User talk:Motor - Knowledge (XXG)

195:

English with a few exceptions where other people written something and I didn't "correct" it (naturally), or where I simply preferred the "American" spelling when writing it. Fourth, when I edit I try to fit in with the style of a pre-existing article. I would also revert the edits of anyone who started converting an "American" spelling article into "British" spelling one while adding nothing of substance. I do not edit the writing of others to fit my style or spelling, and I have no intention of allowing you to simply start changing the spelling of an article to suit your personal preferences -- and I think you'll find that any arbitration will agree with me on this since it is the only workable policy in articles that are not *definitely* British or American or anything else. Certainly considering that your contributions to the article are minimal.

77:

are planning and see if there are any views first (unless it's just fixing a typo etc etc). Having said that, it's often the case that going ahead and changing it is what prompts some action, while yakking on the talk page gets nowhere... meh. I've always tried to compromise: for example, I wouldn't create a new template just yet (it's your choice though)... I'd post on the Software template talk page telling everyone what I was planning, and if you don't get a reaction by tomorrow, just go ahead and add it... but it would be diplomatic to fix up the pages that will be changed by your modification. -

247:

the fact that is it is perfectly valid spelling already. Thank you for your concern over how I spend my time, but it's really not necessary. I watch the edits on 150 articles currently and it takes but a few moments to ensure that an edit adds to the quality of the article, and is neither incorrect nor simply ignorant. Knowledge (XXG) is designed to make it easy to revert such changes, if necessary. Feel free to contribute to the GNOME article if you wish, as I said, there are many improvements, not least of which are some newer screenshots.

3216:, but can you seriously maintain that this is a non-notable biography subject?! I hardly think Khan is the most important biography subject we have on WP, but he's well pass notablity threshholds on both the "author test" and "professor test" (I recognize that all the "praise be" and "honorable"s in the first text are offputting in tone; though I think part of that is a cultural difference... not that I would want any article in that excessively deferential Islamic style, but I can "read past" that flaw in a draft). 62:

posts on that thread, so I thought I would just be bold and try to implement it! I'm afraid I had no idea how much discussion might be needed before doing something like that. I did realise that pages with no icon displayed logo={{{logo}}} but thought it might prompt people to actually add the logo on those pages! It was an experiment really, I was interested to see how the community would react. Maybe I should have created a variant template and used it on the first article that I had added a logo to, which was

3118:. It's always possible I made an error transcribing the information from the book, and I don't have it available any longer to check (library book). If you have two indepedent sources suggesting it is Inglis, then I'd change it to that and then add the book as a reference to both the BR article and the photo page itself. Next time I'm in the library I'll see if the Jackman book is still on the shelves and double check. Thanks for fact checking it though... much appreciated. - 904:

pointless article (with a poorly chosen name) with virtually zero content over and above the opera web browser article. And finally, I consider 5 days more than enough time, especially considering the state the Opera article(s) were in. Having taken a look at your edit history I notice that it was around 5-6 months since you last edited the Opera article, or any article (not counting any edits today) -- I'd say that's probably a bit too long to wait for comments. -

858:

listen to any objections... and then began slowly moving the information across ensuring that, at each stage, interested editors could see what was happening. The fact remains that "Opera Browser Features" was a pointless page consisting of (a) redundant and poorly written information, and (b) lists of keystrokes and howtos that are completely inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG). There was simply no justification for it to exist separately from "Opera (web browser)".

1118:

is right there to be counted by even the most incompetent coder. There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that this is true, or that it has even a miniscule effect on browser share usage figures. These articles are supposed to be factual and verifiable. I hope you've noticed that the version I keep reverting to is a simple statement of facts/figures. If you have a problem with the figures themselves, that's fine... but you need to take that up on the

3501:

universal.frankensteinfilms.com, novel.frankensteinfilms.com). I have put a lot of work into my site (which has been up since 2000) and the project, which is based on my university thesis, is absolutely non-commercial (I have one ad, which helps me pay the server costs). I often get mail from students who use the site for their own term papers and many tell me that they found it through wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding.

5517: 4414: 5370: 5041: 5107: 1506:

we've got a page that's protected, and even more determination on both sides of the issue. The page was not bad. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was acceptable. All you've done now is annoy people and make them more resistant to your changes. I ask you this...are you willing to work to consensus or not? Even when the general consensus means that your choice is not the one decided upon? --

184:

English, Gnome is an American project, and reading through the article, the only thing that I can find that is British English and not American, is precisely the word we are quarrelling over. So I think I can safely say it should be 'organization', not 'organisation'. But I don't want a revert war, so I'm gonna drop it until I hear from you. 'Course, we could always go to arbitration... --

5416: 886:

it had no justification existing? Do you know why it was separated? It would have been better to clean the two pages up independently than to merge them and spawn new pages for the same reason opera_browser_features was created. This is the same as ie. Firefox has and it was agreed upon by all the editors then. (And IMHO, 5 days is too little when deciding to merge a page.)

5534:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) (see 5311: 5268: 3220:

AfD "three perfunctory delete comments (not just two), plus one well explained 'strong keep'" that should still not amount to a "delete" closing. But regardless of what "procedure" might suggest, I believe it is fairly self-evident on closer examination that this is an article worth keeping (and improving in the concrete, but notable as a topic).

847:

previously been discussed and agreed upon to create. I would commend you for a lot of your cleanup work (also on the Opera page), but please stay away from moving pages around like this. I am tempted to revert to the version the existed before you merged, and link to main feature articles (Like the one about M2) from the features page instead.

662:-- but watch out if you plan to copy blocks of text. I can't say for sure, but the page looks like it could be a copyright violation. I may be unfairly maligning the writer, but looking at the edit history I see lots of prose suddenly pasted to create a new article by an unlogged in user, and that often smells of copyright problems. 962:-- have a look back over this thread... I've always deliberately used the term "keystrokes", not "keyboard shortcuts". I don't mind explaining that you can, for example, "navigate between headings using just the keyboard"... look in the article source and you'll find an HTML comment (added by me) saying that we should explain what 1324:

comparison pages slightly easier, but it also puts another barrier of complexity in the way of new editors. It also actively hides edits to a page. It's just not a good trade-off, which is why I've refused to use it on any page I edit... including the main GNOME article, Opera, Nautilus, Metacity, OpenOffice.org, among others. -

2737:. (I doubted you would check the talk page, as you've done this on a lot of articles.) In the case of Meep, at least, the material was as well-referenced and relevant as anything on the article (not that Meep is a particularly high-quality article). Anyways, if you still think it shouldn't be there, we can talk about it on 290:...in the edit header. Why? The whole point of merging all the characters into a single article was to avoid dispersion of non-notable characters. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just interested as to your reasoning for this. Or have I completely misunderstood this statement? Anyway, thanks in advance! -- 2883:

justify a separate biogaphical article -- and even if he did, there's nothing reliable to put it in. We regularly delete muscians with more press coverage and more reliable information than he has. The issues of reliable sources are even more relevant when it comes to biographies of living people... see

3763:

Thanks. I looked them up myself earlier. I had the ones I created (or knew about) on my watchlist and they've been restored now... except for "In our own image"... which was on my watchlist too... but Redvers says was a copyvio. Perhaps JKleo copied and pasted a plot synopsis in there... well anyway.

3290:

I thought I had already said at DRV that I didn't mind it being created... but I've made it clearer, so I hope it helps. It's not a matter of scolding an admin... it's just that there's enough nonsense around AFDs that when a closing admin makes a judgement call that is correct at the time, it should

3242:

I think overturning a properly conducted AFD is wrong. The admin who closed it did the right thing at the time IMO, and overturning it suggests that he did not. Now... the fact that you have rewritten it is fine, and I've no problem with you recreating a new version, but I stand by my deletion review

3146:

yeah... I'm not sure if we're supposed to give that secret away or not. I'm going to relist again in 2 days on day 4 to ensure a thorough discussion this time around and make sure that any "padding" is appropriately accounted for. The only problem I with AFDs is after day 1-2 they're pretty much only

2934:

However, Firth does come from Doncaster, as does Jonti Picking, of Weebl and Bob fame, both attending my former school. The fact this is popular culture deserves notoriety nontheless. I don't deny that there is a spammer out there, wishing to add the most flimsy of references to David Firth, nor do I

1956:

I'm uncomfortable considering Motor's "acceptance" to be an acceptance. I think accepting a consensus is more than writing the word "accept", followed by text indicating a lack of acceptance. His text speaks much more strongly than the word accept, and I propose that we consider his "acceptance" to

1801:

Your stance of strong disagreement with any mention of XeniSucks is noted and on record. I invite you nevertheless to agree to my proposal, as it will then form a consensus which enables more content to be added to the article, which I think is the priority. You are welcome to add a note by your name

1682:

I understand your stance, and obviously that is an issue that needs to find a resolution. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to assemble more data (I am not proposing a copy). As I'm sure you know, the article was proposed as AfD and there was a unanimous keep consensus, so I can't see it being

1600:

Edit overwites happen on busy pages, because they can slip through without being caught at the save page stage (it's a matter of exact timing and MySQL.) You have no need to remind me... particularly since the matter was fixed. If you have nothing else to add here, I suggest keeping it on the page in

929:

OK, I take your point, but I still think that documenting unique features is good. Header navigation and spatial navigation (which you are referring to by keyboard shortcuts) is not something people know what is since it does not exsist in any other browser. Showing what it is by the shortcuts worked

903:

Perhaps it would help if you had read my reply properly. I don't think detailed descriptions are inappropriate, I think that documenting keystrokes and writing howtos is inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG) -- that is what Opera's help system is for. The Opera Browser Features articles was and remains a

846:

I hope you are aware that the page Opera_browser_features was created for the same purpose you are proposing(?)to disambiguate the opera_(web_browser) page. (The Opera browser in itself is not ambigous but contains all its features). I would really like to urge your caution when moving pages that has

831:

What are you talking about? Discussions regarding changing the software infobox template are taking place on the infobox discussion page; discussion regarding Opera are taking place on the Opera discussion page. Furthermore, it's probably a good idea to familiarise yourself with how templates work. -

730:

Hi, the article isn't about "I, Robot" short stories generally, it's about the original Eando Binder short story titled "I, Robot", which doesn't really have anything to do with Cory Doctorow's later story (which, as I understand it is more a take-off of Asimov's short stories). Having said that, the

194:

First of all... I notice you have now modified your original bold and incorrect assertion that "American English" is the standard on Knowledge (XXG). Second... GNOME is not largely an American project, that is simply incorrect. Third, I wrote most of the article, and I can assure that it is "British"

4166:

status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Knowledge (XXG) (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases

3531:

Motor, take a look at what's going on here. Someone has added a bunch of TV.com material to many of the episode pages, and TheJC is tagging them all for deletion. I think simply removing the offending content would be better, but I don't have time to chase them all down. One of them got corrected

2882:

The issues are both notablity and reliable sources. He currently has neither, and that's why I put it up for deletion. No-one doubts that he has a small "cult" following, so do many people. It's that he doesn't have enough of a footprint in the world outside of small group of flash animation fans to

1816:

Hi Motor, thanks for demonstrating your goodwill in putting your name to the consensus proposal. I note your point that "the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink", i.e. that there should be no further or future action to bring this about to give XeniSucks any

1703:

I didn't take the remarks as aimed at me, but thanks for taking the trouble to make sure I had read them correctly. There's something that's getting lost in the smoke here, namely that the current edit and my suggestion for consensus does not actually make any criticism of Jardin. It says that a web

1400:

Very clearly that was a reply to Jokestress. As for your response, it is laughable. Are you suggesting that a person in the street can not criticise President Bush because they are not a reliable source? I don't care who criticses someone; if the criticise is valid (note I don't say I agree with it)

1117:

I have encountered lots of small sites that misindentify browsers and produce awful pages as a result... but you want to suggest in the article that Opera is somehow undercounted *by businesses whose job it is to perform this count* because of its UA string -- when, in fact, the Opera identification

510:

Your edit was not documenting the issue. It was complaing about it. Your post to the mailing list documents the issue, and that's where it belongs. If you think it hasn't had due attention, then repost it. In fact, you might find it useful to include a link to your edited version of the article. You

3979:

If you want to talk about referencing, there's a helluvalot on Knowledge (XXG) that isn't referenced. Not much in the Doncaster article is referenced, so why not blank the whole thing. Or, as is the Knowledge (XXG) ethic, why not try to reference it yourself? Plenty to be done there, Douglas Bader,

3219:

I think whenever deletion review is examined, whoever deals with that will probably "relist" it. I could recreate the article now, but I'd feel better about following a consensus procedure. I don't think it's useful to quibble over precise procedural correctness—to my mind, even if you called the

3095:

Regarding the picture of the 1884 team on the Blackburn Rovers page. On the image page it says that the player second from the right bottom row is G. Avery. I have this picture in a book of mine and that player is noted as Inglis. It looks like the same man labelled as Inglis in a photo of the 1885

2617:

From his edit history the editor who created it seems like a constructive Wikipedian... but just hasn't quite got the idea of the style and tone needed. I've added a {{tone}} tag to the article. I recommend sitting back and letting him get on with it for day or so to see where he's going with it. -

1781:

There is a Wiki guideline that material should be balanced. I feel that the layout of the current edit creates an imbalance which gives too much prominence to criticism, and have attempted to redress this. Without the heading "Criticism" above it, the NYT/XeniSucks mention will not be emphasised in

1744:

Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random

885:

If you read any of what I said as constructive critisism, you would have noticed that I suggested using the opera_browser_features as a page for more detailed articles. Why do you think detailed descriptions are "completely inappropriate"? The page was created for that purpose. And why do you think

787:

Fair enough, I was concerned about the intro becoming a second history section which was happening with some other club articles, but now that I've re-read it I can see it more as a summary. I just made one minor change that isn't really summary information (League Cup score), and expanded upon it

486:

I'm not disputing that you have a technical issue with GTK while writing Ruby bindings (who doesn't), nor am I interested in defending GTK developers, merely stating that Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to complain about specific "bugs". Does the official GTK documentation acknowledge the problem,

1753:

I'm not quoting Jimbo as some ultimate authority, but as someone whose opinion should be taken seriously, and, furthermore, because I believe this is likely to be a position supported by a consensus of other neutral editors. You do of course have every right to dispute this, but it should at least

1505:

You know, I did start this out with respect for your edits and defended your right to edit the page repeatedly. Now I'm thinking I made the wrong choice. It appears you've seen there was consensus among just about everyone but you, and then went out to drum up support for your way of thinking. Now

1312:

It would be a bit inconsistant though, as I have started making infobox2's on other GNOME articles. I think that infobox2 makes things a lot easier, and could be used in pages such as Comparison of.... I don't think it is used enough, but on software that doesn't have new versions regularly, 1 is

1036:

I know... nor should it be mentioned in the infobox. An infobox is just for the simplest, most basic, and most important information for those who are skimming. Technical preview releases are better discussed on the article itself. Quite apart from that, (as I've mentioned before) Infobox 2 is far

857:

First, no pages have been "moved" in the Knowledge (XXG) sense of the word. Second, I read all the discussions before starting to edit the page. Third, I added a merge template to each article, and then started a discussion on the Opera Browser page, and then waited a respectable amount of time to

689:

I read the guide before making the change, and it gives one example using the Grateful Dead in which the band name is linked, IMO because it helps people find what they are looking for. The statement "one link per line" is quite clearly marked as disputed, and flatly contracted by the example. The

543:

I've read it... it is original research. You think you've found a big technical problem with GTK. Reading the link it's clear that he does not agree with you about the severity of the problem, in fact he says quite clearly that "they" designed around it. None of this is relevant -- you are quoting

432:

Because with the edit (and edit summary) you were trying to make a case, and not writing a encyclopedia article (and yes, I read the link you included). As I said in my edit summary, wikipedia isn't for grinding axes, nor is it a surrogate for mailing list technical disputes. Also, considering the

246:

I appreciate the apology. As for the spelling -- I check every edit on articles of interest to me, that is the nature of wikipedia. Had I let the user alter the heading, it would have made it inconsistent with the rest, not least the "organised" immediately below the heading itself. That is beside

204:

If you wish to do something constructive to the GNOME article, I made a few suggestions on the talk page. I would welcome the help, since (as I said) I wrote most of the article and have felt for a long time that it needs more detail and more voices in order to become a better article. You can see

76:

You could have just replied on your own talk page. After I posted there I added it to my watchlist -- not that it matters really. You were right to be bold about adding the logo, but because a template changes can alter so many pages at once it's usually prudent to leave a note explaining what you

2867:

issues, despite the guideline's minor self-contradiction; however, I still don't think David Firth should be deleted. WP:RS does take into account cults, and I think this falls into that category. I just checked one of his cartoons on Newgrounds and it says "more than 100k views" which is quite a

1692:

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I've got to go out now, so I'll reply later. In the meantime, you might like to think about making the points using more moderate language. It's not that I mind particularly, but I don't think it will help your case in the long run. Feel free to amend or delete and

1323:

I mentioned the "comparison of" bit on the discussion on the Opera talk page... it's not a real problem. Infobox2 makes editing more difficult, not less... because it is completely different from editing anything else on Knowledge (XXG). At best, it makes the lives of people who compile lists and

3415:

It's not including her opinion that bothered me... it was the seemingly random picture of a mongrel that looked a bit like the dogcow icon. The caption was suggesting there was a between that picture and her comment that went beyond "it's a mongrel". My first thought was that it was a picture of

3358:

As you will note -- contrary to your posting on the Afd-- I merely pointed out that your comments were reminiscent of the EO movement; I didn't claim that you were part of it. Only you can see in your heart to know that. No offense was intended. In any event, after looking at what interests you

224:

And vis-a-vis the spelling: if you care enough to stop and revert every anonymous IP or registered users change of 'organisation' to 'organization', well, that is within your rights, since you contributed the most to it. But if more and more people keep on trying to change it, you might want to

61:

Sorry, I have no idea where I am meant to put this reply! Anyway, just thought I would say that I went to the discussion page intending to add a comment saying it seems like a good idea to add the logo to the box. I spotted that someone else had already brought it up, although there were no more

3764:

I'll probably just recreate that one myself and ensure that there is no copy and pasted text. The main ones are back, that's what matters. It's annoying because I went to considerable length to ensure that no substantive text was present in any of the new outer limits articles that I created. -

3314:

On the AFD, you suggested userfication as an option. Even though it has now been closed, I'd like to comment on that. I don't think usefication of vanity material is appropriate when the author shows no other interest in Knowledge (XXG), apart from said vanity articles. Knowledge (XXG) is not a

3027:

Hey no problem, I understand. But, I am not Greg Wain. The article has already been deleted for the same reason (because the administrator thought I was Greg Wain) and then I had to explain myself, and then the article was reinstated. Now I assume the article will be deleted AGAIN for the same

183:

Oh, and incidentally, the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for American vs British English say to use whichever is either most predominant in Knowledge (XXG), or what applies best to the article or what the article is written in, in order of ascending priority. Knowledge (XXG) is largely in American

136:

Pardon me Motor if this is a 'personal attack', but you seem prickly in the extreme. The only thing I can recall as being anywhere near a comment on you was my last (exceedingly minor) edit of the KDE page where I corrected the spelling of 'organization', and as part of a comment I said 'silly

2383:

It wasn't a bad page... it just needed work to make its style and tone more of a wikipedia article. The tags are not orders and you can remove them yourself if you feel that the article now satifies the general guidelines for style and content. Just for some context: I tagged the article while

1243:

I noted my reasons on the article's talk page. In short: people have not supplied any kind of verification for the entries, and I have no way of checking myself. For all anyone knows, the section is full of swear words in non-English languages or people entering their own school nicknames (or

4023:

However, you flagged it with "requesting references", and removed David Firth. Why not leave it there, and request references on everything, or remove them all? Inconsistency. I'm reverting, but leaving the request for citations in place. If, after some time, there is no plausible reference

3223:

I would feel happier if you would revisit your deletion review comment. I don't really remember the exact numbers and formulas for when the various actions are taken on review, but I'd feel like it was a cleaner consensus if the original AfD nominator endorsed revisiting the AfD process.

1791:

that will ensure more biographical content is provided before any more criticism is included. This will render the NYT/XeniSucks mention much smaller in proportion to the whole. A good way to minimise its effect is to contribute more material, and there is an invitation to compile this on

1106:

but they may not. I have encountered plenty of websites that have not correctly identified Opera as Opera. What I am looking for is information on whether websites that track usages share know how to identify Opera. I've actually looked for this myself and I haven't been able to find it.

583:

I assume that you are planning to unify all the Hammer articles into one all-conquering Hammer article that covers all their operations and history? In that case, you need to decide first of all what you are going to call it. Let's assume (just for this explanation) that it's going to be

3500:

Please stop deleting links to my Frankenstein site. They are in no way spam link as you suggested; they are not made by a linkbot and, more importantly, most of them are set up in a way so that they take the user directly to a specific film or series (eg. hammer.frankensteinfilms.com,

970:

and not rely on a link. However, it's not appropriate to document what keys to hit in order to do it, or more generally, what steps you need to take to perform certain actions. We only need to tell people what Opera can do, not how to do it because that's a job for Opera's help

498:

One of the Gtk developers that answered agreed that the problem exists, but he's clear they're not going to fix it. So nobody's disputing the facts. The problem (cooperation across GC boundaries) is not unusual, it should be documented in general in any decent reference on

4642:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) 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 4579:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) 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 4464:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) 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 1672:

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I can only make suggestions, and thanks for responding positively. I realise at one stage you were addressed directly, so it was appropriate for you to answer. I don't know if the RfC is still live, but if not, I suggest you renew it.

3945:

I'd like to apologize for deleting articles that actually weren't speedy candidates. It's going to sound stupid of me to say this, but I'm still a bit rusty and didn't think things through entirely when I was going through the deletions. Sorry about that, man. :(

5396:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

3344:

The editors who must check this article speak English. Cross-language articles (especially ones like this) cause major problems... that's just the way it is. I'd say the same thing on a French Knowledge (XXG). It's a maintenance and verifiablity nightmare. -

137:

Motor'. *That's* a 'personal attack'?! I really have to wonder how you woulda reacted if I had actually insulted you. Sheesh. And as for the anonymous comment, I stand by it- what idiot edits an article, for the sole purpose of making one statement wrong?

2779:". I have serious doubts that he's even notable enough to justify a Knowledge (XXG) article at all (along with any other flash animator whose work extends as far as some blog fans). If you want to re-add it fine... but at you should consider providing some 1802:

that you strongly disagree with the mention of XeniSucks and wish this to be reviewed at a later date. This would then mean four editors have agreed to a working solution for the time being. If this can be achieved it would be an accolade for all concerned.

867:

article ("Opera (internet suite)" possibly) dealing with the timeline of the suite as a whole, or not. Feel free to contribute to that if you wish, but as far as I'm concerned Knowledge (XXG) is better off without the "Opera Browser Features" article. -

220:

Well, I've done some more thinking, and a lot more editing, about the spelling and personal attack things and I've finally come to the conclusion that you are entirely correct about the personal attacks. I apologize to you and the anonymous user. I'm

2606:

I stared open-mouthed at this page, not quite knowing where to begin. I then posted a rather lame entry questioning Ursula Andress, but really, the whole page is ill-conceived. I've not a clue where to start... what would you do with this page?

3633:

Hi Motor, here's the complete list from the deletion log (don't know why one of them is there twice). Since the page history and content is now hidden, I can't figure out if any more of these should be restored. Leaving it to you. Regrets.

1374:

Ummm... I'm trying my best to parse that sentence. Let's see: My reason for removing the criticism sections on Doctorow and Jardin are that neither sections were backed up by reliable sources... as well as other reasons that I listed on

1939:

Seriously? Because there was consensus until jokestress and motor came along and we had to reach a new consensus. Does this consensus have to stand for all time now, or when new editors come in, don't we have to reach a new consensus?

100:

I suppose so. There's an episode on every day at the time I sit down to watch the TV, so I've seen and enjoyed a lot of them. By the way, you can sign and date your additions to talk pages by using four tilde "~" characters in a row.

1831:

Sorry, yes, I did misunderstand your point. However, Kickstart70 is not going to contest it, so provided other editors are of a like mind, then we should be able to proceed on that basis and not use note 9. However, please see that

1351:, and the criticism basically seems neither notable nor substantive. However, my attempts at altering that section have met the most resistance I have ever encountered on Knowledge (XXG). Would you be interested in taking a look? 3896:

Of the three not copied from the source given, I'd quite like to check against scifi.com, where there's a similar episode guide and evidence that at least one copyvio came from there instead. For that reason, I'm not undeleting

2004:

I've added a trivia section. The information is courtesy of IMDB. The item is relevent to a trivia section, as you said. Trivia sections are relevent to film entries here on Knowledge (XXG). I'm trying to compromise here.

1101:

I understand that Opera does indeed identify itself as Opera even when it identifies itself as a different browser, but what makes you think that the websites that track usage share neccesarily account for this? They certainly

463:

According to your own link, they do seem to be disputed -- if not the fact that you can provoke a memory leak (which is hardly unique), then certainly the severity of the problem. Not to mention, this isn't a highly technical

2971: 1873:, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - 1708:

with an acceptable source, and that is how wiki operates. This is not an assertion of the site's notability; it is an assertion of the NYT's notability. It is a record of what the NYT has seen fit to put into the public

1475:

Thanks for stepping in. Just for context, Gerardm is the editor who added xenisucks.com originally, and 95% of all his edits have been related to that. Lots of similar one-note singers camped out on that page right now.

5482:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on

1821:

which provides the information, should any reader wish to follow it up. This is the purpose of footnotes in books, namely to provide information which is additional to and not considered appropriate for the main text.

816:

You know very well that the discussion about Opera's license is located at that page's discussion page, you are taking part in that discussion on that page yourself , so don't try to make me discuss it somewhere else.

2997:

Thanks for your proto-vote :-) I've prodded it for now, but I suspect that will be contested. If it is, I'll let you know when someone slaps the AfD tags on. Shouldn't be too controversial or close though, as most of

5400:

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. –

2473:

Thanks for getting in touch. I'm glad that everyone who was involved in the consensus has stood by it. I suggest restraint and a measured response. I am sounding out Lost.goblin and let's see what the reaction is.

2868:

lot. If the dispute here is the reliability of the sources as opposed to notability, then I think we should work on the article rather than delete it: I certainly think David Firth merits a different article from

5228:. 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 3137:

I've tried it out on Stephen Fry. (he'd appreciate that double entendre). Will you check it out and let me know if I've messed up. I found the US date system annoying and guessed what to do for a living person.

1066:

I'm glad to see you back. I wondered if you'd got tired of Horror film history :) Anyway, thanks... I've added quite a bit of stuff recently and it could do with a good proofing/polishing if you feel like it. -

2816:

Hi, I don't think you would notice or it should cause a problem but I have replaced Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/David Firth with Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/David Firth (2nd nomination) on

2234:

I don't think it really matters much about it being outdated -- that's really for the GNOME project to deal with. Many distros (certainly Fedora) don't contain the latest version either. The text you added --

316:. When creating the edit summary, I mistyped and "Gorons" became "gorons", and the link was broken... and since correcting edit summaries isn't possible... I suppose I should have noted it in the talk page. -- 5393: 2522:

You're an experienced editor and I'm not! Can I have some advice. I put a speedy deletion notice on this article and it's been removed by its original creator. It's clearly a stupid, slightly hacked copy of

4245:

is viewed by Knowledge (XXG) editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Knowledge (XXG) articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata.

3264:

and recreating it. FWIW, I've never thought of deletion review as a referendum on whether a closing admin was "naughty" and should be scolded... it's about the best action to take in regard to an article.

3400:

I don't know if is a good source, and it seems a rough translation (as you can see on the source text) of the german magazine Spiegel online. But Susan Kare refers to the mongrel dog (look at the image in

1759:

The key points he makes, which I have adopted in my consensus proposal, are 1) mention is in order 2) the reference (i.e. notability) is the NYT, not the site 3) XeniSucks' criticisms should not be quoted.

820:

That's a dishonest way to handle these discussions. It is like setting followup to another newsgroup in usenet. It takes only one such trick from you to destroy your own reputation, and you just did it. ~

4438:, 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 1212:

I know, but the selection in the drop down box when I uploaded said "Television/Film screenshot" (it's now been changed to be seperate catagories)... so as far as I was concerned, it wasn't my problem. -

1924:

Re. any anon IP violating the consensus agreement: this will not be acceptable, and I think can be rv. immediately. Admin assistance will not look favourably on a consensus of this nature being thwarted.

1888:

I'm not going to argue this point, but it certainly is a weird and uncomfortable situation to link to a news article about a website, but not link to the website itself. Some sort of false protection. --

2777:

It was removed because it was spammed across lots of articles... most of them completely irrelevant. The additions were along the lines of "X is also a character in <insert minor flash animation: -->

992:

I'll try and put it another way: it's far more useful and appropriate to explain what header navigation is, and above all, why it is important than telling people what keys are used and how to do it. -

4638:

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 "

4575:

4460:

2857: 2407:

Please stop attempting to have the article on Bob Sturm deleted. I happen to live in the DFW area, and he is a very well known Dallas Area radio host. I can assure you it is a very accurate article.

2388:-- along with about a dozen other articles, and a further dozen (or so) junk/vandal articles that I tagged for speedy deletion... and lots more articles were given a general clean up to pass muster. - 5440:; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Knowledge (XXG). If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: 4117:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more. 597:

contains the most detail and the most useful edit history, so that will be the page upon which we will build. This is how I would proceed (if you agree let me know). There is currently a redirect on

1658:

Motor -- I know you are very invested in getting something done quickly on the xeni jardin criticism section. However, giving other editors a couple days to catch up and comment may be beneficial.

4457:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

4733:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

4686:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

2262:

I've just done some cleanup work on this article, which you tagged. However work still must be done. We should convert the lists into prose, that would help a lot. What do you think? Thanks. —

2208:

I can't say I disagree about having the extra version number, however we have a whole paragraph about the official GNOME liveCD although there is no such CD for the current version of GNOME...

2698:

As you can see, I've agreed to this. I'm afraid that it was my fault that it happended: these cpital letters make a difference.... Can you go ahead and do it or arrange it; I don't know how.

300:

I was just noting where the information came from so that anyone interested could follow the edit history by following the link and seeing what happened. Here's a quick summary: I spotted the

2078:. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at 5001:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 4950:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 4899:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 4848:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 4797:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3212:. It's a pretty modest rewrite I've done, but the worst excesses of the original overly exuberant language are removed (and a few links added to show notability). I don't think it's yet a 308:, took a look and realised that it was, at best, a minor character and the data really belonged in the main article. So I copied it across, and made a few minor corrections and changed the 1286:

article, making the article a highly detailed look into that web suite, while keeping the alternate browser newcomer in mind. May you continue to be a good contributer to Knowledge (XXG).

4763:

Hey Motor, I sent an e-mail through the link but I dunno if you got it. Can you e-mail me when you have a chance? I need to ask you about something (not Knowledge (XXG)-related). Thanks!—

4303:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any 2980:

Just imagining a couple of 12-year-olds standing in front of a computer with toy lightsabers practicing their "moves" and saying, "Dude, scroll down - what do I do next?" Ha ha ha ha ha!

5073:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1991:

As I noted in the edit summary... there's simply no justification for that see also entry. The film referenced is minor, and the information it is linking to is, at best, fan trivia. -

2913:, which indicates something is likely worthy here.. but I'll be surprised to see any of this withstand any test of time. As always, best of luck Firth -- hope you prove me wrong ;). 1442:

Not on Knowledge (XXG) they can't. You obviously haven't realised this yet, but this isn't a street, it's an encylopedia, and it has certain standards for information to be included.

3437:

I get bored, so I click on the watch list, or "New Pages", or "Random"... and edit things until I get bored again, and then go and find something else to occupy my copious free time.

2506:

article along with all the show hosts. I'm fairly new to Knowledge (XXG) but when I saw those pages on Bob and Dan I couldn't help but do my best to get them taken care of. Later..

5489:. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the 5331:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

5288:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

3783:

I did a quick double-check on the outstanding ones listed above. As I thought, Mo0 was acting in good faith and the nominators were likely doing so as well. Here are the results:

1084:

These things go in phases with me... that and I've been applying for my own job and have been pretty busy. Happy to help with polishing and proofing though. Keep up the good work.

2676: 5577: 5572: 4299:

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 "

1144:

You have reverted this article three times in the last 24 hours (and four times in the last 36). If you wish to dispute the outcome of the AfD for the article, please do so on

5069:

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 "

4004:

Plenty to be done there, Douglas Bader, Lesley Garrat, or is this only just to continue your vendetta against persons you find undesirable on Knowledge (XXG)? Please, grow up.

2159: 3480:

with the proviso that anon IPs/new accounts will be excluded as probably sock- or meatpuppets. You voted last time around, so you may wish to take a look at the new vote. --

3416:

someone's dog that had been uploaded and included (that sort of thing does happen). The link was also to a Macslash web forum post translation, which is pretty unreliable. -

3477: 678: 2906:

Just wanted to applaud you for your efforts in this particularly annoying case of over inclusion. In particular, I've also found irrelevant and absurt wiki links into the

1446:-- you continue to ask this question, when it has already been answered -- three times. You are quite welcome to include criticism of Jardin, if you properly source it. - 422:? The information that it's architecturally unfit for garbage-collected language is true, important and relevant to in the section about support for programming languages. 4207:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

3922:). It was really just two deleted articles in particular, which I was certain were not a copyvios and which you've now restored (lithia and double helix)... and possibly 2818: 1863:

I've copied the 'consensus' text from the consensus page over to the Jardin talk page. Kickstart70 has already agreed to the point you want, as in the following exchange:

2239:-- breaks up the flow. If you really think it worth mentioning that it is not always the latest version, then I'd do it inside the note itself... inside the <ref: --> 3473: 2977:

I just wanted to say I laughed my ass off when I read your comment that they should "turn it into a Wikibook so all the wannabe Jedi Knights can learn their stuff..."

2022:

The trivia section is a copyright violation, and quite apart from that it does not make the PCU information any more of a worthwhile addition to the article. Sorry. -

5326: 3114:, but if I remember correctly... the photo came from CottonTown and the caption came from the reference given in the Blackburn Rovers article , namely: Mike Jackman, 2911: 1258: 3990:

Oh, and while I'm on it, it says on the David Firth article that he's from Doncaster. I'll let you have that so pleasant, satisfying, odd pleasure of blanking that.

3328: 2221:

I've reformulated the paragraph to try to avoid confusion, and avoid encouraging people to try outdated versions of GNOME, just to see if you agree with the mods.

3960:

and may well have merited deletion. It was really just two pre-existing articles that got caught up in the sweep. Anyway, it's sorted now, don't worry about it. -

5058:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4288:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2563: 5451: 1361:

Could the reason for the resistance be that in your attempt to get links removed you quoted irrelevant Wiki guidelines to try and back up your weak arguments?--

1171:

on speedy:bio and I've noticed you had strong feelings about fansub groups on wikipedia in a previous AFD. Maybe you're interested in deleting this one, too? --

348:

is absolutely brilliant! What a pleasant surprise to see all that history up there. The image scans are particularly good. You might want to pass your eye over

5283: 4632: 4569: 5062:

if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

1440:

As for your response, it is laughable. Are you suggesting that a person in the street can not criticise President Bush because they are not a reliable source?

3044:

Fyi the article's back up and the editor has been in correspondence with me on my Talk page, promising to demonstrate notability. I await with interest! :-)

2783:

to back up its inclusion -- you won't find any reliable sources on his article though. Also, you should know, I'm giving serious consideration to submitting

2417:

You can dispute the proposed deletion on the AFD sub-page, as the notice says. You are not allowed to simply remove it. Please do not so so again. Thanks. -

2331:. I'd just let the speedy delete process continue. The hang-on tag isn't binding. If they re-create the page(s) then we should consider taking it further. - 5476: 5382: 42:. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the 4082: 4725:. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at 4678:. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at 3194:

I use the speedy tags sometimes but too often I'm just not sure how notable they are. Google and Alexa can only give you so much and I'd rather be safe.

5006: 4955: 4904: 4853: 4802: 4435: 4292:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see

2119: 2093: 1404: 5005: