"

Reliable Source
Isn't this a reliable source?> ==Victims==
 Emily Hilscher 

What the Heck?

I edited something on the ""7 may"" page and you keep deleting it, why?? It is constructive and I don't see how it is ""vandalism"". So I plan to re-edit the page. Thank you for causing others more work and frustration.

Sorry
i haven't remover anthing of the footballers wives episodes page. And i created the page an just wasn't signed in at the time. i accidently lost the series 4 episode summarys when i was writing them. I put them back up straight away.

 deleting things... 

thanks for clearing the stuff about deletion up. I'm new to deletion...  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) .

      ok and where am i supposed to reply to things you say to me? here?  

           Thanks for the insight. I agree with you. It's much easier to do it back and forth.  

 how do I change the title of an article? I want to change St. Peter High School (Ottawa) to St. Peter Catholic High School

never mind - sorry i got it now.  

 Dr. Qwert 

I was not aware that the consensus had changed. I was also under the impression that removing recent warnings from one's talk page was also considered vandalism. I'm sorry if I had erred. T 

Re 
I tagged Byron Long for speedy deletion since it appeared to be entirely unreferenced, which, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, would constitute a serious WP:BLP violation.  WP:BLP states that Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).  Looking through the page history, however, it appears that there actually was a reference for the article, which I have restored.  
CSD G10 does use the term ""negative in tone"", which is a somewhat unfortunate choice of words.  The more fundamental policy here appears to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that ""biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone"" should be speedily deleted.  The underlying issue is not whether we believe that a description of a living person as a ""porn actor"" is actually negative.  Rather, for WP:BLP purposes, the issue is whether, if an article incorrectly described someone as a ""porn actor"", such a description would be regarded as defamatory for the purpose of Wikipedia:Libel  that is, whether such an incorrect description, if widely believed, might be likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the employment prospects or general reputation of the subject of the article.  I would contend that describing someone as a ""porn actor"" is sufficiently ""controversial in tone"" to invoke WP:BLP concerns for the speedy removal and/or deletion of any unreferenced claims of this nature.  

 Deletion of rain check 

Why has this valid article disappeared?  Please undelete it, and if you feel it is not up to Wikipedia standards, instead nominate it under WP:AfD, to give others a chance to comment on it and/or improve it. Thanks.  – 

I understand that it has been transwikied, however it was enough to be its own Wikipedia article, and can be expanded from a stub to a better article by adding information about how rainchecks are handled and processed by stores.  (For example, some simply hand the user a piece of paper or carbon copy, others take the customer's information, enter it into a computer, and print a raincheck with a