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. |
Hello,
I am curious as to the reason for the delation of the Star Wars Organization: Rebel Legion. Seeing that the 501st Legion is the "villians" portion of the Star Wars costuming group and has not been removed, I'm wondering why the "heroes" costuming group was removed?
Thank you,
jrhermle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.147.18 ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support — BQZip01 — talk 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hoshino Fuuta. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Farix ( Talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I protected 1990s for two weeks, without knowing that you had already declined the RFPP request. Are you alright with that? If not, just let me know, and I'll unprotect it. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have another look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. Not only because I replied to your coment, but also because I added another related template. Debresser ( talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sports Desks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
That's a sock of the banned
User:Ron liebman. He probably won't use that ID again, but just in case, please change the block from a week to indef, as is normally done with his socks.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me who/how you decide which articles to delete and who has the power to make the final decision?
I was just watching one discussion, where the person who had initiated the "reasons for deletion" had a personal reason for wanting this article deleted (and was being quite aggresive and spiteful in doing it -which I believe is against the Wikipedia ethos?). But despite arguments coming from both sides of the fence, and the issue being very torn, this person succeeded. Incidentally, the article in question had also been flagged several times, by several people, for rescue. But this seems to have been ignored too. Can you advise me on why such a situation would occur as it does not seem correct?
I am just trying to understand how Wikipedia works at the moment as, obviously, it works best if it, uh, works best.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.17.99 ( talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To address your point about the specific discussion (and I don't know whether or not this was one of mine) I can say that if there is wide participation in a discussion, I worry less about whether the nominator has a personal reason for seeking the deletion. The times that a personal bias is concerning to me is when few people are involved in the discussion, and it seems that one side is not being properly represented. In those cases I will generally leave a comment (sometimes called an !vote) rather than close the discussion.
The thing to remember, ultimately, is that all deleted articles can be restored. If an article is deleted because there are no reliable sources about it, anyone can go, find sources, ask for a copy of the article to be undeleted in their user space, and make an article that will meet the standards. The only time you are unlikely to get an old copy is if the article violated the biographies of living persons policy (think along the lines of defamation, although the policy is much broader than that) or a copyright violation.
Sorry that was so long. If I haven't answered your question, feel free to follow up. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the action on my userpage. I actually didn't realize that "full protection" meant editing was restricted to admins (having never actually read WP:PROTECT). And likewise, I didn't realize that semi-protect meant new accounts were barred from editing that page as well. Now I know. Thanks again. freshacconci talktalk 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contraception In the talk page, we're having some disagreements. Did you consider the arguments of any of those that said redirect, valid? Please look over and tell me your opinion. When you close an article as no consensus, should it be instantly replaced with a redirect anyway? Or should there be another discussion about that? Dream Focus 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the perils of ignoring consensus. When I get my 3RR block and end up fulminating at WR, you get a barnstar. Anyway, I think we should go to DR to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
12:53, 14 May 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. |
Hello,
I am curious as to the reason for the delation of the Star Wars Organization: Rebel Legion. Seeing that the 501st Legion is the "villians" portion of the Star Wars costuming group and has not been removed, I'm wondering why the "heroes" costuming group was removed?
Thank you,
jrhermle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.147.18 ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support — BQZip01 — talk 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hoshino Fuuta. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Farix ( Talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I protected 1990s for two weeks, without knowing that you had already declined the RFPP request. Are you alright with that? If not, just let me know, and I'll unprotect it. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have another look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. Not only because I replied to your coment, but also because I added another related template. Debresser ( talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sports Desks (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
That's a sock of the banned
User:Ron liebman. He probably won't use that ID again, but just in case, please change the block from a week to indef, as is normally done with his socks.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me who/how you decide which articles to delete and who has the power to make the final decision?
I was just watching one discussion, where the person who had initiated the "reasons for deletion" had a personal reason for wanting this article deleted (and was being quite aggresive and spiteful in doing it -which I believe is against the Wikipedia ethos?). But despite arguments coming from both sides of the fence, and the issue being very torn, this person succeeded. Incidentally, the article in question had also been flagged several times, by several people, for rescue. But this seems to have been ignored too. Can you advise me on why such a situation would occur as it does not seem correct?
I am just trying to understand how Wikipedia works at the moment as, obviously, it works best if it, uh, works best.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.17.99 ( talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To address your point about the specific discussion (and I don't know whether or not this was one of mine) I can say that if there is wide participation in a discussion, I worry less about whether the nominator has a personal reason for seeking the deletion. The times that a personal bias is concerning to me is when few people are involved in the discussion, and it seems that one side is not being properly represented. In those cases I will generally leave a comment (sometimes called an !vote) rather than close the discussion.
The thing to remember, ultimately, is that all deleted articles can be restored. If an article is deleted because there are no reliable sources about it, anyone can go, find sources, ask for a copy of the article to be undeleted in their user space, and make an article that will meet the standards. The only time you are unlikely to get an old copy is if the article violated the biographies of living persons policy (think along the lines of defamation, although the policy is much broader than that) or a copyright violation.
Sorry that was so long. If I haven't answered your question, feel free to follow up. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the action on my userpage. I actually didn't realize that "full protection" meant editing was restricted to admins (having never actually read WP:PROTECT). And likewise, I didn't realize that semi-protect meant new accounts were barred from editing that page as well. Now I know. Thanks again. freshacconci talktalk 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contraception In the talk page, we're having some disagreements. Did you consider the arguments of any of those that said redirect, valid? Please look over and tell me your opinion. When you close an article as no consensus, should it be instantly replaced with a redirect anyway? Or should there be another discussion about that? Dream Focus 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the perils of ignoring consensus. When I get my 3RR block and end up fulminating at WR, you get a barnstar. Anyway, I think we should go to DR to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)