User talk:Kurykh/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Kurykh. 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - ... (up to 100) |
My Userpage
Get them to put my userpage back!!!!-- Hornetman16 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked him as a gesture of good faith, but made it clear that if he resumes his previous behavior, he may be reblocked. --Coredesat 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
LifeLock
Hi. A month ago or so, you deleted LifeLock as a spam page and because personal info had been posted on the page. Because of recent events, the company is now notable. The short version of it is that it came out that their co-founder was accused of various crimes a while back. He has since then resigned. On top of that, presidential candidate Fred Thompson is doing advertisements for them and there have been some people making an issue out of it. It looks like the former article has been oversighted ... so there is nothing to restore. Because you deleted the article, I wanted to check with you before removing the protection. May I have your permission to unsalt the page and recreate the article? Thanks. --BigDT 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Jackie Chan Injury List
I am submitting a report on you for your deletion of the page, when the support obviously goes for against deleting it. Also before saying its fanCRUFT, please check out the references and video documentaries about those injury. I will not be alone in this. 1.)Deletion of an ongoing debate that obviously favors keeping it 2.)Outright deletion of an article that is being improved daily and sourced 3.)for whatever reason you did what you did, that is pretty much misappropriation of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs)
Your task as an admin is to be unbias in what you do, you blatantly calling it fancraft without a thought or research into the matter and deleting it outright when debate is still ongoing, just mean that you have no right to hold that sort of power.
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Your closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means. There are several discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT. It's therefore important to explain why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I believe the entire discussion is based on personal judgment calls and a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines.
You also imply a selective merge is possible, which would require a redirect and not deletion in order to preserve edit history. However, as pointed out merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary considering many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with Wikipedia:Summary style. If you disagree, I'll seek more viewpoints at deletion review. –Pomte 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27#Fight Club in popular culture. I responded to your note on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there because the closing admin's interpretation is very relevant. Userfication and cleanup isn't supposed to change other editors' opinions on whether the article should exist, although you're right, it probably will, but I'll be stubborn and stick to the principle. –Pomte 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Indenting, Spelling, etc.
Hi... I just tried to fix the indenting to make it easier to follow the discussion -- who was responding to whom, and who was making a comment for the first time. I had read under the Wikipedia talk page guidelines that it was acceptable to make formatting changes when the discussion is otherwise difficult to read, as long as one preserves the content. I certainly didn't substantively modify anyone's comments. I did indent people's comments where they failed to indent in the manner that identation is applied generally to allow readers to most easily follow the flow of conversation. The guidelines, under Layout, suggest that one should thread posts using indentations.
Similarly, fixing an incorrect spelling of a word is, I thought, acceptable as well. As long as the editor who misspelled the word doesn't have a problem with it being spelled correctly. I don't think that was one of your edits. I did that in one spot, where the first "s" was left out of consensus. Is it your understanding that that is unhelpful, or forbidden? In keeping with the above guidline, I had thought that it could only serve to make it easier for others to follow the conversation.
But I'll stop both engaging in both of those types of revisions, if they trouble you.
As to your suggestion that I actually discuss, I've tried to present my main comments, but will chime in further as you suggest where others don't address issues.--Epeefleche 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I thank you so much! I didn't know what to do! Kinkijui KNK! 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion page for CLSA was not restored
Hello ... you restored CLSA after a deletion review, but did not restore the discussion page, Talk:CLSA, which had some useful information that I posted prior to placing the CSD-A7 tag that led to its deletion ... would you please restore that as well? Thnx! —72.75.85.234 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
RfA--Hornetman16
Please return to my most recent RfA page!--05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Muni Metro map
Good catch on my typo! RickyCourtney 21:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Solution
So what is the solution of yours for this "lunacy"?--Semiramiscan 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose carbon dioxide as this week's WP:ACID winner
Spamsara 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Who are you??
And why did you??--Inetpup 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Qst
Is he resigning? Francisco Tevez 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope he isn't!
. Thank you for all you have done. Do you think you could delete my talk page and I'l copy the contents of it before that then just re-add it all back into remove the disgusting and horrible edit summaries I made? Qst 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've copied and pasted the contents before you left that message so if you delete it I'll re-create it exactly the same... Qst 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now all thats left is Moreschi's but I cant really ask him to allow that, not after all of this. Qst 19:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that was it. I've just found out that User:Francisco Tevez was a sockpuppet of User:Molag Bal and has been blocked indef, Qst 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now all thats left is Moreschi's but I cant really ask him to allow that, not after all of this. Qst 19:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've copied and pasted the contents before you left that message so if you delete it I'll re-create it exactly the same... Qst 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please restore
Qst is in the middle of a sockpuppetry investigation - deciding to "vanish" right now is just covering things up by having them deleted, and therefore harder to access. Furthermore, the GFDL is being violated by leaving only the top revisions. Please restore the user talk page. Picaroon (Talk) 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 10
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 10 | 7 July 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||
| ||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My Unblock request
Unblock
Cheers for the unblock, mate. Benny The post in front was made by Popexvi 10:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Nils munch.jpg
Could you please tell me how the heck to tag this image so it'll get deleted? It is a useless iamge uploaded for a self-promotion page that was speedy deleted. I tried to tag it as a speedy and was told that was the wrong tag. when I asked what was right I was told to use the tag you just removed. I'm getting intensely frustrated that rather than just remove a useless image used by no articles, people keep removing the tags and giving conflicting statements on what should be used. Improbcat 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Chuck Taylor
Thanks for closing that one, the amount of filibustering had given me a headache, Theperfectone really wanted to keep that page. Darrenhusted 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) My headahce is back, it's back, a CSD G4 was tried but two new fans are fighting it in a second AfD. It has been suggested by me and the nominator to take it to review. Darrenhusted 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you originally deleted it I am officially requesting that you undelete. Yes it was put back up by some one today and I tried to help them and they added many many links and references, which by the way were deleted by Darren. I also ask that if you do consider an act on my request that Darren NOT be allowed to actively participate. He has been rude, sarcastic and has made it extremely apparent in his comments to User:Wildthing61476 that he is biases against ANY type of Indy wrestler.
"Chuck f'n Taylor The thing gives me a headache, thanks for picking it up for AfD number 2. Darrenhusted 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I may re-add the speedy delete tag, I don't think the AfD is needed. Darrenhusted 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I've messaged two admins, the closing admin last time and and admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans. Darrenhusted 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildthing61476". If you read both my discussion page and his you will see his sarcasm and rudeness is transparent and I repeatedly asked him to stop messaging me. Please reconsider this along with all Indy Wrestlers Darren has put up for removal since he showed his true feelings today. --EdWood 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Your refusal to reconsider is disappointing. The person who redid it cited many many more resources and it should have in the very least be reconsidered for deletion. --EdWood 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was recreated at Chuck Taylor (wrestler). Is it possible you can take a look at this? I sent a warning to the creator of the article and gave him a note regarding the ongoing deletion review. The References added were a number of YouTube videos, and links to Freewebs, both which are not reliable sources. Wildthing61476 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
S Shuttle
Haha... we had the same idea to add the S Shuttle to the line template... I was trying to have some way of saying to Embarcadero or King and 4th (game days). It would also be nice to find a way to have "Rush Hours Only" on the line. RickyCourtney 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I use Adobe Illustrator to draw the maps. RickyCourtney 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
KhalidSheikh Mohammed
I Thought "Ksm" was a clear reference to Mohammed's initials. Very sorry about that. --bibliotheque (Talk) 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Too direct?
No way! You're absolutely right. That IS the best way to shut me up. Which, you know, is why it's odd that s/he won't just let the request go forward . . . · jersyko talk 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Les Mis
I strongly disagree with your close of the plot article on Les Mis. I feel consensus clearly did not exist and the result should have defaulted to keep. A lot of people did base their keep arguments on IAR, which was very dumb and I warned them it was going to backfire. In fact, there is no reason to apply the WP:NOT prohibition on plot articles to this one because that was put in place for copyright reasons, and Les Mis is long past being copyrighted. The policy does not explicitly provide for an exception, but based on the spirit of the rule it seems clear that we should make an exception for non-copyrighted works, particularly classics. Everyking 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand how long detailed plot summaries (sort of a contradiction in terms, isn't it?) can possibly detract from the encyclopedia. More information available means more for people to read and more for people to learn. Isn't that the point? Everyking 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrong way to close Plot of Les Miserables
Your comment on the reasons why you closed Les Miserables the way you did said nothing about what consensus was formed (I'm not making any claims on what the consensus was simply because I haven't looked into that). Instead, you characterized appeals to WP:IAR with a "?!" as if those appeals cannot be made legitimately. They can be, and for you to reject that is to reject Wikipedia policy. Second, you referred to "Keep" articles as "textbook examples of WP:ATA. By doing so you elevated an essay to a policy/guideline. Wikipedia editors have every right to appeal to any argument WP:ATA rejects and have their arguments considered. After all, at the top of WP:ATA it states: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." Opinions differ.
Please review Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which goes into the relationship between implementing consensus and policy. The way I read it, only three important policies overturn a consensus, which otherwise can overturn policies in regard to the article at hand. Now, there may have been a consensus on deleting the article, or an overall lack of consensus (I will check), but my point here is that it's not your job to overturn consensus willy-nilly or based on just any policy. In fact, along with not citing any consensus, you didn't cite any policy at all. Noroton 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've taken another look: I count 38 total !votes, with 21 in favor of delete/merge and including one where the "Keep" was conditional and the condition wasn't met. I count 17 keep, including one editor (near the top) whose mind was changed by the discussion. That's 55 percent keep. I realize percentages and total votes aren't absolutes in reaching consensus, but please justify how consensus was to delete or why you overturned consensus. Noroton 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tried To Help Someone Get A Deletion Review Going
And I'm sort of stuck: How do I build it from here: [1]. -WarthogDemon 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- THEY WERE ON THE DRV PAGE?!? Man I'm getting too used to expecting all of life's (or Wikipedia's) answers to be explained on the tags. XP Oh and my Wikipedian Insurance covers the $70. :P -WarthogDemon 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The caps was out of embarrasment, not anger. Sorry if it came out like that. And thanks, I'll add the link to the reference section of my userpage. :) -WarthogDemon 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
AFD
I object to your rationalization that the result of the Cleveland Steamer debate was no consensus because of a lack of valid arguments by proponents of keep. If you read my and some other user's comments, we did not once mention the previous debates and only spoke of the sources that patently proved the article was on a notable. I might agree that no consensus was reached, but not that all those (or even a majority) in favor of keep used a lame argument that didn't allow for a changed consensus. VanTucky (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In your closing comments, you unusually also took time to elucidate your opinion on the validity of some of the arguments. Mixing both your opinion on some of the debate and your closing decision was confusing, and made it appear as if your commentary was your reason for closing as no consensus. VanTucky (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noroton 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This was one of the tranche of articles recently proposed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter The result was "delete all except those withdrawn by the nominator". The Robert Brooke article was one of the two that were withdrawn, but the article itself still has a flag showing it as being considered for deletion. I've just checked Philip Bailey (cricket writer), and the same applies to that article. JH (talk page) 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Official Muni map
What would be the correct way of using SFMTA's Muni Metro map with correct citations? It seems as if that would be a better map to use since it corresponds to what any Muni rider would actually see on a train.
Thank you
Thanks for your comments on the administrator's noticeboard, it is good to have support from a third party. I'm hoping the whole situation will be resolved soon. MezzoMezzo 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete EditPad?
According to the deletion log, you deleted the EditPad page on 2007-07-14, citing the AFD debate. However, the archived AfD debate for this article says that the e should be kept. What gives? Why did you delete an article against the wishes of the AfD debate? — EagleOne\Talk 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply
There was a second AfD nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad (2nd_nomination). —Kurykh 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting the article 2 months after an AfD wouldn't have made much sense, right?
:)—Kurykh 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)- Thanks for sticking that last little insult in there. Really appreciate. Real mature.
- I did not see the second nomination, because it the first nom didn't link to it. That, and the search function is terrible. — EagleOne\Talk 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Last little insult"? Please explain. —Kurykh 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously it doesn't make sense to delete an article 2 months after a failed AfD nom. I don't need to be told that, so please don't insult my intelligence. The reason why I started this dialog with you is because I could not find a second nom. The 2nd listing didn't appear in the archived AfD debate pages, and it wasn't linked on the first AfD nom page. I have now linked the two pages. Also, the shell page links to the first nom, not the second; thus, the confusion. — EagleOne\Talk 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Last little insult"? Please explain. —Kurykh 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion information on SnapVillage
Hi, I would love to be the first to post this to wikipedia but have been hit with a "blatant advertising" speedy deletion tag. I tried to state the facts that would appear in a normal encyclopedia entry via articles that I read about the service. Please Let me know what I can do to change it?! Thanks and I appreciate your input. Snapman1020 21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wahabi Controversial Fatwas
Hi Kurykh, just wondering about your deletion of the above article. I had asked for suggestions at WP:AN and had declined to speedy it since, I thought, there was some controversy to the speedy deletion. Shouldn't it have gone through AfD? Something that subtle, if that's what it is, should go there shouldn't it? Just wondering and learning. JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review
I am asking you for reason why you deleted article on Australian Computer Pioneer Anthony Chidiac - refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article and deleted the article, you made it unfair for others in the world to make comments and thoughts on such. I beleive you did not adhere to the discussion debate rules with regard to article, and sources in this discussion were confirming this information complied with Wikipedia notability. --T3Smile 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to your message, of course I can prove the entire entry. I think that you obviously didn't note how many times the article has been reviewed and re-edited and just because I havent clearly stuck to the rules because I am new, there was no need for you to delete the article whereby I lost all my work that I was basing my thesis upon without even allowing me to save it. I would have got extra credit for successfully adding an article into this user dictionary and you shot it down. I just saw the last entry that supported the article, and they offered the right advice so that I could substantiate every comment made in the article, but only a few minutes later, you deleted it. It started out a poorly written article with no notable references, and ended up to be a serious piece of historical evidence of the subject of the article progressing digital technology. It was about to fill a big hole in informationally in Wikipedia about the beginnings of Digital Audio Recording and Editing and also where Real Time MPEG-2 Recording and Editing was publicly demonstrated as a working model. I know it didn't help when the subject of the article got involved himself. I think just because the guy was Australian and because I am of aboriginal descent we dont count for anything. I don't think you allowed enough debate on the article if you thought it did not comply. Quite a few other people did too.--T3Smile 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kurykh, appreciate Wikipedias colorblindness, and I did look at your profile and noted your ancestry as well as your love for airports and things to do with airplanes. The subject of the article designed and owned "arguably" the next generation internet cafe with an area that resembled the inside of a business class cabin on an aircraft as the internet area. I'm sure that would have been of particular interest to you, its never been done before. The cafe was reported in TV and Radio, news and publications. The guy went into reclusion following a very ugly divorce thats currently in a court and he didn't want to create a media stir and bring attention to these proceedings he is in at the moment. He got a publicist to do the reverse of what a publicist should do to "wipe him off" everything possible. I don't think I could have blatantly included this fact in an article, but I can point you to the proof of such court proceeding at the Australian Federal Magistrates Court. I would sincerely appreciate the re-inclusion of the article, but conditional that I go back to the article and tag the article with conforming tags that allow for inclusion into Wikipedia. Sorry, but I just went ahead and just edited an article started by my Lecturer here and I THOUGHT I was doing the right thing - but, like everything, I should have read the instructions before picking up the "tool" to use it! Again, my apologies but I will stand behind the wrongful deletion of such article and would want it re-instated, not added to my profile please. I promise to use the wikipedia guide to appropriately "tag" the article so that it can conform. That way, others can add/edit the article and piece together facts. If the subject allows for the re-inclusion of all the articles etc. that would just be the best outcome. What is in it for me is, of course, notoriety for being able to fill in a big gap wikipedia has left out, and I'll get my Masters Degree :) Of course, I'll also end up becoming a wikipedia junkie and maybe....just maybe you might be alerting me to the fact that being a wikijunkie may not be good for my health or something. Please advise on such :) Again, thanks in advance for your thoughts and kind advice.--T3Smile 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey kuryk, thanks for adding my ancestry flag. That is sooo cool! My lecturer found a saved copy (albeit a few edits previous) and I want to post it back up for subject: Anthony Chidiac. What are your thoughts on such if I or he posts it up and I add all the relevant flags to comply with WIkipedia guideline, plus add sources of my writing of such? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and again, thanks for the flag...its funny you are kuryk and I am koori!--T3Smile 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, it works
And you should keep up the good work [2][3]. Keegantalk 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been recreated and nominated for CSD, would it be possible to salt, there is at least one user who registered just to create and edit the page, even if speedily deleted it is likely to be recreated. Cheers Darrenhusted 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for text of deleted article, Anthony Chidiac
Hi! User:T3Smile asked me here for the text of her deleted article, Anthony Chidiac. You closed the AfD, and I think that she wants the version right before the AfD closed. I created a user subpage for her, User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac, I thought that it would fit nicely there.
My only involvement in this was sticking a CSD G4 tag on the reposted article, and I guess the post-AfD conversation got a little heated--let me know if you want me to take this request elsewhere. Thanks for your help, Darkspots 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kuryk, I'm so relieved all the work could have been retrieved. I intend to re-edit this piece, add the relevant tags, and add all the sources I used to create the article properly! I got advice from Darkspots but essentially, would like to know how I can "publish" this article in my profile to the world so many feel comfortable about it and it doesn't get deleted, just worked on as an evolving piece with more evidentary material surfacing as more get to see it. Previous afd posts that were helpful noted that it didnt have enough noting of sources, and I intertwined the sources in the article without acknowledging it. This whole process really got the interest of my colleagues at university and my lecturer - I guess most of the other bodies of work have been covered here but I found a large hole in wikipedia on Australian Technology Pioneers, as well as Digital Audio Editors pre "Pro Tools". Also noted "internet Cafe's" is really sparse too - I know someone who could write more about that (Anthony Chidiac) but I think some people peeved him off here and it got really nasty. Hopefully over time I can be a valuable wikipedia editor and get my articles published here. Can you get a good job if you note you have published work in wikipedia? Is this why people delete before they ask for a review? Thanks! --T3Smile 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfication of "List of songs about masturbation"
Just writing to notify you that I have userfied "List of songs about masturbation" (here) in order to work on the article to bring it up to scratch. D4g0thur 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD closure summary
ResolvedCould you please expand upon your terse closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD glossary to mention that the rationale for the deletion was WP:V and WP:C (as opposed to the nominator's obviously flawed interpretation of WP:NOT)? You needn't be as verbose as the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting glossary, of course. :-). Normally I would not be concerned about this, but the nominator in question has been forum-shopping, engaging in WP:POINT-violative mass prod'ings, and so forth; he's a campaigner and is clearly hoping that his recent AfDs (only one of which succeeded) will set some kind of precendent for auto-nuking anything with "glossary" in its article name. I would like it to be clear to any later readers that the successful AfD in question is not in fact precedential in that editor' destructively activistic regard at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- <ping> Yes/no/maybe? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for deletion review - Aardwolf (Game)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aardwolf (Game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider.
Gotta wonder what they think at times like that...
'Hey! Let's vandalise the place where all the admins are! It's foolproof!' Big-grin smiley and all that. HalfShadow 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
F Market & ...
Just a note to say I responded to your comment on my talk page ... on my talk page. (Better than 2 halves of a discussion.) Feel free to delete this if you want.
By the way, just gotta say that this page is very hard on the eyes. I'd change it if I were you (but then I'm not, so ...) +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty hard; on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst, I'd say it is about a 3 ... maybe even a 2. It's not just the choice of color but the font as well. I guess all I can suggest, if you really want it to not be vanilla Wiki-looking, is either a darker background color, or go the other way w/a light background. (I do have fairly good vision, though I need reading glasses.) Hope this helps. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, only slightly better. Really, it seems as if the font (Comic?) is the real problem here. Unless you really like this font, you might try others. You probably just need to play around with it some; you'll no doubt see when it becomes more readable.
- Or not. On second look, it seems that all the dark-colored text on the page is really easy to read; maybe it's just all that white (or maybe not quite white?) text. Anyhow. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Anthony Chidiac
I note you unsalted the article and added it to PT. Firstly, as the admin who salted, I would have appreciated a courtesy note regarding your actions and rationale. As you did not bother to inform me, I am here asking. Why did you unsalt and change to PT? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
John Brumby
Kurykh, Article on John Brumby is expressing a non-neutral viewpoint. Important note now that this guy is likely to become premier of Victoria after resignation of Steve Bracks and John Thwaites today, People viewing Wikipedia in the interim (weekend) may get a non-neutral view of such and - the politicians that vote a leader in in the interim between elections might actually sway their vote too!. Please help...I want to hang onto your shirt tails and see how you handle it. Thanks! T. PS look in discussion page of John Brumby as to issues. --T3Smile 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
IQTElif
Can you please reply to the discussion at: Talk:%C4%B0QTElif If Zamanalif has a place on wikipedia, how can you possibly delete IQTElif? --Ultranet 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)