User talk:Cheese Sandwich

lol

Thanks for the vandalism - I'm going to leave it there xD —Xyra e l _{/ 19:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Sure thing - an elephant joke or two wouldn't hurt Wikipedia. :) --Cheese Sandwich 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should know...

Deleting the content of your talk page may result in you receiving warnings. While I do not personally agree with this, "blanking" is against Wikipedia policy-even on your own page. Michael 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd think one's own talk page would be treated as a "scrap" page. Ah well, thanks for letting me know. Are we able to delete portions? (Say, huge "images will be deleted" warning boxes, which was what I had blanked away well after the fact) --Cheese Sandwich 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not...Originally, I had thought we could delete our own pages (I left the "welcome" at the top) and deleted a comment that had been made in regards to my inclusion of someone in a particular category. I was then informed that this is prohibited. You can actually be expelled from Wikipedia for doing this. To my understanding, we can only erase hateful comments, vandalism, etc. from our pages, but we don't have the authority to delete anything else, even though I had originally presumed these pages were just for personal reference. Michael 04:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to poke my nose in here, but it's a grey area. While the above is essentially correct about removing blatant vandalism, it's not about "authoority" as much is it is about utility. The various (and contradictory) threads are that 1) No page in wikipedia "belongs" to you, but that 2) Any page may be refactored by any editor anytime, but² 3) It's hard to tell what's been deleted from a busy talk page, maybe it was junk maybe it was a warning about vandalism.

The best practice is to delete no text that is not a clear personal attack, and even then use "WP:RPA" in the edit summary leave "personal attackremoved" in the spot. Things can be moved and if you'll look at my talk there are lots of examples of that. Images are fair game for removal, though.

There is, in the final analysis, no hard and fast policy about this though, so do what you want to do.

brenneman ^{L} 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd nominations

[edit]

Hello! I applaud anyone who takes the time to create a well-researched and well presented nomination of an article for deletion. Sadly, your's so far are not. ^_^ I know it's a pain to write everything out, but not only is it the accepted best practice and you'll get kudos for doing so, you're also way more likely to get a reasonable outcome if you provide people with all the information up front.
Here are a couple of my nominations as examples: Horticube, Koptalk, and Fundamental Surprise.
brenneman ^{L} 07:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I tend to go for the more obvious candidates, like canned corporate PR releases, and clear neologisms. I do a Google(tm) search beforehand, as well as a look-over of article's history & talk page. Given the obviousness of their candidacy, I don't elaborate much in the presentation. --Cheese Sandwich 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. I see that my comment implies that I think you didn't do your research. Sorry about that mate, I did presume that you had done your homework and just not presented it. - brenneman ^{L} 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem at all :), I've taken your point & will elaborate more on my future AfDs to make it easier for the voters. Cheers, Cheese Sandwich 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on the Pump

[edit]

You wrote:

"::It's important for all sides of an issue that is subject to POV to participate :), so that the related article finds a neutral equilibrium. For this particular issue, there are likely well-paid & full-time PR professionals maintaining anti-litigation POVs here & elsewhere. --Cheese Sandwich 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. And I am not paid to rework it. However, I have spent hours and hours and hours trying to make legitimate article out of tort reform rants - there is a long tort reform article (which is changing, slowly, although 95% of the references do not and cannot comply with Wiki reliable resource guidelines) and then a mutitude of other articles that pretend to be another 'topic' but are really nothing more than a rant on tort reform. IT is obvious that was the sole purpose of creation. Um, like medical malpractice, asbestos, asbestos and the law, fred baron (an asbestos lawyer) bio, 'frivolous litigation', and I suspect I have only touched the surface. I wrote about this on the pump also. It doens't seem that anyone has yet commented on that discussion. I wish you would take a look at it.

I'd be very surprised if the Hot McDonald's Coffee lawsuit wasn't brought up more than once either. :) That seems to be the usual whipping-boy from the anti-liability lobby. --Cheese Sandwich 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your post on the Pump

[edit]

Your post "Wanna find spam articles quickly & easily?" was cool, I mean it seems obvious but I had not thought of it. Thanks! Herostratus 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem! Yeah, add to that list any other cheesy corporate PR terms you come across - it would be hard for spam to sneek its way in without showing up in such searches. (And if you use your imagination, you can probably think of other terms to find certain other undesirable articles (or vandalism).) --Cheese Sandwich 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

[edit]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
Join our mailing list
Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Col kurd small.JPG listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Col kurd small.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelvinc (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It looks like you uploaded this a long time ago, probably before you realized that you can use the Wiki image syntax to resize the image instead of manually uploading a smaller version. Kelvinc (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Lynn Cole

[edit]

Please give a reason for your "keep" in this AfD. Just saying "keep" without a reason has absolutely no weight whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Nomination of Operation Provide Comfort (Charity Drive) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Provide Comfort (Charity Drive) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Provide Comfort (Charity Drive) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

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. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

	Dont do it
	U win life (not) Masterofblaze1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Richest Man in Babylon

[edit]

The article The Richest Man in Babylon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is almost entirely a long series of excerpts from a book from 1926, the notability of which is not demonstrated in any way. The only reference is the book iteself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Richest Man in Babylon for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Richest Man in Babylon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Richest Man in Babylon 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.