User talk:Kurykh: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Qst |
||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
And why did you??--[[User:Inetpup|Inetpup]] 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
And why did you??--[[User:Inetpup|Inetpup]] 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Qst == |
|||
Is he resigning? [[User:Francisco Tevez|Francisco Tevez]] 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:52, 6 July 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Kurykh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Bachrach44 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My Userpage
Get them to put my userpage back!!!!-- Hornetman16 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked him as a gesture of good faith, but made it clear that if he resumes his previous behavior, he may be reblocked. --Coredesat 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
LifeLock
Hi. A month ago or so, you deleted LifeLock as a spam page and because personal info had been posted on the page. Because of recent events, the company is now notable. The short version of it is that it came out that their co-founder was accused of various crimes a while back. He has since then resigned. On top of that, presidential candidate Fred Thompson is doing advertisements for them and there have been some people making an issue out of it. It looks like the former article has been oversighted ... so there is nothing to restore. Because you deleted the article, I wanted to check with you before removing the protection. May I have your permission to unsalt the page and recreate the article? Thanks. --BigDT 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Jackie Chan Injury List
I am submitting a report on you for your deletion of the page, when the support obviously goes for against deleting it. Also before saying its fanCRUFT, please check out the references and video documentaries about those injury. I will not be alone in this. 1.)Deletion of an ongoing debate that obviously favors keeping it 2.)Outright deletion of an article that is being improved daily and sourced 3.)for whatever reason you did what you did, that is pretty much misappropriation of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs)
Your task as an admin is to be unbias in what you do, you blatantly calling it fancraft without a thought or research into the matter and deleting it outright when debate is still ongoing, just mean that you have no right to hold that sort of power.
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Your closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means. There are several discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT. It's therefore important to explain why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I believe the entire discussion is based on personal judgment calls and a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines.
You also imply a selective merge is possible, which would require a redirect and not deletion in order to preserve edit history. However, as pointed out merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary considering many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with Wikipedia:Summary style. If you disagree, I'll seek more viewpoints at deletion review. –Pomte 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27#Fight Club in popular culture. I responded to your note on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there because the closing admin's interpretation is very relevant. Userfication and cleanup isn't supposed to change other editors' opinions on whether the article should exist, although you're right, it probably will, but I'll be stubborn and stick to the principle. –Pomte 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Indenting, Spelling, etc.
Hi... I just tried to fix the indenting to make it easier to follow the discussion -- who was responding to whom, and who was making a comment for the first time. I had read under the Wikipedia talk page guidelines that it was acceptable to make formatting changes when the discussion is otherwise difficult to read, as long as one preserves the content. I certainly didn't substantively modify anyone's comments. I did indent people's comments where they failed to indent in the manner that identation is applied generally to allow readers to most easily follow the flow of conversation. The guidelines, under Layout, suggest that one should thread posts using indentations.
Similarly, fixing an incorrect spelling of a word is, I thought, acceptable as well. As long as the editor who misspelled the word doesn't have a problem with it being spelled correctly. I don't think that was one of your edits. I did that in one spot, where the first "s" was left out of consensus. Is it your understanding that that is unhelpful, or forbidden? In keeping with the above guidline, I had thought that it could only serve to make it easier for others to follow the conversation.
But I'll stop both engaging in both of those types of revisions, if they trouble you.
As to your suggestion that I actually discuss, I've tried to present my main comments, but will chime in further as you suggest where others don't address issues.--Epeefleche 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I thank you so much! I didn't know what to do! Kinkijui KNK! 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion page for CLSA was not restored
Hello ... you restored CLSA after a deletion review, but did not restore the discussion page, Talk:CLSA, which had some useful information that I posted prior to placing the CSD-A7 tag that led to its deletion ... would you please restore that as well? Thnx! —72.75.85.234 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
RfA--Hornetman16
Please return to my most recent RfA page!--05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Muni Metro map
Good catch on my typo! RickyCourtney 21:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Solution
So what is the solution of yours for this "lunacy"?--Semiramiscan 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Answered on WP:ANI. —Kurykh 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose carbon dioxide as this week's WP:ACID winner
Spamsara 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Who are you??
And why did you??--Inetpup 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Qst
Is he resigning? Francisco Tevez 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)