| Revision as of 21:44, 8 February 2007 editNoclip (talk | contribs)1,158 editsm →[] DRV: clarify← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:32, 8 April 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,907 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=May 2010}} | |||
| <!--{{administrator}} | |||
| ]--> | |||
| <!--<small> ] • {{tl|ChristianityWikiProject}} • ]<br/> ] • </small>--> | |||
| I was also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects might be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. However, I am not now active on any project. ] I also signed up for single user login. | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''31''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''31''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |} | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-31 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:GRBerry/Archive 4--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <!--werdnabot-noarchive--> | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 3 | |||
| '''Email advice:''' When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". ] | |||
| |algo = old(31d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11 | |||
| }} | |||
| <!--'''Email advice:''' When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. ]--> | |||
| {{tocright}} | |||
| <small> | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| ''At this point I became an admin |
''At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bot in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.'' | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == re: ] == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Thanks for the notice. ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==Re: Saint Mary's DRV== | |||
| * ] | |||
| First, as I also posted on the DRV, you made the point that someone could still merge/redirect the article after the AfD was closed as a keep. In fact, this was attempted, but reverted soon after as failure to adhere to the closure. Second, you admit that the only point made by keep !voters was passage of WP:SCHOOL, which the article does not, so how can you urge to endorse the closure or endorse a no consensus when 1) there's a clear consensus, and 2) those going against the consensus do not provide sufficient reasoning for doing so? Cheers. -- ] 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''In Q4 2008 voluntarily resigned as an admin. I do not currently have access to the administrative tools and also am not actively editing nor do I intend to be actively editing again.'' | |||
| ::Also, as far as the first point, please note that, in my DRV nomination, I state "overturn and delete or redirect"; thus, I would support redirecting the page if this had been allowed by other users (which, clearly, it is not). -- ] 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </small> | |||
| ::: The delete arguments ''actually made'' in the AFD are not really any better, so I don't see the strength of arguments that you, and others, see. A bunch of NN per noms, one to WP:SCHOOLS3 which is also a proposal, and most validly some "no assertion of notability", with which the keep opiners differed. Nobody opining delete actually said "I can't find any sources and here is how I tried", so ] was not in play so far as I'm concerned. Had those arguments been made, we'd be evaluating a different discussion. But if all we see are "no it isn't", "yes it is", I can't use strength of arguments to evaluate the close. ] 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand your point regarding WP:V. Nobody really gave a good argument supporting verification nor supporting the lack thereof; thus, it's really impossible to judge the AfD on the basis of ''discussion''. Of course, I would then argue that the AfD closure should be analyzed based on head count, which, in my opinion, shows a consensus. 72.7% is in a slightly grey area, but I would argue that it's a strong enough consensus to overturn the AfD closure. | |||
| ::::I hope that you don't think that I'm attempting to badger you so as to change your !vote in the DRV. You, of course, are welcome to your own opinions, just as I am and everyone else is. I'd like it if you reevaluated your stance, but if you don't, it's all good. I will certainly respect your opinion either way. Have a nice day. -- ] 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==vote on deletion== | |||
| Hi GRBerry. If you have time please revisit ]. More information has been added to establish his notability. Thanks. ] 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank You!== | |||
| Thank you for helping me get started on wikipedia! | |||
| ] 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry. :( :( :( I'm leaving[REDACTED] for good, I'm having lots of trouble with other people. Sorry again. Goodbye. I'm the one who you helped by putting all that stuff on my page. Actually maybe I'll run for being an Admin. | |||
| :] 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of Guantanamo Bay detainees== | |||
| Thanks for the various heads-ups on the {afd}s on Guantanamo detainees. | |||
| I have been thinking, for some time, that ] should be rewritten, or replaced. Those goldarn Guantanamo intelligence analysts did such an abysmal job at managing the list of names of the captives.. | |||
| Anyhow, would you take a look at the first couple of hundred entries in | |||
| ]? | |||
| I am changing this file that I used to help manage my work on the Guantanamo articles. I think the current state of the first couple of hundred entries comes near the merge you thought was a good idea. I finished beginning to flesh out almost all the articles beyond the stubs generated by my python scripts. | |||
| Maybe a smarter person could figure out a way to automate changing these all the entries at once. This took a surprisingly long amount of time. | |||
| Cheers! -- ] 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded at ] | |||
| ::Thanks for your prompt attention. Cheers! -- ] 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-link deletion review == | |||
| You endorsed the "no consensus" ruling, and I have addressed this at ], where I invite you to take a second look. — ] ] — 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Title Change == | |||
| Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --] 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Here, == | |||
| You might need this: ] :) ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rec.sport.pro-wrestling == | |||
| You went against a clear consensus. I will be filing a deletion review. ] 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh boy, my first deletion review. ]. ] 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Straw poll== | |||
| Please take a look at ] to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. ] 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == friedman == | |||
| ok. didnt realize there was a previously a prod <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == Newyorkbrad's RfA == | |||
| Thank you for your support on ], which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, ] 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==research/support== | |||
| If you'd like to do a more elaborate sample of deletions, I'd be glad to help--design, collection, or analysis. I find I'm doing so much there that I might as well be systematic. (And I do know the applicable research methods if we really want to do it right, probably by content analysis). I think we see it similarly--I am there because of trying to help combat the injustices, tho I only really have time to work on the injustice to my segment of the world, university and science people. | |||
| I noticed your user p. disclaimers. I have exactly the opposite religious polarity to yours, and say it on mine but not nearly so well. I see things the same way & think I can constructively edit what I do not like. (I've been trying to rescue the page of a lithuanian fascist just now, from some who would rather call him names instead of presenting his views objectively--which would serve their purposes very well, if they could just understand that.) ''']''' 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoothbeats == | |||
| Thanks. Well. I am not bragging when I say this...really I'm not. :) But of the probably 1,000 deletes I've done, I think I've had 2 or 3 questioned. So this is new to me. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Newly-Qualified Teacher == | |||
| Thanks for re-directing this; stupid really - never crossed my mind to do it! ] 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| It's OK. I found the old version of it on a mirror site, so there was no need for me to ask for it to be replaced. I was going to rewrite or add to it if I could find sources, but I can't, so I'll just take the link out of ] instead. Thanks anyway – ] 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin Nomination == | |||
| So, it seems like a tight knit community. Thanks for the advice. And, can you explain your comment on my nomination? How can someone quote me Wkipedia usage policy on the one hand, than tell me that it is a concesus decision anyway? The two can be at odds at times. ] 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Concensus == | |||
| Thank you for taking the time. I'll do my research and stay on it.] 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Copy editing == | |||
| See my comment on my ], & further commentary on the rfa, and a strong support vote. Sorry, maybe village pump would have been better. What do you want me to do now? --] 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This is an older AfD so might have fallen of your radar. Please review ], I think the delete tag can come off. ] 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help over at ]== | |||
| Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per ], I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am ''not'' an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please ''don't'' come to me, but I'm sure that ] would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! ] 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Commons Voting== | |||
| I am user GRBerry on Commons. ] 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bay Ridge Christian College == | |||
| The revisions since you began creating this article afresh have been userfied at ]. If you can't find independent and reliable published sources in a reasonable amount of time, please tag it for speedy deletion under ] (with {{tl|db-repost}}) or ] (with {{tl|db-userreq}}). ] 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Thank you. ] 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AKN == | |||
| i left a comment on for your endorsement here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_30#Alpha_Kappa_Nu ] 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Aloka == | |||
| Thanks for the heads up. --] ] 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Marsden == | |||
| Hi GRB, I'm concerned about your decision in the Marsden deletion review. Most of the people who commented endorsed the deletion. There was no consensus to relist it, yet that's what you've done. In so doing, you've effectively changed the proportion of users needed to have it kept deleted i.e. you've undermined the deletion review process. My apologies if I have that wrong: I don't get involved in deletion issues much, so maybe this is the normal process, but it seems a little odd. Any clarification would be appreciated. | |||
| By the way, I deleted the new title, thinking that one of the sockpuppets had turned up to create it before the deletion review was over. It was only after I'd done it that I saw you'd closed it and redirected the title. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the old problems with DRV was that it was just a vote, from the days when AfD was still VfD. This got changed late last year. So DRV is now a consensus area, not a vote area. If you look at the timestamp on my struck out notes about closing in progress versus the timestamp on the final close, you can see I spent a lot of time determining the consensus here. (Yeah, I did spend some time talking with my wife, but 90% of that interval was spent on this close.) | |||
| :The standards (documented at ]) are fairly simple. 1) If there is consensus to keep it deleted, it stays deleted. 2) If there is consensus to undelete without listing at XfD, it is just undeleted. 3) If there is no consensus, it goes to XfD. Normally it would go exactly as it was immediately prior to deletion. | |||
| :About two or three hours into deciding how to close the DRV it was clear that there was no consensus on the main issue of whether or not to endorse the deletion. So the article was going to be undeleted a second time and listed at AFD a second time. But something didn't feel right about that answer, and I found that I couldn't swallow just doing that. So I thought about it some more, and analyzed from a different angle, looking for any consensus on minor issues and any ways off the wheel. | |||
| :That is when I realized that there was a very weak consensus that the article shouldn't be at the old title. While Thatcher131's proposal to just have the content be in the History of SFU article did not obtain consensus support (5 of 42 is anything but consensus, and that is all I found who clearly would support that outcome), some of those who thought the content should be restored did agree that the old title was not the right place for the content. That enabled me to find consensus for moving it to a better title. | |||
| :I tried to make clear that my particular choice of new title was editorial, rather than part of the close. It has been moved once since, and I agree that the new title is even better than the one I chose. | |||
| :The discussion also revealed that the encyclopedic notability of the controversy is not because it is an incident in RM's life, it is because it an incident in SFU's history, and ''may'' (this was demonstrably expected, but not demonstrably proven, see the new page's talk) have had a wider influence on other Universities policies and procedures for handling harassment claims. So I also editorially whacked back the article trying to get it refocused on those issues. That hatchet job was and is improvable, as I've already commented in the new AFD. I don't claim that this had demonstrated consensus support, and do say that the hatchet job was an editorial action instead of an administrative job. (Of course the ArbComm remedy encouraging admins to delete says that any editor can stub, and admins are also editors, so whacking biographical detail is supported by the ArbComm remedy.) | |||
| :I wielded the hatchet in an attempt to prevent this from going around the wheel a third time. (I do mean that in the sense which "wheel" is used in ], although as of my close no single admin had acted twice so we didn't yet have a war.) Guy had speedy deleted with an eye on the unclosed ArbComm case, it was brought to deletion review, overturned, sent to AFD (with a pointer at the case), the ArbComm case closed, and the AFD closed as keep. Then at the suggestion of a user (unfortunately later proven to be a sockpuppet of a user banned by the ArbComm case) you looked at the ArbComm case and speedy deleted it, starting the second trip around the wheel. Consensus to keep deleted was not mustered at deletion review, so it has gone back to AFD. Thus far the ] is a unanimous keep, which if it stays that way through the close will result in two complete spins of the wheel. | |||
| :I wish the discussion had endorsed DGG's suggestion for an RFC on how to handle this, but nobody seconded it. I believe that the lack of consensus at deletion review exists because there are two groups of editors approaching the question from two independent frames. One group believes this is an incident in RM's life, and thus that having an article on it constitutes undue weight given the low level of biographical sources available about her. One group believes that this incident is clearly notable in its own right without regard to any later notability of RM, and should be covered by us regardless of how the page started. Some went so far as to say that if we only have one article, it should not be the biographical entry on RM. I believe that a RFC, which has no deadline, or ordinary conversation on the article's talk page, is more likely to produce a reconciliation of these views and a true overall consensus, than either DRV or AFD is, because the latter pair are decision processes with deadlines. | |||
| :Normally, in the case of an article with a prior keep AFD that is later speedily deleted, the discussion at DRV depends on whether or not to relist the article at AFD, with overturning the speedy deletion a foregone conclusion. The normal exception to that standard outcome is when policy has clearly changed subsequently. In my eyes, reading the timestamps on the proposed decision page of the ArbComm case, it was clear during the original AFD that the ArbComm remedy was going to exist as it does now. The case was mentioned in the AFD, and the case closed before the AFD, so we really can't say the remedy from the case is a policy change since the AFD (and ArbComm would probably disagree if we said that they had set "policy" in its usual meaning.) This situation did influence the outcome; since it is mentioned in some of the opinions it presumably influenced them, and it definitely influenced the close. | |||
| :I think we need to look for creative ways to get off the wheel. I couldn't accept myself the standard no consensus close action of relisting without changing the article because doing that would just be spinning the wheel another third of the cycle, but could close as I did because I think it may be a path off the wheel. An obvious pair of other ways to get off the wheel is if the new AFD finds a consensus to delete or merge the content. Given time and people who are looking for new options, we should eventually find a way off the wheel that we can all live with. ] 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your long explanation, GRB. When you say deletion review got changed late last year, was it changed with full consensus? The change looks to me as though it's going to cause things to go bouncing back and forth between review and AfD. The bottom line for me is that there was no consensus to undelete, and yet you did. You then proceeded to edit the article. I completely accept that you acted in good faith, but can you see why it looks problematic? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It has consensus primarily by lots of people not disagreeing, rather than by discussion. At the time the change was made, the regular closer of deletion reviews didn't even bother to comment in the discussion. It wasn't a major topic of conversation, so I've reconstructed the history from what I can find in the obvious talk pages. I think ] was the discussion that kicked off changing the documentation, and the immediately followin section is semi-related. The discussion was advertised at ], see for evidence thereof. The instructions for deletion review were changed at that time, and nobody objected. Here is wherein ] changed the deletion review mechanics instructions. That change was left untouched, that page wasn't edited at all for more than three weeks thereafter, and using consensus has not been challenged previously to the best of my knowledge. That we were working by consensus was noted (by me) on the talk page in mid October, see ]. The ] was updated to state that consensus was used on November 3rd, a month and a half after nobody objected at deletion review; here is . That pending change had been mentioned on the undeletion policy's talk page about a week earlier, see ]. | |||
| :::We certainly haven't seen a lot of pages bouncing back and forth between AFD and DRV yet. To the extent statistics are available, see ]. A finding was that as of mid-late January, well after any immediate AFD would have closed, only about 20% of December's overturns were redlinks or protected deleted pages. (Though I did caveat that I didn't test for redirects, which would show as blue links.) I think a lot of the reason for the lack of bouncing is the bias of the deletion review regulars - most of us have a bias is to endorse the last community decision, so if there has been a prior AFD, the bias is for however that AFD was closed. (Even badlydrawnjeff, whose bias is always to include, is more likely to skip opining when there is a delete AFD close than when something is speedy deleted, so while he can't be said to have a bias to endorse deletion closures, he effectively biases the group towards endorsing them by his choice of when to opine.) This is also evidenced by the fact that only about 1/3 of non-prod cases brought to deletion review get undeleted by deletion review (undeletion by the deleting admin is excluded from that fraction.) | |||
| :::There is a better case could be made that I should have let the discussion run for 10 days, as we haven't yet updated the Undeletion Policy to reflect current deletion review practice. On the other hand, would there have been consensus after five more days, or just more pile on opinions? See ], where as part of a format switch I objected to cutting the standard practice down to five days, and was convinced/reminded that we'd actually been closing faster for a good while. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else choose to implement my suggestion to update the undeletion policy to reflect current practice. Also see which happened while I was closing. trialsanderrors is now the standard/default DRV closer, so he knows current practice as well as anyone. | |||
| :::As to not having a consensus to undelete, I quote the undeletion policy "If there is no consensus, it should be relisted on the relevant deletion process." With no consensus either way, undeleting and sending to AFD is the proper action under that policy. The extra steps of renaming and cutting back the content were the unusual steps here. ] 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the renaming and cutting back the content were imaginative, and I favor imaginative approaches, so you have my support there; thank you for thinking of it. It's the change to deletion review that I find odd. With AfD, there has to be a consensus to delete, but the whole point of deletion review was that the balance was different and there had to be a consensus to undelete. That two-fold approach kept things in check, so that they didn't go back and forth too much. I'll look more carefully later at the sequence of events you describe above. Thank you for supplying such clear and complete explanations. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: GRBerry, I completely agree with SlimVirgin's first sentence. Those were excellent decisions. Your very hard work (I did notice how much time you spent on it, and was wondering if you were regretting signing up for it) and attention to detail have been spectacular. ] 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well if DRV changed to consensus it was done without consulting either ] or me, and we've done upwards of 95% of the closures at DRV for the last half year. As far as I'm concerned, deletion review is still the forum to gain cloture, i.e. to establish whether the need to discussion is exhausted. The "passed-down" procedure is that of qualified vote count, which works under the assumption that DRV is mostly a forum where policy is ''interpreted'' and not applied as at the XFD forums, and different interpretations are normally considered equally valid unless there is clear counterevidence of misapplication of policy or the comment is a simple AfD redux (or the voter doesn't have suffrage). I usually do it in a two-step procedure, by throwing out clearly unqualified opinions before counting and going through a more detailed analysis only if the result is close to a borderline between different decisions. In general, XFD discussions are chaired by the closer while in DRV discussion the closer acts mostly as a secretary. ~ ] 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy== | |||
| Yeah, the present version is more politically correct and less likely to offend anyone. Protect the innocent, protect the guilty. The curious reader can look at the historical pre-sanitized version as I did, or can Google for more info. But the older one was titillating, and if it included the picture and letters it would doubtless have been even more so. Best wishes. ] 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi there, just dropping a positive word of encouragement. And that I found how you restored and then deleted that page rather funny! But still, was a good way to handle it. Plus I'm impressed with the detail and extent to which you replied to ] on their talk page. Am pleased to see you around as an admin! Keep it up. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image:Aniger pda.jpg== | |||
| Nothing important just homework, but in any case I`m using already for that another one from Doctor Fungus so It`s just to see my pic back--] 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hey, I left one for you to close since I was involved in the discussion. Shouldn't be too hard to make the call... Take care, ] 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I opined also. <s>So, next admin along.</s> Actually, passed the buck to Radiant!. ] <s>13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)</s> 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oops. Didn't see that. Radiant! it is then. ~ ] 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for pointing that out. I missed the deletion review. I have restored the content! Thanks again. ] 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ;New sections belong at the bottom, not here. | |||
| == ] DRV == | |||
| ==Merger discussion for ]== | |||
| I'm not trying to revise policy at all, I merely noticed the template had been deleted and found that the discussion was old and perhaps the issue should be revisited. I was in no way involved in the original debate(s) and had not even heard of the template until today when I visited it out of curiosity. If this template is a violation of self-reference policy what is the rationale for keeping ]? ] 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] An article that you have been involved in editing—]—has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:32, 8 April 2022
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. GRBerry has not edited Misplaced Pages since May 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
I was also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects might be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. However, I am not now active on any project. GRBerry diffmeta diff I also signed up for single user login.
| This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
- Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
- Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
- Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006
At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bot in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.
- Archive 4: December 31, 2006 to January 27, 2007
- Archive 5: January 31, 2007 to May 31, 2007
- Archive 6: June 1, 2007 to September 1, 2007
- Archive 7: September 2, 2007 to October 29, 2007
- Archive 8: October 30, 2007 to December 31, 2007
- Archive 9: January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008
- Archive 10: April 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008
- Archive 11: September 1, 2008 to ongoing
In Q4 2008 voluntarily resigned as an admin. I do not currently have access to the administrative tools and also am not actively editing nor do I intend to be actively editing again.
- New sections belong at the bottom, not here.
Merger discussion for University of Windsor Students' Alliance
An article that you have been involved in editing—University of Windsor Students' Alliance—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)