User talk:Retired username/Archive4

This is an archive of old messages. To leave a new one, see User talk:W.marsh.

I was getting there with the stub, categories, etc... You just beat me there. Lars951 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough 20:23 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Hey there. This article was submitted for speedy deletion. It was deleted on the grounds that the subject/person is not notable enough for an article of their own. It appears that it has been re-created after the deletion. I am putting it back up for speedy deletion. Cheers Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you just delete my aritle on israeli statehood???? i thought it was very acurate... and im pissed off... your probably one of those palestinian terrorists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eg10290 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add Just Dial Canada to the List of Canadian telephone companies at Wikipedia. Please advise.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleon (talk • contribs)

It requires information/article about the company. You think about us section would be appropriate content wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleon (talk • contribs)

Why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mista Allen (talk • contribs)

I'm wondering why you deleted my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacketball

its a game that we invented and would like it to be added to wikipedia. ---rokke

Hi, I am a user who has been on a wikibreak for a few months and come back with a fresh name.

Why have deleted the article on this Leydon fellow? Am I missing something?

a) He is most certainly notable. b) It survived an AfD resoundingly. c) There is no discussion of this on the talk page.

Unless I have missed something fundamental here, your actions are a gross abuse of your privileges. Kindly replace the article posthaste or provide a very good explanation why not or I will start to take action.

Protoz 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by User:Danny to whom I will give the benefit of the doubt, so policy dictates that recreations of it need to be deleted. Your best recourse is to discuss it with Danny on his talk page, as it's his call. You can also take it to WP:DRV but I wouldn't suggest that until you've talked to Danny. --W.marsh 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it advertising?

How is what I'm posting considered advertising? Especially when I read articles about other games. I don't work for the company and I'm not getting anything out of the deal. I can understand how the first article I posted was advertising. But I wrote this whole thing from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashaddict (talk • contribs)

Please delete this entirely. It's a work-in-process, and I'd prefer to have it removed at this time. Thanks.

John W. 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)John W.[reply]

I posted this narative with User:Danny: If you can unblock me that would be nice.

Hello, I am Juicifer, I have returned to wiki after a few months and got a new name after some unpleasant threats.

I would like to have my IP unblocked please. I would like you to explain why you are deleting the article on this guy without consensus. That Essjay now claims on the Protoz page that I am a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" is demonstrably false, as his his assertion that this has been checked with checkuser - if that is checked I can assure you that you will find that Essjay is in error (to be generous). I merely came to this article browsing through the Google news for wikipedia. When I found the page and history had been erased, despite a recent strong Keep AfD and no discussion on the talk page I became curious. Assuming good faith, I replaced the article based on the Google cache. I posted a plain query to you and another Admin who had deleted the article asking if there was a good reason. I was blocked (along with god knows how many other people on the same AOL IP.

So, after returning to wiki after a few a months it appears:

• a) A article has been repeatedly deleted against consensus by two admins, deleting the history and providing no explanation on the talk page.
• b) An apparent newby (me) on a generic AOL IP was given a complete ban on account of stalking User:Danny despite merely posing a comment on the talkpage to the effect that he should explain his actions or expect me to take the usual actions.
• c) I was falsely accused of being a sock-puppet.
• d) Most seriously, User:Essjay one of the 14 most senior administrators who are trusted with legally confidential information (subject to the 6 stated exceptions) has not only claimed that Protoz (me) is a sock-puppet of "Israelbeach" but claims that this has been confirmed by the Checkuser tool. Either there has been some ridiculous coincidence and I really do share this AOL IP with "Israelberch", or Essjay found no evidence and (forgive me, WP:NPA and all that) decided to "economise on the truth" by saying that Checkuser confirmed what in fact it had excluded.

While d) is an inexcusable breach of trust and abuse of power, I am sure that c) is merely a misunderstanding.

As to a) and b). As I can ascertain, the deletion by User:Danny followed the publication by the article's subject of a critique of wikipedia, which is how I found this in google news. It makes wikipedia look very childish to then remove the article on him as a "punishment". Such authoritarian censorship is the exact opposite of what wikipedia is about.

P.S. It appears that User:Danny also unilaterally deleted the article on the organ that published the critical piece. What an embarrassment for wikipedia that it sunk to petty censorship.

jucifer 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about u shut ur fucking ass up u stupid ass bitch before i do somethin about it cuz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchunti (talk • contribs)

W. Marsh:

I take it that your a sysop with the wiki, and was wondering if you could delete a page that I've authored. I think that I should clear it with the manufacter before I post.

Thanks for your help, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driwashsolutions (talk • contribs)

If you are the only editor and request a deletion, yes, I or any other admin can. The fastest way is to just add the code {{db-author}} to the top of the page. But if other people are added it, you can't request deletion that way. --W.marsh 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added the "categories" and "wiki" prods to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_fuentes and I responded by cleaning it up a bit. Now, though, I realize that most of the article is actually ripped off from a couple different websites (with no references). So, is this a reason for deletion? I added a note on the discussion page. What do you think? --Charles 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I posted notes on the Alchemy of Happiness a few days ago; for a short introduction I simply copied and pasted a paragraph I found on the web. This was my first posting on Wikipedia and I didn't realize this would not be allowed. Please delete this article. I've made another one, "alchemy of happiness" without the copyrighted material. After you delete the first article, I'll port the new one to Alchemy of Happiness and create a redirect from alchemy of happiness.

In general, what my organization is trying to do is post notes on seminal works of Islamic philosophy on Wikipedia. Oftentimes these are very opaque works, so posting "cliff-notes" will make them easily accessible to all. The organization has around 500 members thus far and the support of several notable professors at Georgetown University.

Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by GhazaliProject (talk • contribs)

Before removing {{inuse}} tags from entries I am still working on, you should ask. They are put there for a reason. Folajimi 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the articles I have created had the tag placed and removed. Your reasoning was false; just because I did not update the entry does not mean I forgot about it.

FYI, I know that the GFDL means. Folajimi 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the entry had not been neglected. Claiming that I forgot the tag was a false charge, and you used it as your reasoning for the edit.

Using the tag as a flag — which is what you implied — does constitute a violation of the GFDL. Folajimi 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To think this matter is a quibble over diction would be laughable, if it were not so sad. Folajimi 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, may i define my business for the pittsburgh, pa area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbcomp (talk • contribs)

I note you prodded Media freedom in Pakistan. You may be interested to note Wikipedia talk:Mass communication in Pakistan. -- RHaworth 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look and actually the content is a copy and paste from a website that claims a copyright. So I have flagged it as a copyright violation. I have mentioned this in the table on Wikipedia talk:Mass communication in Pakistan and will try to look into the other articles when I get home from work. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --W.marsh 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio hadn't been resolved in 7 days and so I have now deleted the article. Kcordina ^Talk 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hello, Retired username/Archive4 — Thank you wholeheartedly for your support on my recent Request for Adminship. The RFA succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. I'll be seeing you, on IRC and here, so don't forget to let me know what I can do for you. Bastique▼parlervoir 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an external link from the Bohemia (the Punjabi rapper) article and then added an "unreferenced" template. I am not really interested in that article, and I'm not going to argue your actions, but in order to improve my own editing, could you explain why that link seemed unsuitable to you? It was among the best I could find during the short time I spent looking. ;-) Yours, Huon 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that citing a published source would be a good thing for that article. It would be a good thing for all articles. If no references are listed, I think the template is fair game for an article. --W.marsh 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop jumping in on my edits. --Folajimi 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have received the following message from you a while back:

"Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --W.marsh 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"

I'm really not sure what constitutes "nonsense" and I can't recall what this could have been about. I have no interest whatsoever in vandalizing anything. I understand that you probably have to deal with a lot of losers with too much time and too few brain cells, but I'm not one of them. And I wouldn't experiment with the live page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbeng (talk • contribs)

You have no messages on your talk page and no contributions but your note on my talk page. So... I really have no way of answering your question, I don't know what you're talking about. --W.marsh 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Retired username/Archive4! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

First the boring one, how do you use AWB on special: pages? That's what it seems like you're doing as you at the catneeded tag to pages from special:uncategorized, but I can't figure out how to get AWB to generate a list from special: pages.

Second, wanna be an admin? Or want to be nominated at least. I've looked through your contribs and you seem like a fine candidate. I'll do a more thorough look if you are interested... but I'm 95% sure I'd like to nominate you. You seem like a solid maintainer and contributer, and adminship shouldn't really be a big deal for people like us. --W.marsh 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thanks for the sentiment! But I'd have to say that adminship sounds like a bit much for me to tackle at this point. I have utmost respect for you folks and, frankly, I wonder how you find the time to cover so many bases.

For the special:uncategorized page, I basically cheated. I copy/pasted from the browser into a text file, find/replaced to get [[ and ]] around each line and then fed that into AWB. My real dream - if I ever had the time - is to download the source code for AWB and make it do some of the crazy things I'd really like to do...

Thanks again!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could pictures appearing in the CJ (like the ones of Museum Plaza) appear under the claim of fair use?

Also, do you know what happened to the Alcot and Bently building @ Baxter & Christy? ~~Brando03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando03 (talk • contribs)

Hi W.marsh,

You're right that A7 and WP:SNOW wouldn't normally apply to a controversial delete -- but, the reason I think they apply in spirit here has to do with the nature of the controversy. This is not a controversy over the encyclopedic merit of the article (I think everybody agrees Phil doesn't belong) -- it is only controversial in a metawikipedian sense, because we're dealing with one of our own. I don't think that is the sort of controversy meant by A7 and SNOW; these envision genuine differences of opinion over questions of encyclopedic merit, and I don't see any. This is controversial, but in a way not intended under the policies cited. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might have gone over my head a bit, I confess, but it seems to me that A7 was simply misused in deleting the article (the misuse of WP:SNOW came later), and the whole wheel war that partially resulted from people not following A7 made this seem much more dramatic and controversial than it really should have been. I don't think he meets WP:BIO, and I might have said that on an AfD... this whole thing is (to me) needlessly backwards and awkward. I just don't get how it benefits the community to speedy delete out of process. It doesn't seem to have helped here.

If we say it's okay to speedy delete highly controversial, but disliked, articles... I think that's a bad precident. We can speedy delete an article about a Wikipedian because it probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, but we can't speedy delete an article about a Wikipedia critic for not meeting WP:BIO, for example. Something just seems rotten here. --W.marsh 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on the basic principle here. To put it simply, what bugs me about this is that, if this article were exactly the same but about a man named Joe Smith, it would have been A7 speedied and nobody would have noticed. I only think it is controversial because we know the guy, and I agree with you that it is bad to let knowing him alter our judgment.

Now that SlimVirgin has commented, I also think this article has been stained by the meanness of its speedy deleters. I think they made the right choice, but for a wrong reason, and then someone defended the choice with obnoxious reasons no one can support. I do not oppose an AfD as strongly now, given all that happened, but -- in principle -- I still think this article is only surviving by virtue of its subject's wiki-fame, and I still don't like that. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got me by one whole minute. Congrats. ^_^ Papacha 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to build an encyclopedia!	Hi W, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
	Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

I left this message for Alhutch as well, whichever of you get to it first. The Suspected Socks template has been replaced with confirmed, so the old page is no longer needed. Could you take care of it for us? Teke 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --W.marsh 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankya much. I'll let Alhutch know. Teke 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marsh,

I don`t know why you feel i`m advertising and don`t see why product information cannot be kept on Wikipedia.

Ultimately some one is going to do this..

Regards, Srijith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.35.248.112 (talk • contribs)

You don't give me any information to find out what article you're talking about, so I can't reply meaningfully. Sorry. --W.marsh 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.Marsh,

It would appear that you deleted the entry for "bloggementarist". Unfortunately I'd been using this term, with a link to wiki for a definition, in a project proposal. Since these are all made-up words in the first place, do you have another suggestion for a blogger/journalist (or in this case I assume it was blogger+documentarist", or would you consider reinstating bloggementarist?

Frankly I like "bloggojournalist" as well!

Please respond as quickly as you can, directly to [email protected] if you don't mind.

Thanks -Joseph—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.125.182 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia articles are not about simply things you make up. See WP:AVN for this situation... for a page about a term, that term needs to be one that's been used in print and defined in a dictionary of some sort. Wikipedia just isn't a place to coin random new words... try Urban Dictionary maybe. --W.marsh 12:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I found out that you think that Azythia is a Hoax well sir I LIVE IN AZYTHIA, IDAHO!!!! I didn't start the article but i do know it is real!!!! So before you take it in to you hands, find out about it if you want i could tell you about it. But all in the article should be enough info. All of my friends live in azythia as well.

Thank you for your time.

O.K I decided to come back and apologize for the words i typed now, what i mean is that our town's mayor has a copyright on all articles of the city only city-run blogs or websites can be sent. 27 consecutive blogs and websites have been unlawfully started and all were deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.162.34 (talk • contribs)

Ah well, should you ever be able to produce anything in print or on a reliable website confirming this town exists, I should be happy to take off the hoax tag :-) --W.marsh 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove my link? i created a appalachian trail resource to be a guild for thru-hikers. It has every trail map from georgia to maine and links to trailguides for each section of the hike.

please add it back the the pertenate pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.40.96 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not here to promote people's random websites. If you'd like to contribute actual content, go ahead. But adding nothing but external links to your own website is going to get reverted. --W.marsh 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections on the references and the addition of the pound sign. I'll be sure to use that on future wiki-edits that I do as I am trying to contribute more and add citations wherever possible that I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs)

I just found that you had removed my article on service dogs for autism....please leave it alone, unless you know enough about the subject to put something better in its place. As someone who is on the autistic spectrum, who is a service dog user, and the parent of an autistic child who uses a service dog trained to assist him with it, and someone who does a great deal of work with parents with autistic children and their service dogs, I believe I have enough experience to address this subject here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDeerskin (talk • contribs)

First of all, it's not "your" article, you have released it into the GFDL and anyone can edit it, see WP:OWN. Second, Wikipedia articles must be neutral in tone, and specifically aren't guides or essays on various topics, see WP:NOT. I have trimmed the article down to a workable, neutral, stub. Feel free to contribute to it, but you should remember that everything should be neutral, and preferably formatted properly. --W.marsh 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the sole author of the article on Autism Service Dogs- no one else has contrbuted to it in any way, but you and others persist in removing it. Do you have a personal complaint against my writing style? I am sorry that i am not an accomplished an author as you believe yourself to be. I do happen to be autistic myself, but I do the best I can, and am trying to help others as well by furnishing info on a subject that is of immense importance to the disabled.

If Wikipedia is supposed to be a free, online encylopedia, that all can contrubute to, then why are you taking down articles of information that is useful to parents of autistic children, and other disabled people? Are you an expert in this field? There are few people in this country who are more experienced than I am in this subject, please refrain from tampering with this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDeerskin (talk • contribs)

Look, I encourage you to actually read the pages I linked to. WP:OWN clearly establishes that you don't own the article, WP:NOT clearly establishes that Wikipedia articles are to be neutral and informative, but not guides or advice on various topics. These are not negotiable and they are not controversial stances, these are core parts of the project. I don't know what else to say, you're ignoring my point. --W.marsh 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarshBot is adding {{linkless}} to disambiguation pages. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages, links to disambiguation pages are generally discouraged, and having few links is generally seen as a healthy disambig page. Could the bot be modified to avoid disambiguation pages when putting down {{linkless}}? (FWIW, the two cases that made me bring it up are AICR and AFAA) Thanks. --Interiot 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, and you're right, the perfect disambiguation page just has one inbound link, and that's from the applicable list of dab pages in the project namespace. I can easilly enough avoid adding the template to those pages, and will fix the ones I already did. --W.marsh 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the owner of Wikipedia? Have the owners given you the official position of moderator, that gives you the right to remove material from this site? I do not see a user page with for "W.Marsh" with any information that backs your persistant removal of other peoples information. As i understand it, Wikipedia is a place for everyone to contribute information on subjects, and that the only reason to remove it is when it is offensive, self serving or other such reasons. I am experienced in this particular aspect of service dog training, and in working with autistic children, and i am only trying to do what i can to help. your reasons are not helpful, but rather petty and small. You mention again and again that my article is "not neutral"...it is neutral, in that it presents all the aspects that are currently out there on this.

I've looked for info on what Wikipedia expects from contributers, and this is what i found:

"Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of Wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection."

I have done all i can to be clear,informative,and since i have nothing to sell or gain from presenting this,it is unbiased. I don't see that i have done anything that has broken any rules that warrent this treatment. i have contacted one of the moderators here regarding this, and I hope that this all can be just let to drop,please. It isn't helpful to anyone...

LadyDeerskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDeerskin (talk • contribs)

I am the webmaster of www.village.kettleby.on.ca and the changes that I've been putting in are not in violation of the website data. Please stop changing the data back. To confirm, go to www.village.kettleby.on.ca, find the email address for the site and send an email. I will respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.223.151 (talk • contribs)

Okay, please see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, specifically the "When permission is confirmed". You'll basically need to forward permission to the Foundation, as described, and mention it on the talk page of the article in question. Then you should be able to re-insert the text in the article freely. You should read that page though, you'd be releasing the text under the GFDL, which means people can modify, redistribute and even sell the text. --W.marsh 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten Astavadhani. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astavadhani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngopikrishna (talk • contribs)

It still seems to have some entire paragraphs taken directly from the source, [1], which is a copyright violation. Please rewrite these in your own words or I will have to flag it as a violation again, sorry. But thanks for making the effort so far! --W.marsh 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've just created the new WikiProject Louisville to coordinate the development of all the Louisville-related articles. I did this because I felt it was long overdue and now was a good time to start thinking about a more organized coordination of all this work. I hope you will join. Cheers! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Please be informed that Mr.Shyam Sunder who had made changes to Asghar Ali Engineer's page had at the same time also altered the Page of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin [TUS]. Mr Shyam Sunder is free to do whatever he wants and wherever he wants, but there is nothing to show his credibility that he is an expert on Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin [TUS]. The changes that he made were uncalled for, and my changes were a mere pointer to the changes that I and my fellow brethern can do to Asghar Ali Engineer.

I hope that extra caution shall be taken when dealing with the personality of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin [TUS], and the rabble rouser Asghar Ali Engineer. moreover taking the nick of Shyam Sunder will not help the anti-bohra movements and its followers. I shall end with a small suggestion, why dont you go to google and try a small search on the achievements of His Holiness Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin [TUS] and compare it against with the achievements of Asghar Ali Engineer. That should put things in right perspective.

Regards

Juzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzer (talk • contribs)

Here's my official thanks for your support. As for the mindless AfD voting, I'll get round to it at some point, I'm sure :P – Gurch 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to tell you to don't remove all of the Domino's Pizza World Links. Because Burger King, McDonald's, Pizza Hut and other restaurants all have world links. The Domino's Pizza article page that has the world map highlighting the countries that has the locations of Domino's Pizza. And Wikipedia is a web directory. I'm going to put all of the Domino's Pizza World Links back and I don't want you to REMOVE all of the Domino's Pizza world links! Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, wikipedia is specifically not a web directory. That other articles have such links is meaningless, I'll go and remove those too... of the three you mentioned, the only one that actually had a problem was Pizza Hut. --W.marsh 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the link spam but added back in a couple links to Pizza Hut and Domino's Pizza hopefully that will help him catch the vision of what wikipedia is - and is not Trödel 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buh. You removed the {{inuse}} template I'd added to Image:Human Trafficking.jpg since nothing had been done with it in some time. I appreciate that: not that I forgot to remove the tag, but I'd intended to edit it when I got home and forgot. I'll take pains to remind myself today, but I'll leave the {{inuse}} off this time. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to your edits to List of spaceflights (1960) and List of spaceflights (1961).

Due to the large amount of content that needs to be converted to a new format, the edit was being conducted over a period of several days, using notepad. There was a clear explanation on the talk page, and in the template itself.

Due to the size of these two pages, they were the last ones I was working on. They are being processed, and should be complete sometime in the week.

Please can you reinstate the tags in question. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the inuse tag is just for short edit sessions to avoid edit conflicts. At a glance, the articles in question were not being editted at all, so edit conflicts seem very unlikely. Just make the edits you want without the inuse tag, it's completly possible. Using the inuse tag to "reserve" articles for prolonged periods of time, has been deteremined by consensus to be unacceptable. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It cannot all be done in one go, due to the length of time required. It is boring work, so I do most of it when I've nothing better to do. This often involves a computer that has no internet access, so I have to do them in batches because I cannot always just "go and get" the next one when I need it. This is why the inuse tags were in place. (There's nothing worse than doing several hours of editing, only to get an edit conflict. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just not what the inuse template is really for. I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I don't think edit conflicts are really likely. You might check to see if you're going to get one before saving, and integrate the changes made into your edit. I really doubt it would take more than a minute or two. It's worth that so we can keep the article open and freely edittable, in other words. Just try it and see if it works. --W.marsh 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W.marsh! You removed the "in-use" template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Memorials and cemeteries task force/CWGC cemetery skeleton. This page is designed to be subst: into the main article space, then edited to create the article. If it were subst: as a skeleton, it would be speedy deleted as G1, G2, A1 or A3 in good faith by other admins.

Leaving the "in use" tag in place allows an editor to slowly create the article from the skeleton without finding it deleted (and then, depressingly, G4 deleted as people tend to think that speedy deletes are G4 candidates). In short, this is a useful template and whilst it may cause minor problems to have it existing in the skeleton page, it is a template that should be used more rather than less.

I've manually reverted the change; but if you feel strongly about this, please revert me back (and let me know your reasons on the skeleton's talk page?). Cheers! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize its purpose. However, I do suggest eventually making that page a template, as you expect those to be used for subst'ing (and therefore, templates like inuse can be left on them perpetually). --W.marsh 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not convinced that page skeletons are a good idea per se, I just like the idea of other potential editors having a nice framework to use. A template just seems so... permanent?... and I'd like to maintain the option of dropping the idea when/if the project gets a flood of sensible volunteers (so far I'm the only one, and I'm not using the template at all but Wikipedia =/= me, obviously). Thanks for giving me something to mull over! I'll come back with something sensible as an idea in the fullness of time. :o) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some overall concerns about this article. Primarily the notablity of the subject matter. There are very few links from other sites to the external references, and often the primary links are only to each other. I am eliciting comments since you have edited on this page. See my comments on the talk page. Trödel 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]