User talk:Japanese knotweed

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Japanese knotweed

Speedy deletion contested: Halldór guðmundsson

Hello Japanese knotweed. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Halldór guðmundsson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Prokopovich

Regarding your speedy tag of this article — please read more carefully, as the end of the article observes that he's covered in multiple encyclopedias, including the landmark Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Coverage in other encyclopedias indicates that a topic is definitely notable, and notable topics shouldn't be deleted under A7. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Appropriateness

Template:Appropriateness has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 06:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Long

Please give a contributor a chance!!!!! In the edit summary I directed users to the discussion page and before I had finished typing there you had reverted my edit. 2.102.206.69 (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

db-a10 nomination

I just speedy kept the template, because it makes no sense to delete the template while the policy is still in force. If you want to change the policy, suggest it at WT:CSD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why this template is not needed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Courtesy notice. Japanese knotweed (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that. However, you're explaining why the CSD criteria is not needed, not why the template is not needed. As long as the criteria is in effect, the template is appropriate to go along with it. If you can convince people that the criteria is incorrect, then the template will be deletable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I nominated it for deletion because I thought that would be an easier way of getting it deleted, rather that a load of discussion. Japanese knotweed (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XFD

Acutally, not just AFD and MFD are deletion. WP:FFD is also still called deletion. You might consider nominating that one for renaming. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What file?. Japanese knotweed (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated to rename AfD to Articles for Discussion, and MfD to Miscellaneous for Discussion. FfD is still called "Files for Deletion". If you're making a sweep of these deletion processes, then it could be usefully renamed "Files for Discussion". 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally mis understood you, I will go and do that now. Japanese knotweed (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High use templates

Please do not mess with high use templates, as you did at Template:Lead too short without first discussing. This is especially true of templates used by automated tools such as Twinkle which are used by a very large number of users. There is a clear request on the documetation page to discuss changes with the Twinkle user base first which you completely ignored. SpinningSpark 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and this edit is a breach of WP:POINT. I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately disruptive. Please stop being disruptive. SpinningSpark 12:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]