User talk:Damiancorrigan
|
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Redirecting longsightedness
[edit]It's one of those little pedant/OCD things I have. I don't like seeing the "(redirected from...)" line beneath the article title when I can provide a direct link through a pipe. Strictly speaking, it's not really necessary to provide a piped link to the actual article, but a lot of people do anyway. I can't speak for them, but for myself I just think it looks cleaner. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Spears
[edit]Yes I do. I am using a program called Vandal Proof, at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Michael Schumacher
[edit]Schumacher indeed is playing a cameo in Disney-Pixar's new film Cars.[1]
I just found out you need more than one box for more than one paper! PMA 10:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion, so decisions are not made based on what the majority thinks. In this case, the people who wanted to delete (or merge) the article had no reason to present as to why the article would not be suitable for Wikipedia, so I had to close it as a no consensus. - ulayiti (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, but only two people out of five (discounting the anon ip) wanted to delete the article (a vote for 'merge' means they want to keep the information). In addition, the justification for keeping the article takes up about half of the AFD page, while there's no justification for deleting.
- 'looking over your talk page, it seems you have a habit of making arbitrary decisions about AfD pages' - Er, you judged that from one request from Urthogie to change my comment in an AFD over an article that he'd created? Interesting. - ulayiti (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Three people out of five wanted to keep the content, two wanted to delete it. I can't see any justification for removing the article on the AFD page, can you show me some? - ulayiti (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are two 'votes' to delete the article ('votes' by IP addresses are usually discounted), two to merge (the other one says 'redirect and merge'), and one to keep. Now, because AFD actually only decides on whether an article should be deleted or not, there are, for this purpose, only two 'votes' to delete the article, and the remaining three 'votes' are to keep it (or at least the information in it).
- If you want the article merged on another page, please use {{merge}}. - ulayiti (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just too bad. To quote what you've been told before, 'If you don't agree with Wikipedia Policies, I suggest you don't use Wikipedia, or use the relevant discussion pages to suggest amendments.' - ulayiti (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
AfD
[edit]The appropriate forum for raising complaints about administrators is the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page. Hopefully some discussion about it will happen. Alternatively, you could start an Request for comment, but the procedure is more complicated, and that takes more than one person. Do one or the other, but not both. Good luck. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the standard way to dispute deletion decisions id to take them to deletion review. Feel free to do that in this case, but remember that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks (such as this). - ulayiti (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, an attack is not 'personal' if the person is not named. Damiancorrigan 12:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Titanic and the Doctor
[edit]You're assuming that after he took the photograph he boarded immediately. Remember, he persuaded the family not to go on the trip, so what makes you think he went on board immediately after? It's just as possible that he took the photo, then took a short hop on the TARDIS, landed during the sinking... all we know is that he says he wound up clinging to an iceberg. My point really is that in this case the evidence is equivocal, and there's too many gaps and too many possible scenarios to definitively say it one way or another. And who knows, maybe it does take place in the gap after he leaves Rose and Mickey and before he returns for Rose. We just don't know either way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, we go with what's likely. But in this case, I don't think it's entirely implausible. In fact, I once wrote an entire fanfic about the Ninth Doctor immediately after his regeneration that had as a subtle background fact that he didn't have access to mirrors for a couple of months. I don't think it's a big thing just acknowledge the fact that we really don't know when these adventures take place. The main thing we know is that Rose isn't there, and there are three possible explanations. If it makes it any better, I'll insert a bit there about how the mirror thing mitigates the plausibility of this hypothesis. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read it for yourself and see if you find it plausible. In one fell swoop I explain why he has a Northern accent, a crew cut, and hasn't seen his face in a mirror. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Try this link, then. Good luck on the interview. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read it for yourself and see if you find it plausible. In one fell swoop I explain why he has a Northern accent, a crew cut, and hasn't seen his face in a mirror. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Babyshambles
[edit]Fair point, I've merged Babyshambles Sessions and redirected it to your page (had forgotten it existed to be honest). But next time, try posting on my talk page rather than my userpage (I've moved it now). Trebor 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs
[edit]
I have nominated List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs, 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/List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs. 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? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)