User:Zzyzx11/Archive17

970:). Are you still interested in, and involved with, this project ... or, in the Academy Awards topic in general? If so, I would like to ask you a question and to solicit your input, advice, and suggestions. Here on Knowledge, I am most interested in, frequently contribute to, and tend to monitor and edit the various Academy Award articles -- of which there are many. That topic is essentially my primary interest here on Knowledge. One day recently (about a week ago), I was reviewing / editing / proofreading the various Academy Award articles, as I do pretty regularly. Literally, as I was working on them, an administrator was deleting many, many of the articles -- I believe, seven Academy Award articles in total. I am sure that they went through the proper AfD process. However, I was unaware that they were even being considered for deletion (since they were not on my Watch List). As a result, I was not able to participate in any of the discussion or debate ... and all seven articles were ultimately deleted. The list of articles deleted is here (if you look under Item #3 on my "To Do List"): 974:. Needless to say, I am very upset about this and I sincerely feel that these are worthwhile articles, into which a lot of work was placed (by me and by you and by others). If I had my druthers, all seven articles would be un-deleted ... however, I am certain that Knowledge hardly works that way (i.e., letting my druthers dictate the issue). So, basically, these are my questions to you. (1) Do you agree or disagree that these articles should have been deleted? (2) What, if anything, can I (or you or others) do about all of this? (3) Is there any way to fix this, or am I barking up a wrong tree, which will only result in banging my head against the proverbial brick wall? Will I be spinning my wheels, getting nowhere ... or can this situation change? By the way, the deletion debate is here: 3734: 792: 1564: 31: 1671: 2790: 2777: 2764: 2751: 2738: 2725: 2712: 2699: 2686: 2673: 2660: 2647: 2280: 2268: 2256: 2244: 2232: 2220: 2208: 2196: 2184: 2172: 2160: 2148: 2136: 63: 1010: 1343: 2816: 2803: 3481: 2967: 1708: 1484: 482: 211: 2516: 2462: 2413: 2367: 982:. Another PS: I initiated a preliminary conversation with the administrator who deleted the articles. You can see that conversation on my Talk Page under the "Academy Awards" heading. Before my next move with that deleting administrator, I wanted to seek your input and advice on the best way to proceed. Thanks much. Please reply at my Talk Page: 3474: 2960: 1701: 475: 978:-- if you can call it a debate. I am really very upset about all of this. Please advise. PS: In a subsequent post, I can offer my specific reasons to un-delete these articles and to counter-argue the consensus reached at the debate. But, initially, I wanted to ask those (above) preliminary questions of you. Please reply at My Talk Page: 3467: 2953: 1694: 468: 1890:

that has some odd backwards text. I've seen this backwards text bug before, but I still don't know what causes it. It looked like a test page, so I tried to speedy it, but the tag went on the main template instead. I'm not quite sure what to do about it next, or if it's even that important. Thanks.

275:

thanks for your reply. Regarding my question: I might need some consulting from someone who is a "collaboration culture expert". Since you're an admin and we are both from the same neighborhood, i thought that this might be you :). would you like to consider this? if yes, how would you suggest

3903:

with an AfD. I know you've cited a very valid reason with another AfD discussion, however, since it was tagged as a current events article, I thought maybe you could have eased up on the deletion process at least overnight while people can assess damages as well have seismologists confirm the 5.6

3751:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient

1366:

659:

and adding it to all of the existing POTD protected templates, as part of an effort to standardize how the last line of these templates is displayed (both to remove the bold around the dash and to add the noprint class that is used on the other parts of the main page). Is this okay with you? ---

808:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually

1634:

I chose the World Wildlife Fund to replace the hurricane as every other entry is to do with war and/or fighting and death and destruction; you have taken it out and added - wait for it - yet another battle! Please let's have some balance! What's wrong with the WWF entry?

975: 1060:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge 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 3303:

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by referring to the Julian Calendar-the epoch is on the Hebrew Calendar, and the anniversary page refers to the Gregorian Calendar, so how does the Julian Calendar play a role??

993:

Thanks for your input and suggestions. I will consider all that you have mentioned. Furthermore, I will try to resurrect all of that deleted material in, perhaps, a more acceptable format. Thanks again.

3274:

Thanks. I had no doubt that you were editing in good faith, but article linking mustn't be tenuous, as we are all safeguarding the integrity of Knowledge as a valid online reference facility. Best wishes.

1887: 1034:, 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 1056:

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 "

3420:

and, frankly, I do to. It appears to have been temp uploaded from the commons, but according to FPC it got promoted in a nomination where the promoted image wasn't even being discussed. HELP!. -

3623: 3606: 3601: 3596: 3591: 3586: 3578: 3568: 3563: 3558: 3542: 3537: 3532: 3527: 3114: 3097: 3092: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3072: 3064: 3054: 3049: 3044: 3028: 3023: 3018: 3013: 1835: 1818: 1810: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1785: 1769: 1764: 1759: 1754: 619: 602: 597: 592: 587: 579: 569: 564: 559: 543: 538: 533: 528: 1053: