Talk:Ashland, Oregon/archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reversion by SimonP
SimonP reverted the following link by 67.42.208.146
- Welcome to Ashland - Essentix's guide
It looks like a good edit to me. Can you let us know why it was reverted, or what was wrong, so we don't put it back if it doesn't belong? (note left on SimonP's talk page. (This was originally unsiged but written by Demi
-
- What is wrong with it is that the user who added it was spamming Wikipedia with a number of links to their site. The site is merely one of hundreds that repackages public domain government content with large numbers of advertisements. - SimonP 07:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Notable Residents
Anyone know why Kitty May Ellis is being added and then deleted and then added again to the Notable Residents section? Just curious... Bradybd
- The article was deleted after a deletion review, so all refs to the article were deleted. Cut to epic edit war. Then the article was undeleted for a "history only" undeletion. The article is an unstoppable force. It is up for AfD again... Katr67 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow, sounds very intense. Thanks for the information! Bradybd 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incorrect Katr. The article was reposted and the review was reopened. Then closed for *moribund* with *NO* result. Therefore the article stays. Wjhonson 20:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Incorrect, Wjhonson. I did not say anything in the above about the article's ultimate fate. At the time I wrote the above, the article deletion was up for review, and the article was reposted per your request for a history only undeletion (which was agreed to by a user who was watching the deletion review). The review was closed after I wrote the above. I then unlinked the article from the Ashland article and others, in most cases leaving the text. I have no opinion regarding the final deletion or the conclusions you have drawn from the "moribund" designation. However, it is not the article Kitty May Ellis that you claim stays. Instead, it appears you have created a new article. Katr67 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The point being the article was incorrectly deleted, upon an inconclusive further review. Further review, doesn't mean "go with what was previous" it means "ask for New comments". Other than mine, there were no new comments. So the article should not have been deleted. Wjhonson 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
