User talk:Mysterytrey/Archive 1

vocabulary
Greetings, Mysterytrey. Regarding your (in)correction of "efficacy" to "efficiency" at Headlamp: When you see a word you think might be wrong, take a moment to look it up in a reliable dictionary. You might find you're right, that you're looking at a typographical error, or -- as in this case -- you might learn a word you didn't know before. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never heard of that before. Hey, you learn something new everyday.  mysterytrey  (talk)  18:40, July 21th, 2011 (UTC)

your userboxes
I tweaked it a little. From now on, edit User:Mysterytrey/boxes. That may help. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for it. mysterytrey  (talk)  01:55, August 23rd, 2011 (UTC)

?
What was the point of this and this ? Eagles  24/7  (C) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor."
 * -taken from Wikipedia:Vandalism. mysterytrey  (talk)   01:18, August 23rd, 2011 (UTC)
 * But they were blocked indefinitely, so the warnings are useless. Eagles  24/7  (C) 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They were blocked indefinitely with just a few posts? Oh.  What about User talk:B165789309?  Was that purposeful?  Disruptive edits seen here.  mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  01:31, August 23rd, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the warnings are given out immediately after the users vandalize, they aren't too useful, especially in the case of B165789309, who hasn't edited since. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 01:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at his contributions page, he edits every other week. I think that was useful of me to put an vandalism notice on his talk page.  I dont see what you mean by "...they aren't too useful, especially in the case of B165789309, who hasn't edited since."  <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  01:51, August 23rd, 2011 (UTC)
 * Before his vandalizing of Tosh.0 on August 3, he hadn't edited since August 2010, before that in February 2009, and before that in August 2008. I'd say he is inactive, but I'm surprised he wasn't issued a warning or block after his edit was reverted. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what should I do from now on? <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  02:04, August 23rd, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you see vandalism, revert it, and leave a warning on the vandal's talk page. Don't go through the Tosh.0 article and warn vandals already blocked or who vandalized a month ago. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 02:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I forgot to mention that you shouldn't warn users who have already been warned for the same thing. See here . ClueBot has already warned them for the vandalism on Ellipsis. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, should I revert it myself and put a warning or report it to Cluebot/someone else? Is there anything else I should know?  <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  00:25, August 25th, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if Cluebot warns them already, don't warn them again for the same offense. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  00:32, August 25th, 2011 (UTC)

altering DRN comment
Hi there Mysterytrey. I noticed you changed a comment of Andering J. REDDSON's on the dispute resolution noticeboard. This is just to let you know that altering other people's comments is generally a no-no on Wikipedia, even if it's just correcting spelling or punctuation. (Articles are a different matter of course - feel free to correct any typos you see in those.) There's a guideline on this at WP:TPO if you have the time to look at it. All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior article
The recent edits to Dragon Warrior of gameboy-> Game Boy modified the url. Please be more careful in the futre. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  14:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

facial article
Facial ejaculations and primates ? I was about to revert when you corrected a spelling error. I don't think the rhesus edit is a good faith edit and even if it is, how monkeys do it doesn't belong in an article about human sexual behaviour. Slight Smile  02:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it, I just corrected the spelling of it, and it just says sex act, not human sexual act. I still dont see it reverted (which I disagree with) or requested for citation ( use  ). I think your assuming bad faith on the editor who added it. <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)  02:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you put that edit in, only fixed spelling etc. I'm familiar with assume good faith. The monkey edit looks like vandalism and I'm reverting as unsourced and unexplained. If you feel that's wrong, feel free to revert back. Slight  Smile  03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

theft article
Hello. Could you perhaps explain the logic of this edit, as it makes absolutely no sense to me? Also, you might want to look at WP:DTTR in relation to the message that you put on my talk page. James500 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would classify that as nonconstructive revision, especially since it involves anarchy, as well as for a regular claiming not to be templated, the way you added it seemed uncategorized. I will not be in edit war with you, feel free to re+ content. I do question your removal of my template that quickly, even if we do have rights to delete in own namespace. DTTR is an essay, not a policy. A essay I dont believe in, and you might understand if you've witnessed Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, realizing what would happen if regulars didnt get templated. Theyre is another essay, Wikipedia:Do template the regulars, both being unofficial. If you would like more detailed logic, I will try hard to explain, in a more in-depth discipline. <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey  <font color="#347235">(talk)   03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mysterytrey, you're going to need to do a better job of explaining, because the above makes absolutely no sense. For starters, WP:LTA has nothing to do with templating regulars. I also don't see why James500 was warned. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you didn't template the regulars for obstructive content edits, you'd have long-term abuse. I think that an article becomes at a lower level for the readers, because of its unnoticeable irrationality (in my opinion). I'm sure I'm jumping to conclusions, but it seems to have slight similarities to a discussion on how all the sex positions have diagrams, except for fisting (which was determined to be for shock site purposes), which has a photograph. I see the similarities as I see readers reading the article and getting an unbalanced opinion. I stated earlier that I am jumping to conclusions, but I see the effects via small term, too.<font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">(talk)   03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "regulars" refers to the group of editors on Wikipedia who have been around for a long time and know most of the policies. The long-term abuse link you keep referring to is in regards to vandals who keep coming back as sockpuppets. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 06:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohh. I always thought of long-term abuse as not sockpuppets and vandalism, but users uneducated on policies, or users educated on policies, yet make many mistakes (not at the extremes of sockpuppetry and/or vandalism). Nevertheless, if you dont use templates, you have the unlinked meaning of long-term abuse. <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">(talk)   02:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really... <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mysterytrey: per WP:NPOV, objective statements about the opinions of political groups are allowed, including the group known as "anarchists", not all of whom, if I understand correctly, are in favour of "anarchy" in the sense of chaos. That said, I am only going to add it to the "see also" section this time. James500 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's what you see as best for the readers. I'd say Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has done its job. <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">(talk)   03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment
Taking potshots like this is inappropriate and constitutes a personal attack. Please remove it, I don't see anything to merit a statement such as that. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. What does putting secure.wiki do, anyway?  <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">talk   03:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing that, I appreciate it, and I'm sure Eagles does as well. In answer to your question, it's an HTTPS connection instead of an insecure HTTP one. I'm a checkuser and a bureaucrat, so I use that for added security. On a different note, it's a bit difficult to respond to quesitons when you immediately collapse a thread. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see Eagles 24/7 does as I watch the page, not just check back. If its for security purposes, could I just change it to another secure.wiki url? Anyway... umm... It doesn't say archive (as it would in the archive box) and at the top of my user talk page the second line in the big green box says that you can. I just now added emphasis on "can" and "just collapsible".  <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">talk   03:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noticed that before my comment, actually. I admit to being a little deliberately pointy by posting out of the box, but in general collapsible boxes are used on talk pages to indicate that a section has been archived, and that discussion there should end. Regardless of what you put at the top of the page, or however large you make it, it's really not conducive to someone responding to you, or even realizing that you've responded. The change you made doesn't address my concerns, and really it's a bit insulting. I realize that this is your talk page and all, but could I ask you to consider revising your system here? Thanks for your time. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still like the look of the uncluttered page, the small scrollbar on the side and the nice lime #CFC. I made the emphasis a little smaller, but it's still there for future commenters. I do guess it would be beneficial to respond and wait a week without their response, before adding into a collapsible box, but since you are aware, it isn't too hard for this thread to continue in the box. You gotta admit, the box is uncluttering and nice.  <font color="#2B65EC">mysterytrey <font color="#347235">talk   04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter
Hey all! So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the channel, and another at  01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
. <font color="666666" face="Verdana">Meph <font color="silver" face="Verdana">talk 23:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC).
 * YW&NP. I meant thanks for defending the article, regardless of having watchlisted it or patrolling NPP.  Just thanks.  I'm gonna go rename your section from July 2012 to something else.  In hindsight, that sounds like I'm templating you.  <font color="2B65EC">Mysterytrey   talk  23:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You must really like BereanHunter
This is your second support. I indented it. Feel free to move it under your first support if you like. Ryan Vesey Review me!  20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that now. I blame tabbed browsing.  I usually open a tag and check out the things I already have open, then eventually get to the new tabs.  Finally threw me off.  I removed second support.  I'm almost just did a third, but I caught myself.  I clicked project page and it doesn't take you all the way to the RfA/RfB page, but the individual candidates.  Now I must check the one starting with Y's RfA. Although BereanHunter does look rather solid...  <font color="2B65EC">Mysterytrey   talk  20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one here. There have been 4 so far. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 of what? <font color="2B65EC">Mysterytrey   talk  00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Duplicate votes in this series of RfA's. Ryan Vesey Review me!

AFT5 newsletter
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Nomination of Adaptive functioning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adaptive functioning 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/Adaptive functioning 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. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why ...
Did you revert my edit to the dramatically uninformative Edina Monsoon page? --2.101.172.152 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. "Edina is mildly overweight but not nearly so much as she believes herself to be and frequently attempts to conceal her bloated body with heavy, swaddling clothing which only adds to her absurd appearence. Others often draw attention to Edina's weight, aware of her obsession with it which only adds to her neurosis."  Looked like vandalism. If I am wrong, you can revert that.  Mysterytrey 18:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled message added on 19:29, 6 August 2012 UTC by Zeeyanketu
Hello! i have seen a good effort by you revert vandalism.Thankx--<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Zeeyanketu ✉  19:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem.  Mysterytrey 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments and I really hope I continue to see you around Wikipedia.

For honesty's sake, I thought it'd be good for the community to be aware of my most... erm... let's say "snarky" (for lack of a better term) comment. The reason is because I figured somebody might bring it up, and I decided to disclose it myself so as to avoid giving people the impression that I was trying to hide something.

Take care. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adaptive functioning


A tag has been placed on Adaptive functioning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Whpq (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Copy-paste and Close paraphrasing. If you are editing as part of a class project, please ask your instructor to read them too, and explain them to the rest of the class. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So that means it wasn't copy-edited enough? Mysterytrey 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In a word, yes - still close enough that a user was able to identify the source at http://www.advancedpsy.com/adaptive_functioning-page-28.html. I'm out of time tonight, but I will try to reply in more detail tomorrow; meanwhile, check out WP:Close paraphrasing, and try the exercis of comparing your text with the original in the style of the example there. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you get this, how would
 * Adaptive functioning is a term that refers to the skillset necessary for humans to effectively manage needs by ones environment.1 Verbally expressing ones thoughts, enterprising other's observations and dealing with written material are all uses of adaptive functioning. Adaptive functioning also involves the skills demanded for life on a daily basis, beit arriving on time, hygiene, or health, within the limitations of age.
 * Social skills also facter in, with such abilities like relating to others, how we adapt and perform within our community, and our personal interests.1
 * be? Mysterytrey 21:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably OK, but marginally - I'm not an expert in this. You have changed it enough that automatic systems looking for complete sentences would not flag it, but on the other hand the sequence of ideas is clearly the same. One way to look at it is, if you were the original copyright holder, what would you think of it if you saw it published without your permission?


 * More general advice: a good way to proceed is to read your source thoroughly, then put it aside, do something else for an hour or two, and then write your piece without the source in front of you. Afterwards you can go back to check you have not misrepresented it. Better still, work from more than one source: if your subject is notable there should be multiple sources available. JohnCD (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Adaptive functioning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adaptive functioning 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/Adaptive functioning (2nd nomination) 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. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Adaptive functioning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interests (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) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERM/R
I was not voting, I was saying that user should be given the rollback right because he has experience on the Russian Wikipedia.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The request has been granted for the same reason as my NAO.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may have been granted for the same reason, but that doesn't exactly mean it was good to do that . It usually is okay to  if you have something new to bring up, but the point was already mentioned in the requester's reason for requesting.  So perhaps the first part, "I don't see any Anti-Vandalism work on the English Wikipedia", may have been acceptable, but you should note that the granting admin should check for themselves 12 .  The second part, however, you did say "support your request", which sounds a lot like voting.  After you edited it, it still says "I think you request should be granted", and, as Riley Huntley touched upon, admins rarely take much consideration when non-admins 'think', or otherwise express opinions, and  are only useful if they "state objective fact", so this isn't actually that useful to the considering admin.  As for these, it would help if you included the amount of reverts, because otherwise, it's an opinion.  Also, this and this may be worth reading.  Mysterytrey 19:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I was informed by Ironholds that Naos are acceptable if they help the reviewing admin make their decision.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color=#00B74A>Theo <font color=#37DB79>polisme  <font color=#6CCF6C>:) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Mysterytrey, Electriccatfish2 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Just dropping by! Electric Catfish 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rock Therapy


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Rock Therapy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

bad article title; double redirects fixed

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Mysterytrey 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Snowysusan
I agree that they need a bit of a talking to -- not just to reread and study the decline reasons, but also to not be careless and miss certain key parts of the AfC process - namely, checking to see if the article already existed in the mainspace or, in that same case, that the article was nearly all copy violations. I'd do a detailed analysis, as I'm sure there's more, but.... ermm, cough. Just beginning to scratch the surface, I'm sure. <font color=#00B74A>Theo <font color=#37DB79>polisme  22:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GGB Bearing Technology
Hi Mysterytrey, regarding the MFD you opened, if you run into problems with the blacklist again, leave a message at WT:AFC, as admins (and accountcreators) can override it, and hence move the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

2-4-8 Tax Blend
I saw you did some work on the rewrite of the above page and I want to do everything I can to get it right. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. 248TaxBlend (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)