User talk:Redvers

Redvers is

male •

gay •

married •

a socialist •

a vegetarian •

Welsh •

an atheist • and I rush to danger but wind up nowhere

`01`	`02`	`03`	`04`	`05`	`06`	`07`	`08`	`09`	`10`
`11`	`12`	`13`	`14`	`15`	`16`	`17`	`18`	`19`	`20`
`21`	`22`	`23`	`24`	`25`	`26`	`27`	`28`	`29`	`30`
`31`	`32`	`33`	`34`	`35`	`36`	`37`	`38`	`39`	`40`
`41`	`42`	`43`	`44`	`45`	`46`	`47`	`48`	`49`	`50`

		Don't post your images to Commons. Why not?
		DON'T post "talkback" templates. I'm already watchlisting your talk page
		Watchlist this page to see replies

Toxin (band)

Redvers,

I am really sorry i am brand new to wikipedia and i was not aware that recreating the article was against policy. I would strongly appreciate if you could reconsider the deletion of Toxin (band). Please also tell me what i did or did not include that made the article bad. All advice is helpful!

Thanks very much!

Blue's Clues

Redvers, I hope that I changed this article to satisfy you. Although...it did state that it's a US show in the infobox, which I guess wasn't enough. Anyway...:)

I added that it aired in the US in the lead and in the first sentence of the article's body. It also has this, in the Reception and influence section: Blue's Clues was one of the first children's television shows that allowed countries outside the U.S. to produce their own versions of the show. It was a run-away hit in the U.K., and has become part of pop culture in Korea. The "dubbed" American version is shown in over sixty countries.[24] It was also one of the first preschool shows to incorporate American Sign Language into its content. (Approximately seven signs were used consistently in each episode.)[25]

So not only does it now state that it's a US show, it also (well, for a while now) has info about its multi-national and multicultural influence. It that enough? If not, let me know and I'll fix it. I'll let you remove the tag you placed there yourself. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the lede a little to bring a mention in of the UK version (I'd assume there are others, the foot of the article mentions Korean) and also mentioned up-front that the article is about the American version. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some slight nitpicky changes to your changes. I "improved" your in the lead, since it was to a Nick website, and replaced it with the Tracy book, since it's a slightly better ref and self-published sources aren't as reliable. I did, though, put the link in the External Links section. Thanks for removing the tag. BTW, are you a Brit with some kind of agenda here? :) Just kidding!!! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh heh! Yeah, I'm a Brit. But no agenda (honest!) - I was following a vandal, rolling back (beaten to it on Blue's Clues) when I spotted that this article was about the US one and didn't say much about the UK one. Although how I know about the UK one I don't know... I don't think I've ever watched Nick, let alone Nick Jr... ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you were able to take my joke. I've never seen the Brit version, either, but that's because I live in the US. I'm sure an article about the British version of BC would be good, but I've never seen any articles about it, so I don't know if it's notable enough. I don't even know if it's still being produced, or if it stopped like the American version. Also, I don't know if I'd be a good person to write one, since I think an editor should have at least some familiarity with the subject of an article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87.194.248.127 vandalising Granada Television and Tyne Tees Television

87.194.248.127 is vandalising Granada Television and Tyne Tees Television. Keep a close eye on the franchise articles. Paul Austin (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thanks for that! -- Banjeboi 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango

I wonder if you'd take another look at this. Whilst the nominator may have withdrawn, the nominator does not OWN the debate. And where may others have offered deletion or merge arguements, if is wrong to close on the strength of the nominator's withdrawal. All that means is that others arguing for deletion or merge are forced to begin their own "nomination" and we then repeat the debate, which is a real waste of time. Indeed, that's what has already happened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango (2nd nomination). To save everyone who voted in the first debate having to do so again, I am intending to reverse your closure and redirect the new debate to the old one, and let it run. However, I thought I'd give you the chance to reverse yourself first.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this - we start a new debate then consult the closing admin, catching me in a perfect double-bind. Please do not reverse my closure (the result was going to be "no consensus" anyway, but that's beside the point). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I consulted you before I did anything else. Then I noticed you'd posted to the second debate, so I left a note there. No, I'm afraid the closing reason is not beside the point. I am going to reverse you, but do feel free to re-close it as a "no consensus" if you wish. Closing on a technicality, when some people are arguing for deletion is simply going to frustrate people and lead to a needless second debate on DRV and AfD. You do not close a debate on the ground of the nominators wishes, unless no one else is suggesting delete.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two, poorly argued, !votes for delete. So you can add this being discussed in the wrong venue to the list of reasons to close it. You're telling me you're seriously going to reopen the debate so that I can immediately reclose with a slightly different rationale? Have you got enough shrubbery? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I hate shrubbery. Process and needless debate should be minimised. But closing a debate on the basis of the nominator withdrawing, just leads to pointless process with someone saying "OK, this time the nominator will not withdraw" (which is what happened). Please do close the debate summing up the consensus of the debate (which I do think is either keep or merge - but that's your call). Once the debate is closed on other than the technicality of the nominator withdrawing, then hopefully we can all go home.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Having looked over this, I guess I look like a process-wonking dick. However, I was trying to stop a repetitive pointless debate - screw process. I'm sorry if I've annoyed you, please be assured that wasn't my intent, and I fully concur with your close now.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess I looked a bit rouge... discussion had fragmented and what I said in one place could've been copied over to the others for clarity. Still, we're cool now :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) A question on this - you say that the relatively low number of "delete" !votes suggests that AfD is the wrong venue. Would you mind elaborating? I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious about how AfD works. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD really is for discussing whether articles should be deleted (well, duh :) but the system allows for other opinions - keeping, obviously, redirecting and merging. The originally nomination wasn't really asking for a delete, it was asking for a merge or a redirect. And the (not-) voters were almost unanimous in agreeing that deletion wasn't required (the two delete opinions were ones that I would have placed low reliance on in closing a debate anyway). This is a clue that the debate is happening in the wrong forum. AfD is poorly structured for merge debates, partially because the stakes are too high: the article is under threat of deletion, which frightens the ones who want the content kept; yet survival at AfD can often set an article in stone, preserving it from major change, which frightens those who want major change to it now. The debate therefore becomes a car crash. At the same time, AfD can be very useful for giving a shock to a badly performing article or reigning in misguided editors, and I've misused it this way myself in the past. But it is a misuse and you get hell if you're caught at it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very helpful. Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that

I didn't know that, but still this user is adding complete nonsense and making personal attacks angainst one user. I just though i'd help this person out before they get blocked, but there seems to be no helping them. Thanks, Hairy Perry 15:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 UDR & 2UDR

Hi it's very kind of you to change the page names but unfortunately you've done it in such a way now as they don't make any sense. For naming they'd be known either as:

1 UDR
2 UDR
OR
1st Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment
2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment
OR
1st (Country Antrim) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment
2nd (Country Armagh) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment

If you could make a choice on the naming convention you'd like me to stick to I'd be grateful as there are 11 Battalions of this regiment to create pages for as part of a major project I'm kicking off today.Thunderer (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which would you be interested in using? "1 UDR" is awful, telling the reader nothing (albeit useful as a redirect, I suppose). The one I picked is consistent with other articles on battalions that WP:MILHIST looks after, but if it doesn't suit, we can pick something different. I'll help move stuff if the system is complaining. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd plump for "#th Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment" (no's 1-11). the # UDR is useful as a search term and is a very common name for them but the full title with the county name in it is rarely used except on paper so I can elaborate on that in the article. If you can rename or redirect for the first two then I'll name the other 9 articles following your convention.Thunderer (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want "nth Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment" or without the comma? (I'm neutral on this!) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way in that format would be without the comma. Thunderer (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'll make sure the rest match that naming convention.Thunderer (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good luck! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MiniTwins

You appear to have delete my MiniTwins page. Much of the text was a direct copy from www.minitwins.co.uk to which I own the copyright. I was well aware of the rules for submitting such information to Wikipedia and the implications for that copyright. Please can you reinstate my page? Asanyfuleno (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have copied text to which you own the copyright, please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

sorry, and thanks for deleting the page i just created. it was wrongly named. i just realised that after clicking save. w_tanoto (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - it's very easily done. It's now in you userspace: User:W Tanoto/Contribution. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Civic Symphony Orchestra

I am a member of the Boston Civic Symphony Orchestra.

I posted a page about the orchestra but you deleted it for "blatent advertising."

I just posted a few historical facts about the orchestra. Why is that considered advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUCAWINE (talk • contribs)

I'll answer on your talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined Wiki, so I'm new to this, so thanks for your patience.

In looking at the "conflict of interest" rules, I don't see a problem with what I posted. I have no financial interest in the orchestra since my position with them is completely voluntary. It is a not-for-profit orchestra. I am not promoting the concerts, only stating a few historical facts about this orchestra which is the second oldest orchestra in the city.

Why can the Boston Symphony Orchestra have a wiki page, but not the Boston Civic Orchestra? They even promote their official website on their WIKI page which I did not do with the Boston Civic Orchestra WIKI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUCAWINE (talk • contribs)

Replied on user's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't post a factual page about the orchestra if this is a problem. I was volunteering to do it anyway, so your rejection of the page actually makes my life easier. The orchestra is already referenced many times on wikipedia such as on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=BOSTON+CIVIC+SYMPHONY&go=Go , but maybe I had the wrong idea of how everything works here. Thanks anyway!