| Revision as of 06:17, 11 November 2012 editJohn Cline (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors64,922 edits Notification← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:28, 13 November 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 3d) to User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 37.Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == Protection of the Chinese-language-name re-directs for the ] == | |||
| A of the ] was managed to be by an ]. Surely, ALL Chinese-language-name re-directs should also be under full protection from editing? -- ] 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Eh, preemptive protection isn't something that is generally done, given the large number of possible premutations of redirects that exist. Have you told TheChampionMan1234 about your redirection? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, I see. There are only a few Chinese ones that I can really think of, actually, pretty much '''all''' with a combination of the name "Diaoyu" something. The re-direction was '''not''' in fact first initiated by me, but the content-fork was created, or resurrected, by this other editor after the by ] – who had in fact reinstated a re-direct – '''after''' the main articles were locked, on . Perhaps this is cowardice, but I would rather not do anything that would be inflammatory (or cause other to come "on my back"). He does not appear to be the original creator of the article, either as a , or , before being repeatedly reverted and undone. -- ] 00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see. Well, if there are a few specific ones that you would like me to protect, let me know. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Second pair of eyes == | |||
| NW, if you have the time, I would love some notes on how to improve an article ('']''), that I am building towards FAC in a few weeks. Best, ] (]) 06:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, as far as the analysis and commentary section goes, I would try to make clear which criticism was contemporary and which is the result of looking at things from a later lens. That way might allow you to restructure how you approach that section in general. Also, have you exhausted the sources available for the topic? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Arb == | == Arb == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 29: | ||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==A request for clarification has been filed== | == A request for clarification has been filed == | ||
| And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, ] (]) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) | And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, ] (]) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:28, 13 November 2012
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A request for clarification has been filed
And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, My76Strat (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)