Revision as of 04:24, 24 January 2008 editKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Pee-Wee's Christmas Special← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:01, 24 January 2008 edit undoHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →Pee-Wee's Christmas Special: this isn't rightNext edit → | ||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
::::No, it is not my personal preferred version. It is the redirected that was not endorsed by the supposedly consensus. I spent enough time reading the linked discussion, and found no such consensus on the matter, which was why I restored the legitimate page. Regards, - ] (]) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | ::::No, it is not my personal preferred version. It is the redirected that was not endorsed by the supposedly consensus. I spent enough time reading the linked discussion, and found no such consensus on the matter, which was why I restored the legitimate page. Regards, - ] (]) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::I think you misunderstand the concept of protection. I'll sleep on it, and figure out where to go from here.] (]) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | :::::I think you misunderstand the concept of protection. I'll sleep on it, and figure out where to go from here.] (]) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::::PeaceNT, I completely agree with Kww on this one. The protection policy says that "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page." To make changes for which there is a clear consensus, not to revert changes for which there isn't one. They're not the same thing. Please consider reverting, even though, just so you know, I consider the version it's on now to be the "right" version. ] ] 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:01, 24 January 2008
User talk:PeaceNT/Archive23/Header
Invite
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
Message posted at 23:34, 6 January 2008.
Fly (artist)
No one who voted delete brought up WHY they think this artist is not notable. Completely lame that this article went to delete. Interview with the artist about her work spanning decades can be read here: http://www.razorcake.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7467
Just because wikipedians have never heard of someone, does not mean they don't meet wiki guidelines.
Messwemade (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. Take your time!! I would not need userfy as I had edited and re-edited this article to meet notability and wiki requirements months before the user set it to delete. Also, FYI: just before the user requested deletion, they had put up a "notability" tag and so I added a link to the above referenced interview and asked kindly that the notability tag be removed. Instead of reading the interview and coming back to me on the article discussion page with further talk about the biography and its notability, the next time I logged into wikipedia the article has been nominated for deletion, voted upon and deleted. This user did not even reference the discussions I had with them on the article talk page in the deletion remarks or vote...they simply nominated for deletion and voted "Delete". This is deletion vandalism. But anyway, take your time, and thank you for reviewing this article for me. You are very kind! Messwemade (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have sent one :) - Zeibura 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Cream Legbar
Hi, I was just about to decline the speedy because, well, it wasn't nonsense. It was describing a breed of chicken. It needed a bit of formatting. See . Do you object to my restoring it and formatting it? Woody (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I had to look twice at it. It looked like a joke, but looking deeper, you could see it was well-intentioned. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Zeibura
I don't mind: it wasn't necessary to ask me anyway. :) Acalamari 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: AN
I really doubt. :) @pple complain 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Lying from You
Please be careful not to interfere with a C&P move fix, I was in the middle of fixing it when you came and moved the page, and as you know it is pretty easy to make things worse in Cut and Paste repairs. Make sure to check if someone is already doing it please. Prodego 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- When you restored the page you kept two revisions that should have stayed deleted (or would have made the history inconsistent). Those were the addition of the Rfrom template, and the moved message. It keeps the history more consistent to remove those, and doing so will not cause a GFDL problem in this case. Prodego 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
Thanks for getting back to me! I do feel I'm learning quickly and do plan to stay involved, though I'll have to restrict my time as I've got lists of other things waiting to get done! Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: My little mess at Santa Anna
Perfect. Thank you! --barneca (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Pee-Wee's Christmas Special
Any particular reason that motivated you to edit the article during a period of full protection?Kww (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the point of protection usually is to encourage discussion instead of endorsing a version of the page. Using it to your advantage to establish your preferred version is rather pointy. TTN (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I saw a report at ANI, reviewed the edits, was convinced that the redirection was unwarranted, hence the reversion. You're welcome to continue your discussion until it effectively reaches consensus, then I'm sure your edit wouldn't cause the problems that it does at present. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't think it takes an extreme case to warrant editing an article to match your preferred version while it is in the protected state?Kww (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not my personal preferred version. It is the redirected that was not endorsed by the supposedly consensus. I spent enough time reading the linked discussion, and found no such consensus on the matter, which was why I restored the legitimate page. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand the concept of protection. I'll sleep on it, and figure out where to go from here.Kww (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- PeaceNT, I completely agree with Kww on this one. The protection policy says that "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page." To make changes for which there is a clear consensus, not to revert changes for which there isn't one. They're not the same thing. Please consider reverting, even though, just so you know, I consider the version it's on now to be the "right" version. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand the concept of protection. I'll sleep on it, and figure out where to go from here.Kww (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not my personal preferred version. It is the redirected that was not endorsed by the supposedly consensus. I spent enough time reading the linked discussion, and found no such consensus on the matter, which was why I restored the legitimate page. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't think it takes an extreme case to warrant editing an article to match your preferred version while it is in the protected state?Kww (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I saw a report at ANI, reviewed the edits, was convinced that the redirection was unwarranted, hence the reversion. You're welcome to continue your discussion until it effectively reaches consensus, then I'm sure your edit wouldn't cause the problems that it does at present. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)