signpost - John F. Street v. Bozo the clown |
about deletion of ''List of tools for static code analysis'' |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
That wasn't the 1st addition of the clown entry, it looks like it was added once before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Street&diff=prev&oldid=101878961] and stayed for *6* days! -[[User:Ravedave|Ravedave]] <small><sup>([[User:Ravedave/Adopt a State|Adopt a State]])</sup></small> 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
That wasn't the 1st addition of the clown entry, it looks like it was added once before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Street&diff=prev&oldid=101878961] and stayed for *6* days! -[[User:Ravedave|Ravedave]] <small><sup>([[User:Ravedave/Adopt a State|Adopt a State]])</sup></small> 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
== about deletion of ''List of tools for static code analysis'' == |
|||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|List of tools for static code analysis}}}|deletion review]] of [[:List of tools for static code analysis]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. |
|||
I don't think 10 minutes discussion was enough to delete the page! [[User:Cate|Cate]] |<sub> [[User talk:Cate|Talk]]</sub> 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:09, 23 January 2007
|
Support Our Families
You deleted Support Our Families saying it was a recreation of a deleted article. The only thing the same between what you deleted and the deleted article was the title support our families. What brought your attention to it and why did you delete it? Steve.fami.ly 07:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If you would be willing to restore the listing I would be willing to remove the reference for which you accuse me of being promotional and rewrite the entire article appropriately - also, I wouldn't have a problem with working in a sandbox area on it until it met your standards - I don't know if you have this kind of a feature or not but it seems like it would be useful considering the headache I have had trying to contribute a valid political slogan in the main namespace. Thank you. Steve.fami.ly 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i added my user-name for the signpost but i haven't got any yet. Could you please help me for my subscription? Thanx in advance. Best wishes. E104421 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanx mate, cheers! E104421 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you liked the interview questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Spam question
Regarding this edit — why is that link spam? It seems pretty useful to me. Mikker (...) 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I can see why you removed it as spam then. In this instance, as you say, the link is useful, so I'll reinstate it. Mikker (...) 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
Apologies for 'correcting' your vote at Ryulong's RfA. I assumed it was a numbering error, but Gracenotes fixed it and Ryulong pointed out that you withdrew the vote. The only reason I can give for thinking that the numbering had been messed up is that the vote hadn't been struck through, which I thought was normal. I should have checked, and will do so next time I think there has been a mistake. In fact, I'll probably contact the !voter in question instead of rushing in to correct. Apologies again. Carcharoth 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Noimageforcd.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Noimageforcd.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alex valavanis 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have listed this image for deletion as there is already a PNG image in use on many thousands of pages, including the album infobox. Thanks for contributing to the project and I hope you understand my decision. Alex valavanis 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Your Edits
Ral315. It's sad that you make deletions to things for which you obviously have no knowledge in. I've already conversed with multiple moderators regarding All in the Family entries and you delete them anyways. Sad. Be careful, your edits regress Wikipedia for those topics unclear to you. --Edlisataylor 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Nofollow
I'd have to dig for the exact context in which he said it, I was basically cribbing from my story of two years ago. If it was in a post to wikien-l, or an edit on Wikipedia, he may well not have specified exactly but still mostly had the English Wikipedia in mind. Supposing that projects are allowed to choose different courses of action on an issue, then Jimmy isn't always in the best position to know what's the best course of action for non-English projects, and it's particularly the English Wikipedia on which he has a special role to influence such things, regardless of office or title. --Michael Snow 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
RfC -- Attack Pages
I noticed that back in october you changed the attack pages guideline. I opened an RfC regarding the unintended consenquences of that change, and I'm interested in knowing what precident precipitated the change (or why). I hope we can get your input at the RfC I opened. Thanks! /Blaxthos 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost
I just spoke to Trodel about helping him to do ITN. This could help me write the Wikiproject Report. What do you think? -- Punk Boi 8 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- This was not approved by me - no need for you to respond --Trödel 14:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Digest feedback
You asked for feedback, so here's some. I think having the full text of articles in the digest would encourage me to read more articles, but because emails don't have wikilinks, it discourages me from exploring further into the matter. Goes in one ear, gets a little bit of thought, then gets DELETED! Hmmm. — JeremyTalk 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
signpost - John F. Street v. Bozo the clown
That wasn't the 1st addition of the clown entry, it looks like it was added once before [1] and stayed for *6* days! -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
about deletion of List of tools for static code analysis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of tools for static code analysis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I don't think 10 minutes discussion was enough to delete the page! Cate | Talk 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)