User talk:Citadel18080

AFA Discussion with Orpheus Citadel18080 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to a large amount of schoolwork, I will be checking this page sparingly over the next couple of weeks. Citadel18080 06:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Half Hour News Hour Compromise

Do we have a compromise version or not? Please put it on the talk page. Turtlescrubber 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Sorry, I didn't notice that responses were being posted within the conversation on the THHNH talk page. I was looking for them at the bottom of the page. I have posted there as well.Citadel18080 05:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

AFA Article

Hi! Also please put the section you'd like specific third party comments on in a section, so we can find it. Thanks! and good luck. Rocksanddirt 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the discussion above your post deals with a different article.

Is there some sort of marker I should put in the article (or talk page) to indicate that its in dispute? If so, how exactly do I do that (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia)? I've also posted this on your talk page. Thanks. Citadel18080 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a template for how to arrange them in the talk pages. I'm pretty new myself, but I've seen a couple of good examples of soliciting third party comment (try Waldorf Education's recent request for comment. Rocksanddirt 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was most helpful. Citadel18080 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Citadel. After a bit of a "rough" start I think I'm getting the feel of broadening the AFA article to a more encyclopedic standard. Any suggestions from you are welcome there. Also, I have some more specific info I can send. Send me an email. Regards Hal Cross 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on setting up an e-mail account specifically for Wikipedia purposes. As soon as I have done so, I will send you an e-mail. Citadel18080 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA

In case you think my last comment on the talk page was directed at you, I want to thank you for your involvement in the content dispute. Even though we disagreed on many points, you were about the only regular contributer who both opposed the categories and approached the discussion in a reasonable fashion. I think the fact that we reached a final consensus is mostly due to your calm and community-friendly approach. Orpheus 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment and for taking a similar approach to the discussion. The dispute was actually quite a learning experience for me. I joined Wikipedia towards the end of May, and the AFA article was one of the first that I edited. Citadel18080 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Category

My position on Category:Homophobia is that it is a good match to the AFA article. The only reason I supported removing it was that, at the time, it was a violation of WP:CAT - the part that says "thou shalt not have a category and its parent category in the same article". The parent category is Category:Discrimination. Now that we don't have Discrimination in the article, I don't see any reason not to include Homophobia. It's specific and not a subcat of an existing one, which ticks the policy boxes.

That said, I don't particularly wish to engage in another six week argument with people who refuse to move beyond "This is what I Know Is Right and you should be blocked for disagreeing with me because Policy Policy Policy" (which of course has never included you - thanks). Orpheus 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion

Would you be interested in discussing the homophobia category between the two of us and coming to a reasonable decision, without lengthy digressions et al? I think if we both agreed on a solution, whatever it turns out to be, everyone else would fall in behind it. Orpheus 09:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally got round to this again - sorry about the delay. Update is on the subpage. Orpheus 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:Homophobia (I find it easier to keep discussions in one place). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manchester Center

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manchester Center, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Center. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Size matters with malls

Per the Wikipedia page on shopping mall, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) defines "super regional" as any mall over 800,000 square feet in size. Although it's not official policy or anything, there is a precedent that "super-regional" malls are generally considered notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of List of American Family Association state affiliates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of American Family Association state affiliates 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/List of American Family Association state affiliates 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)