This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
You deleted my Randolph's Law entry. A number of us here in the Quizzo community of Philadelphia want it back. The plain fact of the matter is that the phrase is in local usage. If you'd like to see a citation online, the best I can do at the moment is http://quizmasterchris.blogspot.com/ which is the blog I recently started for the quizzes I run.
I'm new to entering anything on Wikipedia, and I don't know what the next step is, but I think your arbitrary deletion is ridiculous; it amazes me that you've determined from the other side of the planet that people here in a certain subculture aren't using a piece of slang.
I don't plan to spend hours & hours of discussion on this. If you want the email addresses of Quizzo players in this area who can back me up on this usage, I can provide them. You took this down, I think the bulk of the work in putting it back up is your responsibility.
Thank you. Crandolph, reachable at randolph_19147@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crandolph ( talk • contribs)
-- Crandolph 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I have no inclination to waste my time and defecate all over the hard work of other concerned people by deleting their posts. I can see editing posts, I can't see deciding that what other people think is important is in fact trivial and untrustworthy and needs to be removed. I also value "truth" above "consensus." You win, you put the time in, this is your toy. Enjoy it. Keep in mind that none of this makes me think of Wikipedia as a useful or reliable tool. What it makes me think is that I should remove it from my list of reliable, unbiased reference sites on my pub quiz blog. Have a nice life. Crandolph -- Crandolph 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Context: As should be rather obvious from the foregoing, this was a simple case of "Why is my pet neologism no longer here?" I'm in two minds about leaving the link to the user's blog (which someone has already kindly commented on with the Notability page, although he's assumed it was me), although it explains why the article in question has now been protected. Those who are interested in how it is possible to entirely misunderstand what "encyclopedia" means are welcome to hunt for the post on his blog, paying attention to the mistaken claims of what I'd have allowed to stay (foreign language slang or whatever, apparently). Just be careful of the sour grapes underfoot, since clearly the Pub Quiz community bites. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
why did u delete my page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urvi93 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi. I see exactly where you are coming from, with the list. I wanted to start a list with many names of explorers from the time of 1400-1600, but that only spans 200 years. It has been deleted (what good fortune) and so I may create another list named Early Explorers 1200-1600. That way, it will be just better in so many different ways. Thanks again for helping. It really helps ;)
Feel free to help me list more names, I will be so greatfull!
Cheers, Smidget 904 08:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked, and you did block him correctly - for 24 hours, with your comment being "persistent vandalism on Holocaust article - keep an eye on him" :) If he vandalises again, you might want to consider an indefinite ban because the account is only being used for vandalism. :)
Chrisch 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am respectfully requesting that you withdraw both your [prod] tag and the [hoax] tag from this article:
In short, this is a genuine controversy and one which, IMHO, deserves recording for its duration, for the benefit of those who seek clarification.
Simon Cursitor 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The Georgia Project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). Cheers! Chris 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-- howcheng { chat} 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It was innocent playing around. We're best friends. It's really awesome that you'd do that for someone though, don't get me wrong. Just reassuring you that I wasn't really vandalising (she really does go on caffiene rampages and take cheese for protection). Samuffin 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What grounds would you say the article 2010 in Canada should be deleted? Mkdw talk 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi BigHaz, my AfD bot tries to detect previous notifications by using various checks, such as looking for links to the AfD page, links to the article and other well-known notification phrases. So far it's been quite accurate in detecting previous warnings, but it's always possible that it might miss some. If you see that happening please let me know, so I can adjust the checks that are done. I hope this helps! Cheers, Jayden54 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Heya, Big. I apparently put the wrong tag on the Exterior_bhs_x1.JPG image when I uploaded it the first time, as you indicated it was missing a copyright. I've restored the image, taking care to select the proper tag. My office generates images using our digital photography resources all the time, and apparently in my flurry of uploading to create the gallery and images on the BHS article, I screwed that one up. All better now! Many thanks.
Bhs itrt 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just following up some of the April Fools stuff. See my comment here. I just wanted to thank you again for carrying out the update. I probably should have warned you that that sort of thing always ruffles some feathers (hence my "changed around later" comment here), but it wasn't too bad. Carcharoth 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My being spammed by John Mauldin's businesses reinforces what is my main objection (which you didn't mention in your reply to me): that the existing stub is not a genuine encyclopedia article, but a commercial promotion -- even if it was not posted by John Mauldin himself. But the fact that he *is* a spammer gives evidence buttressing the prospect that the posting party *is* the Mauldin organization itself (or he himself).
Furthermore, if we leave aside that it is a commercial advertisement, then it is still only a hagiography -- yet another of my objections.
So, I reject your claim that my being spammed is "neither here nor there".
In your email to me, you presented yourself as just some Wikipedian with a comment, then I read your Talk Page and it is to be surmised that you are rather an administrator, specifically the one who has been assigned to rule on my proposal. This was confirmed when I went to your personal page. If you would be so kind, could you survey for me the routine Wikipedia follows for communicating with a person who has submitted an AfD proposal?
If you would be so kind, could you survey for me where Wikipedia stubs are generated? For example, are there bots or humans that troll the Web looking for subjects for articles and snipping Web pages to create stubs? In this case, does somebody or something monitor new publications with a view to selecting authors to write stubs on?
Let me close with a comment on you "replying to deliberately inflammatory remarks". While many people indubitably subject you to that, I note that for your part you give the impression of being one of these people who revels in being snide and in leading people up garden paths, as when you are cagey about being a Wikipedia official. Hurmata 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot to mention just now, I've already read your section, "My philosophy of editing". Hurmata 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hiya,
I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor? I noticed that you deleted at least one of the IWCCW title pages - they were listed for deletion because the main IWCCW page was deleted. Well through a lot of effort among some of us at WP:PW we've brought the IWCCW page back in a state where it shouldn't be deleted again. So could you please undelete the title pages since they're now needed again?? the pages in question are
IWCCW Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Light Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Tag Team Championship, IWCCW Women's Championship, IWCCW Television Championship
Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
hmm what mackan wrote was nonsense. and a personal attack. so i was just pointing it out.But i can see your point to.-- Matrix17 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The original is a copyvio of this site. What is the policy on these? And it's nice to see you back :) - Yupik 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
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 04:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
_ _ The delete page for an article includes the following instruction:
In the case of speedies, like your deletion of Francisco Álvarez, the following instruction at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators is applicable, and fleshes out that common-sense warning:
(You should note that this is the responsibility of the deleting admin, even tho well-informed nominators would be wise to do similarly.)
You clearly neglected this in the case of Alverez, since you would not have discarded good previous revisions on the excuse that they were hidden under n-n material, except out of ignorance resulting from your failure of due diligence. The deletion was thus obviously out of process, and i have reversed it, pursuant to
WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review. This will provide an accurate chronology consistent with WP's routine compliance with the attribution requirements of the GFDL.
_ _ Your concern for removal of junk articles is admirable, in responding to a substantial need of the project. But please keep in mind that preservation of appropriate content is a comparable need, in order to keep your work efficient.
_ _ I am not undertaking a review of your other deletions, to recover other such material, but IMO that is called for, at least to the extent of statistically estimating the percentage rate and thereby the count of your deleted articles deserving restoration. You would of course be a great candidate for such efforts; in any case, anyone doing it would be well to note the fact, and the results, on this talk page, ideally in this section.
--
Jerzy•
t 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
You deleted my Randolph's Law entry. A number of us here in the Quizzo community of Philadelphia want it back. The plain fact of the matter is that the phrase is in local usage. If you'd like to see a citation online, the best I can do at the moment is http://quizmasterchris.blogspot.com/ which is the blog I recently started for the quizzes I run.
I'm new to entering anything on Wikipedia, and I don't know what the next step is, but I think your arbitrary deletion is ridiculous; it amazes me that you've determined from the other side of the planet that people here in a certain subculture aren't using a piece of slang.
I don't plan to spend hours & hours of discussion on this. If you want the email addresses of Quizzo players in this area who can back me up on this usage, I can provide them. You took this down, I think the bulk of the work in putting it back up is your responsibility.
Thank you. Crandolph, reachable at randolph_19147@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crandolph ( talk • contribs)
-- Crandolph 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I have no inclination to waste my time and defecate all over the hard work of other concerned people by deleting their posts. I can see editing posts, I can't see deciding that what other people think is important is in fact trivial and untrustworthy and needs to be removed. I also value "truth" above "consensus." You win, you put the time in, this is your toy. Enjoy it. Keep in mind that none of this makes me think of Wikipedia as a useful or reliable tool. What it makes me think is that I should remove it from my list of reliable, unbiased reference sites on my pub quiz blog. Have a nice life. Crandolph -- Crandolph 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Context: As should be rather obvious from the foregoing, this was a simple case of "Why is my pet neologism no longer here?" I'm in two minds about leaving the link to the user's blog (which someone has already kindly commented on with the Notability page, although he's assumed it was me), although it explains why the article in question has now been protected. Those who are interested in how it is possible to entirely misunderstand what "encyclopedia" means are welcome to hunt for the post on his blog, paying attention to the mistaken claims of what I'd have allowed to stay (foreign language slang or whatever, apparently). Just be careful of the sour grapes underfoot, since clearly the Pub Quiz community bites. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
why did u delete my page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urvi93 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi. I see exactly where you are coming from, with the list. I wanted to start a list with many names of explorers from the time of 1400-1600, but that only spans 200 years. It has been deleted (what good fortune) and so I may create another list named Early Explorers 1200-1600. That way, it will be just better in so many different ways. Thanks again for helping. It really helps ;)
Feel free to help me list more names, I will be so greatfull!
Cheers, Smidget 904 08:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked, and you did block him correctly - for 24 hours, with your comment being "persistent vandalism on Holocaust article - keep an eye on him" :) If he vandalises again, you might want to consider an indefinite ban because the account is only being used for vandalism. :)
Chrisch 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am respectfully requesting that you withdraw both your [prod] tag and the [hoax] tag from this article:
In short, this is a genuine controversy and one which, IMHO, deserves recording for its duration, for the benefit of those who seek clarification.
Simon Cursitor 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The Georgia Project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). Cheers! Chris 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-- howcheng { chat} 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It was innocent playing around. We're best friends. It's really awesome that you'd do that for someone though, don't get me wrong. Just reassuring you that I wasn't really vandalising (she really does go on caffiene rampages and take cheese for protection). Samuffin 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What grounds would you say the article 2010 in Canada should be deleted? Mkdw talk 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi BigHaz, my AfD bot tries to detect previous notifications by using various checks, such as looking for links to the AfD page, links to the article and other well-known notification phrases. So far it's been quite accurate in detecting previous warnings, but it's always possible that it might miss some. If you see that happening please let me know, so I can adjust the checks that are done. I hope this helps! Cheers, Jayden54 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Heya, Big. I apparently put the wrong tag on the Exterior_bhs_x1.JPG image when I uploaded it the first time, as you indicated it was missing a copyright. I've restored the image, taking care to select the proper tag. My office generates images using our digital photography resources all the time, and apparently in my flurry of uploading to create the gallery and images on the BHS article, I screwed that one up. All better now! Many thanks.
Bhs itrt 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just following up some of the April Fools stuff. See my comment here. I just wanted to thank you again for carrying out the update. I probably should have warned you that that sort of thing always ruffles some feathers (hence my "changed around later" comment here), but it wasn't too bad. Carcharoth 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My being spammed by John Mauldin's businesses reinforces what is my main objection (which you didn't mention in your reply to me): that the existing stub is not a genuine encyclopedia article, but a commercial promotion -- even if it was not posted by John Mauldin himself. But the fact that he *is* a spammer gives evidence buttressing the prospect that the posting party *is* the Mauldin organization itself (or he himself).
Furthermore, if we leave aside that it is a commercial advertisement, then it is still only a hagiography -- yet another of my objections.
So, I reject your claim that my being spammed is "neither here nor there".
In your email to me, you presented yourself as just some Wikipedian with a comment, then I read your Talk Page and it is to be surmised that you are rather an administrator, specifically the one who has been assigned to rule on my proposal. This was confirmed when I went to your personal page. If you would be so kind, could you survey for me the routine Wikipedia follows for communicating with a person who has submitted an AfD proposal?
If you would be so kind, could you survey for me where Wikipedia stubs are generated? For example, are there bots or humans that troll the Web looking for subjects for articles and snipping Web pages to create stubs? In this case, does somebody or something monitor new publications with a view to selecting authors to write stubs on?
Let me close with a comment on you "replying to deliberately inflammatory remarks". While many people indubitably subject you to that, I note that for your part you give the impression of being one of these people who revels in being snide and in leading people up garden paths, as when you are cagey about being a Wikipedia official. Hurmata 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot to mention just now, I've already read your section, "My philosophy of editing". Hurmata 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hiya,
I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor? I noticed that you deleted at least one of the IWCCW title pages - they were listed for deletion because the main IWCCW page was deleted. Well through a lot of effort among some of us at WP:PW we've brought the IWCCW page back in a state where it shouldn't be deleted again. So could you please undelete the title pages since they're now needed again?? the pages in question are
IWCCW Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Light Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Tag Team Championship, IWCCW Women's Championship, IWCCW Television Championship
Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
hmm what mackan wrote was nonsense. and a personal attack. so i was just pointing it out.But i can see your point to.-- Matrix17 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The original is a copyvio of this site. What is the policy on these? And it's nice to see you back :) - Yupik 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
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 04:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
_ _ The delete page for an article includes the following instruction:
In the case of speedies, like your deletion of Francisco Álvarez, the following instruction at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators is applicable, and fleshes out that common-sense warning:
(You should note that this is the responsibility of the deleting admin, even tho well-informed nominators would be wise to do similarly.)
You clearly neglected this in the case of Alverez, since you would not have discarded good previous revisions on the excuse that they were hidden under n-n material, except out of ignorance resulting from your failure of due diligence. The deletion was thus obviously out of process, and i have reversed it, pursuant to
WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review. This will provide an accurate chronology consistent with WP's routine compliance with the attribution requirements of the GFDL.
_ _ Your concern for removal of junk articles is admirable, in responding to a substantial need of the project. But please keep in mind that preservation of appropriate content is a comparable need, in order to keep your work efficient.
_ _ I am not undertaking a review of your other deletions, to recover other such material, but IMO that is called for, at least to the extent of statistically estimating the percentage rate and thereby the count of your deleted articles deserving restoration. You would of course be a great candidate for such efforts; in any case, anyone doing it would be well to note the fact, and the results, on this talk page, ideally in this section.
--
Jerzy•
t 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)