Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unschool (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 24 August 2008 (→Thank you and question: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives 2007 Aug 13 – Oct 14 Oct 14 – Nov 11 Nov 12 – Dec 26 Dec 26 – → 2008 ← – Feb 28 Feb 29 – May 16 May 16 – Aug 22 Aug 23 – Dec 14 Dec 16 – → 2009 ← - Jun 20 Jun 30 - → 2010- 2014 Jul 2010 - Jun 2012 Jul 2012 - Dec 2014 2015 Jan 2015 - present /Archives for a full archive

Holywell, Swords

The article relating to the community where I and 2000 other people live was deleted as a non-notable housing estate on 23 April. I disagree with this interpretation of the Holywell community and if I had been aware of the proposal for deletion I would have made my views known and discuses with the proposers. I would be very grateful if you could please reinstate the article so that I can view the comments and address any issues or concerns people have. Dvdgraham (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008

Hello

DougsTech (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DougsTech (talk • contribs) 21:08, August 13, 2008

PP on UDR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would you guys mind not bringing the dispute to my talk page? Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rjd0060 could you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that User:The Thunderer was tag teamed on the UDR page. So you feel that User:Jdorney here, User:Valenciano here, User:Blueputtnam here, User:Maxburgoyne here and myself here all teamed up together got consensus on the talk page which also included User:Traditional unionist here just to lure The Thunderer into breaching 3RR. This is a ludicrous claim, so what you mean is five editors who disagree with an addition to an article and all get consensus and remove it are all part of a tag team. BigDunc 22:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No Dunc, no-one thinks Max and TU were involved and there is friendly dialogue to support that, plus Max made a number of edits which were absolutely fine. As for Jdorney, Blueputtnam. and Valenciano - who knows. Why did they suddenly start deleting the same item you've been tring to delete for a week? Why did you not make them aware of the situation as I did with Max? You've been spotted tag teaming before and it looks as if you're doing it now but that can all be cured if the disruptive edits stop. I keep repeating my words - play fair and you and I will get along fine on this article. As I said on your own page; the olive branch is extended.The Thunderer (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to say, I had no knowledge of controversey on the UDR page, though I suppose I could have predicted it, nor have I had any contact with BigDunc before. i just edited it as I saw it. If my edits are disputed I'll discuss them, but I'm not involved in some sort of conspiracy against the Thunderer, who, likwise, I had no previous knowledge of. Jdorney (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I accept you acted in good faith. Please do join in the editing and discussion of the article at User:The Thunderer/Ulster Defence Regiment whilst the main article is under protection. Your input would be much appreciated.The Thunderer (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As above. I've had no contact with BigDunc and such unfounded allegations are not only unproductive, they're also a breach of WP:AGF. I would suggest that even when the article is unprotected you would discuss controversial additions like that rather than blindly reverting. I won't be about here much for the rest of the month but I'll have a look at the article in September and hopefully we can come up with agreement then. Valenciano (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only apologise that you were wrongly implicated. I have to confess that I don't think it was entirely my fault but I have to accept my part in it and for that I am very sorry. It has been rather emotive on that article.The Thunderer (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

UDR Proposals

I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate your examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which you think is inappropriate.The Thunderer (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the dust has settled on that particular edit war now and it may be appropriate to open the article for editing again as fresh, interesting and friendly dialogue is going on at the workpage. Would you mind examining the evidence and considering an unblock? Obviously, and if it is possible, I would appreciate you monitoring the situation for a few days.The Thunderer (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't feel it's time yet then I will respect your judgement. My main reason for the request was to let the new editors in to have a go at reshaping the article. Their logic is sound and reasonable in my opinion. I realise there is the danger of further skirmishes however and am content to wait.The Thunderer (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Wow. Three admins (now four, it seems) gang up on me and I'm the one who is engaged in an "edit war." If you'd like me to initiate an admin-abuse claim against all four of you, just keep doing what you're doing. -- Skaraoke (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It must be great to be an admin. You can act as each others' sock puppets to avoid the three-revert rule. -- Skaraoke (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your repeated threats and dismissive arrogance. You're a model admin, you are. -- Skaraoke (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He'll keep that up for days if you give him an inch.

Keep it protected for a good amount of time and don't mention a time at all, or he'll be back within five minutes... HalfShadow 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, techniclly he's not even doing it. Apparently, he makes a link that creates the page, posts is on 4chan, someone clicks it and they do his dirty work for him. HalfShadow 03:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dismissiveness

Would you please restore the Dismissiveness article to my user space, as it was deleted without notifying me as the creator on my talk page. Dhaluza (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the discussion. Restoring an article to user space is a courtesy that any admin can do for someone who wants to work on the article, but it is also a courtesy to ask the admin who deleted the article first. Your response on my talk page indicates that you are either unfamiliar with this process, or unnecessarily defensive. Either way, if you decline to restore it, I can always ask another admin. Dhaluza (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not say this was a requirement, just a courtesy that most admins would do for an editor who wants to work on a deleted article. BTW, WP:DICDEF is one of the easist concerns to address, and should be handled with care at AfD, since all articles start out with a definition. For a specific example in this case, see as a source of content that could be added to expand this article. I prefer to work on it in my user space, so please restore it there with the history as requested. Thanks. Dhaluza (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can now see that it was in fact edited down to a dicdef by User:Cumulus Clouds who then nominated it for deletion on this basis (and without seeking my input as creator). Rather dirty pool IMHO. Dhaluza (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here's your one and only warning to refrain from any personal attacks and if you continue I will seek sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look now, and see if the subject really couldn't be more than a WP:DICDEF.

Would you consider overturning your close of the AfD, since the point of the discussion is now moot. Dhaluza (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversight question

Hi. :) I note that you cleared the article Paul Doktor after receiving verification of permission. I'm so glad it came through! I'm dropping you a line to see if you are also handling clearing Yaltah Menuhin. The articles were created by the same user and sourced to the same website, and the copy of the permissions letter he cc'ed to me addressed both articles. I don't know, of course, if he sent another letter to the Communications Committee that only covered the one. However, I thought I would check, since the second article covered in the same letter may have been overlooked. Please let me know if I should forward that letter to Permissions again. I had such trouble contacting the gentleman in the first place, thanks to e-mail wonkishness, that I'd hope not to have to ask him to send the letter again himself.

I'll be watching your talk page, so feel free to answer here. On the other hand, I'm comfortable with an answer at my own page, too. I like to keep complex conversations together for continuity, but this one shouldn't be that complex, I shouldn't think. :D

Thanks for any enlightenment you can offer. --Moonriddengirl 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm so glad to mark that one off the "to do" list. Certainly one of the most complex copyright clearance situation I've ever gotten involved in! (Except, perhaps, Neural correlates of consciousness, which required bouncing from person to person like a superball. :)) --Moonriddengirl 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Afterburn(Carowinds)

Hi there, I'm a little confused as to why the article on the roller coaster Afterburn was deleted. The deletion log says it was proposed because of lack of notability, but I don't see how Afterburn is any less notable than many of the other rides in the same park.

Basically I'm wondering why this article was singled out.

Thanks, Abowers87 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editabuselinks

Yes, okay, it isn't called "Administrator reports", but this is more informative to a new person finding their way around. If they want to report something to the administrators, they'll click on "Administrator reports", but there is a higher chance they'll be confused with "Administrators'", because the latter could almost be construed as a place where admins exclusively posted. —Anonymous Dissident 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi, Is there a policy discussion somewhere about image removal vs replacement? I fixed the image from Marian Doctrines page by using another, but instead of removing it, is there a better way of admins replacing them? I am no Wiki-experet, but pleas esuggest that to other admins as a policy issue. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I usually have no idea what I am talking about either. But in this case, I meant that you removed an image from Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and I thought it would have been more appropriate if you had replaced it. But no big deal. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Script

I don't know why you want this, but just don't do something with it that'll get you locked in the village stocks.

var titles = ; 
if(titles.indexOf(wgPageName.replace(/_/g, " ")) != -1) {
    history.go(-1); //Takes you back 1 page.
}

To populate the list of pages that should not be viewed, add values to the array. Best, —Animum (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and question

Thanks for blocking that anon regarding the Batman stuff. I have one problem, though. The last edit on the Egghead article contains his garbage stuff he was adding. I want to remove it, but I would then violate WP:3RR. What can/should I do? Unschool (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)