This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I see that you have a fascination with keeping very small articles alive. Most of the team pages within the PIHA do not qualify as encyclopedic because they contain very little information. I think if you were to work with me and others, we could expand these pages to make them better.Keystoneridin (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell my why it wasn't eligible for speedy A7? I'm confused. FireCrystal (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the AfD which says schools are notable? CTJF83Talk 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if you are an administrator.
You removed a Speedy deletet tag I placed in the article LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic which said that Homosexuality is legal by law. That article is from an organization which claims that homosexuality is legal by law the Dominican Republic, and that is not so. There is no law in our Code or Constitution concerning homosexuality acceptances. I just edited the article stating so, but that is not enough because the D. R. stays within the rest of the countries which recognizes that right. Because I don´t want to be blocked again, I really don´t know for sure if I can revert and put back the tag so to avoid that I will alert others administrators about what you did. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi - you deleted the speedy delete tag on an old Italian crash - the article was just a few sentences and there was no notability in it. Do you happen to know what makes a plane crash notable, or are they all de facto? Alice (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just fyi, I encountered the same thing, and manually added an RfC, but then the next day it had been automatically added as well. Apparently the bot isn't doing it within one hour. So you just might want to keep your eye on it that it doesn't show up twice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story? that you may wish to comment on. NJGW (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input on the Darren Stanley page. I reviewed the Notability_(academics) criteria and it seems that this individual does not merit an entry for academic notability. I've changed the tag to proposed delete so we can can get some input one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
My second "delete" to 1881 Boundary Treaty was a mistake. Sorry. --Keysanger (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the CSD tag. I didn't notice it was about the island as well. Sorry. TheLeftorium 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. On reflection, I agree with you that the speedy deletion was not justified. I deleted the article because I believed that the claim to be the youngest ever Parliamentary candidate in the UK was not credible - "almost certainly incorrect", in my phrase. I mentioned the lack of independent references, since I felt that would have lent some credibility to the claim, even though I believed it to be incorrect. However, my belief that the claim was not credible was because I misremembered and believed that the minimum age for a candidate had been lowered to 18 prior to the last general election. As it is, Burridge may well be the youngest candidate for the UK Parliament in the modern era, and while the claim made in the article wasn't quite clear, it could be interpreted that way (there was a candidate for the Northern Ireland Assembly who may have been younger, and the requirement for candidates to be 21 hasn't always been in place - Christopher Monck, 2nd Duke of Albemarle was elected at the age of 13 and left when he was 16!). You say in your message that you are happy to let the speedy deletion stand, but if you would like me to restore it and put it through AfD instead, I will be happy to so. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dpmuk, I bear responsibility for every word I write. I wish other participants in these discussions could do that, too. Also, I think these discussions can be of some use only if they are focused on encyclopedic subjects, and less emotional. Witizen (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen
Hi! I (sort of) answered your message to Witizen here. Just thought I'd let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake on the CSD. After reviewing it, I realized that I had tagged it wrongly and it should have perhaps instead gone to AFD. I've had a brief conversation with the creator, and have left it as is with tags for improvement. My apologies for screwing that one up! Frmatt (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Its now pretty much been confirmed that OckhamTheFox was acting on the behest of one Bambifan101's socks per a request at the Russian Wikipedian. [1][2] Can this now be deleted as a creation by a bannded user by proxy? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. My apologies regarding the mistaken placement of that tag.
BWH76 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Done for you. Please rememeber to read WP:ROLLBACK and ask me if you need any help. Pedro : Chat 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems that this redirected / deleted page has been reinstated.... again.... (third time!!) It contains nothing notable, no supporting references, and (as far as I can see) has no point - as all of the verifiable info (and some more) is already on the page Swansea Cork Ferry Nobullman (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the latest edit to Swansea Cork Ferries. Brand new editor...
no previous record on Wiki... could be 'innocent newness' or 'vandalism/sock-puppetry'
Will continue watching. Nobullman (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Same editor reverted link again last night - but it was soon reinstated. Still thinking 'good faith'? Nobullman (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Something very strange has happened to the article 'Swansea Cork Ferry'. It seems to have been redirect wholesale to a new page 'Fastnet Line' - which is a very poor piece of Wiki, is pretty well uninformed - and serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by the original link to www.fastnetline.com. Unfortunately I'm not clued up enough to find my way back up the edit path and undo what's been done - you were very helpful in the past with unraveling edits to this page - please can you help me again ? In this case the edit doen't seem to be malicious - just misguided. It'd be great to get back to the original, well-developed and referenced article at Swansea Cork Ferry. Thanks Nobullman (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocking is different from banning. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I had missed the schools exemption form the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
To conform with WP COI guidelines, and to correct misimpressions, let me confirm that my over 100 professional publications, op-eds etc. - for most of which I have been credited as sole or senior author - have been developed over forty years, and are readily available on request. Only a selection (plus some independent references) have been included in earlier communications with WP editors. Furthermore, the reference cited below incorrectly as blank does in fact refer directly to a German citation of my work, see http://de.scientificcommons.org/john_e_s_lawrence Jeslw (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
When you removed the speedy delete template from John E.S. Lawrence, you gave the following rationale for doing so in the edit summary:
"He's a full professor with over 100 publucations (according to links) - to me that is enough indication of possible notability to avoid speedy especially when taken with talk page comments."
It would only take a couple minutes for you to go back, read the article again, and then add the speedy delete template back to the article so that editors won't have to waste their time going through the articles for deletion process.
Thanks lots!Dgf32 (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dpmuk. You're absolutely right! This does seem very strange. I have found a more appropriate block notice and have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for letting me know. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. Airplaneman talk 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Irbisgreif (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I lazily didn't change the tag, my apologies. It's unencyclopaedic, how-to and either WP:OR or a copy from an unknown source. do you want me to restore? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition, please continue to comment on my actions and let me know if you feel I'm improving. (Or not). Irbisgreif (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Per this: There's no need to state "no admin closure" in a move discussion. As you see by following the link, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is just used for deletion discussions (which should be closed by admins except in special cases). Move discussions can be closed by any uninvolved user. Just wanted to let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This is kind of a side question that I've been wondering about re: the RfC option #2. What if no good adjective exists for the country in question? Do we default back to the country name for those countries? An example is Trinidad and Tobago. "Trinidadian and Tobagonian" is possible, I suppose, but the approach for most categories has been to just use "Trinidad and Tobago FOO". So under #2 would it be "American – Trinidad and Tobago relations"? Or something else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just doing my regular cleanup of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. On that page I clean up every day some 15 pages, including a few templates and userpages. See also Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Templates. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Please see my reply in the discussion. (You appear to have misunderstood the proposal.) Thanks! —David Levy 04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
DO NOT revert the links until the issue is resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Time up. Will one of you please refer this case to Arbcom? Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that you view [4] as seeming misunderstanding (or perhaps I've misunderstood either this comment or your summary). The tactic of "turning the tables on the enemy" (IOW, taking a result you don't like, and applying it in a way that will be unpopular with those that arrived at it), is a textbook example of illustrating disagreement with a principle, rather than being content to simply state it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dpmuk. here is a copy of the second message sent to wikipedia: how long does it take to verify this issue and cancel the notice on the page?
(quote) Subject: FRANCA BATICH: THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
<giudecca795@gmail.com> 07 ottobre 2009 10.31 A: permissions-en@wikimedia.org
as per your notice: >> If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en-at-wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[]].
we authorize the use of our texts for Franca Batich's wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franca_Batich from http://www.giudecca795.com/en/artists/Franca-Batich. THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
regards,
Irene Spagna -- Giudecca795 Art Gallery Fondamenta S.Biagio 795 - 30133 Venezia tel (+39) 3408798327 - www.giudecca795.com
(end quote)
all the best --Globe.explorer (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for a good closing summary of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. And thank you for working things out the best way. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have User talk:Collectonian on my watch list—going back to an issue involving another user and Collectonian—so I saw your comment. I happened to be at the computer when you posted, and that's why I saw the message so quickly. I actually started to start the message with "Sorry to butt in." :)
As for the question of whether adding copyright-infringing material is vandalism, my answer is somewhere between "not necessarily" and "yes, but...". You're right that we should assume good faith from editors, especially new ones. I edit enough articles about TV shows that I see lots of episode summaries taken straight from TV Guide, etc.—which usually don't last long before they get removed. The important thing in that case is to explain that Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, contributions must be original text or under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and "He said I could put it on Wikipedia" isn't necessarily enough permission to use the text. If I revert an editor a second time, there's usually a plea in my warning to please explain on a talk page why the material should be included in Wikipedia. Repeated re-adds—either of the same text or across multiple articles—shows a pattern, and if they've been warned before, they're now showing they either don't understand the rules or don't want to follow them, and either case is disruptive. Now we're in the realm of vandalism.
Back to the situation with Collectonian, you're both right. Copyvio is not vandalism, but reverting it is not edit warring/a violation of the three-revert rule. However, the reverts should be explained with a combination of edit summaries, warnings/user talk messages to the infringing editor, and article talk discussion if the situation warrants it. Unexplained reverts of copyvio, even if it isn't edit warring by definition, looks an awful lot like it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You reversed my Speedy Delete tag on R.W. Cameron because, in your opinion, it "Seems like a reasonable redirect to me - take to WP:RfD if desired." I wasn't aware that an override authority for this existed. Contest it with removal, perhaps. So that I understand, please give me a link the Wikipedia authority you acted upon. Too, I actually think you were wrong but please englighten me as my understanding is that Wikipedia does not needlessly spend money on redirects with conjoined initials. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your mindless reverts at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) - there's no consensus for the wording you're proposing (yet), and it is not in line with other well-established guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The article needs a solid rewrite. The data for increased prevalence of ulcerative colitis in northern areas is well described in Europe (as cited in the article). For the USA the same phenomenon is described and the best source is a 1991 paper from Gastroenterology (PMID 1983816). -- Samir 07:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in the DRV for Secret Maryo Chronicles, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much for your help at Lloyd R. Woodson. I've had a wikistalker of mine attack the article repeatedly, so its appreciated greatly that an uninvolved editor removed the tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to diffuse the situation with Greg. Also, since an AfD is now underway, you are right about the move discussion so will leave it for now. Oh, and good catch. Cheers, wjematherbigissue 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
DustiSPEAK!! 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
x2 :) DustiSPEAK!! 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
A belated barnstar for your civility in my very first ever substantive talk page message way back in September 2009. It's only with the benefit of experience that I now understand how uncommonly helpful, patient and instructive that message was and it's been of enormous help in my development as a Wikipedian and as a contributor at Articles for Deletion. So - six months later - thank you. DustFormsWords (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
In this edit summary you wrote, "A3 contains nothing that suggests that articles that contain only images are eligable - especially when that image is informative." Just so you're aware for future instances, it in fact does, and quite explicitly. Wikipedia:CSD#A3 states: "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." All images convey information, so that's not a valid exception. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the disambiguation article International Hockey League be moved to International Hockey League (disambiguation). This move is to make way for the move of International Hockey League (2007–) (which is a currently operating league that was founded in 1997) to International Hockey League. A Dablink would be placed at the top of the article linking to the disambiguation article. The currently operating IHL is clearly the most relevant article, and as such, should have a clear and concise title. Using "(2007 - )" to differentiate the title is inaccurate and confusing. Dolovis (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that the article, as written, made a claim of notability at all — just being a golf caddy doesn't, in and of itself, make a person notable enough for inclusion here, and the article, as written, didn't claim anything that would, in and of itself, make him more notable than other caddies.
It's certainly possible that he meets notability guidelines for reasons that weren't made clear in the original article — but then the answer is to write a new version of the article which makes his notability more apparent. And that doesn't necessarily require undeleting the old version — speedying one version of an article doesn't mean that the person can never have a second kick at the can; it just means that one particular version of the article wasn't cutting it.
I'd quite happily restore the old version to somebody's sandbox space if you or someone else intends to actually work on improving it, but given that deleting one version of an article doesn't mean that nobody can ever create a better version, I don't see a particularly compelling reason why we would need to keep the original version in active article space in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that's a keepable article! (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Best — e. ripley\talk 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |