User talk:Exit2DOS2000

This is Exit2DOS2000's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

Archives

Archive 1

Thanks for editing the Thom S. Rainer entry in December. Sorry it took me so long to check it out. I noticed the banner that warns the entry reads too much like a resume. I edited this on March 18, shortening it and trying to make it read more encyclopedic. Please let me know if I need to do any further work. I noticed today the "resume" banner is still up. Assuming the article had been fixed, can you tell me how to get the banner to come down? Thanks for your help.

Robphillips7 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special about the person that removes that banner, you could do so if you feel the problem has been 'fixed'. I mearly put it there to draw attention to the problem that I felt existed at the time. By turning 'points' into 'prose' that problem has seemingly been corrected. From the sound of it, I guese you might be new(ish) to Wikipedia? You will find that (generally) we are a rather informal bunch, I myself would leave the book listing as a seperate section with the ISBN numbers, but thats just me. I would also suggest putting in some sort of inline citations to back up what the Article is saying about Thom. If you wish to use a helpful cheat tool to make the 'code', one is located here. Feel free to ask should you have any other questions. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. It's great to have your assistance. Robphillips7 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep this was a joke. Should I have cited your favorite local clause :-p TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed something over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9 - nobody is saying that the railway station isn't notable, it is. It has an article at Ealing Broadway station. The article at AFD (Ealing Broadway Platform 9) is purely for a single platform (out of the nine at the station). Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the arguments being used as reasons to !Vote delete, are faulty. IF a geographic location has can satisfy WP:V, why must it go? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was confused - the examples you gave were train stations, I guess they might have just had 1 or 2 platforms, but it was a discrete station never the less. In this case the individual platform isn't notable itself, there is perhaps a single sentence that can be said about it (re old style signs) but this is covered in the article about the station. Everything else comes under the spirit of WP:NOT along with many other policy and guidelines - this isn't a timetable, this isn't a reference for train buffs -- it's an encyclopaedia. What can be said about platform 9 at Ealing Broadway that cannot be covered at Ealing Broadway station? You can verify an amazing number of things - doesn't mean they are encyclopaedic. (seeing as this has expanded, I'll move the discussion back to the AFD - please reply there) Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is Amanda from the article Forensic Entomology: Stages of Decomposition. I was just wondering if you had any suggestions for where we should place our article, other than merging into the general decomposition page. We see this page moving in a direction that is more forensically geared, using decomposition factors as evidence in cases. Do you think purposing a merge into Forensic Entomology with our own section on Entomological evidence would be wise? Or, there is a page called Entomological Evidence Collecting. Another idea from someone else was to rename the page Forensic Entomological Decomposition. But, I can't see this title being that big of an improvement. Please let me know what you think. I do value your opinion. --Amandamartinez06 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its being worked on as I write this... Just crafting it as best I can ;) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from your remark on the AfD - "Well your wrong about "Individual railway platforms are never notable..., see Howard (CTA) and if that isnt small enough, how about Loyola (CTA)". The two you mention are actual stations. Even if this isn't what you meant, the fact that something is verifiable is not enough to Keep if notability is not proven. Black Kite 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 points in that reguard counter you thoughts. All the Hungarian towns I spoke about, none has any notion of WP:N .. and ... whats the difference between the notability-ness of "a 1 platform station" and "1 platform in a station" ... none. Your obviously misguided close shows you are not open to a change in consensus. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list is compiled every quarter based on the previous three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of users as well as page views. Please note that the rankings may be controversial but not the distribution stats for each domain. Updates are not hourly. The next list is likely to be updated on 1st July 2008. The list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.Anwar (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that although you say the article tries to keep out clandestine lodges, the article in fact says in the opener, "This is a general list of masonic Grand Lodges across the World, descending from the United Grand Lodge of England or not, "regular" or not." (my emphasis). So you might want to reconsider your vote if that is your basis for voting as such.

I also get the impression you think there is a standard list that all Lodges use, and this is not the case. For example, all fifty states in the US each have their own books, and they are not all the same - for a jurisdiction "A", it will recognize another jurisdiction "B". However, "B" may also recognize "C", "D" and "E" which A does not, and it's precisely that sort of reference usage I want to avoid. So sourcing has nothing to do with solving the problem of this particular list. Did you actually happen to scroll through the French article and see how big it is? It has 50 subsections (one of which is the US, so there's 50 entries in that one section) entries and isn't anywhere close to complete. MSJapan (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lawsuit was filed against the mall, and yes that does carry some weight, but it was just a blip in the mall's 20 year history. Tons of malls have been the case of lawsuits before, that one doesn't make Frenchtown Square Mall notable in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but in this instance it was Case Law, meaning it set the precedent that all others must follow. A first that makes it notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Exit2DOS2000. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Exit2DOS2000/RfA review, but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was just wondering what it was in the emergency service article that you thought wasn't international? I am also a little confused as you added the tag, along with SJA, which is an organisation with a very limited geographical range! I agree that a little more could be added, but a lot of it is covered by disaster relief etc. Thanks, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without references, it seems to be very American insofar as what falls into what group. In some countries, what is listed in the Civil emergency services section, would be a Core emergency services. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples? I grouped it, and i'm British! I can't see anything in civil which would class as a core emergency service. Certainly in the UK the government defines them in to 'Category 1' responders downwards, and whilst a couple of the 'secondary emergency services' (but none of the 'civil') are UK category 1 responders (Coastguard, notably), that doesn't hold true in other countries. I believe that only Police, Fire and Ambulance fall in to the true definition of core between different countries, which is why the other groups are there. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the wikiproject change. I am not in favor of it. Too bad it's already happened... it was a fairly dead project but it was well designed, and this won't improve those articles faster.

Isaac (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, -isation is the standard British usage, -ization is really quite rare and would be thought of as American. Note that this is one of the main differences between standard British English and OED English. I have to say too that I don't really buy the saint/street thing, if you don't mind I'd like to have a go at rewording that part? --Kwekubo (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I realize the "Dot or Not" wording was going to be played with, I don't mind at all. The S/Z thing I did more to have the Article become uniform, rather than use 2 different spellings several times each. It looked messy. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has contributed to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations), I would appreciate your views on this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#Using_an_Atlas_as_a_source_for_notability. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might like to reconsider your recommendation for GFDL reasons as explained on the page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments at Talk:Stupid Motorist Law, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts with regard to my proposal on the aforementioned Talk page, to expand the article's focus to include information on similar laws in other jurisdictions beyond Arizona. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. My thoughts were that a Disambig page would allow for easily directing readers to there local law, rather than wading through all the sections in a single Article to find their local law.

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this AfD, WP:ORG says: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." Yours, Huon (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the rest of that quote follows by saying.. "however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that part of WP:ORG, but I don't see its relevance here. Do you say that considering the audience is an arbitrary standard? Huon (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Excluding any news source simply based upon its location is an arbitrary standard. Shall we exclude all newspapers sources about a country if they are located within that country, no. The same reasoning applies.

Do you argue that The Fayetteville Observer is more than "local media" (possibly regional in scope), or do you argue that the quote I gave is contradicted by other parts of WP:ORG and should be ignored altogether? I'm not happy with the latter idea. Huon (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Take it as the latter. A RS is a RS, no matter where it is physically located.

Can I remind you of no personal attacks, please? Not a polite comment in the slightest. There was a pattern and other shows have been deleted for exactly that. You don't need to look up every ounce of information about a show. Because you don't agree, and haven't wirh me since the first article I nominated for deletion is not a reason to be rude. TravellingCari 02:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were nominated to be an admin because you showed you took due diligence in your tasks. In this case, you plainly stated that you did not. I am sorry of I pointed out the obvious. It was not ment personnaly, simply as I said, If Admins dont bother, why should anyone else. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to prove non-notability. It's perfectly acceptable when you realize articles fit a pattern of non-notability (which I still believe they do as the deletion of more than half of the creator's articles seem to indicate) as well as no evidence of reliable sourcing to bulk nominate. Would you suggest that every nom personally comb every paper to prove there's no evidence. Nowhere in that AfD did anyone find any notability because there isn't any. One tat was notable (and wasn't included because it wasn't in question) doesn't prove these all are notable. I'm more inclusive as an admin, but there are sentences (those aren't articles) that have no place here because they aren't notable. I take you at your word that it wasn't personal but it sure seemed it. TravellingCari 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:Articles for deletion/Jax Desmond Worldwide you wrote, "having not read any of the afore mentioned, does not make a persons opinion less valid." But actually, it does make the opinion less valid. Common sense dictates that deletion discussions that reference the policies that determine inclusion should be informed by such policies. Moreover, WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion points out that "participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy". You may think that the comment was "biting" but after the given lengthy explanations of why the article was nominated (with reasonably detailed references to the article and to policy), I don't think it's out of line to suggest that a commentator who has made numerous uninformed comments apprise him or herself of the policies. Bongomatic 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then do you believe that Wiki should have a cabal of editors and not respect the opinions of newbies? I dont feel that way, and I stated so. To me it does not matter how many words you may plonk into and AfD, Common sense is superior to any Guideline. I feel it is actually better to guide new people too the reading material rather than complain in AfD's about them not having read it, and stating that their opinion is useless because they havent read it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think newbies are entitled to their opinions, both on the merits of an article and on the wisdom and utilitiy of Wikipedia policies. However, I don't see anything controversial with the proposition that comments in AfD discussions are only validated (regardless of who offers them) by reference to the criteria used in closing deletion discussions. The comments don't lack validity because the the writer hasn't read the policies--they lack validity because the comments aren't consistent with the policies. Moreover, I strongly disagree with the imbedded assumption in your comment, namely that newbies, even if shown where to look (in the case of this AfD, both in the nomination and in several follow-up comments) are incapable of reading the policies or following wikilinks. Bongomatic 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...your name inspired my new signature. And Gurch already hates me for using a blink element :) neuro‗  20:41, December 10, 2008 (UTC) 

Aaaaand, I hate it already. I am so indecisive. :| — neuro^(talk) 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha good ... wp needs more colour, go for it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please be civil in edit summaries. I've been here for three years, I've been an admin for two, and I don't appreciate my edits which bring Wikipedia into line with its core policies as being described as "hack and slash" and reverted without even consulting me.

Had you asked, I would have told you that the edits I made left behind the only parts which could be validated as in any way likely, let alone true. A list of shopping centres of the same brand name in a different country is not a useful "See also" link, the history was not only pure cruft but had been taken from another article and hence was not the history for *this* centre, and sadly, Centro don't put up sufficient information on their website that one can look this stuff up to repair it. Finally, the category you restored didn't even make sense - a shopping mall cannot be a listed company on a stock exchange - its owner might, but the article isn't about its owner. Whenever users intentionally or unintentionally damage wide swathes of the site (especially low-visibility areas that are on few people's watchlists) with inappropriate editing, it's generally expected that it be fixed and not be left to rot, in order that Wikipedia's reputation not be brought into disrepute. If you can find a valid source of information about the centre and write a history section, however, feel free. Orderinchaos 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What you did was purely hack and slash. If you had doubt about its validity then use the {{fact}} template, or even the Talk page. But you did neither. You took it upon yourself to remove more than half the Article without asking, or requesting, any input from others. And I dont care if you are an Admin, or even how long you have been an Admin, Admins can be in the wrong too. Stating a Title as validation for doing such actions is even worse. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I did not state a title as validation. It was a statement of "I have been here for a while, I'm not a newbie who may be acting in bad faith." This was because you were treating me in bad faith, not for any other reason.

Secondly, as I said, I didn't "have doubt about its validity", I *knew* it to be incorrect, and I had no means by which to get correct information. I need quote no other authority than Jimmy Wales, as quoted in WP:V: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I am of the view that Wikipedia's credibility can be improved by removing false information.

Thirdly, it's a low visibility article, I'd pretty much guarantee that noone would read the talk page, so it would end up like the thousands of other articles I end up fixing with eight-month-old talk page requests and twelve-month-old tags. I asked two other people what they thought and they thought the entire article should be deleted on the grounds of notability. One was an admin who lived in the city concerned and the other was basically the Australian project's shopping centre expert who has written many quality articles on the subject and used to operate a "rescue squad" for failing articles in that area. As it was 20000m²+ and *may* have encyclopaedic value as a result, I left it be but removed contentious sections. If it becomes clear others agree with the opinions I received, I'll AfD it.

Now, per WP:V, if you wish to restore again, please show some responsibility for content you add to the encyclopaedia, seeing as that policy specifically states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you restore again, I will report you unless you have a source with information contained. I'll give you a lead-up - it's not on Brandon Park's own website, I looked. Deliberately adding false information to articles is considered disruptive editing. Orderinchaos 08:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "I did not state a title as validation" well that is what it comes across as when you make sure to state this before any thing else.
• If you *know* it to be wrong, please say how you *know* this, as both Articles are uncited in this reguard. It would seem a proper Edit would be to mark both articles with {{fact}}, then to ask for clarification if some other editore can clear it up.
• you did not even tye the talk page, so you would not know.
• quote all the Policies you wish to me, you have broken the same number. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:Oxford Properties Logo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go For It. Image in Article has been replaced with a .PNG version. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for the keep nomination on the discussion page. Kyle1278 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up this aricle's references. I am grateful for all the help I can get being that it is being discussed for deletion. Thanks again! Jeconlon (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Ragib (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the date of 8th December 2008 as cited on the history of the article "Maal", you believed this was a translation error. I was the author of the article maal.

Maal is a Sylheti mythical creature that originates from rural areas of Bangladesh. Mal means property and weight in Bengali too but it doesn't deny the fact that there are alternative definitions for word maal. No sources are online because it's a childhood oral tradition, many rural Sylhetis will understand.

I suggest that this should be put back up:

The `Maal` are believed to be legendary malevolent water spirits that reside in the deep, murky waters of Bangladesh, such as ponds, lakes, rivers and dams. According to village stories and folklore, the `maal` are considered to be spirit like mermaids that drag people into the water and instantly drowning them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NarlySai (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might do better to first create a overview Article like Sylheti mythology prior to creating Articles on individual creatures like Maal. An Oral tradition is much more WP:Noatable and easier to defend at a AfD. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a Bengali mythology article and I need people to contribute, Sylheti mythology is ver small and would fall under this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NarlySai (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Eyes has four reliable secondary references including two from the New York Times. What additional notability is required?--Nowa (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One that would point out the WP:Notability of the company, not just what it does and whom uses its product. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. Given that the company's product has been the subject of many news articles by reliable secondary sources, including a peer reviewed journal where it was highlighted as an example of a larger trend, would at least its product be considered notable?--Nowa (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on our discussions of August and November, 2008 regarding the Stupid Motorist Law article. I was wondering if you had any further thoughts on how to expand the article from its focus on the Arizona law. I have conducted an Internet search on the topic, but could not find any information on similar laws in other jurisdictions, although I am aware that such a law exists in the U.S. state of Kansas, according to one of my local TV news stations. Since our last discussion on this article, it has been tagged as "orphaned" by another user. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the proposals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillips explosion of 1999, yours to merge all three articles into one makes the most sense, and it's the only one that I would be willing to help implement. However, the banner at Phillips explosion of 1999 says the consensus was to merge that one article into Phillips Petroleum Company, which I don't support and couldn't be bothered with helping to implement.

I'm not a newbie to Wikipedia article creation and editing, but I am a newbie to article destruction. Although User:Habanero-tan writes on his user page that "Deleting articles makes me feel important," since your proposal makes much more sense to me than his, I'm now asking you instead of him what the next step should be. Thanks for any guidance you can offer. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that creating a New Article (with an appropriate name), doing the Merge and then turning the old articles into redirects would suffice. You could ask an Admin to delete them if you wanted, but that may be contrary to GDFL's rules of retention. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Probably not today because I'm really bowed up, but tomorrow. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orita.Sinclair_School_of_Art_and_New_Media an admin should correct the misplaced text from Tyrenon. --Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increased severity to {{adminhelp}}. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 09:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but you could have done that yourself. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said an admin, so... fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 09:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... it was an AFD, so it would seem proper that not just any joe messes with how many AFDs in progress. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I would like to know the reason as to why you deleted my topic.The Templars and Gothic Architecture I had stated the references as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Can you clarify your action ?

Sure, It was copied, word for word, from the site that I stated in the "Edit Summery". That is considered a Copyright Violation (CopyVio for short). If you wish it to remain in the Article, put it into your own words, your own work would not be a Copyright Violation. Using someone elses words or work, without their express written permission, is not allowed on Wikipedia. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Hence I would do the needful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted out the licensing issue of the scanned copy. Please have a look at the scanned image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry, but I still do not believe that the license you have changed it to, allows its use. The license template specifically says "Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." And also, you have to admit, a 2,048 × 1,536 pixel image is hardly low resolution. You can plainly read every word on the paper. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it myself. The scanned copy was merely to enhance the layout of the article and add authenticity to it. But let me get well versed with all the licensing stuff then I would do what is needed. Since you've already said that the scanned copy of the article can be used to highlight a point, i'll go through the article and expand the article. Anyway, thanks for thr above explanation. I really appreciate it the way you put up things Nefirious (talk)

The editors here are making concerted efforts to improve the articles and I am doing just so. Editing or tagging your articles wasn't done with a purpose to discourage you or your creations, but an attempt to improve them. I will tell you bit by bit why I felt it was necessary to tag your articles since I came across your user page I had a look at the articles you created and as a responsible editor it was my duty to put those tags in place. I will have a look once again at your articles and will place the tags after discussion with the editors, so don't get disheartened if you see the tags and you can remove them only after you take appropriate steps to improve them. Please don't take it personally. Nefirious (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bratatatatata .... tada... new sig Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del}

You cannot delete a picture prior to any discussion. I have posted the sources and it seems to me you have a personal grudge against me and my articles. I had added some relevant tags to your articles and this seems nothing but an obvious attempt to disqualify the images I add as an act of revenge. I've been doing my bit to bring more authenticity to wikipedia articles and some careless editors like you remove the pictures without arbitration. The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake. You do not have the authority to do so. I will post the picture again with relevant license. I am also making a point to keep a track on your articles. Make sure all the sources are quoted. Cheers... Nefirious (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion took place. Please do not re-upload the same picture again, as I will only have to nominate it, again, for violating the same rules of Citation that the original did. I had a link to the original FFD discussion in the Article. I also seem to recall notifying you on your Talk page about it. THAT is when you started placing templates on several Articles that I have worked on in the past. Looking at our edit histories will easily sort that out. At this point, I would ask that you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING and move on. If you believe that this type of ongoing behavior is acceptable in a Administrator (or prospective), by all means please continue, it does not bother me. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS ... Where did Drilnoth state that? And if he had done so, why did he not simply undelete it? It seems as though he was also the Admin to Speedy the re-uploaded file that still provided no Citation as to where it came from. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a side note (I have not looked into the image issue here). I wold recommend that next time, instead of using rollback for an edit like this you use the undo button and make sure to provide an edit summary. Rollback should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<snip> Thanks :) (I moved it to my Userpage) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. it was created by mistake of the script i used the other day. I will csd it! thanks. --Ciphers (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I can make it so that only users who have been registered for a few weeks can post on this page. This would make it so that IPs and new users can not harass you. After a few days this will expire and the editing rules on your page will go back to normal. If you would like this just tell me and I will do it. Chillum 23:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he shows up again in the next few minutes, go for it. else I'll just ignore it as trolling. Thanks for the offer :) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know on my talk page if you want it later then as I am not likely to notice if it continues or not. In my experience Wikiquette alerts is really only useful when all parties involved are acting in good faith, that page is not about enforcement and the advice given in response to real problems is often less than helpful. If you have issues with users acting abusively feel free to skip the bureaucracy of noticeboards and such and simply post on my talk page. Chillum 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment here. --Falcadore (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently suggested a merger of this article with the main SEIU article. I wanted to ask you, before I withdraw as a "Withdrawn as Keep and Improve/add tags/whathaveyou," if you would have any problems with that? I personally think that the dedicated article merits it's own page, considering the size and scope of this particular amalgamated local? However if you fel that the main article (which deals with the SEIU as an international) there might be room for some addition of material there, that links to the "Local 1" article. Just wondering. Thanks in advance, for your consideration in this. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a lot of 'junk' information there. After removing trivial info, attacks and the un-encyclopedic ... how much is really left. By all means work the Article as a stand-alone, but once all the 'fat' is gone, how much meat is really there? (sorry for the slow reply. RL called) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lietuvos Radijo Mėgėjų Draugija

Before filing a DRV on this, I'd talk to Cirt, see if he will re-open it. I expect I can do that tonight. We should facilitate the formation of an overall consensus on how to handle these stubs, and, in reflecting on it over the last few days, it is obvious to me what is best for the project. AfD is not the place for this to be discussed and debated, it is rather a question of how the encyclopedia is to be organized so as to grow evenly and efficiently.

I have also asked the nominator to stop filing these AfDs pending an opportunity to make some overall decision. Hopefully, he will be responsive, or I'll need to escalate. We should not have to make the exact same argument over and over in a hundred AfDs, particularly if it is all moot. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On request, Cirt reopened the AfD. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on expanding the table and thanks for your comments at the AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? --bodnotbod (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert you, but you should be aware that information in a Wikipedia article is absolutely not appropriate as a source for an article, even if it is a list. All facts, figures and information need independent, third-party, reliable sources. I already started referencing the article (even though I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia). I think those who vote so passionately to keep articles should at least help to improve them to a decent state if the AFD is kept, otherwise they just end up languishing even further. Aiken ♫ 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All facts, figures and information need independent, third-party, reliable sources".... yep and they are provided in the streets Article (that it is linked too). There is no deadline Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not good enough, and in some cases they aren't cited in the article. They have to be cited on the list itself. Meanwhile an essay does not trump a policy. Aiken ♫ 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article about the landmark, that is where they should (rightly) be cited and you know it. Now stop wp:gaming the system and leave me alone. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm playing catch up with this article. Could you point me to the bit of the AfD where the appropriateness of including a square in a list of streets is discussed? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] this should show you the edit diff. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is see, but that's comparing List of streets in Manchester to an article about streets and squares. The Manchester list is currently titled to include just streets. Either it needs to be moved to a more accurate title, or squares need to be excluded. Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-issue, a red herring argument. Don't be sucked in by it. See List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. The is consensus to allow squares in a list of roads without a problem. Should that be renamed List of streets and roads and squares and tunnels and bridges in Hong Kong ? (rhetorical question;) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider it rhetorical, but it's actually quite a legitimate question. On what grounds is a bazaar considered a street or a road for example? The title is misleading. Unfortunately that's not a high quality list either, there doesn't appear to be a single reference. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legitimate question. Guidelines have been made for that case. It is a case of Over-categorization. Wikipedia:Overcategorization + Wikipedia:Article titles = KISS ... Keep it simple, silly :) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcissistic abuse --Penbat (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

I assume you removed it inadvertently. LadyofShalott 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasnt ment as a slight. I got caught in a edit conflict. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok - I've had those happen to me before as well. LadyofShalott 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Exit2DOS2000! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

I love the photograph, and that you've dedicated it to the public domain, but my understanding is that in Canada this type of chair is known as a "Muskoka Chair" ... I may be wrong, but I will leave it to you to decide whether or not to amend the description. Regards.Lothlaurien (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally thought so too, but since Muskoka chair redirs to Adirondack chair, I simply named it to bypass the redir. Retitle it if you wish. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I remembered the chronology wrong in talk:Bibliography of biology. It wasn't meant to be an accusation - I was truly puzzled. Up to your last few comments on the talk pages, I had no idea whether there was any formula that you found acceptable for lists of publications (aside from the possibly unattainable opera example). I'm glad to hear that you think WikiProject Bibliographies is a good idea. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NP  ;) no hurt feeling on this side. I dont believe its unattainable, difficult yeah, but I feel that is the right direction to move in, if they remain as "Lists". For the Long term viability of the project, it would be better for each of the "Lists" to become bibliographies though. Currently I feel there is to much room for abuse by random IP Editors once the "Mainstay Editors of each List" move on/stray away/or wikibreak. You should watchlist Chin (combat sports)...THATS what I fear happening to these lists eventually. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

User:Exit2DOS2000/Mountaineer Mall, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Exit2DOS2000/Mountaineer Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Exit2DOS2000/Mountaineer Mall during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved