User talk:The wub/archive17

Power Ballads
We have a bit of a consistency problem. I nominated 9 articles for deletion. You rescued a few, but Power Ballads (Different Edition); Power Ballads (AUS); Power Ballads (NZ); Bigger, Better Power Ballads II ; Bigger, Better Power Ballads II (New Edition); and BIGGER, BETTER POWER BALLADS (AUS) all got deleted as spam. What makes the three you rescued worse than the six that died? Either six articles need to be resurrected, or three more need to go the way of all flesh. Kww 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just the fact that I missed the others. That said, I'm not from Australia or New Zealand so don't know if they're as popular over there anyway. The titles are a bit messy too. I'll take a look at the deleted ones tomorrow when I have a bit more time. the wub "?!"  23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wenis (body part)
Hi, This has been created again. Was it AfD'd previously? Kevin 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it was then at Wenis so the AfD is at Articles for deletion/Wenis. That was deleted but someone pointed out it was another name for the Pharoah Unas and so could be a redirect. the wub "?!"  23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Alter
Why did you delete Michael J. Alter's page? H_Johnson 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was nothing but shameless promotion. I just noticed we have an article at Michael Alter, you could add verifiable and neutral information to that. the wub "?!"  16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...
It looks like you forgot to put the "User:" prefix in this page you just created: The_wub/sandbox/Altres. Since you're an administrator you can just delete it :). While you're at it, please delete How_to_create_an_operating_system as well. Thanks,  Psych  less   18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone already deleted it.  Psych  less   20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks for the notice anyway. the wub "?!"  21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice
&mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see . the wub "?!"  16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 23 June 2007
Not sure what is happening. You deleted Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 23 June 2007 on the 8th as empty, but I came across a couple of pictures today that claimed to be in the category. I undeleted the category and indeed it looked empty until I did null edits on the two images I'd found. I haven't done much work with the Commons categories, so I'm not sure if this is normal or not. I wanted to let you know that I'd undone your delete. If you understand what's happening and have time to explain to a relatively new admin, I'd love to learn. ~ Bigr  Tex  14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... strange. I'm afraid I don't know what caused it, just weird caching issues I guess. Thanks for the undeletion. the wub "?!"  18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up!
71.61.28.212 is permantly reported on investigation for vandalizing his own talk pages and trolling wikipedians. He is a sock puppet of....TheInvisibleMachine. AYuckyMachine 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia site feedback/main
I have undone your "purge" of the Wikimedia site feedback page. I disagree that this should have been done, feedback is feedback, it should be archived as usual.  Cbrown1023   talk   04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it does say on Wikimedia site feedback "Inquiries about a particular Wikimedia project, like a comment about English Wikipedia is expected to go directly to that wiki. Such comments may simply be removed due to irrelevance to the purpose of this page." I would prefer to remove them, to keep the archives useful and discourage people from adding them in future. But I won't remove them again. the wub "?!"  08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but it's just the fact that we don't want to be too mean to these people. If they put something there by mistake, they obviously don't know what to do.  We should point them in the right direction or just answer their question there instead of just removing it and blowing them off. ;)  Cbrown1023    talk   14:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm all for being helpful and friendly, but I just don't see why we should keep those questions archived for posterity. And I'd much rather help people find the right place to ask their questions in the first place. Anyway, I do wonder how on Earth people keep finding their way to that page! the wub "?!"  14:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, I agree, but if you do really want to remove them, then just remove them after you archive the area around them.  Cbrown1023   talk   20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians
As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

De_jure rv
you just rved my marking of De jure for deletion. While clear no a typical rv, I'd appreciate if you took a moment to comment on this more throughly than your existing six words allowed. You might, for example, claim that the entry is encyclopedic in some way, or that there is information present that is not definitional. Pdbailey 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the terseness. I feel it goes beyond definition, and is on an important topic in law. Also the related de facto was overwhelmingly kept at AfD (Articles for deletion/De facto). Merging the two has also been unpopular. the wub "?!"  11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to a sentence in the article that is not definitional? also, de facto is a much longer article, I haven't read it, but I can't imagine it contains only definitional information. Pdbailey 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The contrasting with de facto and the discussion of desuetude. Of course the article could use expansion, with more examples and the like, but law isn't one of my strong points.
 * If you still feel the article should be deleted, you can nominate it at articles for deletion. I just felt that any potential deletion would benefit from wider discussion. the wub "?!"  16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that listing an antonym is not dictionary like, I could show you some entries in an excellent paper dictionary I have. The only think that I would say is not is the mention of desuetude, which is covered quite well in a non-dictionary entry page of its own.
 * There is dissonance here between the what Wikipedia is not page and the failure to delete this entry. The only thing I can think to do is propose a change to one or the other. Apparently Wikipedia de facto is not Wikipedia de jure. Pdbailey 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)