User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive25

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2009-08-01 and 2009-08-31.

I protest
That was outrageous!!!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are? You're not judge, jury and executioner! That article got deleted entirely outside any valid processes, and you commented on the article, spouted a whole lot of inaccurate garbage and then arbitrarily closed it off, all by yourself. That's fucking ridiculous.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on my talk page
Your uncivil tone notwithstanding, I love being proved wrong, so please take this to Deletion review. IF you have a problem with my resolution, please submit to the appropriate forum on Administrators noticeboard.

Regarding my decision: the concepts you were trying to present exist in the book's article; greater expounding does not, in my good faith search, exist in any documented form that conforms to our expectations, such as found at WP:V and WP:RS. Again, if you disagree, I encourage you to use the forums/ outlets available to you. My closure was a non-admin closure. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. That was an administrative action. That this is verifiable is admitted by you redirecting it to an article about a book covering it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletion is administrative. Redirection is not inherently so and is most often executed by non-administrators. That book, poorly referenced itself as being notable enough for inclusion, is barely enough to address such an obscure presentation.  100,000% greater clarity is required to make any sense of the topic as it is. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I just checked. The policy clearly says you can't comment and close it even if you're not using admin priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat, who the hell do you think you are?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper took this to DRV here, and the initial consensus seems to strongly disagree with your close. Would you consider consenting to a relist of the debate, and saving everyone some further drama? Thanks in advance. ~ mazca  talk 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was "First Things First (Bob Bennett Album)" deleted?
You quoted G6; however, there was no discussion about such a deletion and removal of a page that no one has ever objected to surprises me. Please restore the page. Christopher Rath (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The corrected title is First Things First (Bob Bennett album), but if you really want the redirect, go ahead and recreate it as such.
 * Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't state that you performed a rename; so, I am assuming that is what you did (as opposed to a deletion). It would have been better if you had stated in the original edit log that you had performed a rename.  Also, the manner in which you did the rename meant that the new page was orphaned; since you didn't edit the pages that linked to the page you renamed.  While it's nice that you were cleaning up the page name, you only did half the job. I will go fix the linked pages.  Christopher Rath (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from National Punctuation Day
Hello Cobaltbluetony, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to National Punctuation Day has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - event has sufficient reliable source coverage to warrant inclusion (see: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22National+Punctuation+Day%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en) - remove stale under construction tag) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Star Trek
Thank you for your comments.

This is nor "original research". Also - there have been an elaborate discussion, already, regarding the edit. Please appreciate the effort already put into this.

Note: The "alternate reality" interpretation, DOES NOT cite any references, and it brutally ignore another interpretation, voiced by so many others.

What I have done is descibed BOTH, thus allowing the reader to decide for herslef', as to which interpreatation she prefers to subscribe to.

Now I am going to return the previous version. Please wrok WITH me, not against me, if you feel there is room for improvement.

Thank you.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * there is currently an ANI discussion regarding this user and his behaviors. It is located [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ADVFN
Hi,

I'm a complete novice to this, but just wanted to discuss the Clem Chambers page. Regarding ADVFN/Advanced Financial Network; the company has removed the latter from all (well perhaps not all) of its branding and wishes to be known simply as ADVFN.

Thanks.

Francescad (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Jac 16888 Talk 18:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are you??? And why do you keep deleting a page I am trying to publish about a well known British Artist?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgregory (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

They're part of a well known British art movment Young British Artists movement, they have been exhibited in London and Germany, been interviewed and featured on British TV on the BBC, appeared in The Independant and The Guardian (British Newspapers) and other British newspapers when one of thier artworks was posted all over London! Thier artwork sells for £1000s of British pounds and they have an agent! Now what more do you want??? They're are tons of people on wikipedia who are not aswell known as him, so why are you deleting this page???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgregory (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Biting Noobs
Quick Question for you since you recently warned me for biting newbies...If someone creates a conflict of interest advertising article that qualifies for 3 warnings, creation of inapropriate pages, coi and username vio, is it innapropriate to tag all three at once? I did this this morning but afterwards I thought about things and wasn't sure so thought I'd ask.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's never really a reason to bite anyone ever... . Repeated recreation of an obviously inappropriate article(s) after multiple warnings is enough to block, but a single creation with multiple issues should simply be tagged for all of those issues. Commenting on content and not the contributor is one of our goals; if they require a COI warning or the like, that's not biting.  Use the templates for newbies so they don't feel personally harassed.  But be prepared to back up your warning with link/s to the appropriate policies if they confront you about it.  Keep your cool also if they react even to the point of insulting you, because all of those things can be handled with detachment and measured application of policy. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)