User talk:Sprinting faster

Petition
I argee with your note. I was wondering if anybody on WP would do it. The council wants thousands of people otherwise they will probably not bother. Thanks for your note. Wilbysuffolk  talk  17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Arex
There are three well-argued (policy-based) "delete" !votes, two "keep" !votes, and one "merge". How can the result be "keep"?? --Crusio (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the third delete vote then? Sprinting faster (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm counting the nom. Even if you don't, that still makes for as many "delete" as "keep" !votes, plus a "merge" (not really the same as "keep")... --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't count the nom. What should the consensus be then, if you know so much? Sprinting faster (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strange, not to count the nom. And given the votes, this should at best have been a "no consensus default to keep" or a "merge". Also, when closing AfDs, aren't you also supposed to post an "OldAfD" template on the talk pages of the articles in question? --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go round and put templates on talk pages later. If it's a no consensus default to keep, then it's a keep, isn't it? Sprinting faster (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the same thing at all. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't go around closing AfDs. Also, it's customary to mark AfDs that they have been closed by someone who's not an admin. Furthermore, non-admin's are not supposed to close AfDs with a "delete" decision. (See also WP:NACD. --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears you've done this again- admittedly, at the same time as Crusio's last comment, so you may not have seen it. Please don't close AFDs if they may result in a delete decision or are close in outcome. tedder (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sprinting faster:Given that the Arex AfD was close in outcome, I suggest that you undo your close. --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've followed Whpq's example and reverted your closure myself. --Crusio (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD NAC closures
You recently closed a couple of AFDs:

If I understand correctly, you are not an admin. Make sure to close the AFDs by indicating "NAC". By leaving out your admin status or an indication of NAC, it implies that you're an admin.

Also, a better edit summary (indicating the result) would be helpful. tedder (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you make the redirect, please remember to  add this template  after the redirect  line, so  that  it  is recorded in the catergory. It helps us know how many AfD were closed as redirect. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure to all these; I'll just stick to voting in AfDs now. Sprinting faster (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Modifying AFD closure outcome
Hi Sprinting Faster, in regards to closing Articles for deletion/Athletics (overview) as "redirect to sport". I have a very slight disagreement with the outcome and have proposed a slightly more complex solution at Talk:Athletics (overview). I thought I'd drop you a note to let you know. Thanks! SFB 13:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Teradata Viewer
Hi,

I see others have pointed out that your non-admin closures are ill-advised. I've reverted your closure of Articles for deletion/Open Teradata Viewer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Nasrallah
Hi,

I see you non-admin closed Articles for deletion/Nancy Nasrallah. Per the note on WP:AFD, the discussion should have run one more day. There's not need to reopen as I think the result is clear and additional discussion won't make any difference, but you should be aware of this before doing any further non-admin closes for AFD discussions that listed across the blackout date. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sain kamal khan.jpg.
Thank You sir, for your note. That is absolutely free and carries no conditions of copy rights. It is in public domain.I hope I will be enjoying ur help especially in technical matter like this one. Looking forward for ur guidance and help.M.A.Harifal. 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Muhammad Akbar (talk • contribs)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Links to New York
Per the consensus achieved in the discussion at Talk:New York, all links to "New York" are being piped through New York (state) until such time as all incorrect links are fixed. To date, we have fixed over 20,000 errors with this project. With that in mind, please restore the piped links in Middlesex, New York that were removed in this edit. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BD2412: Why link to a redirect when the article about the state is located at New York?  Rcsprinter123    (visit)  00:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of incorrect links (and hundreds of ambiguous references needing clarification) mixed in among the tens of thousands of links intending that target. The only effective way to confirm that all the errors have been fixed is to fix all the links, until nothing is left. bd2412  T 01:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We know this link is fine, so it doesn't need "fixing", and it doesn't have anything to do with any other link to New York. Redirects should be bypassed. Are you going to personally guard forever all of the thousands of links against the better, and guideline following, way of doing the links, just because of some logic you have about "fixing" the links to remove errors? It links to the right place, and not having a redirect is better for the article, which is what we have to think of.  Rcsprinter123    (proclaim)  01:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus of the community to carry out this project. Given the rate of errors that it has uncovered, I believe that it is more likely than not that "New York" will become a disambiguation page within the next few months, after the current moratorium on proposed moves for the page ends. bd2412  T 01:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)