User talk:Fuzzibloke

Reply
Any article that has been prodded for five days can then be deleted by an admin, as that implies that no one objects to its deletion. Since you are messaging me about the article and obviously object to the uncontested deletion of the article, kindly give me a link to where the article used to be and I will undelete it and send it over to WP:AfD where you can plead your case and we can see what the community as a whole thinks.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted your article and sent it over to WP:AfD. Please see Articles for deletion/Martin Randall Travel so that you may argue your case for inclusion. Cheers.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion
It seems that you want the article back. The place to go is: Deletion review. That page is especially for the undeletion of articles. James086Talk 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How?Fuzzibloke 14:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Log Chasm
I have added a "" template to the article Log Chasm, 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. Diez2 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Log chasm
Another editor has added the  template to the article Log chasm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hey, that message was an error. If you see history of that article I have not edited it or tagged it for deletion. Sorry for the confusion. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs
I did the first couple refs in the travel company article. Hopefully I did them right, and you can use them as a model for the rest of the citations. Basically it's this format:

And then if you use the same ciation again you just put Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Oops, gulp, looks like I put the cite (at least most of it) twice. I hope that didn't throw you. I'll go have a look. I also meant to mention that anyone can improve the citations on an article, but it was nice of you to do it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV

 * Thanks for your contribution at DRV. Your comments seem to run into mine though.  May I suggest prefacing them with a bullet and bold-faced summary such as


 * Overturn

as this is the usual style. This may help readers better understand the flow of the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks.Fuzzibloke (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK

Cambridge Ancient History
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cambridge Ancient History, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://histories.cambridge.org/collection?id=set_cambridge_ancient_history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)