User talk:Stifle/Archive 0510a

Objection...

Editor Stifle

Greetings!

I object for deleting the Turki Faisal Al Rasheed article, it is on the process of discussion with the other editors. they are helping me in improving my article, they give me the tips and helpful guidelines and I'm working for it everyday, every time the editors tag or notifies me for lack or there is an entry not suitable for wikipedia. Editor JeffG give me a chance to improve my article and why you deleted it?

How could a newbie, like me, excel in creating, improving an article and now that you deleted it? Am hoping that their help and tips give me a result of success. It is better to tell me/us straightly that you don't want my/our articles, than giving us the chance, help and tips, which is still for deletion and it is useless by now. Thanks for your help stifle, your such a good editor.

Regards,

Carlo

Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrasheed (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

This article was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed. It was not my decision; I am only implementing the will of the Wikipedia community. If you feel I have failed to follow the deletion process, you should open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

My request at deletion review page was redirected to your talk page. Is there a chance for me to reconstruct the article of TFR? or am I going to post a new article again? Turki Faisal Al Rasheed is a notable person, he do have a lot of contributions not only here at saudi arabia but to the entire continent of Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. His contributions to different newspapers and magazine is read around the globe. All of these are linked to the article which was deleted. I know and you know too that I may succeed in creating a good article with all the help of editors like you and I owe you one.

Thank you very much.

Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 05:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Carlo

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Any further unsigned posts will be deleted without action.

I can userfy the page for you if you like.

Please reply in this section. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A pleasant day Editor Stifle.

Yes, I would like you to userfy TFR article for me to work and improve it more. I owe you one Editor Stifle. Thank you very much.Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Regards,

Carlo

I must insist that you sign your messages; otherwise I will not respond. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello there Editor Stifle, am afraid of what sign is your looking for to my replies. I always using that four tildes (Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 11:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)) at the end of every message I posted. I am using my boss account which he entrusted to me, to use it and create an article for him. Kindly please guide me to where exactly to place my sign. Thanks again sir. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 11:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with the signature policy, you must have a link to your userpage in your signature. Please add one.

The article is now at User:Tfrasheed/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Brooks AfD

A question about your closure. Since the AVN award was just a nomination and not a win, I assume per WP:PORNBIO that it fails that criteria. The only one left to consider is the win of the UK Adult Film and Television Awards, which generally would seem to meet criteria #1. But I'm wondering how much weight you placed on the fact that the UK Awards website is for all intents and purposes defunct. Shouldn't this effectively disqualify this from being considered "a well-known award" ? Tarc (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am obliged to close AFDs in line with the views of the users, which I have done here. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even when those views are based on what is for all intents and purposes a lie? Tarc (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what consensus is about. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Martin (Football)

Aaron is making his first team debut today for Southampton alongside Jose Fonte, please put his article back up.--Monts 94sfc 13:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until kick-off, shall we? Also, please include a link to your userpage in your signature. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks....

Hello again Editor Stifle, I Thank you for putting back my article. One more thing, if it is fine that I may ask you some questions? Honestly, I am not that good in composing an article, likewise with my grammar. My job is computer programmer/technician and I was only assigned to create an article for my boss. And believe me, I'm having difficulties in the following notifications stated next to this paragraph, but am trying my best to figure it out. I keep on reading, all of them on their help pages.

   * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since April 2010.
   * Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since April 2010.
   * It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since April 2010.
   * It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2010.

About the notability, I already included all the possible links and references we do have online and in local books at our office. Next the articles link to it, which was already done, I think if it is enough. Then about the conflict of interest, in this section I am that newbie guy. Sorry for being spoon-feed user. But I have to ask how could I avoid that conflict of interest. Is there a need to change some section in my article or need additional explanations? And the last is improper references to self-published sources, I think I already removed it from the article before it was deleted. lastly, do I need to change the photo of TFR? because every time I upload a new one, it is subjected to speedy deletion and it says that it was copied from another webpage. I am afraid about copyright but the photo is our own office file and I am handling them all.

Please let me know if I properly posted my query and questions in this section or there is a need to move it to other discussion page. Thank your very much for your kind support and help. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to provide assistance with content. Please try WP:CNB or WP:NCHD. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again...

Thanks Editor Stifle for your guide... A pleasant day to you. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Albanian-Greek collaboration board

In regards to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Kedadi: I apologize for using your talk page, but I didn't feel like using the admin space in the AE.

I endorsed the suggestion of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to have team restrictions. I have been following a 1RR recently with very few exceptions. However I would suggest that this AE conclusion be a self-imposing restriction rather than a sanction. We are the best Albanian Wikipedians and the Greek side is also a very well prepared team, as a matter of fact they all have my respect: our differences are in content. I believe that a sanction simply annoys a regular rather than stimulates him/her to do better. This is my personal thought though and I'll let you make your call, however I feel that in general rouge administration on 8 people that average 8-9k edits each is way too much. Neither of us are children and we put important hours and energy to the English project of Wikipedia to be treated with continuous sanctions. For myself I can say that I am tired of being reported continuously by the Greek side and I want to have my record clean now.

However, I want you to weigh and consider an alternative and/or additional suggestion. I think that instead of applying sanctions that will just anger or throw off good wikipedians, all 8 people (including myself) be forced to log a percentage of the overall monthly edits to the creation of a WikiProject Albania#Greek-Albanian cooperation board similar to the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board (see also my proposal in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albania#Greek-Albanian_cooperation_board.), or better, are forced to do only that in the next month or so, before the board reaches a certain form, so that the articles are clean of disputes and a consensus is reached before the edits go to the article.

Please let me know your thoughts. I believe this cooperation board will get us 8 (and others) closer and we will publicly bring there our content differences before they go to the article. Besides, similar to the Greek Turkish board we will focus on positive aspect of the Greek-Albanian relations. I believe that already a better understanding exists now as compared to what was going on 1 year ago. This board will bring our understanding to the next stage. Rather than sanctions, we need tools and ways to focus on collaboration.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at first sight, I support the creation of this board. I was thinking of something along the lines of WP:BRD. If an editor from either side makes a bold edit that is reverted by an editor from the other side, both editors should then discuss it on the cooperation board. Any editors that revert after the discussion is initiated should then be sanctioned. I think this will greatly alleviate the problem of revert-warring. It should also alleviate the problem of meat and sockpuppet revert-only reinforcements that we have been seeing lately. In the last two months, there has been a surge in the numbers of revert-only SPAs. Accounts such as Tina Trendelina (talk · contribs), Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs), Kushtrim123 (talk · contribs) and many many IPs (see here [1]). Athenean (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain a purely voluntary cooperation board will help much. If these people wanted to cooperate, they could have done so all the time; what has been stopping them? But they can't, and they can't even want to, because their aims in this project are simply incompatible. We have one group of people whose sole and exclusive purpose in being here is to minimize or throw into negative light the role of nation A in a contested region, and to to maximise or throw into positive light the role of nation B, and another group whose sole and exclusive aim is the precise opposite. We won't restore peace if we just teach these people to compromise and balance their agendas. Sorry for being cynical, but that will only educate clumsy POV-pushers into skilled POV-pushers. We can only restore peace if we show these people that both these agendas are not wanted in this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it will help and I just created the Wikipedia:Albanian_and_Greek_wikipedians_cooperation_board. Wikipedia should not fuel political problems between Greece and Albania: it should help solve them. And Greeks and Albanians can very well get along and also want to get along. In addition our aims may become compatible. I regret that you didn't take the time to read my proposal better. I still think that as an admin you should use your powers not only through restrictions but also through forcing someone to create something positive. I agreed with the 1RR which was a very good proposal of yours, but it's not sufficient. What happens after June 30? There will alwasy be good contributors to come to wikipedia, and most likely they won't be socks. They will have the same frustrations that lots of Albanian editors have had in the past to see the Greeks edit their articles. I know you are frustrated with all the intervening that you have had to do, but we are trying to take a good step and you now have the chance to come and help us in the newly created board. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, then apply sanctions all around, screwit. I can abide by some sort of revert restriction (as I have in the past), but that will not solve the problem. Know why? Because of the innumerable sock and meatpuppets on the Albanian side (say what you want about the Greek side, they have not to date socked or run around frantically trying to recruit people). I note this madness started back around late February/early March with the IPs named in the SPI for Sarandioti. Since then we've had I don't know how many new Albanian revert-only SPAs appear, beginning with Kushtrim123. I count about a new one every week or so. And now, we have evidence that at least one of the Albanian users was running around the Albanian wiki trying to recruit people. Witness also how him and his partner Zarri run to every new account that makes an edit relating to anything vaguely Albanian "Mireseerdhe! Mireseerdhe! Join our squad!". God only knows what's going on off-wiki. You also don't suppose Sarandioti et al. decided to quietly go into the night after his last sock got blocked? No prizes for guessing who this is. I know for a fact he was raising hell on the Commons under his real name back in late Feb, right before this current mess started (and I think at least one of the current troublemakers may well be him). This will only be resolved when the main responsible for meatpuppet recruitment is identified and banned. Then, watch and see how quiet things will become once again. Athenean (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FutureP and I find the idea of a cooperation board redundant. Most of these users have been here for 1 or more years if they wanted to co-operate with each other they wouldn't need a co-operation board. Stifle I think that as a first measure all users involved should be under 1RR as FutureP suggested, although all restrictions should vary according to each user's personal block log and previous restrictions. Situations where a user reaches 3 reverts and then users who edit only once in a while like Megistias (talk · contribs) come back te assist their reverting shouldn't be repeated. Athenean you seem to be very picky because you're omitting the fact you were openly trying to recruit [2] and then he openly asked you to assist him in reverting [3]. Anyone can welcome other users to wikipedia, that's what "Mire Se Erdhe" means. Yes, the 1RR is the best solution and it should be applied. And please be more civil right now you're bordering wp:wikidrama and wp:trolling with your speculations and comments of wanting to leave.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Right then. I can't put anyone on discretionary sanctions unless they have first been served with notification of the decision. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Martin (Football)

Hey there; now that he has finally played in a fully-pro league, and meets WP:ATHLETE, I am more than happy for Aaron Martin to have an article as he is now notable. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Rebekah Davis

I posted the following info at wp:und as instructed:

Rebekah Davis is the Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives, Nebraska's 3rd District 2010 election. If she wins it will be an upset, the first Democrat to win in today's 3rd district of Nebraska. She has a grassroots campaign with many speaking engagements and is being covered by all local media outlets including Fox News. She is an "important and notable politician" by virtue of the fact that she is currently running and running in a district that came close to a party upset only in 1974 and 2006.

Thank you for your assistance. Timi361 Timi361 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Restriction

As I explained my position here on kedadi talk [6] and on FutPer talk page [7] I don't see myself in tag teaming with quick reverts along with other guys. Just please have a look at my contributions and you will notice that I was very careful in following rules, I always tried to talk in talk pages before making changes to the articles. I find FutPer accusation of "tag teaming with quick rv"unbased in my case and your last decision accordingly so. Please consider once again my case Aigest (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent history of Dardani tends to suggest otherwise. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My position on Dardani article was well explained by FutPer here [8]. After contributing mainly to the history section of the article [9] my first rv was here [10] and my second intervention was only after I got the OK from Alexikoua see [11] and my next step [12] my action being also confirmed and congratulated by Alexikoua [13]. Noticing that the same misused reference was spreading to other articles look Peresadyes for eg, I requested the help of an administrator [14] trying to prevent an edit war adn I also brought the sources on that talk page and I didn't make a single intervention before hearing other guys opinion [15]. Seeing the proposal of FutPer for punishment I also asked him where did he saw my tag teaming with other guys [16] but he didn't respond. So in the end could you please tell me where is my bad behavior (tag teaming with quick rv,?! I don't think so) and why I deserve such a punishment?! Aigest (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no requirement that you have been involved in "tag teaming with quick rv" in order to be subject to discretionary sanctions. Only that you have failed to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process". You got involved in a revert war, which is failure to adhere to the normal editorial process.

Therefore, I am not in a position to amend the revert limitation against you. You have the right of appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and/or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy of not being tag teaming the reason for my punishment could you please specify which action of mine is "against the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process". I still don't understand, since I have explained to you that I made only one rv, talked with the other guy agreed with him and also notified an administrator about the specific problem. Which one of these could possibly be "against the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process"? Aigest (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You were involved in a multi-sided revert war on Dardani starting on the 26th of April. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I made just one rv and although I talked and agreed in the talk page with Alexikoua that is considered wrong because the other guys were interested only on warring and not talking?! At least in Dardani case I don't see any wrongdoing by me or even Alexikoua. Practically in Dardani case we have done what you now suppose to be a good behavior for us. Only one rv and explanation in the talk page.Aigest (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with my decision; you are welcome to appeal it as previously mentioned. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for letting you know that following a request of user Sulmues and the creation of Wikipedia:Albanian and Greek wikipedians cooperation board as a sign of good faith I have decided to not appeal your decision (although I still think that I don't deserve it:)). Let's hope this (sacrifice:)) will led to something useful. Regards Aigest (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sensible decision

Your closure at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Kedadi was well thought out. I liked your requirement to discuss every revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Steven Kovich

Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Steven Kovich has been removed. It was removed by GB fan with the following edit summary '(due to change in WP:BLPPROD removing prod tag again, will nominate for AFD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GB fan before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted content

Hi Stifle,

I was the editor of the page Hach Company and it was deleted earlier today by you because it meets the A7 deletion criteria. I was going to request for undeletion; however, I read that it is usually unsuccessful. I know there are a lot of other organizational Wikipedia pages so I plan on learning on how they meet Wikipedia's criteria and fixing the Hach Company's page. The Hach Company has a very interesting and long history that I believe is beneficial for Wikipedia. Unfortunatly, I didn't save the source code so I don't have the wikitext markup. I wanted to request a copy of it to be restored to my userspace so that I may work on addressing the concerns about the page and have it not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I hope you are able to help me out. Also, (if you have the time) I would be so grateful if you could teach me on how to make the article better so that it does not get deleted. I believe my problem is that I need more sources to prove the notability of the article. --Afrost333 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Afrost333/Hach Company. Try WP:NCHD for help on making sure the article doesn't get deleted again. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for filling in the last spot on my bingo card. I've been trying to find a good one to select. "EP" is pretty good. I do see it quite often. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

You're welcome (-: Stifle (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice..

Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting translation associatios

There are many translation associations here, do you want to delete them all? [[17]] As per your reasoning. Engkamalzack (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No two articles are the same; each will stand or fall on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bodoh sombong punya mat salleh. Engkamalzack (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushtrim123

The specific user, although being aware of the situation and adviced to follow 1rr rules,[[18]] on Greek-Albanian topics, he still insists on blind reverts: [[19]]. He already has a 2rr in 30' minutes by removing sourced content using wp:idontlike arguments.

Kushrim lately received a 1week block due to his long term edit-warring nature [[20].Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're requesting an arbitration enforcement, file it at WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hittit

Hi there. I know you refused to review Hittit's ArbCom case, but he is rather loath to discussing any of his edits. After Sardur reported him, he dismissed the nature of the case filed against him, and reverted the article once again (a total of 4-6 reverts over a 48 hour period, and this is after the imposition of 1RR). The consensus that has been achieved on the talk page is just brushed aside and I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are all at odds and confused at what do next. The editors who have participated on the talk page have agreed in unison to merge the article, and each time that someone has, Hittit has inexplicably reverted us. The edit-warring is not conducive to a healthy editing atmosphere and after all this time, he still has not offered a single valid explanation for its keep and instead lashed out against the other editors for forming a "clique" devoted to the article's deletion. Can you please help out? Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not injecting myself into disputes; if there is an arbitration remedy being violated please raise an issue at WP:AE, otherwise WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, etc. are appropriate venues. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, I do think your involvement has yet been both, constructive and neutral. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Stifle, I would like to inform you and other admins, who have been dragged into this mess, with the following: I am not interested or willing to further engage in a war of words with the particular “clique” of people clearly practicing WP:HOUND. I simply do not have the time or will to constantly defend the article I am editing on all kinds of deletion or enforcement boards and I clearly see that there is no end to this regardless of the outcomes until editing and contributing to the article in question has effectively been hampered. The instigators are clearly more experienced in jointly tracking editors, co-coordinating their moves and in waging battles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not and have not been involved in any Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts or arbitration in Wikipedia, where seems these “cliques” have organised. I think Wikipedia lacks policies for gang-like behaviour. Regards, --Hittit (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So noted. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My side of it is, that it is very "easy" to have numerous rules violated and have a huge mess created, announce that he abstains to participate in the discussion of it, blaming others for willing to do it. This isn't how these actions should be dealt with allowing editors with similar intentions replicate it. Aregakn (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Other AE question

Hello Stifle. Thank you for your involvment because the discussion was getting out of the limits and was not about the very point of the argument. Don't you think that it worths to inform user:Grandmaster as well of the outcome and the WP:OUCH (I read your message at User_talk:DGG)? Regards, Aregakn (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Grandmaster is capable of reading the outcome for himself. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree, that any of the involved (or not) one way or an other are capable of reading the outcome. I just refered to the message at the above mentioned talk-page... Just in case, you know. Thanks for your answer. Aregakn (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Freefall Web Comic

I want to tell you that I believe deleting this item was wrong. (May 1, 2010) ref: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ffdex.htm Freefall is is a very well crafted comic with rich/complex characters and genuinely interesting, if geeky plots. The Wikipedia page allowed readers who had newly discovered the comic to at least know the basic plot and characters without having to read all of it from its 1998 inception. I myself discovered the deletion looking to introduce someone who I believe will really enjoy it. rosebud (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)