User talk:WritersCramp - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WritersCramp (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 11 September 2010 (→Admin help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:46, 11 September 2010 by WritersCramp (talk | contribs) (→Admin help)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archive 1

Articles for deletion nomination of Conquest (military)

I have nominated Conquest (military), 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/Conquest (military). 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. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not too cramped up yet, but when you wrote up an article on MILITARY conquest, I supposed you mean MILITARY as in NOT the OPPOSITE of MILITARY, right? I apologize for the all-caps, but it seems that you and Colonel Warden are having a hard time telling a term and its opposite apart. So yes, I am going to delete the information about NON-MILITARY conquest one more time from the article, from reasons which should be abundantly clear--you might want to look at Law of excluded middle. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Field Naturalist

Hi. This article came up for review today at the copyright problems noticeboard. I appreciate your efforts to address the copyright problems in this article, but I'm afraid that we can't justify reuse of non-free content simply by inline attribution. We are permitted to use brief excerpts of copyrighted materials if these are plainly marked in quotation marks or by block quotations, but it is difficult to briefly excerpt from an original that is only one sentence long. :) I've rewritten the material to avoid copyright concerns. In the future, please be careful that all content you introduce is written in your own words as per copyright policy (or properly handled in accordance with non-free content guidelines), unless it is from a source that is verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed with Misplaced Pages. Even when it's a small amount, we still can't copy non-free content (as this is: "© The Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club"). Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 15:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Christian soldier

I have nominated Christian soldier, 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/Christian soldier. 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. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

I am looking for help from an administrator!

Please advise the editors not to delete the article Christian soldier, while it is under discussion for deletion. I have warned the editors on their discussion page. Thank you. After posting this +tag an editor deleted it from my discussion page. Would you please block their account, I have had problems in the passed with this guy. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They are not deleting the article, but editing it, which is permitted. I'll note that you have now reverted the article three times, reverting two different contributors. Please be mindful of the three revert rule.

As for the editor who removed the request, perhaps he believed that his reply would clarify the situation for you so that you would no longer require administrative assistance. Regardless, we do not block contributors for such behavior without evidence of systematic disruption. --Moonriddengirl 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi WritersCramp. I think you should let this debate about Christian soldier play itself out. There are lots of people involved in the AFD, and a dab page isn't "vandalism". You can always come back to it and flesh it out when you have more academic sources, etc. I see you had a similar issue at Conquest (military); these debates usually turn out ok.

Also, why did you used "vandalised" in this edit summary? You reverted back to your own edit of 31 May 2009. btw, date delinking is not a sane battle to get involved in; see WP:ARBDATE) Are you sure that all edits since then are inaccurate? Could you check them to be sure, and restore any good information that may have been added in that period.

John Vandenberg 09:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Armageddon theology. You have reverted my edits, calling them "vandalism", whereas in fact they are wholly consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. StAnselm (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Convention on Cluster Munitions

There is no new content in your section. All the facts being presented are already covering in the header of the article, which is a much more logical place for them to be. In other words, the article was already updated to reflect this information, and there is no reason to tack it onto the end. If you want to add your references (which are largely redundant, but you might add them anyway) please find the appropriate places in the existing text. Dragons flight (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase

On 23 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's DNA

There is currently no consensus for inclusion of this; see Talk page, but feel free to pitch in. Meanwhile, Daily Mail as a reliable source?. Rodhull andemu 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Armageddon theology for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Armageddon theology, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. St Anselm (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Armageddon theology for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Admin help

I am looking for help from an administrator!

Please advise the editors that have voted to delete or redirect the article Armageddon theology, to stop editing the article while it is under discussion for deletion. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the whole point of adding a rescue tag to an article is so that people will come and edit the article to firmly establish notability, etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree -:) WritersCramp (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Would you please stop the editors that voted "delete" from editing the article and +tag spamming until a consensus is built. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid editors can't be barred from editing an article simply because of the opinion they voiced in an AfD. If they are being disruptive, that's a problem, but adding maintenance templates to reveal issues in the article which could be improved (say by others who showed up because it's been tagged for rescue) is in general encouraged. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi +tag spamming is not improving the article. Most of those +tags are not required as the inter-wiki link is the citation. WritersCramp (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

From what you wrote to User:Dream Focus. I might need to direct you to WP:Canvassing. You can get in big trouble doing it and I am sure you didn't mean to do anything wrong. Thank you. Jhenderson 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. But the only thing I know User:Dream Focus can do is vote Keep or put a rescue tag which I see has already been done. As long as you are not informing him so he would vote keep when you know he is going to vote keep. Jhenderson 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)