User talk:Dane
This user is in college. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. |
This is Dane's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 days |
|
Saving article from deletion
Hi Dane, I am glad your back! My latest article Kathleen McCormack Durst has been nominated for deletion. Two editors don't think that it is notable or that it should be a stand alone article, but I think it should be as the article is full of sources and is not a stub. Plus the more articles Wikipedia has the better. Can you please help me combat the speedy deletion?
- @Davidgoodheart: After reviewing the article and the section on her from Robert Durst, I think redirecting the article and merging any new information there is the best action for this. -- Dane talk 01:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
External links need fixing
Hi Dane, I tried to fix these links, but I wasn't successful, could you please fix Armed forces external links 1 and 2, WCW Wrestling, external link 2, Charles Nungesser external links 9 and 18, and Gordon Campbell external links 4, 5, and 27. Thanks
- @Davidgoodheart: Partly done Removed dead source in WCW (ext link 2) and not familiar enough/unable to locate titles for sources in Gordon Campbell. The rest are done :). -- Dane talk 17:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Closing of move at God of War (franchise)
Hi, I think you incorrectly called the consensus at Talk:God of War (franchise)#Requested move 3 March 2017. Yes, there was consensus to move to something, but the consensus was tipped slightly in favour of God of War (video game series) and not God of War (franchise). Myself and three other editors favoured the original suggestion of God of War (video game series), with only two in favour God of War (franchise). --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Answered below. -- Dane talk 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Move review for God of War (franchise)
An editor has asked for a Move review of God of War (franchise). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Robsinden: Thanks for the comment! It's been a busy week, sorry I didn't reach out sooner. I have responded at the move review. -- Dane talk 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Anima and animus
The section as a whole refers to the affect of the masculine animus (him) on the feminine consciousness (herself). It only seems like a grammatical error if you do not take the entire section into account. Regards, LiminalSoul (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps switching it to "Man as a helpful guide to understanding" would be better. Or "the self", or "spiritual understanding". It is the only stage in the animus development which the article refers back to the feminine consciousness, so perhaps making it more ambiguous with regards to the gender would keep it more consistent (the section that is). What do you think? LiminalSoul (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
unwarranted variation
Dear Dane need help here as I am new to wiki. I have been asked to suspend my additions to this entry temporarily by Gov agency until they clear content. how do I do this? should be for about 2 weeks Lauraserrant (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)lauraLauraserrant (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Lauraserrant: Please read our conflict of interest policy for more guidance on this. We maintain well sourced items. Thanks. -- Dane talk 17:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Reverts
Your recent reverts of my edits are incorrect. Thanks.198.58.162.200 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies for the error. I must've pressed the wrong button when reviewing your contribution. -- Dane talk 17:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks!198.58.162.200 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
revision
dear dane this news was discussed by a student body recently so lets just leave it on there ok. warmest regards me