| Revision as of 18:22, 28 November 2008 editTitanic14 (talk | contribs)19 edits →Swainson's Warbler← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:53, 29 November 2008 edit undoCanis Lupus (talk | contribs)11,066 editsm Reverted edits by Titanic14 (talk) to last version by Canis LupusNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For just being you day after day ] (]) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For just being you day after day ] (]) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| |} | |||
| == Swainson's Warbler == | |||
| Again with all due respect, the sheer meanspiritedness of the reviewer here is just so disheartening and discouraging. The submission of quality content has been carelessly treated like it came from someone trying to sell Ginsu knives. Apparently the submission of five or six references all in the same evening invited the derogatory hyperbolic mischaracterizations of "mass adding of links," "spamming," "conflict of interest," and "promoting," none of which are accurate. The website has photos of some 700 avian species collected over four years with much travelling. Of these 700, just fourteen references total were submitted to wikipedia. Although those submissions were indeed made in two small batches (a year apart), they represented many many months of culling literally thousands of photos. The ones submitted for the most part represented the best of the best and were of uncommon and hard to photograph birds, some obtained in remote and inaccessible locales such as the Galapagos and the Pribilof Islands. One would hope and expect that the quality of the reference material would have been the sole criterion for its gracious acceptance, not the arbitrary technical manner of its submission that simply happened to call undue attention to itself. In fact the deletions occurred almost instantly, within less than one minute's time, unmistakeably indicating that the reviewer had not even so much as looked at the content but reacted in knee-jerk fashion simply to the manner of the submission. So as the result of the reviewer's actions, others can decide whether wikipedia is a net winner here or a net loser. | |||
| ] (]) 18:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, obviously this should have been a new thread, and I apparently didn't post this quite correctly but I did the best I could. | |||
| ] (]) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:53, 29 November 2008
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canis_Lupus. |
Barnstar
Revert on 2008 NLL season article
Hello, I've reverted your edit on that article because of the amount of deleted content I saw. If I made a mistake, then I apologise. SchfiftyThree 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- nope, I made a mistake and somehow blanked the page. I would have fixed it but you reverted first. Canis Lupus 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Orphan pages
Hi, You have added the {{orphan}} tag to a group of pages such as Abboushi, which I created as part of Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for name disambiguation. They are all {{surname}} pages. As that has a dab-like function, it doesn't seem appropriate to tag them as orphans - they will be useful for people who search on the surname, but there shouldn't be any links going to them directly. Perhaps you could undo your additions of the tag? PamD (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted 11 of them - please watch out for dab-type pages and don't tag them as orphans in future! PamD (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you added the {{orphan}} tag to Liviu Cangeopol page. I had to undo the change because this page has articles linked to it. Please review and let us know what to do.
- Hi, I come across many articles on my random meanderings that you've tagged as orphans, and try to add backlinks where I can. In some cases an article, for example Guy Marchais, may have a few links to it and cannot expect to receive any more; in such cases I'm not sure what value the orphan tag adds. Since the tag detracts from the article I'm inclined to remove it, but would welcome an understanding of your thoughts on the subject first. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- when I tag a page as orphan its a true orphan. that means there are no other pages on wikipedia in the article space that link to the article. if its a relatively obscure topic then adding one or two links to it to un-orphan it would be good for removal. I also think that the orphan tag is abused too much my self. if it has several incoming links Im inclined to remove the template. Canis Lupus 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Finding orphans
I see you're the orphan-tagging master. How do you find them? --JaGa 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Conectopalatus
Can you please explain why you tagged this article for speedy deletion as vandalism? Hut 8.5 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- yeah, take a look at this it clearly shows that, that creature does not exist. its classic hoax vandalism. Canis Lupus 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It really is not surprising that there the internet doesn't contain many mentions of an obscure variety of ichthyosaur. The creator has been editing for nine months and has more than 2,500 edits - seems an unlikely hoaxer. G3 only applies to extremely obvious hoaxes and you should use the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes if you want to get an article like this deleted. Hut 8.5 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Adele Scheele
Hello. I cannot find the URL of the web page you believed this article to be a copyright infringement of, so I am going to restore it and tag it for the issues it has. Feel free to re-add the {{g12}} tag when you locate the URL. You should not use that template without the corresponding URL, and I should not have deleted it without further research. Please try to be more thorough; I'll try not to be so quick on the delete button! Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dab
Apologies for removing the link, it was just a mistake, it wasn't anything malicious or disruptive DJDannyP//Talk2Me 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
warning
Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please ignore this message. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bizarre_block.
- Seconded. Your warning was entirely correct and you should ignore Slrubenstein's message. --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I knew that warning was inappropriate as our vandalism policy clearly states that such IP warning are required prior to getting an IP blocked. Canis Lupus 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Anthony thomas candy co.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anthony thomas candy co., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Blanchardb -- timed 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Liviu Cangeopol
I don't understand why you proposed that this article be deleted. It has plenty of references. Did you bother to check? Please email me at danafree122@yahoo.com and let me know.
Of Mice and Men (film) deletion
The disambiguation Of Mice and Men (film) has been proposed to be deleted under WP:delete content fork: as it is merged into Of Mice and Men (disambiguation). The links have been corrected. This name space should be avoided to ensure that unsuspecting editors do not accidentally link to it and forces them to search for the exact film (there are three). Since you created the page, I thought you might be interested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Notification of deorphan
I have been deorphaning some articles. I see you link to them on your sub pages. Would it be helpfull if I to tell you when I do this? --Sultec (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What a day!
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For just being you day after day Happydude 69ya (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |