|
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I am currently completing the merger of the articles 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition and Surrealist Movement in the United States into the article Chicago Surrealist Group, and I have some questions to make sure I do this right. Both articles I am merging from are very short, so the cut-and-paste of content is not difficult. My understanding is that, once this is finished, I should redirect those two articles to the Chicago Surrealist Group, correct? Where I am less certain is in the talk pages. The talk page for the Surrealist Exhibition page has no content other than a Wikiproject template, and a note about the page surviving an AfD. The Surrealist Movement talk page, however, has some content, and this should not be lost. How do I go about moving it? If you can assist me on this, or offer some guidance, I would be very grateful. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 22:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Dear Eliminator J.R., You have just deleted my recent article about the law firm "De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.". I disagree that this article is blatant advertising: links to sources Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 were included. Please note that there are references to this law firm on several other wikipedia pages (List of largest European law firms, Linklaters, etc) Please also note that articles about law firms "Linklaters", "Slaugther & May" and "Debevoise & Plimpton" contain very similar content. If you restore the article, I can make it more neutral if you want. Regards, Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbrink ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Why did you delete Chessgames.com? Your deletion log entry says: "CSD R1: Redirect to non-existent page" but that's not true. The page content was http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:u4oZ2xlFIAwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChessGames.com+chessgames.com+site:en.wikipedia.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. 68.190.126.10 ( talk) 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being labled a lunatic simply because I happen to like a certain anime series. Jtrainor ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spoor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC) You may want to recreate your old username ( link) as suggested by WJBscribe at CHU. I couldn't get your attention off-Wikipedia, and you seem to be active, so hopefully you see this before any problems occur with impersonators. Cheers, Daniel 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Can you have another look at this close? There's one vote for Keep, which basically says "it's notable, it has 21000 Ghits" (it doesn't - it has 335 [1]). Then there's three more Keeps "per the first keep", and finally a Delete (which is the only one to actually have a valid rationale). With only one valid comment, I think this should've been re-listed. BLACKKITE 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to drop you a note and say that I approve of your closing here. I was one of those who called for "Merge and redirect into Transphobia", and you're right: I did so before the article was improved and referenced. I agree that it is fine as a standalone article now. -- Stormie 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou AfD closed with a decision to delete the sub articles and keep the main. User:GVnayR recreated all of the deleted articles almost immediately, as redirects to the sub articles, but possibly with the intention of recreating them later. Also Bakushou!! Jinsei Gekijou was missed in the deletions. I redirected to the series page after GVnayR continued editing it after the AfD closed. On a related issue, this particular editor is constantly making articles that are 99% hoaxes and his own views with only a minor bit of truth, almost always marks every edit he does as minor, and seems to have no regard for Wikipedia's purposes or policies. If you check his talk page, you can see the huge number of AfDs, CSDs, and PRODs on his articles, and notices from multiple editors about his disregarding different Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I reported him to to incident noticeboard last week, but some big discussions were going on and it fell off the board with only one response. I was wondering what else, if anything, can be done about this? Going behind him and cleaning up after him isn't really how I want to spend my Wikipedia time, so if something else can be done, please let me know. Collectonian 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your mediation here. [2] It's simple, yet I probably wouldn't have thought of it. Sometimes, a third party really helps.- DMCer 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Good morning. I was checking edit counts for voters on Giano's vote page, and noticed that you indented a vote from Chelsea Tory, noting that the user lacked sufferage. However, according to the edit count I'm seeing, the user appears to have 202 edits as of the end of October, with the minimum being 150 by that point. If you get a chance, could you doublecheck my count and, if it looks like the user does have more than 150, unindent? If I'm missing something, please let me know - but, since you indented the vote, I wanted to make sure you were aware of my concern. No hurry, it's a long election. Thanks! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice you have claimed to "semiprotect" this page but instead fully protected? I am trying to actually write it up in a way that satisfies those who continually revert-war it back, but it is highly difficult when they continually revert to an almost blanked version of the page and remove good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) "(cur) (last) 07:32, 3 December 2007 Black Kite (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Johnny Sutton: IP edit-warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC))) (undo) " That appears to be full protection sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Can you please come to the talk page and explain what issue you have with attempted compromise versions I tried to make last week? So far the only person talking is Jons63 and he has not answered the analysis by Mr Billy Hathorn at all. Mr Irishguy and Brimba and yourself are merely warring and that is unhelpful. I have asked for help on the AN page as per step 2 in the help system dispute resolution page but I would like you to participate so that I can make the page better instead of having to blindly try to improve it and see people constantly revert as appears to be happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you. If you notice my version does not include the George Bush quote in the front but instead moves it to the "reactions" page with its sourcing. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Johnny_Sutton&diff=prev&oldid=174836160 I have attempted to get the other editors to talk including posting to the AN but on the AN Mr Irishguy attacked me and accused me of being a "single purpose account and probable sock", he also "signed" one of my posts to the sutton talk page the same way. He still refuses to say what issue he has with the page but continues to revert it despite having made other nonrelated discussion on the sutton talk page. I don't know what to do, I cannot get him to talk about what issue he has with the edits. Any help you can give would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Calling them "notoriously unreliable and biased" is entertaining when you're trusting implicitly "news outlets" that are notoriously unreliable and biased the other direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) I have gone through and put a note on each talk page of everyone I can find from the first page of the article history. Is there anywhere else you could suggest or any other person you think I should notify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Brimba's response has been highly rude and he appears to be accusing me of being that IP address you locked the page to block. I am going to try to respond but he appears to show an intent to simply edit war this and is not paying any attention to what was written by Mr Billy Hathorn. Can you assist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I have responded to Brimba here. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AJohnny_Sutton&diff=175719030&oldid=175641430 Sir, from what I am seeing, it is obvious Brimba did not even bother to read my edits and is himself biased and showing no intention to do anything other than edit war. I ask for your assistance in this as he is completely unhelpful to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, out of character they were indeed. I must apologize for having wasted everyone's time in trying to figure out what was going on. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 ( talk) 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction. In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so. For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part. I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature. Please give me a second chance. Walton One 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Hi, Yesterday, you understandably salted three spellings of this name because of a determined persistent poster, who kept creating attacks. This was good, but I noticed that WP does have an (unrelated) valid article at Paul McGuire. I have thus gone ahead and created protected redirects for each misspelling to the valid article. This has the same effect, but leads any searcher for the term to the right place. Just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know. Best wishes :), Xoloz ( talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC) About this, [3] I posted this exactly 24 hours and 23 minutes after the case opened. Five arbitrators had already voted. With half of my evidence not yet assembled, and 1/3 of the Committee having gone on record with the message that no defense was possible, I resigned. Durova Charge! 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Heh. Well seen. Strength through numbers, eh? Keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
