...

Archives

My subpages February 27 - March 21 March 21 - April 17 April 17 - May 19 May 19 - August 25 August 25 - October 18

Nah. Not a policy violation, right? :) Users can write anything on their talk pages, they don't have to make sense at all. PeaceNT 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that's thoughts (or whatever). :) But WP:NOT is supposed to deal with articles, this is their userspace. It should be their rights to write whatever nonsense they want, unless it contains attack materials, does it? PeaceNT 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that's the same as the text on their linked blog. Posting those materials on talk page hardly violates WP:NOTBLOG. I suggest you leave it as it is. PeaceNT 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily tell you've been around for quite awile since you can't create a username with an @ sign nowdays. VoL†ro/\/Force 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Unknown Object June 2007 Santa Fe NM.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @pple,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously, whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Miranda

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternity Rites cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nếu anh đã nói như vậy thì em chấp nhận nhưng vẫn còn bất mãn, nhiều bộ Anime bé xúi của Nhật vẫn chểm chệ trên Wikipedia mà nguyên cái NKVA không được! Em vẫn giữ nguyên quan điểm của mình, chẳng thà nếu có thể mình rewrite và add informations hơn là xóa chỉ vì nó chỉ nói tới sex scandal. Cái đọan mà "gây sốc cho người lớn" là đúng, vì nhiều báo chí trong nước đã nói tới.

Nói chung là trình độ viết = TA của em còn kém, không đóng góp bên Wikipedia EN được nên em chấp nhận. Anh dịch tin nhắn này ra và nhắn cho PeaceNT dùng em nhé.

Chào anh, chúc anh một ngày tốt lành.

Magnifier 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em không có ý bức xúc với PeaceNT đâu anh. chắc vì cái trình độ viết tồi tệ của em nó gây ra hiểu lầm đấy ( em không biết viết như thế nào cho không công kích giống như trong khi viết Tiếng Việt, chưa thấy tài liệu này hướng dẫn điều này trên Internet, vì chủ yêu em học TA cũng chỉ qua Google thui à :)) ).

Magnifier 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Event of Moon Disaster the consensus was to transwiki the speech to Wikisource or Wikiquote. I'm not able to find the text on either of those sites. Did it actually get copied over before the article was gimped to a redirect? If so, what's the title so I can add a link at Apollo 11 in popular culture? —dgies^t_c 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Per WP:DPR there is no need to delete any revisions when the consensus is to merge. —dgies^t_c 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree with your reasoning, only its application to this article. There exists a Wikipedia article on the Gettysburg Address; one could easily reason that if a disaster had occured during the Apollo 11 mission, that this speech would now be equally well-remembered as Lincoln's, for better or worse. The article, even in its truncated form of merely repeating the intended speech, also gives insight into the political aspect of spaceflight operations, and the social outlook on space exploration in that timeframe. For those reasons, the article deserved to stay. I recognize that this debate is now over, but wanted to share my thoughts regardless, since I've been AfC for some time, and didn't have the chance to participate further in the RfD. Ender78 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @pple, recently I happened to be reading the article on the Central Intelligence Agency and was impressed with the scroll boxes which had been applied to tidy up many of the references. I then sought to apply this format to several of the articles which I frequently follow which also had rather lengthy lists of footnotes.

After I did this, one other editor reversed all of my changes on the basis of the citation guidelines.

I note that the addition of the scroll-box to the Central Intelligence Agency article originated with an edit that you had made on 29 July 2007 and that you are an experienced editor and an administrator. I also note that other articles of high quality such as Ancient Rome use the scroll box feature.

Can you advise me of the correct position here? When is it appropriate to use scroll boxes? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternity Rites cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I noticed that you removed the article about my daughert , that was killed by a mortar . I understand that this is not a memorial place , but this is an historical event , for many reasons , and one of them is that for the first time , a brazilian citizen , was killed by palestine fire , and the actual brazilian goverment , is very pro-palestinians. Second reason : she was killed inside the israeli territory , and she was a civilian , not a military objective , as Hamas insist that she only fires on military objetives. I have a few more explanations why this case is special . Thank you . Natan galkowicz - father of Dana

I noticed you deleted Kokkallur under A7. Geographical locations do not fall under the scope of this criterion, so I have restored it. I can't imagine this result being any different at DRV. --- RockMFR 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my mistake. +reps for great improvement RockMFR. @pple complain 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear @pple ,

thank you for your kind attention to this message.

My name is Zhan Li and I am a PhD student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. ( You can view my bio (scroll down) for verification here: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral/1.aspx )

I am asking approx. 200 randomly selected Wikipedia administrators if they would like to participate in a brief (it might take you about 10 minutes) online survey about their use of open content online encyclopedias. I am conducting this research for an introductory research methods class under Professor Peter Monge ( http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~monge/ ).

I hope that you will participate in this survey.

Here is the link for the online survey, which begins with information pages detailing survey conditions and participant rights as well as my contact details for any questions:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a73oeHUjW9QKvYB7fmIb0A_3d_3d

The survey will close at Pacific Standard Time 12:15 AM on Wednesday 14th November. If you have any problems accessing this link, please let me know.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.

If you need to communicate with me, please email me rather than use wikipedia message pages Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest @pple,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words and strongest possible support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Let us rejoyce! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/11/episode-35-secretly-famous/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

You've got to look at the deleted version of @pple, read rather interesting. :P I found out a deleted entry by my username too, but it's not as good. :/ Hope you're doing well, apple. Best wishes, PeaceNT (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @pple. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternity Rites cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/30/wikipedia-weekly-36/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Good morning. Regarding your vote on the candidate votes page for Deskana; unfortunately, the attached comments were too long and should be placed at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities in the article Eluveitie have been reverted.

• There has been no consensus to merge. Not a single person who voted even uttered the word "merge"
• Thus, it will behoove you to use templates such as {{mergeto|Eluveitie}}, and wait for a consensus. This is not a place for unilateral actions, tempting as they might be

Óðinn 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long detailed article on CiRCA (Nightclub) that included its history, historical infromation about the opening ceremonies, and various detailed sections about different aspects of it, illustrated with several pictures that our research team took there. I also wrote detailed captions for each of the photographic illustratrations, outlining some of the notable uses of new and innovative technologies there (there are a number of interactive art exhibits within the club that are by notable artists as well as being notable in themselves).

My article got deleted the same day I created it.

Is there a simple way this text can be recovered, or does it exist in a cache of some sort?

Also is there a way that I can see the history of my article, e.g. how it got changed to a redirect, and how it is that my contributions got erased? Is there any edit history on the article?

I found the following summary on talk:Anthony Appleyard:

• At 12:27, 1 December 2007 User:Glogger created CiRCA (Nightclub).
• At 14:19, 1 December 2007 User:Mushroom moved CiRCA (Nightclub) to CiRCA: "no need to disambiguate", thus leaving CiRCA (Nightclub) as a redirect
• At 6:20, 1 December 2007 User:Andyjsmith speedy-delete-tagged CiRCA {{db-advert}}: "this is simply an advert for a club"
• At 7:02, 1 December 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard deleted CiRCA and CiRCA (Nightclub)

but I'd like to get the original text of the article, and if possible, the history of changes made to it.Glogger (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Apple, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you deleted the Schweizer 434 page that I created. Unless I'm mistaken, the edit summary clearly stated "Created redirect page". Now I obviously botched the attempt to make it a redirct (I saved it too quickly), but when I tried to fix it, within 5 minutes of its creation, you had already deleted it. Are admins not allowed to double check CSD tags, and fix the page if an obvious mistake has been made? Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot the redirect tag. Not trying to complain or show you up, but just trying to let you know what happened for future refernce. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you happy holidays and >> >> >>

Have a great time editing!
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers!
Send a E-card to someone else
Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Thank you for your great work as an admin. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please send my "Stonecutter Records" article that was deleted to tyshpix@yahoo.com

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.227.155 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@pple, hello. I've never met you. I got the same notice. What is that about? I don't remember changing anyone's user page. Archtransit (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, too. :( @pple complain 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we ever disagree? :) - PeaceNT (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to request you delete The Other Nite Show. It is a non notable community radio show from a minor AM station (and therfore not notable, if you don't delete it any other Australian community radio show could put up a page. Cheers, Ryan. 122.148.64.45 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Hey @pple! Since you self-identify as an admin who'll provide access to deleted material, would you mind providing access to the large source list Strichmann and I provided here (not quite sure where it might be now, whether in some deleted archive for the talkpage to Adult-older teen sex or to Adult-child sex, the link was working when I gave it here on 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC), thanks to the deletion that first link is broken now)? It was hard work even just getting that incredible amount of sources all down in a wikified version, so it would be great if you could help so we could move it to somewhere else. Another item I'd be interested in from those deleted talkpages would be my partial translation of the biographical German article on de:Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg.

Secondly, I'd be interested about getting back the intensive work I've put into this private userpage of mine that has now been speedy deleted after Squeak had threatened to make it happen on my talkpage. See my report about it at the ANI.[1] Note: This is the much further advanced draft to the official article you among many others have defended against deletion by a clearly bad faith AfD and then against an absolutely controversial closure against any consensus at all. Roughly 70 people wanted to keep the article for very good reasons using sophisticated reasonings and rationales, but the other side just gave colorful one-liners such as "KILL WITH FIRE!" which obviously had more weight. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS A TON for the wikified sources and the translated biography! :D I've saved them to my own PC, thank you so much, it musta been quite a hassle to find one's way through the mess left behind by Squeak, Pol, and Jack! All I'd need now would be the draft article which used to be on this private userspace sub-page, and we're done. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested about this. Obviously people are not taking you seriously, nor the several policies I've outlined to them. I have never "recreated deleted material", that sub-page existed long before the official article was even put up for AfD, the policy for speedy deletion explicitly states that sub-pages MUST NOT be speedy deleted due to an official article being "deleted via proposed deletion", and userpages are generally to be left alone unless their content has nothing to do with Wikipedia or contains personal attacks. User:JzG claims you re-created my German article and accuses 130 good editors and admins, you included, that wanted this article to stay in this and 15-20 other polls to delete/merge/redirect as "pro-pedophile activists" which would justify them even more in deleting my sub-page. And all that because two closing admins, AfD and Review, chose to ignore all known consensus policies and gave in to the flaming name-throwing contest thrown around by the delete voters. I wonder if there's anything like a WP:3RR for this stubborn harassment of private userpages by such an incorrigible conspiracy and vandalism cabal. Whatever, you're an admin and know better how to go after these incorrigible vandals, I'll go to sleep for now after having lasted through this for 12 hours in a row. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@pple, I saw your willingness to help and restore inappropriately-removed content at an ANI thread and hoped you may be able to take a look at a very similar issue curently at DRV. Simple story, a userspace page that had quotes and links was speedy-deleted even after one admin removed the speedy tag. The MfD ran less than half a day. It has been characterized as an attack page, but the page itself even gave policy references to discount that allegation and the page consisted virtually exclusively of quotes and links to said quotes. The majority of those "voting" for deletion have had to resort to name-calling and personal attacks in their crusade to get or keep the page deleted.

If you have a chance, can you take a look and go wherever you feel is right. (For that matter, restoring the original page would be nice too!) Thanks for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Hi VigilancePrime. My apology for not carrying out your request for help. I was really busy and when I come back, sadly, the DRV was closed following your withdrawal of nomination. Personally, I think the subpage by no means violates WP:LIBEL or fits WP:AP as it was deemed so, but whatever. Its existence, frankly, only embitters the inherently strained relationship between you and Squeakbox. However, if you still need the page for future reference, leave me a message and I will know what to do. Cheers. @pple complain 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @pple. The consensus in the MfD was to keep with the only dissent from the Squeak & Co. group... but I managed to solve the problem. I'll let you know if and when we need such assistance. I'm sure I won't be left alone for long, if history is any predictor. I appreciate your willingness to help and rational viewpoints on this and other matters. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Hey, It's me. If you have a moment could you check out this. I've uploaded a fair few images so it's probably a multiple-person job. Matthew (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple, please put this on hold and restore the deleted images - they have been deleted, restored, and now deleted again. These are not personal images, but captures from television series (for the most part). If it is just a question of creating fair use declarations, then that can be done. It makes no sense to remove them all as they are on hundreds of articles across the television project. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, many (many many) of those images are in use... what seems to have happened was that Majorly deleted them, then undeleted them upon request. The deletion, however, had already triggered ImageRemovalBot - which then tagged the affected articles. Some of the ImageRemovalBot edits were reverted in time, but many were not - which is why you thought they were not in use. (Basically, the whole thing is a mess, and many articles are now missing valid, useful images that they had only a short while ago. For one example, see Journeyman (TV series), which is now missing the title card from the infobox.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serebiidex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at the deleted article John Indian and if there is anything of substance there userifying it for me? [] is the article. Thanks for any assistance. Dureo (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thought that might be all, but just wanted to make sure. Dureo (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are revert warring. Three editors have a consensus that without the real-world materials, which you refuse to add, the Lucy Does a TV Commercial article should be a redirect. Please stop editing against consensus. If you want the article to stand as a true article, please invest the time to add the relevant materials. Otherwise, leave it a redirect, and wait for User:JavaTenor to edit in the information that he found. Revert warring like you are doing is also Pointy, and serves only to cause trouble. Either fix it or stop. You're no longer using the talk page, you're not trying to improve it, so quit being a dick about it. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy? Who is the real person trying to make a point here? Ridiculous! @pple complain 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is built from reasonable arguments. Taking advantage of majority vote to enforce assumed consensus is not the right method of reaching consensus. My endless effort of using the talk page was intentionally ignored by an interrupter who would rather focus on producing uncivil comments than truly help in consensus building. @pple complain 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comment on the protection page: WP:V, which states that articles cannot be based primarily on self-published sources. This article seems to have been built entirely by watching the episode and describing it, and not on reliable, third-party sources. Continually resurrecting articles like this is disruptive.Kww (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavarTenor is working on it. Read the talk page. @pple complain 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you ignored this part when you argue that there isn't a consensus for a redirect. Please spend your time and effort repairing articles instead of resurrecting faulty ones ... it will go a long way towards reducing the arguments.Kww (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why that comment constitutes consensus? @pple complain 14:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your only apparent ally. What editors do you believe supported keeping the article as opposed to a redirect? What policy arguments did they use to excuse the non-conformance with WP:V? I just don't see where you feel that your actions were justifiable. While we usually disagree, I'm usually at least able to see why you think you are right. This time, I'm at a loss.Kww (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@pple, I suggest you re-revert and read WP:EPISODE and WP:NN. Without critical information and things like director commentary, the pages should be redirected to the list. Please respond on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have read those guideline and policy even before you. Excessive redirection without consensus and more importantly you and TTN don't show any sign of willing to merge the content to the list is rather disruptive. @pple complain 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You took a while to respond. Those episode articles are just fanbunk. Why keep the page if it won't be improved? If you have indeed read the guidelines, then you wouldn't be blindly reverting. Can you undo yourself now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusively, see WP:ROLLBACK — the feature is only supposed to be used for undoing obvious vandalism, which I am not doing. I am following guideline protocol, consensus isn't necessary for cases like these. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive unthoughtful redirect by deleting the whole content without merging to the main list can be considered vandalism. "I am following guideline protocol", can you show me your "guideline protocol" that shows the unnecessity of consensus for cases like this? @pple complain 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism, you're edit warring because you want your crap. Like I just told you, the community does not have to be aware of something as simple as this. What part of the guidelines do you not seem to grasp? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put the word community here as the camouflage for wrongdoing. What do you mean by "you want your crap"? I never watch any episodes from Dexter or something. I just see how insanely you and TTN try to violate the stability of Wikipedia. @pple complain 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP abusing of rollback as if I am vandalising. This ability (as well your popups feature) could be taken off you just as easily as you revert my good faith edits. You still haven't answered my question. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of ignorant who provides the mere links to this guideline, that guideline but refuses to clarify how those guidelines are applied. How your "guideline protocol" be applicable in this case? Any answer? Moreover, from WP:VAND: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The only word used to describe your nonsensical deleting content from numerous articles by redirecting without retaining content in the targeted place is none other than "vandalism". @pple complain 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Must I ask again: did you see this section? There is nothing that implies consensus there. Now, are you convinced? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Does WP:NOT#DIRECT play any role in term of television episodes? The problem is not to what extent I feel convinced with your frivolous excuses for wrong action. Thing to be considered is your action (redirecting/deleting massive articles with no sign of merging or keeping original content) goes against the general spirit of Wikipedia and has no sound policy-based reason as an clarification. Blindly redirect (in fact delete all), even refuse to make any general discussion with other related-editors shows a poor collaborative effort and lack of good-faith editing. After discussing with you, it is me who have to ask as to if you really read the policy or just cite it out of vanity. Reread the very section you gave me: "To start this process, tag the article(s) with {{notability|episode}} on the page." Have you ever done the very first phase of the process? @pple complain 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - I've seen merge tags placed on articles which are worked on by several editors. For pages that look like crap, those should be deleted or redirected ASAP. Really, what's the point of having notability guidelines if we always need the community's approval? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of writing information in the 'pedia if you just redirect without discussion and preserve none of the content? Second-hand use of TTN's arguments won't make you right. He didn't preserve any content and you're just meatpuppeting for him, intentionally or not. For you I have the same advice. Want a merge? Make a decent page to merge to. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? Like I've already told someone else before, agreeing with someone doesn't make them meatpuppets. I don't know why people think that way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Agreeing does not make one a meatpuppet. Editing warring for the party, does, however, especially when you're well aware of the discussion taking place. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any discussion. Perhaps you can point it out? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen TTN's talk page, and the section you started is just below the conversation I'm having with him. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually noticed that after my banter with @pple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unindent. It's just more evidence for the ArbCom case. I think there's an WP:AN/I thread on TTN running too, though the archive bot might have got it by now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just read the conversation above. Although you're doing a great job of staying cool, there's one thing that you keep saying that will inflame the situation further; describing longstanding editor's edits as "vandalism". We should assume that the actions being taken are because the editor is acting in good faith. I do understand that this is something you feel strongly about but calling good faith edits "vandalism" assumes bad faith. Thanks. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see your point of how soft deleting myriad of articles non-consensually without retaining any original content is good-faith edits. @pple complain 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an editor doing what they think improves the encyclopedia. Other people use different practices to improve the 'pedia. Just because they differ from yours, doesn't make them wrong or you wrong. It's a case of having to agree to disagree. But it's not right to label the edit's of the side you disagree with, as vandalism. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		My RfA
		Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/02/04/episode-41-setting-the-record-straight/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.