Loading AI tools
Hi. Might you have a look at the edit war over the inclusion of a particular external link in this article? I've been asked to address it, but am not in a position to do anything about it. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 22:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted Breakcore Gives Me Wood back in september. It isn't clear from the summary though why you did this. I would just like to know, because I started remaking the page and I'm making an effort to find more info. I wouldn't like it to be deleted again and all my work be in vain. Ddhuyvet 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This just rocks. I have wanted this word for so long, and the closest I've ever come is Zoe's Stubify and merge (which isn't half bad). In fact, this kicks so much ass that I'm going to add it to WP:GAFD#Shorthands unless you think I shouldn't for some reason. You get a barnstar for this. Thanks, --Blackcap | talk 06:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason you want the redirect at Where The Heart Is to stay? Qaz (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What was the reason for the redirect of Davleigh Chase to Daveigh Chase instead of a speedy delete. I thought obvious typo articles could be deleted. Btw, no critique, just curious. :) So that next time I know what to do. A redirect I can do myself. Garion96 15:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just googled it. About 250 findings of the same mistake. Compare to the 100.000 who did it right. But still 250 people might find it (if they ever would want to) with the wrong name. So basically I have no idea. :) Guess a redirect is good, so I know it for the next time Garion96 16:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The edit or deletion of my theory on the Evolution of Religion was a mistake on your part, it plays right into the Athiests strategy as well as the extreme religionists and bridges the two together. Reconsider my article, I'm a nice guy and I ask nicely, Please... But if you are one that thinks war is the answer, I'm sure that something can be arranged to make you reconsider. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. (Gary) .... posted by TheGreatWhiteBuffalo to the top of R. fiend's user page at 01:16 and 01:18, 10 Oct 2005.
- Well it is in your Opinion that my work is not appropriate for Wikipedia, unfortunately I've been discussing the validity of my work through the physical appearance of the universe and the biological changes that life has evolved from. Maybe the one point you didn't get was -- The Change that would take place if you take out the Evil in ALL RELIGIOUS TEXTS, think about the implication that would result from a civilization that acts with civility. None of what I have put together is all that original while it might be very creative to combine all things together in this manner that brings both Science and Religion into a new realm where the believer and the athiest can each have their POV.
But you already decided that my work doesn't belong on the Wikipedia site. While I believe that GOD (Existant or Non-existant good works) might be in all living things I have to wonder about how some of the living things actually think.
Peace,
TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Apologies in advance: I've just recreated the redirect Partido del Pueblo Cubano > Partido Ortodoxo then realised I'd forgotten to check the speedy-deletion log. The latter is an alternative and more generally used name for this Cuban political party and I've now created the stubbiest of stubs for it. Hope that's okay.
David Kernow 13:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I just wrote the AFD page for Dan Coffin only to find out you deleted it. That was my first AFD nomination, too *cries* >_> NickBush24 15:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've now made Partido Ortodoxo a little less stubby, though I see I must've been timed-out whilst doing so (I am User:212.84.100.45). I hope others will take it on from there as, though I am interested in it, my knowledge of Cuban political history is thin.
The thought occurred to me to create a Cuban politics stub category, but the process is (understandably) less than straightforward, so I have not started it. Perhaps you or someone you know might want to do so.
David Kernow 16:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input into Devolution (fallacy) . I have completed a fairly bold rewrite, so any comments would be appreciated. Majts 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I meant to hit preview not save I'm not sure if it matters or not but I want to say I'm sorry for the inconvenience KnowledgeOfSelf 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Your comment on this AfD was "Please do not complete the process for obvious bad faith." I actually wasn't sure about this myself, so I went to the IRC chat room and asked if I could remove the AfD tag without completing the process because it was bad-faith. Nobody would give me a reply, dispite many active users. (I was quite angry about this.) I decided the best course of action was to follow procedure as I understood it.
Is what you said an offical policy? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
A new user has sent me an email regarding the aforementioned article that you deleted. He was not logged in when he made it (his regular username is JCoug (talk · contribs)) and was still in the process of writing it when it was deleted. He emailed me because he knows that should he create it again, it might be deleted. Could you clear it up? What was the content? Why did you speedy it? Any information would be helpful. :) --Celestianpower hablamé 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll reply saying that then. Thank you! --Celestianpower hablamé 17:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You nominated DJ Quietstorm for deletion, and I can't blame you the way it looked :-) However I've found some evidence of notability, and cleaned up the article. Perhaps you'd like to take another look? the wub "?!" 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
This user 71.244.86.178 had been vandalising even after 4 warnings of vandalism. Is there anyway u could block him for a bit before it gets worse. Ty --JAranda | yeah 16:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
The result was 2d (inc. nom)/1k (me). This is consensus? 66.7% <70%. I don't really care, but am tempted to VfU because I question the calculation used to reach the result. Thanks, Xoloz 21:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there,
This is the first time I've communicated with another wiki member using this method so please bear with me if I've made a faux pas. As far as your query about the age of Blue Label, I find 50 to 60 years to be well within the realm of possibility. Johnnie Walker has been around for almost two centuries; I see no reason why it would be an impossibility. I am unsure as to why Johnnie Walker doesn't promote the age of Blue Label, especially if it were 50 or 60 years old. My personal suspicion is that doing so would lack class. It's much 'classier' to be humble and reserved, I suppose. Regardless, my claim is based on a presentation by a Johnnie Walker representative at a function a couple of years back; he mentioned that some of the whiskies included in the Blue Label blend were "pre-World-War-I" and that the youngest would still comfortably be "pre-World-War-II." Considering Johnnie Walker's casketing process, I see no reason to think this is an exaggeration, especially considering this claim is commonly used to describe Blue Label in whisky circles. I have heard many people say that they too have heard the claim come from other Johnnie Walker representatives at various functions. Also, just on a purely superficial level, Blue Label made an appearance on an episode of "The West Wing" a few years ago, with the voiceover claiming it was "sixty year old scotch." I know it's not a solid source by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps at the very least it goes to show that it seems to be commonly accepted as being accurate. Tearsinrain 02:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would let me copy your essay, How many articles does Wikipedia really have? for use in the Wikipediology Institute. We are relatively new, and looking for good essays to include. If you would let us use yours, we would appreciate it.
On behalf on the Wikipediology Institute, - Pureblade | ☼ 03:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi R. fiend. Just a remark. According to Wikipedia:Deletion process, one should use {subst:at} and {subst:ab} instead of just {at} and {ab}. Not that it matters much, but I thought I would let you know. And by the way, a script discused at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old can insert that text for you. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
R. Friend. Why did you delete my article on Terry McCrann? If you did this claiming that the subject was not notable then you fail to understand how 'notable' this person is in Australia, regardless of how unnotable he is whatever country you live in. To quote the deletion log: 01:05, 11 October 2005 R. fiend deleted "Terry McCrann" (copyvio/A8) ... what the hell does 'copyvio/A8' mean?
Ahh I see. Cool. How could I further make it into an encyclopedic article (please note that I plan to continue this discussion on my own talk page) ZPMMaker 07:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! I can think you many better uses of my time than thanking you however. Oh well - has to be done! --Celestianpower hablamé 13:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind if I corrected the Wikilink to the article with which the merge should take place (you missed the final bracket)?
Do you think you could now go ahead and delete this page? I think a consensus has been reached on the AfD. Luke Swenson is just patent nonsense. --Comics 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This article was nominated as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Silvapulle, which you closed as delete; it's still hanging around and pointing at the afd discussion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we now have CSD A8, which is speedy for copyvios. All of these articles are copyvios and could have been tagged as such. Please don't hesitate to add a copyvio and speedy tag for articles that are in violation, it's much easier and faster than full AfD. Even if something is already on AfD, we can get rid of it that much faster if you go ahead and speedy it. Thanks for the vigilance, keep up the good work. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, A8 is my new favorite pet. Funny you should mention CSD, because killing CSDs is my favorite use for my new-fangled Mop O' Deletion-Type-Goodness. However it's easy to just go and go, you never get them all cleared out. I'll stop by and work on that some once I get through closing a few more AfD's (gotta do the community service bit and all). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The Hemoglobin C article was not a copyright violation, nor was it nonsense. Unformatted? Yes. Technical? Yes. Dumped directly from source? Yes. Was this source public domain? Yes (MedlinePlus). Deserving of deletion? Definitely not.
Perhaps you could make a habit of consulting authors before you start hacking and slashing.
Deletion log
* 00:26, 18 October 2005 R. fiend deleted "Hemoglobin C" (copyvio? borderline nonsense)
Page history
* 22:38, 17 October 2005 . . V8rik * 20:13, 17 October 2005 . . Triggtay
Triggtay 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that edit was nonsense. In fact, the "they might be anti-racist" was nonsense, too, although I can imagine some English teacher somewhere saying it. I reverted the lie about feminism (Swift was neither feminist nor anti-feminist, but just sort of the same with women as men, and never campaigned for or against women's rights. I also added a little in there of the much that ought to be said. E.g. is it the "sorrel gray" that he loves so much? I can't recall exactly. Geogre 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My mistake.
Triggtay 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the bottom of the page you linked to (from which the text is clipped), you will see "Copyright 2005, A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." If you click on Copyright at the bottom you'll find "When using NLM Web sites, you may encounter documents or other information resources contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use (PDF) as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners." This leads me to believe it is not public domain. I'm afraid I will have to delete it again. If you want to recreate the article using that as a source, but not directly copied, please do. -R. fiend 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Greetings,
Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.
I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.
Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.
Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.
Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I've posted a notice regarding your revert warring on Flemington Circle on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR with the intent of stopping you from continuing this silly ongoing battle. It appears that this may have been misplaced, and that the 3RR noticeboard may only be for punishments and enforcements, which wasn't my goal. I'm asking you directly, please don't continue revert warring about this topic. It's obviously not in your sphere of interest, and it's also clear to me that User:SPUI and others are trying to write well-written, encyclopedic articles about something that is clearly within their spheres of interest.
Have a brief look at this Amazon seach, to further understand why I'm asking you to step away from this topic: Amazon search in Books for "encyclopedia". There are 27,168 hits on Amazon alone for encyclopedia that you can buy. Consider that Wikipedia can be any and all of these (except for the minority of works where "encyclopedia" doesn't actually describe the work, but instead is a coincidental part of the title). Unfocused 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you exclude the information of Davidson Black's marriage from his article?
Canadianism 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S paul academy. It seems somebody just made an attack/copy/nonsense version of Saint Paul Academy and Summit School, and a speedy redirect is being suggested, but I feel that needs consensus. --rob 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your essay has been added to the Wikipediology Institute at Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/R.fiend-1 If you would be willing to provide your first or last name, it would be helpful to alphabetize our list and to establish a more professional view of Wikipediology. Thanks - Pureblade | ☼ 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
