User talk:AgntOrange

Proposed deletion of Thomas E. Autzen

The article Thomas E. Autzen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article currently unreferenced and uncategorized. Unable to find useful sources to establish notability of subject independent of relationship to father.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hope you can improve it! --Esprqii (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2009 (U

Surprised you are suggesting this page for deletion since this page belongs to a Wikipedia created category: Philanthropy Stubs. The category is described as a repository for: "...stub articles relating to philanthropists. You can help by expanding them." The goal here is to provide a "stub" of information and then let people add to it. Not to delete something due to a lack of complete historical information. The Philanthropy Stub was mysteriously deleted from this page. It has now been returned as it fits well into this category. AgntOrange (talk)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Beaver

Your recent good faith edits of the Benny Beaver article are unconstructive, and damage the quality of the article. Your Historical Connection section goes into minute detail about the fur trade in Oregon, which is unecessary in an article about a university mascot. You have even added a picture of Abraham Lincoln, presumably because he wore a beaver hat. This is just not relevant to the topic.

Your edits are damaging an otherwise informative article. Please do not engage in an edit war to defend changes that degrade the quality of the article.--Edgewise (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are major revisions to my additions. This is very deconstructive to wikipedia as a whole. Please do not engage in an edit war to defend your changes that degrade the quality of the article. We need more input from others. This will take more time than 9 the hours you allow. AgntOrange (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way it's supposed to work when a change is disputed is for the last good consensus version to remain in place while a consensus is reached on the talk page. Again, I urge you read up on the policies of Wikipedia in greater detail. If it worked the way you suggest, I could add a whole new section on how Benny is actually an alien life form from the planet Beavertron and insist that it remain in place for some unforseen amount of time. So far, three separate people have commented that your edits do not improve the article. Of course more input is welcome. Your comments about a cabal conspiring against you are silly. I urge you to consider that you do not have all the answers. In the meantime, the article should be reverted to its original consensus state of a few days ago. --Esprqii (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to read your own response. The requirements you suggest you, yourself have not followed (i.e. "good consensus version." When was this achieved in 9 hours?). You're really just building a case against your own actions. Leave the page alone until we have a true "good consensus" from more than just the two regulars. Why the rush to revert so quickly? You haven't met your own criteriaAgntOrange (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered this version, the version before your many anonymous edits beginning April 24, to be the "consensus version," but I didn't realize the changes sat for six weeks before someone reverted them so I suppose you can consider the version there now as "consensus" even though it's only one person's edit. We can see how it plays out on the talk page. And it's three different people who have commented so far. --Esprqii (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the new section this week and, as you can see, there were major changes made in design June 10th, 2010. Let's call that the starting date.AgntOrange (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]