User talk:Orangemike

Lebron hired Pinto

Pinto was paid by Lebron - That should be amended. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-James-hires-rabbi-to-consult-on-business-?urn=nba-261513

Death Curse Obstfeld

The concept of Pinto death curse & possible involvement in Obstfeld death is worthy of Mention here. Do others agree ? http://www.vosizneias.com/58354/2010/06/21/new-york-claim-israeli-rabbi-put-death-curse-on-obstfeld/ http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/

Deletion of article Mirza Faizan

Amazing!!!, Its amazing that administrators of wikipedia take decisions on assumptions for which they themselves are NOT sure!! Just because it "SOUNDS LIKES" something, they are taking decisions to keep or delete an article...lol!! Dude, this single sentence itself is the notability of this guy, who is doing something for the first time in a country and for global aerospace industry. Have a look at these global news: . Moreover, a businessman contribution to global economy itself is his notability, otherwise tell me what is the notability of Bill Gates without mentioning Microsoft?? It appears that you guys are acting under biased judgement and personal prejudice while taking decision to keep or delete an article and you people don't have an answer to my questions. This is the reason why Mr. Tnxman307 has no reply and now are acting on his behalf. However, the world knows Wikipedia is an international community and belongs to everyone, we will keep in posting articles. Good Luck!!

Richard A. Karp

You speedily deleted Richard A. Karp less than 24 hours after its creation, citing WP:CSD A7. Did you not read the article, and notice that this guy was one of the original implementors of TCP and a colleague of Vint Cerf's? More importantly, he's a computer scientist with a name eerily similar to Richard M. Karp's, so it's important to have the page for disambiguation purposes; otherwise, people will end up assuming that Richard M. Karp worked on TCP. I'll reinstate the page. You're welcome to open an WP:AFD about it, if you believe Richard A. Karp still isn't notable enough. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I can't undo the deletion! So, please undo it yourself. As I said, you're welcome to nominate the article for deletion through the usual channels. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike, are you reading this comment right now? If so, please reply to it. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A speedy from a week or so ago

A few days ago, I posted a COI report regarding F. Richard Hauck, and you deleted the entire article as non-notable, but if I remember correctly, I thought it was, at the very least, not an unambiguously non-notable subject (he seems somewhat well known within the (admittedly WP:FRINGE-Y) field of Mormon archaeology, and the account with the same name was not the original creator of the article. Perhaps would AfD be better? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go back before he started turning it into an autobiography, the article says:

he exists;

he's an archeologist;

he founded a non-notable organization;

he's written about the BoM;

he's worked with another non-notable LDS-related forum; and

he's an LDS himself.

There's nothing in there I see as rising to the level of an assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Kansan (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible trade mark vio

Can you please block User:AMD64 as a possible user name vio. S/he dabbled with AMD related articles as well... If it is not a vio pls explain me why. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Another admin has already dealt with this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Symbolism

This template looks like it's not being used. Do you know anything about that? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the template for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#Template:Symbolism. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Richard A. Karp

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richard A. Karp. 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven Empire "hoax"

Yes, I did use Google Earth to make maps, but the Haven Empire is NOT a hoax. Think of it as a very large, unusually organized gang with massive territorial claims. There are two fictional works in the process of being published based on it. If you don't believe me, then hunt down my cousin, who'd be more than glad to prove you otherwise. Ultima3000 09:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultima3000 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider or social networking site. If you want to play these pretend games with your cousin, go ahead; just don't do it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted my talk page

oi bloke, can you please inform me to what reason my user page was deleted, I am pretty sure that not all of it, if any significant portion at all was against Wiki-rules, I would appreciate you telling me what was previously written on the page so that I can put it back to how it was (minus any material that shouldn't have been there)., I appreciate you doing this,.ICIWORLD (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with the user above, the last version of the page before it was deleted doesn't seem to have G11 content. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It was basically a spamlink to www.icworld.or.kr and the username was ICIWORLD (I see the user has since been unblocked so they can change their name). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Schock.cc

I've been trying to clear out older cases from Category:Unblock on hold. This one has been holding for over a month. Discussion seems to have stalled some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of User Space.

Hi Orangemike,

As I am fairly new still to Wikipedia, I wasn't totally aware that I couldn't use my personal space as a 'code' holding ground for the company I work for. From after reading the correct criteria for personal pages, would it be fine for me to recreate this and just add sections of my company page which I am currently editing?

Thank you for your time.

Shaheedi Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheedi Singh (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be working on an article about your company anywhere; information on what you should be doing instead was on your talk page until you removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Am I permitted to recreate my own user page again, but just leave it empty this time round then? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheedi Singh (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to create a userpage. It should contain content that helps us understand who Shaheedi Singh is and what he brings to this project in the way of experience, opinions, preferences, etc. See WP:USERPAGE#What may I have in my userpages? for further guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. KrakatoaKatie 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yoxi

Wikipedia isn't for promotion, I get that. But if a post (after some editing) meets Wiki specifications and is deemed notable then that is ok, yes? I'm new to this and am working hard to learn the ropes. Thank you for your patience.

-Ballark Ballark (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some kind of connection with the Yoxi people, so our rules on conflicts of interest apply as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cynthia MacLeod deleted minutes after creation...

That was harsh. A7, you say; did you even look? At least two pages link to this Charlottetown, PEI fiddler. Discography going back eight years might offer a clue to her notability. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No credible assertion of notability; best I could decipher from her own website, she has not had any actual albums released by actual record labels. If you'd like, I'd be delighted to userfy it for you so that you can gather some actual references. (Nothing against fiddlers, or PEI folks.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Record labels" ?? That's kind of a mid-20th century notion, don't you think? Sure, userfy away, and I'll dig up more ink on her. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Native Speaker

I'm a native speaker Mike. I see that there were a number of typos in my post. I typed it quickly as I have been getting a number of edit conflicts on help pages. I think your comment undermines my good faith attempt to help. Even if I wasn't a native speaker I don't think it would prevent me from assisting a confused new editor. --Leivick (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gackkkk! I didn't mean you, Daniel!!!! I was talking about the autobiographer! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh. I see now. I didn't get the sense that barnaby was a non native speaker, just someone adverse to using capital letters, but I think you might be right. --Leivick (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Since he claims to be a writer, I did him the courtesy of assuming that he was a native speaker of some other language, perhaps French? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

American Heritage University of Southern California

Good find.

The system for approval of education institutions in California is a mess, with the result that there are a lot of institutions like this one in the state. (Notwithstanding the fact that they appear to be more interested in enrolling students in places like Pakistan, Africa, and southeast Asia than in California.)

It's on my watchlist now, anyway... --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Username violation problem

A few days ago, you blocked user QFIT for a WP:U violation. That you for the assistance. However, that user continues to make deletions using IPs at Hole carding, and will not join in discussion. Any help would be appreciated.Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article about Georgia based punk band Veara

Hi! I'm requesting that the protection preventing the creation of an article about Veara be lifted. As I skimmed the deletion log, I saw that you were one of the users to delete the article, so I'm hoping you can help me out. Since the deletion, I believe that the band has made significant progress, releasing a full length album on major independent record label Epitaph Records, produced by Rob Freeman. Also, the band has acquired an opening slot on the Eastpak Antidote Tour in Europe alongside Sum 41.

I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, and I think that writing an article on Veara would be great for my first. I look forward to your response. Thanks!

--RevelsInChains (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Create a sandbox at User:RevelsInChains/Veara and work on it until it's ready for publication; then get back to me. And by the way: don't use HTML code; it leads to confusion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stealth change to UN policy?

Hi Mike and season's greetings! It would seem that name+company user names are now permissible. Seems like a fairly fundamental change in policy that needs to be discussed further. Thoughts? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Barcade

Hello, I received your link about conflict of interest with regards to my recently removed page for the company Barcade. I have read the section and while I do understand the potential for conflict of interest, I had taken great care in only presenting facts and backing them up with cited references with regards to the company when I created the page initially. Although I am an employee, I know that I was not the only person adding information and editing the page since then. So should the page really be removed because someone from within the company had first published it? Please advise how we can have the page returned to wikipedia. Barcade has been a vital part of NYC night life for the past 6 years, has been featured in national media too many times to cite and is now a regional chain of businesses with locations in 3 states. Should we really be removed because an employee created the initial page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnkermiz (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If other people think the topic is notable, then the article may be created; but as the links on your talk page explain, you should not be doing it. You are only making it worse when you keep saying "we" as if you were editing here as a representative of your employer. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thank you for the feedback. I understand the potential for a conflict of interest and appreciate your attention and response. But again, I really took great care in respecting the site when the article was created, did not write it in the vein of a "press release" or publicity agent, and once I wrote it, other people began editing it and contributing. I will leave it alone. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnkermiz (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Fresh_Roc_Productions

Were you declining to restore this article or just giving your opinion on the notability of the subject? You need to be more clear about this so that if another admin restores it, (which should be automatic if deleted by PROD unless the article meets a speedy criteria) it won't be seen as overriding your judgment or "wheel warring". I addressed a similar issue here at WT:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

KASTORYANO

hello

I was asked to put a reference for my entry on Riva Kastoryano. When i am doing it I see now that it was delated. She was one of the leading sociologist expert on identity and immmigration. You can find information about her and her studies everywhere..so I did not undertand. I just came to wiki to contribute to the promotion of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daglarkizireyhan (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You simply posted a statement saying she exists and has studied some people; that is not a claim of notability. Please see WP:PROF for our standards of notability of professors. I'd suggest creating a referenced draft article in your userspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Username vio

I think this user is violating Username policies because of a. of possible WP:COI vio and is used for promotional purposes (editing a company article of the same name). For example, would Mike from Symantec be banned if he is editing the Norton Internet Security article? I think he should. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which user? – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark at Alcoa this. OOps for not mentioning the name.

THese are the reason he (or she) should be blocked:

• Editing article called Alcoa
• Used for promotional purposes
• SPamming Alcoa links (accoding to comments at his/her talk page(

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, but some of the admins who frequent WP:UAA (not Mike, he is a staunch enforcer of the user name policy) have taken it upon themselves to decide that it is not a breach because he has declared his COI. This is nonsense in my view because it means that the policy is being inconsistently applied. In any event, the discussion should continue at Wikipedia talk:Username policy, not here. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but only he can do something about it... I previously approched him regarding User:AMD64 which other admins think its not a vio... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Howes (actor)

Dear Orangemike, sorry I thought I had followed the right procedure. My article User:Msrasnw/Thomas Howes (actor) is a new one with more refs .... could you have another look and let me know how to get this back to the main space. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)) I had written this to go on the new article's talk page but you got there first. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

This article is a new version of an article that was previously deleted due to lack of references. Following an examination of Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus and after discussions with two of the previous three deleters I have decided to try it again as it now seems sufficiently well referenced to clearly establish notability. The redlink on the downton abbey page looks odd to me. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)) Playing the Second Footman and the like does not constitute a claim of notability; and nothing you added to the prior version did anything to cure that problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me very odd - his role while may be one of the downstairs characters is not small - you are the second one to imply that the class of the person is important. Have you watched the series? To me my article seemed like it was massively different - more substantial than the one I could view on the cache. It was more than one line and had more references. I clearly think this could not be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." re G4 but anyway. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm the last guy to disdain a member of the working class as unimportant! However, the article as written still didn't seem to make a solid case for notability (the "look, another Yorkshireman on the telly" interview came closest). I'd suggest you keep working (on the draft in your userspace) on referencing this with links to article about Howes, not about productions in which he plays/played a part. Check back with me when you've got a couple more solid references to Howes himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not the only one to go down only the "second footman" role... But to my mind actors on major tv series in the UK worthy of coverage - even where there is relatively little evidence. Millions were watching his performance over several episodes and my guess is lots of people will have come here to find out something about him. I thought it odd there was a redlink on the downton abbey page when I was watching a rerun. I tried two of the three deleters without joy but the third has already made a fuss and was rude when I tried to rescue another article: Erich Albrecht. Excessive deletion in case like this seems to me to be wasting lots of work. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Dear OrangeMike, can I ask you to check that your G4 speedy deletion of this article was procedurally correct. It would seem to me my article was substantially different with more references and greater evidence of notability than the previous deleted one - even if in your opinion they were not enough. My reading of this Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus is that it possibly should not have been deleted speedily. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD. Is this the sort of thing one might take to deletion review? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Maple Ridge chrysler

Dammit, I was just gonna tag that. Stop being so efficient! HalfShadow 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Record Label article

Hey Mike, you just deleted a page that I'd only just started writing with the note that there was no explanation of the subjects significance (real person, organisation).

a) We are the largest independent hip-hop label in Wales so we would hopefully qualify as 'significant'. b) I'd only just started the article so I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to make the judgement of significance. That said, I realise you probably wanted us to write it out in full before saving but I was just trying to ensure the process was working as it should be before continuing.

But you cut my feet cut off before I could even start walking. Thanks dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryzilla (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"We"? Does the concept of conflict of interest ring a bell? In the future, write the article first, don't just lay a sketch down on the page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to come across a COI entry (and we really need a COI speedy tag; db-spam doesn't always do the trick), so I'd say no... HalfShadow 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul J. Hoeper

Hey, I've been working on a series of articles on Assistant Secretaries of the Army, and I see that you've just deleted my article about Paul J. Hoeper, United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 1998-2001. Could you please restore it? Adam sk (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheerfully restored it and moved it to User:Adam sk/Paul J. Hoeper so you could provided some evidence that he's notable in some way. (I don't feel that ordinary bureaucrats like ASAs are notable; and the fact that so far most of your sourcing consisted of a press release would seem to bear me out. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, unsurprisingly, I disagree that ASAs are non-notable "ordinary bureaucrats". They're appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate. The office has its own flag. They have huge responsibilities - in the case of the United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, they oversee all acquisition and logistics spending done by the United States Army, with an annual budget over $15 billion. So, I'm of the opinion that all of the ASAs are notable. They're usually quoted fairly widely in the press during their time in office, but those quotes usually deal with the duties of their office at the time, and aren't a good source for biographical information, which is why I have to rely on the press release about the nomination. With respect to Paul J. Hoeper specifically, an archives search at the New York Times and the Washington Post both show he was quoted by those papers during his time in office and a Google search shows that the business press reports on what he's doing fairly often. In addition to the press release you refer to, Forbes magazine maintains a profile of Hoeper on Forbes' website. I think that's sufficient to establish notability. Even if there's some disagreement as to his notability, I think you'd have to admit that ASAs are at least a borderline case, and I hope you wouldn't object to my restoring the page. Adam sk (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maple Ridge Chrysler

OrangeMike - may I ask why you deleted my post about Maple Ridge Chrysler? I did not see any difference between that addition and say something like the page for Sandman Hotels, Inns and Suites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkenthull (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was about a local car dealership, and was written in a very promotional manner. There was no hint of a sign that anybody anywhere had ever found the business notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Federalists the Real Federalists

No, it is not revision at its siliest. I am reading an introduction to the Federalist Papers right now and even it admits that the term Federalism referred to a "leaguing together, as under treaties" and that the Articles of Confederation was a true federal form of government while the Constitution was more of a centralizing document (though my professor admits that the Constitution is a cross between a centralized and federal state). The introduction goes on to say, "Yet the advocates of a stronger national government at the joint (federal) level commandeered the term, leaving the defenders of the old system to become antifederalists." It then mentions how Elbridge Gerry of Massachusts who disliked being called an Anti-Federalist stated that the correct terms should be Ratifiers and Anti-Ratifiers, or has he preferred "Rats and Anti-Rats." I also just read Federalist No. 39 and James Madison amits that the new Constitution is "neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both." Therefore the Anti-Federalists defending the old system were really Federalists as they advocated a truely federal form of government while the Federalists advocated a government that was a mix of federal and nationalistic methods (this then caused the meaning of the word federalism to change over time). Emperor001 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What article are you speaking of? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page for the Anti-Federalists article. It's been a while since you called my statement "revision at its siliest" (last October). I was just so busy with school to care about it then (plus I made the comment in response to the class I was taking at the time). Emperor001 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing

Can you point me in the direction of a really good article where all citing is done correctly. Thanks Bashereyre (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start would be any of the Featured Articles and WP:CITE may be of assistance too. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam username blocks

Hey, Mike. I've softened your block of Lisdinfo (talk · contribs). I think a {{softerblock}} would have been better in this case than a {{spamusernameblock}}, since the only real problem was the username. They weren't adding anything promotional and they declared their COI quite openly. A spam blck seems a bit bitey for a few corrections to an article where they have a COI. Maybe it's worth being a little less liberal with the spam blocks and considering whether a softerblock is better? Just a thought. On a personal note, I replied to your email last night. All the best, my friend, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrative deletion before Wikipedia "article" is started

Why was the Wikipedia article that I had just started deleted within _seconds_ of my starting it?

I had just started on an article entitled "Antonia Maury" who I know a great deal about and have I have a lot of information to place there as well as sources and a few links. I saved the only the title to make sure that it would save as "Antonia Maury". Most all of her family is famous or at least have excelled in sciences of great importance. Carlotta Jaquina Maury (1874–1938) was an American paleontologist. Carlotta Jaquina Maury was born on January 6, 1874 at Hastings-on-Hudson, New York. She was one of Rev. Mytton Maury and Virginia (Draper) Maury’s three children. These people are of the ministry and or scientists of astronomy (see Antonia Maury) and the Draper side of Carlotta' family amily; father, son, grandson are famous in their own scientific fields and are Wikipedia articles. This one that I started and was immediately deleted, as stated by a note that I screen captured, is the only lady of the Draper family mentioned on Wikipedia that has not been in an article on Wikipedia -- and yet she excelled through schooling, sciences, and led an expedition to collect specimens of mollusks, and fauna. She has written many scientific articles that were published aand her works still exist today since there are thousands of illustrations of what she and others with her on that expedition -- all top scientists -- had collected. Much of that knowledge, descriptions, and illustrations are also on Wikipedia articles. Why destroy at the very beginning of a Wikipedia article? I really do not understand that but then I try to build and have been building Wikipedia and Wikisource for 7 years.William Maury Morris II (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's at Antonia Maury and according to the logs has not been deleted in the past. – ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He is referring to Carlotta Maury which was A7ed as it consisted of nothing but "Carlotta Maury was a palaeontologist." I have to say this leads to a whole slew of articles of really marginal notability. It looks like the work of a family genealogist. --Leivick (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that it was an article to be written on Carlotta Jaquin Maury also of the famous Draper family. These people were famous in their time but like many are lost to time. As for me being a family genealogist that I am but only in the context that it is no more than I am a family minister, astronomist, marine biologist, and many other studies and I do not think anyone has only one thing to study in life. I am not a professional genealogist if that is what yyou think. I write about what I know and seek out and then write more on it just as other wikipedians who *write articles* for Wikipedia. History, Literature, Sciences, Religions of the world -- I like them all just as I once was, among other similar vocations, an architect. Now, having stated that for clarification, I will also state that I have seen a topic, or category, about "women" who achieved high standards of education and contributed to the world. That article is on Wikipedia and lists Maria Mitchell amongst many other women. William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what caused me to try start an article on Carlotta Jaquin Maury, aside from what I already know of her family while she is left unmentioned but excelled in a science that the workd uses beyond what I have already stated and that being about finding strata for the extraction of oil for large companies in her time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-21st-century_female_scientists. Both of those sisters names are listed in that article as seeking information about "female scientists" but only one of the two sisters, Antonia, has a Wikipedia article that answers to this call for Wikipedia articles on "female scientists". They are sisters--how would one go about eliminating the parents names (Draper, who were famous) and the sisters names aka "genealogy" aspects of each life?. But as stated above, "was A7ed as it consisted of nothing but "Carlotta Maury was a palaeontologist.", which is where I *began* and no "slew" of "genealogy" (which is history) was introduced at that point -- none. William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your editing style in violation of Wikipedia policy

I'd suggest you need to be aware of this: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Your editing style plainly violates this aspect of deletion policy. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)