User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives5

Edit Count
List of created pages (Tool take a LONG time)
Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Running
Special:PendingChanges
(WP:speedy, WP:PROD, WP:AfD)

Hi CLU, about the UN article....

I'm certain that there are lots of folks who would like to trash the UN article, but I'm not one of them. I was halfway through editing the article when you reverted. I've since completed my edit, and opened a new topic on the article's talk page at: Talk about the UN article Intro. Thanks for the heads-up note on my talk page. Scott P. (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered Here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, use an RFC. That is impartial. Not an appeal to one of your friends over here to back you up. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an editor to look at our edits. YOU are inserting YOUR POV. Cite a source that the UN is not doing it's job. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slade

The reply I recieved from the wikipedian who questioned notability stated the limited amount of sources were the problem. I have added more references to the articles in question. Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you may not remove the request. It must be reviewed. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not simply undo the last change as references have been made Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again.... you may not simply remove the request for deletion. It must be reviewed. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, what I am saying is that new references were made in the last edit and therefore if the last change is undone to bring the notice back then the references are also lost. I am bringing the undoing to bring references back and then adding the notice. Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to budge in. Ajsmith141 is encouraged, but does not have to do anything to remove a PROD. Please read WP:CONTESTED. --Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She can fix the article of course... but one may not simply remove the Wikipedia:PROD as was done here here, etc. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she can, read the link Muhandes gave you. Yoenit (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CanadianLinuxUser, I'm afraid the policy is very clear, and it does not agree with you. Let me quote: To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also: ...

Thus, while not encouraged to do so, Ajsmith141 can simply remove the tag. Also, the same policy: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. So please don't restore the tags. --Muhandes (talk)

You were probably thinking of speedy deletions, which may not be removed by the article creator. Prods are different as Muhandes explained above. Yoenit (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrrr... I completely mis-interpreted the policy. You are correct. **Bangs head on table in ignorance** CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other place, all those different deletion methods (WP:speedy, WP:PROD, WP:AfD) are confusing until you remember what is what. It happens. Best regards and happy editing to all. --Muhandes (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild_skull

Just to make sure things here are on the up and up [1] cause it looks weird.

It looks like you rejected pending edits by an IP and then reverted yourself to reinsert the IP edit, and the "pending changes" held up enacting your self revert. I accepted your self revert but am wondering if that was appropriate and the IP edits should be accepted into an article that is generally a magnet for trouble. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And upon looking more closely at the actual content, I have reverted to the version prior to the IP edit - the edit appeared to place WP:OR based on WP:FRINGEY science right up in the lead where it should not be. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.... In the beginning I was going to reject... then it looked fine... and I agree.... VERY WP:Fringe. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI regarding IP edit warring on Cooper City High School

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:98.249.235.126_reported_by_User:Reyk_.28Result:_.29 Reyk _YO! 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2000pop, 2010pop? etc.

In reference to the state stats template (see Florida) ... The "2000Pop", "2000Density", etc. lines are referencing the format and not the source of the data ... although, the etymology could be referencing the 2000 census. Unfortunately we can't change the label to fit the source. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops got it. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD tags may certainly be removed

If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. is from WP:PROD.

Thus, removal of the PROD tag is precisely how the WP:PROD system works, and removal of such a tag is proper and should not be reverted. And, in fact, since reverting the tag is making it "re-proposed", the replacement of the PROD tag is what is improper. I think that is clear - if you wish to propose an article for deletion at that point, you need to use AfD. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thanks... but that was taken care of 4 days ago... I had a mixup in my brain of (WP:speedy, WP:PROD, WP:AfD) , which I keep handy now to be certain I do not mix them up. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grin - absolutely no problem at all -- it was just something which showed up on a page on my watchlist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

Hi, I see you are one of the active reviewers, and it's very nice to meet you in articles under pending changes. But there is just one small thing: In case of obvious vandalism, do not reject, but try reverting and then leave a warning message for the vandals in their talk pages. I hope we could cooperate much more, and it's very nice to see you around. Just leave me a message. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what type of vandal we are dealing with... one who "collects" warnings or one who is intimidated by warnings... for the collector I simply try and ignore him. I should maybe try to send more warnings... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you are very kind. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

timing issue?

I'm trying to figure out if that's why you removed my warning. It's okay, this isn't a critique of your actions and the removal is fine. I intentionally elevated from a level 1 to a level 3 warning after seeing this is a persistent vandal but my timing was off. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urrk... we were attacking the same vandal at the same time... and like you said timing issues... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber

Hi.

You reverted me because you thought I might vandalise the article Justin Bieber.

What I was doing was adding a piece of an interview with Justin Bieber's mother.

I certainly didn't mean to vandalise.

The article's text before I added information was this:

"God, I gave him to you. You could send me a Christian man, a Christian label! "

Thi was without mentioning why Justin's mother would be reluctant and why she would say that Bieber's manager, Scooter Braun is not Christian. The fact is that he is not Christian but Jewish. In fact, this information was included in the reference in NY times (see it here)

It was not vandalism. Please don't revert me this time. Many, many thanks.

Spatulli (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now see what you mean... I'll let someone else figure out if it's notable enough to be mentioned. By instinct says no.. but I'll see what others think. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

CAn you please give me a motivation for this? (Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Because of his origin he..." Is that not a personal opinion? Not a statement of fact? He was named.... that is fact.... "Because of his origin he..." opinion...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this reference that I've added to the article is sufficient (Iaaasi (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent... thanks for the information. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cheshire

are all you guys reading one source, a porch is outdoors, dr petit was inside the home in the family room-not even a sun porch, which was remotely acceptable. thank you