Welcome to my talk page! Please do not bring discussions here from other pages. Please use diffs when talking about edits. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. I check my watchlist regularly. I don't always add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them, unless it's a user talk page or I started an important discussion. Thank you.
Oh, and remember to post new comments and topics at the bottom of the page or the section in which you are discussing and sign every post you make here by simply adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.
Deleted pages – if I deleted a page you were involved with in which you have an issue with, talk to me about it first here. I will be happy to userfy for you, restore the page if I believed to have made an error in judgment, or fulfill any other request within reason. If you would like a copy of any other deleted page to work on, also let me know. Keep in mind that I will not, for any reason, restore copyright violations or attack pages.
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Funny
On some level, I do find this somewhat funny as the idiot who was accusing me edit-warring and promoting Indian nationalism engages in sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and fails to adhere to WP:NPOV. Atleast in his SPI case against me, he could have gotten the CONTINENT right (for one, I don't live in Uttar Pradesh, India). I suspect however that this was just an attempt to defame me or shut me up because I contested his ridiculous edits. Suffice it to say, I am happy to put this chapter behind me. Vedant (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a significant improvement (albeit still unsourced and likely still not notable) from the version deleted per the 2004 VFD, and since this was about 6 years ago, I wouldn't delete per G4. I would just send it to a 2nd AFD just so you don't get some wikilawyer say "well, it was already deleted before" stuff. –MuZemike16:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is to discuss civilly with Everard Proudfoot instead persistently reverting, as the latter is considered disruptive. We also have the dispute resolution process in which you can ask for third opinions and all sorts of other good stuff. –MuZemike21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a can-o-worms. Might I ask for an expansion and opinion toward the multiple arguments toward guideline and policy... and that you address User:S Marshall's point-by-point refutation of the nominator's reasons for nomination, and the number of !votes that simply echoed the nominator even after his points were proven invalid? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other !votes had slightly different deletion rationales than that of the nom, but they all converged to one specific point. Multiple editors have also refuted the refutation, which you could argue was also valid. I'd also argue that many (not all) of the arguments for deletion were more grounded in policy and guidelines than the reasons for retention (in which I also found a few faults in those arguments). That being said, one side was not going to be happy regardless of how I closed it. –MuZemike01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not envy you your decision... and have a sneaking suspician that a better version may return in the future, a version that will then have to be judged on its own. This guy just cannot keep himself out of the press. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckle) As I offered in the AFD, I do not like this guy and would never vote for him. Writng about him? I'll mull that one over. And thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.02:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Npov banner on Yugoslav destroyer Split
Hi. I'm scanning through ship articles with NPOV tags. Looking at the current article and your diff from 2008, I see nothing particularly controversial. As there's nothing on the article's talk page, I'm stumped. Do you see any remaining NPOV problems on the page? Thanks. HausTalk06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I saw that lead as raising a big red flag as far as NPOV is concerned, which was why I added the NPOV tag there. I'd be perfectly happy with its removal if that lead is changed to a more neutral sentence such as:
Of course, that is just a suggestion by me, but I think that is a good start there and sums up the article for the most part with what there is right now. –MuZemike07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Protestant missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion
Hi. This qualified for deletion as a stand alone but in the discussion I made a strong case that a short list of agencies involved with casualty figures should be incorporated into a parent article such as China Martyrs of 1900. but- since this was deleted without any effort expended to amend the article - we lost the simple list for the count. Can you please put a restored copy into my talk page or something? It would save the time of having to look all of this up again in an out-of-print book. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
