KuroiShiroi
| This is KuroiShiroi's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Please be more careful with your speedy deletion tagging. This article asserted significance when you tagged it and the author feels rather bitten. shoy (reactions) 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So inform me how he passes WP:PROF. And how language like "Never once during all his years of schooling was Edward Robinson ever presented with any of the huge body of information concerning the beauty, grandeur and sophistication of Kemet (ancient Egypt) or the Songhai Empire." is not indicative of WP:COI. And how the article is not in violation of WP:BLP with regards to sourcing. I take pride in my tagging work and I do not feel mistaken in this case. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Notability was asserted, which makes an A7 invalid. COI is not a speedy deletion criteria. If you want to tag it as a unsourced BLP, go ahead, but seeing as how there was no negative information in the article, I doubt any admin would speedy delete it. shoy (reactions) 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't remember how notability was asserted; he was a professor that failed PROF. I do, however, admit that this probably should have been a PROD or an AfD candidate in hindsight (I had no idea it was a copyvio, in any event). My apologies for my snappy attitude; I really didn't see why the article was legitimate. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problems, sorry if I came across as a bit blunt as well. Thanks for understanding. shoy (reactions) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't remember how notability was asserted; he was a professor that failed PROF. I do, however, admit that this probably should have been a PROD or an AfD candidate in hindsight (I had no idea it was a copyvio, in any event). My apologies for my snappy attitude; I really didn't see why the article was legitimate. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Notability was asserted, which makes an A7 invalid. COI is not a speedy deletion criteria. If you want to tag it as a unsourced BLP, go ahead, but seeing as how there was no negative information in the article, I doubt any admin would speedy delete it. shoy (reactions) 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Great work!
edit
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For some excellent vandal-fighting, including beating me to hundreds of edits. 10metreh (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Page blanked by author
editHi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, you need to look first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his/her own page after it is speedy tagged, as with Chris Williams (student) just now. In those cases the thing to do is to tag it {{db-author}}. It is confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if the page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. It was made worse in this case because the same mistake was made by Dashbot (for which I have submitted a false positive) and also by another human editor, so that the unfortunate newbie ended up with a #3 warning and threats of blocking. (I have deleted the warnings and apologised profusely.) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I was in the process of undoing and applying the page blank when you edited. Sorry for the mess / confusion, I should have followed up. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I hope Dashbot can be re-educated, though. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)