User talk:Robdurbar

Incognito (identity)

I notice that you have not done anything at all with regard to all of the links that went to this particular article, when you decided to delete it. The reason why I set up a page was because all links to incognito were being directed to the music band of that name — including links which were obviously regarding concealed identity. When I created the page, it took a considerable and careful effort to ensure that the links to the indentity page, and to the music band page, would go to the appropriate pages.

The problem now arises that all of the links to concealed identities now go nowhere. Could you please fix things up again so that the links which you discarded (along with your deletion of the article), will again be okay. Thank you. Figaro 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just recreated the page, so that the links will have somewhere to go again. But you do not have to worry yourself about having to delete the page again - the page is now a 'REDIRECT' page (something which you could have done - instead of just deleting the page). Could you please check for links to a page before deleting it in future. Figaro 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was absolutely essential for me to recreate the page, as the page was necessary for me to correct the links on all of the pages which used to link to the Incognito (identity) article. Recreating the page was the only way in which I could know which articles needed editing to fix up the links, because it was the sole area where the links to the article were listed.

As I have now completed the task of redirecting all of the links to the correct page, the Incognito (identity) page can now be deleted again as it is no longer required. Figaro 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about last block

Hi Robdurbar, that ip is used only by him at least since 22:10, May 15, 2006, and all edits seem to be from same person. He'll probably come back with other ips. Cheers --Ugur Basak 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He eventually came back with the name User:194.171.121.23. What can we do?--Ugur Basak 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least we can say he has used this ip before on September 29. As far as i know, as listed on 3RR page, his ips are 82.168.59.236-82.92.94.108 and 194.171.121.23-194.171.121.31. First two was used for long term by him. But 194.171.121.xx seeems to be new. Actually long term ip blocks are not good as you say. We've a chance, he everytime edits with same patterns, just reverting carelessly removing interwikis, notes etc. While i was writing this message, i checked Galatasaray article for last time and i see it's vandalised once more with similar ip [1] (User:194.171.121.15). --Ugur Basak 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Robdurbar, check history part of Galatasaray. That ip is out of control 194.171.121.xx(27,23,15). For a few months that article only edited as revert-wars. --Ugur Basak 08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He already reverted after your last revert. I don't think that he wants to contribute positively to this project and articles. Anyway thanks for your interest and help. Actually i don't know semi-protected articles like G.W. Bush etc., but maybe for a limited time period helps him to give-up. I'll try to post, start a case what i can do. If you want to comment after i started the case, i'll drop a message here. I really want to improve that page but it's difficult at least for now. Btw he has been working interwikily, at least vandalising turkish article of Galatasaray, removing coaches part:) --Ugur Basak 09:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robdurbar, thanks for your helps but this thing is really out of control:( I started a case on here and here ,. Your comments as a sysop will be appreciated. Cheers --Ugur Basak 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Mylo; Liverpool John Moores University; Hall Road Rangers F.C.; Swanley Furness F.C.; Liskeard Athletic F.C.; Centre 200; Steve Pemberton; Saltash United F.C.; Highworth Town F.C.; England national amateur football team; Ottawa Civic Centre; Darlington Railway Athletic F.C.; Ushaw College; Carlos Alberto; Tow Law Town F.C.; Federation of Old Cornwall Societies; Colisée de Rimouski; Quinton Fortune; K.C. Irving Regional Centre

Cleanup: History of the Isle of Man; Economic history of Britain; Sculpture of the United States
Merge: First League of Serbia and Montenegro; The Twelfth; National holiday
Add Sources: General Certificate of Secondary Education; Fulbourn Institute F.C.; Carterton Town F.C.
Wikify: Counter-terrorism; Plastic shopping bag; Louis le Brocquy
Expand: Entrust; King's College London; History of Shropshire

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant

Hey, I am having severe problems with this user. He makes up his own rules and says he is following wikipedia guidelines. For example, on the Triple H article, there was one free use image, and two fair use images. He never deleted them. But now all of the sudden he says its an excessive use of fair-use pics just because there is one free use image in there, and deletes them. He breaks the 3RR all the time but makes dumb excuses and gets out of it every time. He has been blocked for the 3RR before, 6 times. And has also been blocked for repeated violations of NPA/CIVIL. And now he is causing problems with me. And has in the past before, which cause me to leave. So, if you could please do something besides giving him a warning, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob! --Mikedk9109 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, chad is up to it again. He keeps deleting that image. He says they should be used sparingly. And he says the Triple H article isn't a photo Gallery. It has 2 pictures! Its a rather long article and needs more than just one picture. So, can't you do something about this? Thanks. Here is the link where he deleted it again: 1

Re: El Gringo

Whether he removes the comment or not, the fact that he was warned still stands, so I don't really concern myself with people removing warnings too much.--Konst.able 04:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was a good 10 days ago, I don't think blocking him for removing it now will accomplish anything except maybe aggravate him more. The reason why I had that note is that generally removing a warning straight away shows me a great deal about lack of good faith. But El Gringo has taken a long break already and hasn't quite gone back to his old behaviour.--Konst.able 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redemption code

Rob, I do really believe that all editors have a lot of good faith towards WP. I also know that relentlessly pursuing an editor is something that spoils WP. These warnings are often from individuals and have a POV element in themselves. What often happens in WP, editors that are hounded often come back with a newer personality, and very often more cunning and colder than before. That's my 2 and 6 worth of observation. MelForbes 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and again

Hi Robdurbar, [2] once more sock evading on Galatasary article:) He came back with a new user name and revert the article again. --Ugur Basak 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: El Gringo

Hi Robdurbar. I was wondering what was happening about the whole El Gringo situation. Of course, I don't object to any of his opinions, but I do object to the fact that they are constantly expressed in a violent, agressive and hate-filled manner that is intrinsically offensive. He uses swearwords a lot, as well as personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. See the British Empire talk pages for a few examples of this within the last 24 hours. I would be very grateful if you could do something about this, because it has been going on for many months now. Thanks. --Stonemad GB 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Gringo

I've glanced at this page and others intermittently and, having just viewed your comment dated 11.10.06 on Mel's page, I'd like to make some points:

1. The reason I have to emphasise the imperial nature of these discussions on nomenclature is precisely because they are consequences of British imperial claims to Ireland. They are products of British mythmaking, of British nationalist needs at a point in British history. No more, and no less. I find it profoundly insulting for others to deny the political fundamentals in the name's development and usage.

2. The reason why I specify the rightwing nature of certain posters who support their usage as applied to Ireland is because to say that holding those views was simply a product of their Britishness would display national prejudice, which I'm not silly enough to bother with. Consequently, the only way to convey my belief that using these terms is the product of a British nationalist upbringing rather than a British one is to point out this nationalist basis of certain editors' views. The adjective nationalist modifies the noun British. It is not to equate British with nationalist, and on this I have pointed out frequently that most, if not all, British media organisations refuse to use the term British Isles in their weather forecasts, for instance. That is an example of liberal Britain, of the contrast. As such, it would be dishonest to refer to the arguments made in defence of the use "British Isles" as being simply a British trait- that would be a national prejudice. I do have an unashamedly firm prejudice against editors trying to tell me where I live and what my identity is, especially when their views express the cultural and political values of the state which has a record of the same for many centuries. Again, to use Edward Said's highly perceptive observation in Orientalism: colonial powers always seek to control the representation of the native to the world. I'm not having it, and I haven't been brought up to tolerate that sort of cultural arrogance. So, yes, I do have a clearly defined intolerance regarding the thankfully decreasing amount of persons in Ireland's neighbouring island who feel they must impose their nationalist myths and their nationalist narratives upon Ireland. I especially object to their notion that their terms for Ireland are not based on the nationalist myths and needs of the British state at a point in her history. Whether they do this consciously or not is another matter.

3. On this latter point, the usage of the term, however well-intentioned, is a product entirely of the political situation. I do not for a minute doubt your good intention, and I don't believe that I have accused you personally of having views in the 'imperialist' category. However, and this is a key point, because one subconsciously uses a word with very definite imperialist connotations does not mean that the imperialist meaning is obliterated. To my mind there is no contradiction between assuming somebody's good faith, and continuing to believe the usage of the term to include Ireland is an imperialist usage. As you yourself acknowledged, it is unsurprising that the British Isles page developed political tentacles because it was written by editors who 'could not escape their own background entirely'. In this context editors' denying the political nature of the term are exposing the political nature of the term through, at best, subconsciously reflecting their society's prejudices in the use of the term. At worst, editors are denying the political nature, and then strengthening it by imposing their very blatant unionist political views subscribing to what is rougly paraphrased as "We are all British and it's only Irish nationalism which is engaged in mythmaking on this issue". This is the context of my continuous affirmation that use of the term British Isles is a product of British imperialist claims, of British state mythmaking, regarding Ireland.

4. The principal wikipedians engaged in throwing Ireland into a British context do have solid political views. User:Gsd2000 in particular has an astounding record on this front; first, in equating Britain with the United Kingdom on the latter's page despite the Act of Union 1800 itself, which makes a well-known distinction between both in the very name of the UK state. This was repeated again on the Talk:Britain page. The same political desire to take Ireland out of colonial parameters and place it within British nationalist parameters is now being repeated on Talk:British Empire where, breathtakingly, Ireland is now not considered an "overseas colony". A look at his contributions shows he is engaged in the same project elsewhere on wikipedia, usually followed by the invariably obnoxious comment condemning other posters for their "pov". It would be naïve to assume good faith in the case of that particular poster, for instance.

5. I'll take a break from wikipedia for a while. But I will not apologise for opposing those who seek to impose their state's nationalist terminology and contextualisation upon Ireland, and the conceit of apoliticism which ceaselessly accompanies their efforts in this regard. Those days are over, and it's well past the time that the persons concerned developed a new vocabulary for the changed times, just as every society does in each generation. As sincere as I am about all that, I want to be equally sincere in saying that you, by the way, are a decent and open-minded wikipedian. Beir bua. El Gringo 18:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted CSD R3s

I don't know that I agree with your recent deletions of the quoted article titles recently tagged as {{db-redirtypo}}. Redirects are cheap, after all, and it's not only plausible for a person to search with quotes around the title, it's likely. (Just look at how many articles get moved after creation because they start out with quotes.) I'm not sure the deletions are worth restoring, but it's something you might want to think about. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's totally a pain, but I'm working on it. I've asked the user to stop tagging the articles. -- Merope ^Talk 17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you cool with my restoring the R3s? I don't want to wheel war over it (it's really not a big deal), but I'm happy to restore them. (Plus, it's easy to restore them without restoring the db tag.) -- Merope ^Talk 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium

Thanks for the note - I've given you the benefit of the doubt! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music Page

Thanks for protecting the page. I have provided my responses (about 3-4 for now). I think someone has to take a look and let us know how this consensus building will happen. I think it may be necessary to keep it protected for a considerable time. I'm planning to leave a similar message in User:Sundar's page as well. --Aadal 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you or User:Sundar or some other admin come and check what is going on in the Carnatic music page? I've provided ample material. User:Skris is not using appropriate language and does not properly engage in discussing the isses, in my view. I believe some admin should step in and advise us.--Aadal 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Talk:Carnatic_music#Nothing_else_to_say.3F and do what you deem fit. Thanks. -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please lock the carnatic music article again since the other side seems to be least interested in preventing another edit war. Sorry to put you through this chore.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, thanks for your suggestion, I agree with that, but its not me alone who is involved with the other fellow (Aadal). Even if I dont revert User:Aadal's edits pending discussions, there is every chance someone else (who may not listen to my pleas) will do it very soon. I think an unproductive edit war can be prevented by protecting the page now rather than make it look ugly again. However, I leave it to your discretion, I wont be participating in an edit war though. Thanks for all the help.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest and service areas

I did not see your reason for not accepting my proposals for deletion. I don't see any importance in those rest and service areas in Malaysia. They are just stops along highways where there are a few stores and toilets. Can you give me your explanation. Besides, I'm from Malaysia and I've seen them and used them myself.Wai Hong 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend articles about specific rest areas? I have found articles about the various types of rest areas but not specific rest areas such as those written by User:Aiman abMajid.Wai Hong 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting vandalism of my user page.

Small minds are easily entertained. Prometheus^-X303- 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFWC

As you have been a major contributor, I was wondering what you think of what I've been doing at List of winners of Unofficial Football World Championships. Kevin McE 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Deletion, Delilah Knotty (Fetish Model)

October 28, 2006: Robdurbar, I would like to discuss with you and contest your recent deletion of the article listed above without having to request a review of your decision. I believe this page about Delilah Knotty was a description of a transgendered fetish model and the recent work produced by this model. This page was in-fact produced in similar fashion of several other articles with links to several supporting articles of similar theme within Wikipedia. Specifically, the article described a history of the evolution of the transfetish modeling and/art within the crossdressing community. This article has been a thought-provoking piece, which has garnered some support to how and why transfetish is coming to be. I believe this is a useful and complete article and has stood the test of being authentic and accepted by the duration of it’s printing on Wikipedia. Can you please review this in more detail so the article can be restructured for what you feel as more appropriate without summary deletion again? Author - Delilah Knotty

Deleted images (invalid fair use)

Many thanks for working your way methodically through that list earlier today. Please could you look at just a few that were missed somehow (maybe I forgot to include them).

Thanks, Arbitrary username 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. Oops, I'd forgotten about the 'not a bot' notice on my talk page! Arbitrary username 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English national team

Why have a redundant section. If you're going to argue about going to WikiProject Football, then check there manual of style for national teams. There's no sectioon regarding recent call ups or even current squads for that matter. Kingjeff 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is there is no need for this section. You should check redundancy. is the use of duplicative, unnecessary or useless wording. In this case it duplicative, unnecessary and useless. Kingjeff 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be any edits anytime soon. Kingjeff 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Please note, I just block conflicted you on User talk:208.39.164.129, I've extended the block to 1 fortnight as this has been a persistant problem account. I've blocked for anon only. If you disagree with this and want to go back to this only being a 1 hour block, I won't cry wheeling. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User:Nielswik .

Those reverts were NOT within 24 hours. He had only 3 revert in 24 hours. Hence he has not violated any rule. It is not good to ban him :( --- ابراهيم 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my own peace of spirit: the reason that I listed that as a revert was due to the previous edit where he made the same addition (subsequently removed by another user). But in any event this was a very complicated case. I just wish people would rely a little more on discussion... Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong heading which I have corrected now. I have replied on 3RR page. --- ابراهيم

Daksh

Rob, it seems you've deleted the two articles on "Daksh", one about IBM's Indian BPO arm, and the other about the technical festival of SASTRA University, in India. The history page calls the "Daksh" page an advert.

I wrote the Daksh technical festival page, and i deliberately and carefully worded it to avoid making it sound like an advertisement. Also, most other Indian colleges have wikipedia pages for their technical festivals, and these seem to be running without any objections from admins, so I dont see the point in deleting this one alone. Admittedly, there was no citation there. The event website hasn't yet been launched, so I can't cross-reference to it for some time, but I will do it once that site is up.

As for the BPO arm, I had nothing to do with the article, but I don't think that seemed like advertising either. I'm not fighting for it, but I definitely didn't see what was wrong with it.

Please get back to me asap, as I'd like to put the page back with any necessary corrections.Raghuvansh_r

The article definitely isn't speculative, but i get what you're saying about the lack of sources. A technical Festival is something which I believe is peculiar to Indian college culture; it consists of various competitions, rather like a Culfest, but in a technical festival, the events tend to be oriented towards the academic side; I'll be sure to put this on the Daksh page. Other technical festivals (for which you wanted links) include Pragyan, Techfest, Engineer (Part of the NITK page - link provided to give you an idea of what a technical festival is), Kshitij etc. These are just some of the prominent technical festivals that appear on wikipedia; Will ensure that the Daksh page, when I do put it up, has proper links. Raghuvansh_r

Sfrandzi

Hi!

I'm Wulfson, sys-op in Russian Wikipedia. I see that you indefinitely blocked User:Sfrandzi who is also active in RuWP - could you please explain the grounds for this? The thing is that I am rather closely cooperating with him in RuWP on various issues related to modern history of Near East and Southern Caucasus - from Iraq and Iran to Azerbaijan, Armenia, North Karabakh, etc. The block log says he is a sockpuppet - could you please be more specific? In Russian WP, User:Sfrandzi showed himself as very competent and knowledgeable, though maybe somewhat biased in the Armenian-Azerbaijani issue - but I do not believe it may be sound grounds for an indefinite block. When I was around, at least, we managed to get things straight. It would be most regretful to lose a valuable input. If you might drop me a line at ru:User:Wulfson, I would be glad to discuss this matter.

Regards, Wulfson 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and further comment on User talk:JamesAVD

I thought your refusal to unblock James very reasonable, but I also thought your further comment to the user was awesome. We all have to forgive each others' mistakes and what you wrote showed real insight and humanity. I also agree with the need to put to bed the issue of removing warnings. We need to restate that warnings are just that, not badges of shame, in my opinion.

All in all, I think we have treated James very fairly and kindly. I only became aware of him when I saw he had removed the EU succession info from an article on my watchlist, then saw he was doing the same thing wholesale without any consensus or discussion (that I could see), and got browbeaten when I asked him about it. Anyway, sorry to gush on, but I wanted to comment. --Guinnog 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G11

Rob, I'm a bit perplexed by your speedying SK Telecom Open as an advert; the promotional tendencies of the article notwithstanding, a golf tournament contested on the professional Asian Tour is, I'd suggest, presumptively notable, and one to have been contested, quite prominently, by Michelle Wie, inter al., is likely necessarily notable. I don't recall myself to have edited the article, but I saw the redlink at Portal:Golf/News and thought I ought to drop you a line. I think undeletion to be in order, but I understand that, in view of the interest now accorded G11, you might continue to think the speedying to be appropriate, such that a DRV, in order that the community might weigh in, might be the best pursuit. If there is something I'm missing here (it's eminently possible there is something; I am frequently dense) that would suggest deletion of the article as serving principally or exclusively as advertisement to have been advised/necessary, I'd much appreciate your letting me know. :) Joe 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that I'm quibbling over a three-sentence article and that it is probable that I ought simply to recreate the article, but insofar as I'm more a PII than an IAR guy and insofar as I think your understanding of G11 to be one for which a consensus does not exist (in the first instance, SK Telecom appears to be notable per WP:CORP and inasmuch as we've an article apropos of the company, such that a one-sentence note as to the nature of a title sponsor is not at all inappropriate (consistent, e.g., with most of the titled events enumerated, inter al., at Men's Tennis - 2006 Season). G11 ought only to be employed where a page exists exclusively to promote a company and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic; here, the excision of SK telecom [sic] is part of a bigger branch of technology well known in South Korea; the retention of the {{wikify}} and {{uncategorized}} tags; and the addition of {{Golf-stub}} should suffice to render the article encyclopedic. I will, then, pursue a DRV, and I hope you'll impute neither malign motive nor WP:POINT to my DRV; I think your application of G11 here to be quite wrong, and I think it important the community weigh in in order that we might better understand for what application of G11 a consensus exists. I do, though, appreciate most sincerely your reasoned reply, and I'll be sure to drop by once more with a specific note once I've listed the article. Joe 19:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once more for your reply to my message. I readily concede that this is probably as process-oriented a DRV as one might ever see, but I think it exceedingly important that we exercise caution when applying speedy deletion criteria, especially, IMHO, G11, the uses of which have, in several instances (e.g., the "cookie debacle"), been altogether inconsistent and inappropriate. In any event, I suppose, in the interests of formality, I ought to leave this: An editor has asked for a deletion review of SK Telecom Open. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Cordially, Joe 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU maps

I believe the new maps have been introduced without reaching a clear consensus. Personally I find them very POVish and also less clear geographically (i.e. Spain new map does not even show the Canary Islands, nor clearly transmits the idea of its location as nexus in between to continents, etc). I think a proper discussion should take place on whether it is acceptable to use these new non-standard maps. Obviously, I have no intention whatsoever to engage on any revert campaign or edit wars, but I find unacceptable that an important change like this has been introduced by the back door. Your thoughts? Asterion^talk 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Music Canada

Regarding your deletion of the page for Revolution Music Canada with the explanation that it was a repost of deleted material, IT WAS NOT A REPEAT. We spent the last year refining those facts so that they would fit into Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion as an indie record label, including having national releases, being featured internationally, having radio airplay and being featured in nationally published magazines. I feel your deletion was a form of Wikipedia vandalism. Rather than reading the page to see that it wasn't a repeat and was very valid, you chose to delete it without informing yourself of the content. I feel this is an abuse of your privledge. Please repost it or I will. Drdphd 11:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

AniZone

Hi,

You deleted the article AniZone citing the reason that User:AltUser closed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anizone. User:Patstuart then reverted it because User:AltUser was blocked. User:Konstable was operating the account (and clearly marked it as such) and explains his reasons on the user page. So I'm not sure if the close should be reverted, or the article should be undeleted to gather more consensus. ColourBurst 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would mind if you closed it yourself; it's more than 5 days; once you discount non-arguments there's a clear consensus. ColourBurst 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare weapons In Neocron

Regarding your deletion of the page "Rare Weapons In Neocron" under A1. This article bears context within the neocron comunity for those interested in the background story of the varius unique weapons of the game. These varius unique weapons are refered to within other wikipedia articles with no further information available and i feel that your deletion bear little merrit beacouse of this. --Taurmin 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory text whas a rough outline as this article whas still a work in progress. It whas only created an hour ago so it should at the least have crosed your mind that this might not be a finished article. Even at the moment of its deletion i whas preparing to finish the introduction for the article. I would be glad if you could restor it so that i can finish it up. --Taurmin 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the article whas completed and it whas merely missing som finishing touches. Instantly deleting an article of this size simply beacouse i fail to state what an mmo is is meager grounds at best. --Taurmin 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives