User talk:Jasynnash2/Archive3 - May 2008

Libro0 admits he is a sock puppeter!

Libro0 stated I would like to confirm that Box Benefits is indeed a sock puppet. [1] [2] This confirms the sock puppetry. He admits it, therefore it is true. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Saw it in the original place thank you. That is not what he is saying at all from the context. He simply says that the account is a sockpuppet. He doesn't remotely say it is him. Just because you are in a disagreement with the user in question doesn't make your attack page any less disruptive. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The user above has continued to place accusations about me in several places 1 2. He has also gone back and replaced an accusation here User:Omero Tognon. I want to ignore him and have him ignore me but from the looks of those disturbing passages he has written I had to have my user page protected. I was considering putting up a suspected sock puppet case for his current set of socks User:Box Benefits, User:Omero Tognon, User:I Hate CAPTCHAS,User:Baseball Card Guy, User:Bbcardguy, User:Yuck_Flu_By_Road, User:Plate King. I would rather stay out of it and continue to edit unbothered since it seems blocking him has achieved little considering he is connected to several previous cases. Plus the fact that it is tiresome. He has also been using anonymous sock as well: 85.178.49.95, 85.177.45.180, 218.25.101.173, 121.44.172.11 I went to the Village Pump(policy) page to introduce some countermeasure to sock puppets but it appears to be an unpopular idea. Libro0 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantifica

Why the speedy deletion tag? What can I do to make the page right? As a model for this page, I used wikipedia articles from companies in the same industry! Quantichristo (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Start by putting the holdon tag and discussing improvements on the talk page of the article. Make sure you establish the notability of the company through the use of reliable 3rd party sources. Have a look at the help pages and some of the wikipedia policies (especially those around notability). Be aware that your username implies some Conflict of Interest as well. I'd also suggest finding ways to contribute to other articles in a constructive manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I started doing what you told me, changed my username, that was conflict of interest. And added a link to a reliable 3rd Party source. And now my article is deleted all of a sudden by someone I don't even know. How come??Bebeagrafe (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again, all I can say is have a look at the policies. There is one called deletion review that may apply (but, it also has policies about what can and can't be brought back and why). If you look the article up in the deletion log it normally tells you why something was deleted. I'm guessing it was because the article dtill looked way too much like advertising and not an encyclopedic piece on a company. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cerebra

I think I had a salvageable version of this article here, even adding two references, but I'm not sure the author is keen on anything other than a mirror of the organization's site - they reverted me moments later. Hardly seems worth the bother. I'll see if I can get the editor to respond to me one last time, then the article can be deleted for all I care - I've got other things to do. Thanks for keeping an eye on it, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've started the discussion on the talk page that the author should have begun with the holdon tag. Hopefully, they will feel their charity is sufficiently notable to discuss ways to improve the article and not simply revert to spam type additions to the content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe

I just did the same, with same conclusion. I'm going to delete it as a G3, pure vandalism. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bolt bus

The article is undergoing a massive edit according to the tag; there was no need to place a notability tag on it. I'll let you off with a warning this time, but next time I might have to trout you. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just trying to help. Notability tags shouldn't automatically have negative connotations. BTW I prefer Coddack (basically one Cod fishcake and one Haddock fishcake on the same plate). Maybe if I ever decide to play WP:Point games with people over neologisms and dictdefs I'll create a Coddack article :-D: another one for my WP:Point (in case I ever go to the dark side) HSIOW (which stands for "Holy Shit It's Only Wednesday" - stolen from George Carlin). Seriously though thanks for the tip about the notability tag I didn't really think about it much before slapping it on. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. My otters like just about any kind of fish. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At Properties - speedy deletion

Hi,

I am hoping you can help me figure out what is wrong with my article. I am trying to write an entry for At World Properties, LLC, (casually known as At Properties or @properties) a real estate firm based in Chicago, Ill. I submitted the original article and it was deleted within one minute. I reread the policies and guidelines, rewrote the article and posted it again. The second time it lasted about ten minutes - and you are the one who deleted it. It gets tagged as 'blatant advertising' but it is an unbiased article with citations of reliable sources. Since the company is casually known as '@properties,' I am wondering if the '@' symbol has something to do with it. I am happy to provide the copy of the article I wrote, as well as the sources. If there is some underlying reason why I will never be able to make this entry stay on Wikipedia, please let me know - I would hate to keep wasting my time - and yours - if my efforts are futile. Thank you.

Tjopr (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• All I can say is make sure that it is written from a neutral point of view, has plenty of reliable third party sources that show the company is notable. Write about the company itself and not about products or services that it sells. I suggest using articles like IBM as a template/guide on what non-spam business articles look like. Perhaps practice a little by writing articles not related in anyway and contribute constructively to other articles to gain editing experience. Make sure to read the how to create a first article sections that are available and if you get around to doing a new article for At World Properties LLC make sure to follow the instructions within improvement tags if they are placed on the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things.

(1) You should have seen how people reacted when the Avatar: The Last Airbender episode articles were merged. We told them time and time again, but they never seemed to listen.
(2) Of course you can. The simple fact that you want it is flattering and guarantees a yes. Rau's Speak Page 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Hi, where do I find the appropriate tags for the user page? Thank you.--Startstop123 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. When you place the tag it says somewhere within the text of the tag (once it has appeared on the page). I normally just copy and paste that section directly from the tag. Something like this.

{{db-bio}}

By copying and pasting the section under "please consider placing this template" the result below is created. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave fork

It was previously speedied, yes, but G4 is only for articles previously deleted after discussion (i.e. AFD, MFD, etc.). Speedied and prodded articles aren't G4-eligible. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• don't think I was the one that tagged it G4. i was just trying to say that maybe whoever tagged it that might have been confused. I'm guessing it is still speedible just tagged under the wrong criteria. I'll tag it as non-notable if you'd prefer me to do it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh - yeah, it probably qualifies as an A7. I'll head over and do the honours. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

dang just got done placing the warning on the usertalk page and encourging them to place the holdon tag for discussion (the whole AGF thing). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazenation

ok thank you for putting my article up for deletion. I was in the learning phase and it wasn't advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazenation (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Believe me it wasn't personal. It is why I left you the note about perhaps putting the information on the main Britney page. the note which seems to have disappeared. We all have to learn and although I'm glad to help I'm sorry if it was taken the wrong way. Have you stopped by the Help pages and such yet? There is some good information there to get you started. There is also a good article somewhere that talks about how to create your first page. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask and I'll see what I can do to help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted tag

Hello, I would like to request the removal of a sock tag on User:Box_Benefits. The attacker has once again replaced my name there. I would like to state simply that there is no grounds for it and would appreciate it if the page was blocked or removed. Is there anything you can do to help? Libro0 (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can have a look but, I'm not an admin or anything. I'd also suggest reporting to the appropriate noticeboard AV/I perhaps so that someone that is an admin can keep an eye on it so to speak. If the tag is just accusatory I won't remove it but, if it says you've been confirmed and I can't find anything that shows that than I'll gladly remove what I can like I did the last time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

May you help me for articles for deletion? I'm having trouble adding Suicide methods for Afd. Please help. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably best if you get an admin to help you on that. I don't want to break it by accident. But, I'll see what I can do to get there attention about it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please DO so. There is great urgency to remove this article as soon as possible before any further harm exists/has been done to the international community. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not going to even go there. I've had a look at the situation and I think instead of trying to get me to renominate it on your behalf you should take the matter to the deletion review people. I agree that article is very badly written and someone somewhere may be stupid enough to take there own life I very much doubt wikipedia is the primary or secondary source. I have too much of a Conflict of Interest on this matter and won't go into detail. If you need help with something else that doesn't relate to this subject please don't hesitate to ask. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WIT Draft

hi there. in relation to the WIT page you queried, i was using it was a draft page. I was trying to get the WIT info, plus additional info... it wasnt just a copy... to fit with WikiProject Universities before i posted it proper. I was also to allow other users to edit my draft before said editing of the actual page.Theripper42 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you start a discussion on the main article's talkpage and then create the draft in your userspace (as a subpage). You can see the history of Captain America and my contributions for an example. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi again. That was what i had intended. Forgot to includ the user: bit.. problem rectified. subpage set up, wit_draft up to speedy deletion. thank youfor pointing out my error.:d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theripper42 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

StarTopia

I was trying to reposition the Startopia page under StarTopia. Pedantic, I know, but that's what the game is actually called. Tungazzio (talk) 17:42 21 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you were trying to do but, think next time it is probably best to just you the move tab that is at the top of the pages. It automatically moves the contents of the article to the new title you select. Have a look at some of the help pages and such as they can be very useful. Thanks for letting me know. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Computerman

Did you tag Computerman for {{A7}} as IP user 83.100.221.38 (talk · contribs)? If you would have merely looked at the talk page, you would have seen that the article had been nominated for deletion, whereafter the decision was to keep. Based on the detailed explanation by the closing administrator and concurring with his findings I have restored all but the speedy-tagging edit. I would respectfully like to suggest that a little more due diligence would have been in order -- on both your part and mine. Had I also simply looked at the talk page before sweeping it under the rug, I would have rejected the speedy tag.

If this wasn't you, then you are not the only user under that IP and, respectfully, I would request that you revert your blanking of it. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I tagged it as a speedy candidate based on the contents of the article (I even reviewed the BBC source before hand). I did however, miss that a AfD had already occurred and for that I apologise. As far as I'm aware I'm the only user of the IP and I blanked the page basically as acknowledgement that I've seen the warnings that had been placed there. I have no objections to it being unblanked if that is what is needed.

If it is okay with you I'll take some of the stuff provided in the AfD discussion and incorporate it into the article. The people involved in the debate should have done it themselves but, sometimes things just get overlooked. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What, you're asking me if you can improve an article?? Lulz! Dude, knock yourself out! I'm still in broom mode here, so serious editing hasn't been on my radar in a while. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All I've done really is copy and paste some references that those argueing for keep on the article should have done in the first place. AfD shouldn't be used as cleanup but, experienced editors should have caught the article before and improved it at the time instead of waiting until someone nominated it for deletion for very respectable reasons (from what I can see). Anyway thanks for the note. Anything that helps me improve the way I contribute on here is very much appreciated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Joe Clark

a sockpuppet, maybe? same user also created the Gwilym Sims-Williams page. Please name one balkans boxer who has a welsh name? names arent changed if you move when you're six. cant find any links either, so may be a hoax. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Langtry Manor

I see you've tagged this for notability. The article was written by an editor whose main contributions in the past 29 months have been on Search engine marketing, which may be the original motivation for creating the article. However, my take is that the house is probably notable, because it was allegedly built by the future king Edward VII to the throne for his mistress Lillie Langtry, and used by them both for entertaining. It may be that the author can get hold of better references and can contribute photographs, so perhaps we should leave a couple of weeks for him/her to improve the article. - Pointillist (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yep I tagged it. Your reasoning above is the exact reasoning I had for placing the notability tag instead of a speedy delete. I had a pretty good idea that the article would show up as generally there is a spate of article creation the day after things air on television. The notability tag is to bring notice to the author and other editors that sources for notability need to be in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see! When/if it has been fixed I would suggest moving it so the main name is "The Red House (Dorset)" or similar, which is what it was called when it was notable. - Pointillist (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm thinking something similar. I'm trying to find the reliable 3rd party sources needed to verify that the place is the same and notable etc as we speak. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Turns out the original article was deleted. From the deletion log "18:46, 9 June 2005 Delirium (Talk | contribs) deleted "Langtry Manor" ‎ (copyright infringement -- listed on VfD/copyvio over a week) ". I'm guessing that someone at the time must have cut and pasted from the hotel's website. I think we should work on putting together an appropriate article about the house and try to only mention the hotel in passing. I mean this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and I really don't want to advertise a non-notable hotel just because it is housed in a notable building. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here you go: User:Jasynnash2/Langtry --Rodhullandemu 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Get this. Not only is the original article copyvio... it is actually a copyvio of a copyvio... weird - per [3]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go that far: the http://www.lillielangtry.com/red-house.htm page is marked "©2002 Langtry Manor Hotel. Tribute to the Life of Lillie Langtry website is sponsored by the Langtry Manor Hotel the former home of Lillie Langtry and Edward VII. The hotel is steeped in history and romance and provides some of the most luxurious hotel accommodation in Southern England." We can just hope that the people responsible for those sites have some citable references up their sleeves. - Pointillist (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah some references that I can use for the article (which by the way is a subpage which I'm inviting others to workon) would be good. No point in trying to create the article if we can't assert notability in it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Captain America (disambiguation)

That tag will usually attract members from WP:WPDAB who will re-format the page to quality standards. That answer your question? I do nothing but apply the tag where needed (sometimes performing a tweak or more if truly needed). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I've just declined three clearly incorrect speedy-deletion requests in a row, and all three turn out to have been tagged by you (The Natori Company‎, Nadia Matar and Azamat Balakov). Can you please familiarise yourself with the speedy deletion criteria before you tag any more articles; this kind of drive-by tagging is disruptive as it wastes the time of the admins who have to empty Candidates for speedy deletion, as well as potentially discouraging editors from continuing to work on the articles. Thanks! — iridescent 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

butting in...

• RE: The Natori Company -- you tagged as {{a7}} group/corp. A 30 year old international fashion company, with an independently notable founder, selling to multiple widely known retail outlets can all be reasonably presumed to be assertations of notability.
• RE: Nadia Matar -- Notability was asserted, even if limited. A due diligence search on the Internet would have turned up enough references to indicate that she is a founding member of Women in Green, and herself appears in many news reports about her public activist actions.
• RE: Azamat Balakov -- "professional boxer" is an obvious assertion of notability, as per WP:ATHLETE, all professional competitors are notable.

yes all real professional athletes are notable. I guess I should have tagged as vandalism but, I was trying to not use {{db-nonsense}}. I've just redone my google search and unless I'm missing something the person doesn't exist. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent is right. Please be more careful with speedy tagging. When in doubt, simply tag for the issues instead of speedy-tagging. Feel free to ask me on any topic. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies. I did tag the Natori Company, I don't remember tagging Nadia Matar (specifically because I saw the mention of her award) but, maybe I somehow tagged it without realising. The Azamat Balakov article was tagged because of it's direct relationship to the other tagged articles I mentioned. I didn't think tagging it as nonsense was appropriate though and thought the bio tag made more sense. As far as Natori goes I didn't think just because the founder was notable that her company automatically was notable. I will gladly reread the criteria now but, can I ask that in cases where the "wrong" tag is placed which myself and others have done but, where the article still meets one of the criteria that you more experienced editors change the tag to the appropriate one and drop us a line letting us newer guys know about the change. Just having tags removed either without explanation or with some of the comments previously is discouraging to those of us that are actually after all just trying to contribute to the project. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the three cases mentioned above the subjects all had sufficient assertions of notability to warrant articles and/or due diligence further investigation. It didn't take either of us long at all to determine that these tags weren't appropriate.
• Right I just reviewed Nadia Matar. I did infact tag it based on the content at the time. I note that it underwent several edits inbetween the tag placement and its review. So please accept my apologies if I tagged it before the article was "completed". I also seem to have gotten her confused with the founder of the Natori company in my above comments and for that I also apologise. I stand by the need for speedy deletion request of Azamat Balakov (perhaps I used the wrong tag) but, I'll look at it again in connection with its "cousin" articles that were tagged for speedy by a different user using {{db-nonsense}}. I also stand by that just because a company's founder is notable it doesn't automatically confer notability on the company but, will undertake reviewing that as well.Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The content at the time stated, "Nadia matar (born on 16 February 1966) is a very known activist in israel.She is together with her mother in law co-chairman of the Women in Green." A search of Women in Green on Wikipedia would have immediately indicated that this was a fair assertion of notability. And the Natori Company article asserted its own notability, so its connection to its founder was not the only assertion. These article subjects don't have to seem notable to you; just a fair and reasonable assertion invalidates {{a7}} tagging.
    Look, we're just asking that you give the benefit of the doubt to the authors unless they're obviously hoaxy/vandalism/G10. I'm being open with my own cavalier swiftness in deleting without always being more diligent, and it's an issue I need to work with for the same reasons that you do: improper speedy tagging/hasty deletion creates unnecessary work for others down the line when those actions are immediately and successfully challenged. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe I just have to figure out what "fair assertion of notability" means as a good beginning. I'm still unsure of that the company's notability is (maybe I'm just being dense on what bit of the article asserts its notability - it wouldn't be the first time I've been dense and probably won't be the last). Maybe I just misread some of the above and took it wrongly. I honestly don't know. I'm sticking with patrolling new pages that are a bit "old" at the moment with the idea that hopefully they will be more complete and I'll hopefully cut down on my error rate while still helping the project overall. I hope by doing this I'll be to "get it right" more often. I really just want to be able to contribute and as I can only access at work I can't write articles. I hope you both understand that I really am just trying to help. I'm sure most of my actions show that I am in fact giving most people "the benefit of the doubt" but, if I really am failing in that I again apologise. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Pelase note in your AFDs that I am trying to separate the two concepts of speedy deletion criteria and notability/verifiability. They are likely to be deleted failing general requirements. Cheers, and have a good weekend! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination)

Hi, thank you for your comments at this AfD. You felt that the article should be deleted because it third party sources probably wouldn't exist. I added three print sources this afternoon, so I invite you to look at the article again, as I believe it now demonstrates notability. I agree that it needs serious cleanup, but the notability is now at a point that I feel warrants keeping the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I never denied the event was notable (at least to us wrestling fans). I'll gladly review the ongoing debate and look at the article based on that but, I'd appreciate not having notes like the above placed on my talkpage. No offense but, I don't want to see any drama if someone were to misunderstand. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

St Peters, Leicester, Leicestershire

Hi Glenn, thanks doing that and letting me know about it. :) I'm probably going to take it to AfD myself, but I'm not fully sure what basis it would be on. I have some notability/WP:V concerns with the article, although there appear to be a couple of refs online, so I wouldn't be really opposed to keeping it. Thanks again! --JamieS93 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ntfsprogs

I think the talk page edit is a good way to start a discussion, as is a discussion on the user's talk page. Also, the {{expert}} tag is a good way to invoke users more experienced with the subject matter to examine the article more closely for notability. I couldn't really speak to the notability of it myself, so I wouldn't push too hard. Just continue to explain what your concerns are, and for every proof they offer, ask for references. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ntfsprogs

The article seems to assert notability, though it's a bit thin. The references seem fine, and there's a slight assertation of notability in "'ntfsprogs' was the first stable method of writing to NTFS partitions in Linux". I think leaving the expert tag on is a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

Please see my comment (Diff) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul. Also I agree with you that lack of improvement for so long is not reason for deletion, the problem is that I attempted to improve it and could not find sources to do so, that is why it fails WP:V and WP:N and is subject to removal. Jeepday (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Money Masters

Thanks for the pointers. Still being new, I've now realized that I'm going about this all wrong, and my 'edit summary comments' towards the admin are unflattering.. Would you tag it for speedy deletion? I'm not sure how or if I can. . Then, I'll create a new article stub and see what happens from there.. Nostep (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

oceanic

AfD isnt decided by a vote count, its by the arguments put forward. The question raised was notability, and advertising. The article was cleaned up to remove advertising and the article has independent sourcing two dive mags and another about the manufacturing of a custom suit for a penguin. From the discussion the concerns were addressed hence closing as keep. Gnangarra 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I get the not a vote count thing. AfD is also not supposed to be used in place of deletion review. The penguin thing was new to my original involvement in the discussion and I placed the question on your talk page before seeing that (so apols on that one). To be honest I'm probably more concerned with the WAY the article came back and stuff than I should be. Thanks for getting back to me on it though. It is much appreciated. I suppose the next thing is if I move the article to a title that reflects the company name which I understand is Oceanic Worldwide does that get me in trouble in somesort of pointy way or would it be acceptable per naming conventions and such? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

discussing on the talk page isnt pointy, I also was wondering about the name as it currently at an unusual dab. Gnangarra 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)