User talk:DocumentN
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion of /usr/bin/god
A tag has been placed on /usr/bin/god, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Yossiea (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else removed the tag (and gave a reason in the edit summary), so I guess that's taken care of. --DocumentN 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome wagon
Hi,
I appreciate the nice edits you've been adding around here.
I see you're pretty new, so here (below) is a housewarming basket full of all kinds of helpful stuff.
Glad to see you aboard, and enjoy! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
|
[edit] P.S.: Science Fiction Task Force
By the way, since you've been making good edits to science fiction literature articles, you might want to check out the WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force. There, you can find ideas or projects and collaborate with other users on those types of articles. Here is a shortcut for it:
Cheers, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alaibot, and "disambig stubs"
I'd have said it's already saying too much, if anything. :) (Is a "hard on"/"hadron" disambig of any actual utility whatsoever?) The bot's obviously not expressing any deep editorial opinion, just tagging it as a stub because it's a) very short, b) uncategorised, and c) not utterly obviously intended to be a disambig (by having the {{disambig}} template, or being named accordingly). Anyhoo, retagged now, and so the bot will leave it alone. Alai 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- In my defense, I didn't create the page. However, I did edit it mainly for amusement. I probably won't complain if someone else makes it a redirect. --DocumentN 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't noticed this version, just the edit you'd turned it back into a disambig. I'm not quite sure if there's a settled take on "disambigs from mis-spellings", so I won't rush to turn it back, even after your Shocking Confession(TM). On an even less pressing note, it's now rather overlinked to be a MOS-compliant disambig... Alai 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cortana Letters
Merging and redirecting is part of the normal editorial process. It can be controversial (just like any other edit), but many times is not. AfD sometimes results in a decision to merge and redirect, but, generally speaking, you wouldn't nominate an article there if you intend, from the outset, to merge it. The usual forum for discussing a merge is talk pages and normal editorial consensus, since merging doesn't require the help of an administrator tools (unlike AfD). My merge/redirect of Cortana Letters was actually in response to a suggestion raised at the FAC for Cortana, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cortana, so it wasn't actually a unilateral decision. — TKD::Talk 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DRV closures
Hi,
While I appreciate the civil tone of your request, you should know that closing DRV debates on the fifth day at a uniform time has been the standard practice for a very long time -- much longer than there have been instructions on the page, actually. I know because I've been doing these closures for two years now. If you look through the DRV archives, you'll see the practice is routine. The advantage of this system is that the debates are closed at an arbitrary (but not exactly pre-determined) time; this forestalls any suggestion that the debate was closed at a favorable time to reach a particular result. The instruction you quoted is not meant to imply five full days. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The instruction says "five days"; it doesn't imply it. I'm not seeing how an informal practice is more important than a written policy, or how five days is less arbitrary than four days and a bit. --DocumentN (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Umm...
This was not my grammar. All I did was undo an edit made by someone else. I'm not sure why you would make a point of mentioning my name in the edit summary anyway? It comes across as if you saying that I have made a bad edit. Thanks. Seraphim♥ Whipp 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was just trying to make the summary as informative as possible. If it wasn't your grammar, where did you get it? It seems like the obvious thing to do would've been to revert it back to the version on the left of this edit. --DocumentN (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- That wording has always been there, since about 2005 I believe ([1]). The edit you have presented was the edit I was reversing because it was controversial and made without discussion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- That appears to be a fourth distinct wording of the sentence, and another ungrammatical one (the "if" is superfluous). "If there is clear agreement or silence, with the proposal by consensus" is not an identical string to either "If after sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence" or "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence", and it wasn't obvious to me what it was supposed to mean. --DocumentN (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, when I reversed Pixelface's edit, I had absolutely no opinion of the structure of that sentence. I was purely reversing a controversial change. Your edit was good; all I'm simply trying to say is that naming someone, saying you are correcting a "bad edit" in an edit summary is unnecessary. Hope you understand where I'm coming from :) Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- That appears to be a fourth distinct wording of the sentence, and another ungrammatical one (the "if" is superfluous). "If there is clear agreement or silence, with the proposal by consensus" is not an identical string to either "If after sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence" or "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence", and it wasn't obvious to me what it was supposed to mean. --DocumentN (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- That wording has always been there, since about 2005 I believe ([1]). The edit you have presented was the edit I was reversing because it was controversial and made without discussion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Anonymous user pages
Your user page was a redirect. It exposes what appears to be your real name, and having a user page that does not belong to a registered user is not generally allowed. I've restored the user pages of a couple of active IP editors, however, I simply will not restore a user page redirect. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- (1) I don't remember putting my real name on the page. (2) Is there a rule against editors' exposing their real names? (3) I *am* a registered user. (4) Why are pages for unregistered users not allowed, and why are exceptions made? (5) Why are redirects a special case? --DocumentN (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect of G-mode Co. Ltd.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on G-mode Co. Ltd., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because G-mode Co. Ltd. is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting G-mode Co. Ltd., please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. The deletion of the main article was probably unjustified, since PROD isn't cleanup and the company is presumably notable for being a game publisher; but I'm too lazy to WP:DRV it. --DocumentN (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Programme
I see your note from a few months back - thanks for trying to kep the link in to The Programme (comics) (I added it initially) but it is always going to be a fight to keep a redlink in on a disambiguation page. The best solution is just start the article - it needs doing after all ;) (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
- Meh, too lazy; plus I'm personally more interested in seeing the principle that redlinks should be allowed upheld.
- Also, when I saw your subject line I completely thought it was a civility warning about that "until he actually reads it" post (cf). Dunno what was up with me when I wrote that; fix attempted. --DocumentN (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I started an articel on The Programme (comics), I haven't read the comics so I don't have much to put in there. I found your fight to get a link to it so I thought I would let you know that there is an article there now. --Jonas79 (talk) 19:07, 07 June 2008 (Swedish Time)
