User talk:Hu12: Difference between revisions
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
== So, what am I supposed to do about this? == |
== So, what am I supposed to do about this? == |
||
Title is the content. [[User:Elmwood|Elmwood]] ([[User talk:Elmwood|talk]]) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Title is the content. How do I get a question answered about links to my non-commerical site in articles being deleted, while links to a similar commercial site, some placed there by that site owner, remain. [[User:Elmwood|Elmwood]] ([[User talk:Elmwood|talk]]) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 18:37, 2 April 2008
| Archives |
|---|
| /Archive /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 WP:GRIEF m:MPOV |
| If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. |
| “ | Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.. | ” |
| — WP:TIGERS | ||
| The following is a list of articles currently nominated for speedy deletion. |
| I'm currently in the process of re-assessing the usefulness of this tool. It may be replaced with something using the new <categorytree> syntax (although that doesn't have all of the functionality), or it might be deleted altogether. If you have any comments, please make them known on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The CSD list is not intended to be used for transclusion purposes. By doing so, you are creating many unnecessary "What links here" entries that administrators on CSD patrol have to peruse on each deletion. Think of the tiny benefit that transclusion affords you versus the large hindrance that it creates to many administrators each time every CSD is dealt with, and you will realize why it is no longer permitted.
See also |
|
|---|
| This is a list of deletable PRODs. |
| Category:Expired proposed deletions |
|
|---|
| This is a readout of various categories. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is a readout of the current RfAs. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome
Welcome to the talk page 
. --Hu12 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Hu12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanctions. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads up!
Thought I'd point you at m:User:SpamReportBot/cw. This is a listing of all links that have been added to multiple foundation wikis over the last few days. As you see... we miss alot. I've put more detail at the talk page of the spam blacklist —— Eagle101Need help? 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
AkhtaBot
Hi, I'm from the BAG - was wondering what was the problem with AkhtaBot (talk · contribs) which I've saw you blocked per "Bot malfunctioning:" yet the accounts has only one edit and no deleted edits or logs. You sure you got the wrong account? Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- So its a legit bot? That was done when I was patrolling new usernames, I'll unblock.--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is now, since we approved the trial. In future, when blocking usernames contaning "bot" that haven't been created by other users, please don't use "bot malfuntioning" as block reason, as it's definitively wrong, and also, could you kindly leave a msg about the username block (the standard template should be enough) on the user talk page? Thanks :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry About the Apparent Self-Promo
I have since learned that the way to propose an external link with which one is associated is via the article talk page and have done so for Environmental Policy.
I would suggest that a better test would be substantive value of the link since it would be fairly easy to employ a 'shill' to promote a link as well, wouldn't it?
In any case, I ask your pardon.
Adam Cherson 3/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.246.43 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above user re-added the external link to his site to several articles including the one referenced. Seems a clear case of self-promotion - and he hasn't "learned". I've removed the links again. Vsmith (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of "duplicate image" CSD rationale
I've noticed that quite a few of the images you've marked for speedy deletion using the "duplicate image" rationale in fact are not duplicates of any other image. In several cases, they were pictures of the same building, but from a different angle. This does not qualify for their being a duplicate. A duplicate is supposed to be a redundant exact copy of another image, not another picture of the same subject, and, in any case, there must actually be a duplicate image on Wikipedia for that rationale to be used.
Further, in placing the template, you must have done something wrong, because in each case the word "Image:" was repeated in the wikilnk to the purported duplicate -- making it "Image:Image:name of image" instead of the proper "Image:name of image."
Please be more careful in your use of the duplicate rationale in the future. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- From your contribs, I'll assume this message is misplaced and was intended for Special:Contributions/122.104.81.110?. --Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for pointing that out. My mistake, and my apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch on the speedy misuse, BTW ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for pointing that out. My mistake, and my apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job, beat me to that! —— nixeagle 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice one on the ELs. I think you may get some flak though. Some people think these sites are important, simply because they are non-profit! Greetings TINYMARK 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Being Non profit isn't an automatic inclusion critera as far as I know..It doesn't matter--being noncommercial, these sites are often trying to sell something even if the business is organized as a nonprofit.;) Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
i did xplan. ANI is on wrong page
I did explain y I del the ANI. I was told I put it on the wrong page. So I del it.It is in the edit summaries, did u look
xplanation #1 : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=202574388&oldid=202573560
xplanation#2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=202583792 70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So, what am I supposed to do about this?
Title is the content. How do I get a question answered about links to my non-commerical site in articles being deleted, while links to a similar commercial site, some placed there by that site owner, remain. Elmwood (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)