User talk:Antonrojo/Archive 1

Leonardo DiCaprio

It wasn't deleting any content- he just copied the Early Career section and pasted it in 3 more times. --Rory0 96 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to list an article for deletion

When you find a garbage article like Chet Stokes, the quickest way to get it deleted is to add the line {{db|(reason for deletion)}}. This will automatically list it where the admins can see it.

No harm done; this is just so you know for next time. DS 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I just realized - you had done that, and then the page creator removed the notice. Sorry about that. DS 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reversion on Vince McMahon

Thanks for catching that. I looked at the difference for all 3 edits, but my eyes didn't catch that they were different IPs. tv316 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like someone is taking advantage of a very dynamic IP. Antonrojo 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anton, you might want to reconsider your edits to Haydar

A disambiguation page for names is perfectly normal. Look, for instance, at Rani. The problem with the Haydar page is that Shi'a Muslims wish to annex it for Ali ibn Abi Talib, for whom there is already a long article. Nobody in Wikipedia gets two articles. However, there are a number of Haydars or Haiders with articles, and any reader who wants to find the right one can use the disambiguation page to get there.

You stepped into an edit war and I do think you picked the wrong side. Please look at little harder at the talk page before you decide who's right or wrong.

Also, you seem to have deleted a chunk of the talk page. Zora 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17th infantry

you might want to look at the talk page before accusing me of not discussin the matter and starting an edit war. I have repeatedly stated the reason on the talk page, now if your going to start pretending to be superior and judge everyone else's edits, I suggest you yourself look at the discussion on the talk pages, and take a NPOV stance.

--Jadger 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadger, after looking at it in more detail it does look like this issue would have been better settled by the people who know the issues in detail. The particular reasons I interpreted this as vandalism were: 1) there was an active debate around the issue on the discussion page and at the same time (which on a second reading I recognize is more of a consensus toward removing the quote) 2) the deletion of what seemed to be valid and relevant content still under discussion without a 'see talk' notice in the summary 3) a warning on your talk page for deleting comments from the same page which made it sound like a revert war and 4) I've seen a rash of POV deletions that minimize or ignore killings of ethnic minorities. Antonrojo 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College page

I do not understand why you reverted teh Reed Talk page and put a "blank" notice on my Talk page. If you had taken two seconds, you would have seen that: 1) All the comments are already in the archive; and 2) The ArbCom dispute concerning them is all but complete, and the refactoring has not been found to be a problem. So unless you explain, I will go ahead and archive the redundant comments. -- Gnetwerker 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker, the issue on the talk page seems to be an open discussion between you and IronDuke. The refactoring process you are using doesn't seem to agree with this policy: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. At least, I would suggest a link to the archives at the top of the page, and erring on the side of not removing discussions from an article talk page, especially if the issue is still being discussed. Antonrojo 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you had taken the time to research the issue you would have discovered that: 1) There is a link to the archived page at the top of the Talk page; and 2) the dispute has been resolved by ArbCom with no finding that the refactoring was inappropriate. Finally, IronDuke has gone away. I would thank you to take the time to educate yourself on the issue if you choose to intervene further. -- Gnetwerker 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been resolved by AbsCom. For reference here's the link [1]. You might consider archiving sections 5 and 8 of the talk page also since they seem to be a closed issue. Antonrojo 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was doing when you reverted. -- Gnetwerker 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]