User talk:Dru of Id/Archives/2012/July

Restoration of Article Zeta Delta Xi

Thank you for your response at the Help page. I was not at all eager to submit a second post, as it was essentially an acknowledgement that the first was tl;dr.

You are kind to take time to indulge my manifest clueless-ness, and I will follow your recommendation to pursue Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I also appreciate your identification of specific shortcomings that need to be addressed if the article is to avoid eventual deletion under other established criteria. Assuming access to the article is restored, will a time limit be imposed on those Wikipedians with an interest in addressing its problems? -- Patronanejo (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Enlightening Guidance

Lighthouse

You're right, this does seem like an awful lot of work for an article I never edited...about an organization to which I have no connection. That makes your willingness to guide a n00b all the more remarkable, as you are another level removed from whatever it is I've gotten myself into. Failing to see it through is now out of the question, lest I allow your thoroughgoing responsiveness to go to waste. The first thing I did upon following the link you provided was to read the page. Because the admin subjected the article to speedy deletion, the appropriate reversal process turns out to be Wikipedia:Deletion review--after asking the deleting admin to reconsider, of course. Patronanejo (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Zeta Delta Xi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zeta Delta Xi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
This is only a progress update. The above text is auto-generated by a template that is supposed to be placed on the deleting admin's talk page when you submit a request for WP:Deletion_review. You have provided more than your share of support! No request for advocacy is intended or extended. -- Patronanejo (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

John H. Tippets, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Athleek123 21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Help

{{admin help}} John H. Tippets, which I created in my sandbox, has the sandbox's prior history; edits prior to 3 July contain personal data. Dru of Id (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have deleted it and restored only July 3 and later revisions. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Defective application of administrative guidelines reversed

Thank you for your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where a significant defect in the application of CSD has been successfully reversed.. Your diligence was fundamental to the rescue of an improperly-deleted article.

The article now carries the appropriate tag

giving interested parties the requisite time and -access to bring it into compliance with relevant guidelines.

Your contribution is mentioned in this entry thanking the deleting admin for his involvement. -- Patronanejo (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it simply automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. You seem to have a solid grasp of our notability, verifiability, copyright, and biography of living persons policies. I came to this conclusion after coming across one of your congressional articles, and taking a deeper look, and I couldn't help noticing that you've got more on the way. Nice work. If for any reason you'd prefer not to be flagged this way, please let me know and I'll gladly hit "undo." Happy editing! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Idaho

Excellent news - the dearth of decent coverage of state legislators on here is a personal bugbear. One which I sadly do not have the time to sort out as much as I'd like. That may be why they ping on my radar a bit more than other articles.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for helping new users. Also, congratulations on auto patrolled. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Selena Gomez is in a relationship with Justin Bieber.

"Not done and not likely to be done Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People often date many people over the course of their lives. Living people's dating is normally only included when it leads to a long-term engagement, wedding, or children.

That's not the slightest bit true, and we write about the relationships of living people all the time, and it's most certainly encyclopedic. Is it too much to ask you not to make stuff up? Dating doesn't have to lead to an engagement, wedding, or children for us to discuss it, and that's a biased, culture-bound opinion that isn't reflected by our articles. Men and women can have important, encyclopedic relationships (such as Gomez and Bieber) without engagement, marriage, or offspring. Your personal bias is showing. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fundageek

Greetings Dru of Id,
Congratulations and thanks for helping at User talk:Ddgutierrez314 over possible COI at Fundageek as per your very detailed reply here. You appear to have a much greater understanding of WP policy than I do. - 220 of ^Borg 03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)