Archives

Archive 1 / Archive 2

There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you have participated in this discussion [1]. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! No worries about letting these AfDs play out if that's how editors want to handle it. Thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but moving by copy and paste, as you did, is not proper - it destroys the page history. In order to move Everyday (video) back to Noah Kalina, an admin will have to do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who moved it in the first place, or why - moving it back requires admin powers (because deletion and undeletion is involved). That's the only way to preserve the page history. If you want it moved back to Noah Kalina you should go to requested moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the International Travels box. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to let you know that I withdrew my AfD nomination for 1100 Grand Concourse. I also wanted to take the opportunity to show my appreciation of your effort to save the article from deletion. Please accept this as a token of my admiration for your contribution to the AfD process:

		The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
		For your thoughtful and intelligent contributions to saving the article 1100 Grand Concourse from erasure in the AfD forums. Job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the excellent work! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments regarding keeping this article make sense. There isnt any reason for deletion. Note that the original user calling for the deletion (Beeblbrox) is aligned with Orladys argument re: attributing edits to a banned user for deletion. Neither user can give legitimate reason for the deletion based on content because they are wrong. So, [enter] > Orlady . . who illustrates a pattern of deleting perfectly valid, legitimate information after attributing the changes to one master banned user. Thanks. (just to state it for the record, I am not linked to this banned person in any way.)--StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to personally apologize to you for my snarky remarks on the talk page. They were unnecessary particularly for a productive editor such as yourself. You didn't deserve that kind of behavior and I'm sorry. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Edwards. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please note that there is an exception to the 3RR:

Addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

I will continue to exercise my option. You really should consider to attempt to gain page consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're 3RR "BLP exception" rule only applies when an actual BLP violation is occurring, which was not in this case. As you've put so much effort into removing allegations of this scandal and now consensus to include it is proven, please don't revert again. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely that the RfC is for community input, and I welcome that. But you presented one "side" of the argument and I presented my view of the other side. I don't intend to comment on other people's comments or anything like that and assumed you wouldn't either - but my experience with RfCs is that we can't expect editors to necessarily read the whole back and forth on the talk page. So I gave a short summary of the way I see it. Tvoz/talk 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things over at Talk:John Edwards got fairly heated, so it's not surprising to see a few tempers flare. Comments like this are inappropriate on an article talk page (especially one that just had a heated debate). They are unproductive and only serve to escalate an already unstable situation. Should you really want to discuss that sort of concern, it's appropriate on a user talk page. Don't chalk this up to retaliation because we don't see things eye to eye (I got onto people (who shared m viewpoint) in public when they tried to bait you in the same way). Regardless of our divergent viewpoints during the debate, I'm sure that your primary intent is to improve the encyclopedia, and I'm glad to have good editors (no matter if we agree or not). I just think it's more productive to stay focused.  ;-) Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the subject boxs collapsible, not to hide them, but instead to allow otehrs to read the past discussions if they aren't familiar with the back and forth, and then close them to continue discussion. I would appreciate it if you would respect that intent, and leave them be.

As well, your edit to Dumbledore's Army, Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, attempting to undo the merge using the very same methods which you are crying foul about is exceedingly poor form. If you feel the merger was done inappropriately, you should express your opinion in the same discussion you have already contributed to in the wikiproject. Reverting them, after the merge has already been performed is disruptive, and could be seen as edit-warring. I don't want to believe you are doing that, considering the quality of many of your other edits, but it is beginning to sound like sour grapes. Please use the discussion forum of the wikiproject to voice your concerns and argue to an undoing of the merge. This other way will only serve to reflect negatively upon you, and I don't want that to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performing major merges when there is No Consensus to do so is what is poor form. Accusing someone of having "sour grapes" on their talk page is also poor form. I won't preform 3RR as I hope you won't. --Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that falsely accusing me of WP:FORUMSHOP in the DRV talk page is also bad form and borderline WP:STALKING. --Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I happen to watchlist that page (the recent deletions of certain images have made that necessary), so maybe you might want to take a deep breath, a step back and do some serious rethinking before you reply. I am being polite, and if you wish to recevie a response from me in the future, you might wish to follow that example.

I submit that you are taking this all a little too personally. The very fact that you are considering 3RR an electric fence to avoid suggests to me that you are missing the point of 3RR; its to keep people talking in discussion, not trying to force a view that clearly isn't being accepted via edit summary. I am not going to violate 3RR,a nd I hope you don;t, either, as I would report you for it. You are coming dangerously close to it, and I would caution you to rethink your strategy there.

If you feel the consensus was not in favor of merging, you have a venue for expressing that: the HP wikiproject. Expressing it via revert or asking the other parent (ie forum-shopping at a place where you are experienced enough to know is the wrong venue for redress) is only going to foster some fairly negative opinions about you (trust me, I've been where you are at many times in my past), and build up some ill will in the ol' karmic bank. Stick to discussing hte matter in the HP wikiproject, and you might find that your statements might find some purchase there; playing the entire field is going to turn all opinions stony towards you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do a DRV, but wanted to make sure is was the correct forum to do so. You're confusing getting third parties involved in a dispute as "asking a parent". In fact, the two terms are contradictory to each other. When there is a dispute between a few users that is unresolved, there should be other parties not involved to have a look at what's going on. As for discussing this on the HP wikiproject, in fact it has been discussed there and that discussion resulted in No Consensus to merge the articles, however you and another user are ignoring consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I would ask you to not paint me with the same brush. I did not perform any merging whatsoever. I did not add any redirects. The only thing I did was to archive the discussion pages of both merged articles, so that new visitiors would not think the articles were still active. I would appreciate it that you be a little more careful before throwing around those accusations. Being upset is not an excuse for bad behavior, and if you continue, I will almost certainly ignore you. As well, I noted in my edit summary that I was going to continue the discussion with you on your discussion page. I have responded only here, and I would prefer if you would address my comments only here (or in the Wikiproject discussion). As I said, I am a neat freak, and it makes little sense to me to discuss a matter on two pages when it can be more understandable to do so on one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in that I used the wrong term "redirect". You moved, "ported" in your words, the merge discussion off the talk page to a Wikiproject page and only left a link to that page. That's not an "accusation", that's what you did. Per WP:MERGE, the merge discussions should be on the article's talk page, so some extraneous wikiproject talk page. That's why all the Merge templates redirect to the articles talk pages. You had a valid point to consolidate the discussions, but there is a specific template for that which in fact links to one article's talk page. If you prefer to ignore me, I won't have an issue with that. --Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine the discussion to the single venue - the Wikiproject discussion page - to argue for unmerging, please. As noted before, this affords us the opportunity to not duplicate our conversations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comments in the HP Wikiproject, you seem to be capable of making an argument or expressing dissent for an idea without attacking another editor. I would like to ask you - yet again - to exercise some restraint in your comments to and about me. Comments speaking as to "my planet" are pretty uncivil and, were this the first time it occurred, I would be inclined to let it pass. As it is not, I am extending to you an official warning to keep it civil. This doesn't need to escalate, but any more uncivil comments from you will make that inevitable. I beg you not to question my resolve in this regard. In the future, please be polite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new thread on your talk page in response to this and your personal attacks. --Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you will note that the sour grapes comments and similar comments haven't recurred, unlike your comments, which have been fairly unremitting. Even if they had not, it doesn't present a justification to respond in kind. Please cease the uncivil language, and show some more good faith, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]