- There is still a broken reference - besides that I think everything is cleaned up. I haven't been able to determine where the ref is supposed to be pointing --Megaboz (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
University of Maryland Medical Center
I created the University of Maryland Medical Center page, which I see that you edited. Did you add the callouts about the article reading like a news release, as well as the one about it relying primarily on a single source?
I've gone in and revised the content heavily in an attempt to meet Wikipedia's guidelines in both cases. If you agree, are you able to remove these references, or is there another way I need to go about this.
Thanks in advance for your help with this.
- I agree, the style of the article is much improved. Good work on taking the time to find more references. I went ahead and took off the warning templates. --Megaboz (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Response to comment
I'm new, so please forgive me if I am ignorant to Wikipedia guidelines. (Which I love and read just about daily). I've read the talk feedback. I think I can tighten up my content. I think I wanted to accomplish 2 things: 1.) RRSUX has lost membership due to moderator difficulties. 2.) Anti-Rachael sentismism still exists and if the RRSUX site is not the premier home for dissentators, at least they know they are not alone. I really tried to be tactful in my comments and not get into the whole drama, although it is well documented at the Bored Board. I just think it is wrong to let people think there is an anti-Rachael site with 1900 some members, when really it is only 8 active members and maybe 50 members at the new site. I'll do a rewrite more within the guidelines, if you like. Inglettv (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on the rewrite of this article. I've withdrawn the AfD based on its much improved state. I would like to see more reference for the awards, but that's not a reason to ask for deletion of the article; I think you've found sufficient sources to indicate some level of notability. Thanks for your contributions! 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Megaboz, belated post holiday thanks for your review, trust and support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's also a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"declining" speedy deletions
Hi there. I just wanted to tell you to avoid edit-summaries like here. You are allowed to remove speedy tags you think are incorrect (and you are encouraged to do so even), but please do not use the word "decline" or "deny" when doing so. Per WP:CSD only admins can decide to decline (or deny) deletion (which is not only removing the tag but an administrative decision that carries some weight as it's usually binding for other admins and retagging multiple times after an admin decided can be sanctioned). Just avoid to use words like that please. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I probably picked that phrasing up from someone else's edit summary and wasn't aware it implied adminship. In the future I'll use different language. –Megaboz (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)