alk]]/  

 == Thanks == 

 Thanks for your help cleaning up my talk page following the vandalism!    
 :Pleasure - good ol' huggle, eh?  —   

 == Jay's Grave == 

 Well, technically, you were right in your edit summary here - but I tend to follow the WP:BURDEN rule of sources. Where people talk about ghosts and legends, there's a huge chance of phrases being included like "mysteriously appearing" and so on. Well done on changing this to "no-one admits to putting them there." - much better and scientific! I'll take a page from your book from now on.    
 :Interesting. I don't think that if you had just added a couple of  templates I'd have been so motivated to act, so, whatever your rationale, the end result is that Wikipedia has benefited. If only it was a guaranteed method of improving articles!  —   

 == Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics == 

 Hello Jim! 

 As it seems handling the majority of the CSD requests for the moment, i hope you don't mine if i ask some advice regarding the above newpage. The page looks very well developed but when reading it i found multiple problems - First it contains a major amount of (praise) PoV, and second about half the article seems to miss the subject matter as a whole. As the article was created by  (WP:UN violation) i am currently in doubt what i should do with the page: It seems ok to CSD for advertising, but at the same time a few maintenance tags might also help. As i already tagged two borderline articles today i rather not tag a third without having a second opinion, to prevent any deletionism outburst from my side.  

 With kind regards,  ,  

 :Hi! I think you must have checked my contribs just as I was deleting a batch of new articles as vandalism. I'm not really an expert on CSD; I've spent most of today on anti-vandalism patrol with huggle. However, after looking at the article, I don't think it can be said to clearly match any of the CSD criteria. There are obvious COI issues though. A quick google suggests that this is a fairly new organisation - there are only 17 ghits here, and none of them seem to be "third party reliable" sources. So there's PROD and AfD - I'd guess that a PROD would be quickly removed, so the logical step would seem to be to put it up for AfD on Notability grounds. Hope this helps: it's a quick response, dinner beckons!  —   
 ::Oh well. CSD G11. Twice. Diversity of opinion is definitely one of WP's strengths…  —   

 ==History of Dover== 
 Hi Smalljim! I have just returned to have a look at this article, which I first moved from the main Dover article. If I am correct, by looking at the history of the article, it would appear that you have added the "unreferenced" tag to it in February, and am therefore a little puzzled, since at the end of the article there were ten! In addition, you appear to have added a quantity of text, which in itself is obviously a good thing, but few of them have references. Perhaps you would care to comment?    
 :Umm, see the article's talk page and your earlier comment !  —