The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 22 · Archive 23 · Archive 24 →

I see you're active at the moment, Daniel. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at something. I've been trying to engage with a user about apparent personal attacks,[1] and in reply I'm getting only a reiteration ("proof of concept").[2] I'm at a loss. — coelacan talk — 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Coelacan, but I have had a prior conflict with CyberAnth that means that I would not be objective in any comments/decisions I could make. Although I know it has been done countless times before, WP:ANI would be best for this; or else, a RFC for repeated behavioural problems. Other than that, sorry, I can't help. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, I didn't know you had. — coelacan talk — 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only peripherally, amongst a lot of other users, but I was there; although CyberAnth probably won't remember my input (there was a lot of bad behaviour, and to blow my own horn softly I was one of the better ones). However, I still would like to preserve total impartiality in any actions I take, and I feel that this wouldn't be possible given my experiences. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But better late than never. It is not often I see someone more deserving than yourself going through the RfA process, I was very pleased (but not entirely suprised) that it succeeded. You are a fine example of a great wikipedian, and I wish you good luck in your new role.

PS - Can you sub-page that RfA thanks message rather than removing it, I might just wantto refer to that pledge of yours sometime :P Viridae^Talk 12:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpaged, just for you, at User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/RfA Message :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still around, I've got a project I need some help on. Ping my talk page or poke me on IRC and I'll fill you in. Essjay (Talk) 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, I've got more of it done than I realized. :) Essjay (Talk) 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to chat to you anyways regarding a b'crat problem and possible fix which is slightly more complex than the normal CHU. I will guess what you originally wanted me for was something to do with WP:CHU/U :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to block this user account as well; it seems to have been cooperating with User:Moonfranky to make vandalizing edits; they would both edit an article in rapid succession, and thus only the second vandalism would be removed. Brianyoumans 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Deathphoenix[3] before I got home. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Solid ground) - this is what I believe you will be as a member of our community trusted with the tools you now have. Congratulations on becoming a defender of the wiki, an owner of the mop and a member of the janitorial crew! Never forget what sysopship is now. Strive for excellence - to the same standard as you have presented over the past year, and always act in the interests of the encyclopedia.

Yours,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and best of luck with Simple. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - SVRTVDude 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't done anything with that IP - the AIV report was removed[4] by Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs), for a number of reasons. If I missed something that I did...well, I'm losing my marbles then :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming an administrator. About time. Congratulations also on making WP:200. I wish you the best and I hope you have a great adminship. When does the bloodbath begin? Cheers. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I missed noticing your RFA by days! Congratulations Daniel. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Thanks both of you, Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel, I don't know if you were already planning on this, but would it be possible for the next Signpost to mention the experimental beginning of Featured Sound Candidates (WP:FSC) and prod people to make nominations/give comments? Thanks, Mak (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can mention it in my weekly "Features and admins" section. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Natural selection. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

And congratulations for the mop and the bucket! You'll be a great admin! NCurse _work 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but it turns out to be that I really jumped the gun with the request. The code for my is the one that says Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits, which is indeed too obvious for a checkuser... Is there actually a noticeboard for such announcements, apart from WP:AN/I? --Kuban Cossack 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is really the only option, unless you think WP:SSP is applicable here. I don't know enough about the situation, so no comment either way. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, I request that my request be taken down and those selected "throwaway" accounts be dealt with as you normally would. Sorry for the trouble I caused, regards.--Kuban Cossack 13:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be archived shortly; it was declined by Jpgordon (talk). Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On February 1, 2007, a fact from the article Loch Arkaig treasure, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishkid. Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique (talk · contribs) contacted me about a possible imposter on teh Haitian Creole Wikipedia; looking at his recent vandal reverts on ht.wikipedia, it appears that the Tooj/Geek vandal (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117 and Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Tooj117.2FThe_Geek_Vandal) has taken up residence on other language encyclopedias. Do you happen to know if CheckUser cases (and the associated blocks) can be applied globally in any sort of way (like the spam blacklist), or does it need to be handled case-by-case at each wiki? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard from another user that I can request a cross-wiki check at meta; any additional suggestions besides that? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a case two months or so with a similar situation; unfortunately, I went on holidays just after it was filed and I can't remember which case it was, so I can't find out what happened in the end. My only suggestion is to follow the suggestion given by Bastique (talk · contribs), a much more knowledgeable person for stuff like this than I. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you to add to WP:PT. MER-C 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely... [5][6] Thanks for the note, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so jealous. No trolls have ever written me such beautifully worded love songs! Sarah 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the prestige...well, both those titles are salted, so hopefully there'll be no more school-level attack articles for a little while. Cheers Sarah, and I'm slowly getting around to my inbox :) Sorry for the delay, Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We usually leave 6 days worth of candidates on DYK at mininum. Putting the expired tag above the January 28 candidates that haven't even been touched yet is going to meet with alot of opposition. You may want to just change it yourself rather than face the villagers with torches and pitchforks! Shaundakulbara 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I don't agree with it fully. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Order of Smile.png

The folks who do DYK make an effort to feature all eligible articles if possible. Only rarely does an eligible article get bumped because there isn't room for it. Although sometimes I think the selection process could be a little more discriminating there, I do admire that groups's efforts to say "yes" whenever possible. So many people on Wikiepdia, myself included, can be too quick to say "no". Likewise, your willingness to go with the flow in this matter is admirable too. Thanks. - Shaundakulbara 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Cheers :) Daniel.Bryant 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to make my userpage like yours, except with black and red instead of blue and white? Thanks, Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)04:28, Saturday, 3 February '07

Top or bottom? [7] Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! I am also adapting this template as we speak. I have it all set up in my sandbox except I would like to make the vandalism box go away. -Shaundakulbara 05:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got it! Thanks for letting me adapt the template. Shaundakulbara 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have probably filled in the fields listed at User:Daniel.Bryant/TPHeaderForOthers before substituting it, but doesn't matter :) Any help you need, feel free to ask. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black border, red foreground. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:42, Saturday, 3 February '07

So swap the currently-gray area in #1 for all-black? Or leave #1 as it is, and use that? Daniel.Bryant 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swap the gray area in number one for all black. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:45, Saturday, 3 February '07

OK, will do. Daniel.Bryant 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the content on your userpage, [8]. OK? If so, I'll copy it over, and also update your talk page to the same style. Of course, once it is there, you can fiddle to your hearts' content. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you:). 58.167.206.207 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's me. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)07:20, Saturday, 3 February '07

Ha! I'll move it over now, given your consent. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all finished :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - noticed you're active through DLog. There's a pretty vile page out there that's been reposted a couple of times today. It's at <link removed>. I wonder if you would delete it real fast? (And then censor the title here?!) Philippe Beaudette 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again, creator blocked again as a sockpuppet (I blocked the account that created it yesterday, and this is an obvious sockpuppet), and article name prevented from recreation. See how this goes...thanks for the note. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've speedied that one a couple of times today. Philippe Beaudette 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you originally tagged it as ((db-attack)) at 22:14, February 2, 2007, and then again at 05:15, February 3, 2007 when the sock reposted it. I deleted it both times :) Cheers, and thanks for your awesome newpage patrolling, Daniel.Bryant 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you feel helpful, I wouldn't mind some help with my talk page. Specifically, I'd like to wrap a box around the top part -- the part that currently has no border. I put a copy in User:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox in case you are interested in mucking around with it. If you're too busy or not in the mood, no worries! Thanks. Shaundakulbara 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very recently fixed the template at User:Daniel.Bryant/TPHeaderForOthers, so now that problem won't occur. If you tell me what colours you want, I'll be able to whip you up something in no time. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Order of Smile.png

For now, let's say red. Can you please refer me to the chart or wherever that explains what numbers equal what colours so I can change it later? Thanks very much! -Shaundakulbara 08:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself, following the instructions laid out in the gray box at the bottom of User:Daniel.Bryant/TPHeaderForOthers. For colour codes to fill in the background/border fields, see List of colors. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I didn't even think of WoW — which is probably a signal to me that I should go to sleep. (It's quarter till 5 in the morning where I am.) Thanks for catching my goof. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha :) I once saw a username that was a blatant attack on me, and I didn't even click that it should be blocked; it was about 4am as well :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I added a nomination for Did you know (my first! :), but I noticed you removed it, along with all the others for that day. I'm not sure why you did it, and I'd like to know why. Was it too old? I'm knew for Did you know, so I still don't know how it works; I'd appreciate an explanation. Thanks! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 23:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your nomination as I agreed with Blnguyen, who said "[v]ery much on the short side, in terms of the main body". The others removed from January 26 were either because of the same problem, or else they didn't qualify for the 5-days-old criteria (one was over four months old!). Generally, we prefer articles which are slightly longer than yours; however, on checking back, the article you nominated was borderline length, and in the interests of being non-biting (as you are a newcomer to DYK! :D), I'll add your nomination to the next update with my sincere aplogies :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation. I'll work on the article tomorrow some more, since you say it "should" be longer. Thanks for your help! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 01:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) It "should" be longer for DYK, although it is a very good start. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned user you blocked for 1 week again has been confirmed as using the same IP I mentioned on the checkuser report. It's also obvious that the same user who used that IP is in fact Hkellar, who'd been banned for 1 year. It is impossible that the IP could've known the precise sources on several pieces of information from several different out-of-print textbooks on a subject not particularly popular. That in addition to the fact that the two edit the same articles, share the same POV,engage in the same pattern of violations, and have been accused by a whole crowd of people of being the same person.In a court of law, this would meet the criteria of 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. Anon is Hkelkar, there can be no doubt about that, given the evidence. Anon has also been found to be Rumplestiltskin. Rumplestiltskin should be permanently banned as Hkelkar's sockpuppet, and Hkelkar's block of 1 year should be reset, or extended given the cases of vandalism perpetrated since the original block. MinaretDk 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a case at WP:AE, and state (with Diffs) why you are 100% certain Rumpelstiltskin223 is Hkelkar. I cannot act unilaterally on this case. Daniel.Bryant 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MinaretDk (talk · contribs) (the new avatar of BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)) claims I am a sock of rumpelstilskin. Want to bring some sanity to the case?Bakaman 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean seriously rumpelstiltskin could not have voted you to run for arbcom (check his user creation log) while I had over 7000+ edits when I supported ur run for arbcom.Bakaman 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this allegation been made (and disproven) in the past? And if you were a sockpuppet of Rumpelstiltskin223, Jpgordon would have said so when he ran the Checkuser and found that Rumpelstiltskin223 was 151.1.143.116 (here). I think that this allegation is baseless and probably factually incorrect; however, please don't be as bad as they are by accusing MinaretDk of being banned editor BhaiSaab without having any hard evidence; request a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BhaiSaab if you think you can substantiate one being run (under code B/F). Daniel.Bryant 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I was descending to his level, though I'm surprised rumpel wasn't smart enough to throw the ball onto the other side of the court.Bakaman 03:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Make sure to check your email. Thanks. :) Onefourtyone 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't recieved any emails recently from you - I'll poke around with my settings, but this is the second time in two days it has been brought to my attention that emails are being lost. Could you please re-send any emails after Feb 1, please? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blew your chance at reporting your own adminship!  :) Ral315 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had homework :( Cheers, and thanks for writing it, Daniel.Bryant 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User BoxingWeer has been accused of being grp, there is no problem proving that, but leaving a message on administrator's page will get this deleted and i know they email each other instead of talk about it on internet, one editor gave us some emails, to tell you the truth, it's really funny, most of it not true. For example, they say he is editing middle eastern countries, yea, used to edit arafat, now all seems ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BoxingWear&diff=105200216&oldid=105012685 so you all know. History and here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BoxingWear They say he logs on and edits these things, no, if he does, he did it with his closed account. Now, you may say this is boxingwear, then, well, ok. But you can email me directly, leave a message on boxingwear page with email. Now, I want you to know mkil started the problem, look at the above history of contributions, boxwear never broke any promises. He simply wants his account back to finish few projects and then if he is now welcomed, we will not contribute, thus your loss. But honestly, how hard is it not to create another boxwear account from different ip, he knew that. So yea, and there is much more to this anyways.

I want you to check this user mkil and this ip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:58.64.124.172 If mkil ever locked from there. He used to leave himself messages how he is good, etc. When boxwear tried to help from administrators (let's face it, so many of you are totally no good) nothing, so he received trouble for trying to imrove things. I can prove it to you you guys are wrong and have wrong person. At least know that, with your evidence in court, judge would throw everything out of the window. Let me assure you, I work with lawyers. Hopefully you shall listen. If you go under boxweer contribution history you willr realize he even reversed vandalism and warned others not to do it and what is the thank you, BLOCKED!@Great! Send this message to others, ok. Marciano page, well, look at boxweer talk page, i think it was grperson who left some notes for boxweer to look over the page, you can at least unblock talk page. But, after reveiwing the edits, there are no mistakes there. Even some other people thanked boxweer for contrubutions more than once, saying it's good, so, do you people ever look at the facts or just at some controversial evidence like library ip. Note, I have access to library from anywhere in the world, when i write from there, i may be in hawaii or alaska but it will say mid west indiana library. Again, all these writing is total waste of time, but at least know. As far as mkil goes, he was warned before not to do three reverts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR He reverts talk pages and good articles. Go under his contributions, always something to revert and add, saying it's cleaning up, revert this and that, boxingweer tried to stop that. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=104493284#Problems_with_BoxingWear Go under boxingw reply and you will find out tons and tons of information. There are some editors and administrators here who have personal beef with grperson, so now they go around blocking others, God knows how many they blocked, because they IP we used belongs to 3 counties. Now, nobody can edit or sign up. Well, at least that is nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=105227392&oldid=105224799 Do not worry, we know everything, most of it is funny and totally bias and out of line.Trying to help is not good, even good words get reverted by people with pathetic excuses. I do have wiki account, but I better not log in from there, because you will block me. But if you do, hey, it does not matter, who cared about wiki, there is no understanding here, there never was. Ok, but some day this will change and I hope many administrators will be purged forever. Do not forget to check what i requested and mkil should be the one to ban. More information you can find on marciano talk page, mkil argued about little word like greatest. He wanted evidence for something that is only inside his head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BEANS some administrators say they do not put beans in nose, but they never assist with anything as well.

ps when you go to court, judge has the access to the record of the criminal, but jury can not know that and if they do, they are told to forget that. Similar situation here, there are some administrators who had beef with some guy boxingweer helped, now he is in trouble, never ever any vandalism, all good edits and contributions, many grateful. So, not one bad thing, for that you get banned, SHAME ON THEM-wow, that's a good story to publish and tell...majority of people who run wiki are totally foolish!Hypocrity at its best, i wonder if grp had same problems, probably. When you do something good nobody will pay attention, but they will wait for smallest mistake, join like pack of wild hyanas and devour the just.Trust me.I ve seen it and i do NOT mean boxingwear only but 100's of other cases. Judge, jury, executioners, yours truly -Helper

P.s. on this investigation i wasted many hours, another aspect of administrative ignorance, hopefully you will look at it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.117.59 (talk • contribs) 00:58, February 6, 2007

I'm not in a position to take any actions, for a number of reasons, which are currently under private discussion with administrators, and hopefully Jimbo in the coming 48 hours. Please do not ask me to take any action, because I cannot, and therefore will not. Daniel.Bryant 06:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, cheers mate... long time no talk... — Lost^(talk) 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving me a red-face! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It appears it was tagged by one user, tag modifed by another, and deleted by a third user, and not one of them checked the article history before proceeding! I have fixed up the article and reminded the users to be careful in future.

By the way I just noticed you're an admin! When did that happen? (Checking.. last week apparently!) I missed out on be a part of your near-record support voters too - sorry :P -- Chuq 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - it seems like the article has been moved around (and turned the linked page aboce into a DAB). My +sysop happened, as you say, last week :) Cheers, and thanks (and nothing to be sorry about! :D), Daniel.Bryant 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might not know me but I have seen you around. Well done on your adminship. You are definately one of the best CONTRIBUTORS to Wikipedia and I think you deserve it. Todd661 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fellow coastie :) Keep up the great work (I had seen you round, especially working on the Terrigal-or-somewhere-near-there article), and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to understand why you deleted the page Alpha Kappa Nu [11]. I believed a consensus was reached. [12] . Now that I'm looking over it though a consensus wasn't reached. Your reason for deleting though was csd-g4 . [13]. Which applies "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." The newer version wasn't identical to the previous and the revisions were addressed (poor sources). Please contribute to the undeletion talk. Thanks FrozenApe 11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of G4 is if it is deleted due to not having sources, and is recreated without sources again, it's G4able. Even if you dispute that, I could have used CSD A7, so it's a no-win situation for you. There was not a single source, nor any real assertion of notability. I am not going to contribute to the DRV, so please do not request that I do. Daniel.Bryant 07:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]