rep/add BLP |
Ribbon Salminen (talk | contribs) →The Wack Pack: new section |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
Hi Enigmaman. Just to let you know, I've added multiple sources for this article, which might address your concerns at its AfD. Best, <font face="Comic sans MS">[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</font></sup></small> 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Enigmaman. Just to let you know, I've added multiple sources for this article, which might address your concerns at its AfD. Best, <font face="Comic sans MS">[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</font></sup></small> 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:ok. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
:ok. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[The Wack Pack]] == |
|||
You're fucking insane and drunk with power. Instead of totally removing big Howard Stern guys like Crackhead Bob and Fred the Elephant Boy, why not just remove the parts that your majesty finds offensive? |
Revision as of 18:00, 23 April 2009
Pre-March |
If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply. Thank you.
Liam Gallagher
Flag your minor edits as minor, mate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrhadam (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Enigmaaaa!
Replied on my talk page ;) Ariel♥Gold 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
And here it is! Thank you for all your work helping to keep articles in line with the WP:BLP! Ariel♥Gold 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
- Added the two current biography-related barnstars to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography page. :) Ariel♥Gold 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with what i added to the Wandy Rodriguez page. Besides, i only added the last paragraph. The other stuff was put there by someone else. The last paragraph is relevant to his current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobizzle (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wandy Rodriguez NEVER had cited info. Maybe you should hammer the other people who edited it before me. Bobizzle (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Travel ping sent
--VS talk 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
T-Y
Cheers for the reversion you did on my userpage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The information contained in that header is valuable for anybody with questions with regards to copyright information. I find it quite helpful. Users who think it is productive go go around making such edits as tagging pages as "banned" are another issue, but there is nothing I can do to help such users. I don't really think the info is bitey though. Also, looking at the history, I don't think we have to be concerned with many people posting questions there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand and for the most part agree. I just don't think that is bitey. It is clear and concise, to the point, but copyright can be a confusing area and being blunt sometimes is the best way to explain things. Unless I've missed something specific there, I honestly don't see the concern. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I won't be reverting - I just don't see the need to remove all of the information, and plaster the "BANNED" notice at the top. I missed #11 there when I was reading it. Perhaps the other items can be rewritten a bit. I don't mean to put you off of doing it, as it is certainly not my page. To reiterate, my only concern was the removal of all of the information and the notice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
...per our discussion. Note, your TPWs are more than welcome to add articles to the list, and/or spread the word. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of using AFD, you could have found consensus to merge at Wikipedia:MRFD to enforce any resulting redirects. Might be something to keep in mind for later. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will keep that in mind for the future. I do feel that in these cases, deletion is the best way to get it to stick. Otherwise, I have to watch the page closely because someone is bound to restore the information I removed. It's happened too many times to count. I feel the best way would be to delete, create anew as a redirect, and protect the page. Enigmamsg 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Enigmaman - I closed the AfD per your withdrawl and being willing to merge the articles. After closing the AfD itself, I found out that somebody needed to use this computer in a hurry, so I was rushed and only hope that I did the multi-nomination closure formatting correctly. Best, Jamie☆S93 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reopened. An admin has to close it because another editor also favors deletion. Enigmamsg 00:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine. From my experience at AfD, though, there is nothing wrong with withdrawing even after somebody has !voted for deletion, and I've never heard that it'd require an admin. But if you'd prefer an admin to have the final say in the closure, I'm cool with that, and feel free to do what you want. :) Best, Jamie☆S93 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain that a nominator can only withdraw an AfD if there are no other delete !votes. Once there are, it's out of the nominator's hands. This is similar to how the creator of an article cannot request deletion based on being the creator if others have contributed. Enigmamsg 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine. From my experience at AfD, though, there is nothing wrong with withdrawing even after somebody has !voted for deletion, and I've never heard that it'd require an admin. But if you'd prefer an admin to have the final say in the closure, I'm cool with that, and feel free to do what you want. :) Best, Jamie☆S93 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reopened. An admin has to close it because another editor also favors deletion. Enigmamsg 00:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Enigmaman - I closed the AfD per your withdrawl and being willing to merge the articles. After closing the AfD itself, I found out that somebody needed to use this computer in a hurry, so I was rushed and only hope that I did the multi-nomination closure formatting correctly. Best, Jamie☆S93 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_bubba
Done, speedy closed. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Let 'Em Bleed: The Mixxtape series
Each album in the series peaked on the Billboard charts. They are notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
Re: Question
Hmm, probably not a SNOW close at the moment. I usually close an AfD early when at least 5 editors (aside from the nominator) unanimously agree. Otherwise, it's usually better to simply let the discussion run its course. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No wonder people leave here all the time, the vandals keep winning.
Well, my concerns have been ignored and the listings removed from AIV with no action. No wonder people leave here all the time, the vandals keep winning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, 65.73.168.122 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person, no matter that it's an IP address, since they have edited nothing but movie articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator. I was just explaining why the report was declined. Admins at AIV tend to be strict in application of blocks. You can bring your concerns to another administrator if you feel strongly about it. Enigmamsg 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you can show me diffs of whatever the problem is then I'll take a look. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as it's probably just one person, we can just revert and/or protect once it gets out of control. For example, in the case of GRAWP, we didn't prevent page moves for new accounts until he got real annoying. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
RBIs
Actually, it should be RBIs, unless it is a columnar list. See, for example, discussion at [3].
See also the following analysis by KingTurtle: "The pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an s. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006)." RBI and HR will appear without the s in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia-style charts. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences. This is not some outlandish, obtuse style. It is quite mainstream, and not just for RBIs, but for all acronyms. Kingturtle (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)"Ethelh (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Enigmaman. Just to let you know, I've added multiple sources for this article, which might address your concerns at its AfD. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You're fucking insane and drunk with power. Instead of totally removing big Howard Stern guys like Crackhead Bob and Fred the Elephant Boy, why not just remove the parts that your majesty finds offensive?