[edit] Exeter School
01:43, 1 April 2007 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Exeter School" (Poor excuse for an article... I'm tired of babysitting it.)
^^^ that is a poor excuse for an excuse ;)
You dont think there is any merit in it, so you delete it. Go Wiki!
Here is a thought for you.... Exeter School predates your United States Constitution by over 150 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.69.83 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
I'll have you know that, whether or not you know it (and you seem to be the latter), I have fielded numerous complaints from all sorts of people saying how bad the article was, and I'm inclined to agree. Now, I know that's not saying much, but since there was never a version out there that could please everyone, and it didn't seem to any more notable than the other schools in the UK, yes, I deleted it. You may want to visit WP:DRV. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, Exeter School was listed at WP:DRV a couple days ago. Mangojuicetalk 11:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I don't have a good title
Hi Pilotguy,
I am Yaron, and I am a system operator on the hebrew wikipedia. Today, I tried to revert some bad edit made by an anonimous user in the article Jaguar. Unfortunately, I found out that I was blocked as part of a range block, apparently because a bad user shared his IP range with me or something like that. In any case, I forgot my password today, so I could not sign in or ask for a new password (through "I forgot my password"). Now, I wrote a message about my situation and about the bad edit in the article mentioned in talk page. No one noticed at first, so what I did was adding a lot of "Bla bla.." to my talk page, and then deleting it, knowing that deleting a lot of text is shown bold in the recent pages text, and so there is a chance that someone will notice my message. You noticed, but you deleted my talk page, for an unknown reason. I repeated my actions, and you locked my talk page from editing, and didn't pay attention to my message again. In order to confirm what I've just said, you may look in the history and the deleted history of my IP talk page, which I linked to a moment ago. Ybk33 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your edits to the main page
I find it unfortunate that the immediate response to my edits is that I am trying to start an edit war and acting conterproductively to the goal of the encyclopedia. Clearly, we have an essential disagreement as to the purpose of an encyclopedia, which I believe to be first and foremost the dissemination of information without the introduction of distracting or deceptive information. User:Mindspillage's edits, while clearly not malicious, have undermined that goal of an encyclopedia, filling the Main Page with images that are both deceptive and unillustrative when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. I am aware of the current effort to ban fair use images from the Main Page entirely, but this effort has certainly neither yet achieved consensus or become policy, so its enforcement, when detrimental to the quality of the Main Page, is certainly not a good idea. While I admit that I have my own biases, as I believe the proposed policy is absurd and utterly counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, my edits are neither running counter towards the goals of Wikipedia nor intentionally contributing to an edit war. I believe that you should speak to User:Mindspillage about her attempts to enforce what is not yet policy rather than attacking those upholding the current policies of Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions. Consensus has long established that fair use images are fine for featured articles on the Main Page when no equivalently informative image is available (in both cases, there wouldn't be a free alternative for box cover art or for an image of a deceased person). There is currently a proposal to do away with this exemption, but it has not yet reached the consensus needed to repeal previous decisions. —Cuiviénen 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block question
I see you placed a block tag here but the log doesn't show a block. IrishGuy talk 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Page cached?
Hi PilotGuy, it appears you have deleted a page that describing an English surname (Boakes) under the misapprehension that it was about an individual. Do you happen to have a cache of the page?
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] uploaded image marked for deletion
The following is the message i received :
[edit] Closing the poll?
There was a discussion in talk about the closing of the poll. I do not think that closing with a "no consensus" is the way to do it. Dismissing 400 votes one way or another does not resolve this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I think this is highly improper. We are advertising the closing of the poll at 01:00 UTC on Apr. 07, 2007, and there is no reason to close it early when votes and comments are coming in. Every comment counts, and we should not punish voters who believe our Watchlist message about the closing time. Crum375 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest the poll should stay open until the time and date announced on the WatchList page! --Rednblu 02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pilotguy, I have unprotected and corrected the poll closing date as per the announcement in the Watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- With all respect, I think it would be very unwise for this to be closed before the announced time or by anyone other than Jimbo or someone explicitly delegated by Jimbo. Metamagician3000 05:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy hell, I was being pestered from all over on IRC to close it as it was two hours overdue. Now, I'm getting a pile-on bitchfest from five different people saying that's not the case. No wonder you people can't make up your minds on anything these days. Go on. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Being pestered in IRC, by whom exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- It will be nice, to also know on which IRC channel. I did not see any chatter about ATT in the channels I frequent ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder who was saying that on IRC - certainly not me. You must admit that the people here have actually expressed their views quite nicely, n'est-ce pas? Hmmm, maybe with one snarky exception. Take care. :) Metamagician3000 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You're my hero
"Block editor User:Idontknowwhyurabich blocked by admin User:Pilotguy Length: indefinite "I'm not sure why you are either, but you should at least be able to spell." Thanks for your good work at WP:AIV. RJASE1 Talk 02:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exeter School
Hi,
Just a suggestion... if you want your more controversial speedy deletions to survive community scrutiny, you might try thinking of rationales from within deletion policy (preferably, the CSDs) when deleting. For the Exeter School, now at AfD, you might have tried "lack of sources," for example. Insulting the quality of the article -- when it is actually reasonably readable -- and talking of your personal frustation with it is less likely to win support than citing actual policy. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block of 72.55.148.82
Just a heads up, I have re-blocked 72.55.148.82 as an open proxy. It's a webproxy here. --Michael Billington (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rodney A. Smolla
Would you mind undeleting the article and talk page for Rodney A. Smolla? It was deleted pursuant to proposed deletion, and I would like it undeleted because this notable academic has announced a change in institutions that should be documented. This move was covered in the press and will further cement his notability per the appropriate standard. My reading of WP:DRV indicates any admin can do this for me without any vote. Erechtheus 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
|
