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, Dpmuk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I know that the article I created basically was a duplicate of the information created, but I was trying to get an article started since all of the other astronaut groups from 1-8 have their own page with significant information. My general feeling is that it is okay to start out with a stub and work up an article from there instead of having to create a significant article at the beginning. Thus, I would rather have the article remain up as a stub rather than as a redirect if you are okay with that. Remember ( talk) 12:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

cool. Remember ( talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Engkanto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engkanto. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed two warning about removing speedy delete tags as they were not applicable. The article I removed it from was not one I created and so it was allowable for me to remove the tag. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kumusta! Thank you very much for your pleasant note. I am not loathe to admit when I am in error, and it appears that I was incorrect in contesting your removal of the Speedy Delete tag.

My actions in trying to have the article removed were based on the concerns that the original article (the one that I initially tagged) had no sense of historical, theological or geographical context. The research I found did not seem to meet WP:RS standards. I wish the article’s original author bothered to put something online that clearly justified its presence – as it stands, other people are rushing in to clean it up. As someone who writes articles for Wikipedia, I always make sure I have my references and links in place before the article is published – I don’t understand why others don’t.

While I have my doubts about the notability of the subject, I respect the views of the Wikipedia community in determining its fate and I am genuinely happy to see people coming to the article’s defense. I am not returning to the AfD debate, as further comment and input from me would be redundant. I also don’t want any angry Engkanto to track me down!

That said, I am genuinely sorry if my actions created any stress in your online experience. I would like to encourage a positive and inclusive environment here, and I hope my efforts have not spoiled your time on the site.

I hope that you can accept this as a token of my appreciation for your hard work and your communications:

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your indefatigable spirit in raising the quality of scholarship and communications within the Wikipedia environment. Ecoleetage ( talk) 15:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to stay in touch. Be well! Ecoleetage ( talk) 15:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

apologies, I removed the uncited text to remove the tag. I just found my folklore book so I might help you fix the article.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a fine article! I would strongly recommend nominating it for WP:DYK -- you would deserve recognition there. Thank you for sharing your progress with me. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I already nominated the article for DYK here.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Ecoleetage ( talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. Names of some administrators often appear in articles like this about schools. I don't have a problem with these particular names (as I've minimized them in the article) per se, but I also have no issue their someone else deleting them out. Still, you should wait 24 hours if you insist on deleting them yourself, lest you get the arbitrary 3RR block. Cheers and happy editing! -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Correction -- you have every right to enforce a specific policy such as WP:WPSCH#WNTI, and cite the other user for 3RR. You should remain excluded from a 3RR ruling, based on my understanding of the policy thus far. Just keep the comments dispassionate and don't bite the newcomers. Cheers! -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. I think a short block will be in order if they continue to do this. Black Kite 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Already blocked, otherwise I'd have blocked him myself. The previous deleted page was a nasty attack page ,so he was clearly not here to contribute constructively. Happy editing! Bencherlite ^Talk 08:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Give the guy more than two minutes to get the sourcing in next time, ok?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I do take your point, and expect that it will be speedied in a couple of days, but he deserves the chance to try to prove otherwise. You could put a Notability tag on the article instead -- have you looked at WP:FRIENDLY? Makes tagging articles for cleanup really easy.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can't use Friendly, the article warning tags are at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for that template list seems pretty dead, so you'd probably have better luck over at the village pump.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my placement of the classification! I will be more careful in the future. Revr J ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i have recently spotted that a group of indian editors are targetting pakistani articles such as K2 and mirpur city and adding tags i retaliate and then they accuse me of vandalising on indian articles can you please add a non indian editor to the dispute cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangparbat ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

believe i have tried many talk pages the indian editors always seem to push there views through and block out any other views they dont agree with even sourced edits are removed like the india pakistan standoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangparbat ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dpmuk! Thanks for the heads up on the spelling correction. I am very new to this, and any advice is greatly appreciated! Dankenpo ( talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You added a speedy delete tag on this page as a copyvio. It would appear that you accidently suggested the page was a copyvio of itself! Consquently I've changed the URL to the correct one (taken from your previous speedy tag which I followed to the actual page copied). Hope this isn't a problem. Dpmuk ( talk) 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Moot point now as I've just noticed it's been deleted. Dpmuk ( talk) 21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted the url into my WP:TWINKLE box to place the template, but i guess the wrong one was in the buffer. Thanks for correcting it :) Excirial ^{( Talk, Contribs)} 21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, Excirial. A user at the Editor assistance board pointed out a couple of your recent speedy deletion taggings, and I just wanted to drop you a line about a couple of them. Please make sure that the article you're tagging actually meets a speedy criteria - while many things may not express notability, such as Rapid roll, only those articles about people, groups, corporations, and web content. Even if it does fit one of those, please try to make sure you use the correct template; for example, {{ db-bio}} only applies to biographical articles. If it doesn't seem like any of those criteria apply, it's probably better to PROD the article or send it to AfD. I took a look at some of your other recent taggings, and the ones pointed out seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, but all the same, please try to be a little more careful, especially when using Twinkle. Thanks for all your help; don't think I'm yelling at you, I just wanted to let you know someone had expressed a concern. Happy editing, and keep up the good work! Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, i kind of tagged a lot of articles today, so i am fairly certain there are some questionable material among them. I am not sure (yet) if i still fully remember the reason for tagging them, but ill see if i can remember the original reasoning. :)

• Rapid roll: This one seems to have been tagged with a A7 tag ,although i have no idea why i used that one( And especially a bio? It should at least have been the generic A7.). The article itself was tagged for CSD by a fairly uncommon rationale i use at times. Normally i refer to these as Snowy articles. If i am COMPLETELY certain that the article stands no chance whatsoever on AFD or PROD, and requires a full rewrite before being a good article, i tend to use CSD over the prod/AFD tags. AFD because its a lot of work and takes to long, and PROD because a contest would create an useless AFD. Be assured i don't do this often.
• Tiger images: This is an article i remember quite well, and the tag is indeed an error on my part. Initially i thought it to be redundant with Tiger and wanted to tag it for merger, before spotting at was some form of origional research and issues with advertising promoting a local project. By that time i read trough it twice i ended up being a bit lost on what to do with it. The G6 tag was a bit of a weird decision though, apologies!
• The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) and Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center: I think i pushed the first one of the two under products products and services and the latter under company. Still, its a bit of a weird decision in retrospect, as both don't really apply.

Thanks for notifying me about this. I always like to know if i'm making mistakes (Feedback keeps me on the tips of my toes :P). Also, major thanks for taking this into context; I have had people wandering in with 3-4 mistakes before who then started an entire preach about 4 problems in ONE DAY were intolerable, most times is less then fiendly wording. (Without actually seeing that it was technically just 4 out of 400). Excirial ^{( Talk, Contribs)} 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Happy to admit to it being me that took it to editor assitance. This wasn't out of a desire to delibrately bad mouth you in a wider setting or any other nasty reason. Rather as I hope I make clear on the editor assistance page it was because I wanted to make sure my concerns were valid before raising them with you given your much greater experience. I hope this is understandable and there's no hard feeling. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But of course this is understandable! And no, no hard feelings whatsoever :). Everyone makes mistakes, and i am in no way an exception to this. Actually, i like it when these mistakes are pointed out, so i can actually learn from them. There are still articles i tag with the wrong tag, sometimes intentional, sometimes by mistake, or sometimes by misinterpretation. However without feedback, there is little i can change about such things. When starting on WP:NPP i was quite overzealous, and it took quite some time (+some good article removals/speedy declines) before someone ever gave me a nudge. So in short, all feedback is welcome, as long as its Civil, adduming good faith, and not entirely taken out of context :) Excirial ^{( Talk, Contribs)} 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Accounting4Taste: talk 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind also adding any thoughts you have/ had to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medalist vs. Medallist, that way you views will be more likely to be seen by everyone in the olympic wikiproject, allowing us a better idea of consensus. Cheers. Basement12 ( talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

THis article was re-created. We has discussed this on my talk page. I have nominated it for deletion via AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Manderson. Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Yep - sorry about that, on Twinkle it said "Web Content" so I thought I could use that - next time I'll PROD for non-notable.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean by not raising further as I don't think the speedy applied anyway? Corvus cornix _talk 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you were saying that my db tag wasn't appropriate. Corvus cornix _talk 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Bvlax2005's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bvlax2005 ( talk) 15:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

thats were i should have put it-- Duggan6592 ( talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you learn something new everyday. I thought only prod tags can be removed by anybody. - Brougham96 ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I had multiple tabs open and placed it on the wrong talk page. Sorry for any problems. -- Non-dropframe ( talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C9orf3 has been reopened. You will now have a full five days before the AFD discussion will be closed as keep, by someone other than myself. John254 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at this page as people have reverted your redirect which was a result of an AfD you closed. I'm still relatively new to wikipedia and not sure what the procedure would be in this case as normally this would be a perfectly allowable edit and I'm not sure whether an AfD discussion trumps this. If you have time giving an explanation of your decision on my user page would also be appreciated so I can learn something. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Having seen your comments on replies at the top of the page if you just 'note' my comment then I'm happy for you just to post here. If a more detailed reply then posting here and copying to my page is also fine. Basically your normal policy, which I was not aware of when I posted the above, is fine. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've restored the redirect (with a better edit summary) and dropped a line to the two users who removed it. Stifle ( talk) 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you deleted my biography section because it was copyrighted on collectorseditions.com. I am the one who wrote the article on collectors editions and have permission from the owner to post it here. How can I keep the biography?

KestesCollectors ( talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the situation under discussion here, thank you for locating and correcting some inappropriately userfied articles. :) I've added a pointer to the relevant document there, which may help clarify when userfying is appropriate and when it is not. If concerns persist, seeking assistance may be a good idea, but perhaps that will be sufficient to let the user know when and when not to userfy. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is more than obvious that the anti-jewish section is unencyclopedic. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The style is more of a news-flash.
2. It contains information purely cited.
3. It is a strong point of view pushover.
4. There are some grammar mistakes and mistakes in punctuation. ( forgive me for mistakes in my own writing here)
5. It seems like this section is not about anti-jewish racism but instead an attack on arabs.
6. It contains dubious information that is apparently intended to misguide the reader.
7. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN PAN-ARABISM

Contrieng ( talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So if more than one tag say the same thing, you remove them ALL? You should have kept one. I am new to Wikipedia editing and I didn't know what the best ones were. You are right not "speedy"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrieng ( talk • contribs)

I understand completely that you don't want to get involved in an argument. I tagged everyone involved in any action concerning the article and you are one of them. I am not going to do it again. What I think is not civil and what agitated me is that you deleted all my edits without discussion. Please refrain from adorned insults in your speech. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrieng ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(You wrote)
Can I suggest a truce where we leave the article as it currently is until we have soliticed more opinions (a request for comment is still open)? Can I also ask what sort of consensus you'd be looking for on any decision reached. Personally I'm happy with just a straight majority of editors generally disagreeing with my view. What would you consider a consensus against your view (and so be enough to stop you changing the article back to your version) and would it need to be on each individual point or would you be happy with general statements?

• I have intentionally refrained from editing this article for a while after AfD debate hoping to give you time to cool down. I’m interested in improving the quality of the article. Needles to say, I assumed that I’m dealing with a reasonable person. That’s why your first blanket revert upset me as being confused and POVed. If you really want to reach a wp:truce try not to delete everything I write, and most certainly, do not delete reliable sources on the subject, because that can be perceived as an outright disruption. -- Poeticbent talk 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Skin Hunters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AN/I thread, #User:Poeticbent and Skin Hunters perm My comment on that thread.

I have opted to take no formal action in response to the Skin Hunters dispute, further to the AN/I thread inviting scrutiny of the editorial conduct there. However, I do wish to issue the following advice:

• When disagreements arise over the content of an article, the appropriate response is to open discussion with the "other side," on the article talk page.
• Should extensive talk page discussion bear no fruit, the parties to the dispute should then seek outside opinions (for example: third opinion; requests for comment). As a further option, seeking informal mediation of the dispute is also possible.
• Throughout editorial content disputes, the parties should remain absolutely civil towards, and respectful of the opinions of, their fellow editors and the other parties. Although tempers may flare at times, one should seek to keep cool and collected; getting angry is simply counter-productive, and as such may be met with a block.
• As a contrast to point one, the appropriate response to an edit which you don't agree with is not to revert or undo that editor's change to a version of the article content you "like." Articles belong to nobody, and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Edit warring is the least helpful response to editorial content disputes possible, and will, in future, be met with a block.

If you have any queries, or require assistance or further advice in the future, please feel free to contact me, either publicly or privately. Good luck with your editing at Skin Hunters, and try and work on the concerns raised in the future.

Anthøny ✉ 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed the prod from this article with the comment "deprod, external links verify that the channel has a license". If you look at all the external links you'll notice that chennel mentioned (and which has the license) is Sky 3 not Sky 4. Therefore I was wondering if you could reconsider your removal of the prod as at the very least the article is unsourced and to me looks like a hoax. Dpmuk ( talk) 11:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately prods cannot be re-added to articles, but you are welcome to list the article at WP:AFD. Stifle ( talk) 12:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with these stubs is that they have largely been created by one user (Paul Mcdonald) using a bot (according to one of his barnstars) and without first ensuring an assertion of notability. It may be that some of them went on to be notable for some other reason but I think they are not automatically notable by virtue of their athletic contributions. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to still be a lot of college football cruft still around. Have you had a chance to take a look? Stifle ( talk) 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the restore. It didn't really seem right to me, either. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The speedy tag was absolutely appropriate for that article. The article does not explain what the Yorkshire County ECB Premier League is, and the fact that it was erroneously categorised as being an association football competition didn't do much to help either. The article does not explain that the league is a cricket league, only that it is "one of the best league [sic] in the country". It doesn't even explain which country it refers to! There are no wikilinks in the article and it is not linked to by any other articles. Finally, it has no references so none of the info in there can be verified! – Pee Jay 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I saw your input in the Dirty Harry (film series) AfD and I wanted to drop by and see how you were doing. Life if okay here: my RfA from last month fizzled (thanks for your support -- I will try again in early 2009), but I rebounded with an election as a coordinator in WikiProject Films. I am also doing a lot of writing and editing, too. What are you working on here? Let me know how life is treating you. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage ( talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I saw that you removed the SD tag I added to the article. Generally speaking, it is considered good form to leave a note on the tagger's talk page when there is an indicate that some work is being done to validate the article. There were a couple of notations in the article talk page. Thanks... ttonyb1 ( talk) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you based your assertion of notability on? § FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I based it on this article, Iwcs a Doyle (linked to from the John Doyle article) and specifically the statement "The album was an overwhelming success on the Welsh music scene, spending over a year at number one in the Radio Cymru charts, making it the second best selling Welsh-language album ever". Although unsourced to me this is definitely suggests notability for the band and, although I know notability is not inherited, to me it does suggest that he may be notable in his own right as well and so not speedable. I might not have saved it from speedy if it wasn't for the fact that his music is Welsh language and so although he may be notable good English sources may be harder to find and there will probably be fewer editors involved in these articles, hence, possibly, the bad state (and lack of reliable sources) of both of them. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was just wondering if I had missed something. § FreeRangeFrog 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for pointing that out, I ll read the criteria again, but i red it before and i didnt see anything criteria for schools, does that mean that all schools can be included?? Maen. K. A. ( talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant i didnt see any criteria that allows deletion of articles about schools that are not important or significant. Maen. K. A. ( talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I too cannot find any evidence that it was deleted before and so I am not sure why that one account is trying to edit war over having a redirect. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The (correct) title is a play on hip hop orthography. Please save me some time and just delete. Ottre 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for sorting it out. I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm still getting used to the shades of distinctions between deletion criteria. I thought that deleting Doloxene was an issue of "uncontroversial maintenance" in that it was just a smaller version of Dextropropoxyphene. It could probably have gone in a different category, though I'm not sure which one. I need a Wikipedia mentor! Sarwicked ( talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i wish for my own article on my own company to be deleted as its no longer relevant, the company has been dissolved, so i wish for the page to be removed. -- Michaelbarnett72 ( talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dpmuk, I see you took off the speedy for the above article, which clearly fails WP:WEB on a number of counts. The website was only created in 2008, and the two references you detailed are reviews and advertising for website. scope_creep ( talk) 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this one for speedy deletion because the search function doesn't care about capital letters. So, if we have a correctly capitalised title, this lower case redirect is only occupying server space. De728631 ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you might have a point there. De728631 ( talk) 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a decision one can take exception to, if they like. One could decline the speedy, probably (in fact, one can decline any speedy at all, for any reason - fine, that aside), but there's a very significant ethical dilemma in forcing someone to be bound to a biography they've discovered the subject doesn't want. It's not really ethical to force WikiGull to remain attached to the article. Look, the Steve Crane biography wasn't a big deal - it was a one-off edit by someone, no follow-up editing, not a ton of work. Anyone so inclined could churn out a new article, from scratch, in ~20 minutes. Deleting it costs us very little in this way, and if anyone actually gives two shits about we have a biography for Crane, they can just write a new one. That is, I think, the ideal solution, which is why I mentioned it in the original deletion summary. DRV could turn out to be a mess, WP:DRAMA doubly so. If you really think we're losing anything, just write a new bio, it's best for everyone (except poor Steve, but I probably can't do much for him). In the meantime, yes, the reposting of the content without history, attribution and the like was definitely a copyvio, though if a DRV overturnt my action, the history could be restored easily enough. Wily D 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's probably as good a place as any, though it's a very rare kind of situation such that I'm not sure we really need to code for it. Wily D 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the history of the page being merged into her husbands article as hers is less then stub class. Skitzo's Answer Machine 22:26, 17 March 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.