User talk:Mh29255

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!Kukini 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tildes

Hi...don't forget to put 4 tildes after any comments on talk pages. It helps with communication and community-building. Peace, Kukini 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...you are getting there...but all you have to do is type 4 of these... ~

Kukini 23:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accordance

Further to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accordance, I have done more work on the article, and the nominator has changed his view to Keep. If you have time to review the article and are prepared to change your own "Delete" vote, this might enable early closure of the AFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strider Phoenix

Actually there are plenty of warning templates you can use on his talk page. See WP:WARN for a complete list. Start with a level 1 or 2 warning depending on the severity of the situation. (You may go directly to level 3 or 4 if the person has a history of disruptive edits.) And when the person ignores a level 4 warning, report him at WP:AIV and watch him as he gets blocked within the next 5 minutes. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Blanchardb said. Place a warning template on the user's talk page after each offense. If they have been Blatant vandal warned a couple of times and or given a final warning, I report to AIV. I think this particular user should be getting the message soon. If he keeps it up, he can be blocked. Dloh cierekim 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spelled it out for him. He may mean well and is just overly enthusiastic. He may be totally self-serving. If he becomes constructive, great. Otherwise . . . . Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I put a level-3 "warning against vandalism" on his talk page. Maybe this will get him to stop. Mh29255 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bother

thanks for your note.

No bother. You just did. Uncle G moved it per his reasons on the afd page. Not sure I understand moving an article during an AfD, but there it is. Durban Strategy redirects to the page under its new name. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Persistent SD Tag Removal From Page

Yeah, you should send that to AfD. There's an assertion of notability there, and I would have declined an A7 deletion anyway. east.718 at 08:31, December 27, 2007

That's fine. I just wanted to get some clarification. Mh29255 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ketoret

{{unreferenced}} shouldn't be used for an article that has some references. Please use {{refimprove}} or similar instead. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Replay Publishing

Hello Mh29255. I'd like to ask you to take another look at the Replay Publishing page, which was nominated for AfD. I've added a number of references to the page, and enhanced the article text and links. Any further constructive criticism you could give would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps a single, sourced page would be a viable solution. Thank you. Kezzran (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mh29255. I'd like to ask you to review my last comment on the AfD page for Replay Publishing. I think I've presented a more logical conclusion to the pages being merged. Thank you for your time. Kezzran (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Ladies

Thanks very much for your work on this, which has obviously saved it from deletion.12:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate that. Mh29255 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate phenomenon

Pleas allow me to tell you about an unfortunate phenomenon first. I am one of the wikipedia's more prolific contributors. And I write on controversial topics. Consequently, I have had to participate in dozens of {{afd}}s on the hundreds of articles I have started.

One unfortunate phenomenon I have observed is the propensity of some {{afd}} patrollers to make snap judgments. Some regular {{afd}} patrollers don't bother actually reading the articles for themselves. One hot-spirited patroller nominated three articles I created for deletion, posting essentially identical justifications for all three. He asserted that all three fell into a particular class of article that he didn't think the wikipedia should carry -- guantanamo captives. And the first commentators who expressed a delete opinion echoed his judgment, as if they too had read the article for themselves.

The nominator was busted. He had not read the articles in question closely enough to notice that one of the subjects, Zahid Al-Sheikh, was not a Guantanamo captive at all. He is an older brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; a notable fighter during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; notable for introducing his brother to key jihadists; notable for facing accusations that he played a role in several key terrorist bomb plots; notable for being a director of several charitable organizations following the ouster of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

The nominator didn't manage to actually read the article before he nominated it. And everyone who chipped in, and criticized it for the bogus reasons nominator advanced was showing that they too hadn't bothered to actually read the article. They exposed themselves as people prepared to voice an opinion based solely on the nominator's description of the article. They exposed themselves as being prepared to pretend their opinion was actually based on reading the article in question.

Well, that is not right.

The reason I am writing you is that there are some guidelines as to what criteria we should use in forming opinions for {{afd}}. And there are guidelines as to how to express our opinions. Short version -- "me too" opinions are strongly discouraged. Assuming good faith, you may have taken an appropriate amount of time to form your opinion. But your very brief explanation of your opinion gives the impression you did not.

Further, you wrote:

"...but no assertion of notability in either article."

However, the second sentence of Wilberto Sabalu says:

"Sabalu, and his colleague Colonel James W. Harrison Jr., are notable for having been killed, by an Afghan guard, who opened fire on their vehicle when they were entering the prison gate."

Now, you are perfectly free to disagree as to how notable this makes the men. But your justification of "no assertion" is simply incorrect.

Okay, what I am going to ask you is, could you please spend long enough on each article where you want to express an opinion, that the opinion you express is not some form of "me too", and shows you gave the article fair consideration.

I spent over three hours on these two articles this morning. I'd feel better if those judging the articles spent enough time drafting their opinion so I could feel confident they actually gave them a fair reading.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

I left a reply to the "memorial" concern on the {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-605

Where did I say it's going to be built? --NE2 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly didn't demonstrate that there is an actual plan that would imply that the road is going to be built. What does the template at the top of the page state: "This article contains information about a planned or expected future road." There IS not plan to build the road. Here would be an accurate template: "This article contains information about a road that has been suggested to be built, but there is no actual plan to build the road and no realistic expectation as to whether it will ever be built or when it might (if ever) be built." In other words, the entire Interstate 605 (Washington) road is WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I didn't touch the article except to undo Freewayguy's changes. I think you're looking for whoever placed that tag. --NE2 02:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally fine with the article being renamed to something other than I-605, but this discussion (and further reading) has made me realize that this article should be renamed something like: "Twice Rejected, But Ongoing Speculation About a Possible Additional Commerce Corridor Being Built Somewhere (Washington)". Mh29255 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AFD Removal

Well, hopefully from the looks of things he has stopped. If he does continue, you can issue a {{uw-afd4}}, and if it continues past that, then WP:AIV is the next step. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning substitution

Hi! I see you've been reverting some vandals lately. That's one of my favorite things to do, too, but I'd like to point out that templates like {{uw-vandalism1}}, etc. are supposed to be substituted (meaning enter {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead, in case you're not familiar with that feature). That way, if the warning templates are ever changed, we both preserve the warning the user originally got and save the servers a lot of work (they don't have to update 10,000 other pages after the new version of the template is saved). Other than that, you seem to be doing very good work; keep it up! Cheers! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I forget to use the "subst:" tag sometimes. I'll try to remember to include that in the future. Mh29255 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Firefox, I recommend Twinkle for vandalism patrol. It subst:'s for you. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Twinkle. Thanks for the info. I'll check it out as I do use Firefox. Mh29255 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why UniComs is for deletion? Thank you. farfouille