Revision as of 11:26, 7 April 2012 editObiwankenobi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,991 edits →Speedy deletion declined: Farrans Construction Ltd← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:59, 8 April 2012 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Re: "User:X179396828, doing the typical WoW gold spam thing": new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
== Health in Tibet == | == Health in Tibet == | ||
Hi, could you please, instead of reverting, look at the talk page for ] where i explained why I am proposing deletion. This category only contains a single category, which is itself up for speedy deletion. If there is a different speedy deletion template i should use, please replace it, instead of just deleting. thanks --] (]) 11:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | Hi, could you please, instead of reverting, look at the talk page for ] where i explained why I am proposing deletion. This category only contains a single category, which is itself up for speedy deletion. If there is a different speedy deletion template i should use, please replace it, instead of just deleting. thanks --] (]) 11:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Re: "User:X179396828, doing the typical WoW gold spam thing" == | |||
Re : Different WoW. =) The WoW I was referring to is ]. Note the links buried in the middle or end of their ]. -- ] (]) 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:59, 8 April 2012
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
---|
Talk page archives Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 |
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Level_Pi
Hi there, I am the one who initiated the Level Pi page. I am a German living in Australia where there is next to none coverage of "classic" electronic music in the Berlin School sense. Level Pi's music combines the Berlin School with guitar sounds a la Pink Floyd which I believe is a new and unique style which warrants exposure in the English Misplaced Pages. As the article states, Level-Pi's 1st CD was published in 2006 under the Garden of Delights label and his 2nd on the Musea label. Both important labels for krautrock and electronic/progressive music. Level Pi's music was reviewed in magazines and e-zines important to this kind of music ("Exposé Magazine", "babyblaue-seiten.de", "backgroundmagazine.nl", "empulsiv.de" and others mentioned in the reference list). I am against the proposal for deletion as this article presents an artist which warrants exposure in Misplaced Pages. Moreover, all references are from reliable sources as far as I can tell. It would be a loss if this article is not available anymore as it gives some attention to this fascinating kind of music and particularly this artist. Please let me know what should/could be included to meet the standards. Phoenix69 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
From the third graf of the intro:
... the government sought merely to compel forfeiture of the fins under in rem jurisdiction instead of prosecuting the crew, resulting in the unusual case title.
To summarize the linked article, in rem cases are literally jurisdiction "over the thing," usually sought in civil forfeiture cases like this one since the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than it would be in a criminal case. We have a lot of other articles on these ... last year in an attempt to get some on for April Fools', I created United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, Quantity of Books v. Kansas and Marcus v. Search Warrant (all are obscenity cases from the '60s and '70s).
In rem case titles are usually funny at first (we also have United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, done by someone else) but since the vast majority of them might be summarizes as State or Federal Government v. Some Cool-Sounding Luxury Goods Allegedly Used to Commit Crimes Like Dealing Drugs or Purchased with Proceeds Thereof, they get boring after a while. But this one isn't the sort of thing you expect to see getting seized, so it's often turned up on lists of funny court-case titles (I think it's also the contrast between the "approximately" and such a specific, yet large, number). And, it's certainly notable in its own right. I figured it would make a great April Fools' article, and so far it looks like I was right. Perhaps I should do this one next year as a sequel.
SCOTUS articles are my other area besides NRHP, generally, but since they involve more time I don't do them as much. This is technically not a SCOTUS case, but most cases from the appeals courts are probably just as notable since they become binding precedent in those circuits. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Bill Hammons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Hammons is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Hammons (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 good 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.
You participated in the first AFD discussion, the article was recreated and I thought you might want to comment. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hi. You might be interested in this ANI discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Deleting
Hello Nyttend I marked this redirect titles for deletion:
- Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya
- Sri RamaKrishna Mission Vidyalaya
- Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith,Deoghar,Jharkhand,India
- Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith, Deoghar, Jharkhand
- Reason: Actually none of this are created as redirects. They are either moved or merged. For reorganising this I created the pages Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith,Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya. This redirects actually create more confusions because there is no institution named Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya or Sri RamaKrishna Mission Vidyalaya.
By the way sorry for any trouble. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Declined speedy deletion of Khalidismailmma
Hello, you declined A7 speedy deletion on the subject article on the grounds that the article claims the subject participated in the Olympic Games. The article states that the subject participates in "Olympic freestyle wrestling"; I interpret "Olympic freestyle wrestling" in this context to mean Olympic-style freestyle wrestling, not that he participated in the Olympic Games. Would you reconsider speedy deletion on this one? —KuyaBriBri 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, you have a good point. However, the article also claims that he won seven national championships in the UK, which is an assertion of importance. I'd say it's best just to wait until the BLPPROD expires. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that approach. However, I will shortly be moving it to a more logical title. —KuyaBriBri 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Rachel Khoo
A novice user has expressed disquiet, off-wiki, over Rachel Khoo, which they created and whose speedy deletion you actioned. I'm attempting to assist them, and help them learn to edit better. Please will you therefore undelete the article, if neccessary to my user space, in order that I may do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Nyttend. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion declined: Farrans Construction Ltd
Hello Nyttend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Farrans Construction Ltd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a COPYVIO or unambiguous promotion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Health in Tibet
Hi, could you please, instead of reverting, look at the talk page for Category:Health in Tibet where i explained why I am proposing deletion. This category only contains a single category, which is itself up for speedy deletion. If there is a different speedy deletion template i should use, please replace it, instead of just deleting. thanks --Karl.brown (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: "User:X179396828, doing the typical WoW gold spam thing"
Re your message: Different WoW. =) The WoW I was referring to is World of Warcraft. Note the links buried in the middle or end of their deleted edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)