This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddst1 (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 26 August 2011 (→Unreferenced stubs: I think one ref should be sufficient. ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:30, 26 August 2011 by Toddst1 (talk | contribs) (→Unreferenced stubs: I think one ref should be sufficient. ~~~~)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | I am currently, or about to be, on holiday in Cornwall and I will not be able to respond immediately to queries. Internet access is unlikely (I'm not calling Cornwall a barren place), but I will pop in now and then if an online sources are available. |
 | If I leave a message on your talk page, do not fear, I will answer it on your talk page as I will be watch listing it. However, if you leave a message on my talk page, I will answer it on here. Don't understand? I'll explain it one more time:
YOU --> YOURS! MINE --> MINE! |
| Please leave a new message. |
 Archives |
|---|
Proposed deletion of 2011 Tottenham riots
The article 2011 Tottenham riots has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:NOTNEWS, it is news, but no indication of lasting significance.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mtking 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of 2011 Tottenham riots for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Tottenham riots is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Tottenham riots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pass a Method talk 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please can everyone stop trying to delete what I do? Jaguar (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of 2011 London riots for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 London riots is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 London riots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
New message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dorset GAN
Greetings Jaguar, I hope I have addressed all your concerns regarding the Dorset article. If you have any more, leave a message here Talk:Dorset/GA1#Initial_comments. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentally as you are interested in all things Hampshire, you might like to check out Sopley an article I greatly expanded recently. (Not asking for an assessment, just thought you might be interested).
GOCE drive newsletter
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<< |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Adar review
Thanks for taking the time to review it, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced stubs
I'm concerned that you are creating dozens of unreferenced stubs. Perhaps you could flesh them out a bit more before you continue? Per WP:CREATE, "The very first thing you should write in a new article is a list of the source(s) for the information in it." Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern. I was concerned myself when starting those articles; I will try to add a reference to them including some list of coordinates along with them. Jaguar (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no need to take away my Autopatrolled status!? I'm trying to expand Misplaced Pages, why is taking away something going to help? Jaguar (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think having NPP look at the articles you are creating is a problem. If you're creating proper new articles, then they will be quickly patrolled. You're still free to expand wikipedia without hindrance.
- However, blasting out 72 virtually empty articles in 6 minutes is not the way you should be going about it. You will now have the benefit of additional eyes on the articles you create. It's not a bad thing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, having Autopatrolled status gives us no authority or 'powers' apart from having a non lit bar on the new articles' page! Sorry if I caused an inconvience with the 72 Spanish articles, that was my only time I have done something like that. Other than that, most of my articles are very high quality - I created 2011 England riots and it appeared on the front page etc. However if I were to destroy all of the red links of List of villages in Spain, should I do exactly the same but add more references with them? Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think one ref should be sufficient. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, having Autopatrolled status gives us no authority or 'powers' apart from having a non lit bar on the new articles' page! Sorry if I caused an inconvience with the 72 Spanish articles, that was my only time I have done something like that. Other than that, most of my articles are very high quality - I created 2011 England riots and it appeared on the front page etc. However if I were to destroy all of the red links of List of villages in Spain, should I do exactly the same but add more references with them? Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no need to take away my Autopatrolled status!? I'm trying to expand Misplaced Pages, why is taking away something going to help? Jaguar (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)