User talk:Erolos/Archive 2

Hong Kong Morris
Seems like a sensible course of action. Cheers, cab (call) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton
Hi there. I see you added a speedy deletion tag to Wedding dress of Kate Middleton. However, said article doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion. You'd have to go for WP:AFD for a deletion nomination. --KFP (contact | edits) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire text of the article is already included within the marriage article; as per WP:AFD it should be fine to turn it into a redirect to the marriage? -Kez (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So take it to AfD, not CSD. If you seriously believe this is not notable, you are sorely mistaken.  Chzz  ► 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm truly quite shocked with what happened to that article. It was CSD-tagged after 15 minutes, then it was redirected, and then submitted for deletion discussion within the hour - despite it featuring in literally thousands of newspapers around the world. Plus, I was accused of COI.


 * And we wonder why Wikipedia is not attracting new editors? Sheesh.  Chzz  ► 20:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It must be difficult finding the processes of Wikipedia so shocking. Perhaps you should consider another, less arresting, hobby? Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about. -Kez (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you to not tag an article for speedy deletion if a Google News search shows clear evidence of notability in terms of "significant coverage in reliable sources", as was the case here.  Chzz  ► 05:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll continue to edit Wikipedia just as before, thank you. I will also repeat that I hope to see a detailed FA on Wedding dress of Katie Price, a pink concoction that has millions of Google results and a wide influential scope. -Kez (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that CSD'ing a new article within minutes - hardly enough time for anyone to do anything with it - and when it's quite clearly on a notable subject (after all, it'll probably end up as an exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum) is just a tad incomprehensible to (dare I say it?) anyone of average-or-above intelligence. Pesky  ( talk ) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The cavalry? I don't believe we've been introduced. Regardless, it's good to know that there are "average-or-above intelligence" Wikipedians editing on the basis of what will "probably" happen in the future. -Kez (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Kez/Erolos, c'mon, chill a bit. I never meant to 'attack' you - my wording was (granted) maybe OTT, and for that I apologise.  But - we're all human, we all make mistakes, and yes - that was a mistake on my part.  I didn't mean for you to get upset by it - just maybe to consider the wisdom of withdrawing the nom, perhaps?  In the light of what the majority of people were saying?  I don't really understand why you seem to be so emotionally 'committed' to the nom, really.  And I honestly couldn't believe it when I saw the "inclusionist' userbox - it just gobsmacked me - it was the complete opposite of what I'd expected.  Provided you can do it relatively nicely (page rules, not mine!), you're welcome to beat me about the head with a wet tea towel over at Editors for Deletion :o)  Pesky  ( talk ) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't even know you could withdraw deletion nominations. Not that I would have or will withdraw it, now that I do, though. After all, how is it fair for me to decide on behalf of everyone (including the sizable minority voting with the nomination) what is best for the article? I thought the whole point of AfD was to reach consensus on the matter, and surely, if your interest is in Keeping the article, you have nothing to worry about now that Keep has a runaway lead? The whole point of a deletion nomination is to debate it. My main point was that this was recentism, since in 10 years of wikipedia, no other articles on such dresses had been made. My contesting of this led to editors going out and creating complementary articles for several other royal dresses - and thereby benefiting Wikipedia as a whole, which would otherwise have looked like it was giving undue weight to recent media coverage. So surely this AfD - discounting the personal attacks on me - has surely been beneficial?
 * I don't need to "chill," nor am I (unlike some of the voters) at all emotionally committed to the nomination - but I accept your apology, and thank you for apologising. I hope you can appreciate that it is completely uncalled for to use somebody's user page in a debate against them, especially when I hadn't even personally interacted with either you or that other guy. That gobsmacked me. -14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It just amazes me that some people seem to think it's OK to engage in bullying for such an ostensibly superior reason. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kez, apologies again - I didn't mean "chill" in the sense that I think you read it - I just meant it as a 'relax, don't get upset, please don't feel attacked' kind of thing. It obviously upset you to t hink that people were belittling the interests of you when you were fourteen, from the comments you made - it was clear (to me at least) that this had upset you.  I agree with you that the net effect of the nom has certainly been improvement - a whole string of  other articles suddenly appear as possible which had apparently completely escaped people's attention before - and that's great, when so many people are saying 'we're running out of articles to write'.  I wasn't intending to 'bully' (I hate bullies, and cringe when I realise that that is the way I might well have come across).  I'm not sure whether Daniel's comment above was aimed at me, but that doesn't really matter.  One of the propblems with web-interaction is that it's all too easy to make totally incorrect assumptions about people, and about their tone of voice, and about - well, all sorts of stuff!  I'd say that 'life teaches us wisdom' - except that it obviously hasn't worked in over five decades with me!  We all have bad days.   Pesky  ( talk ) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We all take a lot of BS from people on here. Somebody at ANI claims I'm more destructive to wikipedia and helpful!! Blofeld Dr. (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes things just 'get away from us'. Everybody sometimes does the wrong thing, or maybe the right thing in the wrong way, or the wrong thing for the right reasons, or the right thing for the wrong reasons. That's just life, and being human.  Hopefully we've all learned something from this.  I know I genuinely regret the bit of Snark that got out.  Pesky  ( talk ) 08:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your helpful suggestion, at the talk page for the article Santorum (neologism). Perhaps you could please enable email in Special:Preferences, so we could discuss potential sources and perhaps you could email me that article you cited?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Have to admit, I actually am a bit busy right this second (sorry!), but I'll definitely get back to you in the next couple of days about this - in the meantime I hope my quote can suffice? -Kez (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It just so happens, I found a pdf of the article online. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. I'll get back to helping deal with adjusting the article and adding more sources in a couple of days when I've got less on my plate. :) -Kez (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggested source was most helpful. If you come by any other sources that discuss or utilize the term, please let me know at the article's talk page. ;) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning jurist in article Goodwin Liu
I had just noticed your reversion of my category removal in Goodwin Liu. To be honest, in my personal usage, I have always used the term jurist very narrowly to refer to Justices and judges. After reviewing the Jurist article, I see it can have somewhat of a more wider usage. From here on out, I will use the wider definition. Safiel (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look into it. When you removed the category I had to double-check it myself, but the clincher was that Category:American jurists had Category:American judges and Category:American lawyers/Category:American legal scholars within it. -Kez (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, someone who didn't have an account responded to your comment on Bill Weintraub's Talk Page. Just thought I should let you know in case you didn't know, and so you could respond if you want to. (I contemplated responding myself, but thought I should leave it alone since I'm not involved.) Dontcareatall (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but that was a long time ago. I have no interest in engaging with such moralistic ignorance, from Weintraub or his followers. -Kez (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And yeah it was, but I didn't know if you saw it or not was all. And glad to hear it. :) I have no interest in it either, but I have been debating whether to reply or not. I guess it's best not to though, since no one would probably see it anyway and even if they did it would probably lead to more stupid arguing with them. I dunno. Dontcareatall (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leeds International Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shame (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Abeir-Toril for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abeir-Toril is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abeir-Toril until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Claritas § 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Spurrier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legion (comics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of House Baenre for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article House Baenre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/House Baenre & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwertyus (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mask (Forgotten Realms) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mask (Forgotten Realms) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mask (Forgotten Realms) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cameron ministry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicky Morgan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Gaytimes2.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gaytimes2.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)