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.

Hi Cari! I have a new article up: National Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton – I got the idea of that from a redlink in List of museums in Maryland. This actually satisfies three of my WikiProjects: Museums, Christianity and Saints (a triple play!). Hope all is happy. Ecoleetage ( talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am very familiar with the Battery Park shrine -- when I am in the neighbourhood, I always go there to pray. There is already an article for that on Wikipedia, but not for the national shrine in Maryland. Cheers. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice new addition to the project! Kudos! Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to check the link you provided in the AFD for Water Fuel Museum, and Google gave me this. So you may want to check your computer for malware. TallNapoleon ( talk) 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to a couple of other talkpages, if you think it looks familiar. Any TPSs, feel free to join in.)
I've totally rewritten Bruce Castle from a stub to a Long Rambling Piece (and in a burst of vanity, timed it so this edit would be edit 100,000).

This is the third, and final part of my Lordship Lane triptych (along with The Mall Wood Green and Broadwater Farm), and has been the trickiest one to write. Because Bruce Castle is a distinctly dull building (architecturally, it's only really notable for being old), I've taken a Giano-horrifying approach and virtually ignored the architecture; instead, I've tried to write it as a chronological piece, focusing on the occupants of the house in the context of the social changes in the area. This has left it with some gaping holes; most notably that the architectural sections are weak (albeit mainly because there are no records of construction and the building isn't particularly distinguished).

Any comments, criticism, copyediting or rewriting gratefully received… –  iride scent 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear "Travellingcari",

I am writing this comment in response to your speedy delete of my article "Vale de Figueira". Today, I came to terms with the fact that you had deleted it and I wondered why. I went to your page, so that I could understand how to correctly ask for its restorage as I do strongly believe in its relevance.

So, first of all, I consider useful that you know why I wrote that article. It is about my village, Vale de Figueira, a parish in the district of Santarém, Portugal. I went to the Santarem article and, as expected, it had a list of its parishes. In order to make it more complete because it's about the history of a country and it is at anyone's interest, I decided to create the article "Vale de Figueira", making it a link of that page, being already listed there. To help me create this article, I based on one portuguese website [1] with information about this ancient village, on another article of portuguese wikipedia [2] and also on a portuguese book edited in 2001, named Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."Vale de Figueira, terra que os viu nascer", which in free translation may be called "Vale de Figueira, land that saw their birth" which has lots of information on this village's foundation, development, legends, famous places, etc. Being it, I hope that you have in consideration all the explained above to restore my article, which soon I would like to rearrange with more relevant stuff.

I do look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Joaomsf89

Joaomsf89 ( talk) 13:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joaomsf89, thanks for your note. Unfortunately the problem with your article was not the topic, but rather the fact that it was a copyright violation, as I noted here: * 02:55, 2 October 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Vale de Figueira" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) (restore). While basing an article on a website is good, you need to make sure you're not using text that the website has not permitted to be re-used. You need to write the text in your own words. Because it is a copyright violation, I cannot restore it. TravellingCari 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I was stalking some user talk pages and came upon a comment you made here: User_talk:Iridescent#RickK_Anti-Vandalism_Barnstar. You mentioned that you wanted an email with information about RickK or something to that effect? (Hey, I just realised that happened barely two days ago!) I was just wondering if you'd be able to share the email in any way or if you know somewhere else that contains information about it, as I've always wondered why exactly this RickK person is so famous on WP. If you prefer not to, then thanks anyway. :)

Thank you for your time :) -- Razor ICE 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Did you mean to delete Falling Down (an article about the Michael Douglas film) as well as Falling Down (Hayden Panettiere album)? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not, have restored and have let the script maintainer know since it appears to maybe have been an issue with the script. TravellingCari 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cari, could you take a look at West Bank School of Art and Culture and the artists linked to from there. i have my doubts. DGG ( talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that although you closed the above as delete, the article was moved during the AFD and is still alive and kicking here. I'm guessing that what got deleted was a redirect? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. It's still showing as blue-linked but it has now been deleted. Thanks for the heads up TravellingCari 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Two questions re the article deletion: 1. If article has been already tagged for deletion is it useless expanding it, adding references 'cause it gonna be deleted in any case? 2. Is it really a violation to start an article if there are no references in English language but other languages? Thanks. --Numulunj pilgae 11:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae ( talk • contribs)

Nope, you can always improve it. English language sources help, but they are not required. I suggest working on a draft in your sandbox, for example at User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script, and then asking for a review of whether it is notable enough to move back to mainspace. Would you like me to move the original content there for you to work on? TravellingCari 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. OK, pls move to User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script. If you deem you cannot leave Mokshan numerals as it is pls move it the same way. Thank you. Numulunj pilgae ( talk)14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

it's now here where you're free to work on it. The numerals article will be handled by consensus but I will userfy it for you if it's deleted. TravellingCari 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Carianne! --Numulunj pilgae 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae ( talk • contribs)

You're welcome. TravellingCari 15:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tis OK i think I worked out the basic statistics I needed using an existing article and comparing it to the paramters on Jap wiki!! Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algoryx Simulation, but didn't delete AgX Multi Physics or Phun 2D Physics Sandbox which were part of the nomination and still have afd tags on them. It appears that User talk:Fixman does not think the Phun article should be deleted judging from their recent edit to the archived debate (which I have reverted) so you may want to talk to them first. Thanks! GDallimore ( Talk) 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of, sorry for the oversight. Didn't read the nom clearly, will leave a comment for Fixman TravellingCari 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel a need to criticize the consistency of these decisions. Please look into all the engines/software that are linked to from Physics engine. Many of these wiki entries have a level of independent referencing that is comparable (or worse) compared to the entries you have just deleted. I fully respect the quality work on Wikipedia, but a random annihilation of certain wiki subjects is in itself a serious quality problem, and makes me wonder if there is hidden agenda. I have no problem with the deletion of the Algoryx entry, but the deletion of the "Phun 2D Physics Sandbox" entry (and the "AgX Multiphysics (software)" entry)leaves you with alot of work on the rest of the subject, and I am curious what sort of domain qualifications these specific editors have in doing this. Kenbon ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Travellingcari. Kenbon, the solution to your concerns is to nominate those other articles for deletion and put them through the same process. Merely complaining will get you nowhere. "Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain" (Henry Ford). GDallimore ( Talk) 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GDallimore. That's exactly what I was coming to say. While other stuff exists, that doesn't mean it necessarily should. Or perhaps they're stronger on other aspects. No wiki editor is required to have any qualifications on a given topic, although deletion sorting allows those with a particular interest to be notified of pending deletion discussions. If you strongly disagree with the consensus at AfD, you're welcome to take it to deletion review but the other stuff exists argument won't get far. TravellingCari 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, edit conflict while trying to add something about deletion review myself. The only thing I was going to add was something on a more positive note since my original comment was more negative than I'd intended. Deletion review should be used if you have significant new information - eg newly discovered reliable sources on either of the topics. If such information can be found, I wouldn't oppose recreation of the articles. GDallimore ( Talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew when I supported your WP:RFA that you knew what you were doing. Heartwarming. Now, if you ever visit the UK, count me in as a free guide. -- Rodhull andemu 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! When I saw the new message alert and then saw in my watchlist it was for an AfD, I was a bit worried. I've been a bit IAR on the "oh for the love of common sense" side of things. There are some that *really* don't need 5 days. I'll definitely consult you for travel ideas the next time I'm in the UK. Have a good evening. TravellingCari 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa I really need my Wikipedia. Thanks for getting me back. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Again, big apologies for interrupting your fix in the first place. I notified the script creator to alert of the bug. Thanks for understanding TravellingCari 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've really dealt with deletions but it looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take A Worm For A Walk Week was never actually relisted. I'm not sure but I just wanted to make sure. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It appears to be OK now, so either someone fixed it overnight (NYC time) or there was a bug. TravellingCari 11:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When relisting an AFD, don't forget to comment out or remove the transclusion on the old AFD page. If you relist an AFD early (i.e. before 5 full days have elapsed) then some relisting scripts fail to work. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I usually do but I may have missed a couple. Will double check in the future. TravellingCari 11:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make you aware of this in advance so you aviod any kind of bad blood situtation: I recreated this article as a redirect to the article USS Iowa turret explosion. I did this to preempt any attempt to recreat the Clayton Hartwig article as it was at the time of its AFD. If you disagree with this action, feel free to revert my actions; I will not object. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...Also, May I link to this page from my talk page? It would reduce the number of csd complainers I get. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, it's a logical re-direct. It might be worth protecting the re-direct if you think the creator is likely to undo the redirect. Feel free to take the CSD page, I took it from someone -- User:Keeper76, I think. It's fair game for sharing. TravellingCari 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate your input on both matters. I do not think that protection of the redirect is nessisary right now, but it may eventually be nessisary if the turret explosion article ends up on the main page. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if you want someone uninvolved in the article to do it if it needs protection, ping me and I'm happy to. I don't think de-wikilinking will make me considered involved. TravellingCari 13:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, TravellingCari. As you probably know, we are doing three RfA's to test a new RfA format, and I have been asked to be the second nominee, after Ironholds' is over. He recommended you as a potential nom for me, so I would appreciate if you looked at my contribs and thought as to whether or not you would be willing to nom me. Thanks for your time, Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thanks for asking. I have next to no in-depth wiki time of late, mainly playing around with articles on my watchlist as issues pop up and I'm about to be totally offline for the upcoming long weekend here so I don't think I'd be a fair nom at this point as I won't have time to review your contribs and I don't want to hold you back. I'll be happy to support you when/if you run because from the interactions I"m aware of, you'd be good with the mop. TravellingCari 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your future-perfect support! Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Future perfect, LMAO. Especially after my beautiful run-on marathon of a sentence that now I won't fix because it's too funny. Have a good night. TravellingCari 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here... Erik, I was considering nomming you soon anyways. Would you like me to nom you? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So I know that I shouldn't think of good articleship as a big deal, but... wouldn't it be nice to be one of the relatively few IP addresses entitled to display a on its userpage? (I think only one other IP has started one from scratch, although many may have taken existing articles and improved them to good-article status. And yes, I have registered, but since I started this article as an IP, I'm going to finish it as an IP.)

Speaking of good articles, there are a bunch of items that need to be improved to WP:GA status that require a higher level of skill. This one comes to mind as being an especially timely topic. I know that in the grand scheme of things, WP:GA is not a big deal, but for some reason I think it to be important.... 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to say I've merged this to English Qabalah because some people suggested it in the AfD and it seemed right to me. The AfD was affected by User:QaBobAllah who was found to be a sock of User:Ekajati, and others of his socks were involved in related discussions. Otherwise there was only one weak keep in the AfD the rest were deletes I think. Just thought I'd let you know I'd done it so it didn't seem like I was going over the head of your close. Hope you don't mind:) You were not to know about the sockmuppetry, we only really realised a bit later or something. Sticky Parkin 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. A merge seems to be a good call that makes sense. I closed the AfD when I did because further relisting wasn't going to get an answer and as I've said in other AfDs, merging is an editorial discussion. Makes sense that as someone who is presumably familiar with the article and sock issues, you'd find that call whereas I wouldn't necessarily find it in closing an AfD on a topic with which I was unfamiliar. TravellingCari 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No probs. That's at least the second time I've found it's been hard to get much response at AfD about an obscure 'new age' subject. Presumably people are just not interested or (like me with some AfCs) don't feel they know enough about some subjects to comment. Sticky Parkin 12:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HI Cari. Could you translate and expand Museo de Antropología de Xalapa when you have a mo.Thanks Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/October. Any thoughts on whether to create country templates. It might be a good idea to create a set of templates for most countries that we know are likely to have 60 museums in them Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your blog online - good stuff. Especially about Ecuador. In my family, I'm the only one who loves Correa. Anyway, that's not what I wanted to ask you about. How did you create your site? As in, did you create it from scratch or is there some sort of by the numbers blog maker out there? I don't read many blogs and I don't fancy myself a writer, but I'd love to create a site similar to yours. Any help would be most appreciated. Oh, and I re-read some of the older discussions on my talk page. I called you 'bro', I didn't realize you were a sister. My appologies. -- Endless dan and his problem 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, takes a lot more than that to offend me. It's also an easy mistake to make given the seemingly 99:1 m:f ratio here. Which blog did you find? I have a couple even similarly named, which is why I ask so the answer to your question is "it depends". I'm not too involved with blogs either, but I have some good working knowledge. TravellingCari 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the traveling blog. I think it's TravellingCari.com. -- Endless dan and his problem 12:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ahh yes, that's from Wordpress, it's running an old version because I haven't worked out how to install the new version yet. Happy to walk you through it. TravellingCari 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you recently !voted to keep the article Water Fuel Museum in an Afd. I'm working on cleaning up the article and dealing with unsourced content, and was hoping that you could drop by and provide some input. TallNapoleon ( talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuck my nose in a bit, but my ADHD didn't allow me to dwell on the article too long and I was forced to move on. Maybe I'll return :-) -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brew. TallN, my on-wiki time has been limited. I'll get to it as soon as I can. TravellingCari 12:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you recently closed the AfD discusssion on the above article through speedy deletion A7 because it does not state notability. I noticed that the article did state that it had won some awards, and although I didn't think these were reputable, I thought that because these were there we shouldn't tag for speedy deletion. I just wanted to ask you to advise me if my understanding if the speedy deletion policy was wrong. -- Deadly∀ssassin 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In the version I'm looking at, it says "Awards and nominations that Claudia Black has for her works on movies and TV." So not that the website itself has one an award but apparently contains a list of awards/noms that the actress has won. No question she's notable, but that does not confer notability to her website. Does that make sense or am I missing something? Let me know if I am -- it's early here :) TravellingCari 12:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article, but I thought that it said that the website had won some obscure awards. I could be wrong though, this is just from memory. -- Deadly∀ssassin 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi there

Just reading the whole 'my page was deleted help!" article.

The Deep Roots article that was deleted linked from the CBC Radio 2 page, and is used from that page to let listeners understand the new lineup of CBC Radio 2.

I'm not sure I understand how it didn't meet 'notability' requirements. It's a national CBC Canadian Radio Show, and has a large number of listeners a week across the country.

More importantly, as previously noted, it DOES link from a major CBC site with tons of similar pages, if you go to schedule.

Unfortunately, I'm not adept at haiku...I may be able to jot out a limerick

Deep Roots on Radio 2 A great article for me and for you It's sure relevant and the money's been spent So now, undeletion is all up to you.

OK! I rhymed 'you' with 'you. Mea Culpa

Anyway, I hope it can get undeleted. Truly. It'd be nice for listeners to have a wikipedia site that they can go to to find out more information about what the hell the program is.

72.139.74.162 ( talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)tp

Good attempt. Unfortunately I can't userfy it to an IP address and it was deleted by consensus. Can you log in please and tell me where you want it userfied? There is no reason for undeletion. TravellingCari 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to create subpages in anonymous userspace -- Gurch ( talk) 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, error on my end. Thanks TravellingCari 03:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Following deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Orson20/Leon_Ousby, the page has been recreated in the same userspace by a new account, Apron Maxim ( talk · contribs). The original editor's user page has been "updated" by an IP was a recent history of vandalism ( 194.201.64.90 ( talk · contribs)). This article has seemed a little off from the beginning, and the recreation immediately after deletion doesn't help. Can you take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted, G4 apparently doesn't specify that it has to be an AfD, so re-creation and the subject wishes suits a G4 close enough to be since we're talking user space content. Will warn eds appropriately. Thanks for the heads up. TravellingCari 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your warning doesn't seem to have had the desired effect - see User:Apron Maxim/on Leon Ousby - Actor. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* warned again. I don't even think it's an issue of clue but rather another agenda at hand. Thanks for the heads up. TravellingCari 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you deleated the current article that has an edless fire of hoax attacks upon it... This article before consequent edits was looking in a differcult state,,, I have had to edit out certain aspects of the subjects life that were not cited... and where sraight forward attacks on the writer... All I am trying to do is to hopefully create the article that was first presented by Orson 20 and take the article to another level. Surley any article should have this chance, expecaially for deletion from a number of users that simply disrupt this well organised site. The article was happy where it origionally was, then a few strange trolls got on and started mentioning death and other simply ridiculous interests of conflict. quite ANNOYED Apron Maxim ( talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted by consensus, three separate times. The subject also requested deletion. Re-creating it in different places and with different accounts does not exempt you from that deletion. Take it to deletion review, because the next time you re-create it, you will be blocked. Note also, you { http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Orson20/Leon_Ousby&diff=prev&oldid=244328278 agreed] it should be deleted, so you're not unaware. TravellingCari 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is the last warning. The subjuect wishes to have the article removed from micripedia.wikipedia.beingcontrolledapedia... The subject is simply an arse hole,,,, who I would care if he was dead or a live.... I have a friend who likes the guy and I want to help him with this article... I find it rude that you will not allow us to continue with these interview of this Australian Actor.. What is the proplem.. Apron Maxim ( talk) 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cari,

The discussion on Mark W. Smith and his book ( Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) is closed, and I saw that the book can be moved to the author's article by an editor--so how do I go about doing that? Simply cut and paste? Thanks! Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, sorry for the delayed response. You'd do this via merging, which you can read about here. Any questions, please let me know. Thanks. TravellingCari 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And don't worry about the delay--I was taking the easy way out by asking anyway, but sometimes WP policy confuses me. Thanks again, Drmies ( talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm in the middle of an ambitious project to translate the full article from what was barely a start class! I hope to get it up to featured status afterwards, it should be a beautiful article once fully complete. If you could tackle a paragraph or two this would be much appreciated, whatever or whenever it takes your fancy. P.S. don't worry about the museum article I said about, somebody said the spanish wiki article was a copyvio. Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 19:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Isn't most work though!! Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk) 23:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Humph! I thought I would for sure get that one. It was only like 25 to 2 :-) -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for the first message on that close, I'm glad it's you. :) What hell on earth that discussion was. I fully expect it to land at DRV (see Ginger Jolie, currently there, although I stand by my close. I actually expected the discussion to be closer when it went to DRV once. Oy. How's all in Brew world? I've had next to no on-wiki time lately. TravellingCari 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would like some attention I can take it to - as I call it - sore loser review. Or even better, more drama :-)-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that new template at the top of the page is a bit foncusing. Are there some typos going on? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. WP:DRAMA already redirects to ANI, so WP:MOREDRAMA → WP:RFARB makes sense. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good close. Durova ^Charge! 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

THanks all, especially Durova as nom. I think this is my first semi-controversial AfD close. Glad it's apparently gone well. The fact that drama redirects to ANI is sad, but true. I read it to keep abreast of issues but I try to stay away from it. And Brew, yes, the wikibreak template is busted because I don't know the syntax. Keeper always made them for me and now that he's mostly gone, I'm on my own and end up with those, though I've had him make me a custom one for my next vacation. TravellingCari 12:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In yer wiki, fixin yer templits.... Keeper ǀ 76 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And oopsie, that little idea of J.d's Brew's just got really sad. In fact, it looks very blue. Keeper ǀ 76 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I actually bet a friend of mine a buck that someone would create that. I win! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper! I'll save it with the other one for if I need to make another. And now I'm really gone :) TravellingCari 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RockManQ ^(talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Don't worry you deserve the cookie. Viva la Wikilove! RockManQ ^(talk) 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three articles at this discussion that have not yet been deleted.-- Grahame ( talk) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Notified the deleting admin, I simply closed the AfD. Thanks for the heads up TravellingCari 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; stake the little weevils with glee. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Thanks TravellingCari 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have forgotten to remove the Lansing family AfD notice on the article and add the afd talk page message with regards to the outcome.-- Rockfang ( talk) 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DOne, thanks! TravellingCari 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, out of curiosity, why did you delete the 'werewolf priest' entry?? I directed someone to the entry recently and it's gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.166.36 ( talk • contribs) at 18:53, October 28, 2008; moved from User:Travellingcari by J.delanoy ^gabs _adds at 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, J.D. IP, do you have a link? I can't find an article with that name and I'm not familiar with it. Thanks TravellingCari 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

could you help out at [3]. This question has come up before, and its time we actually did something definitive. DGG ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Off to leave a note there. I have less than no time at this moment but I'll do what I can. Thanks for the heads up. TravellingCari 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Help:Minor edit A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Your minor edit reverted three of my edits, including my re-writes and consolidation of text!

I've put my re-writes back and kept the Time Magazine reference that you wanted to stay in. (I thought the reference was dubious in that it wasn't particularly relevant to the claim it was defending, not that Times Magazine in the 1930s was an unreliable source.) Thanks. Npdoty ( talk) 07:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, the tool I was using apparently marks them as minor by default. Was not my intention. I think the article in both instances is a little shaky, but haven't had time to work on it. I hope to soon. In the mean times, thanks and thanks to Brewcrewer. TravellingCari 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I am going around wishing other Wikipedians a Happy Halloween, I got to you. So here's yours! Happy Halloween, RockManQ ^(talk) 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Love my pumpkin. Just formatting him a bit, he kept trying to eat the section below. TravellingCari 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Travellingcari. Thanks a lot for helping to restore the article Perumbadavam Sreedharan. The article had sufficient reliable sources. I don't know why A7 was applied to it. Anyway thanks again. Salih (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The deleting admin and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes an A7, but that happens between wikipedia editors. I'm working on the article now, but I'm not familiar with the author and don't speak Malayam, so I'm relying only on English sourcing. Any additional information that you or others can provide would be wonderful. It doesn't have to be in English, of course, it's just the only language I read in which I'm finding sourcing. Thanks for the note. TravellingCari 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderful to see the changes and additional sources you have put. Salih (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm headed out for the afternoon but will try to add more sourcing when I can find it. TravellingCari 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie

You mentioned "Merging or not is an editorial discussion". It comes up all the time in AfD's. I don't think most of the people discussing realize it should not be voiced. (But neither is WP:CRYSTAL and entire AfD's are decided on only that). For next time how should it be worded in the original AfD? Should an AfD explicitly say only "delete" or "keep" opinions will be considered? I am only asking because I would like to know as I have voiced "Merge" or "Redirect" in AfD discussions myself. Thanks Soundvisions1 ( talk) 01:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, may have unintentionally confused you. There's no problem with saying merge/redirect, etc. but it doesn't require the continuing of the AfD. My general rule of thumb, based mostly in practice and policy is that when an editor votes merge and/or redirect, they're not saying the content should be deleted. It just may or may not belong in the current location. Therefore when closing an AfD, those are semi-keeps because you're not arguing for the deletion of the content. This often comes up in borderline keeps/no-consensus and what I mean by it is that -- "all or most are making an argument that the content belongs on wikipedia. Where specifically on Wikipedia it belongs is a matter of discussion." Since we're no longer discussing the potential deletion of content, it doesn't require further in the AfD venue. Does that make snese? I'm happy to re-word what I say so it makes sense to most poeple. Thanks for your notes. TravellingCari 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, got it. You might want to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unthinking Majority (2nd nomination) as well because these were all bundled under the parent. Some slipped through to their own AfD however. Thanks again. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Since another admin just relisted that, I'll let that one go. I'll ping him about this discussion, however. He may not realize the trio of AfDs. TravellingCari 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was this discussion closed so quickly? I'm a little concerned that a well-written article was changed after only 3 days of discussion into a re-direct to what is essentially a stub. Maybe I'm mistaken, but from what I can tell from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, there's supposed to be 5 days of discussion. Is this able to be reviewed? KieferFL ( talk) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was opened at app 6 AM on the 28th and closed at 23:40, 1 November 2008 which means it ran essentially all day on the 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and 1st. That's five days, although there's no rule that these need to stay open for a full five days when the consensus is clear. The content of the original article is under the re-direct if you want to add it to the target article but consensus was clear it did not deserve a full article of its own. Hope that clears things up TravellingCari 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess my fingers/calculator was broken. KieferFL ( talk) 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you know where to find me if you have any other questions. TravellingCari 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your rationales for these two AfD closures. seresin (  ¡? )  06:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, added to the AfDs. If you'd like more info, please let me know. I think I read the consensus right, if you have a different opinion, I'd like to hear it please as there are always different ways to see things. TravellingCari 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the contributions of User:Yeshuaherenow? They seem to be all related to Adi Da and have some POV issues. This probably requires some tactful statements and you seem far more tactful than I tend to be. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, I hope. I'm actually headed offline for a bit now but will keep an eye on the situation. Thanks for thinking of me. Have a good day! TravellingCari 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)