| Revision as of 04:59, 8 December 2009 editPcap (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,285 edits →Articles for deletion nomination of Common conception: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:22, 11 December 2009 edit undoCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,558 edits offer to helpNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| You added a wikilink to a section title . Please be more careful and keep up the good work. - ] <small>(])</small> 10:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | You added a wikilink to a section title . Please be more careful and keep up the good work. - ] <small>(])</small> 10:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for pointing that out. Be well, ] (]) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | :Thank you for pointing that out. Be well, ] (]) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Offer== | |||
| No news to you that there is discomfort among mathematical logicians at some of your edits. I wonder, though, if you might accept my good offices in getting a better understanding. I am the originator of at least a couple of articles, ] and ], that have come up on your radar. ] (]) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:22, 11 December 2009
- Current time: Wednesday, January 22, 2025, 16:47 (UTC)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Proposed deletion of Common conception
The article Common conception has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Mere definition of a transparent juxtaposition of two English words. No possibility of expansion into an encyclopedic article.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Articles for deletion nomination of Common conception
I have nominated Common conception, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common conception. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should try to improve that article if you want it to be kept. Pcap ping 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
AWB
When using AWB, please look at the edits before accepting the changes. In edits like this, this, and this, you changed titles that should not have been changed. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /contribs 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. I am being mindful to avoid titles and quotes, but I missed those two. I'll review those. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
I see you have a lot of articles which have been put up for deletion. I am really sorry to see that. Our wikiproject helps rescue worthy articles.
 You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|---|
Wikilinks in section titles
You added a wikilink to a section title here. Please be more careful and keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Offer
No news to you that there is discomfort among mathematical logicians at some of your edits. I wonder, though, if you might accept my good offices in getting a better understanding. I am the originator of at least a couple of articles, topical logic and Ramism, that have come up on your radar. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)