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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
I apologize, I don't really know how to reply to you about change. However, you are incorrect in undoing the previous change. OUC is the copyright holder for the page you mention, and the edit was a significant technical correction for the rather inadequate and misleading information that you replaced. Promise Theory is mainly the work of Professor Mark Burgess, a professor at our college, and we have been asked to improve the information posted by others who have only a partial understanding of this. We would appreciate the change being replaced for everyone's benefit. We have been careful to add references. Thank you. Ouc ( talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added the necessary text on the source pages, and will endeavour to put the text back into the article. Thank you. 90.152.67.76 ( talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why caps for Every Word in a book title? A bit bizarre, isn't it? Vernon White . . . Talk 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
for your cleanup of the Jordan Galland table, could you please fix the other table if you get a chance, I can't appear to make it look the right way. Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks again, looks lovely! I am working on a couple of other articles.. Geminolais one... Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point, went back and made dab pages. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Paul Giambarba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bearian (
talk)
18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your educational reversion of my edit to Happy (disambiguation). Though I did go back and redo the other part of my edit (namely replacing the hyphen), I've read through the deep dark depths of MOSDAB and found that you're correct. I have therefore made this same change to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (disambiguation), am contemplating sweeping changes to SAD, and have only you to blame for this new wiki-nitpickery. :-) -- Perey ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
For this -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This page is nearly perfect given Manual of style edits. Thank you for making such a concise and useful page. Shadowjams ( talk) 10:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I know, there are some false positives, but it is not easy to account for any possible way to create an anchor. I'm doing my best, but as you can see for example in List of Castle episodes#ep18, there is no section named ep18 neither a standard anchor template like {{ anchor}}. No standard html anchor nor a ref with that name: the anchor is generated by the template {{ Episode list}} from the parameter episode number. WildBot will remove any false positive box within minutes. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you discuss this on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A simple solution, but for some reason it never occurred to me! Thanks, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a hoax. I listed it for speedy deletion. Woogee ( talk) 05:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to stay kind of quiet on this one to avoid my usual penchant for throwing fat on the fire, but I happen to agree with your position on the matter, so if you need a hand for a comment, vote, or whatever, I have the maverick page watchlisted, but if something pops up elsewhere, let me know and I'll take a peek. Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
hi you did a great job with the table some time ago...I seemed to have goofed it up..can you help with this? thanks! Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks! looks great!!
have a puppy! -- Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! here is something else I created, but it got "incubated" feel freey to pretty this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Vamps_(film)
Pumkinhead001 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
Hello again! also if you get a chance...can you do up a little chart for the awards section of Jordan Galland I can't seem to get it right..
thanks, Pumkinhead001 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
Hello ShelfSkewed, can you please explain why this template would be pointless? I can think of a couple of good reasons to use it. Giuliopp ( talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The advantages I see with disamb templates are that they automatically ensure consistency across all pages, and all pages can be changed at the touch of a button - e.g. if in future a new style/format of the opening line is introduced - instead of manually having to update hundreds of individual pages. I was not aware of the argument against, regarding editing tools. I guess the whole question has already been debated somewhere (maybe you can point me to it?). Assuming then that there is a consensus on not using templates in disamb pages, why do such specific templates exist in the first place? -- Giuliopp ( talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The ease of maintainability I mentioned refers more to the wording, in case one day, for example, it is agreed that the words "may refer to" should change to "can refer to". That is by itself a significant advantage of templates, in my view. In any case, I thought that templates were more part of WP guidelines (or even part of the wikisoftware), rather than a particular editor's own initiative. I also gather that templates are not particularly popular, at least on disamb pages, so won't bother to raise the issue for now. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have
granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting
vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting
good-faith edits or to
revert-war. For information on rollback, see
Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and
Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.
decltype
(
talk)
06:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I should have added that bit myself. Thanks for catching it. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain why you moved A (Kannada film) to A (1998 Indian film)? Your edit summary was "Standard disambiguation by year, and by country to distinguish from Japanese film". What standard is this, and is always having to include the year a rule or just a guideline? (Why is it crucial to have the year in the title?) How does "A (Kannada film)" fail to distinguish from the Japanese film? Why must the title contain the country rather than the language? Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was, erm, not thinking straight :) — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.
I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.
Thank you.
Vyeh ( talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how this edit is supported by MOS:DABRL. I am not trying to be difficult, but I just don't see it. – ukexpat ( talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, ShelfSkewed. Forgive my recent reversion of the Good Enough (song) article. I saw your first notation directing attention to WP:INTDABLINK and read the section carefully before reverting and I saw nothing in the hatnote area requiring the addition of "(disambiguation)" to a link, only that an article with a common name should contain a link to the disambiguation page (which was directly done already). I saw that you had restored your edit today but with only the same link to WP:INTDABLINK with no further comment or explanation. Re-reading the section, perhaps you meant to link to WP:FURTHERDAB which directly defines exactly what you were doing: "Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page."
Anyway. I just wanted to comment that further explanation in an edit summary (or perhaps a message on the article's, or editor's talk page) could prevent an edit war in the future with someone who doesn't go to such lengths as I did to try understanding what it is you meant.
Thanks for understanding. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe we should keep the main meaning (the voice procedure call) as the opening entry in the disambiguation page. Lwyx ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
With the multiple unstated reversions recently with this page, i am of the mind to ask for page protection, what do you think? I have left a message here for said user. Monkeymanman ( talk) 21:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Bud Webster here. Humph. I don't believe for a minute that you even have missiles, Shelfskewed, but for the sake of my books I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I bet I have more than you do, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.247.126 ( talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Didn't even notice your comment. Okay, I'll leave the links alone on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
...for beating me to this. I went to revert it and saw that you'd already taken care of it. -- Auntof6 ( talk) 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Wgy did you delete this reference? The Group was real, the album is real and the song is real! So there isn't a page on Wiki at the momeny. Take a look at the Deaths page. The lack of a page does not nullify the existence of something. On top of that I have just written a novel based on the ideas behind the song. Can we please leave this reference in until someone writes a page about it? Williamgeorgefraser 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser ( talk • contribs)
In light of your previous participation in this conversation, you may wish to opine in the deletion discussion for Delirious (disambiguation) and The Choir (disambiguation) now underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear ShelfSkewed, Don't you think that the article needs an inbox photo? The official poster is on google look up "Supafest Poster".11:01, 12 November 2010 User:K.M.D1994 (UTC)
Thanks for revert at Aftermath. It's a while since I read WP:MOSDAB, and I'd not seen that bit – it makes good sense. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(Original message copied from Talk:ShelfSkewed)
I have been complementing writers' pages with links for Untitled Books website, where they have been featured or contributed.
My contributions have been consistently erased by the user ShelfSkewed under the banner of spam. Untitled Books is a serious publication, of the likes of The Paris Review or McSweeney. I don't see other users erasing links to these websites or others, such as The Guardian or The Times.
I have been warned that if I keep adding contributions my account will be cancelled. I tried to contact ShelfSkewed and the only reply I have received was more threats of being banned.
Mfceia ( talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering if you had any references for the chart figures in that article. I couldn't find any, and specific figures like that need sources. Without the charts section, there's really no point in maintaining it as a seperate article, so if you had references for that it'd be helpful. Cheers, C628 ( talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restorng my edits to this article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The good doctor (phrase), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Good Doctor. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for putting me straight re DAB inclusion criteria here.
That's a mistake for me not to repeat!
I know you're just the messenger, & you rightly pointed me to the place to discuss the issue.
I won't go that far, although I am rather astonished at the policy.
After all, it means that if one's a barely-notable musician, one can possibly get loads of links to one's article. For every album where one's not had the inventiveness to think of a unique name, that's one link for each.
Then, let's say your article provides all the tracks listings for each album you've been involved with. If your lack of invention extends to the song titles, too, then each song could get you another link. Multiply this by the no. of all such musicians, and WP becomes one very cluttered encyclopaedia!
End of rant - please excuse me. But you do see where I was coming from, don't you?
Not to worry, we can't fix everything (& I lack the stomach to campaign for a policy-change!).
But thanks again for correcting my changes, showing me the policies & where I could take it further. You did a good job. Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you have edited my entry for Elton John's instrumental "Out of the Blue". I'm not sure that removing the links for the sake of being neat and tidy provides any clarity to the entry. If an article exists in Wikipedia about Elton John or the Top Gear series, why not link to it? Is there a specific code of conduct regarding linking to other articles? Also, I'm not sure why you moved the entry to the bottom of the list. As far as I can tell, the list is in alphabetical order, by band or the first name of artist. If the object of Wikipedia is to educate, I'm not convinced that your edit provides a justifiable contribution to this cause. Only allowing one link per entry may be aesthetically pleasing, to you, but is rather limiting. Unless you can convince me or point towards a policy regarding linking in articles, I propose to re-edit, adding the links, but keeping your general edit. Thanks, and in good faith. 96.248.139.183 ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Driven (American magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
ttonyb (
talk)
05:51, 28 December 2010 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
I apologize, I don't really know how to reply to you about change. However, you are incorrect in undoing the previous change. OUC is the copyright holder for the page you mention, and the edit was a significant technical correction for the rather inadequate and misleading information that you replaced. Promise Theory is mainly the work of Professor Mark Burgess, a professor at our college, and we have been asked to improve the information posted by others who have only a partial understanding of this. We would appreciate the change being replaced for everyone's benefit. We have been careful to add references. Thank you. Ouc ( talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added the necessary text on the source pages, and will endeavour to put the text back into the article. Thank you. 90.152.67.76 ( talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why caps for Every Word in a book title? A bit bizarre, isn't it? Vernon White . . . Talk 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
for your cleanup of the Jordan Galland table, could you please fix the other table if you get a chance, I can't appear to make it look the right way. Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks again, looks lovely! I am working on a couple of other articles.. Geminolais one... Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point, went back and made dab pages. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Paul Giambarba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bearian (
talk)
18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your educational reversion of my edit to Happy (disambiguation). Though I did go back and redo the other part of my edit (namely replacing the hyphen), I've read through the deep dark depths of MOSDAB and found that you're correct. I have therefore made this same change to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (disambiguation), am contemplating sweeping changes to SAD, and have only you to blame for this new wiki-nitpickery. :-) -- Perey ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
For this -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This page is nearly perfect given Manual of style edits. Thank you for making such a concise and useful page. Shadowjams ( talk) 10:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I know, there are some false positives, but it is not easy to account for any possible way to create an anchor. I'm doing my best, but as you can see for example in List of Castle episodes#ep18, there is no section named ep18 neither a standard anchor template like {{ anchor}}. No standard html anchor nor a ref with that name: the anchor is generated by the template {{ Episode list}} from the parameter episode number. WildBot will remove any false positive box within minutes. -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you discuss this on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A simple solution, but for some reason it never occurred to me! Thanks, Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a hoax. I listed it for speedy deletion. Woogee ( talk) 05:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to stay kind of quiet on this one to avoid my usual penchant for throwing fat on the fire, but I happen to agree with your position on the matter, so if you need a hand for a comment, vote, or whatever, I have the maverick page watchlisted, but if something pops up elsewhere, let me know and I'll take a peek. Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
hi you did a great job with the table some time ago...I seemed to have goofed it up..can you help with this? thanks! Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks! looks great!!
have a puppy! -- Pumkinhead001 ( talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! here is something else I created, but it got "incubated" feel freey to pretty this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Vamps_(film)
Pumkinhead001 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
Hello again! also if you get a chance...can you do up a little chart for the awards section of Jordan Galland I can't seem to get it right..
thanks, Pumkinhead001 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
Hello ShelfSkewed, can you please explain why this template would be pointless? I can think of a couple of good reasons to use it. Giuliopp ( talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The advantages I see with disamb templates are that they automatically ensure consistency across all pages, and all pages can be changed at the touch of a button - e.g. if in future a new style/format of the opening line is introduced - instead of manually having to update hundreds of individual pages. I was not aware of the argument against, regarding editing tools. I guess the whole question has already been debated somewhere (maybe you can point me to it?). Assuming then that there is a consensus on not using templates in disamb pages, why do such specific templates exist in the first place? -- Giuliopp ( talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The ease of maintainability I mentioned refers more to the wording, in case one day, for example, it is agreed that the words "may refer to" should change to "can refer to". That is by itself a significant advantage of templates, in my view. In any case, I thought that templates were more part of WP guidelines (or even part of the wikisoftware), rather than a particular editor's own initiative. I also gather that templates are not particularly popular, at least on disamb pages, so won't bother to raise the issue for now. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have
granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting
vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting
good-faith edits or to
revert-war. For information on rollback, see
Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and
Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.
decltype
(
talk)
06:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I should have added that bit myself. Thanks for catching it. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain why you moved A (Kannada film) to A (1998 Indian film)? Your edit summary was "Standard disambiguation by year, and by country to distinguish from Japanese film". What standard is this, and is always having to include the year a rule or just a guideline? (Why is it crucial to have the year in the title?) How does "A (Kannada film)" fail to distinguish from the Japanese film? Why must the title contain the country rather than the language? Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was, erm, not thinking straight :) — Huntster ( t @ c) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.
I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.
Thank you.
Vyeh ( talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how this edit is supported by MOS:DABRL. I am not trying to be difficult, but I just don't see it. – ukexpat ( talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, ShelfSkewed. Forgive my recent reversion of the Good Enough (song) article. I saw your first notation directing attention to WP:INTDABLINK and read the section carefully before reverting and I saw nothing in the hatnote area requiring the addition of "(disambiguation)" to a link, only that an article with a common name should contain a link to the disambiguation page (which was directly done already). I saw that you had restored your edit today but with only the same link to WP:INTDABLINK with no further comment or explanation. Re-reading the section, perhaps you meant to link to WP:FURTHERDAB which directly defines exactly what you were doing: "Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page."
Anyway. I just wanted to comment that further explanation in an edit summary (or perhaps a message on the article's, or editor's talk page) could prevent an edit war in the future with someone who doesn't go to such lengths as I did to try understanding what it is you meant.
Thanks for understanding. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe we should keep the main meaning (the voice procedure call) as the opening entry in the disambiguation page. Lwyx ( talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
With the multiple unstated reversions recently with this page, i am of the mind to ask for page protection, what do you think? I have left a message here for said user. Monkeymanman ( talk) 21:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Bud Webster here. Humph. I don't believe for a minute that you even have missiles, Shelfskewed, but for the sake of my books I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I bet I have more than you do, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.247.126 ( talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Didn't even notice your comment. Okay, I'll leave the links alone on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
...for beating me to this. I went to revert it and saw that you'd already taken care of it. -- Auntof6 ( talk) 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Wgy did you delete this reference? The Group was real, the album is real and the song is real! So there isn't a page on Wiki at the momeny. Take a look at the Deaths page. The lack of a page does not nullify the existence of something. On top of that I have just written a novel based on the ideas behind the song. Can we please leave this reference in until someone writes a page about it? Williamgeorgefraser 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser ( talk • contribs)
In light of your previous participation in this conversation, you may wish to opine in the deletion discussion for Delirious (disambiguation) and The Choir (disambiguation) now underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear ShelfSkewed, Don't you think that the article needs an inbox photo? The official poster is on google look up "Supafest Poster".11:01, 12 November 2010 User:K.M.D1994 (UTC)
Thanks for revert at Aftermath. It's a while since I read WP:MOSDAB, and I'd not seen that bit – it makes good sense. Regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(Original message copied from Talk:ShelfSkewed)
I have been complementing writers' pages with links for Untitled Books website, where they have been featured or contributed.
My contributions have been consistently erased by the user ShelfSkewed under the banner of spam. Untitled Books is a serious publication, of the likes of The Paris Review or McSweeney. I don't see other users erasing links to these websites or others, such as The Guardian or The Times.
I have been warned that if I keep adding contributions my account will be cancelled. I tried to contact ShelfSkewed and the only reply I have received was more threats of being banned.
Mfceia ( talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering if you had any references for the chart figures in that article. I couldn't find any, and specific figures like that need sources. Without the charts section, there's really no point in maintaining it as a seperate article, so if you had references for that it'd be helpful. Cheers, C628 ( talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restorng my edits to this article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The good doctor (phrase), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Good Doctor. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for putting me straight re DAB inclusion criteria here.
That's a mistake for me not to repeat!
I know you're just the messenger, & you rightly pointed me to the place to discuss the issue.
I won't go that far, although I am rather astonished at the policy.
After all, it means that if one's a barely-notable musician, one can possibly get loads of links to one's article. For every album where one's not had the inventiveness to think of a unique name, that's one link for each.
Then, let's say your article provides all the tracks listings for each album you've been involved with. If your lack of invention extends to the song titles, too, then each song could get you another link. Multiply this by the no. of all such musicians, and WP becomes one very cluttered encyclopaedia!
End of rant - please excuse me. But you do see where I was coming from, don't you?
Not to worry, we can't fix everything (& I lack the stomach to campaign for a policy-change!).
But thanks again for correcting my changes, showing me the policies & where I could take it further. You did a good job. Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you have edited my entry for Elton John's instrumental "Out of the Blue". I'm not sure that removing the links for the sake of being neat and tidy provides any clarity to the entry. If an article exists in Wikipedia about Elton John or the Top Gear series, why not link to it? Is there a specific code of conduct regarding linking to other articles? Also, I'm not sure why you moved the entry to the bottom of the list. As far as I can tell, the list is in alphabetical order, by band or the first name of artist. If the object of Wikipedia is to educate, I'm not convinced that your edit provides a justifiable contribution to this cause. Only allowing one link per entry may be aesthetically pleasing, to you, but is rather limiting. Unless you can convince me or point towards a policy regarding linking in articles, I propose to re-edit, adding the links, but keeping your general edit. Thanks, and in good faith. 96.248.139.183 ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Driven (American magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
ttonyb (
talk)
05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)