User talk:Vadder/Archives/2018/October

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sci-Fi

Hi! In answer to your question re my sci-fi edit, I'm in a bit of a debate right now with someone who is studying the language who is adamant that sci-fi is not a real word. He considers himself to be a linguist and I've seen others trying to eliminate words like sci-fi from the language. By coincidence, someone else also trying to eliminate "sci-fi" turned up on Wikipedia yesterday as well (which actually inspired me to add the line); see recent edits/discussion for Thunderbirds. If you want to substitute another word ("academics" maybe?) for linguists, feel free. Cheers! 23skidoo 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:CCP

Hi,

First, I'll give the disclosure that everybody gives: XfD/DRV is not a vote, but you've probably heard that already. The truth is that I discounted several newer editors as I am allowed to do under deletion policy; once this was done, the "tally" narrowly favored keeping deleted. There was also a bit of judgment on my part in doing this: practically speaking, because the CCP is one of the more controversial political parties on earth, there is almost no chance this template would survive long without being T1'ed. Honestly, I believe it is T1-worthy, especially in consideration of the CCP's banning of Wikipedia, a point unrebutted in the debate. In consideration of the merits, I cannot change my determination. Thanks for the inquiry, though; I do have a less stringent view of T1 than many, and will be clearing out other userbox debates from DRV shortly. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

UCIP

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your recent comments regarding UCIP in the DRV. I'm new to Wiki and the comments that I had made were my first tentative steps towards participating in these discussions. Needless to say, it's a learning experience! For example, I had thought that WP:notability was a policy and so I cited it as such. I suspect this mistake is quite common to newcomers simply because of the huge mass of information we are presented with. I see that I need to develop a better understanding of the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. My comment about cruft was intended as a humorous response to the nominators assertion that "someone else got away with it". I regard this as a completely specious argument which crops up frequently in AFD and DRV discussions. Upon reflection, however, it might be best to avoid attempts at humor in otherwise serious discussions, especially since I'm not really very funny :) Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for helping me learn to be a better Wikipedian. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. By the way, you're welcome to ask for my vote to keep any information on this website. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy article

Hi, the information was not inserted by me I just recovered it from the past [1] because was blanked by anonymous users.

As videogame forums and blogs reader, I personally think is pretty accurate in my opinion. Instead simply blank you can put the tag ^{[citation needed]} in the end of statements. --Ciao 90 19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support in my deletion of the "subjects of obsession" section. I've tried to kill it twice before, only to have it restored (once by an anonymous, once by User:Ciao 90). --Orange Mike 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Explored - request for advice.

Hi,

I noticed that Christianity Explored has been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-contest deletion as a spammy article with no assertion of notability. I haven't seen it of course, since it was deleted.

IMO Christianity Explored is notable and Wiki should have a good article about it ... but rather than leap in where Angels fear to tread (or fly?) I have created a personal sandbox page to draft something.

I would be grateful for your views - I am contacting all those who commented in the last deletion debate, as you will have seen the previous article.

The article is at [[2]]

Regards

Simon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:07:19, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

NOW Comics

I have reverted your edit to NOW Comics as completely deleting an article doesn't strike me as a particularly helpful way of dealing with the POV issues you cited in your edit summary. I have very little knowledge of the subject myself (and little interest, to be honest), but as the main content of the article was short anyway, maybe it would be possible to rewrite it to make it more balanced? --carelesshx _talk 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted your request for rollback. Please make sure you are familiar with how rollback works. In general, the tool is only for reverting obvious vandalism - any edit, no matter how awful or biased, that could possibly have been made in good faith should not be reverted in this manner. Never use rollback on the edits of regular contributors and most of all, use common sense. Remember rollback privileges can be revoked by any administrator. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism.--Doc^g 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Vadder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Vadder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Vadder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

It's not immediately clear to me why you reverted me here - adding a section break to a discussion isn't usually controversial, but happy to discuss... WJBscribe (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me either. I hadn't realized I reverted anything. It must have been an errant click on my Watchlist. My apologies. Vadder (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)