User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cbrown1023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
April newsletter
Hate to interrupt your break, but I'll leave this message here anyway just in case you check your messages. Do you still plan to have your bot/AWB send out the newsletter? It obviously needs finishing touches, but it would probably be best to send it out on the 30th. If you're not here, I'll go ahead and do it. Let me know by the 29th if possible, and I guess if I don't here from you, I'll deliver it. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll probably be back by then, but if notn it won't hurt anything if it goes out on the first... I definitely won't be able to contribute editorially to the newsletter. :( Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm back, I'll start it right now. Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Darvon cocktail
Why was this deleted? We have articles describing pipe bombs and nail bombs, we link to instructions on how to perform a do-it-yourself abortion. Is gravely injuring others or bleeding to death more acceptable than a peaceful death at home? Why should Wikipedia fail to document the existence of a painless suicide method? Please explain. Joie de Vivre 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm responding only because Cbrown1023 is away for a couple of days (see note at the top of this page). He was not the one who decided that this article should be deleted, but carrying out a decision made by the community at a previous deletion review. You can find the complete discussion here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly why the page was deleted. Thank you for your speedy and articulate answer in my absence. Cbrown1023 talk 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (from a mobile phone, very hard to type a message, let alone the tildes...)
- I thought I was the only one addicted enough to have to edit from my Blackberry. :P Newyorkbrad 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly why the page was deleted. Thank you for your speedy and articulate answer in my absence. Cbrown1023 talk 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (from a mobile phone, very hard to type a message, let alone the tildes...)
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [1]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a restriction on how old you have to be to give notice of the policy? :) Newyorkbrad 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I wouldn't be surprised :P Whoops, under 18... it's a shame really, we're gonna lose some great volunteers (like this one ;) ) just because they aren't 18. Well, that's law for you... Majorly (hot!) 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, would've removed myself last night when I was spreading the word, but got too busy! I've removed myself now.. :( Cbrown1023 talk 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I understand the WMF's reason for doing so, I think it's a shame we'll be losing some good volunteers. Ah well, I have to wait five months until I can apply again. Sorry Cbrown :-D. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, would've removed myself last night when I was spreading the word, but got too busy! I've removed myself now.. :( Cbrown1023 talk 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I wouldn't be surprised :P Whoops, under 18... it's a shame really, we're gonna lose some great volunteers (like this one ;) ) just because they aren't 18. Well, that's law for you... Majorly (hot!) 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:o
Spooky. – Rianaऋ 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I'll give ya this one ;) – Rianaऋ 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-P Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Get out of my head! :D – Rianaऋ 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-P Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
AfD query
Can I ask your rationale for closing this as no consensus please?
The reason I ask is that a number of editors (David Lauder, Astrotrain and Counter-revolutionary) often engage in block !voting on AfDs, and it's (poorly) documented on the AfD talk page. I could document it in a better manner if it would help as well? Ignoring them and the creator of the article Kittybrewster (also involved in the !block voting) there are only three editors in favour of keeping the article. I'm well aware that AfD isn't a vote naturally, but one of those editors stated "undoubtedly notable, in my opinion", which doesn't really address the problems with the article in my opinion, ie the lack of multiple non-trivial sources or verifiable information. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It does not matter by which means it occured, no consensus was reached by that nomination (you have said nothing to convince me otherwise!). You can renominate the article if you wish. Cbrown1023 talk 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not attempting to convince you otherwise per se, although if there's anything that might change your mind I'd be interested to hear it. I'm simply trying to ascertain what you took into consideration before making your decision, as I may take it to deletion review. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I never find it an insult if a user sends something I have closed to deletion review. That is a fantastic idea, it should give you a chance for different user's opinions on that matter. Cbrown1023 talk 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please explain your decision for no consensus as I've asked? I'm not trying to question your judgement, more understand exactly why you came to that decision as if I agree with your reasoning there's no point me taking it to DRV and wasting community time. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you go with straight numbers: 9 deletes, 7 keeps, and 1 neutral. But the discussion is what is most interesting, both sides have interesting points. Your main argument for deletion is "fails WP:BIO", but an article cannot be CSDed by any means other than a deletion discussion, so without any firm consensus towards that direction, the article cannot be deleted by it. There are way too many "he is stacking", "she is a sock", and the like for this completely random article for a real consensus to have been brought. "When in doubt, don't delete!" There has been no consensus brought about in this discussion, whichever way you look at it (which is why I suggest you renominate it or send it to deletion review). I already received complaints on this article from both sides (you on this talk page and another user by private e-mail). I reiterate, there has been no consensus reached. Cbrown1023 talk 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. As DRV isn't AfD part 2 and that's a reasonable assessment of the AfD, there's no point me taking it to DRV. I'll let the dust settle and see if the article is improved, and if not nominate it at a later date. One Night In Hackney303 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Main Page cascading protection
Sorry for unprotecting your cascading protection of your userspace transclusion of the Main Page. I thought it was a bug in the Main Page, but I now see that it's a great use of cascading protection. The Main Page didn't get edited this last time it got deleted, due to the cascading protection. :) - Mark 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Re. Autoblock
Many thanks for your note regarding the autoblock privacy issue - I hold my hands up - I didn't realise. I only sporadically unblock autoblocks and when I do, I normally use the autoblock ID, that's what I'll do in the future and I won't mention any names when unblocking. Thanks for the notification on this matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I get some help here?
I'm having a constant issue over prices in articles. It started on one talk page: spread to the Video game project talk page, ANI, and also the talk page of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. An admin needs to resolve this, in my opinion. As it's just an endless fight back and forth between people wanting the prices listed and people not wanting the prices listed. I went to ANI on your advice: it hasn't helped a ton as of yet.Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_issue_that_needs_to_be_resolved,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games#Wii Points: to list or to not list? and Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#Wii_Points_issues_.28again.29 is where it's taking place. Feel free to pass it onto another admin (or admins), because this certainly needs a solution. I'm getting very fed up with this, and I'm very sick of comments by people clearly thinking the problem isn't around. RobJ1981 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replied to some extent on WP:ANI and over MSN. Cbrown1023 talk 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| For taking this action and many other edits in order to maintain Wikipedia, I hereby award you the minor barnstar, for a minor edit that obviously wasn't noticed by anyone. :P Yonatan talk 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
- zomg! lol, thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article's been set up as a redirect... do you think this is acceptable? I'm just concerned that making the article available for editing will cause novice editors to expand on the content despite the crystal ball nature of this film. There's already rumors going around (I keep my ear pretty close to the ground for Spidey news, rumor or not) about the next film's villains, and it seems best for this article should be deleted and protected from recreation until a case can be made for establishing the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is a very good idea and the only logical solution available. I am sorry if that is not what you wanted me to say! Cbrown1023 talk 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked Erik, and I'll ask you since you were the one that deleted last. What about keeping it a redirect, but putting it under full protection so that quick draw editors won't create the article before there is even a film to go along with it. I know that isn't common place, but this series of movies his highly popular, and probably has a bigger chance of premature creation than most films. Right now, there is so much conjecture in the air with a part 4 (and 5 and 6 for that matter) that keeping it an editable redirect will just leave it open to constant creation. IMHO. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Cbrown1023 talk 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked Erik, and I'll ask you since you were the one that deleted last. What about keeping it a redirect, but putting it under full protection so that quick draw editors won't create the article before there is even a film to go along with it. I know that isn't common place, but this series of movies his highly popular, and probably has a bigger chance of premature creation than most films. Right now, there is so much conjecture in the air with a part 4 (and 5 and 6 for that matter) that keeping it an editable redirect will just leave it open to constant creation. IMHO. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Spider-Man 4 was set up as a redirect and protected from editing. It's been "expanded" with very preliminary information that obviously violates WP:CRYSTAL. I've changed it back to a redirect, but this needs to be addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- This new posting was undertaken as a result of a DRV; the article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL (see exception #1 thereto) -- in the opinion of that discussion anyway -- so any redirect action should be supported by another consensus discussion at the talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- The deletion review seemed to have a good number of editors that endorsed deletion or preferred a redirect to the Future section at Spider-Man film series. It seems that Xoloz was impressed enough by someone's subpage to warrant its own article. The information does not ensure that production of the film will take place, no matter how good it looks. He marked the debate as "moot", so he should not refer to the review for influencing his decision, only himself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You block of user:Lsi john
Regarding your block of user:Lsi john, the user has admitted his violation and he is contrite. Given that blocking for WP:3RR is preventative and not punitive, would you consider unblocking him? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have not blocked that user, I just denied unblocking. This message should be sent to Nishkid64. Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Your block of Shaunybot
A quick Google search found that Shaun Baker has used the handle "Shaunybot" on a number of other sites, and doubtless wanted simply to continue using it here for consistency. I don't know whether that's a factor you'd want to take into consideration. However, if you decide not to unblock, would you at least tell the user the specific reason for the block? Neither of the two comments at User talk:Shaunybot specified the problem. Thanks! -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just re-open the RFCN case, be sure to post this there. Cbrown1023 talk 10:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Shaunybots reply to unsuitable username
Hi thanks for your comments, I chose the username shaunybot because my old prefferred name shaunyboy is a bit common these days and in the interests of only having to remember fewer usernames around the internet I have been calling myself shaunybot for some time now. Im not trying to appear as some kind of robot its just easy for me to remember, i hope I can keep my name but of course will change it if many wikis feel the same as you. kind regards shaunybotShaunybot 11:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I unblocked you pending the discussion (and so you could speak for yourself). Now, another admin has re-blocked you. Please discuss it with him or her (either on-wiki or off). Cbrown1023 talk 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Protection of Texas
Thanks for doing that, as far as the previous protection, the person who did it didn't say when it would expire on the request page, so I assumed it was indefinite. Ashura96 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, for future reference it can be found in the page's protection log. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikiquote
Yep, it's me. I have set up a page about my cross-site accounts on my meta page, do you think I probably should link to it from my English Wikipedia page? ffm ✎talk 16:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be helpful... I do the same. I will unblock that username now. :) Cbrown1023 talk 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Daxflame
Why did you delete the Daxflame page? There's no reason for it... I don't know how all this Wikipedia stuff works but undo this please.
- The page was deleted many times before, I just deleted a page that said it was deleted.
Deletion log
* 20:19, 11 May 2007 Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (content was: '{{deleted page}}<!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on Special:Shortpages............................................................-->') (Restore)
* 04:00, 21 April 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (speedy A6) (Restore)
* 11:26, 12 April 2007 Anthony.bradbury (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (nonsense) (Restore)
* 19:35, 7 April 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher) (Restore)
* 19:29, 7 April 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher) (Restore)
* 00:02, 7 April 2007 Anthony.bradbury (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (NN bio) (Restore)
* 09:59, 5 April 2007 Lupo (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (content was: 'DAXFLAME IS COOLER THEN YOU DAXFLAME IS COOLER THEN MR.T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' (and the only contributor was 'Harry-is-queer')) (Restore)
* 11:09, 24 March 2007 Golbez (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (db-bio, db-ad, db-nn, where to start) (Restore)
* 23:33, 13 March 2007 (aeropagitica) (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" ({{db-attack}}) (Restore)
* 05:41, 16 February 2007 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Daxflame" (Deleting candidate for speedy deletion per CSD) (Restore)
- If you disagree with its deletion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cbrown1023 talk 14:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The page is currently "protected to prevent creation". And the Talk page where most people agreed it shouldn't be protected has been deleted by now too. Can you just explain to me what exactly I should do to undo this? What and to who I should write? In human language please. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.242.62.182 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
checkuser
I changed code to A but I believe it falls in three categories --Dacy69 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Listing WikiProject Film admins
Hello. There is a discussion about listing administrators on the Film project. If you agree or disagree, or just want to add your two cents, please comment here. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
my checkuser request
I would like to ask you to look at my application on ckeckuser[2]
admin Voice-of-all declined second time this application - this time without explanation. Thanks--Dacy69 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unrelated means he can the check and came up with no proof. :) He did not decline. :) Cbrown1023 talk 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Peer Review for Dreamgirls (film)
Chris, I am wanting to get a new peer review for this article, but I am too ill to do so. For this, I want to check and see what improvements need to be made in order to nominate this article for featured article. Thanks. Real96 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Article looks pretty good, but there are way too many audio samples, please cut this number to about three and provide detailed fair use rationales on their image descriptor page.
- Some people might also not like that the Awards section is a very detailed list (not prose) and contains no citations.
- But otherwise, a ton of references and good information. Still copyediting though. Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Check the verb usage/agreement/tense in the Plot sections... Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Access to #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks
Hi, I'd like access to the channel. My cloak is @wikipedia/Srikeit and my nick is eww. Thanks --Srikeit 06:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- You should have access now, just invite yourself.
/msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerksCbrown1023 talk 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)- Thanks! Also can you give me an invite exception (+i) so that I don't need to invite myself in every time I log on? --Srikeit 11:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done, I think (/hope). :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks :D --Srikeit 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done, I think (/hope). :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also can you give me an invite exception (+i) so that I don't need to invite myself in every time I log on? --Srikeit 11:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been recent vandalism and harsh edits to the article Evangeline Williamson who is a fictional character on the ABC soap opera, One Life to Live where she has recently left the show (put in comatose). Since a bucket load of fan links have scrolled her page and kept putting their as well as vandalism of removing information and tainting with the Lovers/Relationships section where people lower and upper basic relationships, (i.e Todd Manning instead of dated someone said friends, and Cristian Vega someone added soulmates.) I was wondering if you could currently lock the page until the character has left the show or something under my last edit.--Migospia 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, LoveIsJoyous (talk|contribs) keeps adding bad external links to the Evangeline Williamson article, it also appears it is being done to Renee Elise Goldsberry as well.--Migospia 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- User has been warned. Cbrown1023 talk 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
answer
Archiving a solved case that is more than 3 days old. This is only my 2nd case so i might not be very good at it. Working on it now.VK35 18:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Would you review my work? I archived Danielfgrego. Thank you. In time, I hope to perfect my RFCU clerk skills. I am doing this for a trial one week and then see if it's for me. It is boring.VK35 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not on IRC because one has to ask for permission. I intended to be a clerk for only a one week trial period. If longer, then it's an idea. If I don't stay an active clerk long, then it's a lot of trouble for everyone to set up.VK35 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[[3]] Then I must have misunderstood. Maybe IRC access permission is required for non-clerks??VK35 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm such an idiot. clicking on the link, irc://chat.freenode.net/wikipedia-checkuser-clerks, does nothing, either an infinite "connecting" or cannot connect.VK35 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I use IE, IE6, I think. I don't know how to connect to the right server. In fact, I may be the first person expelled from wikipedia for being an idiot. :p VK35 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I may be in IRC, downloaded it moments ago. Ready for a test drive if you are. What channel?VK35 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- it says "now talking in #wikipedia-en".VK35 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I may be in IRC, downloaded it moments ago. Ready for a test drive if you are. What channel?VK35 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you've been having a conversation with VK35. Well, I was able to confirm with a checkuser that VK35 is Dereks1x, a banned user. I'm a bit shocked that VK35 was able to edit for so long then con his way onto the checkuser clerk list. If you can, please help check for any possible collateral damage caused by this banned user at RFCU. (Also, per WP:BAN, any edits made by this user should be reverted or removed). Thanks. · jersyko talk 03:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very unfortunate. :( Cbrown1023 talk 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For Cbrown1023...
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| I, Majorly give this well-deserved award to Cbrown1023 for all hard work he does, on here, Wikiquote, Meta and probably loads of other places, with very little credit or thanks. You are an asset to this project, and a good friend. Keep up the good work, we don't know what we'd do without you! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
- Awwww... alex, thanks. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Powerspace
It shows in the Deletion Log recently that you have deleted the page of Powerspace, a band from Chicago, IL on the record label Fueled By Ramen. Fueled By Ramen has Wikipedia pages for every band on their label, except Powerspace. This should not be deleted, in fact expanded, because this band has gotten a lot more popularity, and if fans want to know about who they are, they type it in on Google, which one of the first pages that comes up under a Google Search would be Wikipedia. This should be undeleted and have the information back for users to read and edit. Thank you for considering this deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danno1227 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
- I have never deleted the page when it had information on the band. The page was deleted because it was unnotable at the time or did not assert its notability. Later, it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerspace and the same reason a further time. Please seek a deletion review to get the article undeleted. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
church of kish
user:Hetoum I is keepimng removing sourced info on page Church of Kish. he is replacing with POV information based on non-neutral sources. Please see discussion--Dacy69 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I am of the opposite opinion of you. Also, there is really nothing I can do, other than to protect the page. These subjects are very controversial and even a moderation would achieve nothing. :( Cbrown1023 talk 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This user keeps reverting back to his version without reaching a consensus. I am talking and trying to listen and deal, and discuss and i suspect he may have violated his parole as he reverted back twice I think. Hetoum I 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- If so, send it to the Arb noticeboard (not sure the exact link, but it's linked from the header of WP:AN). Cbrown1023 talk 10:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
drv
"Nor is it a venue to nit-pick on the mis-followings of policy when an article should have been deleted"
Actually, DRV's mission is specifically to judge if policy has been followed in the deletion process. It is supposed to go by what policy says, not editors' personal opinions towards the articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I said "nit-pick". :) I fully know the intent of policy and deletion review. My point was the fact that many other articles get put up there after they are deleted quietly per OTRS or BLP and it's the opposite of what was intended to happen. Cbrown1023 talk 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd think people would know by now that trying to quietly sweep things away by avoiding policy and normal venues doesn't work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me completely, they follow the policies (some may seem unwritten), but the items do not need to be dragged out. Cbrown1023 talk 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion policy says how to delete things, WP:CSD says why things may be speedy deleted, and WP:OFFICE explains why it may be sometimes circumvented for the sake of dealing with urgent issues. The problem is that these cases met none of the criteria for any of those. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- From your links: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following. Um, that basically explains my position. I don't mean to be mean, but it is not very smart to assume that all the reasons are posted on a single page. We do not need a WP:OTRS policy or something similar. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Except that the reasons for speedy deletion are explicitly narrow and strict. Those other deletions are supposed to go through AfD for case-by-case decisionmaking before the content disappears from view. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree, but that may just be because you are one of the users I was addressing with that comment. Ask any board member or "high-up"/well-experienced user, they will agree with me. There are reasons for actions to be done out of process sometimes. Look at Child pornography look at the Digital Copyright key, are we going to need a Revisions for deletion too? Oh no, we should just specify it all in the speedy deletion criteria to the tiniest detail... Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Keyspam and child porn fits into 'illegal content' anyway, and keyspam was covered by having a discussion about inclusion, settling on 'yes, we can have it.' Out of process cases should be the exception, not something happening dozens of times a day all on the same grounds. There should be an attempt to settle on a rule for these cases and add it to the speedy deletion criteria if it's so important to delete them. There's no rush, because the argument isn't even that they're causing harm right now, it's that they might be harmful in the future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe that, then you do not understand the vastness of the subject at all. Cbrown1023 talk 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is asking that you assess and reconsider the stub-class rating assigned to the Rebecca Cummings article by the WikiProject Biography.
I am the main author of the Rebecca Cummings article. When I first started the article it was rated as a stub. With the help of others including two administrators, Alkivar and Joe_Beaudoin_Jr., the article was improved and the stub rating was removed 14:11, 22 May 2006. The article is very useful to any reader seeking information on Rebecca. It meets MoS standards. It also contains clear, relevant and complete information about Rebecca Cummings and has continued to be improved since the stub rating was removed.
If you feel it should still have the stub-class rating can you please let me know from the WikiProject Biography point of view what can be done to improve the article beyond the stub-class rating? Please respond on Talk:Rebecca_Cummings.
Thanks in advance! --HeartThrobs 06:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind - Night Gyr has put the article up for deletion.
May newsletter
I just realized that it was the end of the month today, so I quickly cranked out a few stories (with a little research and creating some new things around the project) and hopefully completed the newsletter. Could you take a look over it and correct any grammar/wording issues before you send it out? As you can see, we once again had another great month in getting a lot of articles improved to GA/FA status. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed before it gets sent out. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sending out as we speak. Cbrown1023 talk 21:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)