I am currently busy in real life, so I am not taking on anything new at the moment. I'll deal with messages left here but please be aware that it may take me a while. I will reply here; possibly with a notice on your talk page to let you know, if a reply is needed.

Hello! Welcome to my talk page, feel free to leave a message for me at the bottom of this page, using a new heading for new topics. Please try and use descriptive headers, as it helps with my archiving (I reserve the right to change the header for this purpose).

Useful links (either for you or myself): Old userpage | Block log (Blocked) | Deletion log | Protection log | RFA voting rationale | RFA reviews subpage | To-do

• Full archive index of old conversations. If you wish to re-start any conversation from in here please start a new heading on this page.
• Quick links: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

You recently closed the deletion debate on the Pub standards article that I have written, without any reference to what WP policy this article was breaking, in fact, in The Debate the Delete camp provided no reference to Wikipedia policy as to why this article should be deleted, but the Keep camp (none of whom I know personally) was able to provide links to WP policy that reinforced the argument for keeping the article. I realise the article needed a bit of work on citing references/sources, but many Wikipedia articles do, and I was busy sourcing a more important WP article I wrote at about the same time, Tabubil, and could not focus on this one just yet. If the delete is reverted, the article can be brought up to scratch, otherwise, rewriting this article is going to take a lot of time that would have been better spent on improving other articles/projects/templates I am currently working on. Aliasd 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those suggesting delete said, correctly, that the article did not provide secondary sources. They linked to relevant guidelines to show what was required. If you can provide Reliable sources then I'd be quite happy to restore the article and either re-list or start a new afd debate (depending on how substantially changed the article was). If you wish a copy of the article restored into your userspace I'd also be happy to do that. Petros471 16:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to work on the article from my userspace, thankyou. Aliasd 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aliasd/Pub Standards. Cheers, Petros471

Thanks for doing this so quickly. I will repost the article when it is properly sourced. Aliasd 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clean up - which was suggested - would have dealt with the lack of sources. It's not like there aren't many other pages with the same issue that await clean up. Sounds like you had a personal beef here. That undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. 84.70.25.207 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing personal. That's all I have to say, as I think the rest has been amply addressed above. Petros471 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pub Standards. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 84.70.25.207 10:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page deleted? It was clear from the page itself, as well as the comments that the subject was notable- or was there another reason? Dewarw 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My job in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wilderspin was to determine consensus, taking into account the strength of arguments and the possibility that opinions from unregistered (or new) users might be less reliable and/or aware of Wikipedia's policies. I read and took into account what everyone said, and decided the consensus was to delete. Whilst I think the decision was very much borderline, and it is quite possible another admin would have closed it differently, I stand by my closure for now. If you wish to dispute it feel free to raise a deletion review, I have no objections to one being opened on this, but please let me know if you decide to. Petros471 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Wilderspin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.. Thanks. have re-opened debate. Please consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dewarw (talk • contribs).

It looks like the DRV is going the way you wanted. Might as well see it continue to normal conclusion, which may well be the right one :) Petros471 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rugrats.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply on Talk:Rugrats) In this edit quite a lot of text, and an image was removed. Could someone who's more familiar with this article decide if it should go back? I only discovered this because a bot told me the image was now orphaned fair use as I reverted the image when it was vandalised over a year ago. Petros471 08:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]