User talk:Renamed user Sloane

Nico Zandberg

Hi Peephole. After spending a few hours to create a new article for Wikipedia last night called BATracer, I was shocked to find today that it was deleted without discussion. I have been going through the rules and all deletion pages and is still unclear why the page was deleted. I first want to get all the facts right before I go to the deletion discussion.

I'm sure you probably had a valid reason to delete the page and respect that. I only ask that you inform me what that reason was and talk to me, to see if we can work something out, before just deleting it. Hope to hear from you soon.

Bye Bye --Zandman 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

steven jones

Hi Peephole. Just wanted to say that I like the edits you've been making and let you know that I re-stored the original wording of the into to the critics section. I think it is pretty good and don't really see a reason to chop it up ( if you feel strongly, of course, I would be amenable to changes). I think the original wording, coupled with your changes to the rest of the paragraph, make for a better article. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Levi P. 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I think the sentence, as it is, is important because it establishes three facts: 1) His paper has not been published in an academic journal; 2) it has thus not been peer-reviewed; and, 3) other scientists question whether it has been vetted properly. (It took some work to get these ideas presented within the article in such a stark manner.) I do agree with you, however, that it would be appropriate to better "summerize" the reception with which his paper has met (i.e., indifference and thinly vieled ridicule). I'm just not sure how we can word such a summary so that it is both sourcable and does not get immediately reverted. I suppose we would just have to paraphrase the ideas already expressed within that link. Maybe something like.."Jones' paper has been met, largely, with indifference in the scientific community. Since his paper has not been published in a scientific journal...". What do you suggest? Levi P. 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk alteration

Hi Peephole,

In general, it is a bad idea to alter the Talk page that way, unless there is blatant vandalism or a personal attack, or of course archiving/refactoring. In this case, the best thing to do is to add an {{unsigned}} tag if you can, or otherwise leave it. When it comes time to count votes, you can be sure it will be noted that that entry carries less weight than the others. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the header, so you were correct in your action (and feel free to fix it). In general though... And if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me. Tewfik^Talk 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing or organizing polls

Hi Peep. Please do not do that again. -- Szvest 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

People have already voted and changing the layout or organizing it that way may confuse users and some may consider it vandalism. Just be carefull. Cheers -- Szvest 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spacefed

Hey, Spacefed made a few other advertisement articles related to his non-notable gaming website. Think we can do a mass AFD? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

May I just list Unification Wars under the entry for the other article in your AFD? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost: Season 2

Where on earth are you getting 24 episodes from? The official number is 23 episodes for season two. Lumaga 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Live Together, Die Alone is officially one episode. There are only 23 episodes in season two. Lumaga 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WoWWiki

"Disregarding the mess above, I think the article should be deleted as well."

Funny how you say that, because "that mess above" is a direct cut and paste of what you wrote on the FFXIclopedia AfD, only changing every "FFXIclopedia" to "WoWWiki". It's also amusing you claim to have put in the notability tag, when I was the one who tried to get them to clean up the article at least a week before you got there on [July 13th]. Amazing how you are able to trash your own words and then take credit for trying to get them to clean up their article. You are so richeous. --Ganiman 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones article

Good edits today, man. rootology (T) 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why delete what I just posted on the lost page?

Can you explain to me why you deleted my work on the lost page? User:Norfolkdumpling

As said, if you looked. That was misleading. Not everyone looks at that part, and to some, it can appear as though they only appear in one episode. Regards, User:Norfolkdumpling

9/11 Family Steering Committee

I removed the {{prod}} tag from this entry. I feel it's notable enough to keep. If you still feel it warrants deletion, please feel free to nominate it at WP:AFD. - Duane 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lospedia controversy

Hello there, Peephole,

In my experimental section in the Lost discussion page, I'm hoping the items that really matter will bulk out and begin to demonstrate consensus. I'm particularly hoping for the best solutions to become evident to casual readers. There's an element of "straw poll" to the solutions section. In reading through your other comments about fan sites and Lostpeda, I'm guessing you support some of the proposed solutions that you left untouched. If you care to register a couple of more comments in the "Proposed solutions" subsection, that would really help get this experiment off to a good start.

Thanks, --Loqi T. 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett

I reported the anon on 3rr just now, you have one more RV. rootology (T) 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)