Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 31 December 2009

Proposed deletion of Vanessa George

The article Vanessa George has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NW (Talk) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Vanessa George

I have nominated Vanessa George, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vanessa George. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NW (Talk) 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass AfD of pirate radio stations

Please remember to notify those who have been creators or major contributors to these articles. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of interweb

Be aware that interweb does not fall under the auspices of CSD R3, as I explained to the first deleting admin, who restored it. Take it to WP:RFD if you have to, but be aware that it will probably be retained for the same reason that it is not a valid speedy. In the meantime, I would recommend you not keep restoring the CSD tag.--Father Goose (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rapido there is no reason to delete it as it does not suit any Speedy Delete tags. It is infact a legitimate page created by an experienced user, for you to add that tag is in itself Bad Faith and shows your inexperience. You accused ME of bad faith yet you failed to inform the User who created the article of your speedy delete tag and failed to list your reasons on the talk page. Bewarned though if you re-add the speedy delete tag or redirect it to nonsense pages i will take action against you for vandalism. ZooPro 01:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE when i refer to your inexperience above i am refering to your speedy delete experience not your wikipedia experience.ZooPro 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You failed to inform me of the reasoning for the revertion, other than saying "rubbish" and "vandalism". In my opinion, it is a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion being a 'misnomer which is implausible and not common'. Your reactions were completely an assumption of bad faith, see WP:CIV, section Avoiding incivility. Not sure what you are talking about inexperience or experience; or the relevence of that, as well as threatening to take action for supposed "vandalism", other than an attempt to belittle and intimidate me (see Identifying incivility on the same WP:CIV page). I would ask you desist from such activity. Rapido (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not intimidating you i am stating fact. I am not the only editor to do this. As for the CSD i suggest you read that very carefully, for someone who likes to throw around links and policies you dont seem to have a good grasp on them. I dont need to inform you of a revert either, if i informed every editor i reverted i would be talking to half the worlds IP's, however it is in the CSD that you inform the editor who created the article or who is a major contributer. You are the editor who has gone on the attack not me. ZooPro 06:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure I did inform the creator of the redirect with one of the CSD warning templates, but since I have no idea who the creator was (that version has since been deleted) I cannot provide the link to you the talk page. Again I would ask you to stop accusing me of anything you cannot prove, I wasn't the one talking about "nonsense pages" and threatening to "take action against you for vandalism", so be careful what you say. Rapido (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Living Next Door To Alice

Can you please state how I have NOT cited sources? I'm giving a track listing! Anyone who gets one of these CDs will be able to verify what I've put. --Cexycy (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A track listing along with a load of other information, both uncited, it means I cannot find sources or references for any of the information. If you provide the references, the information can stay. Otherwise it will just get removed, because it could be misinformation, see WP:PROVEIT. Rapido (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish! As I said it is quite easy to see where I got the information from, its the CDs illustrated in the article which people can obtain for further information or verification. --Cexycy (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. +Angr 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken the matter up with Dispute Resolution, because so far neither you or other editors have discussed the reasoning for the reversions, or made any attempt to listen to my opinions and respond, and currently this appears to be an WP:NPV matter. Also I don't appreciate the threats to block due to my "disruption", I would advise you to look at WP:CIV. Rapido (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning was given: the same spelling convention is found is Monday, one, son, some, love, etc. etc. etc. You may not be able to predict the spelling from the pronunciation or vice versa, but given both, the correspondence is clear. If we listed every name whose spelling was not completely predictable, the list would include half the names in the English-speaking world. The list is for counter-intuitive spellings: ones where even after knowing both you scratch your head. kwami (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation isn't really clear. About half the names on the list have some sort of "correspondence" if given not only the spelling and pronunciation, but also have a huge book of all possible pronunciations for particular letter combinations. It looks more like a list of favourite place names for the regular contributors. Rapido (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange behaviour

Why do you seem to want to delete evey article that I have had anything to do with? It makes you look very silly, especially when some have been up for some time and there have been no problems. You don't even bother to check before you nominate them either. By looking at a few other discussions where you have been involved it looks like you are behaving in a similar matter with others. Uncharted albums? Have you really looked into this? --Cexycy (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)