ARCHIVE ONE
Sorry, Proto, that was some flip of the hand I shouldn't have done, but I can't see how "living" can be POV. Str1977 11:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Testing my signature, dum di dum dum Proto 15:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please, please wikify this article! I raised it for a peer review and basically got zero response. Constructive 2nd party edits really, really welcome. I rewrote and rewrote and rewrote until my eyes crossed and I've put the article on ice until I can read it with a fresh pair of eyes. Revmachine21 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that other article my way. I hate merging documents... nightmare. How's your BCP going? I've been working on the
limnic eruption and
Bozeman, Montana articles. I've also been procrasting like mad on the
disaster page.
Revmachine21 12:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Proto:
Thanks for the heads up on NCdave.
I tuned out for awhile... Is he returning after being sent away administratively for awhile? Was he suspended? Did he leave in self-imposed exile? What happened?
-- AStanhope 19:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.
The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.
So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:
I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.
Thanks,
Cantthinkofagoodname
11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes - she was definitely hot. -- AStanhope 19:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is a minor quibble, however, seeing you're from the UK I also see why. After all, we are two great nations separated by a common language.
I find that equally ugly, and as I said before, commonly known as just sets my teeth on edge. It's like she was doing business as (DBA).
I have a better idea. I'll write a proposal on the subect (hopefully neutral) on the talk page and let's see if we can get a consensus. I'll go along with whatever the group says, unless they select commonly known as which I won't even offer as an option. Duckecho 16:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
quote: Proto: Tony's version is The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law I guess you got a little confused during your research.--Fenice 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also Proto, if you have serious doubts if clashes between civil liberties and criminal law could be a core issue of philosophy of law see here ( http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/).--Fenice 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also Proto, since you're having serious doubts about whether abortion could just be a problem of the Philosophy of Law see here ( http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/spring1999/phil.html).--Fenice 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In your first sentence, you acknowledge my argument. But confronted with your misreading you still don't feel you should give a reason for deleting Philosphy of law. Still, I assumed you would and have already given you the counterargument beforehand in my next line - which you strangely enough acknowledge as true, you find that convincing too. - But you think philosophy of law is not abortion-relevant. ok sofar. Preempting your course of 'argumentation' or thinking, I then have given you the link to prove it is abortion-relevant. Which again, strangely enough you find convincing and do not doubt. And then your statement still ends in that your doubt is in the sentence.....? (sentence is: Limitations etc... are a core issue of the Philosphy of law).....huh? Is there a comprehension problem? Which is it?
Do not answer on my page, answer here, I put your page on my watchlist. Also, I do not care if this is included in abortion any more, that is not the point. I just wonder what on earth you were thinking...?-- Fenice 08:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and of course I don't have abortion on my watchlist any more, so I would not find your answer there.-- Fenice 09:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, out of curiosity, could I ask why you don't use your own talk page? Proto 10:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I won't even take up the other lie about me being openly disruptive and admitting it, neither of which are true. I'm posting this on your own talk page as well. Feel free to delete it, then I know you've read it. Proto 09:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not think philosophy is relevant here because....
I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because...
and not:
I do not think philosophy is relevant here because its irrelevant.
I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because its irrelevant.
I understand you find that funny. But I don't - I'm shocked. Would I be trying to understand your motives if I'd agree its funny? So your joke to me is the same as admitting you are disruptive, in case you wonder about the reasoning.--
Fenice 09:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, to me it was only important to understand your motives. I don't intend to work any further on this article, so don't bother to make up or find arguments now. This was only to make sure you really don't have arguments and don't plan to give any and were just deleting to heat up a conflict.-- Fenice 09:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Count to Ten both of you -this is not good for you.... A curate's egg 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, nice job on making this article an acceptable stub. Soundguy99 15:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Proto, thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the slow reply, been on a wiki-holiday. I should be able to carry on with it over the weekend. CTOAGN 18:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much that I know more, it's that I'm taking a principled stand here: High Schools are, sans more, Non-Notable. If you seriously think that they're going to be included regardless, you possibly could remove them
WP:BAI, but please, leave the school item in
WP:Stupid, which is partly a place for "deletionists" to vent about bad article ideas they see a lot (of which high schools are an excelent example).
Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Proto
You said you might look into images for the United articles. I was just wondering how you go about finding football images that don't have copyright problems as I'd like to add one to Denis Law's page. If you've found some before, could you let me know how to go about it please.
I've done the merge/split on United's history - there's some stuff about it on the Manchester United talk page. If you could give me some more feedback that'd be great.
Cheers, CTOAGN 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just went through this - FYI there have been female Laurie's, both real and fictional, (e.g. in The Partridge Family and Molly Dolly and Good Golly Miss Molly are both used (one gets _very_ tired of things such as "Good Golly Miss Molly, what's the homework?"!). M
Your comment on Terri Schiavo regarding "expert"s (in "life prolonging procedures") may need to be rewritten. Patsw misstated his premise and you posted from that premise. In fact, I'm sure you meant the opposite of what you said, and may want to rewrite it. Duckecho 15:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NCdave doesn't even recognize sarcasm when he reads it. Duckecho 10:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's good to know someone liked it as I've not had much feedback since I did it. CTOAGN 17:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My pleasure, nice to know it's appreciated. I find re-stubbing/wikifying/copy editing articles a lot easier than writing them from scratch, horses for courses and all that :) Davelong 28 June 2005 14:08 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I do hope that you could kindly rethink your merger vote. Another kind of stilt house, the Papua New Guinea stilt house, is added. I've stated some other reasons supporting to keep the artice in this page as well. Thank you for your attention. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
Hello Proto,
I'm interested in talking to you about the piano man. Is there a way of contacting you? Thanks.
Lucas julist87@gmail.com
Frankie says:
\//_ C ._) | _| - | |
"
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Hope you like it here.
Better late than never"
boffy_b 12:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Believe me mate, I could have been a lot more rude about your deletion if I'd let myself have free rein. I suspect your removal of my comment here is more down to your embarrassment than any "rudeness". If it wasn't, it should have been. In removing the comment, you also removed the relevant links it contained (which I wonder whether you even bothered to look at). Anyhow, it's your talk page and if you want to cover your tracks like that, there's nothing to stop you. It's in the page history should anyone care to look. I suggest you think more carefully about what you delete in future and back up any such action with decent reasons in the edit summary. You are not the only user (and I might add, you are not the only British user). posted by User:195.157.197.108 on July 12 at 11.49 UTC - Proto
maybe you could try and get your message across without all capitals and without swear words (or calling SlimVirgin a jerk and an asshole etc etc). Keeping it civil will give you a slightly better chance of getting your message across.
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'
Thanks for your inputs at WP:RD#Cooling effect of oil on human body. The discussion there has resulted in the creation of two new articles Culture-specific syndrome and Suudu. You can improve upon these. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:InsaneClownPosse.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. |
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the deletion log: User:Hedley deleted "Efed" reason given: (Deleting as a clearly better, more NPOV article exists already at e-wrestling)
If you disagree you can always try WP:VfU. Hope that helps -- Doc (?) 09:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Glad I could be of help. Btw I'm not an admin, the info on deletions is available to all users on
Special:Log/delete. So next time an article disapperates you'll know what to do. Cheers, --
Doc
(?)
09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Before marking articles for speedy deletion, please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey,
I undeleted all 15 edits for you. Check out [2] for the last edit before it was deleted. Sorry for any problems, although I'm sure you'll agree that e-wrestling was in a better state at the time (and was less POV, although the article's crap if you ask me, I just watchlist it).
By the way, do you have a connection to eW, or were you just looking up the article's reasons for deletion? Hedley 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you put an edit summary? Otherwise it looks just like a blanking :-) Dan100 ( Talk) 15:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
ARCHIVE ONE
Sorry, Proto, that was some flip of the hand I shouldn't have done, but I can't see how "living" can be POV. Str1977 11:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Testing my signature, dum di dum dum Proto 15:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please, please wikify this article! I raised it for a peer review and basically got zero response. Constructive 2nd party edits really, really welcome. I rewrote and rewrote and rewrote until my eyes crossed and I've put the article on ice until I can read it with a fresh pair of eyes. Revmachine21 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that other article my way. I hate merging documents... nightmare. How's your BCP going? I've been working on the
limnic eruption and
Bozeman, Montana articles. I've also been procrasting like mad on the
disaster page.
Revmachine21 12:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Proto:
Thanks for the heads up on NCdave.
I tuned out for awhile... Is he returning after being sent away administratively for awhile? Was he suspended? Did he leave in self-imposed exile? What happened?
-- AStanhope 19:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.
The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.
So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:
I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.
Thanks,
Cantthinkofagoodname
11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes - she was definitely hot. -- AStanhope 19:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is a minor quibble, however, seeing you're from the UK I also see why. After all, we are two great nations separated by a common language.
I find that equally ugly, and as I said before, commonly known as just sets my teeth on edge. It's like she was doing business as (DBA).
I have a better idea. I'll write a proposal on the subect (hopefully neutral) on the talk page and let's see if we can get a consensus. I'll go along with whatever the group says, unless they select commonly known as which I won't even offer as an option. Duckecho 16:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
quote: Proto: Tony's version is The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law I guess you got a little confused during your research.--Fenice 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also Proto, if you have serious doubts if clashes between civil liberties and criminal law could be a core issue of philosophy of law see here ( http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/).--Fenice 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also Proto, since you're having serious doubts about whether abortion could just be a problem of the Philosophy of Law see here ( http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/spring1999/phil.html).--Fenice 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In your first sentence, you acknowledge my argument. But confronted with your misreading you still don't feel you should give a reason for deleting Philosphy of law. Still, I assumed you would and have already given you the counterargument beforehand in my next line - which you strangely enough acknowledge as true, you find that convincing too. - But you think philosophy of law is not abortion-relevant. ok sofar. Preempting your course of 'argumentation' or thinking, I then have given you the link to prove it is abortion-relevant. Which again, strangely enough you find convincing and do not doubt. And then your statement still ends in that your doubt is in the sentence.....? (sentence is: Limitations etc... are a core issue of the Philosphy of law).....huh? Is there a comprehension problem? Which is it?
Do not answer on my page, answer here, I put your page on my watchlist. Also, I do not care if this is included in abortion any more, that is not the point. I just wonder what on earth you were thinking...?-- Fenice 08:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and of course I don't have abortion on my watchlist any more, so I would not find your answer there.-- Fenice 09:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, out of curiosity, could I ask why you don't use your own talk page? Proto 10:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I won't even take up the other lie about me being openly disruptive and admitting it, neither of which are true. I'm posting this on your own talk page as well. Feel free to delete it, then I know you've read it. Proto 09:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not think philosophy is relevant here because....
I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because...
and not:
I do not think philosophy is relevant here because its irrelevant.
I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because its irrelevant.
I understand you find that funny. But I don't - I'm shocked. Would I be trying to understand your motives if I'd agree its funny? So your joke to me is the same as admitting you are disruptive, in case you wonder about the reasoning.--
Fenice 09:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, to me it was only important to understand your motives. I don't intend to work any further on this article, so don't bother to make up or find arguments now. This was only to make sure you really don't have arguments and don't plan to give any and were just deleting to heat up a conflict.-- Fenice 09:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Count to Ten both of you -this is not good for you.... A curate's egg 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, nice job on making this article an acceptable stub. Soundguy99 15:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Proto, thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the slow reply, been on a wiki-holiday. I should be able to carry on with it over the weekend. CTOAGN 18:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much that I know more, it's that I'm taking a principled stand here: High Schools are, sans more, Non-Notable. If you seriously think that they're going to be included regardless, you possibly could remove them
WP:BAI, but please, leave the school item in
WP:Stupid, which is partly a place for "deletionists" to vent about bad article ideas they see a lot (of which high schools are an excelent example).
Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Proto
You said you might look into images for the United articles. I was just wondering how you go about finding football images that don't have copyright problems as I'd like to add one to Denis Law's page. If you've found some before, could you let me know how to go about it please.
I've done the merge/split on United's history - there's some stuff about it on the Manchester United talk page. If you could give me some more feedback that'd be great.
Cheers, CTOAGN 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just went through this - FYI there have been female Laurie's, both real and fictional, (e.g. in The Partridge Family and Molly Dolly and Good Golly Miss Molly are both used (one gets _very_ tired of things such as "Good Golly Miss Molly, what's the homework?"!). M
Your comment on Terri Schiavo regarding "expert"s (in "life prolonging procedures") may need to be rewritten. Patsw misstated his premise and you posted from that premise. In fact, I'm sure you meant the opposite of what you said, and may want to rewrite it. Duckecho 15:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NCdave doesn't even recognize sarcasm when he reads it. Duckecho 10:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's good to know someone liked it as I've not had much feedback since I did it. CTOAGN 17:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My pleasure, nice to know it's appreciated. I find re-stubbing/wikifying/copy editing articles a lot easier than writing them from scratch, horses for courses and all that :) Davelong 28 June 2005 14:08 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I do hope that you could kindly rethink your merger vote. Another kind of stilt house, the Papua New Guinea stilt house, is added. I've stated some other reasons supporting to keep the artice in this page as well. Thank you for your attention. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
Hello Proto,
I'm interested in talking to you about the piano man. Is there a way of contacting you? Thanks.
Lucas julist87@gmail.com
Frankie says:
\//_ C ._) | _| - | |
"
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Hope you like it here.
Better late than never"
boffy_b 12:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Believe me mate, I could have been a lot more rude about your deletion if I'd let myself have free rein. I suspect your removal of my comment here is more down to your embarrassment than any "rudeness". If it wasn't, it should have been. In removing the comment, you also removed the relevant links it contained (which I wonder whether you even bothered to look at). Anyhow, it's your talk page and if you want to cover your tracks like that, there's nothing to stop you. It's in the page history should anyone care to look. I suggest you think more carefully about what you delete in future and back up any such action with decent reasons in the edit summary. You are not the only user (and I might add, you are not the only British user). posted by User:195.157.197.108 on July 12 at 11.49 UTC - Proto
maybe you could try and get your message across without all capitals and without swear words (or calling SlimVirgin a jerk and an asshole etc etc). Keeping it civil will give you a slightly better chance of getting your message across.
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'
Thanks for your inputs at WP:RD#Cooling effect of oil on human body. The discussion there has resulted in the creation of two new articles Culture-specific syndrome and Suudu. You can improve upon these. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:InsaneClownPosse.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information. |
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the deletion log: User:Hedley deleted "Efed" reason given: (Deleting as a clearly better, more NPOV article exists already at e-wrestling)
If you disagree you can always try WP:VfU. Hope that helps -- Doc (?) 09:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Glad I could be of help. Btw I'm not an admin, the info on deletions is available to all users on
Special:Log/delete. So next time an article disapperates you'll know what to do. Cheers, --
Doc
(?)
09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Before marking articles for speedy deletion, please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey,
I undeleted all 15 edits for you. Check out [2] for the last edit before it was deleted. Sorry for any problems, although I'm sure you'll agree that e-wrestling was in a better state at the time (and was less POV, although the article's crap if you ask me, I just watchlist it).
By the way, do you have a connection to eW, or were you just looking up the article's reasons for deletion? Hedley 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you put an edit summary? Otherwise it looks just like a blanking :-) Dan100 ( Talk) 15:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)