User talk:Choalbaton

User talk:Choalbaton/archive

January 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hussein of Jordan, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Your edit summary is in direct conflict with the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reason. No justification for the template has been provided, or is apparent. There is no point leaving templates in place in such circumstances, as it is no clear in what way the existence of the template can ever lead to any improvement in the article. So far as one can tell, its presence is a misjudgement or a mistake. I will revert your edit, as it does not appear to be constructive. If you wish to restore the template, please provide a justification for it. Choalbaton (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted my own revert, and fixed the discussion page. Instead of slapping me with a pro forma, possibly auto-generated, message which amounted to an accusation of bad faith, and compounding that insult with a message in the edit box which is a personal attack, you could have explained that the relevant point on the discussion page was in the first discussion point on the talk page, which dates from 2003. I did check the discussion page before I made my original edit, How was I supposed to know that the justification for a tag added in 2010 would appear in the 2003 discussions? I am disappointed that you made an assumption of bad faith, did not attempt to explain the situation, and even after reverting my edit, you did not take the trouble to fix the problem with the talk page that caused this problem. I'm not at all happy to be treated like dirt, when I only make edits that I sincerely believe will help wikipedia. I will be taking a break from wikipedia, perhaps a permanent one, as I have a life and do not wish to risk exposing myself to any further groundless insults. Choalbaton (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a poor understanding of WP:NPA and also have exhibited a pattern of pro-Jordanian, pro-Kings Academy POV edits. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. I have no connection with Jordan and had never heard of the school until I chanced across it. You are just using pro-forma insults, and in doing so breaching the policy about assuming good faith. Wikipedia is a complete joke, dominated by people who are obsessed with pedantic policies, and it is failing under their control. Good editors are driven away. I signed back in to give it another chance, but immediate realised my mistake. This account is closed. Choalbaton (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish popes

Category:Polish popes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 02:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish popes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Polish popes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish popes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Polish popes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Outdoor ice hockey venues in Russia

A tag has been placed on Category:Outdoor ice hockey venues in Russia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1 § Category:Indoor ice hockey venues

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1 § Category:Indoor ice hockey venues on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]