User talk:Gigs/Archive 4

To contact me, write here

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Blades (band) MFD
Re your comment at User talk:Doug, the discussion never addressed the blanking directly and therefore also didn't address what value there was to deletion once the pages were blanked. Several fairly recent discussion have emphasized the benefits to blanking to avoid biteyness. If the discussion had directly talked about the blanking it might have been a different result but the discussion focused on the argument that the pages were about topics which would never make it to article space. A weak policy argument to begin with. They weren't otherwise harmful, or at least no one suggested they were. The only continuing harm alluded to in the arguments is that if you do a google search for the names of the articles you do get the pages as hits, but of course there's nothing there. If anyone cares to prevent that, they are free to edit the pages to add noindex or. I'd be glad to discuss it further, but if you're planning to take it to DRV, go ahead; just please let me know and please reference this discussion too. (I've let the discussion be split, contrary to my normal discussion formula, so as to avoid removing a concern about my admin tool use from my usertalk page). Thanks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't take it personally, it's no problem and I'm not particularly stuck on the close. As far as precedent though, it's been done a number of times before, I'll see if I can find some examples from closes I've done where the result may have been clearer.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the assist on the AfD page. Didn't know the "as nom" guideline. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm stealing your "To leave a message, click here" banner to try and reduce the posts on my talk that go all over the place. So thanks for that too. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blank warning.
I just started using Huggle a few days ago. I haven't quite gotten the hang of quickly figuring out the difference between page blank vandalism and implicit db-author blanking. :( I'm working on it! - Ping veno  05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

W-short
Hi, I reverted your edit to this welcome template, it appeared to introduce an error into the signature. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gfs6gradeA
I created and the other 5 accounts at the request of a teacher. They bypass a schoolblock. There are 60 students. 6 accounts seemed a reasonable compromise. Please don't block them as role accounts. Fred Talk 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gigs:

I just wrote an article on Managed Digital Allowance and it is cited to be deleted. I am trying to write hangon but don't see where it can go. I am trying to chronicle a new trend and have cited other material that supports this including a Unisys White Paper. I have Unisys premission to cite it. How do I prove that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsclarkedc (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Managed Digital Allowance
Thanks. I have emailed my contact at Unisys for a copy of the written permission and hope to submit it this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsclarkedc (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

nice job
nice clean up on Stroker Serpentine it needed it --Martinbane (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Managed Digital Allowance
Gigs:

Per your recommendation I have sent an email from Unisys giving me the right to copy/remix and use parts of their paper to permissions-en@wikimedia. Do you know how long it takes for the reconsideration process? I notice that my article has already been deleted. If they let me place it back on Wikipedia, do they do that or do I have to recreate it?

Thanks for your help.

Regards, Barbara aka: bsclarkedc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsclarkedc (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Hello Gigs,

Thanks for your note. I've created the start of wikipedia article about The Daylight and Building Component Award which the non-profit, charitable fund that I am involved with awards each year. The purpose is to provide basic information about an award of significant international character. Until now I have kept this article in my own user space, as I am new to Wikipedia and still trying to understand how to create and edit articles.

I have done so under the username VELUXFOUNDATION in order to be clear, honest and open about who is creating the article. I obviously have no problems with anyone editing or contributing to the article but do believe it warrants mention in the lexicon in the same way that other awards such as the Pritzker Prize, the Microsoft Award and so forth...

Your note gave me the impression that you intend to delete the article. Please let me know if this is the case, or if I have misunderstood something in reading the project's editorial guidelines.

Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VELUXFOUNDATION (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherry
Hi, the addition of the fixbunching things seems to have had a knock-on effect on the general formatting of the page, as I've noted here. I think it probably just needs some tweaking, but I couldn't work out how to do that. Cheers --Nickhh (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers log off
In regards to your recent edit here I think the person who started this commentary may have used the links wrong the comments are on this page Request for comment/Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages. I don't think that is the right way to start it and I'm not sure what he intends but there is a serious comment worth considering. There are many editors who don't feel as if it is worth contributing perhaps in some cases because they just don't want to argue about it. this is a subject that should be addressed in my opinion. If it wasn't started properly and that is the reason hardly anyone commented on it then perhaps it should be started again.
 * OK I moved it. Gigs (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Last question is not getting answers that we want to have ..
Per diff, may I ask you to repair that issue. People will now only answer to the blacklist part, which of course noone will agree to. What we want to know is, if de-blacklisting or whitelisting should question reliability. I am sorry, Gigs, Hu12 and I tried to put into it what the issues are, but I don't think that you understood our reasoning. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF
this is plainly an assumption of bad faith on the regulars on the spam blacklist, and this does not help in the total misinterpreted depiction of the situation that the RfC is. I hope you will reconsider the allegations that you do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have brought the situation to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rfc-examples
I am expanding the examples sections to show some more typical cases. I hope you don't mind. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spelling
Thanks for the message! :-) I use a speech synthesizer to read Wikipedia, and it said the misspelt word like "really abletty", so I just *had* to fix the title. Graham 87 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting other people's comments
See this section on editing other people's comments - in short, don't. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  22:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)