing basis by many admins. Is it time to add or refine a csd category? Perhaps. If so, that should be discussed fully not made up on spotting inappropriate articles. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't technically patent nonsense; WP:MADEUP isn't really a CSD category. I'm not sure what else it could have been, but it clearly doesn't deserve to be an article. That's the important point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, maybe csd needs to be refined then. Process is important. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with an additional CSD. I think if pushed I could make the argument that the above article is non-notable. We might have to ensure that concepts are included as well as people and organizations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I looked a long time at the notability clause and it explicitly includes only people, organizations, and web content. I suppose that is because those are the only real consensus specific notability guidelines. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe reverts

My Mugabe reverts were of anon blatant POV paragraphs, also deleted by other editors. I do not see the need to explain that on talk page. Bakersville (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do need to say that. In my opinion some of the things you put back were as bad if not worse than the things you removed. Let's take this to the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not 4rr, check my edits Bakersville (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits are: [2] [3] [4] [5]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate yor generous warning. Some of the reverts were obvious POV violations by an anon user. Once again please feel free to report me. I don't think I did anything on violation of wiki rules. But that's just my opinion, and if the admin watching the 4rr violations thinks I am at fault then I should be block. Thanks again for your notice. Bakersville (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe protection

Yes, I see the fight between two editors. I also see several incidents of outright vandalism by IPs in the last day or two. If you think the situation is under control I'd be happy to lift the protection. OTOH, your statement on the talk page about editors reverting each other makes me wonder if full protection would be better. What do you think of the situation? How can I help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Will Beback. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Sorry but I undid your action of reverting my edits on the Scotland page because the Scottish public put the First Minister before the Prime Minister. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

reply at User talk:Duckie for broadway. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

God Damn them ALL!

I was _old we'd c___se the seas for American go__ We'd fire no guns-shed no tea__ Now I'm a broken ___ on a Halifax pier The last of Ba____ Privateers.

Is this version ok? I don't think it's copy-written like this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.90.145 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be stupid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Eaturvegiesordie

What was the reason for deleting User:Eaturvegiesordie?

Your user page is for telling people about yourself, not for proselytizing or writing alternative versions of articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I never edited the page, so I do not understand why it would have alternate versions of articles. User:Eaturvegiesordie 16:43, 4 June 2008

I apologize, the page was actually created by another user. However it was inappropriate whoever's userpage it was and so was deleted. I'm presuming you don't want your userpage to be edited by someone else, so it would have been deleted whoever created it. You can create a new userpage for yourself by just editing it and it won't be deleted again - provided you use it for telling people about yourself as an editor and not anything inappropriate such as promotion of any person, organization or cause. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RAF Rheindahlen

I see you have a history of working on the article RAF Rheindahlen. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. Unfortunately most of my knowledge of Rheindalen is from personal knowledge (I lived there for a while) and not referenced. I'll try to find something out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MJ DR

DJ, I believe it's best at this time to hold off on pushing for removal of "all" in "all Jewish denominations" for now. Unfortunately even changing it to "all other Jewish denominations" is also a POV push. The statement is simply POV to begin with, and can not be fixed no matter how one tries to word it. If there was just one other Jewish denomination that considered us Jewish according to their standards, I think then we would have a more public case to request modification of this terminology. Until then, for the sake of the article's POV balance, this statement appears to be a necessary evil for now. I do not have the time to get into another dispute at the moment. inigmatus (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Inigmatus

You may be right. I've had this argument before, with different editors, over the same article, over a number of years. However I think it's important to make it clear to all the editors that the current wording is, in fact, non-neutral. This article seems to be something of a Wikipedia blind spot. There seems to be nowhere else where the view of the opponents of a group are taken as factual by Wikipedia. All sorts of groups are called "Christian", for example, despite being rejected as Christians by everybody outside the group. Sometimes just restating the argument a few more times causes people to eventually see the question from the other person's view point. That would be a win here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

102d IW

I too support your question on it. I moved it twice but there are people who insist that since the military names them like this, they should stay like that. I have seen many main web sites with the 'nd' after them so I think that they should probably be moved with the 'nd' after them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

UBF

Hello. You made a comment on the University Bible Fellowship talk page regarding neutral point of view. I agree that wiki is not in the business of writing "summaries of the darkside". Could you comment again or modify the University Bible Fellowship entry? Bkarcher (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I did. As far as I know I have never edited that page or it's talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems I did comment on the talk page a couple of months ago. I'll have a look. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bruno Giacometti

Hi. I've undone your speedy deletion of that article, because it was overwritten by non-English text about another person prior to your deletion. I've undone these changes.  Sandstein  20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry I didn't check the history better. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME!

Um, hi, could you not delete a page after the first 5 minutes of its creation? I am working on it. Thanks--Coffeegirlyme (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply at talk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

metallica12223

why if the script is being used by 2000 plus people than why is it not relivant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica12223 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Metallica12223 DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You stink you deleted the page "fudgemuffins" Because you said it has no meaning. I stqated sources but i don't know how to do it right.can you at least put it in the wiktionary as a stub formatted right? I think that is the right thing to do for a new member. reply at User talk:Cocoster

Reply at User talk:Cocoster. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Corliss P. Stone

CLAYWORTH YOU ARE DELETING TO MANY ENTRIES BEFORE READING THEM. CORLISS P. STONE WAS MAYOR OF SEATTLE (unsigned contribution by User:RichardBond)

The article was deleted because it was a copy of text that appears elsewhere on the web, and so a violation of copyright. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in the deletion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask your supervisor whether an article published in 1893 is still copyright protected. Boy do I feel tempted to make an appropriate but undiplomatic comment. Retrieve and repost th text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:RichardBond. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your move of Chelsy / Chelsey / Chelsea / Chelsee to Chelsea ...

... has left unfixed double redirects.

I would normally fix these, but as I was in the process of fixing the double redirects left unfixed by JosephJames6 from the move in the other direction, I've decided I don't want to get stuck in the middle of a potential debate on article naming.

So I will just limit myself to pointing out that it is good practice to check for double redirects after a move, as the move page suggests. Over to you. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there. I thought I had got to it quickly enough that there wouldn't be any redirects to the new place. I'm on it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Is there a recent historical version of Christianity which is reasonably ok? A ridiculously large number of people look at SchoolsWP:Christianity and it is a very old version from featured article days which I need to replace. --BozMo talk 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Your judgement is probably as good as mine. I'll try to have a look over the next day or so; I don't have time right now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Henk ten Cate Argument

With regards to using a profile page to communicate with someone. The only reason i replied to it was because i had been directly spoken too on there first. All i had done was mention that their was a question mark as to the validity of the official release with regard to Henk ten Cate moving to Greece. As i said, he is currently on holiday and has an interview scheduled with Blackburn Rovers football club for this coming week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo1984 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if someone writes comments in an article that you simply remove them from the article. If you have to reply do so on the talk page of the article or on the user's talk page. Thanks for your cooperation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler

He was Christian, or maybe he believed to be a Christian. His speeches proof this. --Esimal (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Esimal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

please don't

I wrote this... I hope this is not a sneaky way to get the information deleted. One first splits it off the article. Then they kill the new article. If so, very unethical. If there is ever a AFD, then this warning should be mentioned in the AFD. Presumptive (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Russert_tributes"

Then I saw you wrote a plan. Move the tributes to a different article then kill it by AFD in a few days. If you don't like it, discuss it, don't do it sneakily. Presumptive (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I didn't split the article off from the main one, and as you will see from the talk page I was against doing it. Secondly I haven't hidden anything - If I had secret plans I would have found a more secret place to discuss them than the talk page of the article. Thirdly the Tim Russert tributes article is, in my opinion, clearly ripe for deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. If you like we can start an AFD now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some obscure information needed on jumping out of planes

Good afternoon. I noticed from Talk:Parachuting that you have at least some knowledge of the subject, while I can't even tell parachuting from skydiving. I'm currently improving something that so very definitely belongs to WP:UNUSUAL, and need a reference on a detail, so may I ask you a stupid and somewhat obscene question regarding skydiving/parachuting culture? --Kizor 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually my knowledge of parachuting is very small. Most of the edits I made were in the nature of copyediting rather than fact checking. I would suggest trying another editor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you name an editor off-hand who might know where to look for referenceworthy information about sex in freefall? --Kizor 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No sorry. Can't help you there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I couldn't exactly expect an answer. --Kizor 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

help: you deleted an article i was planning on expanding.

i am new to wikipedia and can't understand why the articles i've created and the edits i've done are being deleted. worse, i can't seem to find how i contact the people responsible to plead my case.

please contact me directly rpopstar@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpopstar (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i added a nick drake album article

trying again, i have submitted a replacement article now titled Nick Drake (Self Titled). hopefully this one won't get deleted.

rusty Rpopstar (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute of Deletion of wikipage, Dr. Rashid A. Buttar

I would like to understand why we were deleted for "??advertising content??". Dr. Buttar is known by many around the world as the foremost authority on integrative medical treatments for chronic diseases (i.e. autism, cancer, heavy metal toxicity, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, etc.). While there may have been a link to Dr. Buttar's website on the wikipage, it was placed for informational purposes only. Please further explain to me what was done wrong on this page in detail as we do not want to make the same mistake twice (i.e. more independant references, fewer links, ?). Also, under thiomersal controversy there was a link removed regarding Dr. Buttar's son, Abie, as being the youngest person to ever testify in front of congress regarding the effects of thimerosol in childhood vaccines. This is a matter of congressional record and was directly related to the topic on the page; however it was deleted due to "irrelevant material". Please explain/clarify. I could be wrong but it seems to me that the user named Eubulides has his own agenda about the links between autism and mercury and is singling our information out for deletion. We will be reposting the info on both pages with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopew213 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article goes to extreme lengths to list the 'good qualities' of Dr Buttar without really indicating why he is more significant than other doctors. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability to see how notable someone has to be before they get an article here. The article reads like a resume submitted to a conference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Bray

I object to two of your recent changes to the article on me. Firt, I'm either "Tim Bray" or "Timothy William Bray" - "Tim William Bray" has never been used by anyone. I also object to the deletion of the link to Lark - it's no longer in common use, but it's historically important. Tim Bray (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the mistake in your name. I didn't notice, and I'll change it. I replaced the "Lark" link with a link to Textuality (which is where the Lark pages is held) and I presumed people would find lark there if they were interested. I'd be fine with you putting Lark back explicitly if you like. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a matter of principle I don't edit my own entry. I'd appreciate you or someone restoring Lark. Tim Bray (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

alternatingly

Well, apparently he is. News agencies have not made up their minds and frequently refer to him by those different spellings. Jabr Duwait is no more commonly found than the other variants. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The word "alternatingly" means that the first time he is mentioned he is called "Jabr", the second "Husam", the third "Jabr" again, the fourth "Husam" etc.. I'm open to other ways to describe the multiple statements about his name but "alternatingly" is wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then. I'm not a native speaker and didn't quite get the exact meaning of the word. I thought that it could also refer to the fact that in one source he is called this and in another his name is spelled differently etc. How about 'variantly'? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Variantly" is not a normal word in English. The way it is phrased now "also called..." says precisely what we mean. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Jean Baptiste Day naming dispute

• I've asked dissenting editors to acknowledge the Wikipedia naming conventions that emphasize that article titles should be the ones that are most recognizable to English-speakers[6]. If they do not, I think we should ask for a Request for comment as the next step in solving this dispute, as such a refusal could constitute bad faith. It will require at least two editors to start the process. Thank you. --soulscanner (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for keeping up with this article. I placed a note on the user's talk page here to point out your comment to him. The article is expanding but not improving (yet).  Frank  |  talk  14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring back Shaking Up Shakespeare

I'm angry that you got rid of "s-u-s." I was going to re-edit it to make it neutral so please bring it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyphoby (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Tobyphoby. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SomethingSmart...

...is still looking to have the block lifted early. Thoughts? –xenocidic (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

I would kindly ask that no one deletes Blue Collar Special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T4k (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:T4k. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Casino Royale

You're welcome.  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Everybody's Nuts Deletion

Hello DJ Clayworth I am a Brand Manager for the brand Everybody’s Nuts and I am contacting you because I was trying to create a Wikipedia page for my product. I understand that you have tagged and deleted my page because it has been perceived to be blatant advertising, but I wanted to ask you if you could please clarify for me what the reasons for this are.

I understand that Wikipedia is a place for users to have free information and not a place for advertising, but the purpose for my posting is not to advertise the product but for the general public to be able to learn about the product should they seek more information on it. To ensure that I was not encroaching on this concept I went ahead and looked up other products of both well-known brands and newer, niche market brands like Everybody’s Nuts. I was able to find many examples, such as Doritos, Nesquik, Fiji Water, Mr. Peanut, and more. By following the same format of providing information around the product, the brand origin, and the characteristics of the brand’s personality, I was trying to make the Everybody’s Nuts Wikipedia page as informative as possible without actually promoting the brand.

If your opinion is that the Everybody’s Nuts page was especially more commercial than these other brands, please let me know why and some specific examples from my post. I would be happy to adjust the content to make this as Wikipedia-user-friendly as possible.

Ckim06 (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at what you wrote compared with the articles you mention above will tell you the differences. If you are really the Brand Manager then you will understand the difference between promotion and fact, and to claim not to know it is disingenuous. Of course since you write "Stach is the Everybody's Nuts! "un-spokesperson" and does not promote pistachios. Rather, he adds a touch of fun nostalgia along with witty commentary on the every day life of a pistachio." then disingenuousness may be something you are used to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Hi! I've re-inserted a wikilink to Gas in Mesopotamia, as the latter article seems to be NPOV. Hope it's OK! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NothingTalk Deletion

That was really messed up!!! It was not blatant Advertising especially since i left not one link or piece of info as to where to get our goods. The page was made in tribute to my brother and band mate who died in 2006. You said we are not a notable band. To this day when i walk into a bar in NJ people remember my shows. To this day there are bands covering NothingTalk songs such as Ode to Frank, Tell it to the Children and Illegitimate love song. NothingTalk was a band that made an impact and was incredibly notable in the area with out and label support. I spent 3 hours putting together the wiki entry and i didn't even get a chance to read it because you auto deleted it.

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Wrong.

You should be ashamed of yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Revolved (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:The Revolved. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 2008 Oregon Ducks football team

I find it odd that you have picked my page of all of the pages out there to delete, as mine is not even the most detailed. In your speedy decision to attempt to delete the page you have overlooked the popularity of college football. Millions of individuals watch college football each saturday of the season. I am not sure if you are even aware of the popularity of college football, but there are hundreds of pages devoted to exactly what I have done. So if you are going to try and delete mine, either try with all or don't bother. Please just stick to what you know better and I won't try editing anything on star trek phasers or winston churchill. Aplaceicallhome (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Scot Brown

I added some references to Scot Brown. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scot Brown. --Eastmain (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the hint. I'm just getting used to using this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldleegraham (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of 2008 Oregon Ducks football team

Thank you for your concerns on the notability of 2008 Oregon Ducks football team. The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football welcomes discussions and collaboration on issues surrounding college football. You can read and discuss notability issues of college football at the College Football Notability essay.

The College Football project considers notability discussions of existing articles in the project a priority. While the project maintains in good faith that the article does indeed meet notability standards, we will begin additional work to improve the article in question through addressing specific concerns, providing more details, and supplying stronger sources as much as is appropriate. In return, we ask that you consider our essay on notability. If you feel an article needs a specific improvement, please feel free to make those changes yourself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Science in Canada stuff

He does actually have an account, I think he just forgets to log into it. He's a fairly swift editor so I have trouble keeping up ! :-) --Allemandtando (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I think the key thing is to get him to add references and an intor paragraph. I could see these being useful articles if they were worked on properly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will bite

Hello DJ, you mentioned on the Mormonism and Christianty page that you disagreed with the majority of what I said with the statement if one cared to ask on your talk page. The statement I made was as follows:

I would like to emphasize a point made by Mpschmittt above regarding being Christian. I have heard many accuse the LDS Church or individual Latter-day Saints of wanting "into the group" of Christian churches. Neuhaus' Catholic Matters was the most recent place where I read this, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what LDS are saying. LDS do believe in an apostasy and teach that as doctrine. However, the Church never teaches that other churches that teach of Jesus Christ is not Christian. The Church never denies truth regardless of where it may be found. The exact opposite is taught...to seek out truth. The Apostasy does not mean an absence of truth, but rather an impurity in teachings. Truth remains, but it is clouded by false teachings. We desire to be recognized as followers of Jesus Christ; nothing more and nothing less.

To be denied the label of Christian for members of the LDS Church is an effective tool by those who seek to denigrate the Church's teachings, but it is only a contrivance. One creates a definition of Christian that is restrictive and then presents it as if it were "the" definition. This is why the Church so often identifies this definition as being of the 4th century. Given the definition used against LDS to deny them their "Christian-ness", one must also deny all of the 1st century Christians for the same reasons. If one used the Bible's teachings of a follower of Christ, the first thing that falls away is all of the restrictiveness created by men to differentiate between who is a real Christian and who is not the same. It summary, LDS may say a church is in a state of apostasy, but you will never hear the Church state another is not Christian. Call us apostate, heretics, etc., but please do not deny our belief in the Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

I would be curious in knowing your thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You may think that "Christian" just means "follower of Jesus Christ", but the word has a lot of additional meaning associated with it, all associated with orthodox Christianity. If a group wanted to they could choose another word to describe themselves that meant the same thing: "Jesus-follower", "Jesusian".

To illustrate what I mean, I will happily agree to the word "Christian" being used to include Mormons if you will agree that the term "Latter-day saints" should include all Christians. After all, the term just means "saints" (which all Christians are, according to scripture) who live in the "latter day", i.e. now. So there should be no problem with other Christians calling themselves by that name. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

view welcome

Do you think Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1st_century is an inherently POV and provocative category we should get rid of? Many churches CLAIM continuity with the church in the 1st century (Orthodox, Anglican, Roman) and every single one of them will be a row (did the Roman Catholic Church exist prior to the Great Schism or was that the Church etc etc). --BozMo talk 15:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a problem here. While there is nothing wrong with the category as such, I do observe that none of the articles in that category has a referenced date of foundation in the first century. There is a big difference between claiming that an organisation can trace it's history back to the first century and claiming that an organization was established then. I think we need to find a place to discuss this, but I'm not sure where. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Or change the Cat name to claimed date. I also don't know where the conversation should take place. --BozMo talk 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Doctors Deleted

DJ, I have noticed you have recently deleted my two articles that are still a work in progress. You felt that there was not enough notability on my subjects, although I would greatly debate that. Both these subjects have been the Top 100 Doctors in the country for decades and have lead and directed the first group to EVER successfully transfer human embryos from a donor into an infertile recipient and achieve full-term pregnancy and birth. That is groundbreaking science and definitely encyclopedia worthy material. I understand my writing and references may still be inadequate as today I was beginning to assemble and post more references and information that I believe would strongly prove the nobility and innovation that both of these doctors have taken a part of in their remarkable careers. I have reviewed the Wikipedia: Notability section and have found that both these doctors should be remarked as notable as they encompass many of the standards that are marked as "notable". Thank you for your time and I please hope you take all of this into consideration. Initialdesign (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Contractions

Oh, okay. I was just following the MoS. Thanks for the advice, I'll stop doing it. RPlunk2853 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingle Jangle Rhombus deleted

on what grounds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaj6308 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting article I was editing

Hello! You just deleted a new article that I was attempting to save from speedy delete, on Uri Rubin. I didn't create the article, but I removed a speedy delete tag and was attempting to expand it. Please be advised that I will be reintroducing the article shortly. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you recreate the article make sure that you establish that the subject is notable - see Wikipedia:Notability for what we mean by this. If you do not it will probably be deleted again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already recreated a good number of articles that were previously deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have, but a random sampling of them shows that they were all very minor musicians. Please see WP:MUSIC for how notable a musician has to be to deserve an article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I've restored deleted articles on Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda), Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, David Zolotarev, Potting soil, Cupid's Mistake, Stephen Soldz, Dollis Hill Synagogue (twice deleted, no less), and Duty to God Award. All of these won Did You Know? honours, too. I never restored an article on "minor musicians."Ecoleetage (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who created the article. The reason I created the "Uri Rubin" page was because he has been mentioned and quoted in couple of articles like "Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf" and "Prophets of Islam" on Wikipedia. His publications have also been used as references. Plus his image is also in the Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Uri_Rubin.jpg . Seeing all this, I thought it would be a good idea as to present more information on Mr. Rubin and also on his research and articles. Thanks. (Darknight0x (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

If he satisifies the notability criteria then he should get an article. If not then I recommend removing the links from where he is talked about. Just because he is used as a reference elsewhere in Wikipedia doesn't necessarily make him notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes and the article will be back. And in future, DJ, please don't be so fast with the delete button -- the Speedy Delete tag was already removed by the time you showed up! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you're clear, we don't base a decision to delete solely on whether there is a tag there or not. The article clearly deserved deletion when I saw it. If you are looking to expand an article with a tag I recommend adding {{hangon}}. If you were about to do something like that then sorry, it was just bad timing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in future, if you are facing a subject area where you have no previous expertise, you may wish to run a quick Google search to confirm notability rather than just deleting it. If you had done that in this case, you would've seen your decision was wrong. I did run a Google search, fortunately, which is why I am opting to save the article. Prof. Rubin is the author of six books and one of the world's most prominent experts on Islamic history. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. The article has to contain information about why the subject is notable, otherwise it will be deleted. It's unworkable to do it any other way. But as I said, feel free to recreate the article complete with information about notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DJ, I did post the hang on tag on the article and was in the midst of writing my explanation as to why the article was notable. When I posted my response, I was informed that the article has been deleted by you. Also I was also writing up more on Mr. Rubin to expand the article just for your information. So in the future, please do not be so hasty in deleting the article. Thanks. :) (Darknight0x (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)).

Then I think you were simply the victim of bad timing. These things unfortunately happen sometimes. I have no problem with the article as it now stands. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh!!!

Dude!!!!!! stop deleting Blue Collar Special!!! The first time I can understand why you did it but I recreated it and you just deleted it before i was even done. Maybe instead of killing it every time you could help me make itT4k (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:T4k. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk vandals

They're all open proxies -- if any more come along, give them lengthy hardblocks. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You bet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)