 I Want to Know HowI just switched names and did this--Stephenharper321 Talk
but how do i make my own?
Haha, funny nameDo you by any chance have Norwegian connections? In Norwegian, your username almost sounds like "stupid in the head". Quite amusing, isnt it? Haha!
ENS SakalaI added text, links, image, corrected the data and ship details. Please remove the thing you added. As the Estonian Navy received the ship today, 24.01.2008, there is not yet much to write or add to the article. The ship has been an Estonian vessel about 6-10 hours by now. I will continue to add information when the Navy webpage updates the info about the vessel.
Karabinier 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you make this reversion? There is a discussion on the talk page of the article about the shape the article should take. Please contribute to that if you wish; in any case please do not revert others' good faith edits. Thank you. --John (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what sort of information do you feel was missing from the article? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'm flattered that you decided to use my "leave a message" bar. ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We-eell, there is some info covered only sparsely in the article, but the three lists linked to by it function as subarticles which provide all the information. I did upload a few pictures, but I'm afraid that getting a picture of the contestants during the competition is not allowed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's visitation day for my grandpa, so I gotta leave in a little bit. I'm finishing getting ready...I'll talk to you wed, cause the funeral is tomorrow, so I will be gone when you're on. Ctjf83talk 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for that babe Ctjf83talk 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will probably be a few days, I don't feel like talking to anyone right now Ctjf83talk 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dustihowe. I'm not sure if someone has already pointed this out to you, but this move that you did is not in keeping with usual page-move procedures. One main reason for moving a page is to preserve the history of edits so that all the contributors are noted (important for the GFDL license, for example). But that was not appropriate in this case because the original article was about a completely different subject than the one you were proposing. You may be already aware of this if you are following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live/Wire. Happy editing, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hema Sinha. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Travellingcari (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- no one made any efforts? What's the nomination for then? It should have been relisted to establish consensus. Travellingcari (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on users talk page
- mind adding that to the DRV? It needs to be re-opened and relisted to establish consensus? Thanks Travellingcari (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, it appears Keeper undid the close, so you don't have to. Have a good day Travellingcari (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already relisted. Trying to catch up to you and travellingcari! :-). I independently stumbled into this while closing old AfDs, I've already relisted it and commented at the DRV. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look through the guidance at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Thanks. --Sturm 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar, though you should really be thanking huggle. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I suppose you can't give awards to non-sentient computer programs. :P Your ER will archive automatically soon (next week, I think); I'm guessing you can do it manually, but there's no reason to (unless there is, and I'm just not aware about it). · AndonicO Hail! 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder to delete the article for this AFD, too. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid closure. Relisted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Dustihowe. Pleaser read carefully this section of AfD closures. Non admins are explicitly not allowed to close an AfD that results in delete. This is the third string on your user talk in the last 24 hours trying to address this with you. Please stop. Your efforts are greatly appreciated but they need to stay within the boundaries set forth. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I did notice they were all from the 19th. I looked at your contribs and saw that they were all bunched together and at the top of the list. As I was going through them, I hadn't realized they were all from yesterday and that you had yet to edit today (because again, they were at the top of your contrib list), so I did think it was "in process". My apologies for the terseness above, I didn't mean to come across that condescending. I think you are a fine editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure can, but I'll be honest I'm not that familiar with your contribs (besides this recent little string:). If you could first do something for me? I'd like to be assured that you understand AfD consensus/debate consensus. Could you go through the AfDs that you closed and reassert to me why they were not all appropriate closes, even if you were an admin? There were a few I disagreed with and would have likely disagreed with even if you had admin tools. I'll list them here: This is a good "review exercise" and helped me when I was up for adminship to look through old debates that I had participated in. If you are interested in being an admin (and I assume you, are, then looking at the state of the debates when you closed them...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama's Gravy
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridin' (Mýa song)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moquette
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse
How would you proceed differently, if at all? Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD reviewHey there again! Wow, you're quick. I've moved your 5 paragraphs over here and I will be adding responses to each of them in time.
From my talk page. Keeper's replies are in italics.
- Mama's Gravy. In this sense, I did close it prematurely, as there was no consensus. I would wait a few more days to see if there is any more activity in the discussion. If, at the end of say 5 days there is still no more activity, I woudl then relist it. If I still don't get any more activity at the end of that time period, I would go ahead and list it as a keep and then tag it for speedy per db-band.
- This one is a bit tricky. It is very likely this particular band is not notable (and I would say delete if I were !voting in the debate). However, the consensus currently(although small) seems to think the band just makes it. We'll see how the relist goes. However, you're last sentence is not correct. If an AfD closes as keep, then the article is explicitly not eligible as a speedy deletion and could easily be seen as a bad faith tagging based on "not liking the outcome of a debate". It could however be renominated at a later time if warranted, but defintely not by db-band.
- Hema Sinha. This article is poorly written and from investigating the author, it is his/her first article to Wikipedia. There hasn't been any activity in the account since May 14th, 2007. I would say that if the article didn't reach a consensus, and was relisted with no success to any more comments then the page, if a majority says keep, should be kept, and tagged for references, as the main issue in the debate is notability. I would try relisting it one or two more times before I would close the convo.
- I agree with this one. Good response. There is a template called {{cleanup-afd}} that would work well if the article in fact ends up kept.
- Ridin' (Mýa song). There seems to be a consensus now in the debate, as it is 4-1 delete. I would still wait until the end of the time period for listings (which I believe is about 5 days). If at that time no other comments are made about the article, under the current conditions, I would close it as a delete (assuming I was an admin).
- Good answer. Always wait for at least 5 days to close (unless it's so blatantly obvious one way or the other. Remember, there is no deadline.
- Moquette. In this situation, I did close it very close to a possible argument on a non consensus, however, the discussion was 6 days old. I probably should have relisted it to see if any more comments or voting could take place and if nothing were to happen, I would still close it as a keep and tag the article for expansion to satisfy a good article length. In addition, I would tag it for references.
- This one is tough, but it does appear that it arrived at a keep consensus (with only the nominator voicing a delete opinion for the most part). If it isn't contested, I wouldn't worry about this one as it seems to be an understandable and justifiable "keep" close.
- Consciousness causes collapse. This one I was confused on, and wish to open it back up and relist it. The current closing consensus is 3(keep)-3(delete)-6(merge). I am not really all that comfortable with the closing numbers. I would relist it another time, since the article seems to be good on drawing feedback and comments.
- The key here is that there was no consensus and should not have been closed yet (by admin or non admin). I've removed your closing statement to let the discussion work out. Also, keep in mind that AfD's are not votes, meaning a 3-3-6 isn't necessarily the most important factor to consider. You are right though, this should not have been closed yet and it is now relisted.
I'll make some observations here. Feel free to copy/paste this to your official editor review if you so choose.
1. I think you have very good editor qualities. You have an eagerness to do things The Right Way TM and an eagerness to learn and try new things.
2. When something is done incorrectly (we've all been there, I promise), you are quick to fix and/or apologize if necessary, and quick to find the right way to proceed.
3. You just seem nice! :)
Slight bit of criticism, I hope you take it constructively as it is given in good faith and not meant as a detraction from your otherwise strong character.
1. The eagerness is good, and boldness is generally good, but it is vital that you look for relevant policies and guidelines before acting in areas of the wiki that may be seen as contentious or controversial (like debates). The guidelines are quite clear about non admin closures and the parameters that they fall into and could've easily been checked before closing several AfDs. (For future reference, see WP:NAC). When you are up for an RfA again, the questions that are asked of you assume that you already understand the policies, not just that you are willing to learn the policies. Now, I realize there are more policies than could possibly be learned even with several years experience (and just when you learn one, it changes anyway:) In a nutshell, it is better to do it right the first time then to have to backtrack your contribs with apologies and reverts later, especially for an admin. Mistakes happen (I made two doozies yesterday), but it is far less stressful for you and for anyone working with you to be able to trust that the right thing is being done without having to dig through your contribs. If you don't know it, ask it, once you do know it, do it! Does that make sense?
Anywho, all that to say, I think you are a great Wikipedian with your heart in the right place. Just make sure your mind and your fingers keep up! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know I'm not a clone? Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!! *add Frankenstein-ish lightning clap sound effect here* Have a great day - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my general thoughts are you were a little to bold in the closures, and most were reverted. First, only administrators should close conversations as delete, as only they can technically delete pages. Second, it is generally better to leave it to admins to close controversial/complex AFDs, and make sure any you do close have had required input since starting/relisting. Finally, make sure you put the AFD top template above the title so the page formats properly. Happy editing! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: edit] Re:{helpme}
If I am right use this {PD-author|name} (add a {} at the beginning and the end) and place the authors name at the beginning. Hope I helped. If you need anything else [[user talk:Dustihowe|let me know. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [ ...can you check to see if I did it right? Thanks much, AeronM (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vandalized the pages you said i did except shmita i did not vandalize shmita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.231.134 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
