User talk:OldakQuill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

1 DRV
2 Template:SLBY
3 Anal stretching
4 London meet is TUESDAY 9th, not Wednesday 10th!
5 Horace Howard Furness Jr.
6 This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!
7 Vyacheslav Sychev
8 Survey Invitation
9 Anal Stretching
10 James Mott

[edit] DRV

The Anal Stretching article went through DRV in December, and was recreated and deleted twice during the review which is why it is now salted. I believe the user who requested the review is now working on the article before attempting to resubmit it to mainspace. archive Yomangani ^talk 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SLBY

On the template SLBY talk page you detailed a problem with cataloging years chronologically. Esp with years before 1000 BCE.

I have added a header to Category:Lists of state leaders by year, if you can change the Template:SLBY to include the switch from my example User:Γνώθι Σεαυτόν/15 Hundreds, then synchronise the lists in the category. Then (I hope) the Category will magically be listed chronologically.

An example of where this works good is Category:Lists of religious leaders by year.

The solution is not perfect as I need to sort out how years BC can be included into a template. Maybe you have some ideas?

I am thinking that I should revert soon if a simple soltion canot be found. (Maybe we could make it an additional field into the template eg. BCE/BC)

How do I proceed?

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 10:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anal stretching

Surely you can create an article under some medical name. Try "Lord's procedure".--R613vlu 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London meet is TUESDAY 9th, not Wednesday 10th!

Update: Jimbo got his days of the week confused. This is now happening TUESDAY 9th, same place. You may care to sign up again or not - David Gerard 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horace Howard Furness Jr.

A tag has been placed on Horace Howard Furness Jr., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

Peripheral membrane protein
This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein. Please help to improve this article to featured article status.
Last month's collaboration was RNA interference

– Clockwork Soul 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vyacheslav Sychev

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Vyacheslav Sychev, 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. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Anal Stretching

Hi, thanks for your comments long back on January 2nd about Anal stretching in its deletion review, you said:
I normally wouldn't contend this kind of decision, but I'm having a couple of problems with it. It was nominated for AfD by User:SamKinney with the justification: "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide nor is it a dictionary. Nothing within this article is actually referenced and the bunch of external links at the bottom are not valid citations so I say delete this and salt the earth.". The article is encyclopaedic. Even if it were not the case, the subject has the capacity to be encyclopaedic. The rest of the justification is concerned with referencing: deletion seems like a rather destructive way of dealing with a lack of references. The article now seems to have been protected from recreation so even if I wished to create a fully referenced encyclopaedic article, I can't (being an administrator I could, but I won't). The subject of the article is notable (375k Google hits, several mentions in scientific journals), it is verifiable and referencable (the journals). I hope to have this article recreated so that the community can deal with it in a constructive manner. Oldak Quill 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments I have been the ardent fighter trying to get the article restored. I've sort of given up rewriting the article from scratch because I believe this to be unfair to me - why should I be forced to rewrite from my userpage all by myself, given the fact that there wasn't much wrong with the originally deleted article? Anyways, I did begin to here: User:Rfwoolf/Anal_stretching.

On your talk page under the post DRV User:Yomangani says:
The Anal Stretching article went through DRV in December, and was recreated and deleted twice during the review which is why it is now salted. I believe the user who requested the review is now working on the article before attempting to resubmit it to mainspace. archive Yomangani ^talk 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that was me, I tried to recreate the article twice, and the admins saw this as maliciousness - I neglected to put up a template saying I was working on a rewrite -- so it just looked like I had reposted the deleted article verbatim. This instantly cause the article to be locked from recreation meaning that you nor me could recreate it. After a lot of fighting they eventually said I could recreate the article in my userspace (User:Rfwoolf/Anal_stretching) and I've done what I can there for now.

Well I thought I'd get in touch with you, thank-you for your comments, and let's see what we can do to unlock the article from recreation.
Rfwoolf 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. Sadly, I'm not having much of a chance to get on Wikipedia at the moment (exams, mainly) so don't have much opportunity to help with this article. It's still something I feel strongly about so if the issue isn't resolved when I do next have a few hours free, I'll try to help out. If you'd like me to weigh in on a particular discussion about the article or help in anyway, you're more than welcome to e-mail me. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your receptive diplomacy on this. My attempts at fighting this issue from the very beginning has been hampered somewhat by the fact that I have been acting alone - in fact I've found the admins involved in the abolishing of the article seem to have too many cronies to make any decent debate.

I have rested my efforts in regenerating the article. The absolutely only recourse that has been afforded to me is that if I recreate the article myself without any errors in my userpage(!!!) and submit it back into Deletion Review then it may be put back -- but this recourse is already 3 months old and fails to acknowledge that the article is encyclopedic, should exist, and should be editable by all. Therefore I believe the article should be immediately unWP:SALTed! The salting was only to stop me from reposting deleted content - anything else has NO merit whatsoever. So I put it to you that if you as an admin unWP:SALT the article, *I* will not repost the content -- that will have to come from someone else - I will provide you with the old and new version of the article and it will be up to you or someone else to recreate or post the article in whatever form.

Perhaps we will discuss this matter again when you have finished your exams and it is both opportune and convenient.

As an aside, it may interest you to know that during this whole debacle, one of the prominent ~~deletionists~~ admins involved in the article's deletion and WP:SALTing (User:Guy) not only left 2 personal attacks against me in his edit summaries, but also locked my userpage for several days because of an essay outlining constructive criticism about the deletion of the article -- this very much pissed me off, and I have had a good mind to take him to arbitration - but once again, I am alone here. <-- I can provide you with all the evidence of this (already typed) should you be interested to see it.

Cheers Rfwoolf 12:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Mott

A tag has been placed on James Mott, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/d/User_talk%7EOldakQuill_6507.html"