Talk:Old Forge Blue Devils: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Sports|class=start|importance=low}} |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{oldafdfull| date = 16 January 2013 (UTC) | result = '''merge to [[Old Forge School District#Sports]]''' | page = Old Forge Blue Devils }} |
|||
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=start|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=start|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Sports|class=start|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Sports|class=start|importance=low}} |
||
Revision as of 01:24, 7 February 2013
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Old Forge School District#Sports. |
 | Pennsylvania Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Sports Redirect‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
not an orphan
This article is the main article for a Summary style link from Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. That alone means it's not orphaned!
Also, disambiguation links are counted against orphanage.
- --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- You know, I was happy to walk away from this, but then you decided to go over to Admin Noticeboard and gloat, which displays a contempt for fellow users. You also made no effort to discuss this article's orphan status until after you managed to get me unjustly blocked, which displays bad faith. But you're a jerk, that's obvious but not terribly relevant. If you took a half second to actually read WP:O, you would know that An article is orphaned if fewer than three other articles link to it.
- Here's the actual articles that link here: Blue Devils, Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, Old Forge Blue Devils Sports. Just squeaks in at three right? Wrong. Because WP:O also contradicts your assertion that dab links count. For the purposes of the strict definition, the following pages do not count toward the three: Disambiguation pages, Redirects, Lists, soft redirects, Discussion pages of articles, Wikipedia pages outside outside of article space
- So if we scratch out the dab and the redirect, per guidelines, what's that leave us with? One link. The article fails the definition of WP:O.
- I am done with WP becauses of people like you, who only seek consensus after seeking punishment and who willfully ignore guidelines to further your own agenda. You're an ass and I was right. XOXO Tomdobb (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- You were blocked for repeated violations of our Three-revert rule policy (in this case 6-7 depending on the count method) and Civility policy (among other problems, repeatedly calling other edits vandalism, and posting inflammatory vandalism notices). Your diatribe above continues your abusive behavior. Your 24 hour block was reviewed by 3 different administrators.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You were blocked for repeated violations of our Three-revert rule policy (in this case 6-7 depending on the count method) and Civility policy (among other problems, repeatedly calling other edits vandalism, and posting inflammatory vandalism notices). Your diatribe above continues your abusive behavior. Your 24 hour block was reviewed by 3 different administrators.
Wikipedia:Orphan is not a guideline, nor has it ever been (to this date). Moreover, the egregiously ridiculous change in definition was made only a few days ago. By that definition, all {{main article}} pages are orphans, contradicting an official guideline: Summary style. They are not!
The determination of orphan status is traditionally made by software, Special:LonelyPages.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)