User talk:Law Lord/Archive 3

RfA Thanks
Hi Law Lord - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The Blekingegade Gang
A tag has been placed on The Blekingegade Gang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article titles
According to our manual of style, articles such as 'a' 'an' and 'the' should be avoided in article titles. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, that is only true "... unless part of a proper noun ..." as in this case. --Law Lord (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

oops
I'm a dummy today, I clicked the wrong link and put that warning on the incorrect page. I noticed you tagged it as vandalism, though. It was human error, I meant to inform a user of the fact their article was taged for speedy deletion, but accidentially placed it on the wrong page. Although I'm greatful you caught it and reverted it, I am a little disheartened that you taged it as vandalism (maybe that wasn't your intention but it comes off as assuming bad faith.) Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, which I will bear in mind if I revert pages in the future. --Law Lord (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: 3 April 2008
Sorry about that - I edited the wrong page by mistake and didn't realise. Won't happen again (I hope) Daniel (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital "Advice"
Hi. I'm contacting you because you have edited Advice (constitutional), and in relation to the capitalisation of "Advice" (or "advice", if you prefer). A wee dispute about this has arisen at the article, with one editor decapitalising in the text and placing a "fact" tag on the statement that the term is often capitalised. If you have some input on this, and particularly some relevant references, please take part in resolving it, at the article. Thanks and best regards -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Wikipedia
Yes, discussions here can get a bit heated, can't they? My best advice is to ignore users who make such comments. If he takes action you disagree with, call for a vote on attempts to rename or merge a page or to add edits you disagree with. Sometimes you may have to take it to arbitration or bring an editor to the attention of administrators if he's been particularly rude. Everyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice. I agree. --Law Lord (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kari Havsland Jørgensen
I have listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Kari Havsland Jørgensen, for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Kari Havsland Jørgensen. Hemmingsen 10:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what your comment on my talk page is about. I never claimed it was somehow illegal to publish her name and I wasn't trying to protect you from being sued or anything like that. I am well aware that parts of the media have published her name (while other parts of the media have chosen not to), however that is of course not a reason for us to do so. My concerns have primarily been with regards to the policy Biographies of living persons. And the part about publishing her name was the least important of my reasons for nominating the article for deletion. Hemmingsen 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is somewhat redundant to the comments I left at the AfD and at the DRV, but in the interest of clarity:
 * I'm opposed to any article about her as a case of WP:BLP.
 * I'm opposed to an article about her that publishes her real name per WP:BLP.
 * I consider the wording used in the deleted article to be problematic, because it did not specifically state that she hadn't been charged or convicted.
 * As all the sources I've read, only cover her in the context of the event with trivial coverage of the rest of her life, I am not convinced that she is sufficiently notable for a separate article.
 * I made it a bulletted instead of the numbered list, you asked for, to avoid assigning numbers that could resemble relative priorities, but hopefully it still clears things up a bit. Hemmingsen 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Kari Havsland Jørgensen
Normally I would grant your request, but as the article was deleted because of violations of Wikpedia's biographies of living persons policy I'm not allowed to. If you want it to be undeleted you need to take your sources to Deletion review and get a consensus there that the concerns raised in the AfD nomination aren't valid. Hut 8.5 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk pages
Yep, they can. Editors can remove whatever they want from their talk pages, and can request their deletion if they wish. An administrator will very rarely turn their request down unless it's in the middle of a dispute, in which the history is a fundamental part of the discussion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  11:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support


Law Lord (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, m'Lord - that's very gratifying. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Constantine II of Greece
Of course, the relevant guideline is Naming conventions (names and titles), "Former or deposed monarchs". Constantine (no surname) is extremely non-specific (it gives abolutely no information on who the article is about); for that reason, it's not an appropriate article title. In case of disputed moves (and other major changes of articles), you should discuss the issue at the appropriate talk page (you can also go to Requested moves). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
For the interest of clever people. --Law Lord (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy
You're right, I should have added an edit summary to my revert. I've added a section to the talkpage, I hope you'll respond to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonMT (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Email
Oh, sorry. I've been sorta away from email for a time, but I will vow to answer the email shortly. Thanks for your patience. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find it, but I think I read it before. If I give the wrong response, that will be why, sorry.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Narcotic
Hi, saw your comment on Talk:Narcotic, and while I was amused, it was a bit inflammatory. I can understand your objection to the US being given mention over "everyone else", but some people would object to you calling us a third-world nation. Not that I care, I think this nation is hateful and corrupt, but if you are shooting for adminship you should be careful about whose feathers you ruffle. Steve CarlsonTalk 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review
I gave you your first review at your editor review, as you did need one.-- LAA Fan  21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cold Y generation
Unless you promptly provide some sources I am going to nominate it for deletion. DGG (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Causer
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Causer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Michael Causer
An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Michael Causer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Michael Causer. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

note
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. This IP only has two edits in total and not necesarrily by the same person with a final warning given in back in April after the first edit.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and sorry for above header as I thought I wrote an edit summary. Just to clarify: you disagree with what exactly? As far as I am concerned, I had to decline the request to block the editor at this point. I saw the editor review link, so i thought you might be interested in the reasoning. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I should have read the ER in full. Sorry for your impression with admins being extremely rude and condescending in both their communications and actions and in case I have contributed to that by partly using a templated message. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard feelings, why? Giving and accepting feedback isn't easy, but sometimes necessary in a collaborative environment. That includes feedback about the criticisms and warnings issued. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)