User talk:Colonel Warden

Bikers Bell

(talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) In 2 reliable sources: Gremlin Bell Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guardian Bell searches Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Commercial credit reporting

An article that you have been involved in editing, Commercial credit reporting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial credit reporting. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

colonel, without any prejudice to what the community may decide, the move you made to Epistemology of religion is not really appropriate during an AfD where this is one of the questions at issue--I think it would count as a major move. I've reverted it. Please don't take it as a reflection or as the expression of my own opinion--I merely think the move would have just further confused an already confusing discussion. By all means continue to discuss the correct title at the AfD, or, if the article is kept under whatever title, afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of good faith efforts to improve the article seems improper, especially when you have opined for deletion. I do not consider the move a major one as the essential nature of the topic is unchanged. The main point is for us to focus upon the potential of topic rather than the minor details of the term epistemics and the naive status of the original author. Editors in the discussion already seem quite confused as they seem to be judging a book by its cover. Changing the title to conform to the usage of most sources still seems a sensible move and I shall continue to work upon the article with this in mind - see the rewrite of the lead which resulted in an edit conflict. I shall retire for now as it is unsatisfactory working upon an article when edit conflicts result. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: why not simply start the new article at the new title? Much as I've been tempted to do so, I;'ve never radically changed a title in the middle of an AfD unless it was blindingly obvious to everyone, or purely technical . I'm sad to see this quarrel with someone whom I agree so much 99% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That would be a content fork and they are usually deprecated for the good reason that they scatter our efforts rather than concentrating them. And if I were to take ideas from the first article, that might also be plagiarism. If I were to credit the original author as a source, then we have licence issues for which it seems simplest to keep the original edit history. And, most importantly, building upon the work of the original author shows some respect and courtesy for it and him. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader, save the...

Why have you done this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It did not seem to be a constructive edit. And so to bed; more anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now, hope you don't mind. I removed unsourced statements and replaced all the external links with a single link to DMOZ - as is recommended in policy, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what it is you object to! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• My objection was to the suppression of information about the UK body but this will keep. I shall attend to it later in my copious free time ... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, Colonel Warden, there is a request for amendement on an arbitration case that you have expressed interest in at some point. If you are no longer interested, sorry for disturbing you.Likebox (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Spikor

User:Colonel Warden/Spikor. Cheers, Black Kite 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of a book by Rawles

Colonel: You may recall an AfD discussion last year for James Wesley Rawles. (The result was keep.) Well, now a wiki article on one of his books has been AfDed. Your sage comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Survive_the_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It Trasel (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Colonel. Having just come across Loving You Has Made Me Bananas, and then realising that you have been submitting articles since you can't have been more than a subaltern, I was surprised to see you weren't already an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For your interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest (military) WritersCramp (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Buzz Cut

Hi. I missed the bit where you explained why you reverted my edits. I thought that I explained fairly well in my edit summary why I had made them. I'm confused as to why you saw fit to undo them. Thanks. danno 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the matter, please start discussion at the article's talk page so that other editors may participate. See WP:CYCLE for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (3rd nomination)

Hi Colonel Warden. I added that one source only after TPH had made the AfD nomination. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well done. I had a quick look myself and it didn't seem an easy type of source to hunt for. How did you find it? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm having most success with a search strategy of TV "show within a show" but there is a lot of crap to wade through. Searching for "fictional TV show" or for ("TV" or "television") + "metafiction" wasn't getting me very far. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Corruption in Ghana

Removing the tags does not make the issues go away. When you have addressed the concerns - that is rewritten the entire article so that it no longer reads like the dissertation it is, and have put in inline cites, and chased down the sources to establish that this is not original research, then the tags may be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)