User talk:Dantheman531/Archive 6

Article for deletion
I have put up Anti-Hindu for deletion as it appears this is a repetitive article and most issues have been dealt under Persecution of Hindus, Secondly, Anti-Hindu could be an adjective like Pro-Hindu and does not have any academic significance.In the absence of a term depicting Holocaust or Islamophobia certain editors seem to have created a similar fictitious term to host their agendas and POV's.Thanks.I will appreciate your views on this articles deletion listing Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu.Regards TerryJ-Ho 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is a clarification - my request to you is in accordance with the process highlighted by Wikipedia .Since I found your ID in another AFD page -

''III. Notify users who monitor AfD discussion. Copy the tag below, and then click THIS LINK to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:''

Butterley Tunnel
Dear Danielrocks123

I have added citations and images to this article and expanded the text considerably, would you please re-visit the page and perhaps consider changing your vote to Keep. If nothing else I believe you will see that I am making an effort.

Yours Faithfuly Martin Cordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Cordon (talk • contribs)

Dear Danielrocks123

I apologise for forgetting the signature. I think that this is only the fourth or fifth day that I have been editing. I understand that you do not agree with my opinion on the Butterley Tunnel's notabilty. I think perhaps you would need to have an interest in Industrial Archaeology or engineering to undestand. Thank you for your comments.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
I'll be glad if this mediation issue moves forward, and I accept your proposal for help. However, as you speak Hebrew and even sign your name in Hebrew, it is important to see these issues from both sides and offer constructive solutions. I hope it is acceptable to Bertilvidet as well. Thank you, --Gabi S. 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry for the delay in my reply. I will also accept your offer to help us in our little dispute. Knowing an additional language should never be a disadvantadge, and I consider religion as an entirely private affair. So I don't have any reason not to trust your willingness and ability to act in a balanced way. I am not sure how mediations work, and what will be expected from me; but I should tell that I will be on fieldwork entire next week, and probably not will have much opportunity to be online. תּוֹדָה רַבָּה! רַב תּוֹדוֹת! Bertilvidet 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Danielrocks123! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal → Law
The way I see it, the major problem with making Illegal a redirect to Law is that there are various things named "Illegal" that someone may want to link to. Thus, if the page was a redirect, per the disambiguation guidelines we would have to add a headnote to Law saying something like:

to let people looking for those other things find the proper article. Given that the Law article already has one disambiguation headnote, and given that relatively few people arriving there presumably come there via Illegal, such a secondary headnote would seem to needlessly deface the article. It seems to me that it would be better to avoid this by keeping Illegal a disambiguation page, even if it costs an extra mouse click for the people who end up there while wanting to get to Law.

In any case, whether the page is a redirect or a disambiguation page, most of the links to Illegal should be fixed to point directly to the proper target page: either Law or one of the other pages listed on the disambiguation page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice, I wasn't the person who redirected Illegal to the Shakira song, and I agree with you that it's just about the dumbest possible thing to do. I'm the person who originally wrote the disambigation page, and I still feel that having the title disambiguated would be the best choice (if only to avoid edit wars between people who each want it to redirect to a different article), but I'm not going to start reverting the page until I've at least had a chance to discuss this with you.  Hence I've left the page entirely alone for now, even though I agree that the current situation (before your latest edit) was definitely not optimal.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)