Loading AI tools
You'd think that he could have taken at least a minute to place that comment in the proper section, at least. Would that have been under Demographics or Economy?
Keep removing relevant info from the dixie chili page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.89.169 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you just delete FasChek under CSD G11? Dlae│here 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it appeared as vandalisim, but i just needed an info box for [atom films]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyhens (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that VandalProof implied in its comments that you screwed something up. Fortunately it did the right thing in spite of what it said. I need to post some bug notices on VandalProof; it's giving me more and more trouble with this. You're one of the fortunate ones; most people it actually sends the vandalism warning to their talk page and everything. Fortunately, since I've learned of the missteps of my evil, demented friend, I follow along, correcting behind it and apologizing profusely.
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and just added a picture to the Meredith Emerson article. Now it has been removed, I don't understand why...
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loefflerw (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was the Charleston Town Center article deleted? --Jdlddw (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Jdlddw
I'm not absolutely sure how the Census ascertains what is a city and what is a town, but I'm assuming that the Bureau goes by the official legal status of the municipality. Including "city" doesn't necessarily make it a city, or anything else — who knows, the city fathers may have adopted it because they think it would seem more appealing. Consider Charles City County, Virginia and the The Village of Indian Hill, Ohio — the first is a county, not a city, and the second is a city, not a village, despite their names. You can see that the legal status of S.ville hasn't changed since 2000 here. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Justin McLachlan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Just to be clear, I didn't actually start the review, just saw that the editor who did hadn't notified you.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You deleted all artists affiliated with the Syphrus Music label, saying that "label notable, but all bands flunk A7". Joe Nichols has released two albums on that label. If the label is notable, then that artist meets the criteria:
Criteria for musicians and ensembles
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
I'm creating a new page for the artist. Please don't delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. And none of the artists seem notable and Syphrys is does not seem to be one of the important indie labels. y'amer'can (wtf?) 01:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You said the label was notable. Your words, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted it again! What is wrong with you??? Your words are contradictory. How can a label be both notable and not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The label can be mildly notable without the artists being noteworthy. It really isn't that hard to understand BTW, the article on your guy is still there, I just moved the much more notable guy back to the original place for the article. Cheers. y'amer'can (wtf?) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit hard to understand. The label's notability is based on the artists' music - the length of time that the artists have been active and the cds that the label has released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the label passes WP:CORP, but the artists are nn. I will promise this, however: I won't speedy delete Mr. Nichols' article and will instead go the WP:AFD route if I choose to pursue deletion. Welcome on board and happy editing, BTW. y'amer'can (wtf?) 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
> Props for working on all of the political articles and keeping your cool. > A couple of edits to McCain, and I was ready to punch faces. :)
Soon after you wrote this, I got enough upset about some political article developments that I had to take a few days off. Happens to all of us! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you are removing history links from several of West Virginia radio stations? Jeff Miller is well known is the West Virginia radio community and his history pages are dead on in their accuracy.
His site was formerly hosted by AOL but according to him "the much maligned AOL started putting banner ads on all web pages they host". So, the sites are the same (same owner, some information), just on Tripod now. I don't think having a Tripod link should exclude a good site from being included as a history link though. - Tehunknown (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar :-) One question: I can't find the Geography Barnstar listed anywhere. Is this a special project of the West Virginia Wikiproject? Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the image back - I put a tag on the image for a review. If it fails fair-use review I will delete the image.--Papajohnin (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that article. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the vandalism done to the page for Robert C. Byrd. My best friend was screwing around on my computer, and thought it'd be funny. I told him not to do it, but he proceeded to change it anyways. This shouldn't happen again. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buydalicious (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why you want to add the The Sunday Times classification. This year classification makes no sens in regards of Anglia Ruskin and I think it arm the school to publicize unjustified ranking. The article does not discuss any reason for this arbitrary ranking. The university has made substantial investment in the last 5 years and most experts are positives about all the change occurring the and progress made recently. The school will be evaluate again in 2008 by the UK QAA and we should wait when the report is public prior making any false judgments on the school. This is armful not only for the school but also for the graduates and the students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian36 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The ranking from Sunday Times is basically based on NSS survey contested and boycott by a lot of student unions. Please refer to :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Student_Survey http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/education/nss/
This is not in my opinion a fair assessment of university ranking. It might be included into a dedicated section. --Siberian36 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments about the signature, I did not know. This year Sunday Times classification makes no sense in regards of Anglia Ruskin and I think it arm the school to publicize unjustified ranking. The article does not discuss any reason for this arbitrary ranking. The university has made substantial investment in the last 5 years and most experts are positives about all the change occurring the and progress made recently. The school will be evaluated again in 2008 by the UK QAA and we should wait when the report is public prior making any false judgments on the school. This is armful not only for the school but also for the graduates and the students.
I think we should add the following text that will integrate some more information: Recent evaluation discrepancies were noted. The Guardian University Guide 2008 ranked Anglia Ruskin 72nd of 119 institutions in UK, a gain of 32 places compared to last year ranking.[1]. However, The Sunday Times University Guide ranked Anglia Ruskin 123 over 123 institutions and the The Times Good University Guide ranking was 104 over 123 institutions.[2]. The Sunday Times University Guide rely heavily on the undergraduate student evaluation performed annually. Anglia Ruskin fared "comparatively badly" mainly due to poor ratings for teaching organisation and management. Thank you for your consideration.--Siberian36 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Youngamerican, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is {{DEFAULTSORT:Sortkey}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT|Sortkey}} or {{defaultsort|Sortkey}}, using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used as it creates an uneeded dependency on a template. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, mattbr 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated the article Historical persecution by Christians for deletion. But most of the people opposed the deletion and I withdrawn my nomination. Can you please close the debate. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, sorry to disturb you. But I have to renominate it because their are diverse opinions. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Youngamerican. I saw you remove the image in the infobox at Ming Tsai. Is my rationale for fair image not enough? I captured it from his website. --Appletrees (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was this given full protection instead of semi protection? All of the disruption I observed was from anonymous contributors. --Chris (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was about to ask. Got an edit conflict actually. Carter | Talk to me 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, this should be semi-protected. KnightLago (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, what the HELL were you thinking! Gawsh! -- Y not be working? 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, this should be semi-protected. KnightLago (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (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.
