User talk:SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:56, 16 January 2008 editOleg Alexandrov (talk \| contribs)Administrators47,244 edits →Hewitt's AfD: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:57, 16 January 2008 edit undoOleg Alexandrov (talk \| contribs)Administrators47,244 edits →Hewitt's AfD: cut to focusNext edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:
	== Hewitt's AfD ==		== Hewitt's AfD ==

	I have restored ], because archives of deletion debates should be kept intact. If you disagree, I would like to ask you which specific part of this deletion debate violates which specific part of ]~~. To me, the above deletion debate looks like a perfectly civil and perfectly to-the-point discussion~~. Thank you. You can reply here. ] (]) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)		I have restored ], because archives of deletion debates should be kept intact. If you disagree, I would like to ask you which specific part of this deletion debate violates which specific part of ]. Thank you. You can reply here. ] (]) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:57, 16 January 2008

File:Animalibrí.gif [REDACTED]

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

What the Bleep

In general, when an article has 3 RFC's on it and seven competing versions of a paragraph on its talk page being discussed by concerned editors, being bold (especially about the specific paragraph under discussion) is frowned upon. It subverts the discussion and RFC processes. I've reverted your edits.Kww (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your attention is directed to item 2 here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the Zombietime image

I have written an essay in userspace expressing my concerns about the Zombietime image. It was too long to simply cut-and-paste on Talk:New antisemitism. Please review the essay to understand why I believe that this image is not appropriate. I will, of course, continue to discuss the issue on the article talk page. *** Crotalus *** 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POLICY

Could you please join in the conversation on the talk page? The sentence "The policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and presentation of those principles." doesn't make sense to me - pages can be edited in any way, subject to consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Leon Pringle

Just FYI, as they were claiming that your block was biased, I unblocked and indef reblocked them, to avoid any appearance of impropriety and give them less grounds for complaining. I obviously agree with the basic justification for an indef block. I hope that this is not something you object to my having done... If so, feel free to let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Anti-Jewish boycott, Dresden, 1933.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Anti-Jewish boycott, Dresden, 1933.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi SlimVirgin - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It's always nice to have a legend drop in with a nice word. Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ReportAllPartyParliamentaryInquiry.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ReportAllPartyParliamentaryInquiry.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Hewitt's AfD

I have restored Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt, because archives of deletion debates should be kept intact. If you disagree, I would like to ask you which specific part of this deletion debate violates which specific part of WP:BLP. Thank you. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)