Talk:Death of Max Spiers
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contesting the speedy
editI contest it, as there's enough RS to meet GNG, so better to let this be sorted at AfD. Widefox; talk 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Sources
editFor why they are primary and/or unreliable for this see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Spiers. Widefox; talk 10:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
AfD
editUser:J947 (or anyone else): Why is the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Spiers struck through? (J947 closed this, in struck-through form.)
I'm inclined to remove the striking-through, but see an instruction not to tamper with a closed AfD in any way. More.coffy (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- It looked to me like it was struck-out because it was withdrawn from the editor who proposed it? TeeVeeed (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was a while ago now so I don't know the reason. Just know it wasn't me. J947 (c), at 06:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I went ahead and tampered, adding one "close-strikethrough" tag. What two people wanted struck through is still struck through but the rest is not. I don't think that anyone could reasonably object to my edit, though I'll admit that it's not what one is normally supposed to do. More.coffy (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't do that again. "No further edits should be made to this page." is pretty clear isn't it?TeeVeeed (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is clear. What was also clear to me was that (1) markup problems made the page hard to read; (2) what the respective writers had intended to be struck out was very clear; (3) fixing the page to read as intended would require an extremely minor and simple edit; (4) explaining this to anybody else to ask for permission would take more of my time than just fixing it and of course would use up that other person's time. Additionally, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, though not specifically about either AFDs or closed discussions, tells people two things that seem relevant here. First: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request"; the striker-out of their own text also struck out others' text, a problem that my edit fixed. Secondly: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" include "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read"; again, just what I did. More.coffy (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Investigation
editThe section "Investigation" contains one longish paragraph that says what was and wasn't expected to happen, and then a very short paragraph that says what later did happen. It seems to me that no matter how well intended the former paragraph was when it was written, the latter makes it entirely superfluous. Any objection if I were to delete it? More.coffy (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Envelop involving Max Spears ?
editI have found an envelope in a skip where people have fly tipped. The envelope involves the name Max spears. On the other side of the envelope it says “they whoever those fuckers are recongnised this and cowardly killed him.” and i was wondering if it could be of any help? 2A00:23C7:B821:D201:ADC3:A955:F887:D863 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Very much doubt it. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)