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. |
I believe your category Category:Characters in The Faerie Path is not truly a valid Wikipedia character, as it contains only 1 page, and that is a user page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. With regards to this edit, you added an invalid template. The file could not be deleted due to that template for 2 reasons. The first is that the file was just uploaded today. F6 applies to files that are at least 7 days old. Also, F6 only applies to files where fair use is claimed. There was no license applied to the file nor was there a text claim of fair use being made. All that being said, I do agree that the file should deleted, but you may want to be a bit more careful of your F6 tagging in the future.-- Rockfang ( talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hallo from Sydney, Australia (hence the odd time stamp). Thank you for your talk page comment about avoiding editing wars with anonymous editors. I've been editing this page in particular for over a year now; I've added a lot including references, and I try to make some explanatory note on the talk page. Unfortunately, another couple of IP-address-only editors have again been deleting material, without leaving any explanation as to why. To me this seems close to vandalism. Both of these IPs are in the US, using the geolocate tool; I don't know if they're on campuses or private. Would you be able to consider rolling back to your own last edited version, please. --DavidB 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
An administrator "Shii" has reverted the article and blocked vandalism for a week, apparently at your request. Many thanks. --DavidB 04:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
When you place a speedy deletion request, you must include in the edit summary that you are doing so,to help us admins see things quickly when we check. (ah, I see someone else mentioned it to you--Twinkle does help that. Just ignore the features you don't want to use). Incidentally, the bar for speedy A7 is not notability, but the much lower standard of having any indication of significance or importance, & to assert that someone has written several published books is such an indication. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, I do not understand why my Biological Functionalism article is tagged as requiring more references or sources for verification. My article is composed of 7 sentences, yet it has 5 references. Surely this is enough. I do not understand what more I need to do for this tag to be removed. My references are from reputable academic sources. Could you please explain to me what is wrong with the article? Cheers! Higginson21 ( talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The expansion tag is a different issue. I still do not understand why there is a tag claiming that more references are needed. There are 7 sentences in the article, 5 of which have a citation after them. Surely this is enough. I believe that the tag should be removed. Cheers. Higginson21 ( talk) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag! I hope I didn't come across as aggressive; this was not my intention. I appreciate your comments on the article. Thanks!. Higginson21 ( talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I have no idea where it came from. It's not really needed, but if you can find one, that might work. I'm really only concerned on fixing her main article for right now, I apologize. =( Dottiewest1fan ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for patrolling new pages. However, you recently flagged Classic Dance of Love as CSD A3, which is meant for pages without content. That was not the case, as the page contained an infobox at the time you flagged it. I therefore removed the CSD template. Please, therefore, and study our Criteria for speedy deletion more carefully to avoid premature deletion of the wrong pages. — Sebastian 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to compliment you on your diplomatic reply on that page. I might continue the discussion there some time; if I do so I will let you know. — Sebastian 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo here :). Edit conflicted with you. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, could you point out the relevant rule or stipulation in Wikipedia which states that first-person quotes are "unencyclopedic". Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A stupid question -- but how did you do it? I looked back on the Becer page, and the coding looks exactly the same. All I do is highlight the bit I want footnoted and click on the "reference" icon, but that doesn't seem to do it. Pumpkin888 ( talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
==References==
{{reflist}}
Good luck and happy editting!-- TParis00ap ( talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
hello my friend, just visited your talk page. I see you are doing the same job as i do, new pages and recent changes patrolling. They seem to be some familiarity in characters you deal with and those i deal with. Most characters or contributors whose articles are deleted are new contributors, with nothing on their pages, poor contributing history and so on. please continue doing this vital job in defending credible knowledge. Well done. Freshymail- user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I only changed it because I thought it was about the "accomplishments" of a person, not a hoax. I can see how this is a major COI. You were not in error in any way, I just read it differently. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused you, Tarheel95 ( talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I started a report about it on WP:ANI. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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. |
I believe your category Category:Characters in The Faerie Path is not truly a valid Wikipedia character, as it contains only 1 page, and that is a user page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. With regards to this edit, you added an invalid template. The file could not be deleted due to that template for 2 reasons. The first is that the file was just uploaded today. F6 applies to files that are at least 7 days old. Also, F6 only applies to files where fair use is claimed. There was no license applied to the file nor was there a text claim of fair use being made. All that being said, I do agree that the file should deleted, but you may want to be a bit more careful of your F6 tagging in the future.-- Rockfang ( talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hallo from Sydney, Australia (hence the odd time stamp). Thank you for your talk page comment about avoiding editing wars with anonymous editors. I've been editing this page in particular for over a year now; I've added a lot including references, and I try to make some explanatory note on the talk page. Unfortunately, another couple of IP-address-only editors have again been deleting material, without leaving any explanation as to why. To me this seems close to vandalism. Both of these IPs are in the US, using the geolocate tool; I don't know if they're on campuses or private. Would you be able to consider rolling back to your own last edited version, please. --DavidB 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
An administrator "Shii" has reverted the article and blocked vandalism for a week, apparently at your request. Many thanks. --DavidB 04:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
When you place a speedy deletion request, you must include in the edit summary that you are doing so,to help us admins see things quickly when we check. (ah, I see someone else mentioned it to you--Twinkle does help that. Just ignore the features you don't want to use). Incidentally, the bar for speedy A7 is not notability, but the much lower standard of having any indication of significance or importance, & to assert that someone has written several published books is such an indication. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, I do not understand why my Biological Functionalism article is tagged as requiring more references or sources for verification. My article is composed of 7 sentences, yet it has 5 references. Surely this is enough. I do not understand what more I need to do for this tag to be removed. My references are from reputable academic sources. Could you please explain to me what is wrong with the article? Cheers! Higginson21 ( talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The expansion tag is a different issue. I still do not understand why there is a tag claiming that more references are needed. There are 7 sentences in the article, 5 of which have a citation after them. Surely this is enough. I believe that the tag should be removed. Cheers. Higginson21 ( talk) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag! I hope I didn't come across as aggressive; this was not my intention. I appreciate your comments on the article. Thanks!. Higginson21 ( talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I have no idea where it came from. It's not really needed, but if you can find one, that might work. I'm really only concerned on fixing her main article for right now, I apologize. =( Dottiewest1fan ( talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for patrolling new pages. However, you recently flagged Classic Dance of Love as CSD A3, which is meant for pages without content. That was not the case, as the page contained an infobox at the time you flagged it. I therefore removed the CSD template. Please, therefore, and study our Criteria for speedy deletion more carefully to avoid premature deletion of the wrong pages. — Sebastian 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to compliment you on your diplomatic reply on that page. I might continue the discussion there some time; if I do so I will let you know. — Sebastian 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo here :). Edit conflicted with you. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, could you point out the relevant rule or stipulation in Wikipedia which states that first-person quotes are "unencyclopedic". Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A stupid question -- but how did you do it? I looked back on the Becer page, and the coding looks exactly the same. All I do is highlight the bit I want footnoted and click on the "reference" icon, but that doesn't seem to do it. Pumpkin888 ( talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
==References==
{{reflist}}
Good luck and happy editting!-- TParis00ap ( talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
hello my friend, just visited your talk page. I see you are doing the same job as i do, new pages and recent changes patrolling. They seem to be some familiarity in characters you deal with and those i deal with. Most characters or contributors whose articles are deleted are new contributors, with nothing on their pages, poor contributing history and so on. please continue doing this vital job in defending credible knowledge. Well done. Freshymail- user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I only changed it because I thought it was about the "accomplishments" of a person, not a hoax. I can see how this is a major COI. You were not in error in any way, I just read it differently. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused you, Tarheel95 ( talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I started a report about it on WP:ANI. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)