User talk:Scottywong

19:55, 21 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

12:55, August 21, 2024 PDT [refresh]

Orthodox church lists

I was planning to do them eventually, but feel free to nominate them whenever you feel like it. Be aware that for Alaska, some people may say "but the Church has a historic presence there!" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska); WP:NOTDIR still applies for that list, though. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Lowell_810t72.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lowell_810t72.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute

I have nominated Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Snottywong (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute has tea culture classes and has certification for tea master, over four levels, classes year round, and also some of the classes are transferable to Tenfu Tea College. There is nothing commercial in this article, also check the links for references, including the offical site for Lu-Yu. icetea (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is to snottywong's statements, icetea8 and "... place to advertise your business", Yes I am icetea8 here gmail, tweeter, facebook, I don't hide that. Lonely Planet informs and aids people where to go on trips, you called that an "ad". I am an instructor at the school, it is not a business that I own. If you search me, you will never find any business advertising. One of my main goals is to give the English speaking community exposure to Chinese topics, like tea culture. icetea (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you prefer to discuss this on my talk page rather than on the AfD discussion page. Anyway, please read WP:COI. If the tea school was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, then someone other than its owner or one of its employees would have written the article on it, using reliable sources as their guide. SnottyWong ^chat 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lu-Yu If you do a search deleting wiki, myblog and the offical blog, you will find info in Chinese, if you look at my blog or any of my writings they are for the promotion of tea culture education not the "selling of tea" and the institute has classes, cert. and found in lonely planet as a source for education, search "陸羽茶藝中心" -wikipedia -teaarts -luyutea1980, i do many writings on tea cultur in english, an example is Tenfu Tea College. icetea (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MC10's RfA

I strongly suggest that you refactor your oppose on MC10's RfA. As currently worded, it is a personal attack. There is no way around it, it is a personal attack. Instead of slapping the standard {{uw-npa1}} template on your talk page, I'm simply stating that your oppose is a personal attack, and that I strongly suggest for you to refactor it. Thank you. (X! · talk)  · @925  ·  21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I certainly misjudged the ability for editors to take a joke. And it clearly was a joke, not a personal attack. I have no idea who MC10 is or what his/her personal relationship status is, so how could I possibly comment on it in any serious way? It was merely a comment about his/her age, and an expression of my personal opinion that teenagers should put more emphasis on social interactions rather than spending hours editing an encyclopedia. It appears it came off the wrong way. Anyway, it looks like the RfA has been closed, so refactoring likely won't make much of an impact, and anyway the instructions at the top of the page say not to modify it. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and move on with their lives. SnottyWong ^confer 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Denis Obua

A minor point, but you tagged Denis Obua with {{BLP sources}}, which is a tag for articles about living persons. Mr Obua is dead, so the appropriate tag would have been {{refimprove}}. I wouldn't bother mentioning it except that I was expanding and referencing the article when you tagged it, and, as one effect of {{BLP sources}} is to add the page to Category:BLP articles lacking sources, it's entirely possible that an over-zealous admin (there are one or two!) could have speedy deleted it even while I was working on it. Fortunately, no harm done, but possibly worth remembering for the future. regards Jimmy Pitt talk 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help for deletion discussion

You have nominated for deletion an article of the book. Could you please help me as I don't know where to discuss about your suggestion. In addition my English is not good enough to argue for the keeping as strongly as is needed, I presume. --Abc10 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The discussion on whether to keep or delete this article can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää (book). If you are new to the process, it might be useful for you to review Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before commenting. Your english seems pretty good to me; if you need any more help, let me know. SnottyWong ^verbalize 05:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Cranbourne Lodge

Hello Snottywong, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cranbourne Lodge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. drippingflame 02:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. If you can figure out what that article is about, then you're a better person than me. I can tell it is probably about a building that may or may not be associated with royalty in some country, but apart from that I have no idea. I'll PROD it and see what happens. Bringing it to AfD would be a waste of everyone's time because it would be a snowball delete. SnottyWong ^gab 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One hopes that not everyone shares your prejudicial view that, "AfD would be a snowball delete".

I'm surprised that Cranbourne Lodge didn't already have a real article. It's moderately well-known as a second-rate royal house, somewhere to hide away the odd trysting princeling or wayward princess, handy for Windsor but over the hedge and out of sight. It's little work to make a stub article, which I've now done. I hope others have the time (which I don't) to dust off the 17th century history that was this place's heyday.

As for the Mercian connection, that appears to be simple craziness (shouldn't it link to Aleksandr Orlov?), but deleting a paragraph is a lot different to deleting an article on a clearly justifiable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears my long-time stalker has taken it upon himself to improve the article. Good job, Andy. SnottyWong ^verbalize 15:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

Hi. What do you think should be done with this? I thought about a RfC but I'm not sure... Thanks for you help. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but unfortunately a large quantity of editors disagrees with both of us. Taking a bunch of bold, unilateral actions (which it appears you are doing) right after the AfD closes as no consensus (and it was really leaning towards keep) is not going to get you anywhere. At this point, an RfC will likely only result in enhanced scrutiny of your actions, and end up with a bunch of people complaining about how you tried to split the articles without consensus, etc.

I would recommend just letting it go. Without consensus to delete, there's not a whole lot you can do, especially since anything you do will be seen in the light of you being heavily "involved" and perhaps emotionally invested in the situation. Wait a month or two, let the article develop, and then bring it back to AfD if necessary. SnottyWong ^yak 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, discussing and responding to comments on your talk page (however much you might not like them) is usually considered preferable to deleting them. SnottyWong ^speak 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yeah I know it's preferable to let them there in my talkpage, but I generally delete all comments to my talkpage (except for those I find interesting) As for the article - that's quite frustrating I think. Is there really nothing we can do about it instead of simply relisting it for deletion in one month? I don't know, all this page seems to me like POV pushing and I think also something called coatrack because it's not really biographies but rather an attempt to make comparisons between two completely different cases (that were compared by journalists) in order to promote some POV. I'd be glad if some outside opinion proponent could give me guidance... Maashatra11 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with you, but the fact that we both agree with each other means nothing in light of the fact that there are at least an equal number of people who disagree with us. Deletion in Wikipedia is based on consensus. When your personal opinion doesn't match with the consensus of other editors, then you have to be willing to abandon your opinion and move on. In this case, the consensus of the community was not able to be determined with any accuracy. Consider yourself lucky the AfD didn't close as keep. Lay low for awhile, keep an eye on the article, don't do anything outlandish, don't edit war, wait a few weeks, and spend that time coming up with a bullet-proof deletion rationale based on WP policies. Don't just say "It's POV", but instead explain exactly why it's POV, give examples, quote relevant sections of WP:NPOV, etc.

RfC is not intended to be a way to overturn an AfD that didn't go the way you wanted it to, and starting an RfC would be seen as exactly that. The only recourse you have at this point is to 1) throw a fit, unilaterally split the article, ceaselessly argue, and edit war over the content of the article, or 2) accept that the AfD closed as No Consensus, let the article go for a little while, and come back to it later with a fresh mind. SnottyWong ^babble 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wise words. Thank you for the guidance. Maashatra11 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you stop deleting newly created articles without giving them a chance to grow first? As an inclusionist Wikipedian, I find your moves highly offensive. It isn't fair to just go about deleting things without a community consensus first. This also applies to the template you just put under deletion. Wikipedia isn't yours to go about deleting whatever you want. It is a community project. The more inclusions, the better.

I also do not like the fact that the article created as a result of community consensus per Talk:Human-dolphin sexual intercourse was deleted almost instantly; although you yourself did not delete it, you placed the speedy deletion tag there. I will attempt to create an article like it with a different name so that the community's decision will be recognized. And if you or someone else decides to put a deletion tag on that article, give it time to exist first before being immediately deleted.35th4gv834 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you create another article which duplicates the subject of an existing article, it will be speedy deleted. I'm sorry you're highly offended by that, but unfortunately that's how Wikipedia works. I would suggest reading more about Wikipedia policies before trying to create a lot of content. That would likely save you a lot of trouble. SnottyWong ^squeal 04:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI. I'm going to bed, Airplaneman ✈ 04:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the article human-animal sexual intercourse was not supposed to be a duplicate of zoophilia. It looked like a duplicate because it had just been created. Had the article been given more time to expand, it would have become distinct from zoophilia. This is why deletionism is ruining Wikipedia35th4gv834 (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar feedback from Jel on the Columbus thread - you were down my throat within three minutes of me posting my complaint arguing that I had not notified the person I was complaining about. In fact, I was doing so at the time reacted, but you were so ridiculously fast off the mark us normal humans cannot keep up. As a suggestion, give it an hour before reacting, that way you won't be seen to be scoring unfair points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Contact

My resignation makes it hard to contact me privately, I don't know if my original Jel ID is still in your DB somewhere. If not, because I don't want to post it here publicly, I've found a way to get around it. I put up a thread on my Blog for the disputers on the Columbus Origins meme to argue off page, which echoes to a shadow ID. If you wish to create a similar junk account somewhere to which I can send my normal email address, the one you should have logged against my former identity Jel, leave it on the blog and then reply from your normal ID when I ping it from my real email - it means neither of our emails is published here. The other participants can use the same routine if they want to talk to me privately. My beef is that DW has turned his admin into a personal campaign, see the activity he has been engaged in earlier on in the thread - is he in any way a historian? I came from nowhere, expressed what I found in Portugal and got attacked too. Whether or not C-e-N is OR is irrelevant to how he handled both the need for arbitration, a particularly serious offence in an adjudicator, and his subsequent attack on me. If he refuses to find an amicable solution - and it was he who refused, not C-e-N - then he must take his lumps, I'm afraid. We can discuss his problems with OR, verifiability and RS later. My point is that although C-e-N has stupidly got his own work mixed up in this, out of innocence and ignorance, even if you remove him from the debate there remains a question which my rough sample showed to be fairly prevalent among informed Portuguese. The fistful I spoke to did not have firm opinions, but were aware of the debate and so it is most certainly not the idea of a lone gunman. It may be that C-e-N is behind a long-running campaign: can you say if he is a known author? If so, then that might be taken into account in the wider question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a screw loose, dude. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please go away and never come back. Also, FYI: attempting to organize clandestine, off-wiki campaigns to attack admins is frowned upon, to say the least. SnottyWong ^comment 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your username

Hello, Snottywong. Your username might not be considered appropriate to some users because it could refer to a snot-covered penis (wong can be slang for "penis"). See the username policy for more information. You are also welcome to make a username change at WP:CHU. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 23:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NSD, this seems like a bit of a stretch - I certainly didn't think of a snot-penis when I saw the name (instead, I imagined a person with a runny nose). It's like someone has the name Dick Smith. That's just my general impression, anyway. Airplaneman ✈ 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for conjuring up the image of a snot-covered penis for me. That's pleasant. I think you're confusing "wong" with "wang". I've never heard "wong" being used as slang for penis, although I think I may have heard "wang" once or twice. If it really were a popular slang term for penis, I'd expect to see it at the disambig page for Wong, like it is at the disambig page for Cock. Seeing as how I've had this username for 3 years, 4 months, and 26 days and you are the first to complain about it, I don't think there's a problem. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what prompted this warning, NSD? SnottyWong ^gossip 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary entry for wang, "wong" can be considered an alternative spelling of "wang". "Wang" is used as slang for "penis", which caused me to think your username could be problematic as slang for a snot-covered penis. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't even believe you're being serious. SnottyWong ^gossip 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the name inappropriate? This is way too much of a stretch. The name is fine. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wong is a new one on me too. I have never heard this (but am fully aware of Wang (emperor)). I would like a better source then a Wiktionary entry Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang shows that wang is the slang term for the naughty bits, and is an alternative spelling of whang, not wong. About the old English word, I bet it's related to Wang Mang, who ended the Western Han Dynasty and started the Xin Dynasty himself. One of his bad ideas was that all the fields belonged to the country, and were to be divided among families respective to the number of family members. This caused dissatisfaction from some landowners as well as poor people. At last, Wang was overthrown and two people who both had a claim to the Han throne fought over it. Wong is the Cantonese romanisation of the surname Wang 王 (meaning king), so this may be how the words came from. I'm not sure; it's a guess, but... Kayau Voting IS evil C U NEXT YEAR 05:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say, Wang called the fields wang tien, after himself. Kayau Voting IS evil C U NEXT YEAR 05:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I always thought your username was a misspelling of Snotty Wrong. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP

I think your note may have been phrased a bit more gently. Please see his talk, where I've commented further. I have some experience with that organization, having originally written the article on the on base museum... their documentation is very useful but not very clearly marked as to provenance. But it's all PD, in my view. as they DO mark stuff that isn't. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please check the responses - the material was not a copyvio. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Songs for Eleonor considered for deletion

Hello. You have made the article Songs for Eleonor considered for deletion. The reason is the lack of secondary and tertiary sources. You are right this was an old article and I left it sort of abandoned. I will address the issues which you have correctly pointed out. Thank you. Todaslasartes (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner's first love

I added the "Rescue" template, but I am not sure where I should add explanation. Could you help please? The article should be added to make it more encyclopedic, and to improve prose. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ARS#Instructions. It says: "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers. You can also add the template {{subst:Afdrescue}} to the deletion discussion, to let other editors know that this item was tagged for rescue." I have already done this for you, so there is nothing more you necessarily need to do, unless you want to explain (in the AfD discussion) why you think the article needs to be rescued, and how that rescue might be achieved. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

G20 (supermarket chain)

Hi Snottywong. Sorry, I've declined the A7 speedy on this for the reasons given in the edit summary. I'd suggest WP:AFD if you're sure it should be deleted. Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. SnottyWong ^prattle 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like it got deleted anyway. SnottyWong ^chat 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional magic users

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirection of the Institute of Continuing Education page to the Cambridge University page

Why have you redirected this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mch80 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Cambridge's "night school" does not need its own article. There is not enough information about this constituent part of the university to fill an entire article, thus it would be a permastub. Feel free to add some information about it to the main Cambridge University page. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Searching and Memories of Murder (television movie)

Snottywong,

If you haven't already been doing Google News Archive searches, I can see why you may have been missing good sources. Google itself gives too many blogs, Google News only goes back 30 days, so Google News Archive (http://news.google.com/archivesearch) is in my experience the best place to find good RS'es for things that aren't straight-up current events. The Archive search is actually what is given by the AfD toolbar once a nomination has been completed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why my Google News searches usually come up with nothing. Thanks for the tip. SnottyWong ^yak 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I just tangentially noticed that you'd U1'ed the ARS userbox I'd previously MfD'ed. Thanks for doing that--while I don't know your intention in doing so, I'm assuming good faith this time around and thanking you accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments. The userbox didn't end up attracting the throngs of anti-ARS commandos as I had hoped.. Having monitored and participated on WT:ARS for awhile now, I realized that the majority of you guys are not using ARS for canvassing or votestacking purposes, and that most of you are not the rabid inclusionists that I had you pegged for. Since the userbox could easily be misinterpreted as being in bad faith, I decided it was better to quietly get rid of it. Plus, I reasoned that if I ever decided to put my name in the hat at RFA (about which I am thoroughly undecided, and probably don't have the edit count for it yet anyway), it would clearly be in my best interests to reflect as a user who is ready and able to be neutral, unbiased, and anti-drama.

However, it doesn't appear that the userbox is quite dead yet... Someone asked for it to be undeleted and userfied, for an unknown reason: User:Verbal/userboxes/ARSbackfire SnottyWong ^comment 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look, talk, and change your mind. I know how hard that can be to do. Verbal doesn't appear to have changed his, but that's really not either of our issue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and former enemies make some of the best nominators (or early endorsers) at RfA, BTW. Not offering quite yet, but I've been quite impressed with what I see (from my perspective, obviously) as an improvement in your interaction style. Touch base with me before you decide to run. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do, although if I do decide to run it probably won't be for a little while. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gunga Din

Dear Snottywong,

I am drawing your attention to the history of Gunga Din's article. You will see that the inclusion or deletion of the full text of the poem was recently referred to the Third Opinion group for mediation. I appreciate your reference to to the NOFULLTEXT policy but I caution you that this policy has become stale. If it is your intent to begin a pogrom of systematic destruction of wiki page such as Gunga Din, Jabberwocky, To A Mouse then at least declare it for all the world to see and comment. 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeperzcreeperz (talk • contribs)

1. Your assertion that my intention is to systematically destroy articles on poetry is an assumption of bad faith, and is unnecessary.
2. Had you actually read the third opinion on the talk page, you'd see that the consensus was to delete the poem.
3. What evidence do you have that WP:NOFULLTEXT has become "stale"?
4. "Stale" or not, WP:NOFULLTEXT is still a Wikipedia guideline. If you think it is outdated, then you should start a discussion and gain consensus to either change it or remove it entirely. Until that happens, however, please refrain from making edits that are clearly contrary to guidelines, on the premise that the guideline has become "stale". SnottyWong ^verbalize 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I CALL TO YOU ATTENTION:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry#Individual_poems and the supporting policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%26P 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeperzcreeperz (talk • contribs)

For Your Interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armageddon_theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Hi, asking editors that and involved in the Rescue Article program to improve an article is not canvassing. Bye WritersCramp (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inspector Sledge Hammer

Because of your participation in the AfD of Inspector Sledge Hammer, I'd like to ask if you'd take a look at the compromise suggested under Chromancer's post, which you supported. Please especially consider my point regarding the creator of the article. —CodeHydro 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you —CodeHydro 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm not sure I'm even supposed to say thank you for helping rescue an article (Florence House), but I will. Thank you taking the time to review it and make your decision. The article can be improved, I know, but it's good that it's got that chance here on Wikipedia. Feetplanted (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, although I didn't really do anything apart from !vote in the AfD... SnottyWong ^confess 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment in RFA

I only been desyropped once involuntarily the other times I was desyropped was on my own will because of harrassment, focusing on school, and the Mzoli's Meats insident which happened over three years ago and I'm dylexcic so that explains the grammar and spelling mistakes. Also can you show links to the WP:DRAMA that are recent (not from years ago)? Thanks Secret ^account 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at Cymru.lass's talk page.
Message added 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

I did not vandalize Dreamfocus's userpage. I tagged it for rescue. No humor intended, I believe the page should not be deleted. Therefore I tagged it for rescue. Personally I think the reason you are mad about the rescue notice is because you are the deletion nom. I don't know what you have against the Article rescue squadron, but you have made it clear you don't like the organization. Example: that userbox you crate a little while back. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue is not for pages in user space. You know that, so don't play dumb. My only problem with ARS is that it can be (and sometimes is) used as a form of canvassing. Someone tags an article for rescue, and suddenly out comes all the ARS members to vote keep. It goes against many principles of WP, in my opinion. You can call me a "deletionist" or apply any other generalized label you want, but I doubt you'd be able to pigeonhole me that easily. I'm not here to win arguments, I'm not here to delete as many articles as possible, I'm here to contribute to the project. Also, you'll notice I deleted that userbox awhile ago (mostly because I realized that the ARS canvassing loophole is actually used a lot less often than I thought or expected), but another user inexplicably had it restored to their userspace. SnottyWong ^spout 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd be interested to know what, outside of attracting more editors sympathetic to Dream Focus' point of view, Alpha Quadrant expected to achieve with the rescue tag. Sourcing? Hardly. Rewriting? No, because we don't rewrite each other's user pages. Adding missing available information? Nope. Cleanup? Nah. All that's left is that stuff they used to make tents and sails out of.  pablo 22:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all I am not a inclusionist. I am a member of the m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists association (please help us come up with a shorter name). Also, the rescue tag is not canvassing. It is actually permitted for users to edit other userpages. I wanted other editors to look over the userpage, and it appears the rescue tag was replaced, not by me though. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An Idea I'd like your input on...

User_talk:Jclemens#And_now_for_something_completely_different. Work in progress, brainstorming welcome. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

hindu jihad article

hai gentleman, in hindu jihad article i find your command, i searched in rescue policy in wikipedia help desk, they provided this much information only. i am new to wiki, if you have any templates links for rescue policy reason entering, please don't hesitate to provide me those information. thanks a lot and keep it up,