User talk:Chrisieboy/Archive 7

Speedy deletion declined: EE.UU

Hello Chrisieboy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of EE.UU, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "improbable" is not a speedy reason for redirects - see WP:CSD#Redirects. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#R3 is only for recently-created implausible redirects, because ones have have been here for some time may have links from outside which would be broken if they are deleted.

Same goes for EE UU. These are not all that unlikely - they are the standard Spanish abbreviation for "Estados Unidos". Take to WP:RFD if you like, but read WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#KEEP first - generally, the view is that redirects are cheap and should be kept if they might help anyone. These two get about one hit a day each. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

About "edit warring" and talk pages

First of all, I have only removed the square flag twice. Once of my own choice, and then a second time when I was reverted without sources. Two removals, with only one of them being a revision, is clearly not "Edit warring" and nobody would consider it such. Second, if you are unwilling to reply to me on the Talk Page as I requested in my second removal, then please don't undo my edit a second time. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works I'm afraid. You are bold, I revert, you discuss. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly how Wikipedia works. I make an edit, you don't like it, I start a discussion on the talk page. You have not engaged in the talk page discussion. If you don't have anything to say in response, you don't have a valid reason to revert me. I posted my source, I'm asking you for one, and if you don't have it, my source stands. You can't revert a sourced edit based on your own thoughts or feelings, you have to counter-source it. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And as we're quoting Wiki-policy, I direct you to "What edit warring is", and it's definition "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". So I would appreciate it if you would be more careful in throwing around the "edit warring" accusation. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". That is edit warring. A source has been provided, so please stop. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not edit warring, it is not a "series of edits", it's not "repetitious", it's not anything even close to edit waring. I reverted you once, one revision doesn't make an edit war. You're also keeping out the fact that when you reverted me the first time, you didn't give a single source or anything for your claim. You didn't the second time either, nor did you join me on the talk page as I requested. You still haven't even after I came here to correct your ridiculous accusation that I'm edit warring. The Wiki Policy definition is clear: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". Only if it's a "series" of "reverts". That's plural, I made only a single revision. Fry1989' ^eh? 23:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that Wikipedia:Edit warring is a policy document, and WP:BRD is an essay that doesn't carry the weight of a policy or even a guideline, although the community treats it as a best practice. Adherance to WP:BRD should never result in an accusation of edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constitution of Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Chrisieboy; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Opportunity Peterborough for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Opportunity Peterborough is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opportunity Peterborough until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of Italian orders of knighthood know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on November 25, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/November 25, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors Giants2008 (talk · contribs), Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) or SchroCat (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are five orders of knighthood awarded in recognition of service to the Italian Republic. The former Royal House of Savoy also continue to award knighthoods in three orders of chivalry previously recognised by the Kingdom of Italy. The degrees of knighthood, not all of which apply to all orders, are Knight, Officer, Commander, Grand Officer, Knight Grand Cross and Knight Grand Cross with cordon. Italian citizens may not use in the territory of the Republic honours or distinctions conferred on them by non-national orders or foreign states, unless authorised by decree of the President of the Council of Ministers. The use of awards of the Holy See, including the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, is subject to permission, while the use of those of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is unregulated. The Order of Merit of the Italian Republic effectively replaced as national orders the Supreme Order of the Most Holy Annunciation, the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus and the Order of the Crown of Italy.