User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive3

1535: 377:. If you want to move it, just hit the "move" tag at the top of the screen, and in the box that appears near the bottom of the move-page type in "User talk:whoever". Then go to their talk page, where you will find a blue tag saying "redirect from Userpage:whoever". Click on this tag, which will take you to the userpage, and edit to remove the redirect. Job done.-- 312:. If you want to move it, just hit the "move" tag at the top of the screen, and in the box that appears near the bottom of the move-page type in "User talk:whoever". Then go to their talk page, where you will find a blue tag saying "redirect from Userpage:whoever". Click on this tag, which will take you to the userpage, and edit to remove the redirect. Job done.-- 1511:, so I decided to brandish it nonsense - realistically because, as you noted, it is a clear deletion candidate, and also because I wanted to check the warning system in the program for nonsense (I'm yet to find the templates for attack pages). I hope this clears it up, and by the by, I'm looking for testers for it, so if you're interested, just let me know :) 1043:

not always notable). This case pains me in particular as this charity is obviously international in scale, and does a lot of good, yet I see "junk" articles all the time about this and that sports person or local company - I feel this is what wikipedia is for (even if I don't like missionary organisations!)

1042:

I was a noob then, and it was painful to see someone request the deletion of one of my first pages. Now I see the same happening often with noobs when New Pages patrolling, they are often treated harshly when some are testing and others (like in this case obviously) are trying to add good content (if

1599:

Hi there; I was just warning this user when you beat me to it. Although you gave him a final warning, I could not see any previous examples of his vandalism. They may, of course, have been deleted. Please tell me to mind my own business if you are so moved, but you do know, I trust, that wiki policy

348:

Because you have presented me an oppurtunity to ask a question, I figured I could get something answered that has bothered me for some time. In the event someone creates a page about themselves, how do you move the page to the person's userpage? I tried using the moving pages, and I am attempting to

283:

1387:

You might well be right, and when it looks like it could be an article in progress I generally hold off tagging it and stick it on my watchlist if I think deletion would cause the author to have to re-do a good deal of editing. In this case I reckon if (s)he does have to re-start from scratch there

496:

Good morning! I'm honoured both to be your adoptee and the FIRST ever adoptee, wow. I was wondering if you could help me answer this question then: What's the code to express that I can translate French into English and vice versa? I'm guessing it would be two lines, but I can only find the French

151:

What is the story in The Lonesome Guest?... After earning a Ph.D. in Literature and Philosophy from the University of Heidelberg in 1921 he worked as a journalist and tried for several years to become a published author. His work included an autobiographical novel called Michael which no publisher

907:

Of course Anthony I agree that anyone can edit a page, but in this case this page was DELETED - and not just anyone can do that. And because it was deleted all the page history has gone (or is not generally accessible) and so I cant revert the delete - if you know how to then please do. IMHO the

90:

See the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the external links: "there is no reliable evidence that the Chief of the Apostles was ever imprisoned in the Tullianum". The article goes on to say that the claim seems to be first made in the Acts of Saints Processus and Martinianus, which were written

1673:

When I revert somebody, I tend to watch their contribs for at least the next 5-10 minutes; in cases of users like that, usually even longer. If he'd continued as such, I would have blocked without any questions asked. As is, looks like somebody who's less patient than I am already indeffed the

1264:

Thanks again for your 2nd message. I talked to User 6.9, and he deleted the articles in question, and gave the people involved a severe talking to, and I believe that will put an end to the matter. Rest assured that, when you come up for a vote on becoming an administrator, you will have my

1201:

1138:

999:

I am no deletionist, and I would gladly keep your article if you showed me some viable evidence that it passes notability guidelines. On multiple occasions I have overruled previous decisions and favored restoring the article because a user presented some evidence that asserted the article's

139:

held there. It seems more to be a case of scholars preferring to take a sceptical view of any story that first appears so late. The tradition itself is likely to be considerably older than the written legend, so I would think it can be considered plausible: it just cannot be proven true or

109:

No problem. It's always valid to go back and ask past editors to clarify which source is intended to support which point, particularly with articles like that one which haven't been updated to use footnote-style references yet. Knowledge would be a better resource if more people cared about

497:

code (I've registered on the French site as well, how bizarre that they are two totally different sites that require two user names and registration processes...) I've read the tutorial and practiced in the sandbox like a good little girl. Now off to do some proofreading.

463:

I just finished adding the content to that page. Do you still think it deserves a speedy delete? In future, you might also want to consider allowing more than a few dozen minutes for the original author to finish making an article before deciding it has no content.

980:

has started to reply to me - but he is sticking by his CSD, and is demanding proof of notability before considering AFD or DelRev - which I have given. Please see his and my talk pages. If you can a bit of support might be nice - if not I will understand :):)

252:

I appreciate your help! I've been on wikipedia for about a year, but never started making serious changes until recently. I figured being a NP patroller could help me better understand some of the common tags and procedures on the site. Thanks for everything!

1062:. After looking it over, I have reconsidered the deletion, as it seems keeping the article would be of best interest for Knowledge. By the way, 14000 Ghits is not a lot. Visit AfD, and you'll see many articles get deleted when they have 50k+ hits on Google. 54:

Don't know about a record: I'll bet there's been quicker, but that one sure was insistent, through all the usual test tags. Oh well, I'm guessing that her ardor for Cody may well have waned during the 24 hour block. It so often does at that age. Sigh.

1000:

notability. If you do so, then I will definitely change my position and throw support for keeping the article. And...by proof, I mean some actual 3rd-party references that asserts the organization's notability. If it follows one guideline of

1244:] This Liam fellow, and his friend, are in the midst of a playful edit war over a couple of nonsensical articles. I have grown tired of playing tag with them, quite frankly. If you could take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --- 1181:] This Liam fellow, and his friend, are in the midst of a playful edit war over a couple of nonsensical articles. I have grown tired of playing tag with them, quite frankly. If you could take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --- 1118:] This Liam fellow, and his friend, are in the midst of a playful edit war over a couple of nonsensical articles. I have grown tired of playing tag with them, quite frankly. If you could take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --- 1462:

recently I've got used to a tagg leading to a huge lead time for actual deletion; the "empty" tag has in my mind (wrongly, I freely admit) meaning "Oi! get some content in here within the next few hours please". No excuse, I know.

1600:

is to give a suspected vandal four warnings, of increasing firmness, before blocking him/her? Giving a level four warning for a first offence is liable to result in no admin being willing to block, which negates your effort.--

829:

high five dude, i didnt know about fetus/foetus thingt, i thought it was just a typo and was trying to rub it in haha, but since i spelt it fetus firts i guess i win, yay me. haha so yeah thanks for all the help and critizism

721:

627:

1037:, the article is still a stub, but its still got useful info and links on. I suppose that article was my inspiration for this discussion (but in that case you added a PROD appropriately I think considering your info). 229:

tag, filling the reason in as "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content"... The same text listed under Articles (#7) on that page. I was doing a round-about route instead of directly using tags such as

482:, is not to replace the ones on specific classes but to try to summarise the classes and trace the evolution and changes. I think there's also a case for the equivalent for the US and for cruiser classes. 929:

Yes I have just found Deletion Review so hopefully get an Admin to the content back. Am starting to cool down now - but still the question (thanks to Terry Prachett) Who watches the Watchman? Cheers

1618:, but they need not be used in order, nor need they all be used. This case was so strong (giving away contact details for an attack page victim) that it merited the use of the strongest warning. -- 1737:- the author has given me some trouble. I had to report him, and I'm waiting for the admins to get to it. If not that's fine, but it would make me feel better if it was being monitored. Cheers, -- 38:

Man! I thought I was antagonistic - you've sure irritated somebody to the point where he writes particularly nasty things. I'm glad that you archived this page, though. Good luck with your stalker.

441:

does on? On longer nonsense, I do indeed put them at the top if there's a risk they wouldn't be seen (E&OE). I would happily demonstrate, but my hitrate on speedy deletes is rather high :)

69:

Hi there; I know it's been sitting there unchallenged for more than two years, but could you possibly document your statement that the belief that Saint Peter was held here is unfounded?--

1058:

Although I disapprove of the tone of your comments you made on my talk page (which I translate as you thinking that I am incapable of making decisions), I am dropping my case on

1004:, then it's a keeper. Lethaniol failed to show me anything that asserts the notability of the organization. P.S. What does my age have to do with my capabilities as admin? 171:

If non-notablilty is not a recognized speedy deletion catagory, then what is used for? The template at the bottom of the page gives six tags to use just for that case.

1817:

Our comments did overlap for a while, but I think they are fine now. Yeah, I don't get it either. Oh well, it gives me a reason to play with my computer :). Cheers, --

83: 1048:

Thanks for your help though - it is nice to have support - sorry to bring up the age issue - is not really relevant and detracts from the arguments. Oh well. Cheers

1258: 1195: 1132: 400: 381: 1662: 152:

would take at the time, and two plays written in verse - The Wanderer, about Jesus Christ, and The Lonesome Guest - which no producer would stage. belief".) —

335: 316: 267: 1392: 371: 306: 1588: 1569: 1052: 985: 875: