User talk:Ben@liddicott.com
Welcome, newcomer!
... ClockworkTroll 13:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, ClockworkTroll[edit]
Leeds redirect[edit]
Done. You should check to make sure no article is still trying to use them - when I clicked on "What links here" a long list of stuff showed up, but most of it looked non-significant. Noel 16:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice job! Definitely a keep now (well, by my vote). And I'm removing it from the Deadend page since its not a deadend. --Cje 17:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good evening. You asked about the decision to m:transwiki this article to Wiktionary. Actually, I was not the admin who made that call. Someone else put it in the transwiki queue. I just volunteered to bring some record-keeping up to date. Unfortunately, we'd have to wade through the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old page's history to try to find out who really made the call.
Having said that, I'm not sure I'd agree with your count. If I had been doing the count, I would have discounted all the votes before the third bullet (the anon comment that the definition had been corrected). The votes prior do not appear to have been made with all the facts at hand. (An assumption, of course.) That anon vote is itself neutral on a recommendation to keep or transwiki. Regardless, it would have been steeply discounted for being unsigned. The votes of Crevaner and Old Right may have been deliberately discounted. They are thought by some to be sockpuppets and have been accused of vandalizing the VfD page with irrelevant votes. I have not personally investigated that matter but watched enough discussions to know that could have been an interpretation of the deciding admin. That leaves SWAdair voting to transwiki and Cje to keep. In a tie, the deciding admin might well have added his/her own vote. Unfortunately, this is speculation because the deciding admin failed to do the record-keeping.
Personally, I think this is a borderline case. As an encyclopedia article, it's a bit light. As a dictionary article, it's terrific. It clearly defines the term and puts it in context. It even describes the origins of the term.
If you feel strongly, I would recommend 1) that you wait until someone actually performs the transwiki (that could take months - it's a messy queue) then 2) nominate it for undeletion. In the meantime, I don't think anything needs to happen. My 2 cents, anyway. Rossami (talk) 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to Rockall, cos I think the Greenpeace stuff is too subtle when hidden within the British claims section (and, to be fair, the section is History and competing claims — and they did proclaim it to be an independent state of Waveland, albeit not all that seriously, one assumes). I reckon a better solution than merging the sections would be to come up with a better heading, cos I write awful headings. All suggestions welcome… :o) — OwenBlacker 23:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
County towns[edit]
The information on the county town status of Wakefield came from county town - if it is not a county town perhaps this article needs to be amended. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nomination of Full disclosure (media) for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Full disclosure (media) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full disclosure (media) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Speedy deletion nomination of Heinz Weisman[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Heinz Weisman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Havechin (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)