| Revision as of 13:29, 16 July 2009 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Unarchiving an archived page← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:21, 16 July 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 72h) to User talk:Ian13/Archive12.Next edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| __NOINDEX__ | __NOINDEX__ | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Bradley Stoke == | |||
| Hi Ian. I give up with the Bradley Stoke page. Could you have a look please? Bunch more problems today. ] (]) 16:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a tiny bit out of hand then. Done, ]] 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Ian - yes, very much got out of hand. Thanks for stepping in - much appreciated! Thanks for pointing me to the right place to report abuse etc - wasn't sure where to send it. I know now :) ] (]) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Email - The Joker == | |||
| While changing my username at ] from ] to ] to honor the late ], a vandal user stole the name before it could be changed and sent emails to other users, I am not aware of the contents of the emails, but I was notified of this at my request at CUN. The username was then usurped. I have no connection to the emails.--] (]) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your reply. I was rather puzzled since you seem to be an editor in good standing. I'll send you a copy if you like! Cheers, ]] 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure but I don't have the e-mail option turned on. Could you post it on my talk page?--] (]) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm guessing "the joker" failed in his attempt. --] (]) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can only assume so :) ]] 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == You around again? == | == You around again? == | ||
| Line 70: | Line 56: | ||
| == Deleting pages == | == Deleting pages == | ||
| i came to wikipedia today to look up a model named Brooke Banx to find that there had been an article but it had been deleted because the person was not significant. i don't quite understand that. the very fact that i wanted to look her up makes her significant, no? does the criteria for speedy deletion consider the number of page views? surely i'm not the only one to ever look her up. i realise i myself am not significant enough to merit an article--tho my user page could be considered one--but i kind of thought wp was a compendium of everything anyone knows that anyone else might want to know. ] (]) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | i came to wikipedia today to look up a model named Brooke Banx to find that there had been an article but it had been deleted because the person was not significant. i don't quite understand that. the very fact that i wanted to look her up makes her significant, no? does the criteria for speedy deletion consider the number of page views? surely i'm not the only one to ever look her up. i realise i myself am not significant enough to merit an article--tho my user page could be considered one--but i kind of thought wp was a compendium of everything anyone knows that anyone else might want to know. ] (]) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Hello. I understand that you refer to ] I deleted nearly a year ago. The article was actually deleted, as stated in the log, because it "didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". This is different to what you suggest. It was never debated as to their significance (and I wish to make no statement on it, as I know nothing about them), but instead the article that was in place didn't make ''any'' claim of significance. No restriction was ever made on the recreation of an article, and you are welcome to do so provided it meets current policy and guidelines. Page views are not considered because it is merely removal of an article because it doesn't meet a very basic standard, with anyone welcome to rewrite. Userpages are not subject to the same policies as articles, and notability standards do not apply. ]] 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | :Hello. I understand that you refer to ] I deleted nearly a year ago. The article was actually deleted, as stated in the log, because it "didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". This is different to what you suggest. It was never debated as to their significance (and I wish to make no statement on it, as I know nothing about them), but instead the article that was in place didn't make ''any'' claim of significance. No restriction was ever made on the recreation of an article, and you are welcome to do so provided it meets current policy and guidelines. Page views are not considered because it is merely removal of an article because it doesn't meet a very basic standard, with anyone welcome to rewrite. Userpages are not subject to the same policies as articles, and notability standards do not apply. ]] 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:21, 16 July 2009
|
|
You around again?
I've just started being active again. Spotted you editing a watched page I have. You back? Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exams for the year finish next week, but yea I'm trying to be more involved again! You're still here, which represents quite a long time. I think a reread of all the policies will be in order soon. Ian¹³/t 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wise move. I guess the five pillars are the same. Anyway, have fun Wikipediaing. Computerjoe's talk 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
You added the "reportedly dead" stuff to the article which I think is good. However I don't think you should have changed the banner or added the "died" bit in the infobox as they seem to suggest it isn't actually "reportedly". Alan16 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't add the infobox or the banner bit. However, as with all events, we are an encyclopedia and report whatever has the most evidence. We can't verify anything other than through reliable news sources (else, everyone is only reportedly dead), and I felt the LA Times to be suitable reliable. Yours, Ian¹³/t 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- BBC, CNN, Sky, AP - these are a hell of a lot more reliable than the LA Times or TMZ and they are not confirming it. The majority of evidence says unconfirmed. I just think that adding the info to the infobox and the banner changing are a bit pre-emptive and suggest it is confirmed. Could you perhaps remove it from the infobox or add some sort of note? Alan16 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to add {{current event}} to the top, but the BBC News 24 confirmed it at 22.44 UTC, and therefore I have left it as is. Ian¹³/t 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Fair enough - I was fairly certain that he is dead, but until it was confirmed I thought it went against the "reportedly". Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC).
Danny Wallace
Hi Ian, I have added in a new photograph to replace the image of Danny Wallace that you took at an event last week. This was at the request of Danny, who likes the picture, but thinks it is a bit too blurry. The picture now on his wikipedia is his official photo. Message me with any questions. Randomwiki (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Image permission dispute adressed via. email - awaiting response. Ian¹³/t 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleting pages
i came to wikipedia today to look up a model named Brooke Banx to find that there had been an article but it had been deleted because the person was not significant. i don't quite understand that. the very fact that i wanted to look her up makes her significant, no? does the criteria for speedy deletion consider the number of page views? surely i'm not the only one to ever look her up. i realise i myself am not significant enough to merit an article--tho my user page could be considered one--but i kind of thought wp was a compendium of everything anyone knows that anyone else might want to know. DyNama (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I understand that you refer to an article I deleted nearly a year ago. The article was actually deleted, as stated in the log, because it "didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". This is different to what you suggest. It was never debated as to their significance (and I wish to make no statement on it, as I know nothing about them), but instead the article that was in place didn't make any claim of significance. No restriction was ever made on the recreation of an article, and you are welcome to do so provided it meets current policy and guidelines. Page views are not considered because it is merely removal of an article because it doesn't meet a very basic standard, with anyone welcome to rewrite. Userpages are not subject to the same policies as articles, and notability standards do not apply. Ian¹³/t 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Unarchiving an archived page
Your edit comment that removing Talk:Ambigram/Archive 3 was "routine (non-controversial) cleanup" is simply false. It was properly archived, as people can and do do on a regular basis. Please do not take such an action again, and do not leave deceptive edit comments in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted your action due to selective removal of comments by another user. Discussion continued on the article talk page. Ian¹³/t 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. DreamGuy (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)