Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
HOW DARE YOU CLOSE THE AFD IN THAT MANNER IT IS WRONG. Sorry, only kidding ... just thought I'd scare you. :) Quick note - I was about to close the AFD myself and got edit conflicted with you, coming to the same conclusion. Good call. Proto///type12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well reasoned closure, thank you. On a little historical note, the "hot air" wasn't a backlash against ALS's own involvement (which came very late in the game), it was the result of a "wow moment" during the 1st nomination after the two outside sources were introduced and the mood swung from (Speedy) Delete to Keep, both, as has been amply discussed, with their own problems. In any case, it is good to see closing administrators taking the weight of the arguments into account. ~ trialsanderrors17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Television interference (radio transmitter interference)
Hi, please could I have access to the wikipedia code for the page which has been deleted. I think that the removal of the page was not a good idea, EMC is poorly treated where on wikipedia and AM UHF TV is the most common and best example of how a EMC problem due to high field strengths is investigated and solved. I will attempt to recycle the content into a few other places.
While the article could be viewed by some as a how to guide, it is firstly an explanation of how this type of EMC problem occurs and is resolved. If you read the articles on gold-fish you would gain plenty of information which would assist you in setting up a tank (and keeping the fish alive), so should the pages on gold fish which explain how the nitrogen chemistry in the tank works be removed ? (I think not).Cadmium
I only closed the discussion, but I do agree that the articles amounted to how-to guides. Some articles inevitably include instructive information, but it should be presented in context and in an encyclopaedic way. Much of television interference (radio transmitter interference) was written in a second-person perspective - asking the reader questions, giving direct instructions, etc. --Sam Blanning16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me have a second chance to have a go at the article. I know less about wikipedia markup and the finer points than I know about the things I write about so I will let you know when I have finished rewriting the article into a more general EMC article. Also as you requested I will add the {{db-owner}} tag to it. Where should I add such a tag (at the top or the bottom ?).Cadmium
Either, though the top is best so admins can see the rationale for deletion (i.e it's an unwanted subpage of yours) at a glance. If you're going to move the article back into articlespace at some point, you don't really need to delete the article - it's best to just move the article into articlespace using the move button, which you should see at the top of the page. After you move the page, User:Cadmium/Television interference (radio transmitter interference) will become a redirect, which is perfectly fine. --Sam Blanning18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Myrtone -- 05:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Either post on a general discussion board (WP:AN etc), or pick a single person to ask and ask him. If you have so little confidence in my ability to answer that you must ask the same question of four other people, I see no reason to answer. And what has JoW to do with this? --Sam Blanning08:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Let me take this opportunity to express my thanks for all the help you are giving me, both in revertions and in blockings. I particularly appreciate that today, you have reverted edits the Troll made under anon IP's, which must mean that you have all those pages on your watchlist. It's really kind of you to take the trouble. Best regards, ImpuMozhi14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, Scabbers the Rat has been reporting them to AIV, and after I block them I rollback all their edits - in a user's contributions list, admins have a 'rollback' button next to every edit that is the current edit on the page. As I'm using Firefox I just hold down Ctrl and click on every single entry, and they all get reverted in a few seconds. So it's not as much trouble as it must look, but thanks anyway :-) --Sam Blanning14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Major18
I blocked him for 31 hours for the legal threat he made and also for impersonating another user. I didn't feel like there was enough (for now) for more than that. I think I'll request a CU. --Woohookitty14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No objection here. Certainly his edits were extremely, to use the technical term, stupid, but I was holding off in the hope that the edits to User talk:Pak21 might be part of a mellowing-out. I doubt we're missing out on any potential FAs due to his block. --Sam Blanning14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. BGW contacted me about deleting his user/talk pages. I see you removed a request from him for this... any reason not to delete them? William M. Connolley07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Guess you're not a vandal. :) But I have reverted you're edits to the above article, see my edit summary for the detail why. Thanks! And don't do it again! :D — The King of Kings 13:34 July 06 '06
Fair enough. I guess I'll just have to revert people making the link again. Although, I can probably make a good (or at least fairly decent) article in the future. Cheers! — The King of Kings 13:41 July 06 '06
160.94.224.179
Re: your AIV removal - Yes, but only for 31 h. The IP has the habit to wait and repeatedly return after several days, so I did request a longer block. Femto14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
We're butting heads here. I was trying to update and now I got an edit conflict because you are in the process of updating too. Please finish now you started (the page needs a refreshment and I've been out of the loop for a long while here), but next time, please wait and give me a chance to finish. If I archive, I usually finish the job... ;) - Mgm|20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for getting in ahead of you, but you didn't put the big red 'Page is being refreshed notice' on, otherwise I certainly wouldn't have started to refresh myself. I see you've changed the Austrian entry - I couldn't see what was so crucial about the rink being in Vienna, myself, which is why I only added the word 'Austrian'. --Sam Blanning21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Back when I was refreshing this thing on a daily basis, the refresh notice didn't exist yet. Where can I find it? - Mgm|21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely recent (but a very good thing - I've started to do a refresh only to find someone else had jumped in before myself). It's in the 'Refreshment' section under the yellow 'Minimum time to next refresh' box, currently commented out. When you start to do an update you just remove the comment tags. --Sam Blanning21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I'm even going to create some articles with the summer holidays approaching... - Mgm|21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There's only two things to disambiguate that I'm aware of - Banu and Banu (Arabic). I've gone ahead and replaced the link to the disambiguation at the top of Banu with one to Banu (arabic), and vice versa on Banu (arabic). If there's a third article Banu somewhere, just go ahead and recreate the disambiguation page. --Sam Blanning08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
hi, the above metadata template has been recreated again (its one you speedily deleted previously). Could it be speedy deleted again? Thanks. Niz12:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's much more appropriate, thanks for taking care of it. I was going to put an indef block on, but wasn't 100% sure - that was before I saw that post, which makes it definitly needed. Thanks. -- Natalya13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a perfectly fine article and the fact that it wasn't chosen for DYK doesn't reflect on its quality one bit. I passed over it during one update simply because I'd already chosen two history items, and it's more or less a requirement that we don't have more than two articles from the same subject area or country if at all possible (that's my opinion at least, you can ask on WT:DYK if any of the other updating admins had other reasons). There just weren't enough updates - sorry, it happens, and we do try to avoid it. --Sam Blanning17:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sam. I need your help and some understanding here for a moment. Busansky is NOT a LESSER candidate in FL9. She is the LONE Democrat. No primary. No nothing. She's it. The FL9 race is being watched nationwide. She is one of only 20 or so DCCC "Red to Blue" candidates. Additionally, her opponent's Wiki page is still up and running. His name is Gus Bilirakis and he IS in a primary right now. I am requesting you reconsider and allow the page to return, preferably with limited protection against vandalism. The article was heavily revised to conform to NPOV guidelines. If you won't, then I would request that you at least take down her opponent's page in the interest of fairness because his page would also be a candidate for deletion under the same guidelines. Please reply when you can. User: JohnTampa
I'm not 100% familiar with America's political system, but Bilirakis is a current member of the Florida House of Representatives, and has concrete notability based on that, whereas looking at Busansky's article before deletion, she holds no post with an equivlanet claim to notability - the central claim to notability in the AfD depended on a position she does not currently hold. If you want to nominate Bilirakis' article for deletion, you're very welcome to do so. If you want Busansky's article's deletion reviewed, go to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --Sam Blanning21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Just curious
Per the closing comments in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson, could you clarify "reasonable period of time" so that in itself it doesn't also become an argument? Thanks. Ste4k00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest engaging in discussion with the regular editors of the article, if you aren't already, in pursuit of satisfaction as to the article's verifiability. If you feel that the discussion isn't going anywhere, you should feel free to nominate it again in order to get outside opinions. Apart from that, I would suggest waiting until at least two weeks from now, maybe even a month (the sky isn't falling tomorrow), and explaining fully why the result of the previous AfD wasn't satisfactory, in order to ward off 'speedy keep, we went through this already' opinions. --Sam Blanning00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds fine, a month or so is good. I agree completely about the "sky falling" perception about articles in general. I'd also just like to mention that this was a "double" AfD and the second article still has it's tag on it. "Endeavor Academy". Ste4k00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
