| Revision as of 18:10, 15 May 2006 editHubHikari (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,043 edits →Re: Matt Pintar← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:15, 15 May 2006 edit undoMarkGallagher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,550 edits Al McKay and speedy deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| :::Good stuff. School's just about through (I was in last period this whole time) so I gotta jet, but I'll talk to you more in school tomorrow (I'm grounded at home DDD::). Seeya then, man. ] 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | :::Good stuff. School's just about through (I was in last period this whole time) so I gotta jet, but I'll talk to you more in school tomorrow (I'm grounded at home DDD::). Seeya then, man. ] 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] and speedy deletion == | |||
| G'day Yanksox, | |||
| please, ''please'' correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like you nominated our article on ] for speedy deletion, not because it needed to be deleted (it doesn't), but because ... you didn't think the article's creator should have removed the tag? The rule about not removing the speedy tag from your own article is to stop vanity authors, vandals, etc. from disrupting attempts to keep our encyclopaedia clean of filth — if it's placed on an article that is obviously not a speedy deletion candidate, then we don't care ''who'' removes it. I'm afraid I cannot conceive of what led you to assume it was proper to nominate an article you don't want deleted for speedy deletion simply to satisfy an obscure rule written on a template, but it's obvious that somewhere along the line you lost track of the reasoning behind the rule. | |||
| Please remember: rules don't exist for their own sake. We should not follow rules when they lead to obvious absurdities like this. Cheers, ] (]) 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:15, 15 May 2006
Re: Paul Pierce
Hi, just wondering why you reverted a perfectly legitimate page-edit that I made. (your edit)
Providing a wiki-link for Steve Hosey is valid, as he already has an article on the site, So with due respect, it was not useless, as you assert. Also take the time to read this article regarding preferred[REDACTED] guidelines on headings.
Please consider for future reference — thanks :), Downwards 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
RfA nomination
I am truly honored that you nominated me for adminship. I really didn't think my edits were really that notable, and I have some slight reservations (my only being here for 2 months, and my being rough around the edges still in some areas) but I'm willing to give it a shot and see what happens!
I have begun a draft of my acceptance. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if/how it could be improved? Here's the link
Thanks again!! --AbsolutDan 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I've been reviewing other RfA's for the last hour or so, and I feel I may have to respectfully decline your kind nomination. It looks like I may be just too green with only 2 months & 2500 edits or so, and I know the issues I raised in the nomination draft will be major sticking points for me. What do you think? --AbsolutDan 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- With my highest gratitude for your kind words, I will have to respectfully decline. Having slept on it, I'm now convinced I simply don't have a solid enough foundation to satisfy most RfA voters. Give me a few months to gain a more solid foothold and I'll be ready for another go at it though!.
- I'll be filling out the nomination appropriately in a couple hours (after Prison Break and 24 are over, of course!) If there is anything I can do now or in the future to help you out here (especially if you run into a serial vandal/spammer and need help cleaning up his/her mess), don't hesistate to let me know. Again, many thanks! --AbsolutDan 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't yet had experience with any RfA's, but I planned on closing it per whatever is normal procedure (which I intend to look up shortly), and if I am nominated again I imagine it would be a "second nomination". Would this be correct procedure? Thanks --AbsolutDan 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have added my declination to the RfA for posterity sake, and to put my appreciation for your nomination "on record." Again, please let me know if I can ever be of assistance.
- Take care,
- Dan
- --AbsolutDan 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:MikeLowell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MikeLowell.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Matt Pintar
Yanksox: Please refrain from posting deliberately inflammatory and/or nonsensical information within Misplaced Pages. If you would like to experiment, head on over to the sandbox and play around! Thanks, HubHikari 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies, Yanksox. I misread the history file. I'm trying to do good by Misplaced Pages, but...I'm human, and I make mistakes. So again, accept my apologies. HubHikari 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, you're right. End of May, baby! Then three months of absolute nothing! ...Course, then we've got college...D:
- I never said it was bad, but it's gonna be a real pain; classes, major studying, hardly any free time...true, it all depends on where you go...but still. HubHikari 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken. Personally, I'm edgy about the amount of work that's going to be dumped on my head when I enter college D: Say, where do you go to school?
- Good stuff. School's just about through (I was in last period this whole time) so I gotta jet, but I'll talk to you more in school tomorrow (I'm grounded at home DDD::). Seeya then, man. HubHikari 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Al McKay and speedy deletion
G'day Yanksox,
please, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like you nominated our article on Al McKay for speedy deletion, not because it needed to be deleted (it doesn't), but because ... you didn't think the article's creator should have removed the tag? The rule about not removing the speedy tag from your own article is to stop vanity authors, vandals, etc. from disrupting attempts to keep our encyclopaedia clean of filth — if it's placed on an article that is obviously not a speedy deletion candidate, then we don't care who removes it. I'm afraid I cannot conceive of what led you to assume it was proper to nominate an article you don't want deleted for speedy deletion simply to satisfy an obscure rule written on a template, but it's obvious that somewhere along the line you lost track of the reasoning behind the rule.
Please remember: rules don't exist for their own sake. We should not follow rules when they lead to obvious absurdities like this. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)