Misplaced Pages

User talk:Coredesat

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E. Brown (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 10 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:28, 10 February 2007 by E. Brown (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Administrator-tan

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Coredesat/Archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Coredesat.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

User:Coredesat/ArchiveBox

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #9

The February issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NCIS episodes

I have discovered that List of NCIS episodes links to articles about every single episode (there are many). None establish notability, none have references, all contain (at most) plot summary and quotes (plus a sprinkling of original research-type observations). I tagged a few of them before I thought there must be a better way to go about getting these AfD posted and merged or whatever. I'm not really sure. As you have been a pundit in similar areas of concern in the past I am hoping you might want to take a look at the assemblage and handle it somehow. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage redirect (again)

Sorry to be a bother, but may I ask for your assistance again on this protected redirect decision? Thanks! Sdsds 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost
Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Misplaced Pages in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for extending the semi-prot on my userpage. Appreciate it :) - Alison 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to concerns

To respond to your concerns about me, let me note that I was an admin for two and a half years and never did the things you think I would do. Everyking 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Windizupdate

Why did you remove this article without a vote? It's the only well known alternative to windows update in a browser... 194.81.80.52 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I believe you closed this in error

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination), where you said:

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a supermajority was in favor of the proposal. Many of those opposed indicated it was not a really big issue for them. One of the opposing votes indicated that it was important to ensure the outcome is the same as the Philippine article, which closed as delete. The later votes were by in large all delete/merge, indicating to me that a concensus had been arrived at through the discussion. Please reconsider your decision. My understanding of the concensus policy is that these things indicates concensus was achieved for delete/merge.

82.6% of votes were in favor of deleting/merging

  1. Delete Jerry lavoie 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Delete Apostrophe 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Merge Flakeloaf 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merge Tuvok 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Delete Otto4711 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete Hobbeslover 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Delete Shirahadasha 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak delete SYSS Mouse 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Delete Agent 86 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Merge/Delete Howard the Duck 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Delete/Merge Moreschi 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Merge/Delete Folantin 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Delete Sefringle 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Merge/Delete Tito Pao 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Delete/Merge Vsion 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Delete が... 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Delete/Merge MrDolomite | Talk 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Delete Kevin Ray 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Weak keep Night Gyr 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This vote was actually merge then delete but he put weak keep in bold. I asked him to correct the discrepancy and he said the bold part was not important. Jerry lavoie 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

17.4% of the votes were for keeping

  1. Keep Eluchil404 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Keep Shrumster 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Talk 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep Christopher Sundita 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep Siroxo 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak keep T. Anthony 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerry lavoie 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought deletion review was a process to review a decision to delete an article. If it is for either type of review, then my most-recent change at the top of the AfD is probably inappropriate, as might be my putting the above comments on the afd talk page. If this is the case, would you please fix it for me? I meant no harm. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States Presidential trivia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jerry lavoie 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

If it's allowed under US law, how can Misplaced Pages be sued? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

What the frick? This discussion is the first one I've had on the subject and you block me from editing my user page for a frickin week. What the hell? Warnings are wonderful things. I'm not staging a rebellion. I'm not doing it to spite you. I think I should be allowed to engage in a diologue with persons in disagreement with my actions before punitive measures are taken. Am trying very hard to be civil right now and am finding it tough. Of all times you guys pick two o'clock in the morning to start this. I would think it common courtesy to wait until a more reasonable timeframe to bring this up, but apparently I'm mistaken. If I can't breath humanity into my page because of lawsuit paranoia then Misplaced Pages doesn't deserve my respect. I read a story once about a surgeon who refused to operate on a person because he was afraid of getting sued and that person died. Does Misplaced Pages really want to put itself into a category with those people. I am absolutely furious. F*** this, I'm going to bed. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 07:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)