| Revision as of 20:08, 11 April 2010 editUnomi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,989 editsm →added new convenience link: fix← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 10 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JzG/Archive 218) (botTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
| algo = old(7d) |
|
|archive = User talk:JzG/Archives/%(monthname)s %(year)d |
|
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 218 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 32K |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|Discretionary sanctions}} |
|
|
{{Ds/aware|9/11|a-a|a-i|ab|acu|aerc|ap|at|os|b|blp|cam|cc|cid|e|ecig|fg|gc|gg|ggtf|gap|gmo|ipa|lr|lw|muh-im|old|pa|pr|ps|r-i|saq|sen|sci|tm|tpm|tt|we}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=User talk:JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Centralized discussion|width=30%}} |
|
{{Archive box |
|
{{Archive box |
|
|
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist --> |
|
| auto = yes |
|
| auto = yes |
|
| index = /Archive index |
|
| index = Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:JzG/Archive |
|
| search = yes |
|
| search = yes |
|
| collapsible = yes |
|
| collapsible = yes |
|
| collapsed = yes |
|
| collapsed = yes |
|
| root = User_talk:{{PAGENAME}}/Archives |
|
| root = user talk:JzG |
|
| bot = MiszaBot |
|
| bot = MiszaBot |
|
| age = 7 |
|
| age = 7 |
|
|
}} |
|
| ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]}} |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
* In ], any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, ]. |
|
|
* Sad now. ]. |
|
|
* |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
;Smelling pistakes |
|
|
|
|
|
:In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have ], so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa. |
|
== Case request == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi... See ] and Carch's reply to my comment. I would urge you to bring the case to that enforcement page. I may be missing something but it seems fairly cut and dried by the standards of that page and I expect your proposed resolution at AN would be adopted. Best. ++]: ]/] 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Perhaps you could raise the CC related material at that page anyway? ++]: ]/] 19:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== U.World == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks JzG, Yes would you please move the article to my space. --] (]) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== JDB == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{user talk:James dalton bell}} |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
{{wikibreak}} |
|
Transcluded from ] in case of comments by article subject. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== God Jul och Gott Nytt År! == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> |
|
== unblock-en-l == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
You should start getting the unblock-en-l feed now. Thank you, — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] is wishing you ]<br />Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ]<br />], ], ], ], ],<br />or the ],<br /> this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone. |
|
* Ah, cool. I worked out what I did wrong last time - I have two addresses which both deliver to the same inbox (one filtered, one not). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
== Bongo == |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|
Hey, thanks for the note. I didn't write any of the text, but was rather removing that which was clearly not properly supported. I am glad to see the article was deleted, though. I think that Senate document was a perfectly good source, but deletion was probably the correct resolution. ] (]) 14:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* No problem, just making sure you were up to speed on the wider picture. I agree that deletion was the right result. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Silvio Ionescu == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that beats waiting a week, ta. ] (]) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sure it does...except that it's a little outside process. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Guy - regarding ...can you provide diffs to support ''We do not need articles written by people whose sole professed purpose on Misplaced Pages is to document a purported scandal involving a living individual'' ? I'm not saying I think the article was good (it wasn't; that's why I deleted ] from main space) or even that it met notability guidelines, but...whatever happened to ], ], and just plain communicating with the editor in question? If s/he really was singularly bent on defaming the subject, it would become clear pretty quickly. But what if the editor thinks they are writing an article that meets community guidelines and just doesn't know any better? Is summary deletion without a single lick of discussion toward the creator and primary editor of the article going to improve anything? |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't feel strongly enough about this to go to DRV (not even close, really), because to me this isn't a content issue and I actually agree the content itself was unacceptable. I'm here because I think the process that was followed could have been more editor-friendly. We admins are sometimes accused of being a capricious lot; this sort of non-engagement doesn't help, in my opinion. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: First up, ] applies ''everywhere'' not just in article space, and so by extension does ] - if it was a G10 in mainspace then it's a G10 full stop. Second, {{userlinks|Ronald2010}} shows everything you need to know, especially the first edit. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No disagreement on applicability of BLP; G10 is a grey area. There have been discussions more than once on this point; see, for example, ]. Regarding the user, just because their first project is to write an article on a particular person doesn't mean that is their sole purpose, and at any rate, being a single-purpose account isn't in itself against any policy I know of. It depends on whether the purpose itself is within policy. Defaming a living individual certainly wouldn't qualify; writing a balanced article about said individual - even if it on the whole doesn't make the individual look very good - would qualify. Again, I am quite against the content as it was written, but I'm talking about process here. I don't automatically draw the conclusion that this article ''can't'' exist; only that it ''shouldn't'' as it was written. Userfying it and engaging the editor in question seems to be the right way to go, especially given the amount of work that was apparently already put into it. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I checked the contributions, they were to multiple articles but all with the same purpose. I think the user is outraged by this real-world event but has not understood policies, that's why I have not blocked them. I agree that it is quite possible that a neutral and compliant article on this person could be written, but this was not it and was not even a good starting point. My view on process, which I know is not universally shared (ahem) begins with "f" and ends with "uck process" - I have spent enough time on OTRS queues to know that waiting a week while we examine our navels is not a good result for the article subject. I will happily ] any such material for long-term users who want to write a neutral biography. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Fair enough explanation. I do disagree in this particular case but I also understand there are times when process can be accelerated to good result. I will now go examine my navel and wait for someone to ask for that refund, which (if anyone is reading) I will also provide on request. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I respect your opinion even while I differ with it. Thank you for being uncommonly civil about this, and rest assured that if you choose to rebuild a compliant article I will do what I can to manage the subject's expectations. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Well now, it looks like the ]. Do you want to handle this? I'm kind of thinking it's your ] now :-) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think he needs a refund, he has already got a copy saved and has added the exact copy to the mainspace once today and also removed it, he does need to read the BLP policy and perhaps others, also some simple copyright reading would be good as the first newspaper article I looked at had the picture he uploaded to the wikipedia as a copyright violation that has since also been deleted. ] (]) 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Handle" doesn't necessarily mean restore the article; in fact I deleted the re-creation as well. Someone needs to ascertain true intentions (and perhaps hand-hold through the ], ], and ] discussions), and I'm sorta nominating Guy.... :-) |
|
|
: Albatross? Do you get wafers with it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::ec. Sorry if I wasn't clear Frank, I saw you deleted the new one, hand holding, Guy? He needs to read a couple of policies and understand he is attempting to create a BLP about a single crime, if he wants to create an article about a hit and run crime then he needs other issues explained, the specific crime is not notable. He is on a lose lose path, what he wants to do is not what policy allows. is it? IMO. I recommend he gets a blog. ] (]) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
OK, it's all well and good for us regulars to discuss this here, but in the meantime an editor has in apparent good faith requested info on how to proceed. We have wafers (Guy), "get a blog" (Rob) and "hand holding may be required" (Frank). But...which are we implementing? <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* I left a note on his talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please delete the account Ronald2010 also thank you. ] (]) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. ] (]) 18:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Why is the case not Notable? === |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to question the level of notability of the case: How exactly would you quantify notability? |
|
|
|
|
|
I.e. I look at another article I used to touch on . Both are notable for only one single specific incident (A hit-and-run vs a murder), and both involved a few countries (The hit an run involved a Romanian who hit a Malaysian working in Singapore, the murder case similarly crossed international boundaries due to the nationalities of the victim and prosecuted). |
|
|
|
|
|
Do a search on "Silviu Ionescu" compared to "Meredith Kercher" on Google (web) and Google (news), a comparison of both searches show more results and entries for "Silviu Ionescu" than "Meredith Kercher". |
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that in the case of Ionescu, it actually triggered diplomatic response and action from the countries involved is possibly a contributing factor., but that should not take anything away from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
So back to the test for Notability: |
|
|
: From the Google news result, the test for significant coverage is passed. |
|
|
: Again from the Google news results (which quotes multiple news sources), and also official responses from both foreign offices, the test reliability is passed. Ditto for the test for sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is inevitable that the article will veer close to BLP issues, considering that the article is after all about a person who rose to notoriety because of the hit-and-run. The best we can do is craft an article that as reliable and well documented as possible, creating an article based on info as is, without biased writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
I see from post above that Ronald2010 was already working on an article on his own user subpage for it, but it was deleted. Is it possible to revert it? Someone already mentioned that there were links and references provided, so at least someone else who wants to try to craft a better page need not start all the way from scratch. Or if it is really bad, at least we know what to avoid. We could always tag the subpage article as a Draft/WIP/neutrality-questionable content in the meantime.] (]) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hi Zhanzhao, I am the original writer of that deleted article on Silviu Ionescu (Ronald2010). Thank you for the input above. I am now discussing this issue with Perhaps we can do all the discussion in one place so that it is easier for me to reply. Thank you ! |
|
|
|
|
|
:::By the way, I would like to add my appreciation to you for asking if the article in my own user subpage was deleted and to restore it. Well, I have a copy. There was a discussion between Frank and the whoever on that day both my articles in the main space and my user space were deleted. If I get the picture correctly, Frank deleted the main space article and moved it to my user space. Someone even deleted that, this was why I was very enraged. I don't need to restore that article because I have a copy, and I did a test by putting it back, it worked. Someone therefore accusing me of "re-creating" it and warn to block me. Which was not the case, I did a test and make sure that it is ok, then I took it off immediately. I am still very unhappy about the way my articles were deleted. As Frank said, the process could had been more 'editor-friendly'. Whoever is trigger happy, please reflect on yourself. ] (]) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent deletions == |
|
|
|
|
|
You recently deleted ] and ]. I'll admit, neither was a very good article. But ] had been nominated at AFD just today, and only one other editor voted on the deletion. Shouldn't such a process be allowed to run its full seven days? As for Moshe Bar, the article was barely a mention, but the scientist seems to rate some notice, based on his running a fairly high profile laboratory at Mass General / Harvard Med. Google scholar shows his articles are fairly heavily cited. As the DB had been removed on his page (by me), isn't an AFD in order? (The deletion was not non-controversial, as at least one other editor agreed that the content deserved an airing.) <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Moshe Bar was a malformed disambiguation ("The purpose of this article is to distinguish..." and so on), I am trying to find out from the creator (who has contacted OTRS via email) what the purpose of this is; as an associate professor I do not think they are even trying to have a separate article, there's no indication they even want one, I think for some reason that the associate professor simply wants to distinguish himself from the other ]. I'll get back to you when I've got a response as to why this is. |
|
|
: For Natasha Black the hint is in the first !vote: ''I removed some negative unsourced material that was added twice by the creator''. I think you can understand the impact of an attack vector hanging around for a week while we decide to delete it, on someone who has been the victim of a negative bio. As always there is no prejudice to re-creation of a neutral version and I will ] the contents for anyone who wants to create a compliant version and for whom the old text would form a useful basis. In many cases it's better to ] but I don't mind letting another user in good standing make the call. |
|
|
: I hope this addresses your concerns? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: When first written, ] was a very short article with a malformed hatnote referring to the other ]. I corrected the hatnote and created a legitimate disambiguation page to list both articles. I also expanded the page somewhat since it seems that, at least at first look, that this associate professor is doing some pretty important work in the field of cognitive neuroscience. Not being an expert in that field I thought the article deserved to hang around enough to be improved. I'll admit the article had problems (not the least of which was the fact that the author is one of Bar's students), but those issues could have been addressed. |
|
|
:: The "negative unsourced information" in the Black article was neither negative nor unsourced. The "controversy" surrounded Black's support of a former girlfriend in the girlfriend's legal troubles. Since the fact was controversial (not negative) and referenced, it should have been allowed to remain. And even if one does concede that there were attacks in the article, we should not delete articles simply because they have been the subject of attacks. If we went in that direction, most of the articles on any prominent person would soon be deleted. The community is vigilant enough to throw out the bath water while saving the baby. |
|
|
:: Don't get me wrong -- I don't think either of these articles were very good (I was the one who nominated the Black article for deletion), but I feel that your actions (deleting an article that had already been nominated for speedy and then declined; and deleting an article with an open AFD with no explanation or note at the AFD) subvert the deletion processes that are in place at Misplaced Pages. I don't intend to recreate either article as I don't really have any information on either subject. I just wanted to express my concerns about your actions. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I understand, the reason I removed the ] was simply that it made no claim to notability. Associate professors typically don't make ] and past experience indicates that a week of withering scorn is a potential outcome when such things hit the usual place. I don't think that would have been a great result since it does seem to me form my interaction with the creator that they don't actually want an article, only to make it clear that there is more than one person with that name. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Andrew Rankin == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for dealing with ] from my note on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Was that the correct place to raise my concern in that case? (Other than fixing it myself, of course) <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">]]</span></small> 09:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Yes, BLPN is a good place for any concerns related to BLPs. It is watched by a lot of people, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wobbling == |
|
|
|
|
|
What evidence is there that is Grundle2600? –]] 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ditto . –]] 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Spidey-senses. And the contribution history, especially Wobble2600 - that looks like a deliberate "look at me I'm a sock". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I think it's more likely this is ]. –]] 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In that case, can a reblock correct that they are Syntax and not Grundle? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You might want to get those spidey-senses calibrated. =) –]] 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Oh bloody hell, I wish these idiots would just sod off and play somewhere else rather than trying to get us to guess which particular idiot is responsible for which bit of idiocy. What a colossal waste of everyone's time. The spidey-senses don't say which fly it is, only that it's a fly :-) Now I'm off to create {{tl|Find somewhere else to play}}. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pointer? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please point me towards the discussion on the Foundation wiki that you refer to on Bell's talk page? I'd like to take a look. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Seems the creator has re-added the page with the <nowiki>{{db-spam}}</nowiki> tag still in place. Possibly a Edit-conflict ? ] (]) 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Think you may need to do it again :-) ] (]) 13:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Helen Rollason Cancer Charity == |
|
|
|
|
|
You recently deleted ]. I found some references that suggest notability. Could you please restore the article? |
|
|
|
|
|
*http://www.harlowherald.co.uk/content/hlwherald/news/story.aspx?brand=HLHOnline&category=NewsHarlow&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=newslatestHLH&itemid=WEED12%20Nov%202009%2015%3A05%3A43%3A043 |
|
|
*http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/countywide/4288958.Open_day_at_cancer_research_lab/ |
|
|
*http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/4640178.STH_WOODFORD__Charity_shop_volunteers_honoured_for___370k_haul/ |
|
|
<font face="MS Gothic">] (] • ])</font > 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* OK, but please clean out the blatantly promotional edits by {{userlinks|Helen Rollason}}. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Done. Thank you. <font face="MS Gothic">] (] • ])</font > 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hours after the article for A7, a user by another name the identical article. I tagged it as an A7 again but wanted to let you know about the situation. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* This guy has been trying for days and posting the same semi-incoherent text time after time, also at {{la|Shams khel}}. Please see if you can impart Clue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I just checked his talk page and it looks like he's removed db tags at least 6 times. I'm going to check his edit history and see if there's any more similar incidents with other pages being recreated. I also leave a message and try to explain what's going on in case he doesn't understand. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{userlinks|Ihsanss86}} |
|
|
* {{userlinks|Shumayel86}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Quack quack. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Lame. I thought he might be socking. I'll look for more. I left a message on Shumayel's talk page just in case. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{userlinks|200.55.135.211}} |
|
|
*{{userlinks|Zia86khan}} (most likely) |
|
|
*{{userlinks|Pencilsuperman246810}} (probably but has a very short history) |
|
|
*{{userlinks|Shahidkhanswati}} (only one edit ever) |
|
|
:The IP user falls slightly outside of the edit period but it has edited a majority of the pages that Ihsanss86 has and has been blocked as well. "86" seems to be a pattern as well. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Please comment at ] <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Terri_Summers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi! I was wondering why you changed the Speedy Delete of Terri Summers to a regular AfD. I thought WP:HOTTIE was just a gag-guideline. ] (]) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Notability was asserted. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::With what reliable references? ] (]) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Doesn't much matter, notability was asserted (multiple appearances in major magazines). AfD can work it out. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Okie dokie! ] (]) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cabo Rico == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please expand on the problem with article. Thank you. ] (]) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] explains it quite nicely, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It says, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." |
|
|
What specifically is promotional about the article? I will edit the article in userspace to be acceptable. Thanks. ] (]) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
]. ] (]) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* It read to the person who tagged it, and to me, as if it was written by a yacht broker or someone selling the things. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I disclosed exactly that...Can you put a finger specifically on what it is? Any help much appreciated. |
|
|
The company has enough notability, I think, so if written right, it would help educate people interested in the topic |
|
|
and help Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FreeKick == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you use the same standards for all MMOG game articles? Most of them are obvious advertisements placed by the owners. Or you didn't notice that they're referring only to themselves or MMOG game review websites? FreeKick won the Game of the month award, and the owner was interviewed by real newspaper. I think it's enough for Misplaced Pages, but not enough for you idiotic bastards. Speedy deletion, huh? Whoever employed you and gave you power is a real idiot. You're an amateur and have no idea how to follow rules, but you do use them at your own discretion to create "justice". Nerd. BTW I'm just a fan of FreeKick and not affiliated with them in any way. ] (]) 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Your only edits to Misplaced Pages ''ever'' have been attempts over a couple of years to make an article on this game. I'm afraid that is going to result in my giving your opinion less weight than I would give that of someone who contributes here and understands our policies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Johannes Maas == |
|
|
|
|
|
You have deleted a new article on which I was working and adding notability. Please put a copy of the deleted article on my talk page. ] (]) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Might take me a while, but you do know this has been deleted more than once before, don't you? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Could you please take a look at all the moving about and consider protecting this page? ] (]) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FYI == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether or not you are following ]. Feel free to add anything if you feel it appropriate. (I'm really sort of amused at how this is turning out, as I am the one who actually deleted the article twice, even though I'm the one who called for a bit more process.) :-) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== TeleCommunication Systems, Inc == |
|
|
|
|
|
You deleted ] as promotional. I think the company may be notable, based on |
|
|
. If you restore it to ], without the Inc, I could try to add references and make it less promotional. Sometimes it's best to replace a {{tl|db-advert}} to a non-speedy {{tl|advert}} with a request to the article's creator to fix it. <font face="Times">'''] (] • ])'''</font > 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* You may be right about notability but the creator, {{userlinks|Dinesh reddy}}, works for the company so can't fix it without violating ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dr. Judy Wood Notability == |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't this a notable secondary source though? |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Please let me know. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The two reasons given for the deletion of the content was: 1. She is not notable. 2. Copyright violation. |
|
|
I have copy right permission from her personally, and I was going to have her email the permissions list until all this happened. |
|
|
As for a notability, Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and her court case made it all the way to the Supreme court. She discusses her research and the court cases on the very popular Washington DC Radio Station WPFW 89.3, on the Ambrose Lane 'We Ourselves' show. There are many other places she has presented, but this is one of the most mainstream and credible places. |
|
|
Considering that Dr. Wood has done more to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11 than many other 9/11 researchers who are mentioned in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think some information about her should be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have an issue regarding ]. May I contact you privately? Thank you. ] (]) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Feel free. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nicole Ray == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed you've deleted ]. She is clearly a real person, has a prolific filmography, and has been nominated for several awards within her industry. These could clearly be gleaned from the article you deleted. Could you explain why you keep deleting her?--] (]) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Being nominated is not the same as winning, especially in that industry where you could win every single award going and still never achieve even a passing mention in a mainstream source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ]! Are you still out there? == |
|
== Splash Fashions == |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 09:57, 15 January 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1957773473}} |
|
|
Hi ]! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year ]] 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
Hi you have deleted the Page Splash fashions, Splash (UAE) which is part of the landmark group is very much a legitimate and important enough company to warrant a mention on wikipedia. Please advise on how I can change the write up to make it nuetral in voice (although that was my intention the first time around) to avoid deletion. It was even voted superbrand in 2010 (only among 40 brands in the UAE chosen including household names like nike, coca-cola etc. I believe that a page on wikipedia is necessary for this brand, kindly advise on edits required. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
* See ] and for both this and the other artticle of yours that was deleted ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
== added new convenience link == |
|
|
|
:::October JzG sighting at ]. Does my heart good. --] (]) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using ], and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020. |
|
|
::::I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am. |
|
|
::::I thought I'd drop in :-) ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! ] (]) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Glad you dropped by! ] (]) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. ]] 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If Guy doesn't look at ] real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - ]the ] 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Misplaced Pages. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Misplaced Pages disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Very happy see the little JzG! ] ] ] 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC). |
|
|
:::::Hah! Good to see you're still around! ] 20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. ''']] (])''' 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Welcome indeed! Just came across your signature ]. It's always great to run in to another 'old-timer'. Hope you're well, ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
` |
|
Hi, |
|
|
I have created ], please delete it if you find it inappropriate. |
|
|
Best, ] (]) 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Doesn't that section also cover non-talk user space? All non-article space, in fact. ] (]) 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It would be fair to say that Misplaced Pages has no safe haven for violating ]. Having handled a lot of tickets where Misplaced Pages has been abused as an attack vector I can only applaud that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::(ec) I choose BLPTALK simply because I consider that to be the most common scenario, it is also fairly easy to remember / infer. I considered BLPNONARTICLE, but... |
|
|
::] for Zero tolerance perhaps? ] (]) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
.jpg)
