User talk:Jonny-mt/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM WebSphere Business Events

Please reconsider your close of this discussion. Your rationale does not adress the significant improvements made to this new article during the discussion and the substantial number of editors who opined that the article should be kept. Your close therefore seems contrary to WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing - while I'm not bothered either way about the article itself, I really didn't think there was anything resembling a consensus to delete it at that AfD - three keeps and two deletes, all reasonably well-expressed, would at best be a "no consensus to delete" in my book. ~ mazca ^talk 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Thanks for the polite messages--I think this is the first time anyone's actually followed the procedure at WP:DRV and asked me to take a second look before listing it =D

When weighing consensus, I give particular weight to those arguments based on existing policy and practice per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. In this case, the two deletion comments (plus the nomination) cited WP:N/WP:CORP as their basis--while it's true that these are guidelines rather than policy, they are inclusion criteria that have been agreed on by the community. Of the three keep comments, I discounted the creator's comments totally because they gave no reason for keeping the article other than that they wanted the piece on Wikipedia. Of the remaining two, Warden's was the most compelling in that it advised against biting the newbies, but on the flipside of that you have the fact that the article was written under a conflict of interest in a manner not unlike an advertisement, weakening the basis for that argument.

The other keep comment simply pointed out that this product is sold by a major/notable corporation to major/notable customers--since notability is not inherited I largely discounted that opinion. Finally, the changes to the article were definitely to its benefit, but they don't seem to have been enough to address the underlying problem of notability that was raised by every commenter supporting deletion.

So I'll tell you what. If you want to continue working on the article, I'll be more than happy to userfy it to a location you specify (I usually make that offer in my closing statement on articles that could use it--don't know why I didn't do that here). If you'd rather have the article restored or the discussion relisted, though, then I'd prefer it go through WP:DRV. While I know that most deletion discussions are commented on in the first couple of days they're up, this discussion still ran for four days longer than the normally allotted time and had what I consider to be sufficient discussion for the purposes of determining consensus.

Let me know either way! --jonny-mt 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going into depth on the thinking behind it, I agree with your rationale. :-) ~ mazca ^talk 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• DRV is usually unsatisfactory as it so often turns into AFD#2. I am content to have the article userfied since it is a new product and so will be attracting more sources such as reviews which can be used to improve the article for resubmission. The diagram was the most important piece of content and was quite good work IMO so please save that too. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've userfied it to User:Colonel Warden/IBM WebSphere Business Events. The image was never deleted, although apparently it's up for deletion (simultaneously?) at IfD and PUI. Good luck! --jonny-mt 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at the image licensing - another matter which is difficult for a new editor to get right. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting a good education on the nuances over at Commons, but I think the key to this one is going to be determining the license status of clipart from Microsoft Word. The smart money says it's probably free.... --jonny-mt 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, question!

Hi hi, haven't seen you around my talk page in a bit, just popping in with a question and to see how you're doing. So I've got a comment on my talk page from some anonymous person, and I've got a hunch he's a sockpuppet. Who can I ask to do a check on that? Melesse (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Melesse!

I actually still keep an eye on your talk page, but truth be told you seem to be handling everything so well that I don't usually feel the need to comment :)

As far as your potential sockpuppet goes, you need to first see if you can't figure out who it belongs to. IP addresses tend to jump around, so if their behavior is similar to that of another IP then it might not be their fault. However, if their behavior is similar to that of another user, then you may or may not have an issue, depending on whether or not they're using the IP abusively (e.g. to get around WP:3RR, to present multiple comments in deletion discussions, to get around blocks and bans).

Still, it's generally best not to talk too much about this on-wiki, so if you'd send me an e-mail (or enable e-mail for yourself) then I'd be glad to help you figure it out there! --jonny-mt 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion in ancient Greece

Hi, you recently added an original research template to this article in this edit. I didn't see an explanation of the problems you see on the article's talk page; could you please explain where you see original research? It's hard to address problems if they aren't explained clearly. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that--I tagged the article while doing some other stuff and neglected to go back and explain myself. --jonny-mt 06:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack accusation

Excuse me, I wasn't aware that wikipedia policy meant that responding to an originating personal attack and impugning of honor by said attacker constituted an attack. You are blaming the victim here and might wish to actually look at what is going on. Thank you. Thamarih (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Thamarih (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at what's going on--your talk page is a virtual battlefield. More to the points, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is pretty simple: don't do it. Don't do it because you're upset or because you had a bad day. Don't do it because your opinion is not being implemented or because you feel your contributions are being slighted. Don't do it because they did it to you. There is no excuse.

More to the point, you seem to be approaching Wikipedia the wrong way. This is not the place to defend your honor or fight for The Truth. This is not a place to right wrongs or start fights. This is a place where like-minded people come together with the goal of compiling and distributing a free encyclopedia. You can disagree with things in the project and work to change them, you can present one idea after another only to see them shot down, you can be bold and get reverted and still be a valuable contributor, but when you cross the line into tendentious editing and personal attacks on other editors, it's time to rethink your approach.

Wikipedia is Existentialism at its finest. There is no honor or betrayal, no absolute Right or absolute Wrong. The sooner you stop thinking in these black and white terms of tit-for-tat and start focusing on content rather than on editors, the happier and more productive you'll be. --jonny-mt 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that didn't stop him.

This on Talk:Ayahuasca "Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, and we are happy to stand by this assertion in any context." and "It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law."

I have no interest in Amazonian hallucinogens, but I have had had to deal with this guy elsewhere so I followed his contibs to see what damage he was capable of elsewhere. Apparently a lot.

Thanks for your attention. Do I need to open another incident report? This is a complete waste of time. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI...I would like to point out that this user appears to be SecretChiefs3 (talk · contribs) who was connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal‎. From examining the backstory, my guess is that all of the accounts are being operated by Mr. Azal. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the gist. Thank you for your follow-through. Having been on the receiving end of this guy's venom for nearly the past year has been trying.

Notice how the dormant User:Ahwa85 mysteriously joined the conversation exactly in step? I've finally gone the checkuser route on the whole suite of sockpuppets. Cheers, and thanks again. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a very thorough report! To be honest, though, I actually went as far as typing one up for Thamarih and Ahwa85 but decided not to submit it in the end. While I was tempted to go ahead based on the incredibly fast timing, the fact is that Ahwa's command of the English language is significantly better than Thamarih's--so much so that I would be surprised if they are the same person. Although I do have suspicions that Ahwa85 and SecretChiefs3 are linked based on their editing patterns, the fact that the contributions of the latter are so old means that checkuser may not have any useful data to link them.

Still, I think that at the very least we'll be able to clear out one or two of the accounts listed in your report, and as I mentioned I'll be keeping an eye out on the future. Thanks for keeping your cool through all of this! --jonny-mt 00:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

unanswered message regarding a speedy deletion

hi, I hope you are well.

I was wondering if you've had the time to review my query in regards to an addition of recent FX market data i'd added to a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erica_j).

It really doesn't concern me too much if it's not there but to be honest I think the information that's currently listed is outdated and misleading, which is why I'd added current data.

Thank you kindly Erica j (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

and for the questions :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure--enjoy all those shiny buttons! --jonny-mt 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From CarnMeynen

Hi Mate

You are correct with the typo, and I did notice it and corrected it. And I am very surprised that you or anybody else is entitled to edit my own page, which I believe is the place that I can make my grievances about the way people are treating me regarding my civil and respectful way I try to debate with the subject in question.

No one actually is making any attempt to explain to me why they think my responses are in their eyes wrong or whatever. All that is happening, is I am being slandered by all of them. It is THEY who are using hate speech, and don't worry about excuses, I get it all the time everywhere.

I would like to know what parts of my page you have edited or removed, and WHY you consider them hate speech.

And I would dearly know now to make my own page, which I believe is my domain and the place for me to resort to when I am being made increasingly unnecessarily unwelcome, read only to those I choose to be not friends, or anybody I am confident will not attempt to sabotage my writings.

Andrew Sprott —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarnMeynen (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

Let me correct you on a few things. First, your userpage is not your own, and you can read more about what is and isn't acceptable at the policy on userpages. Generally speaking, userpages are meant to be a sort of jumping-off point for collaboration with other editors--many editors (myself included) put up a little information about themselves and links to tools that they find useful. While, say, completely redesigning another user's userpage without their permission is generally frowned upon, making small-scale changes, reverting WP:VANDALISM, and correcting any major issues or policy violations is perfectly allowed (for an example of both the good and bad effects of this, see the history of User:Jimbo Wales's userpage).

In your case, I removed your claim that "queers are sinners", as this qualifies as "inflammatory content" which is prohibited by the link provided above--I consider this inflammatory because you are making a blanket claim about an entire group of people. I noticed that you have since restored the content; I will remove it once more, and any further reversal of this action will result in the loss of your userpage (which is already being used as a soapbox).

In the same vein, you cannot have a "private" area of Wikipedia to use as your haven. Wikipedia is not Facebook, and all content here is visible to the real world--anything that has not been deleted can be read by anyone with a web browser.

Finally, I urge you again to go through the message I left on your talk page about behaving in a civil, collaborative manner. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. --jonny-mt 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downsizing masculinity

We were just talking about another matter but please could take a look at this AFD which seems odd. The article does not seem especially tendentious and has reasonable sources but we have a flurry of knee-jerk Delete !votes. Since these opponents don't address the article's actual content their obdurate position seems fishy - perhaps they are sock or meat-puppets? Your independent review might help clarify what's going on here. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm always happy to take a look!

All the participating editors seem to be independent, good-faith contributors, although naturally they tend to focus a bit on deletion discussions. I think the thrust of the "original research" argument is best explained about halfway down the discussion by User:YrPolishUncle--the calls for deletion (although not particularly well-explained) seem to be based on a lack of clarity as to where the article content is coming from and related concerns that the uncited stuff is either original research or a form of synthesis. I think the most effective way to address this issue and possibly bring about a WP:HEY save would be to provide more inline citations to show where exactly the claims came from (although a rewrite to make it a bit more encyclopedic wouldn't hurt, either). As a bonus, doing so would also address the verifiability requirement for "claims that are challenged or might be challenged".

At any rate, I think the reason so many commentors left out more robust explanations as to why they feel the article is "original research" is simply because many of them feel it to be self-evident. I recently learned through a discussion on Greek religion that it is surprisingly easy to fall into this way of thinking.

Personally-speaking, provided that the multiple sources available back up the claims of the article I think WP:SYN is of less concern than WP:NEO--that is, it's not clear to me why this content is more appropriate under this name than, say, the article on masculinity. I'll take a look at the available sources later and add my comments to the discussion--in the meantime, I hope this was helpful! --jonny-mt 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm trying to palm this guy off onto you as the deleting admin. I think he has me muddled up over the talkpage deletion, and I'm pretty certain he hasn't read/understood any of the notability guidelines. Best of luck Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all--I'm not sure that I'll be of any help, but I'll do what I can (which, in this case, includes salting the talk page....) --jonny-mt 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'd have done that after one more recreation as well! Cheers, mate. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What I said was you are being subjective about notability while being uninformed. The population of the Caribbean Basin is as large as Britain. They consider their Food sector important. Disney did not make a movie about my fathers livestock breeds but individual animals are both more nmerous and growing faster than are Morgan Horses. Likewise if you inquire of ornithologists how many get Cooper Fellowships you will find that it is something someone else has to die for anyone new to get in. Ask a Falconer if my fathers population study and restoration plan was unimportant. What I said was you are being subjective about notability while you are uninformed. RichardBond (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I am just going to wait for a few days so that you can do fact checking. There are other subjects I am interested in RichardBond (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's just impressive timing, because I was definitely just writing you a response....

I think you're misunderstanding a couple of things. First, I did not delete the article because I personally felt the subject was non-notable--rather, I gauged the consensus of the discussion participants and decided that they had come to a consensus to delete the article.

Second, you seem to be misunderstanding the concept of notability on Wikipedia. In order to eliminate as much subjectivity from the process as possible, Wikipedia describes notability as the state of having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is, the scale of you father's accomplishments (which, from what I understand, are sizeable) are measured not by our individual perceptions of them but rather by the perceptions of those who write the newspaper articles and biographies that will eventually become the history of the time. The community elected to put the responsibility on them because, unlike us, they are professionals whose work is governed by editorial oversight.

On that note, I have tagged the article on the Caribbean Food Crops Society with a template that should provide you with some guidance on establishing its notability. Please feel free to take your time working on it, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. --jonny-mt 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to get someone currently active in it to work on Caribbean Food Crop Society. Also read the first post on this Google search regarding Richard Marshall Bond

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22richard+m+bond%22+griffee&btnG=Search RichardBond (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodnight Bush DYK

On 26 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goodnight Bush, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thank you kindly :) --jonny-mt 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Thamirih

Hello Jonny-mt, I noticed that you blocked User:Thamirih indefinitely for personal attacks. It seems that he has a sockpuppet User:Ahwa85 which has started editing in the same fashion on Subh-i-Azal (and now notice as well as on Ayahuasca‎). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Jeff. To be honest, there's actually an RFCU on this, but so far nothing's come back. For the time being, though, I'm keeping an eye on it :) --jonny-mt 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific order in which checkusers are done. It seems it's been listed for a while with no admin looking it up. Given the recent edits in quick succession by User:Mistsister303, User:SecretChiefs3, and User:Ahwa85, it seems like the issue is expanding. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on SecretChiefs--their contributions show them to be an obvious sock (or rather an obvious puppeteer) of User:Thamarih, and so I've blocked them indefinitely. In other news, you've got mail! --jonny-mt 04:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. My account Mistsister303 (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) has been blocked as I have been accused of being a sockpuppet for Tamirih. Why is this the case? My name is Sam Burch, and I am a member of the Fatimiya Sufi Order. I have previously presented a paper at an academic conference publicly stating this affiliation. Mistsister303 (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of this and following up with the RFCU data in-hand. This should be of great help and ease the burden on a lot of editors who've had to deal with this. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries--I'm just glad I could be of some help :) --jonny-mt 06:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly not making it easy, is he?

• User talk:YaAli110
• User talk:TheAuthenticSkeptic

There's also more of his PAs on Talk:Juan Cole where, in what really looks like wikistalking, he carried the same BS there. (1) I tried to remove these, and he's restored them repeatedly. (2) Can I ask for the these Thamarih edits to be removed? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's been surprisingly easy to catch those socks--I think the longest it's taken so far has been an hour and a half between account creation and blocking >.<

As for removing the edits, I'll leave the question of whether or not to leave them be up to you. From my perspective, they're little more than hot air from a serial puppeteer that have been (and will continue to be) ignored by the good-faith editors involved with the article as well as the independent admins who have taken action on this case (see User talk:Sunchief for the most recent example). If they bothers you, though, you can remove it in line with the guidelines on talk pages as you have been, but I think you're also aware that removing these comments has sparked more abuse in the past. If you'd rather have someone else take a look at and possibly remove these comments, you might try asking at editor assistance. --jonny-mt 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good resource. Grazie. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonnny, I saw that you updated the tags on User:Thamareh to point to SecretChiefs3. Should the tags for User:Ahwa85 and User:Mistsister303 also be updated? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the notice. I've gone ahead and updated both of the tags, but based on the radically different styles of writing (i.e. their ability to use proper English), I actually consider Ahwa to be a separate individual. Were they a one-shot account that came on and argued Thamarih's position I would have gone ahead and blocked them, but seeing as how they've got a fairly long contribution history I'm hoping against hope that this was a one-time misstep and they'll actually wind up being a productive editor. So they're still unblocked, but they're also on a very short leash.... --jonny-mt 11:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA poll

See User:Bearian/RfaPoll. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Deletion of Art. Hindu Literature: Restoration thereof:

Hello, Jonny, This is in connection to your fast deletion of the article Hindu Literature and merging of a part of it into Hindu texts. I have restored the original article with an intention to create a new article so that it satisfies all of the requirements as necessitated by Wiki Policies, which have been also mentioned by you. Hope u have patience to bear with that process. You may watch that page for a week or so, and help to creatively contribute to the content.
P.S. I strongly disagree with the so-called majoritarian/consensual view that Hindu Literature can ever be a part of Hindu texts! I invite all to an open debate. Requesting you to go by the substance and not merely the form. Thank You. Cheers.--Vamanavataram (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vamanavataram,

Thank you for the message. While I appreciate that you would like to expand this article, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Literature was that the content be merged. I have therefore reverted your restoration of the article; if you disagree with my reading of the consensus in the discussion, I'd like to ask that you file a request for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review before restoring the article again.

Sorry for the hassle, but I just would prefer to make sure we're following consensus. Thanks! --jonny-mt 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the heads up. appreciate it. :) Etan (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries--it didn't seem to me like you were doing it to be disruptive or anything, but multiple discussions so soon rarely end well. Hell, I've been accused of making nominations in bad faith over a year after the most recent nomination :P --jonny-mt 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair exchange is no robbery - have some cookies

		Cookies!
		I found your CSD page and liked it so much I nicked it - User:Nancy/Why? - it says it all so much better than I could have done. Thanks nancy (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008

Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with merge

Ack. I just discovered two things:

1. Someone just created the new article Laulau, a duplicate of the already existing Lau lau Here's where things get weird. Bear with me.
2. Lau lau needs to be moved to the correct name, Laulau, but the current article, Laulau, is a duplicate of Lau lau. Does that make sense? In other words, the new article (Laulau) needs to be deleted in order to move the old article (Lau lau) to the correct name (Laulau). Heh.

The original author only has one contribution:[1] They probably didn't know how to use the move feature, so they just created a new article. But to preserve the history of the original article, the new article should be deleted and the old article moved to the new name. After all, the new article doesn't contain any additional content, except for external links. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Wow, that was kind of fortunate--the two histories were in exact chronological order with no overlap, which meant that it was pretty easy to just merge them similar to what I did on Hawaiian religion. The old version is shown now, but the newer version (which had a few changes from Mattisse and yourself that needed to be preserved) is still in the page history with no intervening edits, which means that any swap between the two/material sourced from both should be sufficiently obvious to satisfy the GFDL.

If only all admin stuff was this easy :P --jonny-mt 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonny! :) Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ParentLocker

ParentLocker is currently listed in AfD. When you declined the speedy and reverted it back you removed the AfD message. I have reverted the article to the most recent revision (and removed the speedy tag). ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ach! Thanks for the catch--if you need me, I'll be over at WP:TROUT. --jonny-mt 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi, Thanks for your input on the article I created. I tried editing it to improve its quality, but now someone else tagged it for speedy deletion as well as normal deletion. What can be done to improve the article? The website has only been around since the beginning of the year, I cannot find much more data on it other than the information I posted.Twisdom2008 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sugar in the Raw

Currently a redirect, I just noticed that the article was deleted on June 28 by Pschemp as "G11: Blatant advertising". [2] Since this is one of the most notable exports of Hawaii, I was wondering if you could look into the deletion, determine if it was justified, and whether there is any salvageable content. Could you also look at the deleted talk page and see if there were any comments? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the deleted version, and I have to say that G11 deletion isn't justified here. It seems that the deletion was done on sight rather than as a response to someone tagging the article (which is perfectly permissible under WP:CSD), but the body of the article consisted entirely of the following two sentences when it was deleted:

Sugar in the Raw is a sugar product manufactured in Hawaii, United States, specializing in turbinado sugar. It is produced and marketed by Cumberland Packing Corporation.

I suspect that the deleting admin fudged the line a little bit to get around the limits of WP:CSD#A7, which doesn't allow the deletion of non-notable products. There's nothing stopping you from creating a brand-new article, but it might be better to get this one restored, since there are some GFDL-significant edits. Feel free to leave a note on User:Pschemp's talk page if you're interested, or I'd be happy to do it for you (unless you want it userfied, in which case I can do that straight away). --jonny-mt 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Question: if you userfied it for me, could you also preserve the edit history? That way, once I expand it, I can restore it with a simple page move. Or, is that not possible? If it is, please do it. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've userfied it to User:Viriditas/Sugar in the Raw; just let me know if you have trouble moving it back when you're done! --jonny-mt 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another suckpuppet

Hey Johnny-mt, Here's another sockpuppet (User:MargBarBahaim). Maybe it's best to sprotect the pages in question (Subh-i-Azal, Ayahusca). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I hadn't checked my watchlist yet :) Semi-protection is actually used as a last resort when blocking is unfeasible due to the number of new accounts/IPs involved in an article. Since that's not the case here, I think we're all right to leave the articles unprotected, although I'll add the other two they edited to my watchlist. --jonny-mt 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To-do list for Hawaiian religion

I'm going to start a to-do list on Talk:Hawaiian religion so we can distribute the tasks and get this to GA before the end of the month. Please add tasks as needed. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me--I'll get on that (and the items above) a little later this week, once my wikibreak is over :) --jonny-mt 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ayahuasca page

Thank you Jonny-mt. And perhaps we can all think about taking just a little more ayahuasca, please, and then try to work and play well together here and in other places, and especially try to get past the near constant and distracting bickering and phobias of who's group may be a bonafide ayahuasca religion and who's group may not?(212.149.206.150 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

(I was not able to post this comment on the ayahuasca edit page)

jcc (Noticed that you lived in Baton Rouge for a while. I spent the first five years of my life in Carville. Thanks again for your good work!)

Allegations... unprot

Hi Jonny. Do you think it's time to unprotect Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States? The Giovanni33 case has finally closed. With G33 and existing proxies blocked, we should have peace until and if new proxies show up; and if so, the case's remedies should make it easier to get those blocked. - Merzbow (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads-up! --jonny-mt 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugging you about a link

Hola, and I hope that you're only reading this when you've been in the real world for long enough to recuperate. In your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Pandas (which was impressively done, by the way), you mentioned that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. I agree, and would have use for an essay or a guideline about that, so what I want to ask is: Are you sure that you meant to link those words to Wikipedia:WikiProject Charlotte? --Kizor 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's embarrassing. I think it was the "categories, lists, and navigational templates" that caused me to link to WP:CLT rather than WP:CLS. I've fixed it, though--thanks for the heads-up (and the compliment)! --jonny-mt 03:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scamdex

You removed my completely valid links on the basis of spam. I never tried to hide my affiliation, unlike others - I am a well-known source for my subject 'internet, especially email scams'. I put my edits in a few, very specific areas and I challenge your assertion that that is spamming

but of course I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scamdex (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you want Hu12 (talk · contribs). --jonny-mt 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)