User talk:Aoidh

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment.
Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on).
For oversight requests please see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.

Talk page archives (: 14 days

)

2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Archives

2011 Template:•w 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Invitation to join discussions on Talk:Cydia

Hi! Since you've edited Cydia, you might be interested in joining the current discussions at Talk:Cydia about sourcing and content issues. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My shiny thing

Thank you so much, Sudo! That was very kind of you. I tend to do AfDs only sporadically as they are usually quite labour intensive and sometimes boringly acrimonious when the creators have a lot of personal investment in them + a massive misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Meanwhile, I see that the references I supplied at Articles for deletion/Sri Siddhartha Medical College actually refer to the other Siddhartha Medical College. Doh! Nevermind, I've added them there, so they won't go to waste.:) Have a great holiday season and all the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rlbeers

Thanks for letting me know your concerns. If the spam links were added in quick succession, and I had seen the talk page, I would have waited. However, about sixteen hours after the first warning the user continued to add spam links. Considering that history, I blocked as a preventative measure. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Salmons

I find a lot of the background of this article to be quite disturbing. I am not entirely convinced of the good faith of some of the editors involved. I am not sure what to do about it, and will probably simply ignore it, as that is what i usually do in order to prevent drama, but I would appreciate your opinion on this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there's good faith at the discussion, probably just a lot of frustration (I'm honestly not sure why or where it's coming from, but it certainly seems to be there). That said, I'd much prefer to have the AfD discussion be about the article itself, rather than having to address accusations of "waging war" against the article and how saying that an article isn't notable somehow turns into "thoughtless disparaging and ridicule of people". - Sudo Ghost 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sue, dropping by-- you were right to doubt the neutrality of the editor who introduced the article--even their articles on notable subjects have major problems. But Sudo is right that being too vociferous about it can be counterproductive. What helps here is calmness, and it requires more than COI to justify a claim of bad faith. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Trademark

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Trademark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]