User talk:PMDrive1061/Archive1: Difference between revisions

You're welcome to leave a message, but I'm not likely to get it right away. Please add new content to the bottom. Thanks!

Hi Ralph. Nice to see you've still got a finger in the pie here. I think that Veropedia might work out rather well for you. You contributed a lot of high-quality content here over the years, and I can understand the disappointment you must feel seeing articles deteriorate without constant input (or simply becoming victim to the ever-increasing but inconsistently applied Wikipedia standards). The idea of Veropedia appeals to me too, although I am too busy to join that project at the moment.-gadfium 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember not to bite the newcomers as you did on User talk:Rach6892. You warned them as if they were a blatant vandal. A welcome template and a notice to do test edits in the sandbox would have been much more appropriate. Mr.Z-man 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMDrive1061,

So by some amazing coincidence, I was reading through User:Ginkgo100's short essay on speedy deletions, which has a great section on A1, and just decided to pop over to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to take a look-see. I then clicked on the article above and noticed it was improperly tagged with that very criteria, so I removed the notice per WP:CSD and came over here to pass on the handy link. Enjoy! --jonny-mt 08:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I'm not sure that an unsourced statement of being "on the National Registry of Historic Places" is a claim to importance. No source, no context, no contest. Then again I'm very liberal with my interpretations of certain policies. I too have a section on speedy deletions. While it didn't fall under A1 wholly, it fell under it enough in my view that I would have deleted it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Image:Pasoalogo.jpg. The reason is:

unused images only speedy-deletable if under a non-free license

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image, it was uploaded solely for use in an advert article, it's been orphaned for a while now, and Wikipedia is not here to host images that serve no purpose, be it article or personal use. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your name pop up in the RC page. Glad to see that you're back, of sorts. I did get your last message that you left me, but I didn't reply back as I thought you had left. Anyways, I'm glad that you were able to take care of that cactus incident and are still around somewhere. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article may just be a sentence, but it does have clear context, so doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, which says "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." It's very easy to identify the subject of this one. If you really think it should be deleted you should take it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my edits put you off. No one will prevent you from expanding on the article, it was not tagged for deletion, just for improvement. I tagged it with as needed more citations because at the time there was only one source which I assume is managed by him. Articles need multiple sources that are not involved with the subject to be verifiable. And while he certainly sounds notable, Wikipedia's guidelines for notability require coverage in secondary sources which weren't present (similar to the first issue). If you want to avoid people tagging your articles you may want to try creating them on a subpage of your userpage, or use construction templates. Sorry again -- pb30<talk> 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to thank you for adding the under construction template to my page. It could've been deleted! :( You're really nice! Thanks, once again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful-Nightlife (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't tell him this, of course, but he's only been blocked for 24 hours. I think some of the admins are a bit uneasy about indefinite blocks on the first instance since there's a case pending in arbitration about an admin who abused an indefinite block. At least he's gone for now, though. ;) Redfarmer (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that was a very funny block notice. Never seen anything like that, but I hope to see more similar notices. A cookie for you for a funny block notice. DodgerOfZion (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "warm" welcome. I created the pages about the Bosnia and Herzegovina and San Marino passports, because my goal is to have a passport page done for all European countries. At this point, we don't have much info, but once the article is created, I think the Wikipedia community will gladly contribute and fill it with valuable info bit by bit. Please don't delete it or revert it! San Marino may be a small country, but they deserve the right to have a page written about their passport. Thank you for your understanding, (Einstein00 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your help. Have a good one! (Einstein00 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

np. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you tag an article as a copyvio, you need to specify the source, otherwise your claim cannot be regarded as valid. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the Wikipedia Blocking policy and cannot figure out what content you might be referring to. My only submissions have been good faithed attempts to add what I believe to be appropriate content.
You also comment that "this guy had a lot of previous deletions" and that I should know better. Do you have me confused with someone else? I only began working on Wikipedia this week and have only submitted two items. Please explain. - Operknockity (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is a reason I don't appreciate your actions. NOT friends. Goodbye.