Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:06, 12 May 2007

• Archive01 (26 February 2007)
• Archive02 (28 March 2007)
• Archive03 (25 April 2007)

Discussion

Grunfeld

Is your merged article ready yet? Grünfeld 4.Bf4 is AfD. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it is probably a good time to make the change, if you are sure that no information from the subarticles was lost. Grünfeld 4.Bf4 has been nominated for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I'd expand on why I considered your comment an accusation against me. Your comment starts off saying "This user" which instead of focusing on the article, focuses on me. If you truly wished to be neutral, you should have focused on the article itself. Not that I imagine there's any reason to keep the contents anyway. It's not sourced, and if there's some reason to include information on it in the main article, you're going to have to source it. Mister.Manticore 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you didn't actually review any of the sources on the page, you may wish to consider what unsourced information you've added to the new Grunfeld defense page. They may not say everything now contained in this article. Mister.Manticore 01:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no in-line citations, and you didn't actually say you looked at those references which have themselves existed in the article for quite some time, so since you didn't add them, I can't know you looked at them yourself. Making an article with copies from other pages is often a problem when you don't consider that sort of thing. Mister.Manticore 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't look at the sources, it is certainly questionable to add the content, and this is also true for the other content in the GD article, such as the players who have used it recently (a statement that needs to be fixed to year anyway). As I've said before (including in this nomination), simply referencing that a given variant exists? Not convincing as a reason to keep on Misplaced Pages. There are thousands of openings that can be listed, named and documented as to moves. Getting beyond that is the problem. In any case, I see no reason to include a list of moves simply because some person seeking to spread their links on Misplaced Pages chose to include that opening. If you'd given one argument as to why that information should be merged, that'd be one thing, but you've not even done that. It's just a list of moves. Think about why you're including it. If it's just because the article was there...maybe you need to think about removing it. Mister.Manticore 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "This is the second most popular variant" does it? And where's your source for your assertion? Mister.Manticore 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kiichi Gotoh deletion

Greetings! Otto4711 has a solution to removing the majority of the individual character pages, while still giving them a place with expanded information. The Kanuka page is already developed and should remain as it is, but I would agree to the deletion of the other character pages and the creation of a "List of Patlabor characters" page. Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kiichi_Goto. Mintchocolatebear 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've moved the information about the main characters in Patlabor to List of characters in Patlabor. The character pages (Aside from Kanuka Clancy, who has a complete page) can now be redirected to that one. Mintchocolatebear 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chess players

Do you think you and Epeefleche could sort out your differences on the chess articles without edit warring and being nasty? --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, and I apologise for the error. I agree that his edits are basically okay and he'll be an asset to the project if and when he gives up edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1912 Olympic Games

Thanks a lot for your "warning" about the 1912 Olympic Games football matches. You are right, this was not my best idea. I will ponder to find a better way to shown this data. :) Doma-w 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

You posted a comment, that is involvement on your part. My request is that you refrain from commenting, as I feel like you're seeking problems out to comment on and not letting other users, who are not involved in the situation make their own decisions. In effect, by participating in the method you chose you are in effect escalating the situation. This is not the first time you've done this, and I'd honestly prefer you stop focusing on me and focus on the articles that need improvement instead. Mister.Manticore 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:100 broken windows album cover.jpg

Hello, EliminatorJR. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:100 broken windows album cover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:EliminatorJR/Sandbox/LPTemplate. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• No worries - it was from a page I copied in to create a new article. EliminatorJR 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV report + contributions

Hey! Good work at WP:AIV - I've blocked the account (see his/her talk page) per your report. I'm just dropping by to say good work, and drop by my talk page any time!

By the way, I'm a new admin (the newest in fact, having had my mop just a few hours) so let me know how I'm doing!

Regards,
Anthony 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot

Why not make a list and discuss? - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles George Arbuthnot

As far as I'm aware you can't withdraw the nom once other people have said to delete. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to withdraw it, but it would be better to get an admin to close it, just to be on the safe side. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)