| Revision as of 01:05, 25 October 2006 editWinhunter (talk | contribs)14,068 edits →unblock: accepted← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:53, 26 October 2006 edit undoParsssseltongue (talk | contribs)1,712 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{db-author}} | |||
| <div style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| <center> | |||
| <big><big>PT</big></big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ''Archives: ]'' | |||
| ---- | |||
| *Please . | |||
| *I have already read ] and ], so don't bother calling them to my attention. | |||
| *However, you should give ], ], and ] a read! | |||
| *If I leave you a message, please respond here or leave me a message here telling me you've replied there, and I'll do the same. | |||
| </center> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Oh dear== | |||
| Read ]. And try not to be so patronising in future. ] 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Um, I've read ], thanks. Are you talking about the discussion at the ] AfD? All I said was "easily meets ] criteria." What's so bad about that? ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Might I interject for a moment? I think Marcus took as patronizing him and therefore warned you for ] on your page. Personally, I think it's a misunderstanding gone awry. That's what I think, though. See my comments at the MedCab page that I'm going to make in a few moments. ] 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Successful Automobiles== | |||
| Thank you for noticing. I take it you have judged one or either of us to be in violation of said rules? --] 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| (Copying from my talk page for your convenience. -S.) | |||
| Hello! I removed your prod, as the article asserts the notability of the subject with reliable sources cited within the article, as well as on the talk page. Thank you! ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough. I don't feel he's noteworthy, so I have nominated the article for deletion. Please see ]. ] 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry... I might like his music but I don't think he's notable enough to be listed. —] 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Responded on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry about the mixup on the Ryan Avery discussion page. I've never heard of him, and I would have to agree with the user above. --] 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Responded on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Understood. Let me take another look at the article and do some research. If I think it's noteworthy, I'll change my vote. Cool? --] 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** Responded on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, looks like i was a bit late, but i've never heard of the guy so i probably would have voted delete or not at all. --] 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Parsssseltongue/avery == | |||
| I've moved your article ] to ] as it appears from the title that you were trying to create a user ]. If this is not correct, then feel free to move it back to the Main name space with a more appropriate title. Thank you. — ]]] ] 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks very much for the info. I hope that the page is kept, there are quite a lot of naysayers. I see you have added information to the page and made it better. Cheers ] 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==re: Trunk Space, Modified Arts, and Paper Heart Gallery== | |||
| They're all good starts. I think the article you wrote about trunk space reads more like an advertisement towards the end (the casbah has the same problem, I haven't gotten around to fixing yet). Modified arts and paper heart gallery are also good. I don't think its necessary to give links to founding members, unless if they've done something notable enough to deserve their own articles on wikipedia. | |||
| Keep on contributing! ] 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Nintendocore == | |||
| Thanks for the notification on 14 Year Old Girls, but I've only just checked my account and the discussion has expired. I would have said "keep"... | |||
| ] 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks! ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==What happened to the Quit pop-punk article == | |||
| I am new to Wiki, and I do not understand why "Quit" pop-punk band site was deleted? What do I need to do to have it posted. They were a major pioneer for pop-punk music. {{unsigned|aefelds}} | |||
| *Responded on aefeld's talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| You left a note on my talk page about AGF and NPA. Who are you? ] 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, thanks for clarifying (it's usually a good idea to provide links to the issues in question when you leave a message). While you are certainly entitled to point users to ongoing discussions that you think may be of interest, it is not often considered a good idea since it smacks of vote solicitation, aka meat puppetry. Hope this helps. ] 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD help == | |||
| Please check out and lend a vote! --] 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I understand. The conversation really exploded after I voted. Don't feel compelled! I'm leaving it to whatever poor admin has to sort through it. --] 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the band, I was just checking proposed deletions for over-zealousness and it was easy to google Antiseen and see they could establish notability, so I removed the prod. ] 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image tagging for Image:14yog.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. | |||
| For more information on using images, see the following pages: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 10:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, I removed the errors and inconsistencies section from the Friends article b/c the article is way too long (it still was even after i removed it) and because the list is pretty unencyclopedic. I announced I was going to move it on the talk page and noone seemed to have any objections. Could you explain your reasoning for readding it there? Thanks | |||
| ] 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well if it gets deleted that probably means it shouldn't be on WP. As I said above, I really think it doesn't belong in the Friends article, the other sections have priority. ] 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| The Misplaced Pages article on this subject was mentioned , so I was trying to find the template for when an article is referenced in the media to put on the talk page. Also, this has opened the article up for vandalism, and I was wondering if it could be put under protection. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just put the following on the talk page: <nowiki>{{High-traffic|date=Examplemonth 1, 2006|url=http://example.com|site=Site Title}}</nowiki>. ] (]) 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] Afd== | |||
| Hi there, thanks for being an admin. I just wanted to ask if you could clarify your closure of the most recent P-P-P-Powerbook Afd. In particular, why you considered it a bad faith nomination, and why you invoked ] when the discussion was leaning towards delete. While I agree that articles should not be re-nomed too soon, I'm not sure if 40 or so days is brief enough a period. What do you think the appropriate amount of time should be? Thanks for any clarification ] 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Responded on ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I think this admin ] about every AfD nom and has that line as a macro. -- ] (] • ]) 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***a). I'm not an admin. b). This is my talk page, you can talk directly to me. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You closed this AFD with the statement: "The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nom, ], and an AfD determining keep a mere month ago". I strongly disagree with this. Come on, WP:SNOW? The consensus was heading steadily for delete... Anyway, since ] already existed, I'm just going to move the comments from "3rd nomination" (which was created unnecessarily by FrancisTyers) into the fourth one. ] 06:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I noticed you had already answered on a message about this. A 30-day time span between nominations is no good reason to close though, when the majority calls delete. | |||
| :On another note, I am now looking at your closing of ], where you again stated "speedy keep due to bad faith nom and WP:SNOW". Please ]. ] 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sheepstealer clothing== | |||
| There seem to be several problems with your closing of this AFD: you accused the user of a bad faith nom in breach of ], stated there was not a reason when there was (]), and closed it as ] when it did not fit the criteria. As it does no harm, I would recommend leaving the AFD open when there is any doubt. Cheers, ]] 22:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is an official policy and it would seem a valid reason when reading it in the context of the article (certainly a clearer reference to policy than the ubiquitous "nn"). ]] 23:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep, there are occasional noms like that but they don't really do any harm by staying on AFD for a while. Please read ] as well - you'll see it should only be speedily kept in a case like this when it is "clear-cut vandalism and nobody disputes this or recommends deleting it anyway". I'd say they are suspicious but not clear-cut. Cheers, ]] 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Wells == | |||
| Ahhh, that's what that was about. :) No problem. ] 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD closure == | |||
| Hi, I'm not sure if your closure of the ] was appropriate for a number of reasons: per the ] | |||
| :"Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." | |||
| :"Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion presents a conflict of interest and should be generally avoided" | |||
| Given that this AfD is over a point beyond a simple consensus (see ], specifically "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.") it seems like a much better idea to leave this one for an admin to work out. Regards, ] 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Seconded. Just came to say same. –] ] 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **responded on z's talk page ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** (In reply to your message on my talk page) Given that a couple of people have suggested that this is not a clear decision, if you're confident that an admin would say the same thing I don't think it would hurt to let one of them close it this time. As I note, there are AfD conditions that can (and do) override consensus or lack thereof, so the fact that there isn't consensus on this one may be irrelevant. ] 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****I am here to express the same point for the early closure by a non-admin of my renomination to delete the article ] on grounds of Misplaced Pages policy ] (you say you've read it, but you must not think its important) which gives the standard for notability for music groups. This renomination is in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies ] and elsewhere. It seems that a lot of people are in agreement that you are making improper choices in how you have approached the situation. Furthermore your comment about it being so soon for any change in consensus seems to have missed that there was NO CONSENSUS. Under Misplaced Pages deletion policy it states "The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." This is what I am trying to achieve! An actual consensus. Furthermore, my arguments for deletion are strictly in keeping with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding Notability, etc etc. And finally, you ask that more time elapses before further debate leading to consenses (consensus...NOT a new consensus) can be made. No changes to the page can be made that will bring the band into notability. ] is being used in bad faith if you use it to hijack wikipedia into some inclusionist pit of articles that do not meet all applicable policies ] 02:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==You're not an admin?== | |||
| Is that correct? You're not an admin? why are you closing controversial or no consensus afd discussions?] 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Don't know why you're asking questions to answers you already know, unless you're trying to make some point. My userpage will tell you everything you need to know. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I wasn't making a point. I was confirming that you weren't being ironic ] 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***You made an edit to your question since (or simultaenously with) my response, sorry for the confusion. YES, I am NOT an admin. Not sure what "irony" you speak of. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **How come you didn't clarify you weren't an admin when I assumed you were such . I'm trying to assume good faith. ] 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I did clarify. Not on your talkpage, on this one, where you left the message. And when you said "thanks for being an admin," I took that as an endorsement of my ]. "Being an admin," in my estimation, to mean acting like an admin ]. For clarification, I've put some info about my ideas on this on my userpage. Sorry to act uncivil a moment ago, I didn't take notice of who was leaving me the message. No offense to you intended, none taken by me. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **** You "clarified" <u>17 hours</u> after your intial reply to my initial message in response to <u>someone else</u>. And this was before you added the "not an admin" info to your user page. You can't use ] do to whatever you like (even if you were an admin). And sorry, but I have trouble believing that someone can naturally assume the phrase "Thanks for being an admin" is a compliment for acting like an admin when they're not. ] 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****I am sorry if you feel slighted somehow. But I am not interested in a debate about this any longer. In regards to you, it was an honest misunderstanding. In regards to my actions, I stand by them. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I've ] that an admin take a look at these closures, just to make sure that they're valid. Regards, ] 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I stand by my actions. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Post ANI thread === | |||
| Hi. I've reviewed the close of the powerbook article and as a result deleted it. I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: I don't find ''too'' much fault with you closing this. Here are the problems I have with it: | |||
| * I to some degree share your concern with multiple nominations, but it's not appropiate to make editorial comments in the close. It doesn't matter if it's "keep all schools" or "no quick/repeat nominations." When closing you are meant to be ] the spirit of Misplaced Pages, so try and only say things that are established as consensus/policy/etc. | |||
| * You took part in the discussion. Only a little bit, but a closer should be above reproach as much as possible. | |||
| * Finally, the only ''real'' bone of contention is that you made the wrong decision. Proper sources are one of the biggest problems facing the encyclopedia, and we have to uphold ] by using good sources. | |||
| The other close was a total cock-up, but that's fine too. Everyone makes them. So, if you find yourself thinking about closing something "other than unanimous" again, feel free to tell everyone I told you it was ok. Yeah, it's against what's written down. Yeah, if you ever do seek promotion it might go against you. Yeah, lots of people will disagree with me. But you really can't stuff things up ''too'' badly. And in the event that you go from thinking about making a close like that to actually closing, feel free to drop a note on mytalk and I'll look it over again. Who knows, next time I might agree with you! | |||
| ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AGF== | |||
| Regardless of the decisions regrading your recent closes, can I ask you to stop using the phrase "bad faith nom" in your closures - it is completely contrary to ] and AFD is enough of a bearpit without accusations of bad faith. Thanks, ]] 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *That's something good to consider. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed your vandalism tag from ]. You should try to be more careful in this and assume good faith absent strong counterevidence. Your efforts, although probably well-intended, have been fairly disruptive as of late. ~ ] 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't mind being disruptive if it causes change. ] <sup>(])</sup> 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your recent assumption of bad faith regarding me is very uncalled for and wildly unhelpful. I put a lot of time into that nomination, and your response is largely ''ad hominem''. I think you need to cool it. ]·] 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Responded on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Andrew Jackson Jihad == | |||
| *Following your request at ] I have undeleted the content and placed it in your userspace at ]. | |||
| I strongly reccommend that you start work improving the article soon - deleted articles hanging around in userspace without anything being done to them is generally frowned upon. Don't move it to the main namespace until you are certain that the issues raised in the AfD have been addressed, otherwise it is liable to be deleted again, possibly speedily, and admins will need more convincing to userfy again. ] 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I still see nothing that meets ]. ]|] 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **DON'T YELL AT ME!!! Just because you make claims on the Talk page doesn't mean they're true. What "major award" did they win? What genre are they a major representative of? How many albums have they produced? ]|] 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This is spooky. I got your message just as I was looking at this AfD. I don't know what the old article looked like, but the current version seems to meet ]. - ] 00:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Sorry, I don't know enough about the band and I do not see enough in the article to help with a firm decision. Afraid I can't help either way. Sorry! ] 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Do not spam for votes on an AfD discussion. It can get you blocked from editing. ]|] 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Responded on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please moderate your tone, including refraining from being sarcastic and incivil, and making baseless accusations. For some examples (but not an exhaustive list), I suggest you review this conversation, your comments on Dmcdevit's talk page, and your comments on DRV. Your tone is not conducive to resolving disagreements in a reasonable, collegiate fashion. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I DON'T WANT TO and I'm not entirely sure what position you are in to communicate in such an authoritative tone to me. ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:To be blunt, you have to if you wish to continue contributing to this project, and I am in a position to use such a tone because I can and will block you if and when your incivility becomes disruptive. This is not meant as a threat, but simply to reinforce the point that you cannot continue to act in this fashion. | |||
| *:This project aims for a collegial atmosphere where disputes are discussed reasonably, not a Usenet-style pit of useless flamewars. Please bear this in mind, and refrain from being sarcastic, making snide remarks, making baseless accusations, and generally being incivil. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::I feel I am merely asserting my points, and I think the real slight against this project is those actively attempting (in bad faith) to PROD, AfD, and speedily delete perfectly acceptable articles that were written in good faith. I think I am out of venom, for now, though, if that makes you feel better. ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You've accused a number of people of bad faith with no evidence of such other than the fact that they disagree with you about whether a given article is appropriate for this project. (for example, ). Plus, you're being sarcastic ''when I'm asking you to tone it down''. Please moderate your tone further. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I can assure you, I'm not being sarcastic. This day has seriously drained me, I will probably end up being civil, not because of you at all, but because I don't have it within me anymore to be incivil. And again, I don't appreciate you taking the tone of a headmaster with me, so I ask you to tone that down. ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, please don't spam userpages about ongoing AFDs. A more-appropriate venue to bring up the subject is at ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility == | |||
| It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. ] and ] only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain ] with your comments. Thanks! <!-- from Template:Civil1 --> —] (] • ]) 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Response on your talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "non-music fans" == | |||
| PT, I really think you need to step back from the supposed division between fans and non-fans that you are claiming to see. I've been a music fan for literally decades, and I listen to a lot of obscure indie-rock among other things, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to have opinions varying from yours on how to interpret ]. Just because you state (over and over and over) that the ''Phoenix Times'' and ASU paper are reliable sources doesn't make it so, and the implicit attitude (we'll all idiots, and not true music fans) is extremely patronizing and goes against ] and ]. I appreciate your wanting to defend a band you like, but please don't see conspiracy where there is none, and stop insulting other editors. Part of ] is listening to consensus. thanks. ] ] 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Incidentally... part of the problem is the phenomenal number of "bands" that put up a wikipedia page before they've picked up an instrument. Have you ever done new page patrol, and tagged band after band for speedy deletion? It's seriously depressing, and accounts for some of the stringency with which people like me see the requirements. I think part of the solution is to make it much harder to create new pages on wikipedia -- not to assume that scientists don't know anything about music. But that is probably a losing battle. :-p ] ] 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == heartattaCK afd == | |||
| I voted and said my piece. This should definitely be a keep. I haven't had much time for the wikipedia lately, but I'd like to look more closely at the article to see if I can help in the next week or so. Good luck.] 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for your contributions == | |||
| Hello Parsssselltounge, I voted '''keep''' on the heartattaCK afd page. I appreciate your enthusiasm for various indie/punk/underground bands, and admire your boldness for keeping when it comes to afd discussions, however I do think its necessary to maintain civility during these discussions, but again I do admire your boldness and enthusiasm for building, maintaining, and keeping these articles on wikipedia. | |||
| I am more than willing to assist you on supporting your thesis on afd topics if you need me to. It seems that too often than not, editors who know little about music tend to poke around on afd discussions and decide to add a vote for deletion or nominate an article for deletion without doing any level of research on the subject, or very little research at all. I do share your animosity when it comes to these editors and I think it is up to a devoted few to make sure that these articles remain intact. | |||
| I'm also wondering if you can help out with a few articles that I feel need reworking or revision, these articles include, ], and ]. I'm also wondering if you want to collaborate on a possible article on the famous zine , if your familiar with that at all. I have a few resources to get it started, but not really a whole lot of time to compile sources and write a full article. Maybe when this whole heartattack discussion clears up, we can both work on it. | |||
| Anyways, thanks for your time, and please write me back. I'd appreciate any thoughts and ideas you may have on regarding my message. ] 08:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reasons: | |||
| <br><br>] of ] lifted. | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||
| Thank you for the un-block... unfortunately, it is still not working! | |||
| <nowiki>{{unblock-auto|204.17.31.126|Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Sarvagnya". The reason given for Sarvagnya's block is: "excessive fighting/arguing with User:Mahawiki".}}</nowiki> | |||
| Huh. I can't find any current autoblocks listed under that name or IP -- have you tried a forced reload to clear your browser's cache? (shit or control plus reload, in most browsers). Or, by chance, is the autoblock under a different name or administrator, now? Try editing ], just to be sure. I'll check back once I'm off work, I hope things are cleared up by then. Sorry for the trouble. ] 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Got it now! Thanks... ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I commented out your unblock request to make the category less congested ]<small>]</small> 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AFD== | |||
| I'll have a look once the nom is written, but since it was closed with no concensus there isn't actually a prohibition on renominating it (although I'm not pleased by it) ]] 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page spamming == | |||
| Please stop spamming talk pages. It's considered ], and is frowned upon. Thanks. --] <small>(])</small> 00:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Responded at talk page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: ] == | |||
| Hello. I'm not sure how I can comment here, as I know nothing about the article. May I ask why you contacted me? Thanks. —] / 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A potential solution == | |||
| If you wish to avoid accusations of canvassing, it is best not to routinely notify everyone you know of every deletion debate. Regardless of your intentions, the effect of your actions is that of canvassing, and the practice is frowned upon. You might consider instead to participate in (or start if one does not already exist) a deletion sorting page for the relavent punk music project. As an example of how these work, see ]. --] 18:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Getting a copy of a deleted page == | |||
| Hey, if you want a copy of a deleted page, all you need to do is drop a note on my talk page or something. No need to go to ]. In any case, I've undeleted HeartAttaCk and moved it ]; if you want to establish notability and then move it into articlespace or use it to work on another article, be my guest. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you! ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Sorry, just noticed on the AfD page that you had requested a userfied copy... my bad. If you ever need a userfied copy of an AfD that I've deleted, please don't hesitate to ask. Take care -- ] 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thank you to you, too! ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| FYI - Looks like you created a userpage in the wrong place again --] 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I moved it from mainspace to userspace, here: ]. ] 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Keep up the good work == | |||
| I've enjoyed your recent view points in the AfD discussions. I'm glad to see somebody else on wikipedia who hasn't gone insane. ] 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Phoenix == | |||
| hey PT -- not to slight Phoenix, but it's the sixth largest city, and the fourteenth largest Metropolitan Statistical Area. I have too many numbers in my head :-p ] ] 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==unblock== | |||
| {| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reasons: | |||
| <br><br>] of ] lifted. | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||
Revision as of 23:53, 26 October 2006
Please use the rationale parameter to explain why this user talk page should be deleted. (E.g., {{db-g7|rationale= }}.) Thanks!
Per the User page guidelines, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish). In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libellous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight.