| Revision as of 01:42, 4 May 2014 editBenlisquare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,176 edits →...: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:57, 7 May 2014 edit undoAskahrc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,228 edits →AE Notification: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| :::Nominate the article for deletion. Don't show up every two days moaning on the talk page, moaning about how much you wish the article was deleted. If you want to be productive, nominate the article for deletion. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 01:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | :::Nominate the article for deletion. Don't show up every two days moaning on the talk page, moaning about how much you wish the article was deleted. If you want to be productive, nominate the article for deletion. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 01:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == AE Notification == | |||
| There is an ] concerning you. Thanks, ] (]) 06:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:57, 7 May 2014
Thanks for a great suggestion!
Your suggestion that I use "History of Parliament" online as a source for cites for the article Sir David Roche, 1st Baronet was very helpful. It's a great resource, and one I had never heard of. I'm sure I'll get great use out of it for future articles, too. Thanks very much! Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
ANI for your behavior
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Valoem 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- I look forward to the whistling WP:BOOMERANG hitting you in the face. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeking collaboration - Chopra article and Fringe
Hello BBB - I get that your not a fan of Dr. Chopra and you probably have very passionate opinions about him and what he represents. I'm want to find what kind of productive conversation you and I can have about this issue. I'm assuming we have one thing in common, that is to find an uncompromising neutrality to what is obviously a very controversial article. If I'm not working towards the betterment of the encyclopedia, I'm not doing my job. So its very important to me to get this right.
You've mentioned a few times that I am not WP HEARING you or I am failing to misunderstanding something. Currently, I am seeking consensus on the opening sentence in a BLP. If you want me to understand you - please explain how the WP Fringe guideline influences the lead sentence in the article in a manner not already covered in BLP. I genuinely want to understand your thinking.
What are you concerns with listing Dr Chopra as an endocrinologist and a champion of integrative medicine and where are you willing to work towards a compromise with me? SAS81 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J.S.S. Martin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Glendale and CSI (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) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
L-Field
Can you help me redirect (not merge because there's nothing worth merging) the L-Field to the Harold Saxton Burr article. Do we need a consensus for this? Or should there be an afd for the L-field article? Either way it needs to go because the sourcing is terrible. I have expanded the Burr article. Goblin Face (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
...
Nobody can get an article about themselves deleted via OTRS. People can file a DMCA, but that's only if someone's using your copyrighted material. If that were actually the case, then people like Anders Behring Breivik could get their articles deleted if they felt that they didn't like the article about them. Not like any of that is relevant to the article at hand, though.
Finally, I've said it before, if you feel that a deletion is warranted, nominate it again. Stop beating the dead horse on the talk page whilst everyone else is trying to be productive. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to make the same suggestion again, do it in your own new section. Let people who want to be productive, be productive in the photograph section, okay? --benlisquareT•C•E 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In summary: If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion. I have told you time and time again that you are free to nominate the page. If you can't muster up the courage to do that, don't trash up the talk page with complaint after complaint. It's irritating. It's annoying. It's not constructive. It's disruptive. It's beating a dead horse. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I was being productive. It is a perfectly valid point. Please don't vandalise my comments because you disagree with them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominate the article for deletion. Don't show up every two days moaning on the talk page, moaning about how much you wish the article was deleted. If you want to be productive, nominate the article for deletion. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
AE Notification
There is an AE request concerning you. Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)