User talk:Shakujo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re: Nozomu Sahashi
I'm not sure why you're putting a "proposed deletion" tag on the article when it is already tagged as an article for deletion, with a discussion here in which you have already voted. Please read WP:DEL#Deletion processes. RJASE1 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- At the time I proposed it there was an editing conflict and it was simultaneoualy proposed by another editor; however, that doesn't answer the question as to why an article nominated for deletion requires expansion?--Shakujo 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The template I placed on the article (you'll notice that I was the one who originally nominated the article for deletion) is the standard tag for articles undergoing the articles for deletion process - it's not an "expansion" tag. The template you are assigning is the tag for the proposed deletion process. Please read over deletion policy - the article can only go through one deletion process at a time. The reason I nominated through AFD as opposed to prod was that the article has already survived one deletion attempt (see the banner on the discussion page). I think once you familiarize yourself with the 3 levels of article deletion processes {speedy, prod, then AfD) you'll understand what's going on. In the meantime, I'm removing your prod tag again because it's confusing the issue. RJASE1 07:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you will find looking at the history that you blindly reverted, leaving an expansion tag. Fine the prod tag confuses the issue, but so does reverting to a historic copy that contains tags contrary to your intentions. My point is that just reverting doesn't help. Maybe if you were aware of the fact that reverting is discouraged in favour of editing new contributions, this discussion wouldn't be necessary.
- And thankyou, I am aware of the deletion process, I just don't have the time I would like to devote to checking the accuracy of their application against other people's criteria or understanding of the wikipedia criteria; however, your implication of ignorance is just plain rude. Aren't we supposed to assume good faith?--Shakujo 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Airlines and Mediation Cabal Request
Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.
Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks! .V. [Talk|Email] 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
| Tea Break Over! |
The user is currently discussing this topic. Please leave your comments below. Thankyou--Shakujo 04:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
The request was on the list twice, once in the request for protection section, and once in the request for unprotection section. I removed it from the unprotection section, since it is not currently protected, and declined the request, as explained here. Prodego talk 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think an AfD is quite a useful weapon when it comes to war-editing, especially for topics which might be labelled anti-american. Is it possible to intervene in an AfD discussion because impartial consensus is difficult to achieve?--Shakujo 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- What? You know WP:RFPP is for requesting protection, not deletion, right? I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Prodego talk 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I requested protection and at the same time another editor nominated for AfD. Did you look at the page itself?--Shakujo 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion on Canvassing
In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it should be known that that you had advertised the RfC. I'm not saying what you did was good or bad, I was just posting a notice. John Reaves (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying I should have added the date stamp instead of my name? John Reaves (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never said anything about you not signing your comments, so I'm not sure what your talking about. John Reaves (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand, I don't see anything wrong with you using five tildes. I posted the note simply to notify people that the case was being advertised in various (possibly inappropriate places). John Reaves (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, problem fixed, no reason to continue talking. John Reaves (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand, I don't see anything wrong with you using five tildes. I posted the note simply to notify people that the case was being advertised in various (possibly inappropriate places). John Reaves (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never said anything about you not signing your comments, so I'm not sure what your talking about. John Reaves (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, if I have placed a RfC somewhere inappropriate then please tell me specifically where. This is the first time I have placed an RfC and another editor corrected one entry which was incorrect. I read the RfC policy and tried to follow it as best as I could; notifying the mediator about the RfC as well. Unless you can specify exactly where something is inappropriate, I don't see why we are having this discussion.--Shakujo 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is inappropriate to have more people involved in the discussion.--Shakujo 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Airlines
It's nice that someone agrees with me about the Singapore Airlines page. At one point and time, which was probably months ago, the page had all the essential information and was not long in length. Then, Huaiwei comes in and ends up making it extremely long and hard to read and handle. I've tried to re-edit the page many times, but I came to the conclusion that it was not worth my time to fight with the most stubborn person on earth.--Golich17 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SIA Page Suggestions
Well, first off, I believe that the page should be consistant with other airline pages. Many major airlines as well as many other types of airlines seem to have a somewhat consistant layout and I think we should follow that. For example, Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines have similar layouts and I believe these layouts are simple to read and navigate through. American Airlines and United Airlines also have similar layouts to Northwest and Continental. As you can see, these are basically the layouts most airline pages have, therefore I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same to Singapore Airlines.--Golich17 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Ganging up"
I appreciated your comments about "ganging up" at the Village Pump.
There's an ArbCom proceeding right now, where I'm trying to get the issue of "gang tactics" recognized as a problem area in the editing process. If you're interested, have a look here.
You may wish to contribute. Dino 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFC Nova (eikaiwa)
[edit] RFC/discussion of article Nova (English school in Japan)
Hello, Shakujo. As a prominent contributor to Nova (English school in Japan), you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan), in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
