Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Re : Not a problem. I took out the one remaining referenced statement as I thought it put a little too much undue weight on the subject compared to the length of the rest of the article. The section title was rather loaded, too. So now the article is totally unreferenced. -- ] (]) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:Re : Not a problem. I took out the one remaining referenced statement as I thought it put a little too much undue weight on the subject compared to the length of the rest of the article. The section title was rather loaded, too. So now the article is totally unreferenced. -- ] (]) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Hi there. In your summary for closing the Graphical interface of future operating system article, you've written that "The result was delete. Since it's so clearly WP:NOT, with zero chance, we should have been able to speedy that". Incidentally, we were able to speedy that article, and I had already, on the same day the article was created on 16 January 2010, placed a CSD tag on that page. An admin declined the speedy deletion, and suggested I take it to Afd, which I did. My question is this: who is right in this issue, the admin who declined the speedy deletion, or you, the admin who confirmed that this article should have been speedily deleted? Amsaim (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting that you brought that up. :-) I can't say it's a matter of "right or wrong" so much as application of discretion. Fabrictramp probably did fine, if you want to strictly follow the CSD criteria. However, IMO our CSD system has become overly bureaucratic at times. And when deciding whether or not to on-sight delete something, we shouldn't be worrying about petty stuff like "G2 vs G3, but not quite A3", but instead looking at the bigger picture. I often write custon deletion summaries, because it can give a better explanation than one of the templated reasons.
I think A7 could be overused in deletions, but on the other hand, I've seen articles like "my top 10 favorite list of bands" or "something my friend made up yesterday" that were PRODded instead of speedy deleted, which I disagree with. We should be able to speedy things like that. In the closure statement, I was speaking in a semi-theoretical sense. Like I said, nothing wrong with Fabrictramp's decision, but it's my personal opinion that we should delete articles that are clearly not encyclopedic (WP:NOT, etc.) and would be snow cases at AFD (besides stuff like WP:CRYSTAL - that should not be within a single admin's scope, and requires a discussion). Otherwise, it wastes people's time to vote "delete" on irredeemable articles. Best, JamieS9319:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Templates to delete
Hi. You deleted but then restored Template:Superleague Formula races. I would ask you to redelete it as the point was that it has merged with another template so the information is already there. It wasn't a mistake putting it up for deletion. There is another one, Template:Superleague Formula which follows the same story line by which the information has been moved in an appropriate way so as to leave the template defunct of any use. I would appreciate the deletion of both. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
By "mistake" I meant that the deletion was my mistake. :-) I was attempting to delete several templates (all tagged for deletion by another user, for a different reason), and I accidentally deleted the SF races template, too, before even looking into the situation. Just a pure mistake on my part. I just deleted both for you under WP:CSD#G6 ("housekeeping, cleanup") since it doesn't look like "T2" was the CSD reason you were looking for. Best, JamieS9322:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to undelete those edits. Now that the edits are restored, there's a full record in the rev history (and the "possible refs" section has been restored to the bottom of the talk page). Looks like everything is in place, since you re-added the {{ArticleHistory}} template. Lemme know if you all need anything else. Cheers, JamieS9316:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, if you will, can you delete the two revisions I made to Meowth on 1 September 2009 and then the (redirect) revision on WP:POKE/Meowth. After that it can be history merged.(silly conflicting histories...) Thanks for your help! Blake16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Reverted the "redirect" edit and merged the page histories. I can't individually delete revisions without deleting the whole page and restoring specific edits, so I'm just leaving alone the two edits on 1 September. JamieS9316:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was under the impression it couldn't be history merged because those edits were conflicting. Thanks a bunch!Blake16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused by all of this activity. What part of WP:MAD prohibits having the history of the source article associated with a page in project space?
It was my understanding that the revisions from both pages were pertinent to the history/developement of the article. Thus it's best (or possibly required per GFDL, depending on the case) to merge the page history. JamieS9316:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Bulbasaur was moved to project space, and the redirect to project space retargeted to the list. There was a little bit of edit warring, and Black Kite took care of the history at that time. The only thing this activity has done is make it easier for the group that refuses to respect consensus on the article to restore it to article space.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey JamieS93. Could you remove me from the autoreviewer and rollbacker groups, please? I don't create new articles and I don't vandalism patrolling. Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You have deleted Talk:Dag Frøland (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) giving the reason " (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)". I don't know why you conceded to this request without checking whether the user who requested the delete was the only contributor on the page. Please restore the page minus any possibly damaging contributions. __meco (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The user who requested deletion (a bot) was indeed the only contributor to the page, and there would be no point in restoring it. I have created a new page instead. decltype (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. I could not remove the speedy deletion template myself because I created the template itself, so a bot would have reverted me had I tried. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If you make significant strides I'll keep it open as long as needed (well, not forever, but...) The one-week limit is just to push through the stuff that depends on someone actually showing up or not (I've been getting snippy responses to the effect of "fail it then, you bastard", so I can't wait 'till this is all done :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have noticed that when I have something restored, somebody else often adds sources before I get to add mine. Perhaps I should ask to have them restored to my user space, to avoid duplicating effort. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't want to step on toes/edit conflict. The article just caught my attention as a musician (I work with music articles a lot), so I thought I'd hit up Allmusic and pop in a source. :-) JamieS9323:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem in this case. I hadn't found the Allmusic source. I am happy to move on and leave this in your hands. I also found this source , but it is probably not reliable enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protect
Thanks for the user-page armor. :) The vandal(s) in the last 24 hours created accounts, then went after my talk page, then haven't done anything since. I'm keeping lists of them, along with the original info, in case this flares up again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For showing confidence in an editor and for digging deeper in an effort to resolve a problem, please allow me to grant you this token of my appreciation. McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I am a resident in Assemblymember Espaillat's District. i am right now at his district office telling him of whats happening. I would like to update Assemblymember Adriano Espaillat's biography with truthful information. I respect the freedom of speech, but the information the person posted are 100% Inherently untruthful. Please check the Assemeblymember's website,
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=072
He is one of the most respected legislators in the nation.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Re your message: Not a problem. I took out the one remaining referenced statement as I thought it put a little too much undue weight on the subject compared to the length of the rest of the article. The section title was rather loaded, too. So now the article is totally unreferenced. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Jamie doesn't need all those extra log actions. :) –