User talk:Verbal/Old01

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Atropa belladonna

Hello, Verbal. You have new messages at Talk:Atropa_belladonna.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redirects aren't eligible for prod

See Wikipedia:PROD#cite ref-0. –xeno^talk 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So they all have to go to RfD? That seems wasteful. One already did and was deleted. I assumed the others would be too, but only one was. Verbal chat 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin deleted it as WP:CSD#R3; you could try that. If you take them to RFD do it in a single batch nom. –xeno^talk 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I tagged a small sample as such. Verbal chat 15:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a disconnect between the admin drop down in the deletion dialog and what it says at WP:CSD#R3. The dialog box just says "implausible redirect" but the policy page refers to typos and misnomers. Maybe something that should be corrected - but I'm not sure which one is correct. –xeno^talk 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding misnomer would be better IMO. The tag that's added includes the broader policy wording. Verbal chat 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The present cases aren't really "misnomers" either though (well, I suppose if you stretch the interpretation of misnomer) - they're just simply implausible... –xeno^talk 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll need RfD; I am unwilling to stretch speedy R3 quite this far. The dialog boxes are a quick summary, & the policy page is the policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also argue general housekeeping and IAR applies. These redirects are ridiculous. Verbal chat 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

ANI thread. –xeno^talk 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly the best call is to not respond, FYI, unless you can do so without disparaging TT at all. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have clarified my position (which I'm surprised needed clarifying) that I wish to see an RfC. Verbal chat 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support - good to see not everyone's lost their mind - was starting to wonder if I'd lost mine. -- samj _in^out 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend avoiding interacting with Abd except on article talk pages, and even then only address the article issues. It is too easy to be sidetracked by his dense and rambling prose and behaviour. If he puts inappropriate warnings on your talk, simply remove with a civil note that they are inappropriate or ask another to review and remove on your behalf. Verbal chat 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I've basically told both of them to stay off my talk page and plan to stay well away from his - just needed a 3PO because (despite cleaning up their mess) I was looking like the ass. -- samj _in^out 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS DOING THE WARRING. First, you tried to block all my edits, and then you tried to truncate the article, using words to avoid in the process. Yet your knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. You have no integrity! You are a disruptive editor!

If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged. If you'll be reasonable, however, we can work this out. I'm willing to accept some of your changes of terminology, but not the constant use of the word "claimed" and not the deletion of perfectly good text from the article.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)