I don't think I've met you before, anyway,
Happy New Year Pdfpdf/Archive11!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!
Happy New Year!!! :-)- Ravichandar My coffee shop 13:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC may be in order. Or WP:EQ discussion. Little Red Riding Hood talk 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pdf. I prefer the expanded variant as it looks more formal and professional. To me, the abbreviation just looks a little too messy and informal. I just went around a little while ago and made edits on several former and present senior ADF personnel in an attempt to make the succession boxes uniform. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Pdfpdf, Happy new year. I hope 2009 will be an excellent 365 days for you. Didn't party too hard, I trust. Have a good one, Reyk YO! 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Category:Museums in Adelaide is already a subcategory of Category:Visitor attractions in Adelaide. Articles thus shouldn't be appearing in both categories simultaneously. Bearcat ( talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be some form of sarcasm or an attempt to WP:TROLL my talk page? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, another fun year in Adelaide no doubt? YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, u r perhaps too easily impressed :) but it is always nice to be appreciated. Glad u like what i have done so far. Will fix up the rest of the Odd Fellows dab pages system within a day or two. About IOOF Building (Adelaide), I did want there to be an article, otherwise dividing the dab page between Australia and United States did not make sense, and I wanted to support ur interest in having there be an article anyhow. What you have done with it seems great. About MacDonnell Lodge being "a sub-entity of the IOOF, not a building", I am sure u r right. No, i have no evidence of its location. What I did in the first draft of the article was blow smoke, really, it was nearly nonsense fluff intended to survive the deletionists on Wikipedia new page patrol. I just ran a quick google search on "IOOF Building Adelaide" and found some probably-nonreliable webpage that mentioned MacDonnell Lodge. I thought it sounded reasonable to assert that it was an alternate name, and i put in a kinda garbage footnote intended to look like a proper reference. Again, glad u have fixed it up. doncram ( talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. I don't really mean to be disrespectful of Newpagepatrollers, they have a real job to do. I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. About the article, it is better now, but it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings but it has a title seemingly referring to one building. In general, i do one article per notable building. If the 2 you cover are distinct, they could deserve separate articles (which could link to each other if they are related). Just a thought. Anyhow, it is rather late where i am, that's all for me tonight. Cheers, doncram ( talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
General:
About the article:
I finally got around to addressing this. It'll be interesting to see the discussion and how this eventually plays out. Here's the standard notice:
An image that you uploaded or altered,
File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the
image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at
the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. →
Wordbuilder (
talk)
16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. Viewers will likely assume that the blue linked term is an article, not a link to a section. They shouldn't be surprised when clicking on it. The third option you gave is no different than the first two. You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding? I think so, and my mentor User:JHunterJ concurs. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that there is sufficient work done to the Wayne Static article that would warrant the removal of the cleanup and citation tags, then go ahead and remove them. I would see if you could find a citation for the edit that talks about Skip to My Lou, and maybe try to find some citations for the edits in the equipment and collaboration sections of the article. I will take a look for those as well. Hope that you have a very Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2009! Always great to edit along with you. Regards, Denise :) -- Candy156sweet ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what part(s) of my questions do you not understand? I'm sure I was pretty clear. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i edited the various articles, moving the big draft from IOOF Building to Odd Fellows Hall, and stripping down the various others. I like your addition of alphabetic capital letters to the big list. I think it is all okay and done now. Thanks for your interest and help in getting this system set up properly. Cheers, doncram ( talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for any delay in replying. Non-wiki-life is occupying me almost full-time at the moment; it may be a few days before I reply.
My apologies,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the citations are the main issue with the Wayne Static article, so I would take down the cleanup tag and replace it with the citations tag. Sorry I'm late with this reply, but my time on the computer has been limited to work lately. *Sigh* Hope that you have a great weekend. -- Candy156sweet ( talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha!! I'm not really the "post-Year-12" partying type. Progress has been slow due a lot of schools taking down their websites for updating, and of the ones that are up - it's amazing how many lack decent usable information. I have a few stubs to upload. Thanks about the Norwood Morialta one, I was editing it for days over and over again, but I'm sure I haven't referenced properly. Cheers! Natski-asnd8 ( talk) 13:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Pdfpdf. OK, fair question, There are no such articles as: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath or Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George. There are simply redirect pages to, respectively: Order of the British Empire, Order of the Bath, and Order of St Michael and St George. It's fine to use redirects; they're there for that purpose. But my philosophy is: why use them when we don't need to? Why take a circuitous route to an article when we can go there directly? Redirects show up as green links on my screen, whereas direct links are blue or purple. There's an instruction you can give to make redirects green, but for the life of me I've forgotten what it is now, sorry. I can spot green links from 20 metres away, and while they certainly make an article colourful, it also makes it look untidy. Hope that answers your question. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Pdfpdf. I've moved your new post, and my reply, to a new thread "Edits @ Robert Helpmann", on my talk page. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Were you there yesterday? I snapped them all! YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Torrens Park, nice area. According to the govt, my area is the worst and most disadvantaged in the state allegedly. I disagree though, I think the govt just made that determination on the basis of lot of immigrants. At least they still teach proper maths/physics/chem at the local high school and go to uni eventually. In the places down south and up north, some schools only have 1-2 students who do proper subjects. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the first i've heard of it! I've never seen a green link on wikipedia AFAIK! Timeshift ( talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
§hep • Talk 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding
this edit, how do you identify the white space? Thanks,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the separate versions of the VC are for those countries which still have the Queen as head of state and have not formally declared independence. The Indian and Pakistan awards are distinct in that regard, and shouldn't really be included in my opinion. They haven't instituted "versions of the VC", they have instituted awards for outstanding bravery, nothing to do with the VC. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg. It may well have been "(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what? Nothing had been resolved, no consensus had been reached, and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished.
I left questions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg; no-one answered them.
Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?
Pdfpdf (
talk)
14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. All the best. Figaro ( talk) 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Italics and quotations is what you need to read, learn, and inwardly digest. David Underdown ( talk) 13:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I hope that you don't mind if I respond to your email here - you referred to my credentials as an admin in it, and as part of being accountable I prefer to hold such discussions in public. As I noted in that post, I'm not saying that you or Abraham, B.S are right or wrong, and that post applied to both of you. Given that you've both been arguing recently (I haven't been following these arguments and, again, have no opinion at all on them) and Abraham has indicated that he's upset with you (I have no knowledge or opinion on whether this is justified, but it's clear that he feels that way), I personally think that it would be best if you both avoided one another's talk pages. I was attempting to head off what appeared to be another argument, and I apologise if you feel that my post may have implied that you were, or had previously been, in violation of any behavioral requirements - this was not intended and I didn't think that this was the case. Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see this edit. Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't threaten me, as I have done nothing wrong. Now, as of your comment in my talk page, here we go:
In WP:RPA (not RFA), you see the part where it says Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. You see that is says unquestionable?
In WP:BAND, the article just fails the whole criteria.
In WP:CSD#A7, I can see very well that if fits it. The guy is a person, and the article makes no credible claim of significance or importance. Guy0307 ( talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:RPA. WP:MOS says nothing about owning talk pages.
Secondly, let's have a look at WP:BAND
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rick Neigher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rick Neigher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Guy0307. Patton t/ c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see [1] I removed the speedy deletion template :D Guy0307 ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the missing sections to More Than Words Can Say that had been forked off the the non-GFDL compliant version of the article. If you look at this revision of the original, all of those sections were C&P into the new article. This eliminates the need to dig up the text from the deleted article.
As for Rick Neigher, a table listing ALL of the songs he wrote is overkill. I would recommend including this in paragraph form, but mentioning only notable songs (ie. singles released by notable artists). Redlinks are fine in this case, as it could give Daphne80smusic some needed direction.
I hope this helps. Cheers, caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping me with the Alias articles. Is there a way to have the title changed back to Alias Never Say Never (album)? that is the actual title of the album according to shopemi.com order page for this CD. I'm afriad this article the way it's name now will not get found when a fan looks for it using the search engine. Appreciate your help. Daphne80smusic ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for helping cleanup some of the Alias related articles! Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, need any help with this article? you can send me a message at daphneho_seattle at yahoo dot com. I emailed Rick Neigher to introduce myself. He appreciates your creating the wikipedia article about him, he said you can contact him at rickneigher at gmail dot com any time if you have any questions. Happy Valentine's Day! Daphne80smusic ( talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless or until atruly reliable reference can be found, the info can't go in anyway. So just at the moment, that seems the easier front to fight on. Personally, I do think it's labouring the point anyway, we say where the metal comes from, so it's obvious that it's inherent value is limited (though soaring metal prices have led to various thefts of bronze statues for the scrap metal, so it's not so valueless perhaps). David Underdown ( talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(remove, let us continue this on your talk page so it can be one-sided)
Right, but you never answered my other question. How do you not find linking a pipe link to a single word misleading? The point is not to befuddle the viewer, you know ... Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Pdfpdf, I still don't know how I can say this any clearer. The most neutral thing that may be done (if piping is involved) is to link to the description rather than a "controversial" or "random" word. Haven't you already asked User:JHunterJ for his opinion? He's the one who practically taught me that anyway. Please reply below (this thread is already on my watchlist so you don't have to alert me), Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was only doin' my routine check of articles, when I found you still had the under construction template when you haven't edited the article for nearly a week. Just a small suggestion: The tables are wayy too long compared to the rest of the article. Guy0307 ( talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
On face value,
this edit, and the accompanying comment are completely reasonable and, in isolation, justifiable. If I'd come across it for the first time, I would probably have done exactly the same.
Also, you would have been completely justified in complaining about the use of "weasel words".
So you can see that I'm not complaining about your edit per se.
However, what you may not know is that the words that are there are the "consensus" (yes, that's a euphamism for "compomise") of a (in my opinion) tediously long, unpleasant and pedantic "discussion" (yes, that's a euphamism for "edit war") about the difference between "colonialism" and "imperialism".
Given the time elapsed since the heated discussion, I imagine "some would say imperialism" could be replaced by "and/or imperialism" with impunity. However, my fear is that the complete removal of the word "imperialism" will rekindle the "edit war", and to be frank, I really don't want to go through that again!
So, what do you think is a better way to "solve" this combination of problems in order that the minimum number of people (hopefully zero) will be provoked into yet-another-edit war?
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand just which is/are the aspect(s) of Rhodes and Imperialism that are leading you remove "imperialism". After you have actually read the article and the talk page, which quite clearly, you haven't please explain.
The following all make it abundantly clear that Rhodes was an imperialist, and they all have a pile of supporting references:
Do you require more? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've met you before, anyway,
Happy New Year Pdfpdf/Archive11!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!
Happy New Year!!! :-)- Ravichandar My coffee shop 13:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC may be in order. Or WP:EQ discussion. Little Red Riding Hood talk 20:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pdf. I prefer the expanded variant as it looks more formal and professional. To me, the abbreviation just looks a little too messy and informal. I just went around a little while ago and made edits on several former and present senior ADF personnel in an attempt to make the succession boxes uniform. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Pdfpdf, Happy new year. I hope 2009 will be an excellent 365 days for you. Didn't party too hard, I trust. Have a good one, Reyk YO! 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Category:Museums in Adelaide is already a subcategory of Category:Visitor attractions in Adelaide. Articles thus shouldn't be appearing in both categories simultaneously. Bearcat ( talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be some form of sarcasm or an attempt to WP:TROLL my talk page? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, another fun year in Adelaide no doubt? YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, u r perhaps too easily impressed :) but it is always nice to be appreciated. Glad u like what i have done so far. Will fix up the rest of the Odd Fellows dab pages system within a day or two. About IOOF Building (Adelaide), I did want there to be an article, otherwise dividing the dab page between Australia and United States did not make sense, and I wanted to support ur interest in having there be an article anyhow. What you have done with it seems great. About MacDonnell Lodge being "a sub-entity of the IOOF, not a building", I am sure u r right. No, i have no evidence of its location. What I did in the first draft of the article was blow smoke, really, it was nearly nonsense fluff intended to survive the deletionists on Wikipedia new page patrol. I just ran a quick google search on "IOOF Building Adelaide" and found some probably-nonreliable webpage that mentioned MacDonnell Lodge. I thought it sounded reasonable to assert that it was an alternate name, and i put in a kinda garbage footnote intended to look like a proper reference. Again, glad u have fixed it up. doncram ( talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the google hit again that i was using; it's not the link u just provided. I don't really mean to be disrespectful of Newpagepatrollers, they have a real job to do. I did expect/count on ur wanting to fix up the article. About the article, it is better now, but it remains a bit confusing that it covers two buildings but it has a title seemingly referring to one building. In general, i do one article per notable building. If the 2 you cover are distinct, they could deserve separate articles (which could link to each other if they are related). Just a thought. Anyhow, it is rather late where i am, that's all for me tonight. Cheers, doncram ( talk) 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
General:
About the article:
I finally got around to addressing this. It'll be interesting to see the discussion and how this eventually plays out. Here's the standard notice:
An image that you uploaded or altered,
File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the
image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at
the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. →
Wordbuilder (
talk)
16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. Viewers will likely assume that the blue linked term is an article, not a link to a section. They shouldn't be surprised when clicking on it. The third option you gave is no different than the first two. You honestly don't think it's mundane and confounding? I think so, and my mentor User:JHunterJ concurs. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that there is sufficient work done to the Wayne Static article that would warrant the removal of the cleanup and citation tags, then go ahead and remove them. I would see if you could find a citation for the edit that talks about Skip to My Lou, and maybe try to find some citations for the edits in the equipment and collaboration sections of the article. I will take a look for those as well. Hope that you have a very Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2009! Always great to edit along with you. Regards, Denise :) -- Candy156sweet ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what part(s) of my questions do you not understand? I'm sure I was pretty clear. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i edited the various articles, moving the big draft from IOOF Building to Odd Fellows Hall, and stripping down the various others. I like your addition of alphabetic capital letters to the big list. I think it is all okay and done now. Thanks for your interest and help in getting this system set up properly. Cheers, doncram ( talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for any delay in replying. Non-wiki-life is occupying me almost full-time at the moment; it may be a few days before I reply.
My apologies,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the citations are the main issue with the Wayne Static article, so I would take down the cleanup tag and replace it with the citations tag. Sorry I'm late with this reply, but my time on the computer has been limited to work lately. *Sigh* Hope that you have a great weekend. -- Candy156sweet ( talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha!! I'm not really the "post-Year-12" partying type. Progress has been slow due a lot of schools taking down their websites for updating, and of the ones that are up - it's amazing how many lack decent usable information. I have a few stubs to upload. Thanks about the Norwood Morialta one, I was editing it for days over and over again, but I'm sure I haven't referenced properly. Cheers! Natski-asnd8 ( talk) 13:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Pdfpdf. OK, fair question, There are no such articles as: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath or Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George. There are simply redirect pages to, respectively: Order of the British Empire, Order of the Bath, and Order of St Michael and St George. It's fine to use redirects; they're there for that purpose. But my philosophy is: why use them when we don't need to? Why take a circuitous route to an article when we can go there directly? Redirects show up as green links on my screen, whereas direct links are blue or purple. There's an instruction you can give to make redirects green, but for the life of me I've forgotten what it is now, sorry. I can spot green links from 20 metres away, and while they certainly make an article colourful, it also makes it look untidy. Hope that answers your question. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Pdfpdf. I've moved your new post, and my reply, to a new thread "Edits @ Robert Helpmann", on my talk page. Cheers. -- JackofOz ( talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Were you there yesterday? I snapped them all! YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Torrens Park, nice area. According to the govt, my area is the worst and most disadvantaged in the state allegedly. I disagree though, I think the govt just made that determination on the basis of lot of immigrants. At least they still teach proper maths/physics/chem at the local high school and go to uni eventually. In the places down south and up north, some schools only have 1-2 students who do proper subjects. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the first i've heard of it! I've never seen a green link on wikipedia AFAIK! Timeshift ( talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
§hep • Talk 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding
this edit, how do you identify the white space? Thanks,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the separate versions of the VC are for those countries which still have the Queen as head of state and have not formally declared independence. The Indian and Pakistan awards are distinct in that regard, and shouldn't really be included in my opinion. They haven't instituted "versions of the VC", they have instituted awards for outstanding bravery, nothing to do with the VC. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg. It may well have been "(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what? Nothing had been resolved, no consensus had been reached, and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished.
I left questions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg; no-one answered them.
Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?
Pdfpdf (
talk)
14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. All the best. Figaro ( talk) 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Italics and quotations is what you need to read, learn, and inwardly digest. David Underdown ( talk) 13:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I hope that you don't mind if I respond to your email here - you referred to my credentials as an admin in it, and as part of being accountable I prefer to hold such discussions in public. As I noted in that post, I'm not saying that you or Abraham, B.S are right or wrong, and that post applied to both of you. Given that you've both been arguing recently (I haven't been following these arguments and, again, have no opinion at all on them) and Abraham has indicated that he's upset with you (I have no knowledge or opinion on whether this is justified, but it's clear that he feels that way), I personally think that it would be best if you both avoided one another's talk pages. I was attempting to head off what appeared to be another argument, and I apologise if you feel that my post may have implied that you were, or had previously been, in violation of any behavioral requirements - this was not intended and I didn't think that this was the case. Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see this edit. Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't threaten me, as I have done nothing wrong. Now, as of your comment in my talk page, here we go:
In WP:RPA (not RFA), you see the part where it says Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. You see that is says unquestionable?
In WP:BAND, the article just fails the whole criteria.
In WP:CSD#A7, I can see very well that if fits it. The guy is a person, and the article makes no credible claim of significance or importance. Guy0307 ( talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:RPA. WP:MOS says nothing about owning talk pages.
Secondly, let's have a look at WP:BAND
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rick Neigher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rick Neigher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Guy0307. Patton t/ c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see [1] I removed the speedy deletion template :D Guy0307 ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the missing sections to More Than Words Can Say that had been forked off the the non-GFDL compliant version of the article. If you look at this revision of the original, all of those sections were C&P into the new article. This eliminates the need to dig up the text from the deleted article.
As for Rick Neigher, a table listing ALL of the songs he wrote is overkill. I would recommend including this in paragraph form, but mentioning only notable songs (ie. singles released by notable artists). Redlinks are fine in this case, as it could give Daphne80smusic some needed direction.
I hope this helps. Cheers, caknuck ° is a silly pudding 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping me with the Alias articles. Is there a way to have the title changed back to Alias Never Say Never (album)? that is the actual title of the album according to shopemi.com order page for this CD. I'm afriad this article the way it's name now will not get found when a fan looks for it using the search engine. Appreciate your help. Daphne80smusic ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for helping cleanup some of the Alias related articles! Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, need any help with this article? you can send me a message at daphneho_seattle at yahoo dot com. I emailed Rick Neigher to introduce myself. He appreciates your creating the wikipedia article about him, he said you can contact him at rickneigher at gmail dot com any time if you have any questions. Happy Valentine's Day! Daphne80smusic ( talk) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless or until atruly reliable reference can be found, the info can't go in anyway. So just at the moment, that seems the easier front to fight on. Personally, I do think it's labouring the point anyway, we say where the metal comes from, so it's obvious that it's inherent value is limited (though soaring metal prices have led to various thefts of bronze statues for the scrap metal, so it's not so valueless perhaps). David Underdown ( talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(remove, let us continue this on your talk page so it can be one-sided)
Right, but you never answered my other question. How do you not find linking a pipe link to a single word misleading? The point is not to befuddle the viewer, you know ... Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Pdfpdf, I still don't know how I can say this any clearer. The most neutral thing that may be done (if piping is involved) is to link to the description rather than a "controversial" or "random" word. Haven't you already asked User:JHunterJ for his opinion? He's the one who practically taught me that anyway. Please reply below (this thread is already on my watchlist so you don't have to alert me), Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was only doin' my routine check of articles, when I found you still had the under construction template when you haven't edited the article for nearly a week. Just a small suggestion: The tables are wayy too long compared to the rest of the article. Guy0307 ( talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
On face value,
this edit, and the accompanying comment are completely reasonable and, in isolation, justifiable. If I'd come across it for the first time, I would probably have done exactly the same.
Also, you would have been completely justified in complaining about the use of "weasel words".
So you can see that I'm not complaining about your edit per se.
However, what you may not know is that the words that are there are the "consensus" (yes, that's a euphamism for "compomise") of a (in my opinion) tediously long, unpleasant and pedantic "discussion" (yes, that's a euphamism for "edit war") about the difference between "colonialism" and "imperialism".
Given the time elapsed since the heated discussion, I imagine "some would say imperialism" could be replaced by "and/or imperialism" with impunity. However, my fear is that the complete removal of the word "imperialism" will rekindle the "edit war", and to be frank, I really don't want to go through that again!
So, what do you think is a better way to "solve" this combination of problems in order that the minimum number of people (hopefully zero) will be provoked into yet-another-edit war?
Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand just which is/are the aspect(s) of Rhodes and Imperialism that are leading you remove "imperialism". After you have actually read the article and the talk page, which quite clearly, you haven't please explain.
The following all make it abundantly clear that Rhodes was an imperialist, and they all have a pile of supporting references:
Do you require more? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)