![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 23 |
Another one if you're interested? or maybe you can recommend another admin, see my last comment on the page. Cheers Wiki Townsvillia n 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the article John_Brogden_1798_-_1869. But what about his son John_Brogden_1823–1855? Where would you put him? That was the problem that led me to use this unusual name. Budhen 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither "John Brogden (19th Century)" nor "John Brogden (Methodist)" would be right since they are both applicable to both people. I do think it is a pity you didn't think about this before changing the name. I did and that is why I chose the names I did. One way that I considered was "John Brogden (Railway Contractor)" and "John Brogden Jun. (Railway Contractor)" which could be adapted to the way you have selected. Budhen 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 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 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
06:14, 27 April 2007 BigHaz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dez" (expired prod)
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me why my page was deleted. I was trying to understand the tutorial but am just more confused now. Am I able to get it put back up? Thanks for your time. Dez
And what is (yourtalk page)? Do I need to create an account to get a reply?
72.129.87.74
21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Can you write a article about yourself or does someone else have to do it? And for sources, are websites ok?
72.129.87.74
23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.129.87.74 (
talk)
23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. So you think it's a case of a person who doesn't know a word of English and posted an article entirely in Hindi on an English website? Sorry, I think you're assuming the worst of someone from India. Even persons who aren't fluent in a language try to learn a word or two. I think it's more likely that a kid went to a Hindi website, cut and paste something that to them is written in a "funny alphabet" and dropped it here. Mandsford 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 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 ( talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is that guy who used Jc iindyysgvxc. Could you please tell [[User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson to stop annoying me? And I've been creating an archive that contains the discussions of that user I repeatedly asked to unblock. But he repeatedly deleted it without telling me why he doesn't want it. So could you please ask him why? And don't tell me to do it, because he'll just revert it for some reason! JcIindyysgvxc67 ( talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 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 ( talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry about that - thanks for picking it up. Rebecca ( talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 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 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello BigHaz. I saw vandalism on your talk page and I think someone is after you. I am still new on Wiki and I think personal ego plays a huge part here. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging from what I saw last night, I guess we'll have to point out that Alexander Pschill also played a crook in the old days. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 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 ( talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, no actually. Fadden and Forde might be described as "interim", "short-term" or "caretaker" Prime Ministers, but they were certainly not "acting" in a formal sense. They were both just as much fully Prime Minister as Bob Menzies was, albeit in office for a considerably shorter period. -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 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 ( talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You've probably given yourself away there. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you wrote:
Unless there's something I've overlooked, there's nothing about this particular Guantanamo inmate that warrants an article about him when there is already an article about the ethnic group of which he is a member.] |
Can I verify that you did not overlook that (1) Guantanamo captives are supposed have annual hearings review whether they should continue to be held in US custody; (2) the DoD did not schedule those hearings. (3) The DoD has not announced he has been cleared for release. -- This is exactly the situation the reviews were set up to prevent -- men facing life-long detention -- without charge -- and without any kind of review of their status.
I took a look at your recent opinions expressed in the deletion fora, and saw you expressed keep for
Death of Dean Shillingsworth |
I see you are an Australian. The wikipedia is an international project. I am sure you have noticed that there is an inherent bias to covering American topics. And some of our American contributors would happily delete articles that didn't stir any news coverage in the USA as "non-notable", just because they didn't trigger that news coverage. I think this a regrettable phenomenon. I am pleased when I see reason win over US parochialism. There are 30 million Uyghurs. I think we can count on the unprecedent extrajudicial detention of other Uyghurs being of interest to them. |
South African cricket team in India in 2007-08 |
Nominator dismissed Saidullah Khalik's eligibility for a judicial review of his status, as specified in the Military Commissions Act, based on the DoD's failure to comply with its own rules -- he called it "unsourced". If I am not mistaken your keep for the cricket tour is just as speculative. The article doesn't say anything like: "It would be totally unprecedented if Saidullah Khalik's status was reviewed by the US civil court system." I did suggest this in reply to one of the nominator's comments. Could you please explain why your implied speculation that this tour could be important differs from my speculation as to importance of Saidullah Khalik's civil court review? I looked at the cricket info page about predicted tours. I must be predicting dozens of predicted tours. Just so I know, would you voice a keep about articles about all those predicted tours? |
I have been a big contributor to articles on the GWOT for the last two years. It has been my unfortunate experience to have triggered the untender attentions of partisan POV pushers. A substantial fraction of these nominators turned out to be sockpuppets. Nominating GWOT articles for deletion, sometimes for totally bogus reasons, has been one of the favoured ploys of these POV-pushers
The frequent lack of civility, and lack of real meaningful discussion, in the deletion fora, is my biggest concern for the wikipedia's future.
There are a number of paths for the wikipedia's future growth. They are largely incompatible. I am not a regular patroller of the deletion fora. But I have participated in dozens of discussions. And the general pattern I have seen is that proponents of different visions of the wikipedia are trying to shape its future by brute force, by expressing opinions as to whether an article should be deleted not by giving honest consideration to the article actual merits, but rather making a snap judgment as to how it fits in their vision of the future wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh is an example. The nominator nominated three GWOT related articles for deletion on the same day. Two of them were articles about Guantanamo captives. The third, Zahid Al-Sheikh, was about the older brother of one of al Qaeda's most senior operatives, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Zahid Al-Sheikh is not merely the brother of someone noteworthy. There are remarkable aspects to his own story. But the nominator spent so little time reading the article that he told participants in the discussion that Zahid Al-Sheikh too was a Guantanamo captive. And the first four participants who voiced delete followed the nominators lead. They voiced basically the same justification for deleting Zahid Al-Sheikh, Guantanamo captive, as they had for the other two Guantanamo captives. They too didn't spend enough time reading the article to realize he was not a Guantanamo captive. The contributor who were caught napping, whose opinions were revealed to have been based solely on the nominator's bogus description, not based on reading the article for themselves, did not go back and review their comments in the other two discussions. |
I have my own ideas about the wikipedia's future. I have looked for a venue where proponents were having a civil reasoned discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the competing visions. I haven't found one.
Can I ask what guides your choices in the deletion fora? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 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 ( talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)