User talk:Helvetica/archive2

Rhodesian Bush War

Which sections do you view as POV? Granted it's pretty poorly written and is lacking in content but I dont see what's POV. Jose João (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for writing. Please see discusssion at Talk:Rhodesian Bush War. Helvetica (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wer-kennt-wen

A tag has been placed on Wer-kennt-wen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.....

In the books you read the name of the main characters are spelled in different ways on the same page???. We write "Yulia Tymoshenko" not "Yuliya Timoshenko" on wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm sure it is a simple mistake to make but looks rather strange and descridites wikipedia. Thank you. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Wikipedia has editors. I was just the last person to edit that page and was fixing some other stuff. I don't think I changed the spelling of her name, but just copied it from where it was written in the nearby paragraphs. Helvetica (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

If you only contact editors you know will support your position in a DRV, then it is seen as canvassing, so I suggest you stop. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your canvassing, including the ARS one as it was non-neutral. Don't do it again or you may well find yourself blocked. The last think we need here is canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the respective talk pages. -Helvetica (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't restore the ARS canvassing note. It was not neutralSpartaz ^Humbug! 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, The Steven Slater article was deleted, in spite of the lack of any clear consensus in the AFD. is straight forward canvassing and I have removed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can point me in the right direction with a link to said policy or guideline? Read the top of the ARS itself, you should not post in a way that indicates how you want someone to vote. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its still borderline but just about OK now. For the future, either just mention the DRV without commentary or simply notify everyone who commented in the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see my replies on the respective users' talk pages. -Helvetica (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note as an ARS member that I voted to overturn the Steven Slater close before seeing any discussion on the ARS talk page. I doubt there are even 10 active ARS members at this point so the cries of canvassing every time someone posts a note there about an article of interest is getting muy ridiculoso.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Appeal of Steven Slater

How can an admin who was editing be the one to close the AfD, especially in such a contentious AfD where there was no up down consensus at all, and that a 3rd way was starting to emerge of instead creating an incident specific article which would comply with wiki's Biography 1 event policies. I'd like to state this in the Deletion appeal, however wiki seems to supress IP users by prohibiing participiating there without an account. I may be wrong here, i based the assumption he was editing on the article on the comment by Favonian on his talk page. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that question was already answered. Apparently the Deletion Review page as a whole is semi-protected, but the individual sections aren't. -Helvetica (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]