Talk page archive for March and April 2008
- 1 Archives
- 2 Messages
- 2.1 Size of Contributions
- 2.2 a troll
- 2.3 Your recent edits
- 2.4 Sorry for stealing your comments!
- 2.5 Ckatz's RfA
- 2.6 Re: Editor Review
- 2.7 Closing my RfA
- 2.8 RE:Eunice
- 2.9 Re:Mail
- 2.10 Oops...
- 2.11 Thought I was signed in!
- 2.12 Tatao
- 2.13 re: Weber
- 2.14 My RfA
- 2.15 abbie gale's deletion
- 2.16 RFA
- 2.17 Invite
- 2.18 Trout Slapping
- 2.19 My request for bureaucratship
- 2.20 RfB thanks spam?
- 2.21 Zedla RfA
- 2.22 problem with repeating references
- 2.23 Gloria M. Sabater Elementary School
- 2.24 Note from editor whose "article got deleted
- 2.25 My RfA
- 2.26 Repeating References pt2
- 2.27 Speedying hoaxes
- 2.28 Seán P. O'Connor
- 2.29 RfA - Discospinster
- 2.30 Thank-you
- 2.31 Thanks for your support!
- 2.32 source material for news stories salveagable
- 2.33 Deleted articles?
- 2.34 Thanks...
- 2.35 RFA thanks
- 2.36 Hello
- 2.37 ten-string guitar edit war
- 2.38 Thanks
- 2.39 Cleared up some misconceptions
- 2.40 Ryan William Cook
- 2.41 "Otter have the mop!"
- 2.42 Boooooo!
- 2.43 Butterfly watching
- 2.44 yaya
- 2.45 Recent RFAs
- 2.46 They let me be a what?
- 2.47 Late entry to the hoax AfD
- 2.48 RfA
- 2.49 my RFA
- 2.50 Reply
- 2.51 Sock's Rfa
- 2.52 Deletionism vs. Inclusionism. Wrong question.
- 2.53 Speedies
- 2.54 citations
- 2.55 MrFish RfA
- 2.56 O'Finky Factor
- 2.57 Page move
- 2.58 why
- 2.59 sorry
- 2.60 User:Moosato Cowabata
- 2.61 Mathamatics
- 2.62 Sorry
- 2.63 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina De Lorenzo
- 2.64 Jeunesses Musicales Россия
- 2.65 deletion of page
- 2.66 Re
- 2.67 re:User Talk:Max938
- 2.68 use of time
- 2.69 Appreciation
- 2.70 RFA Thanks
- 2.71 Supermarchophobia
- 2.72 Re: September 11, 2000Fun!
- 2.73 Re: User:Destry11
- 2.74 Just a quick thanks
- 2.75 I caught you...
- 2.76 No problem
- 2.77 No prob. :)
- 2.78 GMILF
- 2.79 User:Chickenpies22
- 2.80 please send deleted article to my email
- 2.81 Stevie Hoang
- 2.82 re:100
- 2.83 thankyou!!!
- 2.84 Thanks...
- 2.85 RE: Speedy
- 2.86 thank spam
- 2.87 Ghost Feet
- 2.88 Question about orphaned image you created....
- 2.89 Hello
- 2.90 thanks!
- 2.91 RFA
- 2.92 Meegrob?
Size of Contributions
Hello Dlohcierekim, quick question. How do you check the contributions of a user based on size? Example 30,000 bytes versus 1000 edits. It has been driving me nuts where to find the tool. Appreciate your help. 15:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- My reply. Dlohcierekim 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I was looking for quick and easy way. But I guess it is like a lot of things in life, just have to roll-up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. Your comments do make me rethink my deletion of my trophy wall with Articles I created section. But hey, I’ll save that for when and if I ever get involved at the administration level. And thanks again. 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for stealing your comments!
I went ahead and used your RfA pointers to guide Shapiros10, because I saw you weren't online, and I didn't want to see a good faith editor snowed under (and feel humiliated) before you had a chance to use them. Regards, EJF (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say "thanks" for the support at my recent RfA. It is always somewhat unnerving to put yourself up for review in front of your peers... Thanks again, and please let me know if I can help out at any time. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Editor Review
Yeah, I have been reverting vandalism lately, so its lost. On my userpage, I have a list of created ones, but my best contributions are probably to Boston Celtics, (so close to FA) Rickey Henderson, (so close to GA) House of Hohenstaufen, Earl Johnson (baseball). I also helped get Heuschrecke 10 to GA. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I will take your suggestions into mind! And, that AIV report was a mistake (whoops!). Sorry. But about delaying the RFA. I already did delay it, and I'm not sure delaying it again is a good idea. It's about 10 days away from April. I will of course delay it, if you really think I should, (but I will have to notify the co-noms again) which would bring up again Majorly's point. What do you think? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Closing my RfA
Hello! Nice save on the Eunice (genus)! It looked like it could be notable, but the page seemed to be db-nonsense and the author's name seemed a bit vandalish (Robyn123456789). I should probably take more time in the newpage patrolling. Anyway, here's a barnstar for saving the article!--Sallicio 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
|The Barnstar of Recovery|
|For taking the time to save a newpage article from a speedy demise! Sallicio 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)|
LOL! I sorta thought the same thing! That would be a pretty clever db-attack page to make, though!--Sallicio 05:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad. It is the kid's user page. Sorry about that. On the other hand, I'm pretty certain that the report I made earlier may very well be the return of the Cartoon Network Vandal. I've seen this guy's modus operandi enough times to know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thought I was signed in!
Sorry about that. It was a clear-cut speedy with no defense made on the talk page and I thought I was signed in when I made the change. PMDrive1061 via --220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha! Yeah, Weber. I stopped trying to make sense of it some time ago, and I recommend the same to you. There have been threads at ANI, BN (1, 2), WT:RFA, and two RfCs (1,2), all without result. Some say he's entitled to his opinion, others say it's harmless, still others think it's disruptive. In my own opinion, it's plain point voting, because he does it instead of starting a centralised debate. What I personally think is a bit disruptive about it, or at least carries some danger, is that I've actually seen others oppose "per Kmweber". Dorftrottel (criticise) 09:14, March 5, 2008
|Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!|
abbie gale's deletion
hi Dlohcierekim, Abbie Gale are a band with two albums. their latest single called "Lovesong" -a duet with the singer of Raining Pleasure, the most succeessfull English singing band in Greece, with two albums being certified gold- has received a nationwide airplay.
They play live concerts all over Greece and are one of the 5-6 most critically acclaimed bands here and wide known as well.
I am not that patient and don't have too much time to write a fully detailed article. I suggest we keep the article i wrote and then someone else that build on it.
All I can say is THANK YOU! for the laugh tonight; “…Isn't responding to Kurt, like standing up in a boat, now an offense punishable by trout slapping? LOL. Thank you again.02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
RfB thanks spam?
You accept this also?! Just here to say "CHEERS" for your support at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). Awesome. I'm thrilled! Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
problem with repeating references
thanks for your offer of help, I have one problem, not urgent
I am reasonably happy with "testicular immunology", its all been written by me so far. I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it.
The only major problem I have is that some references which are repeated at different places during the article, have been repeated in the reference list, instead of gaining letters in front to link the one reference to different parts of the text. Currently ref 20 is repeated as 23; 44 as 46, 60, 87; and 36 as 84, 89, 90, 91. This has happened despite using the same word as the title of the citation in text.
Gloria M. Sabater Elementary School
I noticed you deleted my page for being obviously untrue. Just so you know, that was the idea. I'm trying to conduct a lesson for elementary school students about how not everything they see on the Internet is necessarily true, and I created that page to show a "real" web page that contains information that is, to them, obviously wrong. It had to be obvious because of the young age of my students, and I would ask that you please return the page to the way it was. After the lesson is over, I had planned on inserting real information and showing the students again, but I can't do that if the page is deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3ach3r (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Note from editor whose "article got deleted
please stop deleting my articles who do you think you are the lord emperor wiki lol just being silly not really mad at you just disappointed that the administrators of wikipedia are such pompus nerds. I mean come on you think really only famous people can have an article. Well now that I understand I'm sorry I disturbed the status quo please don't think I'm a vandal I really like wikipedia and value it's information deeply I thought I was improving it by added an article about myself I AM TRULY DEEPLY SORRY please don't delete my user account. I guess sometime I should read your policies about writing articles so they don't all get deleted. But I'm no expert on anything so maybe I should not write any articles. I guess I should leave that to the university students and professors they actually know something. T.T.F.N. Ta Ta For Now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No.where.man.1000 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I read the article writing policy and I now understand that my articles where completely inappropriate and I feel like absolute idiot. I think that maybe people should be required to read the policy before they write or edit an article to keep them from doing totally stupid things like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No.where.man.1000 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Repeating References pt2
ref 1 in testicular immunology is repeated 6 times, and letters "a" to "f" came up automatically just before the citation in the reference list. This oen worked well but the others, eg 36 which is repeated at 84, 89, 90, 91 didn't. Its happened with references starting with a name used for numerous references, (O'Bryan and Pollanen). If we can't sort it out, its no big deal.
According to the G3 criteria, blatant hoaxes are considered in the same vein as vandalism, and can be speedied as such. I don't know when this change was made, but I am glad that it was. I've found more than my fair share of hoax articles that could've been G3'd instead of AfD'd. it's just going to take time to get word out to everyone that we don't have to give these articles any more days of life that they don't deserve. DarkAudit (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seán P. O'Connor
The article is about the person who wrote it, they are not notable at all and . Check out the contributions of the author. There is no one of that name even remotely associated with the Newcastle Jets Jared Wiltshire (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA - Discospinster
|Hi Dlohcierekim! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).|
Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
source material for news stories salveagable
I assume that patent nonsense does not apply, this was sp delete under (1) no content; (2) testing; (3) other. Please let me know more details on why you applied speedy delete Cinnamon colbert (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking for advice in a possibly controversial situation here. At WR, a user blocked for sockpuppetry is asking for copies of deleted articles, and I'm unsure if I should provide them. He seems to have legitimate reasons for wanting them, and I think it's not breaking any policy nor guideline, but MyWikiBiz is practically an expletive at Wikipedia, so I'm ambivalent. If a user asks for deleted copies of and article, should he get them? I think the fact that he's blocked should be irrelevant here, since sockpuppetry isn't really related to this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm running it by ANI. Thanks for the advice. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
..for the revert on my talk page : ). I didn't expect that deleting a one sentence stub about a web forum would inspire such anger. And an attack page too! Such is Wikipedia, I suppose. Thanks again, shoeofdeath 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
|Thanks for the support|
|Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Yea, you got me, I suppose I don't need the tools, but with the support of the community behind me, I'll be wielding that mop of justice from time to time. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)|
ten-string guitar edit war
I do apologise for drawing you into what you have described as an "edit war".
As I see it, the matter is simple. We have on the one hand two instruments of historical significance, something called the Decacorde, and the so-called Romantic (or 19th century) 10-string guitar. I have repeatedly welcomed authors to expand entries dealing with these instruments, which are of historical significance - certainly in the case of the Romantic 10-string guitar - and should be represented on wikipedia.
On the other hand, we have a modern instrument that happens to have the same number of strings, but for a different reason, one founded in physics, not opinions. This modern instrument IS, in fact, its tuning and the particular, singular, properties of this tuning; it cannot be divorced from it. Information on both the above is in print.
Information about the latter has come under fire from person who feel threatened by it. (Let me make it clear, this information is no threat and no propaganda, just the facts that are in print and that can be proven by physics.) Some people don't like this. Some people have a different opinion about how a guitar with 10 strings should be tuned. That is fine. I have no interest in "converting" them. I simply want the full truth, the academic knowledge (rather than opinions) available to readers. (I am rather adamant about it since this information has for a long time deliberately been misrepresented in print and on various internet pages.)
Considering that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and that by definition an encyclopaedia should contain information that is factual and of historical significance, not the propaganda of living persons who are not historical figures or established authorities, it is inappropriate for this medium to be used to promote popular opinions that have not proven themselves through empirical scrutiny, in academic literature. (And we must consider that certain opinions are popular precicely because of the amount of misleading information available on the internet, and the dearth of academic information on this particular subject.)
Also, (I believe) since the entry on Ten-string guitar has recently been listed among the top pages on a Google search of the topic, this has troubled some individuals with a vested interest in the obfuscation of its information. Hence the acquisition of this page for themselves and their own agendas and the creation of a new, more obscure page for information about the Modern ten-string guitar.
I suggest this is resolved by keeping it to one page, as is, and fleshing out the information on the historically significant Romantic 10-string guitar, so there is a greater balance between the presentation of the two concepts. As for personal opinions expressed by amateur musicians in online discussion groups, these have no place in an encyclopaedia. The same goes for self-promotion of living persons, their instruments and opinions, which have not established themselves as historically significant.
As such, I will continue to delete information that is not verified in print, self-promotional, obfuscatory, or propagandistic. This may not be popular, but let's try to maintain some minimum academic standard?
Cleared up some misconceptions
- Part of the problem was that until today, CSD4 read very confusingly like "never delete a user subpage". Please tell everyone you know to read the modification that was made for clarity. Cheers. Also, you might check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages if you are interested in weighing in on this particular topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- While it's nice when administrators who delete articles are nice-enough to userify: when eight days go by without any attempt for improvement by the requesting user, and this has happened for nine separate articles, I think is safe to say that we've given the user enough of a chance and we should only continue to restore deleted content to this user's subpages on a single case-by-case basis. If and when this user actually improves some content of a userfied deleted article for restoration, then we can begin to give this user some more leeway. I haven't seen any evidence that this user is actually intending to improve the content. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My article on Ryan William Cook was unfinished and i just put the ending so it didnt look incomplete while i went to my orchestra concert. Anyways, ryan cook was a notorious gangster in a suburban town however he was rehabbed and is now very notable in our area as well as other surrounding areas. If you will please reinstate my article i will finish the article and put why it is important, Thank you and good day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot19 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, i apologize for my article on someone not important to you but in my community he is very well know so i was hoping i could have my work back for local use. In no way do I intend to repost or remake the article because i wish to be a helpful part of the wikipedia community. If it is possible to get the original text back that would be great. Thanks<<moved message to preserve thread>>
"Otter have the mop!"
- Thanks. I'm kinda new to the revert, deletion thing. I've been at wikipedia for only 1 month and I already have 1450+ edits. Talk to you later.:)--RyRy5 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
and my old lady is asleep on me. bot aint got nothin on me. --InvisibleDiplomat666 05:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|For being the only user to take the time to alert new users about their malformed RFAs at their talk pages. Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)|
They let me be a what?
Late entry to the hoax AfD
Hey Dlohcierekim (mike, I assume). Thanks for your support on my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching; I hope to have your support then. Thanks again - Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron&diff=201043732&oldid=201042109 My reply.] Dlohcierekim 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have been around Rfa longer than you think...under the name Camaeron... = ) Big difference, I know...--Cameron (t/c) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletionism vs. Inclusionism. Wrong question.
I saw a comment of yours on User talk:Kim Bruning that suggested to me something that might be a solution to the essentially unresolvable, under the status quo, inclusionist/deletionist debate. It seems to me that we have set up the system so that the wrong question is being asked. You mentioned user space as a place where non-notable articles might exist, at least for a time. The infamous Sarsaparilla, and others, have promoted WP:PWD, which would avoid actual deletion of anything except where legal issues are involved. My own concern is efficiency. Notability is essentially an arbitrary standard, as it is, for notability depends on the subculture involved. If we have an encyclopedia that is the "sum of all human knowledge," and we advertise it as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," we have set up and invited all human beings to contribute what they know. Now, have we considered what happens if they take us up on the offer? We are seeing it happen, increasingly, creating more and more burden for those with a "deletionist" perspective. "Inclusionists" consider "deletionists" the problem, not the users who dare to imagine that their favorite topics aren't "notable," a standard which they, quite understandably, have never heard of, and, should they spend hours working on an article that gets deleted, and they do investigate, upsets them and seems to be biased against their kind of knowledge. The vast majority of them simply go away, with a bad taste in their mouth. And this includes experts, professionals, and, from what I'm being told, librarians.
But the controversy is based on an assumption that notability is a characteristic of facts and topics. It isn't. It is a relationship, an attitude, a response to facts. We are inundated, every moment, with a vast flow of information developed by our senses. We only notice a tiny portion of this. However, when it is needed, we can focus our attention and become exquisitely aware of some small segment of this flow, which is then being "noticed" and is thus, obviously, for us, "notable." When someone studies a subject, there may exist a whole library of materials related to that subject. The person will start, often, with some summary, some high-level abstraction from the material, ideally being a matter of broad consensus among those knowledgeable. But, if they have access to a true library, as they learn the subject they may drill down to ever-finer levels of detail, until they are reading primary sources, which might even be the undigested and previously not noticed papers of a single individual. When one person has "noticed" the report of another, considering it worthy of attention, it has been noticed and it is therefore notable. By the most basic definition, not by other, higher-level and more abstract definitions.
By deleting submitted articles, it is analogous to applying an anesthetic to a section of our nervous system. Yes, through some special process, we might be able to re-awaken that section, but it has been inhibited.
On the other hand, if we have a flat encyclopedia, with many, many unverified articles, perhaps not even noticed by anyone before, it becomes unreliable (or, more accurately, remains so). Being flat, if it is purely flat, there is no hierarchy of notability, no beaten path to knowledge, beginning with what is well-known, reliable (i.e., verified by consensus), and NPOV.
The encyclopedic task is not, as we have thought, what to include. It is how to categorize what is submitted. It is an editorial task, purely NPOV, and, while debates will continue, they will continue on another level, one which NPOV was actually designed to resolve. Notability is, aside from the very basic definition I give above, dependent upon POV. It is inherently subjective; we may develop, as we have, some consensus about the boundaries of notability, but this is then only the consensus of a particular subculture, the subculture of active Wikipedia editors, not the masses of editors, the "everyone who can edit this," but a particular core with particular motivations and interests. And then we will have, it can be predicted, massive and sometimes bitter debates, which amount to "What subculture has the correct view of notability?"
And none of this debate actually addresses the real problem: the editorial task of verifying and categorizing information.
Your comment about user space suggests one solution: routinely, unverified articles are left in user space until verified, or, if placed in article space, are moved to user space by any registered editor. At the same time, these articles would be tagged as unverified.
The unverified tag would show, clearly, that the information in the article has not been checked, and none of it should be considered anything but the unverified report of a single editor.
This, then, raises another issue: the use of Wikipedia space for what really belongs on a personal web site. There is a classic solution used by free space providers: the space is limited, and material exceed that limit is subject to deletion. The limits are set by the technical capacity of the host, to some degree.
Whatever is done, it must be *easy* to administer. And to figure all this out will take discussion on a level that does not normally take place on Wikipedia, because the community has been damaged by years of dysfunctional debate. Positions have hardened, and each camp will see any proposal that is actually integrative as moving things toward one side or the other, and therefore to be bitterly opposed, even before it can be fully formulated.
There are many other possible ways to address the problem of categorization and efficiency; but we won't find them unless we begin to develop means of discovering true consensus, which, outside Wikipedia, usually means universal or almost-universal agreement. Sarsaparilla came across one of these, and promoted it, which was the real cause of the intense attention he attracted, until he ended up being effectively banned for minor offenses, common with developmentally delayed geniuses, which ordinarily would have resulted in warnings only. This is actually to be expected, see User:Abd/Rule 0.
If you are interested in becoming part of the solution, please let me know, on my Talk or by email. Otherwise, I apologize for this intrusion on your Talk space, you may, of course, freely delete it, not that you needed to be told that.... --Abd (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that short discussion that took place on the WP:CSD talk page, I didn't realize there was a pertinent issue regarding the time in which editors were tagging articles to be deleted. I just hope you understand that tag (which is now broadcasted there) was an honest error and nothing more. However, I don't feel as though it warranted the admonishment I received on that page. I thought it was kinda rude. Anyway, that's not really the point. Just wanted to let you know that, personally, I will be giving articles more time to develop per the comments on the page. I certainly agree that editors are too hasty to mark a page for deletion - not necessarily erroneously, but, in a manner which doesn't afford the author ample time to rectify the problem. Although, most of my tagging is quite accurate methinks, bringing me to my next question. Any feedback from you on this issue would be great. I don't want this to crop up during my next RfA, so in addition to Pedro's coaching, perhaps you could give me a series of practice questions at User:Pedro/Admin Coaching since this is an area I would plan to work in if given the tools. If you're too busy, I understand. At the very least, could you take a look through my special contributions and comment? I've come to highly trust your judgment on the wiki. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi When I include information from the internet I always include the URL and sometimes the date. Is this sufficient for a talk page?
Did you follow the link to BlogFlux? No mention of the supposed popularity of this blog. If you go to it, the total lifetime visitor count is around 3,000! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I must confess that I am mystified by your comment on the proposed deletion of Tropical Storm Rita. As I'm sure you read the whole deletion notice and not just the first few words, you know that the proposal was to delete the page to allow moving the existing disambiguation page from Tropical Storm Rita (disambiguation) to Tropical Storm Rita, in keeping with the naming conventions described on WP:MDP. From your edit comment, I cannot discern what your objection to this might be. --Russ (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
why have you chosen my page on road seals for deletion. it is as mentioned on the page a creature which is mythical but has not actually be proven to exist. please revise your thoughts on deletion ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D of words (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but then someone added nasty things to it and the user placed a speedy tag on it. I probably should have deleted it under U1 but since the tag was for an attack page I went with that. ... discospinster talk 19:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a suspected sockpuppet case regarding edits to the deleted articles and to the related AfD at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mcchow89. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a small note that I was not nominating this article for speedy delete because it wasn't in English but because the text, even translated, does not contain enough substance to allow anyone to create an article based on it. -Yupik (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
deletion of page
What do you mean user page gone astray?
use of time
Thanks for all of your messages. I made great use of my time and used the exchange between you and I as a great way teaching experience for my students about the Wikipedia process. I showed them the Matt Schroeder page by leaving the page open & they thought it was really on Wikipedia. Discussion ensued about judging the authority of websites. Students were then shown the messages I received from you and they understood that there is strict monitoring going on. They really got a kick out of seeing the message about blocking me from editing. One thing they would like to know is, do you get paid to do what you do? Another question, how do you get into the position you are as a monitor? What is your official title? They explored Wikipedia independently and many comments were made about the lack of correct grammar and spelling they saw in the posts between monitors and writers. I have noticed that none of my 120 5th graders are now using Wikipedia for their research, but rather our subscription databases and websites recommended by fellow educators and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet580 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the good recommendation you gave about my willingness to help people rescue articles, make 2 months ago at . I hope we will continue to work together in this manner. . Thanks!!!DGG (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any reference to it on Google (outside of the Wikipedia article on the episode), so I assumed it was a hoax of some sort. If it's not a hoax, I don't think it's notable enough to deserve its own article anyway, since it should simply be part of the episode article. nneonneotalk 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Reply Dlohcierekim 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, that works. I'll try to be a little more careful next time... nneonneotalk 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might also like to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#So.2C_I_just_received_my_very_first_death_threat_via_WP.27s_email_system.... Your input may very well be useful there. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks
I caught you...
No prob. :)
- Whoa...neither did I. What is it with these kids and this horrid gangsta slang? Sad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaah, I feel like such an idiot! The user had just created a non-user page Chickenpies22 that I requested a speedy for. I saw him make another, and didn't realize it was a user page. Sorry for any inconvenience it might've caused. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
please send deleted article to my email
Sorry about that - it appeared to be nonsense!
|Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky
Hi, An article on Ghost Feet was 'speedily deleted' due to there being 'no verifiable sources' the reason for this is that due to the folklore nature of Ghost Feet, there is very little, apart from stories known to many midland locals. i think it is important that people who dont know about these tales, though have heard the name around should have the chance to find out about it. wikipedia being the first port of call for an awful lot of people searching for information on a subject, I believe there should be reference to Ghost Feet on this site.
many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by As554184 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about orphaned image you created....
I am considering nominating Image:Peppermint_candy_cane_04.jpg for deletion as an orphaned image for cleanup purposes. It is already on Commons and is not used at all in articles; it only appears on userpages here of users that are likely sleeper socks on unused accounts (meaning no contribs whatsoever save adding the image to the userpage). What do you think? MSJapan (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
just a quick thanks for deleting the hoax article about the Jesus and Mary Chain. I really dont think people say thank you enough for other editors actions; its not like editing is something you HAVE to do, so i just thought i'd pop in to show my appreciation. Ironholds (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to ask; a user has nominated himself for adminship and the thing should've been closed a month ago. its got 1 support from an inexperienced user and one oppose (from me, another inexperienced user). Its obviously going nowhere; who should i talk to to get it removed/closed (probably under WP:SNOW, although i dont know if that counts for stalled nominations, just heavily opposed ones). thanks. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- AJ00200, but i see you've found it.
By any chance do you remember what this article was about? You deleted it, but I was just curious. I am probably going to redirect it to Mee krob (a Thai noodle dish), but was just curious. Mahalo, Dlohcierekim. --Ali'i 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)