Fubar Obfusco (talk | contribs) Featured Article Review: Intelligent design |
Odd nature (talk | contribs) Please review this CFD result |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
[[Intelligent design]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Intelligent design}}|here]]. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
[[Intelligent design]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Intelligent design}}|here]]. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Please review this CFD result == |
|||
The result of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22]] was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet [[User:Radiant!]] claimed the conclusion for delete and then deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. [[User:Odd nature|Odd nature]] 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:50, 10 July 2007
Archives
Userfied Trolling
Cheers, I was actually a little concerned I might have overstepped the mark, but he really is getting out of hand isn't he. ornis 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Milloy article
Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell Talk 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nate1478
I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Over the last 3 days I have indef blocked 3 or 4 impostors of User:Nate1481. I rolled back back around a dozen edits by today's sock because the edit summaries referred to reverting non-existant vandalism by User:Nate1481. I don't think the user has been banned but the template refers to blocking as well as banning. Certainly, I'm not prepared to unblock an impostor who is harrassing a good faith editor. Have I done something wrong? Spartaz Humbug! 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article Review: Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please review this CFD result
The result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet User:Radiant! claimed the conclusion for delete and then deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. Odd nature 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)