User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 3

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

• 1
• 2
• Archive 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Citizen Fish

Hi, I noticed you'd tagged Citizen Fish for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). It seems to me that their discography alone, as listed in the article, would be sufficient to constitute at least some evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. I've accordingly listed the article on AfD to solicit further opinions on the matter. Please feel welcome to express your opinion there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PROD candidates

You may find a large number of appropriate PROD candidates among those I listed in a post on the COI notice board. [1] OccamzRazor (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello, UnitedStatesian ... I have a couple of qustions:

1. I would like to add {{Oldprodfull}} to the very end of the table at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion#Deletion tools, but I'm reluctant to be that bold ... any suggestions?
2. Do you think that my Flag templates for deletion warnings (like WP:FLAG-BIO and WP:FLAG-BAND) are ready to be moved into project space as "legitimate" WP:FLAG-xyz shortcuts?
3. Do you have any comments on {{Flag-editor}}? (I noticed its discussion page is empty. :-)

BTW, I'm contacting you because you edited Template:Oldprodfull/doc a few weeks ago ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)}

Speedy deletion of Travel website

A tag has been placed on Travel website requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your vote for Travel Website was keep and improve. It was kept, yes, but can we say it improved? What the record now shows is that it is a dictionary entry, followed by link-list-bait, followed by OR on on the difference between travel websites and travelogues. How does one re-nominate this for deletion?KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What a Whopper

Can you please write a plot summary of this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen this movie, and would not know where to start. All I know is that it had a bad category, which I removed. Good luck finding someone else. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmony Concepts

I'm not able to give reference ... but I'm surprised of your demand, because there is a lot articles which refer to this one ...--81.80.239.162 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not any more: all of the WLs to this deleted article have been removed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

I see that you recently moved Venator to Venator (disambiguation), with the comment that this would "free up Venator to be its own article"; and you marked Venator with {{R with possibilities}}. The question is, on what topic would a new article be written? I am leaving these two pages alone pending enlightenment from you. --Russ (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be the U.S. company Venator, which was the successor to F. W. Woolworth Company (a company in the Dow Jones industrial average) and the predecessor to Foot Locker, a major U.S. retailer. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that there is anything meaningful to say about Venator Group, Inc. that is not already said in the Woolworth's and Foot Locker articles. I've changed the link on the disambig page for clarity, but my suggestion would be to move the disambig page back to the title Venator. --Russ (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with your doing that. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Love Family

See also Steve Allen for son Brian Allen, a.k.a. Logic Israel

Why did you remove this as a "bad see also"? The link works. Milo 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The target article makes no mention that Brian Allen is Logic Israel, or has anything to do with Love Family. Accordingly, the unsourced see also staement violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Business (disambiguation)

Apparently a certain user has an odd notion of what should be on a disambiguation page; I've tried to restore business (disambiguation) to an appropriate format, but you may want to keep an eye on it for further revisions. --Russ (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! I clarified my note on that user's talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Cuito Cuanavale

Dear Estadounidenseano: I appreciate your contribution to the Battle of CC article. About length. The article on the Second Battle of El Alamein is much longer. I am thinkin g of adding the same amount of tactical detail to the batlle of CC artile as one sees in the Second Battle of El Alamein article. Now, I would oppose adding more details about the Battle of Mavinga to this article, although I am worried that that might happen. My reason for opposing the merge from Cubans in Angola is that that topic is more vast and extended, and is inappropriate for a focused article on one battle. I would appreciate your thoughts, and those of others, as to the style of adding more tactical details, along the same lines as the ones I just added, that you perhaps already notice. About twice as long again as those ones. This article is very controversial indeed, as you will see if you look at the archived portion of the talk page.130.15.101.140 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way

I was serious -- I appreciate the compliment. I didn't mean to follow that up by disagreeing with your point and then reverting your comment. Just to explain, I think you might have been thinking about "secondary buyouts" --> sales of a company from one PE shop to another. secondaries are sales of PE fund interest from one LP to another. Buyouts are far and away the largest component of the PE market so I put it back up front. If you have any interest in working on PE, I could really use the help. It has been lonely work thus far.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to invite you to become an inaugural member of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. I think this might be a good fit and your contributions would be welcome. This is intended as an inter-project task force to focus on private equity concepts, firms and investors. If you are interested, please visit the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force project page.

Also, please feel free to add the following banner to your user page:

{{Userbox/privateequitytaskforce}}

I look forward to working together, if you are interested. Let me know if you have any questions.

|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 03:13, 22 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 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Guideline list

Hi UnitedStatesian. The guideline list template is used on a great deal of pages, and recently, such templates have been frequently vandalised with various obscene images. High use templates such as this one have therefore been protected to preemptively stop this happening.

You can request changes on the template's talk page via {{editprotected}}, or let me know what the changes are and I'll make them for you. If they are very complex, it may be worth you copying the code to a subpage of your userspace, making the changes, and asking for the new code to replace the old. Neıl 龱 11:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Alliance Capital Management Holdings

In that case, you should have specified your reasons at the edit summary, to avoid any misunderstanding. I didn't know the category was not suitable for the article. I have no doubts that your edits were in good faith, but the user warnings are the best way to warn other editors. Actually, one of the first sentences of the warning says: "It might not have been your intention [...]". It shows that I'm almost sure that you didn't do it in bad faith. Forgive me for any offence you might have taken. Victor Lopes (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I'd just like to let you know that I archived my talk page before you answered me. If you still have anything to say, please start a new discussion on my current talk page. Thank you, Victor Lopes (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the MindVisualizer entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mind_mapping_software

Hello,

I found the entry about MindVisualizer on [this page] was deleted by you, could you advise what's wrong with it? MindVisualizer is a commercial mind mapping software which has been existing in the market for over one year.

Edwin Yip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindv (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, here.

Hello I responded your message here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindv (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

==I think a significant article about MindVisualizer has been added, although it's created by its written developer but I think the developer is the best one to tell its technical basis?

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎#User Mindv. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading‎

Hi UnitedStatesian. You tagged this article for proposed deletion; as it had already survived an AFD, it is not eligible for PROD. Nevertheless, I have added some references to the article. Neıl 龱 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The merge proposal around Visualization

Hi, I just restored the Merge proposal, see Talk:Visualization. If you have an opinion about this merge proposal, please add your comments at the Talk:Visualization, where this merge proposal is discusted. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Hey JC: I saw you move Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which is great, but I was surprised you didn't fix any of the double redirects that resulted. Also, the related essay is still entitled Wikipedia:Navigational templates; should that be moved (over redirect) as well? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

I was under the (?mis-)understanding that there is a bot the fixes double redirects automatically.

That said, I'll check into it (and the essay) after I finish with my talk page/watchlist, and "catch-up".

Thanks again for the heads-up : ) - jc37 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Roberts Investments Group/Andrew Roberts/Stefan Roberts

I'm preparing to take this lot to AfD. It's a more elaborately prepared hoax than most - I'm having to do a lot of searching. I'll let you know when they're up. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD is up here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kershaw Knives

Kershaw Knives is one of the largest cutlery companies in the US. I have begun rewriting and referencing this article. I removed the Prod template.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Move List of Notable Haitians

If that's how you feel then you move it!--Ron John (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Hey man, I saw you tweaked my wording, which is fine, but I am having a grammar problem.

Your text: A links to an essay, therefore, should not imply that it represents an official policy or guideline.

The plural (links) is just a typo I assume, but can a link imply something? Or is it the person doing the linking?

Is my wording too strong for you? (Essays, therefore, should not be linked as if representing an official policy, guideline or similar.) Either way, and not be a stentorian grammaticaster, but I think use of the passive voice will lead to more concise and accurate language. Alternatively:

Editors, therefore, should not link to essays in a way that implies they are official policy, etc....

Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My main confusion is around what the real problem here is: the old language, and your proposal, both could be read as implying that ANY link to an essay is problematic. I still haven't seen, despite asking on the policy talk page, any specific example of the problem you are trying to solve with this change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The current wording is good. Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

essays and non essays linked from policy and process pages

US, I'm a bit concerned over the removing of essay tags from essays, or allowing writings at WP which are user opinions but not tagged as such. I don't want to get into a pissing contest in someone's user space, but I don't see linking to users space articles which aren't defined as opinion pieces (essays), as a good practice. There are a lot of shenanigans being pulled around the tagging of failed proposals including just saying, "OK it's not a process but we don't want a disclaimer on it, so we'll create a custom tag or leave it untagged. Some issues are innocuous on their own, but create bad precedent. It seems that no loophole goes unnoticed and un-abused at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood, KM, makes sense. I see you re-removed the link, which is great.UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you understanding. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

deprod of Dark of the Moon

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dark of the Moon: Poems of Fantasy and the Macabre, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I think the sources listed satisfy the first criteria of WP:NB. All of the sources go beyond bibliographic details. The Joshi book, especially, speaks to the importance of the anthology describing it as "A pioneering and well-nigh definitive anthology of weird poetry".--Rtrace (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio UserLand

I was able to find some useful references for Radio UserLand using http://news.google.com/ , so I added them to the article and removed the prod you added. In many cases, an unreferenced article can be tuned into one with several good references by making a quick check for references at http://news.google.com/ --Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

US, you are probably right that it shouldn't be at the template for long, but maybe it could do some good if it can stay up there for a day or so, enough to stir some thoughts. I don't think that the project will suffer too badly in the process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it has been pulled once; I would just suggest not re-adding it a second time if it is pulled a second time (and I won't do it). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. You were right the first time, and I was greedy with the perpetuation of my humor. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Imao

In [2] you refer to WP:STYLE but I don't think the edit is in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links (I agree the blog entry needed work). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored 3 non-piped blue links. How does that look? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I made a couple of changes and removed {{prod}}.[3] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping says "If the link is in the description instead of the subject, you may use piping in that link." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good change. I am going to take it to AfD, because I still beleieve that if there are NO main articles it should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. A search [4] on imao shows several articles with different meaning, including some existing redlinks to people and a place called Imao. I haven't examined whether they are potentially notable for an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

S&P 500

Noticed your revert. It's an unsourced, unreliable external link in the content of an article. S&P 500 is prone to a buildup of external links, hence my referencing WP:NOT#LINK. But, by no means is that the only reason the link should be removed. I count at least number one and number eleven at WP:LINKSTOAVOID.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that. Number one in WP:LINKSTOAVOID is completely hypothetical, and what is your evidence the site is a blog or personal webpage, and so vios number 11? I also note the link has been there since at least last October. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"But these links have been here for a long time" is not reason to keep the link. It's been there for a long time because it was placed in the body of the article, rather than under "External links" where it should have been (unless it was intended to be an inline source, but it fails WP:RS, so it can't be a source). If you have a concern that number one at WP:ELNO is hypothetical, you should address your concern there, but I believe it is an important part of the policy. As for the link, it appears to have been created by an employee of a small technology consulting company who apparently is not an expert in finance or on the S&P 500, and who does not cite any sources for their content. It fails WP:ELNO, it fails WP:RS, and it needs to be removed.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are literally millions of external links in WP that, though neither references nor qualifying as reliable sources, are not grouped in the External Links section at the bottom; on what do you base your assertion that these in-line EL's should be removed? Also, I think the source has a chronology section that WOULD NOT be a part of the S&P 500 article were it to become a FA, so it actually does meet #1 in WP:LINKSTOAVOID. What guideline or poilcy are you going to pick next as your reason? (you've been through WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:RS). UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reread number one at WP:ELNO. You just made the point for its removal yourself.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a typo. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, even without your making the point yourself, the fact remains that the link is not and should not be a "source," the majority if not all of its sourceable content would be included in a featured article, and combined with the unreliability of the link, it should be removed.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no convincing you, or stopping you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of, exactly. The link fails WP:ELYES. It might have qualified under number three, but it isn't verified or reliable. The link fails WP:ELMAYBE. It might have qualified under number four, except for the fact that its authors have no reliably recognized knowledge in the subject area. The only criteria it does meet on WP:EL is under WP:ELNO, number one. Am I missing something here? As best I can tell, you're advocating for the keep of an unverified, unreliable, unsourced, external link masquerading inline as a source with little or no remarkable content that would not be included in the article itself were it a featured article. If you're going to try to convince me there's some reason to keep it, it's going to take more than "it's been here a long time," "every other article has inline external links," and "I don't agree with WP:ELNO number one."   user:j    (aka justen)   04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think is meets all three of the reasons in the intro. to WP:EL. It is:

• "further research that is accurate and on-topic;"
• "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail;" and it is
• "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

WP:ELMAYBE is only giving examples of links that meet these general reasons. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its "accuracy" is unreliable and unverified and its sources are uncited, thus your argument fails WP:ELYES. It also fails under number one at WP:ELNO. Again, am I missing something here?   user:j    (aka justen)   04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not link to external sites inline. Cases where we do simply haven't been picked up on yet.Geni 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to List of science fiction conventions

I fail to see the logic in several of your edits to List of science fiction conventions. By removing redirects you distort the listing such that the name of the sponsoring organization is shown rather than the name of the event (convention) they sponsor. Since this is a list of conventions, not of organizations, at least some of your edits seem misleading. Thoughts? Mikek999 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to leave any non-convention links; thanks for pointing that out to me. I have removed the one that I saw off the bat and will take another scan through to see if there are any other ones. Thanks again. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You mistake my point. First you removed the redirect to the convention (Boskone is the convention, the NESFA is the sponsoring organization) then use that as a reason to remove NESFA. In making these two edits you have removed one of the major conventions in the US (Boskone) from the list. Just because you don't like redirects? What is your logic? Try taking a look at the New England Science Fiction Association page if you don't get the distinction between the organization and the event. Full disclosure -- I am not associated with NESFA or with Boskone; in fact I've never been to one. Mikek999 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now; sometimes I am a little thick. How about the latest version? (and thanks again) UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for Boskone. I am not familiar enough with any of the other listed conventions (or at least purported conventions) affected by your original edit -- FaerieCon, etc. -- to personally address the correctness of those edits. For me I consider this a satisfactory conclusion, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other changes in that bunch are questioned or reverted by other editors. Mikek999 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I question the deletion of ConQuesT from the list. It is a longstanding convention - 40 years. --Astein142 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, AS142: the link was red when I did the deletion; that's why I encourage editors to write the article first. User:Orangemike put it back. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on an entry now. My first. May take a while to round up the documentation.--Astein142 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Private equity

Noticed your recent addition to the list. Looks like an interesting company. Is it structured as a Business Development Company? Anyway, we can always use more help and would love to have you participate actively in the task force. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a BDC. It is a holdover from the dot com days; most similar to CMGI, and interesting because it too is publicly traded (nasdaq: ICGE). At the peak, I think it had a $12 billion market cap.

I will help out in the task force when I can; I currently patrol List of venture capital firms to encourage editors to write the article first. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Wipipedia}}

Please stop removing this template from articles. It is not a spam link; as these articles are sourced from Wipipedia, it is necessary for attribution under GFDL. I'm bulk-reverting your removals up to now. – iridescent 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The template was deleted at the time I removed it; I thought deleted templates were supposed to be removed from articles? UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was good-faith deleted in error because you mis-tagged it as spam, and has already been undeleted. I've reverted all your removals of it; please don't remove this (or any other attribution template) without at the very least replacing them with attributions of the source, as these are necessary under GFDL. This was all explained on the talkpage of the template. – iridescent 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto {{Spunk}}. Deleting and removing this was disruptive and having editors run around cleaning up after it is a waste of our time. It might be a better idea to nominate for TfD, or to consult the editors who use such templates or the creator of the template. See here for further details. Regards, Skomorokh 13:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

~~~ has noticed you do not have your e-mail currently set up and is requesting you enable your EmailUser function. Thanks!

 MBisanz (talk) 13:50, August 21, 2008

I prefer the talk page to e-mail. If you put something here that you would like me to delete after reading, I will honor that request. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Masry

Masry language is not a new language and wikipedia Masry has been approved and the notability has been aknowledged by the approval of the project , the examples for similar articles on wikipedias in different languages could be found in Category:Wikipedias by language and this page is meant to follow these examples and the article is meant to be like these articles.Ghaly (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. I removed the prod, and moved the article to an article name that conforms to those that the other articles use. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy Sports

You seem to be at odds with many of the fantasy sports entries saying they are not notable. I see you came up with a standard for Poker players. Could we do the same for fantasy sports writers/analysts/media professionals? There are not a lot of major media writing articles about these people, so it's hard to find 3rd-party sources. And the one Association which gives out legitimate awards (the FSWA) you pushed to delete the entry for lack of nobility. I understand where you are coming from and that you'd like to see more 3rd-party sources ... so I'm asking for help to justify these entries as this is an industry that has 30+ million people playing and a lot of interest in the top analysts and media sources. FantasyHistory (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Fantasy Sports (I am 1 of the 30 million players, in fact), but I am against unsourced articles; and that is what I said in the Poker discussion. Sources are the only justification for a WP entry. I would have no bias against recreation of the FSWA article if significant coverage in good sources can be found. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

fyi

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Many new redirects. I don't like creating these ugly redirects either but not sure what it harms. (I actually thought of a more interesting issue recently... are these index constituents the 'intellectual property' of S&P such that they shouldn't be duplicated here?) Whiskeydog (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I weighed in at ANI as well. The issue you thought of is interesting: coincidentally, I brought it up before at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_March_13#Category:S&P 500, and it generated A LOT of discussion, when we deleted the category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thnx, beau coup!

Hello again, UnitedStatesian ...

Just wanted to give you an ATTABOY! for you recent updates to {{Flag-templates‎}}, {{Flag-article}}, and {{Flag-editor}} ... I noticed the changes in WP:A (I created the templates before it failed to reach consensus), but never wrote myself a note to go back and fix them. :-)

BTW, how often do you use them? Regularly, occasionally, seldom, or never? I just ran into a case (see this list) that made me start thinking about a multiple list version of the template for flagging editors about more than one article.

Also, do you have any suggestions/recommendations for Some Other Editor to create a bot for Category:Flagged articles? Someone did one for {{Oldprodfull}} updates to seconded PRODs, but I've lost track of them.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}

Second question

Hello again ... should we also change these boilerplates?

• Wikipedia:FLAG-BIO/lacking    Done — _{23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}
• User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/John Q. Public    Done — _{23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}

They also reference the deprecated/legacy WP:A. — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manolito18

Helo again, UnitedStatesian ...

I'm having trouble with Manolito18 (talk · contribs) regarding the {{Articleissues}} tag on Footbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that they have twice removed ... would you please intervene before this gets out of control?

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footbo. — 72.75.117.122 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a user, so there is not much I can do to help. One thing I can do is give you this suggestion: try raising the issue on User:Manolito18's usertalk page, which you have not yet done.

Also, have you considered setting up your own ID? Rightly or wrongly, User:Manolito18 may find it easier to engage with you if you were not contributing as an anonymous IP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad! I just noticed you in the list of recent editors, and thought that I'd let Some Other Editor voice some concerns so as not to give the appearance of a unilateral opinion ... No problemo if you would rather not get involved.

And I only need to use a registered account if I'm initiating an AfD. :-) — _{72.75.117.122 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}

Footnote: I asked Some Other Editor to mention removal of the {{Articleissues}} tag by an author, and that put a stop to it ... I guess I forgot to mention that with my original request for intervention ... I've left several messages on their Talk page, but they have not responded. <Sigh!> — _{72.75.117.122 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footbo was closed as Delete, so the issue is moot. :-) — _{72.75.117.122 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}

PROD-tag removed

Good day UnitedStatesian. Just a quick notice to inform you that I have removed your PROD-tag from article: Ridge Farm Studio. Please see the article's talk page for extended details. Thank you. 142.68.138.201 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandre Song

Hi there, please can you explain why you removed the legitimate links to Footbo.com from Alexandre Song's wiki-page? Thanks Inspiredminds (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Both of the links were contrary to Wikipedia's guideline on external links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NovaMind information from List of Mind Mapping Software

Hi, the NovaMind entry was deleted from this page, and from the comment it appears that the reason was basically that "it's not big enough".

NovaMind is actually the biggest player in the Mind Mapping market on Mac, and currently about 6th on Windows and growing rapidly. The software has been on the market for over 6 years and is in active development, and we have just introduced NovaMind Connect social Mind Map sharing. It has been sold to people in over 90 countries and is available in 9 languages.

It has been the topic of many articles and reviews worldwide from many of the most highly respected sites and magazines in the industry - for instance InnovationTools which seems to be highly regarded on WikiPedia.

I therefore ask that the deletion be reversed.

The note with the deletion also may indicate that we need to have an article about NovaMind too - well it had suffered the same fate, but has since been restored and I will shortly be editing it to provide more complete and up to date information about NovaMind.

Once it is reinstated, I will change the link to point at the NovaMind article rather than the external link, now that the NovaMind article has been restored.

Thanks.

Gideon King, CEO, NovaMind Software Novamind (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My removal was not due to NovaMind's size, but because the entry was made as link to NovaMind's website, and so violated Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. No that the entry links to the NovaMind article, it is fine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Arby's Wendy's Triarc meger

Hi I noticed you did a great job at starting the Triarc page. As a result of the purchase of Wendy's Triarc decided to get rid of that name. It has been changed to Wendy's/Arby's Group. I have moved the triarc page to that along with changing a few things. I was hoping you could look at that page and let me know what you think of it. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your changes look great, although I moved it to the title without the "Inc" on the end, since that is what the naming conventions guideline dictates. I am sure there are still some improvements that could be made to the article going forward, but it looks pretty good. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Move

In view of this move, please look at the articles in Category:World_War_I_veterans entitled "Veterans of World War I who died in XXXX" and determine whether they should be moved as well. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, S, for the heads up: I agree that the others should be moved; I will take care of them over the next few days. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Paris, France (film)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Paris, France (film), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I added reviews and refs. MadScot (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of returned Peace Corps Volunteers

May I ask as to why you moved this page back? Without the word notable, or at least some other modifier, this list sounds like it includes every person who has ever been in the Peace Corps, and that certainly is not the case. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I read WP:SAL, but I don't like it. I think it's misleading. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Simone Devon

another editor prodded this for deletion, & I think you're the most recent active ed there. It probably does need at least one additional source discussing here from outside her deleted web p.-- but there's another alternative--I suggest that a page for her company might be appropriate, and you might want to split the contents. I must leave this to you, for I do not know where to find the relevant sources. Feel free to remove the tag if you improve it of course, and you or anyone is entitled to remove the prod tag in any case, but if it isn't improved, expect to see it then at afd. DGG (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The only edits I have done to that page are to remove backlinks when other articles were deleted. The "sources" currently on the page are not independent, I don't think notability is demonstrated, and so I seconded the proposed deletion using the {{prod2}} template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Australian

Hello

You are moved [5]. You know that major warship is clasification in warships ? PMG (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, or I would not have made the move. The list makes no indication that this is the case, nor does the warships article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

In regard to William Hart(actor) and Rent (musical, you wrote that these were the only redirects on Wikipedia that were missing a space or a right parenthesis. How were you able to determine that they were the only ones? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of birds

I've undone your move of List of famous birds to replace List of birds. I've also requested that the article moved back to its original location since it does seem to be the Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. I started a discussion here if you'd like to participate Talk:List of orders and families of birds#Requested move. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Awards

I've put a {{hangon}} template on the page, because I do not believe the move is uncontroversial (I, at least, oppose it) and you've not started a discussion gathering consensus for the move. They speedy has been declined; if you still want to move the page, then you should probably start a discussion on the talk page. seresin ( ¡? )  04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

list of organists

The ones I add (J. David Hart, Joseph Nolan, Pierre Pincemaille, Klaas Jan Mulder, Andre van Vliet and Rolf Henry Kunz) are NOTABLE organists. You may want to search the internet before you delete additions.

You are not the guard to the List of organists page.

And something else; some of your PRODS seem to be very important. I am generally starting to think that you are not a good contributor. --85.96.254.192 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am simply following Wikipedia's longstanding guideline for lists that limits list entries to articles with a WP article already (or one likely to be made soon). Have you considered writing the article on any of the organists you list? I freely admit I am not qualified to do so (I note that the link you added to Joseph Nolan leads to an aritcle on an Irish politician that mentions nothing about his organ playing; I fixed this link assuming it was bad, but Googling Joseph Nolan returns 18,300 hits, and none on the first page appear to be an organist). Nonetheless, the list should be limited to those organists where the notability is verifiable.

On the PRODs, if you let me know a specific deleted article that was on a very important topic, I am happy to ask the deleting admin to restore it (as I have gladly done many, many times before. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just that, I am in the music business and can find out easily if one is a good musician or not. Searching google means nothing actually, since google returns whats on the internet. Anyway, for example, the article Search aggregator is in your PRODs list. I really don't understand why, cause its a great source for us programmers. I am also not good at writing articles, essays in general. I have to stop and write many times before it sounds good and I do not have that time. The day I retire (which I think is 50 years from now), I will sit down and write articles cause I will have nothing better to do. On the organists, we have an accord :) Sincerely, 85.96.254.192 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we do have an accord: I am going to continue to remove the unverifiable material from the List of organists page, including the redlinks. I only searched Google because you suggested I search the internet; how would you propose that I do so? If you create the articles (even if they are just stubs, with the bare amoutn of info. to allow further work), it will enable other editors to expand them into full articles. Or you can list them at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music#Classical_musicians_and_conductors, and they will be visible for other editors to create. They should not be this list before then, though.UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Move of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.

from WP:NCCORP:

Convention: The legal status of the company (Inc., plc or LLC), is not normally included, i.e. Microsoft or Wal-Mart. When disambiguation is needed the legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate. For example, Nike, Inc., Halifax (bank) or Converse (company).

In this case, disambiguation is needed to distinguish the article Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (about the company) from the article Pre-paid legal services (about the concept of legal service plans in general): otherwise, the only difference between the two titles is a matter of capitalization. Thanks, Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the differing capitalization is sufficient to distinguish the company and the concept, but I will defer to your feelings on this one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

POF removal from List of online dating websites

Please see Talk:List of online dating websites#POF Removal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shields020 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Business Failures/My Userpage

Why must you remove my additions without checking my userpage and the link on it? I never add something about a public company without checking the lists.TyrantSinner (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The link does not work. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It is working now.TyrantSinner (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Listcruft

I notice that you proposed a merger on this page. It's customary to explain the reasons for merging on the talk page, and I invite you to do so at Wikipedia talk:Listcruft. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing "enforcer" about list titles please

Hey, I notice you have been moving/renaming many list titles citing Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists in your edit summaries. That is a Guideline, not a Policy, which is a big difference. I believe it is AGAINST various other wikipedia policies for one editor to go around disrupting a whole lot of articles. Note, it recommended in WP:SAL that names of stand-alone lists be established by consensus. So, as a previous editor or two has suggested on your Talk page before, please desist. I reverted one of your moves just now, not sure what else I want to review and revert in your recent history. Note, you are certainly welcome to raise rename/move suggestions at Talk pages of articles, however. doncram (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree both with your characterization of my moves as "playing 'enforcer'" (which seems not to assume good faith on my part), and with your characterization of the moves as "disrupting," and I think the fact that yours is only the second revert of any of the WP:SAL moves is strong evidence that they follow Wikipedia consensus. Consensus does not need to be stated on every article's talk page in order for it to exist. WP:BOLD and WP:BRD make it very clear that moves can take place without discussion (and should, except in the case of high-visibility articles). Of course, I apprecaite your revert, and the discussion that will result on that list article's talk page as a result. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if my being direct offends you. I was meaning to get your attention, although I concede I could have been more polite. Perhaps "Please don't start playing enforcer", instead? But that would not have been much different.

I think it is telling that you found it necessary edit your reply to me already, to cancel out your previous statement "that yours is the first revert of any of the WP:SAL moves is strong evidence" of consensus, in order to replace that by "yours is only the second revert". Are more reverts coming in, or will they? Other indications of your moves not reflecting or creating a new consensus are the comment(s) further above in this Talk page. For the one where I reverted you, and I project for others, I believe you have no past association with the article, and have not read the Talk page, and you really are not in position to judge what is or should be a new and different consensus. If you are in fact just breezing in as an uninvolved editor to various articles, then I think it is disrespectful to those who have been editing those articles, who probably have good reasons for the articles being named as they are. doncram (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Itex

• "Itex" has at least 11 meanings. Please leave page Itex as a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what disambiguation pages are for. Disambigation pages are to distinguish BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, and as far as I can tell only one of the meanings of Itex has a Wikipedia article, and that is Itex Corporation. Accordingly, a redirect is appropriate. Once other articles are created, it can be changed back to a disambiguaiton page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you are not United Statesman, are you? Chergles (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's someone else. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you note

Hi - Thank you so much cleaning up our pages. Appreciated! Peter grotzinger (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems

FYI. this? Is there a reason why you want to rm this entry to the list of acquisitions. Whether or not the linked article is deleted or not, this entry is important to this article as it should list ALL Cisco's acquisitions. rm the wikilink if needed.Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Rudder article -- summary deletion of your tag?

I notice you tagged this article: "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: no sources to indicate this person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO"

The tag was deleted by some IP address, with no talk page -- but I still don't see any sources for notability, or anything! It looks like a vanity page, with peacock terms like "enormously successful," and uncited claims of "popularity" or "most popular" ...

I see no discussion on the article's talk page, and none on yours near the date of your tag. -- Rico 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASR vs. WP:STAND lead and selection criteria

Greetings. Thanks for taking an interest (hit-and-run as it may be) in the List of roller derby leagues stand-alone/spinout/whatever list, which I and a few others actively maintain. There was already quite a bit of discussion on Talk:List of roller derby leagues about the intro, which was was carefully written to deal with actual disputes over the existence and content of the list. The current phrasing has apparent consensus.

WP:ASR is a sensible style guideline, but it conflicts with WP:STAND#Lead and selection criteria, which encourages writing, for the benefit of would-be editors and readers alike, an explicit statement of criteria for list membership, including (in this case) a mention of reliable sources and more than just "this is a list of ___". There's really no way to do that without a degree of self-reference, so I think an exception should be made to WP:ASR here. I've reverted your deletion of the criteria until we can find some common ground on this issue.

You can reply here; I'm watching this page. —mjb (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the self-reference parts of the list should be on the talk page, rather than in the article text: see the treatment in List of events named massacres. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting

Me will type pretty one day. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

YVW, I am sure you would have done the same for me. If I had a nickl. . . UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page template

D'oh! I should have realized. Like the section title says, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ISNA deletion tag

The links to the ISNA site no longer work on this page: Intersex Society of North America. I expect they've stopped paying hosting and maintenance fees as they folded over a year ago, so I've deleted the links. I notice that you placed a delete tag on the talk page a while back, but cannot find any discussion relating to this on Articles for Deletion. Was there a discussion, what was the outcome, does the discussion need to be closed? Given the org has folded and their site is down, most of this information could be moved elsewhere, as it is a note about a historic organisation which links to a new organisation established by the founder of ISNA. Mish (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's back up again - would still be interested in knowing outcome of that AfD. Mish (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the links are working again, I restored the version that had them. The deletion tag I placed on the article was the WP:PROD tag, which unlike WP:AFD does not lead to discussion and can be removed by any editor (which results in the article being kept). I still think the article is weak, but certainly there are many, many worse articles out there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. So the tag stays until somebody either deletes the tag or an admin deletes the article? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the WP:PROD process, yes: the admins are supposed to delete the article if the tag is still there after 7 days. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Norwegian photographers

Hi,

I recently added myself to your list of norwegian photographers, but it was removed a few days ago. Could I ask why? Maybe I have misunderstood, but I thought this list was supposed to be an actual list of norwegian photographers... Since I work 24/7 as a professional photographer for numerous Norwegian magazines, some of norways biggest companies, as well as international customers, doesn't that make me a norwegian photographer....?!

Cheers, Eivind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erohne (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of people in Wikipedia are supposed to be limited to the most highly notable, historically significant people; Wikipedia is not a directory. I am sure you understand and do not take it personally. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thought it was meant to be more of an listing of norwegian photographers, living and dead, important and less important. So no personal feelings hurt here. :o)

Links in lists

Since when was an exception to WP:EL made to links in lists? Furthermore, slapping ref tags around a spam link does not make it a reference. What are you purporting to cite? The firm's existence? TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I claim that WP:EL does not apply to lists? I think I only said that WP:EL does not apply to article references. And yes, in fact if WP says that a firm is a bicycle manufacturing company, it is appropriate to include a reference that can verify that fact. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

Hello UnitedStatesian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bridgeport Machines, Inc. has been removed. It was removed by Three-quarter-ten with the following edit summary '(Explained at talk.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Three-quarter-ten before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Just a ping

Hello again, UnitedStatesian … we conversed for a while about a year ago here and here (and possibly others) when my IP was either 72.75.78.69 or 72.75.117.122 … this is just a ping to mention that I'm still here and doing the anon WikiGnome thing. :-) Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{17:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)}

RfD nomination of List of notable people associated with Tychy

I have nominated List of notable people associated with Tychy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Encore

You removed Desert Inn (including Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn, ITT Sheraton Desert Inn, and MGM Desert Inn) as previous names from Encore, why? That's the site where it is located. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think previous names is meant for where the same facility changes its name (like when the "old" MGM became Bally's). Perhaps the infobox template needs to be updated to add a "previously on site" field; if you agree let me know and I will make the change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

Hi. Please join the discussions on the talkpage at Talk:List of digital library projects before deleting any more content from that list. As some of the people there say, it is an edge-case article, that could benefit from a touch of IAR, as well as some strong eventualism. Thanks. (please reply there). -- Quiddity (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here to echo it. I . Most of them simply belong in other sections, and should have been moved there, not deleted DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, give me a couple more days to kick it off on the talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Hi - I noticed you "fixed" the table for Silver Lake Partners into a different format. If you are interested you may want to look at some other tables in other PE articles:

• Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (here, here & here)
• Blackstone Group (here, here & here)
• TPG Capital (here & here)
• Apollo Management (here & here)
• Private equity fund (here)
• Private equity firm (here).

|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks UR, you beat me to it: I was going to put a note on your talk page re: the same subject. Wikitable sortable is a great tool, and pretty easy to pick up (just look at the markup of the SLP page to see how its done). I encourage its use wherever possible, because it is much simpler than the raw html coding. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Ultimate Group

Hello UnitedStatesian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Ultimate Group has been removed. It was removed by Chubbles with the following edit summary '(contest prod; considerable artist roster...perhaps sensible to merge to parent company?)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chubbles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Ian Kerr

Hello UnitedStatesian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ian Kerr has been removed. It was removed by David Eppstein with the following edit summary '(Unprod. Canada Research Chair = pass of WP:PROF #5.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with David Eppstein before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about the phrasing of your comments at this discussion. In both of them, you mention "moves". Do you mean WP:Merging or Help:Moving a page? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

Hi UnitedStatesian/Archive 3! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above message was designed to give the article a boost, not to precipitate a PROD - I could have done that myself, but I took the time to have a look at it and see if it could be improved. Please consider discussing your intended action when invited to improve an article, before blindly issuing PRODS - Wikipedia is a community.--Kudpung (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of wealthiest historical figures

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of wealthiest historical figures. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

List of notable cats

2009-11-08T03:15:23 UnitedStatesian (talk | contribs) m (55,152 bytes) (moved List of notable cats to List of cats over redirect: Per the WP:NC guideline, list should not have "notable" in their titles

Since you quote WP:Naming convention, please direct me what passage says such. I can not see that "notable" should be not in their titles on the NC page. I opened a discussion at the talk page, and I think your edit summary is way insufficient. In addition, your edit to List of notable cats seems you want to prevent anyone from moving List of cats back to there. That is not a good practice.--Caspian blue 14:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey CB, thanks for the question: the shortcut to the subguideline is at WP:LISTNAME, and the text reads: ". . . "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article." List of dogs and List of wolves, along with many, many others, are done the same way. I'll repeat this at the article talk page as well.

And if the consensus is to do so, an administrator can always move the article back. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Magibon

Thank you very much for your help to me in setting up the nomination for deletion!Pisomojado (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Anil Ambani

The forbes list which had Anil Ambani's wealth as 10 Billion $ was made in March 2009, it seems to have been superseded by the India today link given . trakesht (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Michael Adler

The Michael Adler that those articles were linking to is a figure skater and is not the same Michael Adler who was the subject of the deletion debate for the "Michael Adler" wiki article. Therefore, afd has not declared him unworthy of an article. Should someone create an article on the figure skater Michael Adler at Michael Adler, it will be linked to by relevant articles and will not be an orphan. Kolindigo (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from WillyCon

Hello UnitedStatesian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to WillyCon has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '+ citation -tag &c.'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of richest Americans in history to 1998

I have nominated List of richest Americans in history to 1998, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest Americans in history to 1998. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CynofGavuf 11:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: At the gates production

Hello UnitedStatesian, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of At the gates production - a page you tagged - because: Run by person with an article is credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Bruce Crump.

Hi there, I've removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because aside from being a longtime member of Molly Hatchet, Bruce was once a member of Streetheart and is currently a member of Gator Country. Per WP:MUSICBIO, he can be considered notable (see criteria 6). If you disagree, you can nominate the article for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama頭 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amino Communications

Hello UnitedStatesian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amino Communications, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 17:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Books

Hi, I noticed this edit of yours, claiming a WP:EL violation. Mind explaining that? Paradoctor (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 15 at WP:ELNO says to avoid "links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." Hope that helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Never looked at it this way. Thanks, I'll raise the issue at WP:ELN. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Forbes and list of billionaires

I notice you reverted my change to list of billionaires which I had tried to justify on the talk page. In your edit summary you said we ought to discuss it on the talk page, which is odd. Did you read the talk page? After calling for the discussion on the talk page did you go there to see if one was taking place? Please read Wikipedia:Revert before doing any more reverts; it gives some good advice on how to edit wikipedia in a civil, constructive, and collaborative manner. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I just saw your post on Talk:List of billionaires(cut me a little slack for not seeing it: your post was in response to a nine-month old post, and was 15 topics older than the current latest post). I responded there, and look forward to continuing the dialogue. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. A suggestion, though - if you want to see if an edit has been discussed on the talk page, you can search for the author's name in the talk page. Most browsers let you do this with ctrl-f or something similar - perhaps a menu item that says "search" or "find." Also, you can look at the history of the talk page, by going to the talk page and clicking on the "history" tab (fifth from the left, usually); here, you would have seen my edit near the top if that is easier. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving of Notable Yadavs to List of Yadavs

In your edit comment you said that this title is more appropriate, however I feel that since that only notable people are to be included should the list clarify the same? I think List of Notable Yadavs should be better. Harsh Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Harsh: the guideline that controls the naming of list is the stand-alone lists guideline, which says that in titles '"notable' is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as 'famous,' "noted,' 'prominent,' etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article." Hope this helps.UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS Taskforce – lists

Great to have you on board. I've gotten the ball rolling here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on Atlantic and Mexican Gulf Canal Company

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Atlantic and Mexican Gulf Canal Company, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I believe that sources exist that will prove this company to be notable. I left a quick Google Book search link on the talk page as a starter.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

PROD on Datasheet Archive

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Datasheet Archive, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Thanks! SimonB12 ([[User talk:SimonB12[talk]]) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not#How is Wikipedia a gazetteer? How is Wikipedia not a gazetteer?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not#How is Wikipedia a gazetteer? How is Wikipedia not a gazetteer?. patsw (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) Your edit from 2008 is the subject of some heated discussion.

Merge discussion for Template:Nn-warn-reason

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Nn-warn-reason , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: McAlester, OK µSA

Hello UnitedStatesian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of McAlester, OK µSA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 only applies to recent redirects. Use WP:RFD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohave Power Station

Please do not remove references that have a bad url. Please replace them with another source or find an archive of the page. Doing this maintains the quality of the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kogswell Revisited

Hi,

The Kogswell Cycles article is, once again, being considered for deletion, here. Since you have prodded and deprodded it in the past, I would consider your input valuable in the current debate. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say "Thanks" for your input. It is good to get balanced opinions from knowledgeable editors. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Refs have been added from a 9/2010 article in Bicycle Times, which is a major consumer magazine with circulation of ~50K, and biking.com. I point out this recent coverage by a major media outlet in the hope that you will reconsider your vote to delete. If not, I understand. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

System of record

I see that you put a PROD on System of record. An anonymous editor wrote on the talk page of the article "I just tried to consult this article as an information-seeker, so I would object against a simple deletion (improvement notwithstanding)", and then another editor removed the PROD, with the edit summary "Removed prod, contested on talk page by 212.79.168.210". Clearly "I have tried to consult this article" is not a grounds for keeping under Wikipedia guidelines, so you may like to take the article to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

list of historic landslides

I've replied on the talk page over at list of historic landslides at more length, but in short, yes, they should be merged. Argyriou (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the discussion I started at Talk:List of landslides and join in. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mylan Speedy deletion

I have declined the G6 Speedy deletion declined.

Please discuss this on the talk page - what makes Mylan Inc. the primary topic? There are several other Mylans on Wikipedia, including Megan Mylan, Richard Mylan, Mylan Classic... This page might be better as a disambiguation page, but either way a community discussion is required, I believe.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Too many categories

Template:Too many categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum

Hi UnitedStatesian-- I noticed that you've listed yourself as a part of WikiProject Companies. I'm currently looking for feedback on draft revisions to some sections of the Occidental Petroleum article. The article talk page isn't very high-traffic, so I've run into trouble getting feedback from other editors. If you're interested in helping out, you can find my draft at User:CBuiltother/Occidental Petroleum Controversy, and feel free to leave any comments on the talk page. Thanks! --CBuiltother (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An article you previously participated in the AFD for, is at AFD once again

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_business_failures_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_business_failures Dream Focus 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi there! I got impressed by articles you created. I mean it! =) And I have a favour to ask of you. There is no article about "ADP employment report" in English. Could you please create one? I am asking you because I have found out on your personal page that you are specialized in the US business and economics. Just to note that I have already created two articles about ADP E.R. in two different languages. They are Russian and Kazakh. But the information is poor. And the reason why I do not create an article in English is that I am afraid if most of the information I copy from this web-site.

I thank you for considering the message.

Best regards, Aiym Ime-Ventures (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for messing up ...

... the centerpiece of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy at WPAPO:LIST. No note in the talk page, no consensus, completely contrary to MOS:APO. Vague reference to "follow conventional WP naming". What is that supposed to mean, this: WP:NCLL? Weak command of the English language?

• http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm
• http://www.dailywritingtips.com/people-versus-persons/

This is why I hate WP. --Hutcher (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Why I love Wikipedia is that any screw-ups (and I don't think mine was one) can be fixed pretty easily. I have replied to the specific issue you raise at the Wikiproject talk page, as well as making some related change to the project page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comprehensive telecom reform

The article Comprehensive telecom reform has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable agenda of Cato institute which may need to be treated as a subtopic in other articles, but is not notable in and of itself

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks

You have been referred to in a discussion at WP:VP/P#Redlinks in lists and dab pages. SpinningSpark 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Walking

UnitedStatesian - I have noticed that you have contributed to the List of people who have walked across the United States, and cordially invite you to participate in a new WikiProject Walking that I have proposed. Your support for the project, active or passive, would be appreciated. Bezza84 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help out! UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of gentlemen's clubs in the United States

You moved List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States to List of gentlemen's clubs in the United States, apparently without noticing the requested move discussion result on the talk page. Please revert your move. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Strike that. I see you are not an administrator, so you will not be able to make this change. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, my screw-up. Teach me to edit late at night. Will repeat on the article talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Tornado (band)

Hi. Just to let you know that I have declined speedy deletion of this article as it has been declined before. An article that has been declined for speedy deletion cannot be nominated for speedy deletion again. I would suggest AFD instead. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrence E. McNally

I think as an actor and a director of a cult film, he's notable. I removed your prod tag, but feel free to send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaiety Theatre

I don't understand the reasoning behind this [6] change. Can you explain. Thanks. As instructed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

The logic is at WP:PIPING: piped links should not be used in disambiguation pages. However I should have cleaned up the underscores, which I have just done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Local Insight Yellow Pages

An article that you have been involved in editing, Local Insight Yellow Pages , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of richest American politicians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of richest American politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dezastru (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Living Water

Hello UnitedStatesian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Living Water, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Previous article was about a film, not a musical group. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles

It's pretty clear why, generally speaking, articles should not include the word "notable". "List of notable buildings" is just redundant given the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and everything in it should be notable. It's just not necessary to say "notable". This is a good general guideline and should be implemented whenever the reason it was written is present, i.e.: the word is not necessary.

However, in the case of "List of dogs", it does seem to be necessary, and there is a very good reason to include it. As WP:Article titles states, the important thing is that title indicate what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. "List of dogs" fails to do this. Notice, please that "Lassie, Snoopy, Brian from Family Guy" is also a list of dogs, as are "German Shepard, Chihuahua, Fox hound", "Spiten, terrier, spaniel", and "mongrel, pariah, sled dog". As you can see, the title "list of dogs" does not clearly indicate what the article is about or distinguish it from other articles, which is the most important thing. Therefore, please do revert the undo of the recent move from "List of dogs" to "List of notable dogs".

Thank you for your kind attention and happy editing!

Chrisrus (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert the move, because I think WP consensus is that there is a better way around the issue you identify: we have List of dogs and List of dog breeds to distinguish the two (and in fact a hatnote at the top of List of dogs directs the reader to the other list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The move to "List of dogs" was a bad, but good-faith, move. The current title, "List of dogs", makes the article appear as it is to name every single dog on the planet. That list is to deal with notable dogs, and only those. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)