User talk:Asided m plane

Merging

Nice to see someone taking action, but please see Help:Merging for best procedures. Proposals should be posted on both articles at least a few days ahead of action, in most cases. Appropriate material should be moved from the dying article to the survivor, as you did with Residential development. It's merely more polite to propose first and wait a bit. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed merge of Bunding

Sorry, but that's not an acceptable action, to make a merge like that without allowing any discussion of it beforehand. 6 minutes is not adequate discussion time, let alone before dawn! Please revert this and do it properly according to WP:MERGE, with appropriate discussion.

Should it be merged again in the future, according to process and consensus, then it's also good practice to merge or redirect the talk pages too, as necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privately held company

Woo hoo! Thanks for completing the merge. I wasn't quite sure exactly how it needed to go, and so I'm glad you took the bull by the horns and did it. Looks good! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation. When I see merge tag stay for long i just go ahead. There may be little repeat of content in the merged article, but that can be taken care later :) Asided m plane (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed merge of Bunding

No. Again, no. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch. Article is hardly referenced, tagged for half an year. And why no? And yea, i DID NOT merge, i redirected it. Asided m plane (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you redirected it, again without discussion. That's tantamount to back-door deletion, even worse than merging.

Then, in childish spite, you PRODed it.

Please remember to distribute links after you've AfDed it, which I imagine you'll be predictably doing in the next few minutes.

If you have an issue with content quality of either article, please feel free to do some productive editing of them to improve them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do anything childish, I meant what i did. I definitely dont do anything to improve an article which i feel be deleted outright. Asided m plane (talk) 04:28, 14 May 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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]