I have no idea why you would add an "unsigned comment by" tag midway through a signed comment. Such alteration of comments by someone you disagree with is plainly inappropriate behavior. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 19:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea why you would add an "unsigned comment by" tag midway through a signed comment. Such alteration of comments by someone you disagree with is plainly inappropriate behavior. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 19:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I would think that the signature, the continuous text, and the page history would make that clear. Given the number of problems and errors in the article's text, you would be better advised to devote your attention to improving its accuracy rather than insert "unsigned comment" tags into the text of signed comments. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for dropping by my talk page. Have something to say or comment about? Just simply begin by clicking on the above link. Be sure to add a title and signature (~~~~) to your messages. If you require a reply, please indicate. I will reply on your talk page. Note that I do not watch talk pages for replies. :)
Hey, I'm not 100% sure where the exact line for consensus is, but the final result for that AfD was 25/10/3, in favor of Delete, from where I sit at least. I can't say I agree with you that that means 'No consensus', as there are 2.5 times the delete comments, as there are keep's. I was just wondering if you could let me know (when you have a second) how you arrived at a 'no consensus' opinion, directly after voting? Anyhow, cheers... --негіднийлють(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad the article survived ... I'm now doing a major cleanup on it and making it something of encyclopedic (if insanely tedious to the non-researcher) historical detail. Hopefully it won't see AFD again! - David Gerard 12:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the summary of my comment - I have written a comment that was not summarised correctly by the "keeper of the upper table":) - at that AfD and then I saw that the AfD was closed. Sorry about that. +MATIA☎ 13:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That's part of why those "tally boxes" on AFDs are fundamentally misconceived - they make it look like a numerical vote when it just isn't - David Gerard 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey,Mr. Kua.Don't know if you know how to open a channel,but if you do,I hope to open the Singapore IRC channel...how's that?Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!My Rfa04:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
A IRC channel is created automatically if you attempt to join a non-existing channel. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Members RuneScape quests
I thought this was voted delete. Because it's back. I thought that deleted articles require going through the undeletion procedure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Esperanza elections
File:Voting box clipart.gifHi Mailer diablo: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name hereby 15 December 2005.
Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.
This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.
Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage the other day. I appreciate it. -- Psy guyTalk 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And thanks from me, too, for doing the same. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Bernie McLaughlin
Yeah, that's cute. I didn't know the FBI got involved in online copyright infringement. Anyway, as far as No Legal Threats goes, there is the "No legal threats" does not mean, of course, that claims of copyright infringement are not to be made clause, so I'm not sure it applies here. Would you take a look at the page the anon claims it's a copyvio of, and let me know if you think it is? This whole thing really isn't my issue, but I hate to see a user get his way just by being a bigger jerk than anyone else around. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
News from Esperanza
Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)
This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.
Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Asking for help in the process of "Undeletion"
I don't not know exactly if it is your task to initiate undeletion, but i would like to request the undeletion of the article OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood, that you've deleted a month ago, because i found a new reference link as a result of using Hotbot web search (i guess this link wasn't included last time, but i am not sure, and i can't check the archives). This article is about a Snoop Dogg album, that is co-produced by west coast fellow rapper Daddy V.The cited page would be the westcoast2k, which is mentioned on the West Coast hip hop Wikipage as one of the trustable West Coast information sites. Please answer me. Thank you.
Fifth world nations
You forgot to delete the redirect Fifth World nations when you deleted the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete-worthy page...
There's an (apparently) vanity page, Davide E. Berti. The article's originator had previously removed db tags, and the originator only has two sets of postings: this page and the page's Talk page. D.valued 07:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ianbrown's RfA
Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.
I assume that the main issue of contention has been the revert war over the course of the past day. I have little to say about the difference between enhance and ensure; while ensure seems, to me, a better fit in that sentence, I don't feel the word is worth fighting over. On the other points:
Absense of documentation of accidents may or may not mean that no accidents occurred. Given the public nature of the topic, I would tend to agree with you that the onus is on Monicasdude to show that the doors have ever been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, I would suggest changing "These doors prevent..." to "These doors are intended to prevent..." and avoiding the issue entirely.
Removing a relevant and sourced statement ("Security concerns related to crime and terrorism...") without explanation is generally inappropriate; you may wish to remind him that the ArbCom has expressed this in a number of past cases.
I don't want keep going over the same point on multiple pages, but I'll give this one particular attention. I objected to the article's frequent use of introductory sentences with very little independent content. This was a clear example. To simplify, the section went more or less like this: Before event X, improving security was a lower priority. After event X, it was a higher priority. The first sentence adds next to nothing to the article; it's bad writing. That's why I marked my changes as a copyedit, and described my reasons on the talk page. Just because a statement is relevant and sourced doesn't mean it's good writing, and everything of substance in the statement was covered in the statement (and reference) that followed it. Monicasdude 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the first sentence is critical, since it explains why there is nothing in that section prior to 2004; to omit it would be to leave the article open to criticisms about comprehensiveness. But that's not really the issue here; while you may, of course, disagree with the way the article is written, it is polite, at the very least, to explain why you have chosen that particular introductory sentence for removal if your changes are reverted. —Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I put an explanation on the talk page, right here [1], right after making the edit. I also believe, given the excerpts that are online from the reference given for that sentence, that it's inaccurate. What seems to be the full, relevant text on Singapore can be found here [2], although it's inexplicably not referenced in the article. Note, first, that the article inserts a reference to terrorism that is not present in the source; second, that the statement refers to an opinion that is not well-documented by the source; and, third, that the opinion is not entirely consistent with the source text -- note the comments about "discouraging loitering," which are entirely consistent with the crime prevention strategies employed under Rudy Giuliani in reducing crime in New York City public transportation, particularly the subways. On each of the points I've disputed, the article does not accurately reflect its references, and that's a straightforward verifiability policy problem. Monicasdude 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that all of the objections except for his have been, at this point, resolved. If that is indeed the case, then Raul654 may choose to promote the article even though an objection is still on the table; he sometimes does this when he considers the objection to be incorrect, frivolous, or in bad faith.
Finally, try your best to remain polite in these exchanges, even if you vehemently disagree with the objection. Incivility on the part of the nominator(s), while not directly related to the quality of the article, tends to attract more objections—other readers are more likely to object over minor points if they feel the nominator is being confrontational. —Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on his latest demands for proof that concensus building is not policy, I am obliged to advice you in simply ignoring him if you can, something I am trying to do now as well. Even if he right, it demonstrates his basic disrespect for dispute resolution. He seems devoid of reason, and dosent hesitate to game the system to meet his objectives. I am just glad the 3RR nomination has resulted in a fair judgement, and again, I thank you for your tip-off. I hope to now get your assistance in helping to watch over the article and to act on any instance in which he tries to revert the article again? Hope you may help. Thanks in advance! :D--Huaiwei 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I think Monicasdude is being very selfish to SGpedians'. He is trying to bring the article down make our efforts go down the drain. He should be reported instead of Huaiwei. His edits are all wrong facts. Please be fair in the judgements and all sysops also. You may also contact me by email or IM. --Terence Ong|Talk 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
Mailer diablo, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns) 06:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
re: Chinese new year greetings
Actually it's the new protection scheme. Check it out. It's confusing. :) When you unprotect, you have to actually set it to "all allowed". Just clicking on the button doesn't do it. I'll fix it. It should be unprotected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I like relisting, but I reckon you're going too far with a good thing here. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondfire had the nomination plus one other delete, that's probably enough. The instructions say not to weigh in if the outcome looks clear, so I often skip things that aren't contested, I'd imagine others do the same. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I see your point that nom+1 is a judgement call. We should resist the formation of a de-facto quorum however. If you see people relisting something with nom+2 deletes, especially if those give decent reasons and it is a good nom, please do let me know. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Macintosh User 16:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Admins were not clear in their explanations about the deletion but I think this is because Wikipedia supports articles that mostly answer the questions "what/where/when/who". Although not excplicit, Wikipedia seems to be a reference rather than an generic information web site. So Wikipedia doesn't support articles that answer the question "how" eg: "how to .." or "how does it work". EG: A strategy guide is answering the question "how does it work to win" so it doesnt fall in the wikipedia content. Notice there is no touristic guides in Wikipedia neither but only links to external guides. It's probably the reason why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinfo exists. Thats' bad for both web sites. Hopefully they will merge one day. I see Wikipedian veterans are tired of these issues: "the delete or not" and "that was a good article so put it back" so a rule about the kind of article expected would make life easier for admins and writers and avoid the various fights a see everywhere.
Anyway I'm not here to discuss about Wiki content. I'd like to have a copy of this deleted guide to transfer it on Duke3D's forums (or maybe wikiinfo?). Not sure how, or even if you are allowed to send it to me? I'll check back this page from time to time for a link to your answer if you decide to answer me. Thank you for your help!
I noticed you deleted article "The Yellowstone Club". As a new wikipedia user I'm not sure how to see why it was deleted or how to veiw the original article.
I have no idea why you would add an "unsigned comment by" tag midway through a signed comment. Such alteration of comments by someone you disagree with is plainly inappropriate behavior. Monicasdude 19:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I would think that the signature, the continuous text, and the page history would make that clear. Given the number of problems and errors in the article's text, you would be better advised to devote your attention to improving its accuracy rather than insert "unsigned comment" tags into the text of signed comments. Monicasdude 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
