User talk:Bluefield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Jay dobyn
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Jay dobyn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Metropolitan90 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus you guys work fast....I barely posted an initial test sentence.....I have now cited to sources and don't believe that deletion is appropriate at this time.
- Sorry about that. There's a page called Special:Newpages where the most recently created articles are listed, and some editors (including me) look up the new pages and see what's going on with them. Part of the problem is that some editors start an article and are never heard from again; I didn't know at the time whether you would come back and finish the article. --Metropolitan90 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Colin Cowherd
I say STS01 should be banned from editing the Colin Cowherd related pages. He deletes anything he disagrees with regardless of it's validity. Look through the history and you will se that he imposes his views on both Colin Cowherd and The Herd with Colin Cowherd. He has become a hindrance instead of a help to this website.
I don't believe he should be banned, but he should know that deleting factual information is inappropriate, no matter his personal feelings regarding Cowherd or his show. Bluefield
[edit] RFAR
Please notify the other two parties in the case you filed of the RFAR and note what other forms of dispute resolution, if any, have been tried. Thank you. Picaroon 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- At the #Involved parties section of the request, there are two headers, "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request" and "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." Under the first one, you'll need to provide diffs showing that you have left the other two messages which link to the RFAR. Under the second one, you should link to all the attempts at previously resolving the dispute (for example, the mediation request you mention). Picaroon 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that one of the other parties has indicated on the requests for arbitration page that the dispute is resolved. If you agree, please make a note of this on the arbitration page so the matter can be closed. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your negative commentary on other user talk pages concerning my intentions. Please try to be civil and assume good faith in the future. Your request was premature. We could have worked this out simply using the discussion pages instead of wasting the moderators time. --STS01 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Colin Cowherd
I know you're probably going to be PO'd if the controversy section is removed (and I do agree, it was a pretty dickish move of Cowherd to do), but I'd like you to take a look at my consensus-building section of the talk page, and understand why it might need to go. Wikipedia lives and dies by its sourcing, and blogs just do not reach to the status of Reliable Sources that meet encyclopedic standards.
Take a fresh look at the diff I presented, find a better source for the controversy section if you want it in the article, and let's work towards consensus on the talk page. Thanks! SirFozzie 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I just left the controversy info as it was on The Herd page. I'm ok with your edits. I think that stunt was pretty funny so if it's going to be there, I really don't care if you include the quotes. --STS01 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
