User talk:Nancy

Welcome to my talk page

• DID I DELETE YOUR PAGE? If so please check User:Nancy/Why? for an explanation first. If you are still none the wiser then please click here to leave me a message
• I will reply on this page as I prefer to keep conversations all in one place but may alert you on your talk page too so you get the nice orange bar.
• If I have written something on your talk page, I will be watching it so feel free to reply there if you wish. If you prefer to reply here that's fine too.
• Threads older than 7 days are archived automatically by MiszaBot

Nancy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Contents M18_recoilless_rifle Hi Nancy. Could you please take a look at the pages M18_recoilless_rifle and M18_Recoilless_Rifle. The former seems to be a real page concerning the topic, where the later redirects to Recoilless rifle. There is also a link to the later on the M18 page. May I suggest the later is removed and the former renamed to the later's case? Oh, and sail is definitely better than power! Kind Regards LeeRyman (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Hi Lee. I've had a look and for the meantime have simply changed the redirect on M18_Recoilless_Rifle to point to M18_recoilless_rifle. I was unsure making changes to the case of the target article as looking at the contents of Category:Recoilless rifles it seems that lower-case is the current convention - I also checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide but came away none the wiser! I have however changed the M18 page to bypass the redirect. Opportunity for sail on the non-tidal Thames is pretty limited but I do wish petrol was a cheap as wind, that's for sure :) Nancy talk 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that, and the run-down on what you did. I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, so I appreciate the opportunity to follow your process. Whenever we see a cruiser going past whilst sailing on Port_Stephens, we always joke that it must have a dollar gauge, not a diesel gauge. LeeRyman (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered: Proposal to Close This RfC Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Could Do With Your Input Hi Fellow Editor, Could you please have a look at this conversation, it seems to be going a little AWOL. I do not see where I haved mate a WP:Personal Attack and why User:Sinneed is warning me. If I am wrong then I willhold up my hand. --Sikh-History 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I have had a look at the conversation. I would not consider anything in there to be an overt personal attack however one should always be careful to always comment on the edits rather than the editor - ironically the edit which is closest to crossing that particular line is the one you made after Sinneed mentioned WP:NPA. When you are interacting with Sinneed you need to take especial care simply because of the history of disagreement between you. I can understand how you might find his communication style frustrating but you should always try not to feed it and to make sure that you word all your posts very carefully so there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Moving forward, if Sinneed continues to template the regulars then the best course of action is to just remove the post from your talk and don't rise to the bait - indeed I wonder if he himself though better of the most recent "warning" as I see he self-reverted. Kind regards, Nancy talk 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I think Sinnneed is a brilliant editor and you are correct, my tone was a bit wrong. I will try to be more civil in future. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Please review. I template SH as he found non-template cautions to be rude. I am very sorry that you do not find the instruction to learn history to be a violation of wp:NPA. I have restored the template.- Sinneed 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) On second thought, no need. I'll consider myself warned for wp:DTTR, and will simply permanently ignore all edit summaries and talk page postings by SH. I will promptly delete without reading or archiving any postings to my talk page by either of you. I am disappointed in you both. Good day.- Sinneed 15:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nancy please can you have a word with this fellow, he is overstepping the mark and misusing warning templates on my talkpage. Thanks--Sikh-History 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Sinneed last posted to your page at 15:21(UTC). Since then he has said in this thread (at 15:37) that he will "permanently ignore all edit summaries and talk page postings by SH" so I don't think anything is to be gained by me or anyone else poking the fire. I think his approach is right - you two don't seem to be able to interact with each other without it turning sour so a policy of ignoring each other is probably the only way forward. I would go further and suggest you completely avoid each other but I don't believe that is going to be possible given your common interests. Nancy talk 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The sad thing is I think he is a good editor, but on some subjects I think it is best to ask for expert help. I really feel I can work with him, but I can't when he keeps warning me. Thanks anyway.--Sikh-History 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC) CSD A7 Why wouldn't CSD A7 apply to a martial art? Can't we look at it as an organization? If not, what is the appropriate CSD category? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC) It's not an organisation in the same way that "Hockey" or "Kung Fu" are not organisations. There is not a CSD category that applies as is the case with many things e.g. films, schools, books, buildings.... If you still feel it merits deletion you will need to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Best, Nancy talk 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) It definately merits deletion. Was trying to avoid clogging up AfD with it. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Deletion declined? How is there meaningful content in Elur Pudupatti? If you don't delete it for not having any content, then delete it for lack of notability. A simple Google search does not yield very many results. I apologize if I posted this on the wrong talk page; I am still a relatively new user. -BLM Platinum (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Several things You nominated it as "Nonsense" when in fact it was simply poor English. It was perfectly clear to me that someone was trying to create and article about a settlement in Tamil Nadu When you are more familiar with the speedy deletion criteria you will know that geographical locations are not eligible for speedy deletion on the basis of no credible assertion of notability I have had to decline or alter a large number of your speedy deletion nominations in the last couple of hours. Whilst it is great that you are getting involved, your lack of knowledge/accuracy is just causing more work for other editors. May I suggest again that you study the speedy deletion criteria in depth before you tag any more articles. Nancy talk 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Alright. I'll cool it with the speedy deletions for now. Sorry to have caused any trouble. -BLM Platinum (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I think that is a good decision. You need to get a handle on the deletion criteria and also approach NPP with the attitude of wanting to improve Wikipedia rather than wanting to find reasons to tag for deletion. Nancy talk 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) DYK for Cookham Bridge On February 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cookham Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Ucucha 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Nancy. You have new messages at IBen's talk page. Message added 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. iBen (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Deleted Nathaniel Bogdanove article. Dear Nancy, I see on the log that your reason for deleting my (short) bio on Nathaniel Bogdanove was because there was no historical significance. The first or second sentence pointed out that Mr. Bogdanove was the first person to be elected to the post of Mayor of Waldwick, NJ after he died. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this is not historically significant and ask that you please restore it. Respectfully, Seth J. Bogdanove Bogframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 17:18, 25 February 2010 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Nathaniel Bogdanove" ‎ (Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7)) There is a mention of this fact in the trivia section of [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for fixing my book: issues. I had it labeled correctly but it gave me an error message and so I followed the error messages steps to correct it...well if just messed it all up. A appreciate you straightening it all out for me! Sabiona (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Charlotte Beazley Hello, I was going to look up Charlotte Beazley but then I noticed she wasn't on wikipedia. She is an actress/singer/model. I was just wondering if you could make an article Charlotte Beazley and I can send you more information to write in because we know each other. Thanks and please make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.131.191 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC) AfD nomination of Monthly events, 2005 An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Monthly events, 2005. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monthly events, 2005. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC) User:Hassaan19 As you have dealt with him/her before regarding the creation of X Factor articles, could you have a word again? One "problematic" article was Olly Murs; Olly Murs (singer)‎ has been created today. I would like to stand back from this rather than get into an edit war. Many thanks! I42 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Diffs for previous dealings: [2], [3]. I42 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks I42. I've had a(nother) word with Hassaan on his talk page about ignoring consensus, explained the consequences etc. Will he ever learn? I see that the article has been redirected, quite right too! Nancy talk 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I don't know if they'll ever Get It. I hope they do; properly directed, their enthusiasm should be an asset to the project. I42 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Neolibertarianism I believe that the page Neolibertarianism should be recreated. There are pages for almost every other libertarian variant, but not this one. If you were to google the word Neolibertarian, you would find a vast amount of talk on the subject. The theory has been synthesized to a much greater extent lately. It is very similar to Libertarian Conservative, but there are enough differences to warrant its own page. There are even wikipedia pages with links to it, a dead page --Estrill5766 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)