| Revision as of 11:47, 4 March 2015 editFabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk | contribs)625 edits →Nomination of Sussex Ambulance Service for deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:10, 17 March 2015 edit undoKamek98 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,213 edits →Request reopen: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
| {{Wikimedia UK Editathon invite |title = Celebrating ]'s film ] at , Kennington||description = This is a free event, one of a series of ] which ] organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations.|when = Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm|where = 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH|contact = Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsett{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK.|editathon = Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)}} | {{Wikimedia UK Editathon invite |title = Celebrating ]'s film ] at , Kennington||description = This is a free event, one of a series of ] which ] organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations.|when = Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm|where = 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH|contact = Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsett{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK.|editathon = Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)}} | ||
| {{WMUK Meetup invite |area= London |meetup= ] |description= Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome |when= Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm |where=Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP |signature=] ] (]) 11:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | {{WMUK Meetup invite |area= London |meetup= ] |description= Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome |when= Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm |where=Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP |signature=] ] (]) 11:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
| == Request reopen == | |||
| I request that the move request on ] be reopened. I have been told that starting another RM is not an unacceptable move during a Move Review on the last RM (which I wasn't too sure what it did so it closed as MR was not what I thought it was) and it not disruptive in the future. Yes, there have been six RM on that page. But have you considered bias? Considered facts? Did you weight down the evidence? | |||
| The evidence I provided has clearly demonstrated (unlike the before RM, where I and other users failed to provide reliable evidence for the RM) a reasonable proposal this time which should be brought to tables once again. Wouldn't your close, which I understand another RM can be frustrating but sometimes it's for a good reason, be disruptive as it prevents reasoning, correctness, and further justice <small>(]</small>) from being brought forth? | |||
| There isn't anything stating anything about a year from what I know. Your claim that nobody should have to state the same thing again. You're right, nobody should have to do that, but what if they didn't state the same thing this time? The evidence brought forth has been gathered differently and more efficiently and more reliable this time. Most people in prior discussions claimed COMMONNAME as the reason for the opposition. Well, this time, the claim COMMONNAME supports the move as I have brought ngram statistics that prove the prior discussions were wrong and thus I have contested it once again. Yeah, that sounds negative, but I mean it in the most righteous way if that makes sense. I'm not simply refusing to let it go, I'm just trying to re-approach the subject again more appropriately. I have waited a month (considering prior discussions and debating whether or not I should try again, too see if it was reasonable) so how is that disruptive? | |||
| And you didn't even let it have a chance. | |||
| Please hear me out and consider re-opening it. Thank you. ] 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:10, 17 March 2015
 Archives |
|---|
Welcome to my talk page.
Please note that I prefer to have substantial discussions about individual articles on their own talk pages rather than here, so that all editors of those articles can see them and contribute.
Please also note that I prefer conversations to be in one place. I will reply to comments where they are left and, if necessary, transfer comments back to the original talk page where the conversation was initiated.
To leave a new message click here.
Nomination of Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Doctors galore
Hi T. Great to see your name again. Fanboy splitting hairs time over your post here - Hurndall was playing the same Dr that Hartnell had. Hurt played a different one from the others. Just one fans opinion of course and I certainly see where you are coming from. Apologies for intruding into your evening (my time anyway) with this but it does give me the chance to leave the following. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Merry Christmas! |
| Merry Christmas to you and best wishes for your 2015 MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the virtual card. I see what you mean but that's an in-universe distinction and the box should be out-of-universe. Otherwise you might as well add the Doctor's additional faces from the Brain of Morbius! Timrollpickering (talk)
Winnie...
Hi Tim.
I started a new section in the Churchill talk-page regarding the name change, and would welcome your thoughts on it.
Merry Christmas to you. Or Happy Holidays, if you prefer!
Gnu.
Gnu Ordure (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:'Iolani School alumni
A tag has been placed on Category:'Iolani School alumni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Bazj (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Sussex Ambulance Service for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sussex Ambulance Service is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sussex Ambulance Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
- Please note that the AfD was created a month ago but that the nominator didn't do it right, so it's only made its first appearance on a log page just now. Thanks. --Finngall 14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Editathon and Meetup invitations
 | Editathon Invitation Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations.. When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH. Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsett Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015) |
wikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK. | Meetup Invitation Hi Timrollpickering, You are cordially invited to an opportunity to meet active Wikimedians in and around London face-to-face. Description: Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome. When? Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm. Where? Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP. Further details and check in: London 91 Hope to see you there, Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Request reopen
I request that the move request on Talk:Star Wars (film) be reopened. I have been told that starting another RM is not an unacceptable move during a Move Review on the last RM (which I wasn't too sure what it did so it closed as MR was not what I thought it was) and it not disruptive in the future. Yes, there have been six RM on that page. But have you considered bias? Considered facts? Did you weight down the evidence?
The evidence I provided has clearly demonstrated (unlike the before RM, where I and other users failed to provide reliable evidence for the RM) a reasonable proposal this time which should be brought to tables once again. Wouldn't your close, which I understand another RM can be frustrating but sometimes it's for a good reason, be disruptive as it prevents reasoning, correctness, and further justice (I don't mean revenge by justice) from being brought forth?
There isn't anything stating anything about a year from what I know. Your claim that nobody should have to state the same thing again. You're right, nobody should have to do that, but what if they didn't state the same thing this time? The evidence brought forth has been gathered differently and more efficiently and more reliable this time. Most people in prior discussions claimed COMMONNAME as the reason for the opposition. Well, this time, the claim COMMONNAME supports the move as I have brought ngram statistics that prove the prior discussions were wrong and thus I have contested it once again. Yeah, that sounds negative, but I mean it in the most righteous way if that makes sense. I'm not simply refusing to let it go, I'm just trying to re-approach the subject again more appropriately. I have waited a month (considering prior discussions and debating whether or not I should try again, too see if it was reasonable) so how is that disruptive?
And you didn't even let it have a chance.
Please hear me out and consider re-opening it. Thank you. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)