|
User talk:Decltype/Archive 6
about Removed speedy deletion tag: Kord romanian bandI have the same opinion as you, about Kord (band). I think it has credible claim of significance (charting single) and more others notable reliances, like one of the Kord members was a member in a band of a notable artist named Nicola, but i've noticed that someone put again the speedy deletion tag. Maybe you can help me to remove again that tag, because i'm a begginer in Wikipedia editing and i don't know how to do that. thanks a lot.Lukasandi (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC) note:corrected link decltype (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Tomas Alfredson
Royalbroil 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Sv:Låt den rätte...Hi! Sure, I don't mind at all. I guess it's convevient if everything is in the same format, so I'll adjust to that if I find anything more to add. Thanks for all the great work you have done on the article! Smetanahue (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
|
|
On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Only Clouds Move the Stars, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
|
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
| For your much-needed assistance with the copyright backlog at WP:SCV. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
- And also for indicating that you will look in on it in the future. I agree that it's very important, and your input is very much appreciated. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I will try to help out whenever I can. I am actually a bit disappointed to see that some of those seem to have eluded new page patrol. Thank you so much for the star! Regards, decltype (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Double Listing at AIV
My apologies for double listing that user at AIV, I've had a really long week and am not entirely awake (the fact that it's 2:30am doesn't help either) so I'm going to admit my mistake, ask for your forgiveness for the double listing and wish you an enjoyable day! Frmatt (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't see that as something that requires forgiveness at all. Thanks for helping out. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Found a nice surprise on my account when I logged on today. I appreciate the faith you've shown in me. Happy Editing!! Frmatt (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
quick note
File:2nd spirit in the dark album cover.jpg might need the same treatment. I'd tag it myself and save you the trouble, but I have to run, and I'm unfamiliar enough with how CSD is done with images to be sure I'd do it right if I do it quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the notification. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me dump the grunt work on you. I think I've now educated myself enough that I could {{di-no source}} an image successfully now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, no problem. I too find the image deletion stuff rather complicated. decltype (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)¤re Floquenbeam
- Thanks for letting me dump the grunt work on you. I think I've now educated myself enough that I could {{di-no source}} an image successfully now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Orginal Research of Docklands Light Railway rolling stock
Can you find the orginal researches of Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. Can you also find some info regarding the max speed of the rolling stock as I'm having hard time pinning down that information. A passanger service agent told me the max speed of the DLR rolling stock is 100 km per hour and the fastest speed traveled is 80 km per hour. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, what you just said there is a prime example of OR. In many of the articles I have worked on, I have had the same problem, namely that I know a lot more than what is actually published, but have kept it out of the article because there are no sources to back it up.
- I assume that most of the stuff in the article came from the sources, but since almost everything is uncited it is very hard to figure out what actually constitutes OR. I don't think you really want me to remove all the uncited information, because that would be everything in the P86/P89 rolling stock section, and also the B90/B92/B2K rolling stock section. To fix that, every sentence needs to be examined and cited to one of the sources. There is no way around it. I have often found that this is more work than rewriting from scratch. Hope that helps, somehow. decltype (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiLove
Tyw7 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for being my friend! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! decltype (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing a filmology
THIS was very helpful, as I was afraid the rules had changes when I wasn't looking (chuckle). Point of fact is I look to other articles to see how its done before emulating. Having never before seen a filmography tagged as unsourced, I was worried. Thank you for explaining. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It would be a shame if the tremendous work you do with actor bios should be unecessarily encumbered by you feeling obligated to cite every single credit. Keep up the great work! decltype (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Your work to not only improve the project, but to also watch over those who require assistance is greatly appreciated. While the article 2009 Collier Township shooting may not have been an interest of yours, your willingness to assist shows that your actions exemplify what administrators should be doing here. Thank you for being "one of the best" — Ched : ? 08:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you Ched. I'm not sure what else to say. I really, really, appreciate it. decltype (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Notify
Julie’s Bicycle. ceranthor 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Just a reminder: G4 is for pages that were previously deleted through a deletion discussion. So if someone recreates a page which was speedily deleted or prodded, G4 can't be used. decltype (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in and restoring a useful version of the article with which we've both been concerned recently. If it's not clear, I should say that I entirely approve of everything you've done, and I'm grateful that you found a path that resulted in Wikipedia getting a useful article. You're also right to suppose that I wasn't as careful as I might have been about examining the history of the article in question; I'm afraid when I see a virulent attack page, my protective instincts kick in and I want it gone before someone starts a lawsuit. Like every time I make a mistake in Wikipedia's work (and I'd like to think they're not as frequent as the casual observer would suppose), I hope it's taught me a lesson. Thanks also for stepping in and dealing with a user on my behalf whose emotions appear to have been engaged to the detriment of polite exchange. If you have anything further with respect to this or any other matter, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. The reason I so quickly realized what had happened is that I made the exact same mistake myself, no more than a week after being promoted. Yes, I don't know if you've examined your own talk page's history, but what they wrote, and later redacted, was way out of line. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Jesuit High School (Portland, Oregon) page move
Hi there, I noticed you moved Jesuit from Portland to Beaverton. I believe that area is unincorporated Washington county and the ZIP code is assigned to Portland; moreover, the school lists its address as being in "beautiful Portland, Oregon" (http://www.jesuitportland.org/s/173/jesuit.aspx?sid=173&gid=1&pgid=989) and its URL even includes Portland. Curious about the reason for the move, and I do think this should be moved back to Portland. (Note: I am not affiliated with the school in any way, just want to get it in the right place.) Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the notification. The rationale given for the move was "per naming conventions, does need city (and state) if school not named after city, school actually located in Beaverton although it has Portland mailing address", and also a year-and-a half old post on the talk page, stating that "I know the address is Portland, but the school is physically within the city limits of Beaverton, so should we move this to the correct qualifier in the title?". Since there was no objections to that in 1.5 years the move seemed uncontroversial. I suggest you try to resurrect the discussion at the school's talk page before taking any further action. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I figured there was a rationale but I did not dig deep enough to find it. Thanks, I will pursue the course you suggest. --Esprqii (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
RfA !vote (Headbomb)
Continuing the discussion here so I don't get accused of badgering when all I want it to discuss and clarify.
I would have assumed that if my speedying-style was problematic, at least one admin (or editor) would have bothered to drop me a line in the last several months, or decline at-least one of my speedies. I would have loved to have fixed this issue 3 or 4 months ago, but one cannot fix what one is not aware of, nor can I time-travel. I've been made aware of it yesterday, and I've changed my speedy-style accordingly. See for example "{{db|Unlikely redirect, abbrevations are Eur. J. Pharmacol. or Eur J Pharmacol, not a hybrid Eur J Pharmacol.}}", compared to my previous style for this kind of speedy "{{db|Unlikely redirect}}".
A few months is a real long time to wait. Would Wikipedia really best be served by putting me "on hold" for something which will/would have no net effect at the end of the day? I mean, in the last several months, I don't recall any of my speedies being declined, and admins usually used the speedy template for the deletion logs. Suppose I had the tools during the last several months, the only difference today would be what names are written in the logs. The sentence (oppose vote) really doesn't seem to fit the crime, especially when the same crime has been perpetrated by current admins.
I don't really have anything else to say on the topic. Hopefully you're reconsider into a neutral, but if not, no hard feelings. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I find it a bit unfortunate that you haven't been "admonished" (for lack of a better word), for your speedy style. Different people have different approaches to deletion. In the case you mention above, I much prefer using a more specific tag, such as, {{db-redirtypo}} or {{db-r3}}. This also serves to ensure that the page is placed in the correct category. However, this is not the main problem, in my view.
- There is broad consensus that speedy deletion should only be performed when the page fits one of the intentionally narrow criteria for speedy deletion. The above clearly fits criterion R3, as a recently-created, implausible misnomer or typo. The examples I picked for my oppose are either cases where your taggings give arbitrary reasons for deletion which do not seem to fit any of the criteria, or are unnecessarily offensive. My advice is to make sure the page can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD, and preferably specify exactly which criterion you believe the article meets, by using the dedicated templates.
- My oppose was never intended as a "sentence" or some kind of punishment. It was based on an evaluation of the candidate's contributions up to the RfA, with a particular focus on the areas where the candidate intends to work. I genuinely believe that this is how most people assess candidates. Any candidate can say: "Okay, I can fix all of this, no reason to oppose anymore". I expect the candidate to have demonstrated that such issues have been corrected before an RfA. I understand that when the candidate truly believes their work has been good up until an RfA, such opposes may indeed seem "cruel and unusual". decltype (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence part is a metaphor, I know you've not meant it as punishment. I understand expecting a candidate to correct such behaviour before an RfA, but the candidate should at least have been aware of it. I'll present you a similar situation in my first RfA, where someone opposed on lack of summary edit. I said "alright, I'll fix that, no big deal", and my edit summary has been 100% ever since (with a few dozens of exceptions in the >20,000+ edits I made since then, when I simply forgot to enter one and the software didn't remind me that I failed to provide one). I've demonstrated that I'm both capable and willing to rectify problematic situations, and this seems no different than the last. I would understand an oppose if I didn't demonstrate that I'm both capable and willing to rectify this, but it seems very contrary to the spirit of AGF to oppose when I did demonstrate that my words are not empty promises combined with the fact that, at the end of the day, the actual impact of me getting/not getting the tools is a different name in the logs. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, sorry that I haven't responded until now. Your message seem to have appeared at the same time as another one, and I forgot to examine the history. I understand your frustration, and I deeply regret that you see my comments as failing to AGF. I have no doubts whatsoever about your willingness to improve, but the way the RfA process currently works, I strongly feel that a candidate must have demonstrated recent good work in their administrative areas of interest for me to be reassured that they will also do good after promotion. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
A question...
Might you consider granting me rollback rights? I believe it is a tool that would improve my work on the project. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk. decltype (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will use the tool with great care. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure you will! (snicker) decltype (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will use the tool with great care. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ratatouille_(film)
Yes, I forgot to preview the article and noticed the accidental changes right after saving. If you check the article history you'll see I fixed it one minute after you. But thanks anyway! Manfi 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Replying over at your place. decltype (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Might I ask you to think about doing a bit of scripting?
Hi there. I don't know how familiar you have become with the code of CSDHelper but I wonder if you could create a new feature for it (because Alex is on vacation). Since I do decline stuff fairly often, I would like to keep a record of declined deletions and I thought that CSDHelper could be used to maintain such a list (because it seems to be well able to edit articles using the AJAX stuff ;-)). I wonder whether you could think about creating a extension for it that updates a subpage in the declining admin's userspace (e.g. User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies) with the article name, tagger's name, criterion, decline reason and date/time. I don't think it should be that hard since all those things are determined by the script sooner or later anyway and as such, it would just mean writing those variables to another site (preferable into a sortable table). So, what do you think? Regards SoWhy 18:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I can give it a shot, but this definitely borders on the limit of my scripting ability. I can do some experimenting and see how it turns out. This will definitely be a good learning exercise for me, and I do wish to improve my JavaScript skills. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know how good your ability is but I figured if you understand JS, you could just copy+paste bits of Alex' code and adapt them to create the new feature from that. Anyway, thanks for giving it a shot, I expect nothing more. Please inform me if and when you were successful. :-) Regards SoWhy 07:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I haven't done any programming in JS, but the syntax is somewhat similar to that of C++, of which I am an (at least self-proclaimed) expert. It's ridiculous, really. I tried for almost an hour just to get it to write to another page. I've probably made a very silly mistake somewhere. decltype (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, I thought you had more JS-clue. Don't worry, if it's not easy, just don't do it. I asked you because I thought you were somewhat of an JS expert (since you made quite a few mods to other scripts) but if you are not, I don't want you to invest any disproportionate time into it. :-) I'll just bug Alex when he comes back. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, it should be easy, and I've finally gotten the basic functionality down, so it's just a matter of making usability adjustments from here. Sample output: User:Auto/csd. decltype (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice job. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action if (or rather when) you manage to do it :-) Regards SoWhy 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, it should be easy, and I've finally gotten the basic functionality down, so it's just a matter of making usability adjustments from here. Sample output: User:Auto/csd. decltype (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, I thought you had more JS-clue. Don't worry, if it's not easy, just don't do it. I asked you because I thought you were somewhat of an JS expert (since you made quite a few mods to other scripts) but if you are not, I don't want you to invest any disproportionate time into it. :-) I'll just bug Alex when he comes back. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I haven't done any programming in JS, but the syntax is somewhat similar to that of C++, of which I am an (at least self-proclaimed) expert. It's ridiculous, really. I tried for almost an hour just to get it to write to another page. I've probably made a very silly mistake somewhere. decltype (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know how good your ability is but I figured if you understand JS, you could just copy+paste bits of Alex' code and adapt them to create the new feature from that. Anyway, thanks for giving it a shot, I expect nothing more. Please inform me if and when you were successful. :-) Regards SoWhy 07:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
<-- Okay, I've been using it myself for a little while, and it seems to work well. It'd be great if you'd test it a bit too. You need to add the following to your monobook:
var declineLogPath = "User:Auto/csd"; // subpage that will hold the log. If it doesn't exist, it will be created
importScript('User:Auto/csd.js');
Currently a stand-alone version, but I predict it'll be fairly easy for Alex to incorporate it if he wants. decltype (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will add it and see whether it works for me (and tell you about how good and stuff^^). Regards SoWhy 13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see. I tried it on User:SoWhy/sandbox. The page I used to log it to does not exist (User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies). The script will show "Logging action to User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies" but does not make the edit after that (the decline part works). Regards SoWhy 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- When I created the page with random content (i.e. "Test" in this case), the script will continue normally but will not write to User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, so it didn't create the page after all. I had only proved it correct, not tried it :) I think I know why I didn't work correctly when the page only consisted of "test", and that is because it assumes the page is either empty, or contains the wikitable. Thus, I believe it should work properly now that I have blanked the page. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Works fine as far as I can see. Thanks for doing this, great job :-) Regards SoWhy 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, so it didn't create the page after all. I had only proved it correct, not tried it :) I think I know why I didn't work correctly when the page only consisted of "test", and that is because it assumes the page is either empty, or contains the wikitable. Thus, I believe it should work properly now that I have blanked the page. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- When I created the page with random content (i.e. "Test" in this case), the script will continue normally but will not write to User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see. I tried it on User:SoWhy/sandbox. The page I used to log it to does not exist (User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies). The script will show "Logging action to User:SoWhy/List of declined speedies" but does not make the edit after that (the decline part works). Regards SoWhy 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
<-- Glad you like it. Note that stylistic changes to the table should not break it. A known limitation (that you will probably soon discover) is that it won't log anything if it fails to determine the tagger, so no need to message me about that. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you created it. :-D Yeah, I guessed that part, the script has the same problem with notifying people it cannot determine. I don't think that's too harsh a problem to accept in order to have such a nice feature. So thanks again - if you need anything, just let me know. Regards SoWhy 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Credible assertions
Hi Decltype, Thank you for your note on declining the speedy on Miguel cagigas. Allow me to make a few comments which in no way are intended to be offensive. After reading your user page your written English is obviously excellent but I note that you are from Norway and I suspect that your native tongue is not English. Please let me know if this is a presumption. The reason I raise the question is because I think that we have different interpretations of the wording of A7 that may be related to the nuances of the language - particularly the colloquial Australian English that I speak. You will find some similar comments by another editor directed to User:SoWhy who is from Munich.
Firstly some facts about Miguel cagigas, from his presence on the WWW he certainly is not an actor and probably does not exist. As far as I can tell none of the movies exist. The article has no references. The single entry in the discussion page calls him an "upcoming" actor - "upcoming" in this sense is almost an antonym of "notable". It is quite possible that this may be some form of attack on him by a friend - although usually those pages make claims about the subject being a porn star.
No doubt you will argue that the purpose of A7 is to remove the most obviously non significant pages and that this should only apply to articles where there is no assertion of significance at all e.g. Sharon is awesomeeeeee!. Such pages need no research for the subject to be found not significant and in fact could be speedily deleted under any number of criteria.
However I think there is a counter argument to this point: 1. A7 says: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible."
My feeling is that if I write an article saying that "I am the reigning King of France" you would speedy it as being not credible because there is no reigning King of France but if I wrote an article saying "I am the pretender to the French throne" you would not speedy it because it is possible that I may have some claim to the throne.
The question comes down to the meaning of "credible" and my take of this is that it means probable rather than possible. Thus from my point of view unsupported claims that I am a member of the French Royal family are possible but improbable. Similarly claims of 19 yr olds having stellar acting careers in which they suddenly go from no acting career to star in 5 movies in 12 months are possible but they are improbable.
My other point on this is whether you would have speedied this on the grounds that it was a blatant hoax - in other words do you discriminate on the grounds of incorrect labeling?
Does this make any difference? I think it does. I could and probably eventually will send this to AfD, where I would be very surprised if it survived, but this allows the article 7 days of air. I think the success of the WP project in its present form depends on its "credibility" and I do not believe that allowing articles like this to exist is not helpful. I make these arguments with good faith and I would certainly appreciate your views. Cheers Porturology (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Porturology. First of all, allow me to say that I am not the least bit offended by your comments. I very much appreciate your sincerity.
- It is certainly true that my English does not even remotely resemble anything that could be reasonably mistaken for a native, or near-native level. I still feel that this usually manifests itself in my writing, and not so much in my understanding. Consider also the fact that I was an active participant in the discussion that led to the current wording of A7, just as you quoted it. I agree in general that the meaning of "credible" in this context is closer to probable rather than possible. That is, depending on its nature, the claim does not always need to be provably impossible to be deemed non-credible.
- As for your second point, I will generally honor speedy deletion requests where I find that the article meets a different criterion than the one it is tagged with. To be honest, it simply did not occur to me that the article in question could be a hoax. Upon further investigation, I agree with your assessment.
- In general, I also agree that allowing blatant hoaxes to remain unchallenged is unhelpful to the project (assuming you meant "helpful" rather than "not helpful"). I have therefore decided to honor this deletion request after all, and acknowledge the fact that I did not exercise due diligence to ascertain the validity of the article's claims. That said, even the slightest indication that any of the claims may have been true would likely have caused me to stick with my original decision. Again, thank you very much for voicing your concerns. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Decltype, Thanks for the response. I think our ideas on this are actually very much in accord. Cheers Porturology (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, decltype! I decided to PROD it because there is some non-infringing content on the page "worth" saving. Feel free to to delete it if I'm wrong, though. :) Theleftorium 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a matter of judgement. I too, am of the belief that stubbing is preferred to deletion. It should be okay now. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I kind of like looking at my old userpages. Unless I become an admintrator sometime, I won't be able to see them! :) Theleftorium 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Replying over there. decltype (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi decltype. International Fantasy Games Society was incorrectly moved to International Fantasy Gaming Society (copy/paste). Can you fix this? Thanks, Theleftorium 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so please let me know if I messed up. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Theleftorium 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)