User talk:Mkdw/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


September 19, 2006 - October 23, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mkdw


Contents

NPP

You're right. I saw a couple that I thought were tagged by mistake and I thought that you were on a spree. My bad and my apologies. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I only regret that I didn't catch my error soon enough. I was going to revert the error and apologize immediately upon finding it...but you beat me to it. So:
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your best efforts in keeping Wikipedia vandal- and vanity-free... keep your finger on that delete button! :)

Least I can do.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's for sure. He's now attributing the quotes, but they're waaaaay too big to be quotes. Thanks for being so diligent. I'm bagging what are left and hitting the hay. Later! - Lucky 6.9 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Cora Mowatt

I have replied to your comments on my talk page.--Igtrn 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself, since you know so much about formatting?--Igtrn 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Romnick Sarmenta

Hello Mkdw, Can you please tell me what else is required in order to establish the notability of the person in the article I have written. He's a well-known actor and TV personality in the Philippines and this fact is supported by his imdb profile provided in his Biography.

Pszx 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This actor is very famous, a former child star, and has appeared in many films and TV shows. The fact is, he has won a Best Actor Award from Asian TV Awards held in Singapore[1] [2]. Im sure every Filipino recognizes his name and face because he's well-known and popular in the Philippines. I hope that satisfies the criteria for notability. Pszx 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks.

Pszx 09:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

3G Phone

Write your article before posting it. Wikipedia is a live encyclopdia and any postings are considered publications. You would never see "man writing" in Compton's Encyclopedia. To maintain our standards the article was marked for Speedy Deletion.

Hopefully your article will be up in no time =)


WHO IS THIS?? A Bot? This is <<signed>> by drmsppedy2, is that a man or a computer program?

--Sorry, thought history would reveal my identity Mkdw (talk • contribs • count)

Ok No probs. Thanks undercover wikipedia cop... :O) Little_guru (talk • contribs • count)

Speedy posting of Speedy Deletions

I see that within less than one minute of my creating Dukes of Decazes that you posted a "Speedy Deletion" notice. Perhaps in the future it would be a good idea if you take the two seconds needed to check the "Contribs" sector of the person who just created the "Empty page" to see if: 1) they are a valid and significant Wikipedia editor, and 2) that they have been doing work on the subject in question. That way, you save yourself and the editor both time and aggravation. Thanx. Handicapper 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


"Furthermore please follow Wikipedia's rules for Speedy Deletion. As the creator of the article you are in violation of removing a Speedy Deletion tag which specifically states to counter and Speedy Deletion template you must post a hangon if you are the creator." - - This is utter nonsense. As I stated, you posted your unwarranted notice without checking in less than 60 seconds. No one is required by any Wikipedia policy to post a hangon under such circumstances. And, if youi disagree, then do an Rfc and I will gladly respond. Sometimes it's best to learn from our mistakes and move on. - Handicapper 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"If this persists I will report this incident where a full review of all actions and if indeed I have violated a policy, will show up."

Please do. And quote me as saying your comments are total nonsense. Handicapper (talk • contribs • count) 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


If you think my stating what is a fact is a personal attack, then please file a formal complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Handicapper 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hassles by other user

Thanks for letting me know about that problem. It looks to me as if you handled it beautifully. Holler if the problem rears its head again. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion

"The word "speedy" in this context refers to the rapid decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

This means that you should check the dates of creation and recent edits and then allow some time for the article to grow. --Gbleem 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(continued on User talk:Gbleem)

Conversation continued Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion discussion.

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mkdw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

First, thanks for waiting so patiently for a response on your VandalSniper application, and sorry for the delay.

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper. Unfortunately, I have the burden of telling you "sorry, not quite yet". You haven't been added to the approved users list yet because we would like to wait and see more edits from you (but we certainly have noticed your good work). Although the requirements to use VS are not set in stone, VandalSniper is a fast, fully-featured reversion tool with the potential for a sizable amount of edits in a short period of time, so this decision must sometimes be meticulous; I hope you understand. Your interest in VS is greatly appreciated, and you are invited to apply after you've made a few more edits. The reason you have not been approved yet says nothing about your value as a contributor – only that we'd like to see a little more of your work on Wikipedia before giving access to the tool.

Again, thanks so much for your interest. If you have any questions or concerns about this decision, feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. Again, thank you for helping "keep Wikipedia clean". Good luck, and happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editcounters

Just to clarify, they're not encyclopedia articles, and I would like to see them merged sometime soon. Titoxd(?!?) 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Under no possible scenario I can think of Wikipedia:Edit count as being part of the encyclopedia. To begin with, it is in the Wikipedia:Project namespace, which can be seen by its prefix, Wikipedia:Edit count. This page isn't an article either, because it is in the User talk: namespace. Both pages include the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", but neither is part of the encyclopedia itself. Articles, by definition, must be in the article namespace. Furthermore, it is purely organizational in nature, and it does not give any actual content; if it were found in the article namespace, it would probably be submitted for deletion as it violates our no-self references guideline. Titoxd(?!?) 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the page is in the project, or Wikipedia namespace, indicates that there is no need to have it written in first person or anything else we would do for an actual encyclopedic article. You're asking to make sweeping changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters page that are both sweeping and unnecessary, and that isn't generally accepted. There is no need to have either page meet NPOV. There's no need to have a collection of users within Wikipedia be verifiable. Overall, the page is a WikiProject, and is just a collection of users trying to do something. Titoxd(?!?) 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I haven't merged the pages. I only indicated that my preference is for them to be merged eventually. But I feel I am talking in circles: Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters is not an article, it's purpose is not to be encyclopedic, it's scope is just to say that there's a group of people that's trying to work on editcounters, and try to welcome new users who are interested in helping out. I see personally that discussing what an edit count is is something beneficial, and since there's no real reason to remove either paragraph from the page, I won't. Titoxd(?!?) 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that Interiot was trying to do was to expand the one-line description of an edit count. Perhaps the adminship bit is unnecessary, but the WikiProject wanted to add a bit more info about edit counts to its page. No one is touching Wikipedia:Edit count anymore, but the change of removing all mention of edit counts in the WikiProject page is something editors there won't like too much. Titoxd(?!?) 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who added the "see also" link to the edit count page, but I guess that rearranging WP:COUNT would be all right. A passing discussion of edit counts below the welcome statement would be ok, as long as it's not one line, as it was before. Titoxd(?!?) 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that works. Titoxd(?!?) 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)