| The following is a list of articles currently nominated for speedy deletion. |
| User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion |
| This is a transclusion of WP:AIV and WP:UAA. |
AIV editReports editBot-reported editUser-reported edit
UAA editBot-reported edit
User-reported edit
|
|
|---|
| This is a readout of various categories. |
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is a readout of the current RfAs. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is a transclusion of my talk page. | ||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland editAn Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Would Like to know why I have been blocked and if you can put Pablo Cook back up for me, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo cook (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Your note editPlease read the discussion threads here, including the quoted part from BLP. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR edit
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Rouge admin editYour page is in the deleted Category:Rouge admins due to including a userbox whose maintainer objects to the deletion of the category. Do you intend for your page to appear in this category? —Random832 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Riana's request for bureaucratship edit
Lauren Burk editI would like some rationale as to where you arrived at a "consensus" of delete for the Lauren Burk AfD. Your only comment, in closing the debate, was "The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point." There is no rationale given whatsoever. Nor, is there even a reiteration of -- or link to -- or quote of -- David Eppstein's "excellent point". One would have to scour the entire page to find the posting by David Eppstein buried somewhere in the middle of the debate. And, his post is simply: "Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." Fine, we realize that some editors (like David Eppstein) are not convinced of notability ... and that others are. Ya ... and ...? His "excellent point" merely states that he is not convinced of notability. This is the only rationale / explanation you have offered at arriving at a "consensus" of delete. Please advise. Please respond at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
Please resolve any issues with me humanely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.210.167 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I want to say, considering the duplicate votes and SPAs that the consensus was far closer to delete than the Carson afd. Closing it as such is understandable and commend you for boldly doing such considering how heated the argument was. I implore Joseph, Egras, or BB to create an article in a more appropriate context, like "Murder of..." or similar. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Spadaro's options edit
Norebo editHello! :) Late last year, Norebo was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday editI realize you're not happy with the blocks yesterday, but I think your strong language on ANI and MZMcBrides' talk page won't help anything. It might be better just to let the incidents pass without harping either on the blocked admins or the admins who blocked them. For what it's worth, AzaToth appeared to have good spirits about the block, and it was lifted very quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your actions yesterday editHello. AzaToth vandalized two MediaWiki: pages that affected the site interface for all users. While I appreciate humor and having a good time, doing so in the article namespace or the MediaWiki: namespace, is, for the most part, entirely unacceptable. It sets an incredibly bad example for non-admins and other users of the site. Do we really want a precedent that it's okay to vandalize on April 1? In addition, there are entire namespaces in which jokes are both allowed and even encouraged (Wikipedia: and User:). I fully supported David's blocks yesterday, and even left him a note saying so. What disappointed me more than anything was that two admins thought it prudent to simply wheel war because they didn't agree with David's actions. That's pretty unacceptable. Drini's blocks fall into the same category. As he pointed out yesterday, had people vandalized different parts of the site on December 28 (the Day of the Holy Innocents a.k.a. Fool's Day), they would have unquestionably been blocked and de-sysopped. What occurred at MediaWiki:Tagline was upsetting and disgraceful. To see admins edit warring over one of the most visible parts of the site (in shows up on almost every page and in printable versions) was, to me, unthinkable. I would fully support some of the admins who edit warred yesterday losing their sysop bits, with prejudice. As to AzaToth's block, in my mind, it is never necessary to warn admins to not vandalize. I blocked AzaToth to prevent further disruption of the site messages. Admins are users who have been trusted by the community to act responsibly with their extra tools. Intentionally disrupting the site isn't appropriate behavior for an admin. Ever. AzaToth's actions, whatever their intentions, were disruptive and unnecessary. Did the block serve to de-escalate? Perhaps. It certainly stopped AzaToth from disrupting any other site messages. But at the end of the day, blaming anyone other than AzaToth for his "sullied" block log is simply absurd. Actions have consequences; vandalism is not tolerated -- and that goes doubly for admins. If you have any further questions or need clarification, please let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy Adminship edit
Idontknow610TM 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks editThanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 2003 Fiesta Bowl editYou may want to revise the entry regarding "The Call". Upon reviewing the replay of the call you can clearly see the ball being tipped at the line by a Miami D-Lineman (#94, William Joseph), thus negating any pass interference that may have been called. Therefore the correct call would be a no-call. Also, if you use Dennis Dodd's column as a reference, you should also use Rick Reilly's "Fiesta Fiasco" as a counter reference. Link provided: http://cgi.cnnsi.com/inside_game/rick_reilly/news/2003/01/10/life_of_reilly/ I've never used Wikipedia so, I'm not sure how to do all this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.202.89 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First Edit editHappy First Edit Day edit
Idontknow610TM 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Stirring up trouble... editHave I ever done that? With the amount of volunteer work I do for the foundation and this project, I only ask in return, a little good faith. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
New WikiProject editA New WikiProject has been proposed as a sub-project of Medicine. Your opinion would be appreciated as you are listed as a "intrested User" on the Project page. Please take part in the discussion, located here. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Quit deleting Allison Stokke's page editYou're an asshole. Stop it. Unprotect the page and let someone give her an article. She deserves it. Bruce Springsteen editI just reverted this. I see you've blocked the editor for edits to Springsteen within the last fortnight. If you think it's warranted, would you take action again, please. David in DC (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Could you please explain more fully... editCould you please explain more fully your decision to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd) as delete? You stated that the closing admin is supposed to take into account a requests from the subjects of articles, who don't want to be covered on the wikipedia. I am aware of other deletion discussions were similar requests were noted -- and ignored. Surely such requests -- if properly authenticated -- should only be considered, when the case for keeping the article is otherwise marginal? You didn't state that you considered this was a marginal case. Is it really your position that this was a marginal case? Your closing statement did not point to the place where Mr Finkelstein made this request. I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere in the discussion. So, where is the statement? Can I ask how you determined that this request -- where ever you found it -- really was from the actual Seth Finkelstein? I am sorry to inform you -- if you weren't yet aware -- there are vandals who are prepared to subvert the wikipedia's standards. And some of these vandals are perfectly capable of pulling stunts like claiming the real Seth Finkelstein doesn't want to be covered by the wikipedia. In my opinion, if you were going to base your decision on this claim, you had a responsibility to lay out what steps you undertook to determine that the claim came from the real Seth Finkelstein. Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Goatse.cx editJust FYI, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the screenshot at the top of the article. There is already a link to a mirror of goatse.cx in external links, so why force readers to look at that? GSMR (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
pablo cook editim a recreating my fathers wikipedia page and when i started it said i should talk to you first because it will be similar to the page he had that you deleted. there were a few things on the page my father was not happy with but i think it is relevant that he has a page. anika jamieson-cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloanika (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Atassi et al. editHello, Sean. I'm writing an article on the non-encyclopedic uses of Wikipedia, and I stumbled upon the absolutely fascinating talk page for the Atassi family article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atassi), which I noticed you had moderated. I was wondering if you knew anything else about that dispute, or if you know of any similar "extra-encyclopedic" discussions, debates, and so forth on Wikipedia. Hmm, does Wikipedia have a way to message each other? Guess not. Feel free to drop me a line at digitalwriter@live.com or at my talk page (I don't know what the proper etiquette is about putting up e-mails on users' talk pages, if there is any). Thanks! Earksiinni (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC) This is Pablo Cook.could I get back on Wikipedia.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo cook (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I have quoted you at the Mediation Cabal
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Happy First Edit Day, Sean William, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) |
ArbCom elections are now open! edit
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Netsplit.JPG edit
The file File:Netsplit.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned, no obvious use, violation of that channel's prohibition on public logging
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This is a transclusion of the ArbCom open task template. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit]
Open cases [edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
No arbitrator motions are currently open. |
|
|---|
| This is a collection of useful templates. |
|
|---|
| This is a list of deletable PRODs. |
| Category:Expired proposed deletions |