Please watch this page as I will respond here, to keep the convosation togather, if you wish me to respond on your page, please make a note of that in your message, thank you. NO REVERTS OF THIS PAGE ARE ALLOWED, unless the page is blanked -=[This page is NOT censered, NO COMMENT IS TO be removed, no matter how "offensive"]=-
Section headings are subject to editorial change, but the contents are not.
Please always sign your message by adding ~~~~ at the end of it. And please make your posts at the bottem of this page!!! Else I may lose your comments :)
Here is the Exact content :Johnny Powers (1852-1930) of Chicago, born in Kilkenny, Ireland was a Democratic Chicago alderman from 1888 to 1927. There were a few categories and Template:T1:stub tags, but that was the actual text in the article. As you see, it does nothing to show why he is important. Was he a famous aldermen, did he do any policy ect that set him apart? I will undelete if you are willing to do some research to show that he is important. Also this article is uncited, so I can't even tell if he was actually an alderman or not. Feel free to recreate or ask me to undelete, if you can show why he is important. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39 years as alderman is notable. If the page contained more information about his life, it would not be deleted. It was deleted not because it did not contain why he is notable, it did contain why he is notable, it was deleted because it did not have a lot of personal information on him. Many pages of politicans on Wikipedia just contain information of them, such as where they are from, where they went to school, they don't all say what it is they have done. If people need to do something extraordinary notable to have a wikipedia page, then you there would not be a page on every current member of Congress. 75.3.3.24504:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting other articles, If I undelete, would you be willing to expand to the point where it won't be tagged agian? I am willing to undelete, but on condition that you are willing to expand the article. Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that section becuase the critisism is in the rest of the article, so I saw no need for an individual 'section' on that when wikipedia has that spread through-out the article. I was working on that article as part of WP:SPOTLIGHT. This is a collaboration of multiple editors who are working to improve articles. Feel free to join us and ask your question on IRC (detials at WP:SPOTLIGHT). Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation policy question
Your opinion regarding whether editing to an article should continue during the mediation process would be appreciated here since there doesn't seem to be a relevant policy. I've also asked two other seasoned mediators for their opinion. Thanks. Antonrojo22:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Eagle. Thank you for offering your help I guess I need it. You said that I cannot make any personal comments, but it is clear to me that Dan just stuck on his personal opinion. I don’t see any legitimate discussion from his site.
I am a last year student in Latvian University and I am making my diploma work right now and it is very deeply involved with the memory and memory mechanisms. I have spent tons of time looking for the legitimate information in the Internet and library and the only source I have found is www.pmemory.com I am using the GMS Manual right now to finish my diploma work. And I just don’t understand why because of the people like Dan other people have to use old material about this subject. I haven’t seen any other material explains in details and on the cells lever how memory works.
You should see that it is impossible to proof something to person who has a very limited understanding of the discussed subject.
I would appreciate you help,
Thanks Alex dubasAlex_Dubas
I have no idea and to be honest I am not going to even look for it. I have better things to do. It is not even about the experiment. It’s about information that people cannot find in wikipedia. For example Mnemonics. The article is about mnemonics but I don’t see history of mnemonics. I don’t see mechanisms of mnemonics. I don’t see why mnemonics works. I don’t see which mnemonic methods can work and why. I don’t even see legitimate examples. And this is what we need! This is what I was looking for and it is available in the free eBook. So what is wrong to place a link to the free eBook? It is amazingly hard to find legitimate information about this subject in the internet. Link like that will make it easier and will supplement wikipedia’s article. Alex dubasAlex_Dubas
Hey, I see you've been deleting the articles tagged for CSD R3 that have quotes around the titles. I'm not sure I agree with deleting them; redirects are cheap, and using quotes around a title is incredibly common. I had this problem just yesterday with another brand-new user doing the same kind speedy deletion tagging. (Which is itself weird.) It's not worth restoring them, but in case the user doesn't stop tagging these articles, I can edit out the db tags to keep the rds. Thanks! -- Merope19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HI,
It is fairly poor form to delete an article before i have posted the reasons for its continued existence. Is there any way that you can undelete the article and let me finish it before you decide whether to delete it?
