User talk:O/Archive 05

Articles for deletion/California State Route 37!
--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The great highway deletion debates
has anyone ever noticed something about the experience of these users who are putting up the AfDs like User:Inkpaduta. Who are they to come in do this? Many of them have hardly been here long enough. •  master_son  Lets talk  16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delivery
You're supposed to subst the delivery page not the actual newsletter. I'll post you on IRC too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure
Yeah you can give me more newsletters and i'll be happy to help. By the way, you should see how many PA roads i've fixed just see my roads page (My roads page). -- JohnnyAlbert10 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism" of Photograph Wiki
I could not figure out how to leave you a message on the "General" Tab, so my assumtion is that I'm supposed to leave it here. Anyway with regards to the "vandalism": In looking for the origin of photography, I noticed that some sections of the "Photograph" wiki have been vadalized, All they said was JOHhANTHEN IS THE BEST, over and over again. So i went into the edit section to fix it but to my suprise i found no malice in the code. Confused, I went back in to the page and refresherd my browser, but the text was still there. In desperation, I went into the code (which still contained no malice) cut it, pasted it onto my computer and saved the changes on wikipedia (my intention was to see if this would clear the vadalism), and in fact it did. Proud of myself, I went back into the edit section looking to repost the data, but at that point the page had allready been reverted to its "normal" state without the vandalism, presumably by you. Since I am new to wikipedia, I can only assume what happened. When I accsesed the "Photograph" wiki, it had just been vandalised, but either you, or automated software reverted back to its original form, which is why I saw no malice in the code. The reason why the vandalism was still there was becasue of the my browsers cacheing feature prevented me from seeing the updated site, not being aware of this, I tried my "expermieant" in an effort to "fix" and page that needed no repair. The only question is, if the caching theory is true, why is it that when i actually "deleted" the data from the page, the browser did load the updated page. Anyway, Sorry about the misunderstanding. Wikipedia is a great recource and I have better things to do then to vandalize it...

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert
Thanks for noticing the recent vandalism on my talk page and reverting it. Cheers :-) Rysin3 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearing my own page
Hi, Wikipedia gives you full ownership of your own user talk pages and a Wikipedia common practice for Etiquette on talk pages is that its okay to clear your own page if you want to as long as there are no active discussions going on. I cleared the non-active segments on my talk page as no other editor was looking for me to respond to anything they had written on that page. My announcement that this is the policy for my user talk page is right at the top of that page in its own box with a direct quote of the etiquette note. I prefer to write articles and not spend hours cutting and pasting my responses from other editors talk pages and make some running narrative about my experience with Wikipedia. As long as I respond to people's comments before clearing them, this is not even rude. Vandalism is doing something bad to someone else's stuff (or doing something bad to something held in common such as an article), doing something to your own stuff is your perogative.--Wowaconia 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review the guideline at WP:USERPAGE
 * (emphasis added) “On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.”
 * What I cleared was not warnings but completed and inert discussions.
 * --Wowaconia 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user subpage. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports
Please don't forget to check if the user have vandalized after the test3 or test4 warning before reporting them at WP:AIV. Some users stop after receiving a block threat (User:Kaylaj seems to be one of them). Conscious 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No they're not ;) Thanks for catching vandals! Conscious 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
... for joining in at that TfD with "XfD is not a vote count." What bugs me is that "I don't need it" delete votes were being simply counted one-for-one against "I do need it" keep votes -- and there's hardly anything in Wikipedia that wouldn't get deleted by that measure. I have the sinking feeling that the whole idea of what constitutes consensus is fading away. -- Ben 04:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy
Two people have flatly stated that the topic is not notable. But when I look at the WP:NN guidelines, they say A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. By that definition, this topic is notable; it also meets each of the five subparts of the definition of notability. Notability is not subjective. Can someone who is arguing that it is not notable provide an objective argument for the claim of non-notability? I ask in good faith; I'm trying to understand the objection. -- TedFrank 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I accidentally edited yours (wikimood) instead of mine. Sorry! Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)