| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Hello. Dont you think it would have been better to have created the above category and fitted it into the tree of similar named categories for each year, some of which exist and some do not, rather than simply deleting the red link which calls for the category? Sandpiper (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- possibly. I usually remove them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So i see. Does that mean you think they should not exist? Clearly other editors are trying to create this categorizing system, but by removing such red links as they become appropriate, you are frustrating their work. Red links encourage people to make the necessary connections.Sandpiper (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You dont know? But yet you choose to intervene? doesnt that veer just a touch towards vandalism? Sandpiper (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you done with your rants now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No we are not. Either you think these red links were to unjustified pages or you do not. You deleted them, which implies you have a view, but now you can't be arsed to even say whether you do or dont. Youve been here for 3 years and clocked up 35,000 edits with some 5,000 deleted. You appear to take an interest in vandalism, but here you are, working against the encyclopedia.
- I didnt have a view myself on the categories. I just instated them because similar items existed on the parent page from which I was creating the new article. By deleting them you have taken a stance that you believe they should not exist. I posted a sarky comment here because you deserved it. The general scheme for these categories is plainly significantly developed although I have no particular interest in developing it myself. Obviously someone has, so I went along with it. I might or might not have done something more about them in due course, but you intervened and deleted them. As a responsible editor who has taken a position you have a duty in good faith to explain what that is and why.Sandpiper (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
If you don't mind can you petrol my new article B K R College of Engineering and Technology. Ramesh Ramaiah talk 03:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Looks OK at first glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Seb az86556. Ramesh Ramaiah talk 03:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for acknowledging my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshortey (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reson of placing spped deletion ? --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't copy-paste from other websites. When I tagged it it was an exact duplicate of some other wiki. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am editing this page so please remove the TAG. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the copyvio is still in the history, so the page has to go. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't that be removed ? it should be --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicosia: Hi. I agree that your edit was better. So I will join if there is a discussion at the article's talk page. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a comment for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ghanaian, MarkMysoe (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
