I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia like I used to...this is a good thing: life in the real world is keeping me very busy, with important new research to perform. As such, I may not be very responsive to messages here. --
Scientizzle
Hello, why was the page 7th Altrincham Boys Brigade deleted? I think it is diabolical that this page has been deleted. I used to be in the Boys Brigade and found it very interesting reading this page and its UNIQUE idenitity. I suggest that this page is a reinstated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.163.243 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Altrincham Boys Brigade was a clear consensus to delete. Please see the diabolical notability guideline for organizations. — Scientizzle 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont be sorry, nor is the red border against you ;) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy WikiProject Oregon humans. Time for another edition of the C to the O to the T to the W. Thanks to those who help out on McNary Field and Bend’s High Desert Museum. For this week, we shall tackle Bridges on US 101 and then with the last few days of decent weather, The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. Plenty of red links on the bridge list, or improve a stub! Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scientizzle, I'm new to Wikipedia so just looking for some help, the page "Peter Joseph" has been deleted, as has the discussion page adjoined. I have read that this maybe a pseudonym but it should at least require a redirect to my thinking? Any help would be appreciated - I don't want to go to the hassle of creating a page to only have it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spadeboi (talk • contribs) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did delete the page based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Joseph. The content of the new page didn't seem to justify recreation based on the arguments presented at that deletion discussion. — Scientizzle 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, sorry if you're already familiar with WP:3RR, but you were skating right up to the edge at Creationism, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of things. FYI, --Elonka 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, I find it rather rude of you to post that message to somone who clearly knows about 3RR, and especially when their last edit was 21 hours ago, and the only revert in the last 24 hours. Maybe a more friendly note might have been more appropriate explaining that you think they should possibly take a break from the article for a bit as they've made a few reverts over the past couple of days? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh yeah...seriously. — Scientizzle 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might note this revision which clearly states, "as noted on talk page, inclusion is clearly not supported...I will, however, not revert further". And perhaps you might note further that last two sections of the talk page indicate that the attempted insertion of certain text was highly opposed, and the editor most active in doing so (despite consensus) was blocked upon my AN3RR notice. I think I know what I'm doing... — Scientizzle 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think somebody has you confused with ScienceApologist :-) Shot info (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientizzle, please accept my apologies. I was in the middle of sorting out the edit war at Creationism, with editor names that I did not recognize (I don't believe that you and I have ever interacted?). I saw that one of the editors, Hassandoodle (talk · contribs), had already been blocked for 3RR, and it seemed only fair to caution the other editor in the dispute, which was yourself. It was only after the fact, that I noticed that you were an administrator, which means that my notice was unnecessary. If I would have seen that ahead of time, I would indeed have given you a more personalized message rather than a template. Sorry! My main goal, as I hope is evident from the message that I did post, was to ensure that you weren't blocked. However, I clearly made a mistake here in how I cautioned you, and for that I do apologize. --Elonka 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepted. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note to Scientizzle, thanks for having me blocked. I noticed some questionable edits on your part as well (such as marking entire reverts as Minor at least twice). Either way, the longer the discussion goes on, the clearer it is that there is indeed a consensus of people in the middle ground that believe some type of reference should be made as per my initial edit on Creationism. It became quite apparent that you had a personal agenda, and that your personal biases were preventing the possibility of any added balance to the article. (I noticed you also removed such a comment on the discussion page, for soapboxing.) My guess is that you're an atheist. Apparently atheists and agnostics can feel quite alone especially during the Christmas season. My condolences. Ok, you may delete this edit now. Perhaps one day you will understand. Hassandoodle (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
