Misplaced Pages

User talk:RMHED/Archive 3

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.
< User talk:RMHED

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMHED (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 8 September 2008 (Robert David Steele: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:28, 8 September 2008 by RMHED (talk | contribs) (Robert David Steele: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  • RfA tracker
This is a readout of the current RfAs.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
  • Old PROD
This is a list of deletable PRODs.
Category:Expired proposed deletions
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TNX-Man 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laurence Baxter. Please feel free to comment. Risker (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge special access scheme

Could you give reasons why you think that Cambridge special access scheme should not be deleted? You have not done so in the edit summary, the article's talk page, or my talk page, after removing my PROD from the article. A.C. Norman (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • An earlier Prod by Betacommand was removed by an IP. Once a Prod has been removed by an editor it shouldn't be re-added. Just procedural that's all, AfD is the way to go now. RMHED (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Robert David Steele

In looking at my section which you deleted, I came to the conclusion that much of my language violated the NPV rule. I have reworked the section, now named "Misplaced Pages Activism" with an eye towards keeping it neutral. I did keep the factual elements with their accompanying references. I'm a bit confused about why they are "poorly sourced". I am providing links directly back to the pages containing his comments, actions, etc. Could you take a look at the section and tell me what comments are inadequately sourced? Also, should we move this discussion to the Robert David Steele talk page?OSC Flunkee (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing on Misplaced Pages can be classed as a reliable source, you'd need some reliable secondary sources that cover his Misplaced Pages activism for inclusion to be valid. RMHED (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)