| Revision as of 16:30, 14 October 2009 editTheOtherBob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,413 edits →Eric Violette: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:22, 14 October 2009 edit undoTheOtherBob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,413 edits →Eric Violette: thanksNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| My primary concern is that if we leave something salted that long, a subject that was not notable under the guidelines can become notable -- but we won't get an article about it because rank and file editors won't be interested in navigating deletion review or unprotection. Unless we really need to leave this salted to avoid disruption, I think we should try to open it up to see whether the subject has become notable. Thoughts? --]] 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | My primary concern is that if we leave something salted that long, a subject that was not notable under the guidelines can become notable -- but we won't get an article about it because rank and file editors won't be interested in navigating deletion review or unprotection. Unless we really need to leave this salted to avoid disruption, I think we should try to open it up to see whether the subject has become notable. Thoughts? --]] 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks. --]] 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:22, 14 October 2009
I will usually reply to messages left here on this page so check back for a response.
 Archives
|
Knee-jerk reversion
Please exercise care when performing a blind revert, as you did here. Not doing so will undo not only changes you find problematic, but also the valid changes made during that same edit. It's an easy mistake to make; one that will happen less frequently with experience. You can find more information at WP:Revert. With regards to your comment on my talk page, thank you for the link to the WP:BLP section on relatively unknown people. I do not see how that applies to the 3 sources listed in the Lewy article; perhaps you could elaborate? If you choose to do so, it would probably be advantageous to respond on the article talk page in case other editors are interested. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Rjd0060 -
- You came to my talk page to advise me on the fundamentals of BLP, a category of articles I have specialized in since I began editing Misplaced Pages. Bad form. You then reverted content you considered negative, while claiming you didn't see the 3 high quality sources to which it was cited. Possibly an oversight on your part; possibly willful negligence. During that revert, you also deleted other content without any explanation at all. Bad form. When I asked you to elaborate on your reasoning for the deletion of sourced content, you responded not with your reasons, but with further incivility: your blatant disregard to the BLP policy is appalling; I see that you're not interested in logical discussion; ignoring one of the most important policies that we have. On top of all that, you inform me you are OTRS, and therefore I "clearly don't know the full story". Wait, is this the same OTRS described in the opening paragraph as comprised of "Volunteers trusted to give courteous and helpful responses?"
- Here's the full story, Rjd0060. I hate drama, but you have pushed too many buttons here. I am one step away from taking this situation to the noticeboards for review. I am requesting that you strike your comments from my talk page, and I am re-requesting that you elaborate on your objections to the 3 (now 4) sources cited for the content in the Lewy BLP. Please take this opportunity to return this to a cooperative effort, instead of an adversarial one. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct your assessment that my edit summaries could have been a little more ... let's say, constructive. Let's see if we can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Indukti
Hey,
Why have you deleted page about rock band Indukti, wich is present on others pages of English wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search/Indukti?
Is also present in Polish, German and Spanish wikipedia:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/Indukti
http://de.wikipedia.org/Indukti
http://es.wikipedia.org/Indukti
Could you help me restore this page? I'm not experienced user of wikipedia and English isn't my native language
TYA!
Cozy64 http://pl.wikipedia.org/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Cozy64 e-mail:cozy@indukti.com, 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which license applies
Hey, I wanted to ask you under which copyright status I could upload this image: http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7571/danilovicstamatovicgoranovicjo.gif
It is an USA official document but as you can see, it dates back over 100 years. So is this picture public domain since it copyright status expired? Or should I upload it under US government copyright? Rave92 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Chugworth Academy Deletion
"A small web comic with no significance" seems pretty harsh, considering that at its height it received 50,000 unique hits a day and a nationally licensed book from a legit publisher. http://us.macmillan.com/chugworthacademyvol1 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chugworth.com
Just check its max trends, it remained in Alexa's top 100,000 for the portion of its lifespan while it did update.
Now admittedly, the comic has been in remission, but it seems like the proposed deletion was right before it started up with new updates, and so no one was paying attention to the article, but lacking in updates is not uncommon to web comics. It seems at the very least that the grounds for deletion are erroneous, as the comic had quite a large reader base and some significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.228.8 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Close to Home (Song)
Can you move Close to Home (Song) to User:Sheled Umlal/Close to Home so that I may work on it? —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
Eric Violette
This article is one you salted a little over a year ago -- would you consider removing the protection? (The subject is the guy who plays the pirate in the FreeCreditReport.com commercials.) I'm not sure about notability -- it's a singing pirate, after all -- but since the article was salted (and since the last deletion review) there have been reliable sources reporting on the subject. (See ). It may be worth opening it up to see if anyone writes a usable article.
My primary concern is that if we leave something salted that long, a subject that was not notable under the guidelines can become notable -- but we won't get an article about it because rank and file editors won't be interested in navigating deletion review or unprotection. Unless we really need to leave this salted to avoid disruption, I think we should try to open it up to see whether the subject has become notable. Thoughts? --TheOtherBob 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. --TheOtherBob 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)