User talk:CactusWriter

Archives

Apr-–July 08 Aug–Dec 08 Jan–Apr 09 May–Aug 09 Sep–Dec 09 Jan–Apr 10 May–Jun 10 Jul–Dec 10 Jan–Apr 11 May–Oct 11 Nov–Dec 11 Jan–May 12

...go about getting a userpage deleted if it is specifically set up to look like an Wikipedia article? I see a WP:FAKEARTICLEatUser:Kasyfil yohan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MQS. (LTNS! Nice to see you around.) Looks like a newbie account -- doesn't quite get it yet -- perhaps drop a note on his userpage first. But it can be submitted to WP:MFD. You'll find some similar examples in the current listings there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 09:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... I've continued busy enough as a contributor and been doing some with the admin bit as I learn the ropes therein. Well, as for the User:Kasyfil yohan page... it shows his age as 16, and I'm willing enough to accept that as a newb, he is still trying to feel his way around. I'll politely send him to WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. - Desine (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 10:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - you recently deleted a page I added. Your reasons were copyright infringement, but I am the copyright holder. The Gumtree item you refer to was posted by me. I have re-intstated the Wiki piece in the hope that it will stay. Please feel free to ask me for any information at xandpart@aol.com. Many thanks, David Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandpart (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David Ireland. I'm sorry, but because all Wikipedia editors are essentially anonymous (i.e., anyone can say they are anyone), permission to use copyrighted text can only be granted through official channels. For Wikipedia to use the exact text as posted on an online website, a person using the website's e-mail address must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link for instructions: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) Please do not recreate the article using the copyrighted text until it is approved through the OTRS office. The alternative -- and often the best choice, IMO -- is to create the page using original writing, so that it also conforms to our other core guidelines. If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, you deleted my page on Russell Walseth with the reasoning that it was largely copied from a post on AllBuffs.com. I can confirm it was copied from there, because I was the author of it there (I'm one of the basketball mods for the board and led "BasketBuffs History Week") and decided that since Sox Walseth was such an important member of CU Basketball History that he needed to have a Wikipedia page. I'm VERY new to the whole Wikipedia thing, so I didn't even think about the repercussions of this. What would be the best way to handle this? Can I have the page reinstated? If so, do I need to re-write it for Wikipedia so it's different, or can I just source that it's from my writing at AllBuffs? Thanks for your help. Jlucas4092 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jlucas4092. Permission for Wikipedia to use the exact text from AllBuffs.com can only be granted by the website. To do that, a person using the website's e-mail address must first contact the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office in writing. (A note was left on your talk page describing this. In particular, you may wish to review this link for instructions: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.) The alternative -- and often the best choice, IMO -- is to create the page using original writing, so that it also conforms to our other core guidelines. Don't worry about being new to Wikipedia -- we've all been there :) -- and it is understood that it does take time to learn all the rules. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evening CactusWriter,

When I originally tagged the article Haumoana (Surfer/Musician) with G12, I acted on the presupposition that the content was a substantial duplicate of the source, such that there was scarcely any non-infringing material. My recollection of the article's history is imperfect, but the CorenSearchBot had previously flagged the article for a copyright violation from a similar website, where the infringing material was identical. While notifying the author of the infringement, and their removal of the bot's tag, I subsequently realised that s/he had included this particular source in the footnotes, albeit improperly formatted. Perhaps the issue is merely a technicality, but I would assume that the inclusion of the reference would actually render the occurrence of a copyright violation equivocal, rather than unequivocal? Although this might effectively constitute pedantry, I'm curious whether my initial decision was mistaken. Cheers, Meph^talk 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Mephistophelian. Your tag was absolutely correct -- the entire article was a copy of the text from the outside source, from top to bottom. It doesn't matter if the text was properly attributed or even had been placed in quotes. A copyright violation can occur if quoted text on Wikipedia comprises the total or a substantial portion of the sourced text. In this case, it was the entire source. The article was a copyright violation from its foundation and would require a complete rewrite to make it compliant. Therefore, it was properly tagged for G12 speedy deletion. I hope that helps explain things. Let me know if it doesn't. (And, nope, not pedantry at all:)) Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my intermittent editing engenders a degree of forgetfulness. Meph^talk 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam:

I very much appreciate your diligence in protecting the Wikipedia community from copyright violations, vandalism, and other licentious acts. It is comforting to know that individuals like yourself seek to promote the highest standards of integrity and morality.

As a relatively new member to our community, I would respectfully request your assistance in helping me to publish this article on Eric Schlager in a format that would be acceptable to you and in accordance with Wikipedia's legally enforceable doctrines. I would very much appreciate you sending me the information for the deleted page so that I may revise such data to be in accordance with stated policy and procedure.

To address some of your stated concerns: (i) Nearly all of the published article was fact-based and included no opinions. While you note that certain material was cited to the Urban Land Institute website, in fact, if you closely analyze the citations, you will see that most of this information was previously published as generally available biographical data on the Bulfinch Companies website. (ii) Mr. Eric Schlager meets the generally accepted qualifications of being a notable entity as a result of the size of his company, civic leadership positions, mentions in national publications, etc...

I am willing to work with you to ensure the completeness and professionalism of this encyclopedic entry. In the future, I will run all pages by you before publication so that we may be able to avoid any unnecessary hindrances to future publication.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very Kind Regards.

Response to previous Conflict of Interest Post dated Aug. 3 on my Talk:

You allege a conflict of interest. The person writing this page is neither Eric Schlager, a family member, friend, etc. This is an arms-length party writing an encyclopedic article about Eric Schlager. Please restore this page. Thank you for your concerns, but they are unfounded and not based in valid evidence

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EDS250 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EDS250. The text of the deleted Eric Schlager page can be found at the source websites from which it was copied (that is the reason it was deleted as a copyright violation in the first place.) I have restored the list of references for you at User:EDS250/EricSchlager. Please note that the page was also deleted for its promotional text. As written on the source websites, the information does not pass our encyclopedic guidelines for neutral point-of-view. I suggest you read WP:NPOV before rewriting the article in original language. It may also be helpful to create the page using the WP:Article Wizard -- this provides a step-by-step process for determining if the article will pass Wikipedia core policies, as well as gives you access to experienced editors who can provide further advice. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Cregagh Cricket Club without consulting me as the creator of the article? The article had previously been considered by the WP cricket project and it had been agreed that it should be kept, given the club's history. Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mooretwin. The article was deleted for copyright violation. It had been tagged for close paraphrasing since July 5, 2011 and the report was finally investigated by me at WP:Copyright problems in June 2012. I did note that you made 3 edits to the article in August 26, 2011 -- therefore, it is presumed that you were aware of the copyvio tag on the top of the article but never took the opportunity to address the problem during the last 12 months.

If there was a deletion discussion which resulted in a decision to keep the article, that should have been noted on the article talk page. I am unable to find such a discussion. On the other hand, I find that the other 4th level clubs in the NCU league were all deleted by AFD discussions (e.g., see WP:Articles for deletion/Academy Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Dungannon Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Donaghadee Cricket Club, WP:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club, etc.).

However -- the club's lack of notability is not the issue here -- close paraphrasing is. What I will do is restore a stub which will allow you to build an article without using the substantial paraphrasing of the source. (By the way -- close paraphrasing problems are typical in articles which depend entirely on a single source. Use may wish to read WP:Close paraphrasing.) As far as notability concerns, I'm making no assessment, and that should be decided through AFD. But it would be a good idea if you found substantial coverage of the club in some independent reliable sources. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter,

My name is Ed Cafasso. I am a senior vice president at the public relations and marketing firm of Solomon McCown & Company in Boston, Mass. Our firm represents Eric Schlager and his company, the Bulfinch Companies. Mr. Schlager has asked me to look into who is creating a Wikipedia page about him at ^[1].

Based on the history available at ^[2], it appears that an unknown person using the user name EDS250 began building the page around August 3 by collecting personal and professional information about Mr. Schlager. To be clear, Mr. Schlager has not authorized anyone to create this page, nor has anyone he knows approached him seeking permission to do so.

From what I can gather, EDS250 ran into some issues with a couple of Wiki editors, including you, on copyright questions and the overtly promotional tone of earlier entries. At one point, the page was deleted. It’s difficult to follow the thread here: ^[3].

I am writing to seek your help in understanding who EDS250 is, how I may contact him/her, and what his/her interest is Mr. Schlager. As you can imagine, the sudden and unexplained creation of a page that includes detailed personal information has become a cause for concern for Mr. Schlager and his family. Although well known in greater Boston among those in real estate development, Mr. Schlager is a private businessman and is puxzzled as to why a complete stranger would create a wikipedia entry about him in this fashion.

I thank you in advance for your help in this inquiry... Ed Cafasso, SVP, Solomon McCown & Company, ecafasso@solomonmccown.com.

Edcafasso (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed Cafasso. First, I'm sure that you can understand that all accounts registered with Wikipedia are essentially anonymous -- anyone can register and anyone can state that they are anyone else (even in your case.) And, in fact, we have a policy against revealing another editor's identity. (See WP:PRIVACY). Only through official channels of the WP:OTRS office of the Wikimedia Foundation (in which all communication is kept private) do we deal with actual identities. Therefore, I can't delve into the identity of another editor nor speculate about their motives. If they do not wish to reveal their identity, that is their prerogative. As editors, we deal only with the value of sourced notable information, not the individual editor. If you wish to discuss anything with an editor, than you are welcome to write a message on their talk page.

Second, why a page is created for any individual or topic can be for a variety of reasons -- but is generally outlined in the General Notability Guideline. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Essentially, if Eric Schlager has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e., newspapers, magazines, books, journals, etc.), than it is possible that someone feels he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.

Finally, Wikipedia notes that Biographies of Living People must be treated with great care to ensure that any information included is proper. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest. With BLP articles, such as the one on Eric Schlager, we must err on the side of a presumption in favor of his privacy. If there is an immediate problem, let me know. Should Eric Schlager have any concerns over the page, I suggest he follow the guideline at WP:BIOSELF for contacting editors on Wikipedia or contacting the the Foundations's OTRS office directly.

Should you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page called Clarence and the Whatnows that was deleted in January for lack of independent 3rd party references. An independent 3rd party newspaper has written about my topic, so I would like to be able to resurrect my page and add the reference to legitimize it. Please let me know what I need to do to have this completed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkuehn (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ajkuehn. You can use WP:Article Wizard -- it will help lead you through the process to determine if any topic will pass the guidelines for an encyclopedia article. You should also first read WP:BAND which outlines some necessary elements for a musical group to be considered notable, including the first criteria about significant coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works." If the group doesn't meet those criteria, than an article about it is probably not yet appropriate. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a current employee and staff of SST and I'm given the permission by the Principal of the school, Mr Chua Chor Huat, to use the writeup and pictures from the SST website into the SST Wiki page (pls refer to the sst website -> about SST -> Organisation Structure -> Admin Office -> Carol Lum). I'm the Corporate Communications Executive and I do both the photography and writeup for the school.

Apparently it was stated in the deletion log that the page had been deleted because of the use of the logo in the page. This page is the school's main Wiki page and it is not possible not to use the logo at all. I'm not sure I understand why it was deleted based on this reason as it does not seem justifiable.

If reusing the photos that were from the SST website is not allowed, I will change the gallery entirely. As I've taken new photos of the students' achievement in the recent month, I've already made periodical edits since early this week.

Please reinstate the page to allow me to make the edits to the pictures in the gallery.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lumcarol. The page was deleted for copyright violation because the entire text was copied or derived from the official school website. Restoration of a copyright violation is the same as the violation itself, therefore I cannot restore the page for your use. If you wish to use material that is already published online, than please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the proper procedure in gaining permission. Please also understand that copyrighted text, even after you have received permission, may still not be suitable for an encyclopedia. It must pass the core policies of neutral point-of-view. So, I also suggest that you read Wikipedia guidelines concerning conflict-of-interest and promotional materials before posting new material. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cactus. Unfortunately due to the intense editing by different editors, the SST information is now incorrect. My colleague has tried to make the changes to the writeup including the curriculum for Years 1 and 2 (which is wrong by the way) and the main information (SST is not set up by Ngee Ann Polytechnic although we are their subsidiary. It is initiated by the Ministry of Education.) to name a few. Could you assist to revert the changes made by my colleague? She has even cited references in ALL the categories mentioned.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lumcarol, I notice that the article is already receiving help from a number of editors and an administrator. I think it best to discuss any difficulties you have with them -- as they are already familiar with the article content -- and can advise you accordingly. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the article you deleted didn't have any information because I started writing it fifteen minutes ago. Just a theory.(Zerocompliance (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Zerocompliance. Ten minutes is our usual standard for an editor to provide even a minimal single legible sentence for the start of an article. Given that you could not provide even that minimal standard, it is not unexpected that the page was deleted after fifteen minutes. I suggest that you build your article in your userspace or use our WP:Article Wizard to construct a page which does meet Wikipedia guidelines. This is the best way to avoid these kinds of problems. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen minutes is more than enough time to write a single sentence, thank you very much. Fifteen minutes to write a single sentence adhering to formatting guidelines while learning a new mark up language, on the other hand, strikes me as setting the bar a bit high. Also, you may want to review the "Don't bite the newcomers" section of Wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. Subtle snarkiness is still snarkiness. (Zerocompliance (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Zerocompliance, I suspect you understand, your sarcastic comment of "Just a theory" might invite a like reply. But poor formatting or mark-up is not an issue for speedy deletion -- lack of a single sentence is. That bar is not considered to be too high. My further suggestions to you still apply. And you're still welcome to create an article which meets our guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just logged in to check an article that I created and see that it was deleted. I appears that the recommending editor did not read the talk page. I left a comment about the previous deletion and this page is NOT substantially similar to the last page. As stated, the fluff was removed and the article is more than notable. I also left the message that I checked all of the references to make sure that they were valid (as this was an issue with the last deletion). I would request that you reinstate the page and if someone has an issue with it they can take it to RfD as the page is NOT similar to the last. In fact, not sure how the recommending editor compared the two articles as it no longer exists. I know as I have a copy of it. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HappyTwoBee. I did read your comment on the article talk page. I also noted that the issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination) was a concern about notability of the subject. I then compared the two articles. Although your latest version of the article had the "fluff" as well as the false references edited/removed, my own comparison of the two articles showed they were essentially the same article which was deleted for failure to pass general notability guidelines. However, you are certainly welcome to obtain other opinions about this. If you wish, you can request a review at Deletion Review. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have filed with RfU [1] but I guess I do not understand. I thoroughly read the 2nd RfD and the comments were about notability (as the references appeared to be passing mentions or not even talking about her). However, I have since added the notable references as you can see if you look at the deleted page. Also, here is the SPA report from the 2nd nomination [2]. Not much, but a potential duplicate which is probably related to the nominating editor. With my complaint about the editor aside, I do not want the page to suffer because it was poorly written the first time. That is why I would rather see it go through RfD as opposed to Speedy Deletion (as the article is substantially different than the one in the 2nd RfD - IMO). --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with the comments in the second RfD about the article. However, you will see from the one that was posted that none of those comments would apply to the article I wrote. I think it is worth a second look if you would be so kind. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. (There is actually nothing convincing about the SPA report -- but, as you state, the issue of notability resides in the comments by the other editors as well -- so the SPA point is not really worth too much bother.) I recall that the new article did have the promotional material removed/edited which did make it a better presentation -- but the issue of spam was not the major cause for previous deletion. I don't recall seeing anything in the way of new notability material nor RS citations, but I'll be happy to take a second look when I get a chance. In the meantime, some second opinions at the RFU can be helpful. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I am only one person so unless someone else chimes in at RfU I doubt there is going to be many second opinions. If possible, please move the article back to a subpage User:HappyTwoBEE/sandbox/BJ3 for me. The notability is stated in the way of her being an expert in her field. Also, you will see that the sources back it up (notable television and magazine appearances for being an expert). Again, these are not just passing mentions or "promotional fluff" like the 2nd article that was deleted. I understand everyone's concern for articles being spammed back into Wikipedia after being deleted, but this is truly a case of one that is deserving of inclusion. Again, I would have been the first to vote delete on the 2nd article, but this article is meets Wikipedia guidelines on Notability to a "T". --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would also appreciate (although I am not fishing) if you could leave your comment on the RfU page for those reviewing, especially the comment that "I recall that the new article did have the promotional material removed/edited which did make it a better presentation."--HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HappyTwoBEE, I have again looked at the deleted page and find that that all but one of the references are unsuitable as independent reliable sources for a biographical article -- especially a biography of a living person, which requires the most stringent standards. Some are press release material, some are blogs, some are mere mentions of the name, some are badlinks, some are simply pieces written by this individual, and many are not about this person but merely them talking about a topic. It is these types of citations which suggest the article is being written only for the purposes of self-promotion. Please note that pertinent reliable sources will be entirely about the person, not their field of topic, and independent of any connection to this person. IMO, the only independent RS source is the one from St. Louis Magazine. That, however, is a local piece and insufficient for establishing notability or the creation of a encyclopedic bio. This person may one day be notable, but they are not as yet, by Wikipedia criteria. If in six months time or a year or further down the road, Jade becomes the major subject of multiple, independent and reliable stories, than there should be no problem with creating a page on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will place the article in your userspace. But only with the understanding that it cannot be moved into the Wikipedia mainspace prior to removal of all self-promotional material and references, and the addition of quality references which provide substantial and independent coverage of Jade. Otherwise, the article will be subject to deletion again. (I am not commenting at the RFU because the advice you received there seems correct to me.) If you have further questions, please ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I appreciate you being polite throughout this ordeal and also thank you for taking the time to look at the article again. I also understand not commenting in the other forums. I was told I was in the wrong forum for the last request so I need to take the matter to DRV. However, to follow guidelines, I need to make sure I "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."[3]. With that in mind, I only wish to point out some of the independent and reliable sources that fit the example of what you state above; and, request that you also keep in mind that the Advert part of the article (deleted pursuant to the 2nd nomination) was removed and the article re-written from NPOV (again, IMO). Naturally Fit St. Louis She was featured as one of 5 sexy role models (the article is not solely about her, but neither would be an article talking about 5 people who won a nobel prize this year; The Today Show The link is to the video clip (give it time to load as it looks like a dead link but it is not); Bliss Bliss is a great reference about her as they followed her throughout an entire day of her work (includes photos and everything); Junonia They are one of the largest active wear retailers in the U.S.; Time Out New York Time Out New York is one of the sites from the Time Out Company (see their Wiki article for additional info) and the article is about her; Rate Your Burn Yes this is a blog, but in the fitness world, it is regarded as one of the best (you would need to ask around as it is difficult to know without being part of the fitness world - not saying your not in shape, but saying that you probably do not get into reading about it that much); US Weekly Again, this is not about her personally but IMO the article would fall within guidelines as it is one of the largest magazines (not just a fitness magazine so it would definitely be independent) and they bring her in as the expert on fitness and use her as the expert.

Although some of the sources are not 100% about her, they are references where she was brought on and interviewed for being an expert (such as US Weekly) in the field. I understand that notability is not inherent, but the citations still support the claim of notability (IMO). WP:SELFPUB allows her contributions on Fox Latino to be used as well (although they are not 100% about her, it is still allowable under the criteria as long as it is not self-serving - which I believe that it is not, again IMO). BLP states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." (I believe that this would apply to the entries that you state are blogs or possible do not carry as much weight as the other sources." BLP also provides that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." So, I used some of the sources that may or may not be considered heavy weight to those viewing the article, but they are at least used to support the content within the article (and used as inline citations so they are pointing at the correct content).

Finally, I am not sure which reference is a dead link (you may have looked at the old article) as each reference that I used I personally researched (and also just went through them all again and they all work). Any citation that is duplicate from the last article was used ONLY AFTER I researched it. Also, please keep in mind that although some references are from less known sources, they can still be used as a combination as a single source to establish notability. I am hoping that you do not take my ranting on and on about this article or citing of Wiki guidelines as disrespect as I know that you are an experienced Admin and already know the policies. I just want to show you how I am viewing the article as I wrote it and that I am not trying to spam an article or re introduce an poorly written article (which the userspace article will not be restored at this time as I am hoping that you either restore it as is or restore it to RfD). Please let me know your final thoughts (I guess that is how to phrase it) so I know if I need to go to RfD to comment on the article or go to DRV with the request). Again, thank you for your time and for being nice throughout the process. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline: If you find yourself going to great lengths to establish notability, than Jade is probably not notable. That she is not notable yet is the overwhelming consensus among editors who tagged the article, commented at AFD, commented at DRV and responded to the RFU. I think it best for you to move on and concentrate your energy on creating articles about more notable topics. Good luck with your editing. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofBianca Jade. 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. HappyTwoBEE (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not think that I am trying to go around you by requesting undeletion of the page. I appreciate all of the comments that you have given me and hope that you are not offended. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry that I have been slow to respond -- I've been in meetings in Washington DC for the past week. I have now replied at the DRV. And for the reasons previously stated, my position is unchanged. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wonder if you'd take a look at this section. I can't see why it wouldn't be a copyright violation, but since it constitutes about half of the article I thought I'd ask someone who deals with WP:COPYVIO before removing it. I don't recall ever running into this exact situation before. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, Rivertorch -- copying the movie description from the DVD box is definitely a copyright violation. Unfortunately, it is typical to find an editor has created the synopsis section of a movie article by copying some published source. I've gone ahead and removed it, and added a {{cclean}} message to the talk page. Thanks for spotting that. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if the editor who added it had chosen a different section heading, it might have remained there for 30 years instead of three. Thanks for sorting it! Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Ha! Gotta appreciate their honesty. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion of his bio! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lugnuts! I ran across a little item in the news today, checked the WP bio and thought "Hey, wait a minute, this guy is a little bit more than an Olympic fencer." I assume you created this one during one of your regular campaigns through a topic. Thanks for starting it. And I appreciate your comment. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created the bio as part of my fencer creation drives. Always good to see expansions and interesting articles coming from them! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking edits and I notice you have deleted my user page for vandalism without stating the specific reason. Not sure why as I don't even recall starting one. I'd like to know the reasoning please. It seems you ask the same if done to you so it only seems fair. If I did do something I'd like to avoid it in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactualFix (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FactualFix. I'm sorry for any confusion. There was nothing that you did -- the page was created by another editor with whom you were in an editing conflict. It was tagged as vandalism and I deleted it. The deletion does not reflect upon you. You are, of course, always welcome to create your own userpage. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There are a few of us interested in editing Die Young (Kesha song), but it was deleted and protected. Would it be possible to have this page undeleted or, at the very least, unlocked so we can recreated? The topic has definitely achieved notability since it's deletion and has already charted in Belgium. Here is a list of reliable sources we would like to use to fix up this article: source list. We would also like to redirect Die Young (Ke$ha song) (also sysop-locked) to Die Young (Kesha song), as per the discussion on Talk:Kesha and various deleted talk pages linked to Die Young (Kesha song). Please get back to ASAP. Thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thevampireshlee. Given that the song is released now and has substantial coverage in reliable sources, I have unprotected the page and redirected the other page to it. [6] Go ahead and recreate it. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS has been processed for this. Can you handle the tag you put there? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No Problem. Thanks for processing the ticket. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Special:Contributions/96.24.50.100. Seems likely we can expect the same vandal to create a hoax page on Marcus Shanae too. (edit conflict: that's been done; I tagged as G3 already). BusterD (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I'll drop a final warning about hoaxes on the editor's page. And if there is any further vandalism, they'll be blocked as a VOA (including the IP). Thanks for staying on top of this. It's much appreciated! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm getting better at New Pages Patrol. Used to be shy about drinking directly from the firehose, but have been practicing CSD tagging in the last few months and using some automated tools to view the the data. I always try to do a quick WP:BEFORE when applying CSD tags, so I spotted the addition of redlinks on the Safety page after a search for Renard Makuchin. Seems to me I'd remember a Raiders safety whose number is retired, so when the search only returned the Safety page I was pretty confident someone was pulling a pair of fast ones. Appreciate your eyes. BusterD (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter, just noticed your edits at commons:File:Malaria.jpg and was wondering whether WikiProject Open Access would be of interest to you. With a smile, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I should have known someone would see that blooper! Daniel, you caught me. I did almost blow that one. Mea maxima culpa. But... yes, I appreciate the open access project -- especially in regard to the science journals. Thanks for your commitment in that regard. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	puppy
	A puppy. Goatgreek (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello It's Me Goatgreek send me a WikiLove please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatgreek (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goatgreek. Instead, I would appreciate it if you stopped uploading files from WP:COMMONS to Wikipedia. I have left enough personal notes, as well as template messages, on your talk pages concerning this issue. It should be clear to you by now. Persistence in making edits contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines without an overriding positive effect is considered disruptive editing. If the only purpose of your account is to persist in copying files from Commons to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wtf wye u delet my mark gjonaj u kid great u fore mark gjonaj whqan u know batter fucker Gjoni66 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mark Gjonaj was tagged and deleted for being obviously untrue. See Naomi Rivera, who is the actual representative of District 80 in the New York State Assembly. If you wish to have a coherent conversation about this, than fine -- I suggest you first read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. But if you are unable to communicate in a proper manner, than this conversation will not proceed. — CactusWriter ^(talk)

	iPad
	Thanks for restoring the edit history for iPad (4th generation)!Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anonymous321! Just what I wanted -- maybe I should hope that Ferrari needs restoring soon. :) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha – you deserve it! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting you concerning an article that was deleted a few months ago. The reason given was that it was "blatant close paraphrasing" of "The Gangs of New York" by Herbert Asbury. I don't know if it was edited since its creation, however, the original version used multiple sources. There may have been direct quotations taken from Gangs of New York, however, they were all properly attributed. If if was restored, I'd be willing to revise it. 72.74.199.106 (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Mose the Fireboy listed a number of references under a Further Reading section but was attributed and referenced to only one source: The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the New York Underworld by Herbert Asbury. Although the article was attributed (including an entire paragraph quoted directly) -- this did not relieve it of copyright violation. A comparison to the source showed that the Wikipedia article was a line-for-line close paraphrase of pages 30 to 34 from the book and included numerous instances where creative phrasing written by the Asbury were used. Please note that close paraphasing not only concerns exact word choices -- but also sentence and paragraph structure. The creative ordering of Asbury's sentences and paragraphs was an obvious template for the Wikipedia article. This substantial amount of close paraphrasing created a copyright violation -- and, unfortunately, a revision of the text would still have been a derivative work of the single source. The article required a revision from scratch. I appreciate your willingness to revise it, but it is against Wikipedia policy to restore any copyright violation, even into user space. You are welcome to create a new page on the subject, but you may wish to read WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING for a clearer idea of the issue. If you have further questions, please ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for declining speedy deletion of a perfectly intentional redirect page. I had already bedazzledly commented on my talk page, and feel reassured by your wise response to the request.​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-02 19:09 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry you were effected by an obviously overzealous new page patroller. In consideration of your long contribution history, I've added WP:Autopatrolled to your user rights. I hope that will prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future. Thanks for your editing, SomeHuman. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, nice job, well understood and much appreciated!​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-03 11:27 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what was the reason you deleted the American Perfection, was it the resources?? Please answer, because I do need to know my mistakes to try and do better the next time. Hemmeband17 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hemmeband17. American Perfection (professional wrestling) was deleted on June 4, 2012 because it was a recreation of an article that had been previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Perfection (it was also deleted as American Perfection on April 11, 2012 and October 13, 2012.) The article lacked any reliable references for the term "American Perfection" -- that is, there was no substantial coverage of that phrase by any independent sources like newspapers or professional magazines. If you disagree with the deletion, you can request other opinions at WP:Deletion review. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not disagree with you. What if I remade the article as just Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger, because I admit I didn't know what sites were useable and what weren't, but I do now. So would it be fine if I remade the page with all new reliable resources?? Hemmeband17 (talk) 8:29, November 8 2012 (UTC)

Those two articles already exist so there is no need to create a new article with their names. If you have good reliable sources for some significant information about either of those people, you should be able to add it to their article page. I do notice that neither page mentions the term "American Perfection" when discussing their recent tag team -- which suggests to me that the term is insignificant. However, I am not knowledgeable about the WWE nor these wrestlers. I suggest that you first raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling -- and ask for the opinion of experienced editors there -- then follow their consensus. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You left a barnstar on my user page! Just dropping by to say thanks, it made me smile. --Olegkagan (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Please continue the great editing. By the way, I do hope you will someday be able to expand Lawrence Clark Powell. I loved The Blue Train when I was a student at the University of Arizona back in the 70s, even before I realized Powell was there -- and do enjoy the autographed copy on my bookshelf. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cactus, In this link you can find the copyright permision for wikipedia: http://www.livius.org/mail2.html I will add the next link copyright permision as soon as I find out.

By the way, the articlewas far from done yet and I was editing it, you could see from history that I was working on it. There were parts that were copied and not rewritten yet, but there were parts that I had rewrite them. I agree it wasn't done yet but I was looking for good book resources. It was a disappointment to see it is deleted without any alert. I had found the right structure for the text; yet some parts were rephrased but definitely the structure was different from both references that you had mentioned. It took me an evening! So, please give back the text so that I can edit it.

Regards, Faridoun (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Faridoun. I do appreciate efforts in trying to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. However, there are a several problems with your request. The website link you provide as copyright permission is inadequate for our purposes -- firstly, it addresses the copying of photos from the website and, secondly, it disallows use on commercial websites and that is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. (See Wikipedia:Copyrights)

The proper way for providing permission to use materials already published is either: to license them for public use by posting a CC-BY-SA 3.0 share-alike license on the site; or granting permission by writing to the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS office. The methods for doing this are outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. (By the way, I noticed that link was provided to you on your talk page on November 12, 2012 when you were notified about another copyright violation and had a subsequent discussion about it. So this isn't the first time you've been alerted about this problem.)

Please also note that editors may not upload incompatibly licensed copyrighted text -- even when they have the intention of rewriting it. Not only does the text still exist in the history, but the foundation of that text tends to create a derivative plagiarized work. And would remain in violation. You may wish to review the essay on WP:Close paraphrasing.

Finally, it is against Wikipedia policy for me to restore any page or text which violates copyright. So I cannot do this. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had created a page and was notified that there was unambiguous copyright infringement. I don't believe there was, though. I saw that you deleted the page. Can you provide me with any information? Also, is there any way I can get the text back? Unfortunately, I do not have it saved anywhere else. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Furchgott&action=edit&redlink=1)

Conradkh (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Conradkh[reply]

Hello, Conradkh. I have rechecked the deleted page -- and, yes, it was an unambiguous copyright infringement. The text on the page was a word-for-word copy of this bio ( ©2012 International Arts & Artists). It is also a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy to recreate incompatibly licensed text on any page -- therefore, I cannot restore it. You can still read the original text from the infringed website if you wish. If you have further questions, please ask. Regards -- — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entire text of that article in my own words. If there is a problem with the UT picture, fine, but the other pictures are originial product, as is the entire article. I wrote it myself and did not take any text from anywhere. Please restore the article immediately without the offending picture if necessary, but put the rest of it back up as I wrote the text. With the exception of the Spurs picture, there are no copyright problems. Please fix it immediately. The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themoodyblue, you state that you did not plagiarize the text of Apache Pass Amphitheater -- and, yet, your submission was a word-for-word copyright violation of this website, which has been on-line for several years. For example, here are the first two sentences in the history section of the article you submitted on August 16, 2012:

From 1746 - 1749 three Spanish missions and a Presidio (fort) were built in the area by Spanish missionaries, mission Indians and a garrison of Spanish soldiers. The Spaniards goals were to Christianize and civilize the numerous Indian tribes in the area and to establish a presence, in this region, ahead of the French.

And here are the first two sentences of the source page as it appeared on December 12, 2010:

From 1746 - 1749 three Spanish missions and a presidio were built in the area by Spanish missionaries, mission Indians and a Garrison of Spanish soldiers. The Spaniards goals were to Christianize and civilize the numerous Indian tribes in the area and to establish a presence, in this region, ahead of the French.

Your submission continues with the entirety of the source's text (as well as text from other pages). How do you wish to explain this? Because, as written, it is a blatant copy-paste and copyright violations cannot be restored. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't use my own material I wrote on a website? I am not wasting anymore time on this one. The Moody Blue (Talk) 05:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material previously published must first be licensed or released for use under the Creative Commons license, prior to being copied to Wikipedia. This was described to you in the template message on your talk page. Further information for the specifics on how to license this material is found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused - I need to go through Creative Commons to use my own work? How do I do that? The Moody Blue (Talk) 04:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If you don't wish to place a copyright notice on the website page, then you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org;

(2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

If any of the instructions are unclear, please feel free to ask for further help. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thanks, Michael. Happy Holidays to you, too. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter. About a week ago you cleaned List of Curious George episodes of some copyvio. Yesterday an IP reinserted some from the same source. I've reverted and warned, but was wondering whether it might be useful to semi-protect it for a while? Merry Christmas. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stfg. Thanks for keeping an eye on that and reverting the new copyvio. Unfortunately, reinsertions like that are not uncommon. The reinsertion doesn't quite rise to the level of disruptive editing that's necessary for protecting the article. Not yet, that is -- but if it continues than, yes, I will semi-protect it. In the meantime, I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my article about SamiJo Leach? She is one of my favorite actressess and models.KatSmithFan922 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KatSmithFan922, the article was tagged and deleted according to Wikipedia's WP:A7 deletion criteria -- that is, it was a biographical article without any credible claim of significance or importance. I see that all the articles you have created recently have been deleted as lacking significance or as blatant hoaxes. I think it would be best if you first read Wikipedia:Your first article before creating any more articles. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the move was appropriate. There had been no renewed discussion for over a year. The most recent comments were that "metro" was probably the best term. All the lines, stations, and linking templates use "metro." I would request the move be undone. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jsfousche. I responded to a request to make the move and I read the discussion on the talk page. It showed that all five of the editors who commented in the initial discussion thought that Buenos Aires Underground was the better term (including the most recent comment from September 2011). The 2010 comment by User:Moebiusuibeom-en also confirmed their opinion that it should be named, to the same degree as in the language of William Shakespeare, as the Buenos Aires Underground. You then replied: OK, the Buenos Aires Metro is much more appropriate on the international level! -- which was a strange reply because that actually was at odds with all the previous comments including the one to which you were responding. Given the level of consensus there (5 out of 6 editors), I believed the move was appropriate. And there should be no problem with the links because the redirect was created. Of course, consensus can certainly change over time. So you are always welcome to raise the issue again for more discussion among the editors involved with that subject. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have given us sometime before deleting the article on Swami Satyabhakta. He was a renowned personality. His reference is already there in one of wikipedia pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parwar_(Jain) (see Distinguished Paravāra Jains section, and it was always there from begining, we havent just added him now, check history of page) In a time when articles on any small personality are readily accepted on wikipedia my article has been deleted without giving me proper time to reply. This persons many books are present in online library of Osmania University, Hyderabad, India. http://oudl.osmania.ac.in/browse?value=Satyabhakt+Darabaariilaal&type=author

He once contested for Indian presidential elections too. There is an internet link which i am trying to find. Please give me sometime before deleting my articles. Thanks

123.201.182.99 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Gyanesh gyanesh.purohit@gmail.com[reply]

I am sorry, but copyright violations must be removed immediately per Wikipedia policy. The deletion had nothing to do with whether or not this individual is significant. The article you created was a word-for-word plagiarism of http://www.satyasamaj.com/swami-satyabhakta.html. And the source page clearly states Copyright © 2011 Sarvedshik Satya Samaj, All rights reserved. I suggest you first read WP:Copyright violation -- and, in the future, use only original language when creating articles. Regards. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reason for deleting the article taken from a copyrighted source. However I also think that there should be an article on him. I have seen several of his books and articles. He was a major scholar and philosopher in 1930s and 40s; he continued to write well until late 1980s. Osho, Nathuram Premi, Sukhlal Sanghvi have mentioned about his influence. His expriments on creating a world language and a world script are still recalled. I can help create this article using proper published resources. Malaiya (talk)

At the moment, I have no opinion on the notability of this individual, but you are welcome to create a page referenced to proper reliable sources. The WP:Article wizard provides a useful step-by-step process for creating a new article. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coat of Arms of Connecticut redirect is still needed, if anyone bookmarked the page or put an link to if from another website when it was at that title, you broke it by deleting the redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emmette. It was deleted following your CSD request to move the page over the redirect. At which time, I also changed the internal links for you. The possibility of an outside bookmark is a good point -- I've now recreated the redirect. In the future, it's okay with me if you want to recreate the page on your own. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cactus. The article that you deleted is up and running again, this time citing a predecessor program broadcast on the Australian UHF Community television channel Channel 31. I'm trying to work with the editor who started the article. The claims of a predecessor program appear to be somewhat tenuous, and the main article appears to be overly promotional. My spidey-senses are tingling big time: for example, a userfication request, amongst other things.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shirt58. I'm not sure what's going on there. (There's no longer a problem with copyvio or promotional language -- and there does not appear to be some evidence of the show exists -- so this doesn't qualify for automatic CSD.) The article is filled with original research, though, and that should be scrubbed. The lack of references or any significant coverage is definitely a problem, and if the article isn't improved, it should be sent to AFD for failure to pass GNG criteria. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-08/local/me-358_1_test-data Talks about the first Qui Tam Relator case to be won.

https://sites.google.com/site/defenseweek651989/ 31 out of 40 HARM missiles used in 1986 Libyia Bombing Raid had Genisco Altimiters in them.

https://sites.google.com/site/defenseweek511989/ John Gravitts and Company interviewed

Hope you are well and busy, thanks for your ear and patience. Qui Tam Relator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Qui Tam Relator. Those references are cited on the page. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to express my gratitude towards you for doing something about this user. I had spent too much time reverting/verifying a lot of his edits. Thank you.OakRunner (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]