User talk:TreasuryTag

All unsigned messages will be deleted. Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ (this is also official policy). Please consult me before making any major-ish changes to this page. Thanks.

---

Archiving

I was thinking about it but I didn't know how to do it - I'll read the page you referenced over the weekend and get it sorted. Thanks. Kelpin 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving set up with the bot. Thanks for the info. Kelpin 15:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please archive this comment, MiszaBot.--<big>User:Keycard 09:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Hi there. I was looking through some recent AfDs, and noticed that your basis for nomination occasionally came down to the article being unreferenced (as in this case). Generally, a lack of references is not automatic grounds for deletion. If a particular unreferenced fact is challenged, it can (and should) be removed, but we generally don't break out the nukes for lack of references for source-able articles (unless there's a strong COI/POV/BLP/COPYVIO issue that needs immediate attention). Please check WP:AFD#Before_nominating_an_AfD before you nominate articles in the future. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this request; while a lack of references is certainly an issue with many articles, it is not automatic grounds for deletion. You seem to think that unsourced material is by definition original research[1], but that is not always true. It may be better to tag an article with something like {{OR}} or {{unreferenced}} than to instantly nominate it for deletion, and to do some independent research on whether the article subject is notable before nominating it for deletion. Please take this as constructive criticism :-) Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've de-prodded some of the pages you marked for deletion, for the same reasons as above. (Not all, as some do deserve deletion, but I don't think all do). Just letting you know. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I third (?) this request. Prod's should only be used "for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia", but you have prodded several articles with long(ish) histories and several contributing editors. Lack of references is not a good enough reason to prod an article. Thanks.--Michig 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: a lack of references can be evidence of a non-notable topic; it's not inconceivable that an article could last a while, with multi-editor input, and yet not be suitably encyclopaedic (witness Camp PALS).

And let's not all pile on Rambutan, ok? There doesn't need to be a flood of criticism to get a point across. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Minister Articles for Deletion

In the future please use the multi-article AfD for this sort of thing. Second, if you're wanting to merge them instead of actually deleting, why not just create the list article and merge them? It seems like a waste of everyone's time to go through an AfD for this. Horrorshowj 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the copy edit on the merged article, you beat me to it. :) Horrorshowj 19:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB

Sure, I've approved your new username. Happy editing! Jogers (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)