WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
| |
|
|
|
AFD/T • T-7 • T-2 • AFDO • AIV • RFUB • UAA/CAT • RFPP • PER • CSD • AB • FAR • FAC urgents • TFAR • Google Search
|
Other neat portal ideas for longer term
- Longer term ideas to think about from other portals:
- Events section, like: "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion, United States; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. Interesting idea of "Month selected anniversaries", at Oregon.
- Model intro with some rotating images, after Portal:Oregon, Portal:Indiana, Portal:Iceland/Intro and Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro.
- Revamp DYK sections w/ free-use images, model after Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Oregon.
- Portal palettes at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals. Comparable color schemes can be developed from the various hue lists at User:RichardF/Palettes. Also see Portal:Box-header.
- If there are a lot of categories, then categories section to 2 columns, like in Portal:Indiana.
- Also take some time to check out style/formatting at Portal:Indiana Cirt (talk)
Note to self
independent reliable secondary sources
- {{findsources}}
- Cite templates
<ref>{{cite book| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | year = | location = | page = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite news| last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | language = | publisher = | page = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last =| first=| authorlink=| coauthors=|title=|journal=|volume=|issue=|page=|publisher=|location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref>{{cite web| last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>
- Citation model
- Body text in-cite
<ref name="REFNAME">[[#LASTNAME|LASTNAME]], p. PAGENUMBER</ref>
- References section
(reference template from WP:CIT)
*<cite id=LASTNAME>REFERENCE</cite>
- Different model
- Template:Citation
- Template:Harvnb
- Example: <ref name="REFNAME">{{Harvnb|LAST|YEAR|p=PAGENUMBER}}</ref>
See models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
More at Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples.
Dispatch
Cirt, Awadewit suggested that you might be interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch article on Featured portals (the only area of featured content we haven't covered). Sample previous articles are at {{FCDW}}. We've covered:
- Featured content overview
- Peer review
- Did you know
- Featured lists
- Good articles
- Featured sounds
- Featured topics
- Images
- TFA
- And Featured articles many times: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches
None of them start out looking like that: if an editor initially just chunks in some text, many others chip in to tweak it up to Signpost standards. For example, someone wrote this, which Karanacs, Royalbroil and I turned into this, so if you just chunk in some text as a start, others can help finish it off. Another example, I put in this outline, and Karanacs brought it up to this. Other editors have written almost complete and clean Dispatches without much need for other editing. If you're interested, please weigh in and coordinate at WT:FCDW In case you're interested, you could just begin sandboxing something at WP:FCDW/Portals and pop over to WT:FCDW to leave a note when you're ready for others to help out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Razzies progress
- 15th Golden Raspberry Awards through 29th Golden Raspberry Awards = reformatting process done.
- Note: Going to have to go back and model these after the modifications made subsequently to 29th Golden Raspberry Awards.
- 29th Golden Raspberry Awards - so far only one expanded with sourcing research. (WP:FL)
- Razzie Award for Worst New Star = reformatting process done, next to use Talk:Razzie Award for Worst Picture as model to reformat other pages in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards by category (with subsection breaks by decade)
The Marriage Ref
I'm glad that guy got banned from the page, he was annoying and contributed nothing constructive. If you played any part of what happened to him, I thank you for it. And for what it's worth, I do enjoy checking to see if you've added anything further regarding reception and/or ratings too. Sergecross73 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Travis Bishop article
Hello I saw that you did the final delete on the Travis Bishop article. (sorry to not jump in the conversation during the deletion review, but I was traveling then)
I created the original page and would like to rewrite it for later re-creation at a later point in time, when I've made the case of notability stronger.
I normally keep archives of newly created articles in my user space, but did not do so with Travis Bishop (except for this page User:Jmbranum/Travis Bishop which was created before the article was finished and before it received many useful edits. Is there anyway that you or another editor who has the power to do so could take the content on the deleted article and repost it at User:Jmbranum/Travis Bishop?
Thanks,
--Jmbranum (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks on WYTIWis PROD
I spent a lot of time on that sucker. But in the end it was a neologism and limited in scope. I appreciate your time and the consensus process you sheparded. Cheers, mate! jk (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it would be a good idea for a bot to archive the old reviews? There's quite a few without comments for more than one month still out there, and the page is getting longish... • ɔ ʃ → 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Perhaps for reviews open with no new comments fore more than 3 months. You can propose it at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Distant Worlds
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Distant Worlds. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I've recreated the article in the title from a N(eutral)POV and referenced it; I'm letting you know because you were the admin who deleted it on March. :) Regards --Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
inre Fred: The Movie
When I saw the amount of attention this article has drawn from IPs that simply hate the character of Fred, I was almost sorry I created the article (sigh). This was my first time making a request such as I did for the article.diff What would be the next step in the process if the vandalism picks up again after 3 days? Thanks --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would most likely get protected for longer next time at WP:RFPP. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks much. Here's hoping it gets less attention from the vandals. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Quentin Hubbard
Re "charisma" versus "bombast" for Quentin Hubbard's father, L Ron Hubbard, there's a lot of controversy about whether he [L Ron Hubbard] was charismatic or not - maybe not at all, in fact, charismatic. See, for instance the thousands of comments about Hubbard @ "The shrinking World of L Ron Hubbard" on YouTube. There does, however, appear to be some consensus that Hubbard was bombastic - an idea supported, surely by his [amazing] interviews in that video. What d'you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.1.252 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe DYK
Hi Cirt, what do you think about nominating Everybody Draw Mohammed Day for DYK?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Should wait until after the AFD has closed. Great idea. -- Cirt (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- The rules of DYK allow to nominate an article, which is new (not older than 5 days) The article was started on May 1. If it is to be nominated, it is to be nominated now. Once I nominated one of mine articles that was proposed to be deleted. It was promoted after the deletion request was closed. With the article in question the consensus to keep is very clear.Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK query
Were you going to suggest a possible DYK and nom at T:TDYK for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? I think an interesting one might be utilizing a fact from the article involving either Michael C. Moynihan, or Kathleen Parker. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RfPP
You're quite welcome and I meant to drop you a line earlier to inform you. I wonder if you could do me a favour? I only got the mop a few days ago, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to take a look at my RfPP decisions- I'd like the opinion of some more experienced admins on how they would have handled the requests and how that differs from my own handling of them. Thanks for your time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Kidstart deletion?
Please can you advise why Kidstart was deleted?
If you read through the history you will see that the page is currently being worked on to fit the Wikipedia guidelines.
The speedy deletion tag was removed hence I thought I had a little time to work on this plus in the UK we have a bank holiday today.
I dont see much difference in this entry and the Quidco or Top CashBack entry other than on this site you actually save money for children / charities
As I said im happy to amend as per guidance given.
Emmamme (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was called Kidstart and you deleted it today.
Emmamme (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Im confused though as per my discussions with fetchcomms I have been working on notability and looking to add further citations.
I can add further information on the process / how trust funds work etc if that would help?
Would I be best to rewrite and re post?
Emmamme (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, at this point it would be more appropriate instead to work on a draft proposed version, within a subpage of your userspace. For example, at User:Emmamme/Sandbox. -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Do i need to place a special tag to say it is a draft or would that be obvious. Also is it easy to make the approved version live from this subpage?
Emmamme (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm, I think you can put {{construction}} on it. And also {{userpage}}. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Kidstart
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kidstart. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Emmamme (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Cirt, I was doing some {{hangon}} patrolling and came onto this article. I found his hangon explanation sympathetic, though insufficient, and was going to WP:USERFY it to preserve his code and suggest that it be moved to Wikia, but when I looked at the talk page of the creator, Wolves95, I noticed that he had fantasy football articles previously deleted and was someone you blocked some time back. I'm now suspicious of his explanation and thought you might have some history about it and/or might like to take a look and/or process the speedy. In any event, it's your call. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, great job
Great additions to the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" article, and thanks for bringing it to DYK. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, and thank you for thanking me! -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you mind if I restore this to the longstanding Wiktionary soft redirect? The soft redirect to the Wiktionary definition of the phrase had been in place for over 2 years. The redirect to the magazine had replaced it for less than a month when the magazine was AFDed. - TexasAndroid (talk)
cosleeping
what did you delete a nice article for?Tectaal (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe. -- Cirt (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Undelete TeeChart
Hello, I'm writing as a followup on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teechart. You had suggested making a draft on user page: User:Mmbcn and later a re-work with attention to increasing of references and inline Cite format. The result wasn't considered satisfactory at that time, leading to your comments at the end of the last conversation as ":It just still comes across as spam / promo / advertising / puff piece. The bulleted lists, the hyperlinking within article text, etc etc etc."
I've made changes to try and bring it more into line and reopen the request for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mmbcn (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks a little bit better, though there still appears to be lots of unsourced bits. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71
Is taking too long - he now thinks he can edit his own long term abuse report - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/DavidYork71&oldid=360289062 - obviously there is further work to do... SatuSuro 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome.
Not a problem! - The Bushranger (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion: Merging the articles for "Hyperplane" and "Flat"
I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Clayton (Actor)
Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Clayton (Actor). Is it unusual that the article still has not been deleted, a week after closure? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You Denied My Protection!
Just you wait, Cirt, the edit-war will happen, and I'll be back!!!--Nate2357 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Adding citation needed's to John Vanbrugh
I added some citation needed's to John Vanburgh and these were all reverted by User:GiacomoReturned and discussions on the talk page have gone nowhere can you take a look at it please as it look like you've been involved in similar matters before? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, I'm off to bed now and I'll look at this again tomorrow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Cites on EDMD
Sorry, I hate citation templates and hardly ever use them. I have no objection to anyone changing the format of the footnotes I added, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review the edits on this article as I believe that the anon is not only adding AGF material (admittedly in an improper fashion) but the submissions have the ring of veracity and insider knowledge. Other editors castigating the contributions as "objectionable" is a bit much. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, got that but the article intrigued me because of the aspersion that the actor was a lesbian, yet that was never public knowledge during her lifetime. The apparent claim of lesbianism is made by a serial Hollywood scandalmonger and attributed to an interview with Marjorie Main, her alleged lover. The interview was conducted prior to Marjorie's death and only has one contentious comment in that she had mentioned that her longtime friend did not have much time for men which in itself, can be interpreted in many ways and is not a conclusive statement as to sexuality. Based on this one dubious mention, two other rumour merchants picked up on the supposition and labelled the two women's relationship as incestuous. With both parties now dead, it is the easiest way to build a reputation by staining other's reputations. The submission by the anon, arguably unsourced, unverified and filled with personal observations, still rings true, at least a lot more than that of the Boze Hadleigh, the original source of the claim of lesbianism. This author is a "churner" of books, cranking them out with the fervour of a pulp publisher and with about the same attention to honest journalism. I currently work/write as an editor/author and know the type. We have a great deal of journeymen authors and publishers who are no better than schoolyard gossips.
- After all that blather, I made a few suppositions based on the obvious editwar that was transpiring over the inclusion of a contentious new section. One was that the material could be treated as WP:AGF, albeit poorly referenced and relying on a personal background that can be characterized as WP:OR. When this type of situation occurs, I tend to give the newbie the benefit of the doubt and not arbitrarily delete the "objectionable" submission (which I feel is "objectionable" to use the term "objectionable" when there is no evidence of vandalism at play) but instead try to focus the edit and subsequent discussion so that the contribution can be placed into context, find a verifiable and authoritative source to attribute and failing all that, to at least have the material relocated to the talk page for a future revision that will meet all the criteria for a legitimate addition to a Wiki article.
- One of the difficulties in obtaining source material on Spring Byington is the lack of a definitive biography or even any detailed account of her life and career, outside of the very questionable sources that have already been mentioned. FWiW 02:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- In addition to being unsourced, the user was also disruptive in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't get that impression although I did see some frustration that can be attributable to a newcomer not realizing that everyone and anyone can edit comments and not to take things seriosuly. Heaven knows, that 's exactly how I thought the WIkiWacky world of Wikipedia was when I first began editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- Hopefully the behavior of the disruptive user will cease causing problems after the block expires. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the editwar, others also played that game and they have been in the playground a bit longer. Biting a newcomer is what I was concerned about, more than anything else. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not acceptable on this website to revert against multiple other editors, causing disruption in order to add into an article about a person material that is completely unreferenced, after being given a warning about this behavior at this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I concur, but do you imagine that the first-time editor would be versed in the intricacies of wiki etiquette? I did not detect any personal comments about other editors, yet the editor was subjected to comments such as adding a "rant", "objectionable" entries and being "disruptive" when all I could see was that an editor was adding commentary and having it constantly deleted and not understanding why because the edit comments were probably seen as cryptic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- Wholly disagree with your assessment. The user was clearly in violation of multiple different site policies. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be obstreperous, but would a neophyte understand that? There seems to be no evidence that any other editing other Spring Byington was proffered. The editor made no edit comments but instead used the repeat of the same submission as an edit comment rife with personal observations that alone indicated to me a lack of knowledge regarding how to frame a proper submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- You seem to be repeating yourself now and going in circles. Unfortunately this thread has ceased the possibility of becoming productive. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it seems that one of us is saying the same things over and over while another is trying to provide some context as to how a newbie is being treated. You can provide the connection at will, as I see that you are unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue and I am wasting my time. Sorry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it seems that one of us is saying the same things over and over while another is trying to provide some context as to how a newbie is being treated. You can provide the connection at will, as I see that you are unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue and I am wasting my time. Sorry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- You seem to be repeating yourself now and going in circles. Unfortunately this thread has ceased the possibility of becoming productive. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be obstreperous, but would a neophyte understand that? There seems to be no evidence that any other editing other Spring Byington was proffered. The editor made no edit comments but instead used the repeat of the same submission as an edit comment rife with personal observations that alone indicated to me a lack of knowledge regarding how to frame a proper submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- Wholly disagree with your assessment. The user was clearly in violation of multiple different site policies. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I concur, but do you imagine that the first-time editor would be versed in the intricacies of wiki etiquette? I did not detect any personal comments about other editors, yet the editor was subjected to comments such as adding a "rant", "objectionable" entries and being "disruptive" when all I could see was that an editor was adding commentary and having it constantly deleted and not understanding why because the edit comments were probably seen as cryptic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- It is not acceptable on this website to revert against multiple other editors, causing disruption in order to add into an article about a person material that is completely unreferenced, after being given a warning about this behavior at this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the editwar, others also played that game and they have been in the playground a bit longer. Biting a newcomer is what I was concerned about, more than anything else. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully the behavior of the disruptive user will cease causing problems after the block expires. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't get that impression although I did see some frustration that can be attributable to a newcomer not realizing that everyone and anyone can edit comments and not to take things seriosuly. Heaven knows, that 's exactly how I thought the WIkiWacky world of Wikipedia was when I first began editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
- In addition to being unsourced, the user was also disruptive in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- One of the difficulties in obtaining source material on Spring Byington is the lack of a definitive biography or even any detailed account of her life and career, outside of the very questionable sources that have already been mentioned. FWiW 02:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC).
Done, unblocked, to warn instead. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was exceptionally poorly done. After seeing the discussion above, I was about to just unblock them myself without bothering to talk to you about it when you beat me to it. Few things piss me off more than seeing an admin lording it over a confused, wrong, but probably good faith new editor. Except possibly seeing an admin patronizingly dismiss any hint of disagreement with their actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"200" and "201"
I've nominated 200 (South Park) and 201 (South Park) for GA and listed you as a co-nom. I think you deserve it, but if you strongly disagree, feel free to remove yourself. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ministère de l'Education changed into Emartin33
Dear Cirt, with the very useful help of your collegue and administrator Peter I renamed my account as you asked (it is now not a 'moral person' anymore). I sent you an email but did not get any reply, and my account still seems to be blocked (I can edit, but my name appears in red, and it says that I am blocked and that I need to contact you). Now that I have made the modification you asked, could you please unblock me? Sorry for the disturbance, best regards,
Emartin33 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cirt, I just wanted to let you know that I created a new account so that I did not have to disturb you anymore, with the mistake I made with my account name at the beginning. Let me know if this could be any problem. Best Regards,
Discover33 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ulmgambolputty and WP:ARBSCI
Hi Cirt, I didn't see the point in posting him there. Tim Song banned him from the topic but I blocked him for the other edits that identified him as our determined friend. Given he's banned for other matters, and is unlikely to ever be welcome, is it worthwhile clogging the ARBSCI page ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Paramahansa_Srimat_Swami_Nigamananda_Saraswati_Dev
I see you have deleted the above article, Can you please restore it?
We are represented by numerous websites and 100's of books in English/Hindi and other regional languages. We have more than 1000 places of worship across India.
We are also represented by non profit organization 503C status from the state of Minnesota.
www.jayaguru.net www.jayaguru.org
let me know if you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswaranjan.das (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- This user appears to be a violation of WP:Role account. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What does that mean? --Biswaranjan.das (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
we are the devotees of Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev, who is one of the most revered and beloved Gurus from India. Recently i found that his page "Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev" has been deleted from Wiki.
My sincier request to you and Wiki, to restore the page. If you have any concerns about the content on the page please let us know. If we have not provided necesssry references, then it may be due to our mistake, or we never found out that the page needs some kind of citation or something like that nature. But that does not diminish or falsify the information we provided about our GURU.
Please restore the page , and let us know what are the things you need to adhere to wiki's standards.
Subrat Nayak 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) (talk)
TO GET ACCESS FOR EDITING SECTION OF ARTICLE "CELEBRITY SEX TAPE"
Hello! I want to create the article about Celebrity sex tapes in Russian Wikipedia. But i can`t get access to editing section here (default link "edit"). I need it - to copy & paste some components for comfort of my action (tags,sources.....). Please,give me access & Thank you for attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.150.160 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Closing AFDs "delete" with only one delete !vote
Since I've noticed you have been doing this quite a bit lately, I have not relisted any of these on the log for the 1st today except this one. Since the article survived a previous AFD, I think we should give it another week just to be certain that consensus really has changed.
As far as doing this in general, IMHO if the nominator's rationale is sound and nobody impeaches it or otherwise objects to the deletion, then they should be closed "delete", even if there are no !votes at all. However, such articles should be refundable since you can't really call one delete !vote a "consensus" but the 2 times I have tried proposing this, it's been rejected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)