User talk:Uppland/Archive

Two comments
thanks for changing your sig, it is much appreciated (by me, at least). Secondly, love your wit and (possibly hopeless) attempt to clarify what the Ming vase article is, and is not, especially the suggested / implied rename. Stick with it; you are doing Good Work. Not a 17-year old in Ohio 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have to admit that I don't really feel very witty, especially in the company at Bishonen's talkpage. The Ming thing was mostly just an expression of frustration. Uppland 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zum schwarzen Ferkel
Thanks for your note about Zum schwarzen Ferkel ...well done! I was surprised to see the article appear! I haven't got as much time as I'd like for wikipedia at the moment, but I'll put it on my watchlist and start thinking about what to add. Stumps 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions of Alan Walker (musicologist) and Alan Walker (anthropologist)
I answered your query on my talk page. I think you may want to read the article wp:prod as it clearly explains the criteria for prod. You will note, there are 3 methods of deletion:
 * 1 Speedy, which has strict criteria as it is the most powerful,
 * 2 AFD which involves a mandatory 5 day discussion during which time no user is permitted to remove the AFD notice
 * 3Prod By far the weakest proposal for deletion as ANY editor may remove the tag and the article may not be tagged again with the PROD template. The deletion proposal ends at the hand of one editor.  Any editor may end the proposal during the minimum 5 day waiting period.

My perspective, if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I would rather read a stub that has sources than a large detailed article that provides no evidence. As an editor it's my choice if I want to try and improve an article or flag it for someone else to consider. Please respect my freedom to choose. Alan.ca 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied on User talk:Alan.ca. For the record: The point is not that we should have unverifiable information in Wikipedia, which is a misrepresentation of my argument, but that the information in the articles is both verifiable and sourced. The notability of both individuals is not in question. Upp◦land 11:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Automobile Club
Thanks for your message, Uppland. As you may have seen already, I've changed my vote to keep because I think the club probably is notable enough. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the author is willing to rewrite the article to make that notability clear, but the best chance is probably to let him get on with it. (Moving the article into user space would have either involved deleting it anyway, or leaving a redirect from article space into user space, which is probably not allowed).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Approved for AWB!
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 05:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)