| Revision as of 14:12, 8 July 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Diego Grez/Archive 29.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:34, 9 July 2011 edit undoOtberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users765 edits →Deletion of: Kingdom of Araucanía and PatagoniaNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| You proposed that ] be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the ] keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind ]. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. ] (]) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | You proposed that ] be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the ] keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind ]. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. ] (]) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> --] (]) 16:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:34, 9 July 2011
User:Diego Grez/Navbar User:Diego Grez/Chile User:Diego Grez/format
.jpeg){kind=small} | Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers. |
| vn-1 | This editor's user page, talk page, or subpages have been vandalized 1 time. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. |
Deletion of
You proposed that Guy-Greenbrier earthquake swarm be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the Strategy Wiki keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind Misplaced Pages:NOTPAPER. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Otberg (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)