Familytree101
Welcome to my talk page! familytree101 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of "Francis Humphrys"
edit
A page you created, Francis Humphrys, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. Lunchscale Talk! Contrib! 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I trust this page will survive in its current form! familytree101 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of James humphreys (lawyer)
edit
I have nominated James humphreys (lawyer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James humphreys (lawyer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Editor437 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Page now redirects appropriately familytree101 (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of James Humphreys (lawyer)
edit A tag has been placed on James Humphreys (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. justinfr (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Tag now removed familytree101 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
James Humphreys (lawyer)
editMy intention was to delete James humphreys (lawyer), since James Humphreys (lawyer) was created in addition to the former article. I didn't intend to delete on notability grounds, but on repetition.Editor437 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem Thanks familytree101 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to delete Richard Humphreys(writer), as it may be a common typo - it may not survive a proposed deletion, but I'm in favor of have more redirects until Wikipedia gets a better search engineEditor437 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
OK fine familytree101 (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
editThank you very much for presenting me with a Citation Barnstar. This is the first barnstar I have ever been awarded, and it really made my day when I saw it. Thanks once again! -- Jll (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're most welcome! familytree101 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Richard Humphreys (philanthropist) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. abf /talk to me/ 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, the message was automated and is not appropriate. But I believe we should delete a page completly or at lease leave the content. What do you think? abf /talk to me/ 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Notice
edit
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.
Re: links
edithey no problem. bte, you don't necessarily have to do that when you move a disambig page, but it's usually a good idea to. If you do this though, you probably don't need to worry about links in talk page archives and such, just articles. Happy editing! Thingg⊕⊗ 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Dab'n of James Humphreys
editYou and i seem to be working simultaneously on the disambiguation of "James Humphreys". Please talk to me abt whether you are done and if not what you intend next with it.
--Jerzy•t 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I may have gotten straight re the related deletion, but plz mention how that figures in.
--Jerzy•t 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - You answered on my talk (but let's converge here for now, along with User:PamD). I'm copying your contrib.
--Jerzy•t 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Howdy! Thanks for your message James Humphreysis now a functioning disambiguation page and does not need to be deleted! If the suggestion about speedly deletion is still out there perhaps we can close the matter and keep the page in being. thanks familytree101 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK fine, thanks. I saw your note to PamD and I agree - the speedy deletion is no longer relevant. the page is ok now familytree101 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no. Besides misinterpreting what i said, i think you're still confused about the problem you had. You succeeded in moving James Humphreys to James Humphreys (UK politician) because no page with the suffixed title existed. But when you move a page you leave behind (in this case at James Humphreys) a "historyless redirect", a misleading term for a page that contains redirect markup put there by the move tool, but has never been edited; its edit history page shows only one entry, describing a move to another page. You seem to have been active long enuf .that you could have moved the Dab page to the unsuffixed title, replacing the historyless redirect. But presumably you felt the need to get rid of the historyless redirect, bcz you were used to making moves to non-existent pages, and you thot that if you made the edit page for James Humphreys look like a non-existent page's edit page, you could move anything you wanted to it. Actually, by blanking the rdr page, you gave it its first edit, and foreclosed your option of making the second move/rename without help. But your blanking resulted in a speedy-deletion request, which was quickly acted upon by an admin, and when you tried again (as it happens, fewer than 14 seconds after the deletion), you succeeded as a result of the deletion, which again gave you a page that had (since the deletion) not been edited.
--Jerzy•t 08:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no. Besides misinterpreting what i said, i think you're still confused about the problem you had. You succeeded in moving James Humphreys to James Humphreys (UK politician) because no page with the suffixed title existed. But when you move a page you leave behind (in this case at James Humphreys) a "historyless redirect", a misleading term for a page that contains redirect markup put there by the move tool, but has never been edited; its edit history page shows only one entry, describing a move to another page. You seem to have been active long enuf .that you could have moved the Dab page to the unsuffixed title, replacing the historyless redirect. But presumably you felt the need to get rid of the historyless redirect, bcz you were used to making moves to non-existent pages, and you thot that if you made the edit page for James Humphreys look like a non-existent page's edit page, you could move anything you wanted to it. Actually, by blanking the rdr page, you gave it its first edit, and foreclosed your option of making the second move/rename without help. But your blanking resulted in a speedy-deletion request, which was quickly acted upon by an admin, and when you tried again (as it happens, fewer than 14 seconds after the deletion), you succeeded as a result of the deletion, which again gave you a page that had (since the deletion) not been edited.
- I left this at User talk:PamD.
--Jerzy•t 01:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have also been working in the last hour relating to Dab'n of James Humphreys (and i think two of your edits make the speedy deln out-of-process. I just wrote on User talk:Familytree101; perhaps we should make an effort to keep all discussion of this there for now; would you be willing to chime in?
--Jerzy•t 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the simplest interpretation of that is: In the fast moving situation where 3 editors (you, me, and PamD) were overlapping edits in working on the content of the Dab, and two others were facilitating you in moving the page, i got confused and took the two edits on the Dab text that PamD made before the move, for edits i she'd made on the un-suffixed title, just before the deletion. (Otherwise, i could only explain how Pam's revisions got back in the history of the unsuffixed title by giving up my recollection of what actions get recorded in a page's deletion log, or supposing that someone agreed with my concern about PamD's revisions, and restored them using methods that i understand stopped having reasons for their use about three years ago. The choice among these is, for a stubborn editor,tougher than you are likely to imagine.)
--Jerzy•t 08:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the simplest interpretation of that is: In the fast moving situation where 3 editors (you, me, and PamD) were overlapping edits in working on the content of the Dab, and two others were facilitating you in moving the page, i got confused and took the two edits on the Dab text that PamD made before the move, for edits i she'd made on the un-suffixed title, just before the deletion. (Otherwise, i could only explain how Pam's revisions got back in the history of the unsuffixed title by giving up my recollection of what actions get recorded in a page's deletion log, or supposing that someone agreed with my concern about PamD's revisions, and restored them using methods that i understand stopped having reasons for their use about three years ago. The choice among these is, for a stubborn editor,tougher than you are likely to imagine.)
- BTW, the way to make this work w/o Edit Conflicts is to compose in a blank window, but not start your edit of the section we are all editing until you are ready to cut and paste your whole next message from there to here and immediately save.
--Jerzy•t 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - My issue abt the speedy is purely procedural and not content related, and i think no one probably screwed up: PamD's edits precluded the speedy you requested, but my guess is that the admin checked that you were only editor and deleted, but her edits snuck in between the check and the deletion. (My edits, on the other hand, were still in prepartion!)
--Jerzy•t 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've now looked at your relocated version of the Dab, and you went in a pretty good direction. I'm folding what i had done into your most recent version, with adjustments for the equal disambiguation (which i hadn't decided to pursue but support) and i'll save it without prejudice to yours (tho i expect i'll manage to convince you on the changes). I'll also look at PamD's deleted revisions, which IIRC were for the Dab page, but apply them in a separate edit, at least if there's anything i missed. In any case, perhaps those revisions should be restored, since their deletion was apparently at best an oversight. Don't hesitate to leave something here about any concerns you see. (Written before my most recent posts, but i overlooked saving it until final cleanup of windows!)
--Jerzy•t 08:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've now looked at your relocated version of the Dab, and you went in a pretty good direction. I'm folding what i had done into your most recent version, with adjustments for the equal disambiguation (which i hadn't decided to pursue but support) and i'll save it without prejudice to yours (tho i expect i'll manage to convince you on the changes). I'll also look at PamD's deleted revisions, which IIRC were for the Dab page, but apply them in a separate edit, at least if there's anything i missed. In any case, perhaps those revisions should be restored, since their deletion was apparently at best an oversight. Don't hesitate to leave something here about any concerns you see. (Written before my most recent posts, but i overlooked saving it until final cleanup of windows!)
- I never saw a speedy, just did some tidying up and have done a bit more just now - no particular interest in any of the JHs, just dropped by. PamD (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Missed seeing your response; seems yours weren't caught in the deletion part of the maelstrom after all, and your changes IMO fared well in the collaboration. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - Nor i: What i look at each day is
- edits to the pages on my last few days' contribs;
- whether there are more than 15 pages at Category:Disambiguation;
- Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup: the Je.. entries, or the J... ones, or (a few weeks ago, when there were 50 or so) the H... thru L... entries. Right now there are 500, tho. [smile].
- Missed seeing your response; seems yours weren't caught in the deletion part of the maelstrom after all, and your changes IMO fared well in the collaboration. Thanks.