![]() | 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. |
Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments. Ryoung122 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that, but thanks for letting me know. I'll just leave it for now to see if he can turn up any reliable sources. If not, I'll bring it back to AfD. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here:
Revision as of 06:14, 6 January 2009 (edit) (undo)David in DC (Talk | contribs) (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)Next edit →
Maybe it's not a "political attack," but it sure looks suspiciously like a vendetta, as I am the same editor, and your comments are similar to the Sebastian Bonnet debate.
The irony is that Paul Baltes, along with his wife, developed a method of measuring "wisdom." Just yesterday you claim that a "wise man" does X, but now you question the wisdom of having an article on a man who was the world's leading expert on "wisdom." Ryoung122 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting topics I can add to is what I look for, not peeking at what you are doing for malice. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Do I seem so wrong here? David in DC ( talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the revision and help. Hoang.pham19 ( talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the category removal at Lisa Ann. I had HotCat enabled and didn't understand how it worked and I must have removed the category. Thanks again. Farmercarlos ( talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Some dolt at my place of work has gotten our IP address blocked. It's only for a day or two, at least for now, and I don't really desparately need access to WP at work. But a page I monitor, Shy Love, has a determined IP editor inserting unsourced personal biographical details. In my view, the insertions violate WP:BLP. Would you please look at the page and see if you agree? If so, would you please take appropriate action? If I ever find out who Toastman5 is, I'll fart in his/her general direction and indicate that his/her mother was a hamster and his/her father smelt of elderberries. David in DC ( talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I use WP:IRC and flagged an oversighter down. Best to use WP:RFO with Special:EmailUser/Oversight to avoid attention. MBisanz talk 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the good faith and restraint the editors who disagree with me have shown in the discussion of Sam Adams. Everybody seems to be showing the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and give important matters due consideration. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop deleting categories while the thread you started about them on WP:BLPN is active. Will Beback talk 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions." Agreed. David in DC ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In common law, IIRC, felonies have prison terms of over 1 year, while lesser sentences are given for misdemeanors. A four-day sentence for contempt of court hardly seems equivalent to a felony conviction. However, if you want to assert that if LaGrotta deserves the category then so does King feel free to make that argument. It appears spurious to me. Will Beback talk 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. They evidence of visiting old ponds was compelling. KnightLago ( talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagreeable? Do you mean calling a bizarre suggestion "bizarre"? I was referring to the suggestion, not to the editor. That's no more out of line than calling other proposals "BLP violations". So long as we're commenting on the edits (or proposals), and not the editors, I don't think there's a problem. Will Beback talk 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"bad edit"
"bizarre"
"deleted for no good reason"
"doesn't even make sense"
Cheers,
David in DC (
talk)
02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the totally constructive recent edits with the totally constructive edit summary "sharper cat" are a sight to behold. Bravo, Will. David in DC ( talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's still wrong. Please see the relevant Talk page. -- Evertype· ✆ 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Done! Regards. V1 t 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A number of your recent comments and edit summaries have focused on me as an individual, which is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. This posting, [1] for example, has little to do with the subject matter and seems mostly to be a complaint about my behavior. If you wish to complain about me then the right places to do so are on my user talk page or through one of the dispute resolution boards. Will Beback talk 21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, David in DC ( talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Man that Freehold edit is getting old, time to put a hidden comment? Sillyfolkboy ( talk) ( edits) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work on this article. I've left a note on the talk page of the article, and I'm hoping you can respond there. None of the sources used seem to pass WP:RS and there is no way to verify her death. I'm of the opinion that her birth/date dates should be removed from the article because frankly, those are completely without sourcing. Cheers. Law type! snype? 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Bruce Springsteen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A long time ago you helped me on List of Honorific titles page, Can you give your opinion on it on this page . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination) Kelvin Martinez ( talk) 10:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked a friend from Penn if he ever heard of F&H. I sense it is a hoax, given the lack of footnotes and a direct lift from text I provided on three Yale societies.
Let me hear from you on this. I'll wait to hear from you before I go to "the powers that ween" at Wikipedia. SLY111 ( talk) 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)SLY111
Hi,
If you're making a ref name tag, the proper formatting is <ref name = name>{{cite whatever | information = stuff }}</ref> for the first one, subsequent references use <ref name = name/>. The slash before the terminal > is what is important, and makes the </ref> unnecessary. Thought you'd be interested, given your recent edits to The Awareness Center. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey David - good to see you're editing again. It's now been more than a year since I asked if you'd be interested in being nominated for adminship, so I thought I'd try again. The process to get adminship can be a little unpleasant, and I'm not sure whether you'd be successful (that's no slight on you, but rather on the somewhat arbitrary basis of many users' support/oppose decisions), but we can always use more BLP-sensitive admins. Anyway, let me know, and either way it's nice to see you back. Steve Smith ( talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jake Brahm. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Brahm (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kelly O'Dell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly O'Dell. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was fully expecting those ones to be vandalistic as well, but this edit conforms to what's in List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions (and has been there for a long time) and this one's consistent with both List of French Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions. Weird. As to what we can do, I've added the I.P.'s talk page to my watchlist, and I'll do spot checks of its contributions over the next week or so to see if it's resumed editing and, if it is, whether the edits are vandalism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Steve Smith ( talk) 13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |