| Revision as of 15:29, 16 May 2013 editLfdder (talk | contribs)14,867 edits rm rubbish← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:11, 17 May 2013 edit undoYmblanter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators269,100 edits →May 2013: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| This is a subject I am not expert enough to judge, and it seems you are. But it is none the less not acceptable to blank an article and then ask for speedy deletion as having no content. If you want it deleted, use AfD. "Duck going through all that" is not acceptable as a rationale to avoid it. Add when you do add a speedy tag, it is required that say so in the edit summary -- "I'm a genius" is not an adequate alternative. ''']''' (]) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | This is a subject I am not expert enough to judge, and it seems you are. But it is none the less not acceptable to blank an article and then ask for speedy deletion as having no content. If you want it deleted, use AfD. "Duck going through all that" is not acceptable as a rationale to avoid it. Add when you do add a speedy tag, it is required that say so in the edit summary -- "I'm a genius" is not an adequate alternative. ''']''' (]) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I've reverted it to its stub-y state, sans OR. No good keeping ((very) bad) OR in the article, AfD or no. — ] (]) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | :I've reverted it to its stub-y state, sans OR. No good keeping ((very) bad) OR in the article, AfD or no. — ] (]) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == May 2013 == | |||
| I gave you a warning on the AfD discussion page, and I though we understood each other. However, today you . I understand your frustration, but again (i) Please ]; (ii) the article was not amenable for speedy deletion, it could have been either PRODed and AfDed. Both ways for deletion take the same time, and AfD is safer. I think we have to live with this. If once again in this episode you will call someone "dishonest" or "liar", I will have to take you to ANI, and, most likely, a block will be given out. I really would like to avoid this, so could you please do not accuse others in what they most likely did not do. Thank you.--] (]) 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:11, 17 May 2013
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Secwepemc population
Just saw this and am just waking up. Wondering if Ethnologue is as up-to-date as what the peoples themselves, or INAC, might have. INAC the problem is that there is no one single band, and there's two tribal councils not including many independent bands.....so it would take totalling them all, which is OR I guess. There's nothing on secwepemc.org but I haven't look at the TC sites yet; I'd think there's more recent figures out there than 1990, and probably more "authentic" as based on what the people themselves report; I'll see what I can find later.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, E cites Kinkade, M. D. 1991. The decline of native languages in Canada. In R. H. Robins and E. M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered languages, pp. 157–176. Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers, might say how they've come to that figure. — Lfdder (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Chalkidiki Greek
This is a subject I am not expert enough to judge, and it seems you are. But it is none the less not acceptable to blank an article and then ask for speedy deletion as having no content. If you want it deleted, use AfD. "Duck going through all that" is not acceptable as a rationale to avoid it. Add when you do add a speedy tag, it is required that say so in the edit summary -- "I'm a genius" is not an adequate alternative. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've reverted it to its stub-y state, sans OR. No good keeping ((very) bad) OR in the article, AfD or no. — Lfdder (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
I gave you a warning on the AfD discussion page, and I though we understood each other. However, today you again insisted someone is lying. I understand your frustration, but again (i) Please assume the good faith; (ii) the article was not amenable for speedy deletion, it could have been either PRODed and AfDed. Both ways for deletion take the same time, and AfD is safer. I think we have to live with this. If once again in this episode you will call someone "dishonest" or "liar", I will have to take you to ANI, and, most likely, a block will be given out. I really would like to avoid this, so could you please do not accuse others in what they most likely did not do. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)