This page 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
Sir, I wanted to discuss and contest your decision at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28. Sir, if the only criteria for article deletion is a consensus, as you seem to suggest, then a poll should have been posted and results decided thusly- correct? Or are you suggesting that, strictly speaking, the editor followed the purview of their responsibility, rather than judging on the merits of any discussion? Furthermore, if the consensus was flawed in the ways I have chronicled above, this would further call the decision into question. Furthermore, affirmation of the deletion decision should be based on the merits of arguments presented, not simply on what a majority of the people felt- or am I mistaken in that belief? Even if you disagree with my positions, though, I'd like to thank you for participating in the discussion. At the very worst, this helps me understand the inner workings of Wikipedia and my role in helping make it a better place. Thank you! Ks64q2 ( talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In what variant of English is "past-time" the correct local spelling of "pastime"? I've never encountered it, and am not seeing it in any dictionaries. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
I hereby award you this barnstar, for saving the Level bomber article from deletion by vastly expanding the article and your continuing efforts to improve it. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
Why, thank you very much!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that you would make a fine admin, and I wonder whether it might be time for you to pursue an RfA (apologies for my prodding, certainly, if you've previously expressed a disinclination to go thither). 68.249.7.193 ( talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice essay you have there. It would be nice if it had a bit more visibility. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You missed the account in ASC--it's one of the classic stories of actual medieval knights behaving like they were in Monty Python--see my link at the AfD. DGG ( talk) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
...I don't think I've ever said this, but Level bomber is a really fine piece of work--when it came up at AfD, I didn't think it had any potential at all. I'm glad you proved me wrong. So:
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Awarded to S Marshall for a fine, fine job saving Level bomber. Your efforts at "filter[ing] for relevance, brevity and clarity" are greatly appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey S, the date 991, which you changed, comes out of that Cambridge book ( [2])--I suspect the idea is that he betrayed, in 991, a plot laid for 992. Thoughts? Drmies ( talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This should probably be userfied. No? THF ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Yi Fan. By the way that AfD is a hoot, you should check it out if you haven't been back. 72.70.2.74 ( talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I took this one to our friendly neighborhood lawyer. If, as it seems, the chart is not a direct reproduction, he does not believe it is a copyright problem for Wikipedia. I compared the chart to the downloadable Excel chart. I can't see the others. The Excel chart includes information not in that source, so Mike is of the opinion that it should be clear, ala Feist. Before closing the copyright listing, I just wanted to check with you to see if you know if any of those other charts are direct duplication or if, like the Excel chart, there are differences. Any clarification you can provide would be welcome. I'm watching here for response. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you make of this one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest magazine? Drmies ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Like to request for your advise on what would be needed to provide justification for overturning deletion of article as this is the first article deletion appeal I am doing and would appreciate advise on what to do. Thanks. Ncknight ( talk) 18:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14#Nicholas_Chan
Please don't add Category:American politicians directly to people who are already in a subcategory for the particular state and/or office that their career was specifically associated with. That category is supposed to be as close as possible to being completely empty of individual articles. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I just wanted to take the time to thank you once again for your help in the discussion on the article The Motley Moose. I know you are a busy person and can't spent all day editing Wikipedia articles of course, heh, but for you to take the time to add your voice- and especially to take all the events of that discussion under advisement before making a decision- really speaks to your character, and I wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated it. Thank you! Ks64q2 ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And to follow up on your most recent comment, you're absolutely right; I will take your advice. Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And a third follow up, I had deleted my response to that user, and then he decided he needed to resubmit the page for speedy deletion. Sigh. Things are never easy around here, it seems. Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I come to you again, sir; I suppose you've become my de facto role model here on Wikipedia. I could use your help after all, sir. As I'm sure you've noticed, it seems now things are getting completely out of hand. You've noted "Sloane" and "Bali Ultimate"'s behavior in pouring through other pages I've done, as well as of user "PeterJukes", and I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose, obstensibly to make it "better" though they removed several of the citations even some of the deletion-voting people found notable- take a look at the history for the references. This is getting completely out of hand. It seems to have escape any semblance of people working for the better of Wikipedia, and it's getting hard for me to stay cool. I created and saved this page, or tried to, in it's first incarnation through my work at WP:BLOG, and I just don't have any clue why there are so many people bound and determined to see it gone, when I've got a backlog of 200+ blog articles I never saw them help us get worked through. For Christ's sake, the entire WP:BLOG backlog could have been done with the amount of time and energy spent on this project- but I asked some of the people to actually contribute, but they declined; apparently, this is a better use of their time. Sir, I truly am ardently defending the Moose article because I worked hard on it, and because I believe it would be a fine example of a Wikipedia article, a contribution to our further effort here- but if I knew it was going to generate so much controversy, I certainly would have rethought this! If you know a way to get ahold of an admin to perhaps figure out a way to mediate all of this, I don't know. Certainly, there must be a better way than this. Any suggestions you can give me on this would be great. Thanks. Ks64q2 ( talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Caught my boo-boo and corrected it even as you were writing. Sorry my friend. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My bad. In just a quck glance as I was flitting back and forth, I saw this and immediately thought it was you. Looking back it was Bongomatic... a very decent editor with whom I have bumped heads occasionally. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your last edit there, because there was no good reason to move your opinion to the bottom, outside the chronological order. No new arguments have been introduced since mine or other people's comments either, but I don't move my comment to the bottom or top or anywhere else. You are free to uncollapse your comment if you prefer it that way, but apart from that there is no reason at all to change the order of the discussion. Fram ( talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, this is slightly awkward and perhaps a case of reverse-canvassing, but would you mind posting that collapsed !keep (or a new version thereof) on the talk page? I've just posted a new references breakdown there (which captures the whole reason I nominated the entry in the first place.) That summary of yours is the most succinct counter-point, which I think captures the !keep side almost in its entirety. Having the two side-by-side could be considered a kindness to anyone new to that monster AfD. 9Nak ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I see you're translating a number of pages from the German Wikipedia. Thanks a lot! That's a very useful contribution. Just one little thing: in order to give credit (under GFDL) to the Wikipedian contributors to the German article you're translating from, please put a note in the article itself and/or in the edit summaries while you translate, stating where the material is from and giving a link to the original article. I've done that here for the Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt, which I ran into on New Page Patrol. Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, This is in response to the earlier comments that you have made.Thank you for the valuable feedback. >"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold." As per your suggestion ,I have rewritten the article and added sources. Could you please take a look at it and give me your suggestions. Appreciate your help. Amarhindustani ( talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
This page 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
Sir, I wanted to discuss and contest your decision at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28. Sir, if the only criteria for article deletion is a consensus, as you seem to suggest, then a poll should have been posted and results decided thusly- correct? Or are you suggesting that, strictly speaking, the editor followed the purview of their responsibility, rather than judging on the merits of any discussion? Furthermore, if the consensus was flawed in the ways I have chronicled above, this would further call the decision into question. Furthermore, affirmation of the deletion decision should be based on the merits of arguments presented, not simply on what a majority of the people felt- or am I mistaken in that belief? Even if you disagree with my positions, though, I'd like to thank you for participating in the discussion. At the very worst, this helps me understand the inner workings of Wikipedia and my role in helping make it a better place. Thank you! Ks64q2 ( talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In what variant of English is "past-time" the correct local spelling of "pastime"? I've never encountered it, and am not seeing it in any dictionaries. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
I hereby award you this barnstar, for saving the Level bomber article from deletion by vastly expanding the article and your continuing efforts to improve it. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
Why, thank you very much!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that you would make a fine admin, and I wonder whether it might be time for you to pursue an RfA (apologies for my prodding, certainly, if you've previously expressed a disinclination to go thither). 68.249.7.193 ( talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice essay you have there. It would be nice if it had a bit more visibility. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You missed the account in ASC--it's one of the classic stories of actual medieval knights behaving like they were in Monty Python--see my link at the AfD. DGG ( talk) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
...I don't think I've ever said this, but Level bomber is a really fine piece of work--when it came up at AfD, I didn't think it had any potential at all. I'm glad you proved me wrong. So:
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Awarded to S Marshall for a fine, fine job saving Level bomber. Your efforts at "filter[ing] for relevance, brevity and clarity" are greatly appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey S, the date 991, which you changed, comes out of that Cambridge book ( [2])--I suspect the idea is that he betrayed, in 991, a plot laid for 992. Thoughts? Drmies ( talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This should probably be userfied. No? THF ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Yi Fan. By the way that AfD is a hoot, you should check it out if you haven't been back. 72.70.2.74 ( talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I took this one to our friendly neighborhood lawyer. If, as it seems, the chart is not a direct reproduction, he does not believe it is a copyright problem for Wikipedia. I compared the chart to the downloadable Excel chart. I can't see the others. The Excel chart includes information not in that source, so Mike is of the opinion that it should be clear, ala Feist. Before closing the copyright listing, I just wanted to check with you to see if you know if any of those other charts are direct duplication or if, like the Excel chart, there are differences. Any clarification you can provide would be welcome. I'm watching here for response. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you make of this one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest magazine? Drmies ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Like to request for your advise on what would be needed to provide justification for overturning deletion of article as this is the first article deletion appeal I am doing and would appreciate advise on what to do. Thanks. Ncknight ( talk) 18:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14#Nicholas_Chan
Please don't add Category:American politicians directly to people who are already in a subcategory for the particular state and/or office that their career was specifically associated with. That category is supposed to be as close as possible to being completely empty of individual articles. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I just wanted to take the time to thank you once again for your help in the discussion on the article The Motley Moose. I know you are a busy person and can't spent all day editing Wikipedia articles of course, heh, but for you to take the time to add your voice- and especially to take all the events of that discussion under advisement before making a decision- really speaks to your character, and I wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated it. Thank you! Ks64q2 ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And to follow up on your most recent comment, you're absolutely right; I will take your advice. Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And a third follow up, I had deleted my response to that user, and then he decided he needed to resubmit the page for speedy deletion. Sigh. Things are never easy around here, it seems. Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I come to you again, sir; I suppose you've become my de facto role model here on Wikipedia. I could use your help after all, sir. As I'm sure you've noticed, it seems now things are getting completely out of hand. You've noted "Sloane" and "Bali Ultimate"'s behavior in pouring through other pages I've done, as well as of user "PeterJukes", and I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose, obstensibly to make it "better" though they removed several of the citations even some of the deletion-voting people found notable- take a look at the history for the references. This is getting completely out of hand. It seems to have escape any semblance of people working for the better of Wikipedia, and it's getting hard for me to stay cool. I created and saved this page, or tried to, in it's first incarnation through my work at WP:BLOG, and I just don't have any clue why there are so many people bound and determined to see it gone, when I've got a backlog of 200+ blog articles I never saw them help us get worked through. For Christ's sake, the entire WP:BLOG backlog could have been done with the amount of time and energy spent on this project- but I asked some of the people to actually contribute, but they declined; apparently, this is a better use of their time. Sir, I truly am ardently defending the Moose article because I worked hard on it, and because I believe it would be a fine example of a Wikipedia article, a contribution to our further effort here- but if I knew it was going to generate so much controversy, I certainly would have rethought this! If you know a way to get ahold of an admin to perhaps figure out a way to mediate all of this, I don't know. Certainly, there must be a better way than this. Any suggestions you can give me on this would be great. Thanks. Ks64q2 ( talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Caught my boo-boo and corrected it even as you were writing. Sorry my friend. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My bad. In just a quck glance as I was flitting back and forth, I saw this and immediately thought it was you. Looking back it was Bongomatic... a very decent editor with whom I have bumped heads occasionally. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your last edit there, because there was no good reason to move your opinion to the bottom, outside the chronological order. No new arguments have been introduced since mine or other people's comments either, but I don't move my comment to the bottom or top or anywhere else. You are free to uncollapse your comment if you prefer it that way, but apart from that there is no reason at all to change the order of the discussion. Fram ( talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, this is slightly awkward and perhaps a case of reverse-canvassing, but would you mind posting that collapsed !keep (or a new version thereof) on the talk page? I've just posted a new references breakdown there (which captures the whole reason I nominated the entry in the first place.) That summary of yours is the most succinct counter-point, which I think captures the !keep side almost in its entirety. Having the two side-by-side could be considered a kindness to anyone new to that monster AfD. 9Nak ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I see you're translating a number of pages from the German Wikipedia. Thanks a lot! That's a very useful contribution. Just one little thing: in order to give credit (under GFDL) to the Wikipedian contributors to the German article you're translating from, please put a note in the article itself and/or in the edit summaries while you translate, stating where the material is from and giving a link to the original article. I've done that here for the Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt, which I ran into on New Page Patrol. Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, This is in response to the earlier comments that you have made.Thank you for the valuable feedback. >"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold." As per your suggestion ,I have rewritten the article and added sources. Could you please take a look at it and give me your suggestions. Appreciate your help. Amarhindustani ( talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |