| Revision as of 06:04, 19 November 2005 editMysekurity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,507 edits re: Bibliotheca← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 22 November 2005 edit undoShanes (talk | contribs)Administrators30,021 edits Please mind the 3-revert ruleNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| :Yes, I did indeed close that AfD as keep, as there are 1,900,000 on the term. I realize that Misplaced Pages might not be the best for this, and you might want to nominate it for transwiking to perhaps Wiktionary, but I thought it was best left as a stub, as it is indeed notable. If you disagree with my descision, (which I admit might have been hasty), then please nominate it at ]. If anything, the vote could be defaulted to '''no consensus''', which is an automatic '''keep''' (I think I'll go change that now). Thanks for asking, happy editing, and I hope to see you at RfA again sometime soon. -]]]] 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | :Yes, I did indeed close that AfD as keep, as there are 1,900,000 on the term. I realize that Misplaced Pages might not be the best for this, and you might want to nominate it for transwiking to perhaps Wiktionary, but I thought it was best left as a stub, as it is indeed notable. If you disagree with my descision, (which I admit might have been hasty), then please nominate it at ]. If anything, the vote could be defaulted to '''no consensus''', which is an automatic '''keep''' (I think I'll go change that now). Thanks for asking, happy editing, and I hope to see you at RfA again sometime soon. -]]]] 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Please mind the 3-revert rule == | |||
| You have already made 5 reverts on the ] article over the BC/BCE issue. This is disruptive and a clear violation of the ]. I'm asuming you didn't know about the rule, and I'll leave it at this. But please don't make any further reverts or you may be ] from further editing. I understand your dislike for the BCE/CE notation, but it's an issue that has been debated extensively before, article authors have different opinions, and the best thing is to leave articles already using one notation as they are. Thanks. ] 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:30, 22 November 2005
Fake buildings on the London Underground
No, it wasn't a foolish enquiry at all! :)
I have replied where you asked it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Northern_Line#Fake_Buildings
Hope this helps. 138.37.199.199 08:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Derogatory?
Never heard of the term. But I would assume it is derogatory, can you please cite where you read this. Write it on this page, please, and I will be happy to help you out. I will however remove the question off the talk page because it doesn't pertain to article. Thanks
- Absolutely. I will be happy to help you out. I checked 4 dictionaries and couldn't find it. :(
- Okay see you in a few days. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Your rfa??
Chooserr you only have 72 edits total! Are you sure you want to run for admin?? --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why not. I've made at least one really good page, I won't abuse my power (if god willing it's granted), and am rather nice. Chooserr
Psst how do you check the edit count?
- Well usually users need more than 72 to run. :( I actually counted your edits manually, because there are so few, but there is a kate's count tool. Usually a 1000 edits is where most people would consider running. Most of the users have over 5000 but still haven't started running or have been unsuccessful. But 72 is very little for an admin. That will get you a lot of oppose votes. Maybe in three to six months you should run. Most people running have been here at least 3 months.--a.n.o.n.y.m 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll give it a shot...Then run again later...You really should sign your posts though. I looked for that word, and alas I couldn't find it again...I guess I misread the page. Sorry If I offended you. Chooserr
You are right! I didn't sign! No the word did not offend me and I spent a few minutes looking it up but could not find anything. Chooserr I would recommend waiting for a while; several editors with only 300 - 400 edits have tried to run and have been rejected so I would wait a little. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Well maybe I can still run, just have to put in a little over time...:D Chooserr
Eucharist
In any controversial topic, the intro especially needs to be carefully balanced, with the particulars of what is believed by the different parties in the controversy presented later in the article. So we can't really say in the intro that the Eucharist is a "sacrament", since not all who call themselves Christian use that term or think it appropriate. Nor can we say it "is" the body and blood of Christ since many believe it to be merely symbolic. (Personally I do say it's a sacrament, and I do think it really is the body and blood of Christ, so it's not a matter of factual disagreement here.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Pictures
Assume that its copywrited unless you see otherwise, not the other way around.--Tznkai 22:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
re: Bibliotheca
Hi, Mysekurity.
I'm here because you're the admin who closed the discussion at AfD on this article. I nominated the article, one other person voted to delete, and then the author said he/she thought it was expandable. I wonder, on one hand, how you interpreted that as a "keep" result, and on the other hand, what's your opinion about the article? As far as I can tell, the content is nothing more than "Bibliotheca is another word for library, that some people use. It sounds like the German word for library." I don't see that there's much more to say, unless we want to comment that it also sounds like the Spanish word for library, and the Italian one, etc...
So, what should be done with such an article, if not deletion or tranwiki-ing? How long after something fails AfD before it can be nominated again? It seems to me it didn't accrue enough votes to really determine a consensus.
I thank you in advance for your reply. -GTBacchus 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I did indeed close that AfD as keep, as there are 1,900,000 on the term. I realize that Misplaced Pages might not be the best for this, and you might want to nominate it for transwiking to perhaps Wiktionary, but I thought it was best left as a stub, as it is indeed notable. If you disagree with my descision, (which I admit might have been hasty), then please nominate it at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If anything, the vote could be defaulted to no consensus, which is an automatic keep (I think I'll go change that now). Thanks for asking, happy editing, and I hope to see you at RfA again sometime soon. -Mysekurity 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please mind the 3-revert rule
You have already made 5 reverts on the Ta-Yuan article over the BC/BCE issue. This is disruptive and a clear violation of the three revert rule. I'm asuming you didn't know about the rule, and I'll leave it at this. But please don't make any further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. I understand your dislike for the BCE/CE notation, but it's an issue that has been debated extensively before, article authors have different opinions, and the best thing is to leave articles already using one notation as they are. Thanks. Shanes 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)