Vectro

Its a vanity for a non-notable music project, and a brand new article, so that biased me against it. Honestly, it should go, but I guess speedy delete wasn't the way to go, having actually read the criteria. Cornell Rockey 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've marked William S. Laughlin for deletion, but since you had made an edit to that article earlier, I thought you might have some information on why he is notable. If you do, feel free to add it. Cheers, --Vectro 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No objections at all - I was just stub-sorting - thanks Saga City 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're right about my botched revert attempt - thanks for helping out. Best, The Hungry Hun 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vectro. Your comment referring to my "unqualified statements" is ill-informed. I am the founder of The Dove Foundation. As such, I'm frustrated at seeing 15 years of hard work dissed by mischaracterizations from "experts" who post information without proper fact-checking. If, as you say, "Wikipedia welcomes meaningful contributions from a Neutral Point of View," then I'd like to keep the information balanced and accurate by making contributions from a neutral and informed point of view. I'm available to discuss this further. I'm always ready to discuss/debate my position, and would appreciate you not redirecting my submissions unless you can substantiate their inaccuracy. Regards, --Dick@Dove 16:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

For long word strings don't put them in "speech marks" - sometimes it does work to find the exact string but due to the length of the string it can usually find the page in question without them as googles preview listing bolds the words that have been searched for. Click here to see an example. Sometimes the first string doesn't work but eventually one will. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see Lid's page. VA-42 data should be public domain, there is no copywrite on the data as it comes from an agncy of the US Gobverment, The Navy Historical Center.

Please refer to the following web site, which includes the Library of Congress info...no copywrite:

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol1/prelim.pdf Bondo 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Same with this as VA-42...could you, I can't figuure out how to, replace the data that was previously on the VA-65 entry??Bondo 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! I have also started a coupe of pages from US Governemnt web sites, on these two training sqwuadrons...oddly, they are also missing. The info was taken directly from offical USN sites. Can you investigate these???Bondo 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, Lid is attempting to delete saying he saw the info on globalsecurity...who apparently put the Navy stuff on their site:

They were taken directly from VT-10 and VT-86's offical US Navy web site..now if globalsecurity is taking their stuff from them, and copywriting, it is wrong. I think that before you delete, you should try to tarck down the original info source.The link is as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp Bondo 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it me, or are there some seriously over excited people about this stuff? One guy called me lazy...may be, if its in the rules, its in the rules. I will be perfectly frank, this kind of stuff turns peoople off. i was telling a friend that uses Wiki and he thought they [the deleters] were over the edge...if the info is pubklic domain, no matter how it gets there, it should be allowed. Unless wiki re-writes its "consititution". Your thoughts?Bondo 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I agree with your last comments on my talk page. Even if its reuse, it is start, and maybe soemone with more time can expand. Beats having soemone search and not find anything...and if they don't want to take the time to learn how to post, then we still have missing entries. I think you are the most levelheaded one (administrator) out there...once again, thanks for your help!Bondo 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

They SHOULD make you an administrator. Of course, then you'd be one of "them"...read my latest post to VA-65 about JOPA.Bondo 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just wrote this to Lid, feelign that these two entries should be relisted...take a look at the links, you will see they are public domain. Thanks again-

Lid, I feel that you have to revisit these two articles....once again, globalsecurity has violated copy write by taking a public domain site/info and saying it was there info. I invite you to look at the two web site below, read where it says "Official US Navy Web Site"...perhaps you shoudl have Wiki contact globalsecurity?

The links are as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp Bondo 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Bondo 00:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there- There are two articles the VT-10 and VT-86 that i would like to have searchable...right now, the person that built the Vermont Road series of entries has everything going to those...most people who will be searching these two squadrons, will search by VT-10, and VT-86....can we do a disambiguition page for these so that whoever searches will at least get a choice of where they go...? if so, how do i construct one?Bondo 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the comment that you posted at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming. As always, thanks for your contributions now and in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the disambig from Crucifer? Anchoress 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you were looking at Crucifer, and wanted to be looking at something else, the only thing the disambiguation page would ever lead you to is Cruciferae. Hence the disambiguation page just throws another extra link between the vegetable-seeker and her goal. If and when we come up with another page for "Crucifer" (unlikely, unless someone starts a band with that name), then we can reinstate the disambiguation page. In the meantime, it should be deleted. Vectro 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The disambig page doesn't make it any shorter to find crucifer, and it's just your opinion that it needs to be deleted. Anchoress 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are correct that the disambiguation page doesn't make it shorter to find Crucifer, but that's not the issue at hand. The disambiguation page does make it take longer to find Cruciferae. Nobody is going to type in "Crucifer (disambiguation)" directly, so the only way they will get there is from Crucifer. But if the only way to get there is from Crucifer, and the only place to go from there is Cruciferae, then why not just link Crucifer directly to Cruciferae and skip the disambiguation page? I do see, upon checking, that this issue does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I do think the direct link from Crucifer to Cruciferae should stay — at least until we have another "Crucifer" topic. I don't much care if the disambiguation page is deleted or not, but it seems to me that an orphaned disambiguation page with a "(disambiguation)" title is not of much use. Alternatively, we could rename the disambiguation page to "Crucifer", and move "Crucifer" to "Crucifer (religion)". Cheers, Vectro 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, when I said crucifer, I was referring to cruciferae. Where I come from, the word 'crucifer' means a cruficerous vegetable, not the other term. I think when someone types 'cruficer' in the search field they should get to the disambig page, not to the Crucifer you want it to go to. That was the point of the disambig page. Anchoress 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with that. The way things were when I first looked at this made no sense, because Crucifer was about religion, not the disambiguation page. If you want to move Crucifer to Crucifer (religion) and make Crucifer a redirect to Crucifer (disambiguation), I'd be fine with that. If not, then the disambiguation page probably should go. Cheers, Vectro 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why would that be better than the disambig page the way it was before you changed it? In your opinion? Anchoress 16:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, so there's three scenarios that I see proposed here:

1. Crucifer is an article about religion, Crucifer (religion) does not exist, Crucifer points to Crucifer (disambiguation), which in turn points to Cruciferae.
2. Crucifer is an article about religion, Crucifer (religion) does not exist, Crucifer points to Cruciferae.
3. Crucifer redirects to Crucifer (disambiguation), which in turn points to Crucifer (religion) and Cruciferae.

The first is strictly speaking worse than the second; #2 is better for vegetable addicts and no worse for religious fanatics. #3 is the same as #1 as far as vegetarians are concerned, and worse for Christians, but is more fair. Personally, I think either #2 or #3 are fine solutions, but #1 doesn't make much sense. Vectro 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I don't know what vegetarians have to do with it, but No. 3 seems to be the best to me. I've never renamed an article before, have you? Anchoress 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a bit of hyperbole. ;-) The change will require the intervention of an administrator, because of restrictions about overwriting pages. And before any change happns, we need concensus from editors of both Crucifer and Crucifer (disambiguation). I'd suggest creating a page in the Wikipedia namespace describing the change, marking all three pages with {{move}}, and then posting a notice on Talk:Crucifer, Talk:Crucifer (disambiguation) and Talk:Brassicaceae, so everyone can comment. If and when everyone agrees about the move (after, say, at least 3 days), you can post it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers, Vectro 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vectro,

I am an administrator at English Wikipedia -- I have closed the discussions within policy at my discretion, and they remain so. Navy feedback could take years, and it doesn't matter to some of the issues at hand. Even if the material is in the public domain, copying it verbatim is bad form, and would qualify for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. The articles should be rewritten from scratch using sources, including the disputed material, in an editor's own words. The matter is resolved. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, because our policy pages are freely-editable, the precise wording of our policies can change. Nevertheless, it is accepted common practice that a DRV may be cleared after five days, whether the result endorses deletion or results in an overturn. This particular DRV was cleared after five days, as was within my discretion. I do close many DRVs, and am reasonably well-versed in proper procedures. There is no formal method of appeal from DRV, but you are free to ask other admins to review the situation, and I am confident they will agree that I acted with my discretion.

No policy in Wikipedia suggests or endorses the notion that directly copy-and-pasting a complete article or large blocks of text from any source is good practice. If you find a page that suggests this, alert me, and I will revise it to clarify matters for you. Again, the easy solution here is for you (or anyone) to use the sources to compose an article in your own words. If you cannot or do not wish to do so, I might even try to do so, but the verbatim revisions will remain deleted. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you clarify whether your reversion was meant to remove the vandalism or to reinstate the Al-Manar report? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate if you could revert to my last edit, as I was in the process of removing a claim which you reinstated (accidentally it would seem). Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but you reverted to the version from after you began reverting. I am suggesting that you revert all of your edits, since you reverted my edit with the vandalism. If you reinstate my edit, I will remove the vandalism. Thanks, and sorry about the timing

 , Tewfik^Talk 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Happy editing, and good job on the Vandal-fighting, Tewfik^Talk 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure its okay. I usually just use the test ones for convenience but verror is more appropriate. Gdo01 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have marked the article Louise Harrison for speedy deletion as you feel that it does not assert the importance of its subject. The person concerned has appeared in at least two notable British television series, and has an entry on the Internet Movie Database, although the information about them is limited. I have checked out the criteria for writing biography as you suggested and the article appears to meet the criteria, even if it is a little thin on the ground. What can I do to get it accepted, or shall I give up and choose a different subject? Please advise as I am relatively new to this.

Paul from Brum (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vectro. Many thanks for your advice regarding this article and for changing its status. Hopefully other users may be able to establish her notability. I will bear what you have said in mind, though, when I am writing future articles for Wikipedia.

Paul from Brum (talk)] 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the {{db-bio}} from Peter Clarke (cartoonist), since there are at least assertions of notability, so it's not absolutely clear that the article should be speedied (eg. "sold 1.3 million copies in three languages", "commissioned by the Zambian Government to paint an official portrait of President Kaunda", "exhibited in many modern art exhibitions in the UK and abroad"). If you feel these assertions are either fabricated or insufficient, feel free to {{prod}} or AFD the article. --Interiot 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You wrote that you might change your deletion opinion if I added my sourced claims to the article. I have done so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have done the rewrite - thought you'd like a heads-up. Vizjim 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your Barnstar gift and kind words. It's always nice to see your efforts are noticed, much less appreciated. Thanks again, Satori Son 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, glad I could brighten your day a bit. AfD discussions have a tendency to become partisan and emotional, but I've noticed your postings are usually calm and well-supported, and I thought you deserved some acknowledgement for that. Cheers, Vectro 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write the article on Cox, but I feel it should stay at least until the election is over. Other candidates who are running for congress have their own wiki page without the stigma of being marked for deletion.Mrsmart 03:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thanks. Gdo01 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

first time editing, and just feeling my way...thanks for the help.Davidegg 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Blood donation is on hold. See its talk page. Rlevse 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

List of idioms in the English language -

I just thought you may wish to contribute to the debate. WLD 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: "Alternative spellings are not misspellings; romanization is a fuzzy business, whether we like it or not." Romanization is hardly a fuzzy business, especially in this case. I have been working with Japanese for almost three decades. I have degrees in linguistics and Japanese and have worked as a professional translator. I use the term "gō" almost everyday (making rice). "Go" or "gou" are not alternative spellings; they are misspellings. "Go" is slightly plausible in that some people have difficulty entering macrons and will just ignore it. "Gou" is really not possible no matter how you look at it. They both exist as redirects or disambiguation pages to assist in finding the real page. Bendono 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains Project.

I noticed that you recently re-directed one of our pages, without even stating your intentions or reasons on the Talk Page beforehand. The page that you re-directed was clearly marked as being part of the project, and you are not listed as a project member.

In future, if you find a page with a Project marker, then please could you at least place a message on the talk page, if you cannot contact someone linked to the project.

I note that you are a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit. Whilst this is not technically vandalism, it is not collaborative either. You really should know better. I shall be keeping a close watch on you from now on. ALECTRIC451 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• edit

It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 09:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nuvaring.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

202.188.133.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi, Vectro. I rechecked this IP address for you to see whether or not it is still vulnerable to being a possible proxy and it is. The evidence used to come to this conclusion is an nmap scan that found port 8080, a common proxy port, to be open. If this port can be closed on that IP, it can be rechecked and unblocked based on the lack of open ports. Until then, the block will remain in effect. Feel free to write me back if you have any further questions. Zsinj^Talk 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:NHC-logo-grayscale-1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:CharterBT.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 05:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right about that building only being 1166. Additionally, their HQ moved to Hoboken in 2006 or 2007 and according to http://www.ajc.com/business/marsh-mclennan-to-move-152108.html they are moving to Atlanta soon. Make the changes you need. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know that I removed the copypaste maintenance template in which you re-inserted back in November. I have double-checked which sentences were copied off other websites, and have removed them. Minimac (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for injecting some reality into the PRT page. You will find answers to some of your questions about PRT here: http://prtboondoggle.blogspot.com/ Avidor (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should know, however, that Ken Avidor has spent the last half-decade smearing this technology and its proponents, and almost everything he writes is tainted with his own extreme POV. Note also that he has a long history of association with lightrailnow.org, a rail astroturfing group underwritten by corporate interests which would be financially threatened by PRT deployment. So take what he says with a few grains of salt. ATren (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both of you should be aware that I've come across PRT proponents and opponents before, and that I have the capacity for critical thought. Also, be sure to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Atren, is this your blog?: http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com Avidor (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was called away in the middle of setting it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see comments and respond. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know that most clean-up templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" (Citation needed) and "{{Advert}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC).Reply

Rich, any advice on what to do in the case of pages like Adaptive Planning, which require a warning but for which none of the existing texts are quite right? Is there a "generic" cleanup tag template? Vectro (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Just curious: What prompted you to ask me specifically? Vectro (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You are welcome to delete the 1Love.org page which you requested for removal from the site. I created it a while ago and have no ties or need to keep the page. I also don't use this site much, quite frankly, although I do appreciate everyone who contributes to it. Thank you and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdecosta (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Vectro. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Day.
Message added 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please note the creator of Ethics of Hinduism, note that the sources are unreliable and note that there was no suggestion of deleting the article - it was redirected to an article that covers the subject. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I left a message on your talk page. In short, I think removal of this much material should be discussed beforehand in order to develop a consensus. Vectro (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, tough, I guess. The sources have already been discussed on multiple occasions across literally hundreds of articles and dispute resolution noticeboards. Similarly, the creator was just a damn nuisance: a POV-pushing sock. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll refer you to relevant Wikipedia guideline on this issue: "If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." There does seem to be a lack of consensus; you and I obviously disagree, and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I'll open an AfD unless you disagree or wish to do so yourself (IMHO it would make more sense for you to be the nominator). Vectro (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't really give a crap about wikilawyer types, sorry, but if you want to play that game then here you go. The article should not be deleted because I think it possible that someone could make a decent fist of the subject, which almost certainly is notable; the content that was present should not be retained because it is invalid; therefore, we redirect. Why do you think I didn't ask for a speedy G5 - you are not talking to a newbie here. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to stay civil and assume good faith. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that changing the article to a redirect can be an outcome of an AfD discussion. Are you opposed to discussing this at AfD? If so, can you clarify why? It seems you think the article should be tagged with {{Redirect with possibilities}}, is that right? If so, do you want to make that change? Vectro (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, you are going to nominate something at AfD that you think should be kept? That's a rather novel approach. I've already explained why AfD is pointless: the article subject might be notable but none of the content is acceptable, per decisions at WP:RSN, WP:DRN and hundreds of articles related to India + the fact that the creator and major contributor is a known POV-pushing sock. That is why it has been retained as a redirect rather than deleted. And I've remained civil: you just don't seem to understand how that policy works, either. That's often a problem with wikilawyers. I haven't, for example, told you to fuck off and nor would I. If you want to remove the redirect and build the article from scratch then that's fine by me but if you introduce any of those Raj sources etc again or leave it as a stub then the thing will be redirected again because Hinduism does that job. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I suppose I'll open an AfD and we can take it from there. I'll move this conversation over to the article's talk page for reference. Vectro (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Nothing like meeting a jobsworth while I've got one eye on the cup final. You've got a fight on your hands now, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you've misunderstood; I'm not opposed to removal of the article contents, I just think it shouldn't be done without discussion. Vectro (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I do it frequently and it is highly unusual for someone to challenge me. Mainly because I only do it where I know what I'm talking about and where the wider community already acknowledge that I do know about this stuff. On pure policy grounds, as you are discovering, I'm in the clear and you've just created a mountain of discussion for no gain at all. You're entitled to challenge, obviously, but it is pretty ludicrous given what I've explained. Many admins would just delete as a G5 and thus, if anything, I've been lenient. It is a complete waste of my time and yours. What you choose to do with your time is your business but, frankly, given the widely-accepted view that India-related articles are a complete mess, I don't appreciate wasting mine playing a broken record when there are thousands more like it that need to be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done. See Special:Contributions/Vectro. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Channel email is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel email (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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Another editor procedurally declined your Proposed Deletion of the above article, so I went ahead and took it to AfD. Safiel (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Left a message here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Faith_Popcorn#Proposed_merge_with_Cocooning Thanks, BC1278 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278Reply

 

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

As promised, I've written a new article for Cocooning. You can find it in draft space here: User:BC1278/cocooning I think you'll find this one is rich enough in depth and sources to warrant its own article, but since I have a WP: COI as a business consultant to Faith Popcorn, you need to decide if it warrants being moved to the mainspace or give me permission to move it.BC1278 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278Reply

Hi,

Would you mind weighing in on the Talk page of Faith Popcorn that you have decided that the new draft of Cocooning is now good as its own article? I think you were clear in your comments that the article was now good and can be published, but another editor is saying you did not address the proposed merger with the Faith Popcorn article. I appreciate your time. Best, BC1278 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278Reply

Done. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Check-in, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Event. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, on the ranked pairs page (Ranked_pairs) you wrote the following in the "Lock" section of the algorithm description: "One way to resolve this issue is to allow cycles if they are needed to resolve ties (i.e., if a single new edge would not create a cycle, but multiple tied edges would), and then define the winners as the resulting Schwartz set."

Any chance you can describe further what you meant by this or link to a paper that describes this? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShepherd7 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will respond on the talk page. Vectro (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WingTsun™. Since you had some involvement with the WingTsun™ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Vector I do not know how to use this "talk" page. You sent me a comment on Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I would like to note that I was the Executive Director of a founding partner agency (the Oakland Men's Project, Oakland, CA) with the Ms. Foundation who created the focus exactly as I explained it. The project is and was an advocacy initiative and thus carried with it a bias towards change. That was its nature, and presenting it otherwise is a mischaracterization on your part, not mine. If you think there is another way to present such a correction, I would be interested in knowing what your take is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Shore Guy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Shore Guy, your Wikipedia edits are not only welcome but encouraged, as long as they follow our policies. Wikipedia content must be verifiable, with citations to reliable, third-party sources, and written from a Neutral Point of View. Note that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, which includes first-person claims. Everything must be cited to reliable, verifiable, third-party, secondary sources. Note that because you have a conflict of interest, you are discouraged from editing articles related to the Oakland Men's Project, including Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day, and are instead encouraged to make suggestions on each article's talk page. Your edits were removed because they lacked citations and because they were not written from a neutral point of view.

More information on all these policies can be found in the hyperlinks in the previous paragraph. If you have further questions, you can post them here and I'm happy to help. Regards, Vectro (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply