User talk:DocumentN

Speedy deletion of /usr/bin/god
A tag has been placed on /usr/bin/god, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Yossiea (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone else removed the tag (and gave a reason in the edit summary), so I guess that's taken care of. --DocumentN 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome wagon
Hi,

I appreciate the nice edits you've been adding around here.

I see you're pretty new, so here (below) is a housewarming basket full of all kinds of helpful stuff.

Glad to see you aboard, and enjoy! - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Science Fiction Task Force
By the way, since you've been making good edits to science fiction literature articles, you might want to check out the WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force. There, you can find ideas or projects and collaborate with other users on those types of articles. Here is a shortcut for it:

Cheers, - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alaibot, and "disambig stubs"
I'd have said it's already saying too much, if anything. :) (Is a "hard on"/"hadron" disambig of any actual utility whatsoever?)  The bot's obviously not expressing any deep editorial opinion, just tagging it as a stub because it's a) very short, b) uncategorised, and c) not utterly obviously intended to be a disambig (by having the disambig template, or being named accordingly). Anyhoo, retagged now, and so the bot will leave it alone. Alai 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I didn't create the page. However, I did edit it mainly for amusement. I probably won't complain if someone else makes it a redirect. --DocumentN 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't noticed this version, just the edit you'd turned it back into a disambig. I'm not quite sure if there's a settled take on "disambigs from mis-spellings", so I won't rush to turn it back, even after your Shocking Confession(TM).  On an even less pressing note, it's now rather overlinked to be a MOS-compliant disambig...  Alai 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cortana Letters
Merging and redirecting is part of the normal editorial process. It can be controversial (just like any other edit), but many times is not. AfD sometimes results in a decision to merge and redirect, but, generally speaking, you wouldn't nominate an article there if you intend, from the outset, to merge it. The usual forum for discussing a merge is talk pages and normal editorial consensus, since merging doesn't require the help of an administrator tools (unlike AfD). My merge/redirect of Cortana Letters was actually in response to a suggestion raised at the FAC for Cortana, Featured article candidates/Cortana, so it wasn't actually a unilateral decision. — TKD:: Talk  04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV closures
Hi,

While I appreciate the civil tone of your request, you should know that closing DRV debates on the fifth day at a uniform time has been the standard practice for a very long time -- much longer than there have been instructions on the page, actually. I know because I've been doing these closures for two years now. If you look through the DRV archives, you'll see the practice is routine. The advantage of this system is that the debates are closed at an arbitrary (but not exactly pre-determined) time; this forestalls any suggestion that the debate was closed at a favorable time to reach a particular result. The instruction you quoted is not meant to imply five full days. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The instruction says "five days"; it doesn't imply it. I'm not seeing how an informal practice is more important than a written policy, or how five days is less arbitrary than four days and a bit. --DocumentN (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm...
This was not my grammar. All I did was undo an edit made by someone else. I'm not sure why you would make a point of mentioning my name in the edit summary anyway? It comes across as if you saying that I have made a bad edit. Thanks. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to make the summary as informative as possible. If it wasn't your grammar, where did you get it? It seems like the obvious thing to do would've been to revert it back to the version on the left of this edit. --DocumentN (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That wording has always been there, since about 2005 I believe . The edit you have presented was the edit I was reversing because it was controversial and made without discussion. Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a fourth distinct wording of the sentence, and another ungrammatical one (the "if" is superfluous). "If there is clear agreement or silence, with the proposal by consensus" is not an identical string to either "If after sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence" or "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus or silence", and it wasn't obvious to me what it was supposed to mean. --DocumentN (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, when I reversed Pixelface's edit, I had absolutely no opinion of the structure of that sentence. I was purely reversing a controversial change. Your edit was good; all I'm simply trying to say is that naming someone, saying you are correcting a "bad edit" in an edit summary is unnecessary. Hope you understand where I'm coming from :) Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous user pages
Your user page was a redirect. It exposes what appears to be your real name, and having a user page that does not belong to a registered user is not generally allowed. I've restored the user pages of a couple of active IP editors, however, I simply will not restore a user page redirect. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't remember putting my real name on the page. (2) Is there a rule against editors' exposing their real names? (3) I *am* a registered user. (4) Why are pages for unregistered users not allowed, and why are exceptions made? (5) Why are redirects a special case? --DocumentN (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of G-mode Co. Ltd.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on G-mode Co. Ltd., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because G-mode Co. Ltd. is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting G-mode Co. Ltd., please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The deletion of the main article was probably unjustified, since PROD isn't cleanup and the company is presumably notable for being a game publisher; but I'm too lazy to WP:DRV it. --DocumentN (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Programme
I see your note from a few months back - thanks for trying to kep the link in to The Programme (comics) (I added it initially) but it is always going to be a fight to keep a redlink in on a disambiguation page. The best solution is just start the article - it needs doing after all ;) (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Meh, too lazy; plus I'm personally more interested in seeing the principle that redlinks should be allowed upheld.


 * Also, when I saw your subject line I completely thought it was a civility warning about that "until he actually reads it" post (cf). Dunno what was up with me when I wrote that; fix attempted. --DocumentN (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I started an articel on The Programme (comics), I haven't read the comics so I don't have much to put in there. I found your fight to get a link to it so I thought I would let you know that there is an article there now. --Jonas79 (talk) 19:07, 07 June 2008 (Swedish Time)
 * Thanks for the notice. --DocumentN (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete this at your discretion
I've noticed you've deleted quite some stuff from "talk pages". On WikiPedia, this is considered vandalism. Thank you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008
 * Did you mean to link to Vandalism? That page specifically says that "Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate", and the one post I deleted clearly was one. --DocumentN (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply for comment from Template talk:UnsignedIP
Hi, I noticed your objection to how I described that "no User page should exist for anonymous ips", and thought that I'd respond to you. There's no policy as far as I know, but you can observe that there's never been a user page created for or used by an anon IP address. User pages are used pretty much only by registered users, so when using a regular unsigned, there's redundancy with the red link. This reasoning was probably used for the watchlist as well, as you can see that there is no link to the User page for anons; just to the talk and contrib pages. I conceived unsignedIP and asked Luna to create it to eliminate the redundant code, and to continue the common ideas in the interface/navigation, albeit in a minor way. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was were a considerable number of IP user pages before a few editors went on a deletion spree based on a somewhat bizarre interpretation of WP:CSD. I had a redirect for each of the IPs I've edited from while not logged in. I always meant to reopen the question on the discussion page there, but so far I haven't got around to it. --DocumentN (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars: Dark Forces
Hello DocumentN. I'm contacting you because you've edited Star Wars: Dark Forces previously and I'm trying to get opionions from other editors. Because the article was tagged for cleanup in many areas, I recently did some mass tidying of the article, removing unsourced, adding reliable sources etc. It was reverted as I didn't have a consensus to rewrite the article. I'd appreciate if you'd come give your opinion on the changes. Here's the new version and the version that is currently in place. Thanks. Bill (talk 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, but I'm trying to cut back on fandom stuff. Sorry. --DocumentN (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Bill (talk 23:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question
In answer to your question of over a year ago. "Articles" means strictly only Wikipedia articles. "Items" includes everything else, like files (images), userpgaes, templates, etc. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if that's what I wanted to know or not, but thanks. --DocumentN (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Message in August
Hey mate. You left a message on my old talk page User_talk:122.106.160.244 in August. Seems my IP has changed on me again and I only just found out. Might be time to start using an account. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I do still have that timeline- let me know if you still want it and I'll upload it sometime tomorrow (getting a bit late over here at the moment). Cheers.Blackwasp01 (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do; thanks. --DocumentN (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Put in the following link and it should open up. Let me know if for some reason it doesn't work.

http://www.snapdrive.net/files/487133/RevSpace%20Timeline.doc

Enjoy.Blackwasp01 (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --DocumentN (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trigun: Badlands Rumble


The article Trigun: Badlands Rumble has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not established; unsourced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Glad it was helpful to someone, even if it's badly out of date now. (At least I finally got around to updating the opening notes to indicate that, and link to a possibly better resource.) --DocumentN (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Left 5 Dead listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Left 5 Dead. Since you had some involvement with the Left 5 Dead redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The1337gamer (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Xbox 1 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xbox 1. Since you had some involvement with the Xbox 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Luna935 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Foster


A tag has been placed on Adam Foster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. HPSam (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)