User talk:MisterRichValentine
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
|
Regarding Artificial Photosynthesis
[edit]Alright, that's cool. I just don't like lists. If the history list is going to be at the top of the article then we need more information to fill it out so that it reads like an article.
Benjamin 9832 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Artificial Photosynthesis
[edit]Oh thank you so much for your kind words :). I'll be writing some more the next few days, there's a lot to say about catalysts and photosensitizers, for example. It needs a few pictures, I'm finishing a simple triad scheme for now. The last section also needs reworking. We'll get there ;). PatríciaR msg 20:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Note about talk pages
[edit]Hi again, I reverted you here, editing other people's comments is generally not allowed per WP:TPO. (Again, there are legions of these little rules here!) In this case, your objection to his post was certainly reasonable, so it would be a good idea to address the bold assertion he made in a separate comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Boston Bruins Ice Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that editors feel non-English sources are not always as "useful" to English readers as English-language sources, but I know you now understand WP:NONENG in that that sometimes their use cannot be avoided, and that in such cases their useage is perfectly fine. I would ask that you revist the article on Manuel Saval to see that it has gone through some major changes,[1] and then perhaps consider withdrawing your nomination of the article. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Considering there is an ongoing debate as to whether this person is notable, I do not see why I would withdraw my nomination. If I were the only editor arguing that this person does not meet notability criteria then that would make sense, but I am not. I think that the result is going to be keep, but still I think it's worthy of discussion. I've backed-off of the discussion because it's kind of just turning into a hate-fest and I don't think it's too productive for me to take part at this point. But as some other editors have pointed out, the 'new and improved' references may not establish his notability as an actor, as they are focused on his illness more than his career. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: Articles for Deletion
[edit]Who is it that decides if an article gets deleted? you mentioned a "deciding editor" in your posts is this a different person for each afd? Yaloe (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Yaloe - Typically, the topic is discussed for 7 days, at which point any administrator will review the arguments presented, decide what action to take (keep, delete, merge, etc.), and close out the discussion.
- It may be a bit of reading, but it would be useful to familiarize yourself with the deletion policy before participating in the process. MisterRichValentine (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Account blocked
[edit]This account has been blocked by ArbCom due to concerns of abuse of multiple accounts. If MisterRichValentine would like to appeal this block, or anyone has concerns, please email us at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. SilkTork ✔Gay time 08:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, MisterRichValentine does not wish to appeal this block. Take a look at my contributions - No conflicts with other editors, no edit warring, no vandalism, nothing to be concerned about. Then ArbCom contacts me to ask some questions about a rogue admin, and when I try to help them out they all of a sudden think that I am not only a sock of that admin, but that another user who contacted that admin is also my sock. I was asked to spend my time defending their accusations (via e-mail - probably so everybody can't see how ridiculous their 'process' is) or be presumed guilty. Sorry, but I live in a society where I am innocent until proven guilty, and I'm not going to spend my time defending myself from ridiculous accusations. Looks like the almighty ArbCom has alienated yet another editor.
Also, if anybody is reading this you might want to go ahead and revert this diff. It's clearly vandalism, but the page was vandalized again and reverted so soon after that edit that now it's just buried in the article's history and difficult to see. Way to keep this encyclopedia accurate and free from abusive users like me, SilkTork! MisterRichValentine (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Come on SilkTork, you know you're reading this!! Swallow your pride and revert the vandalism to fix one of the millions of errors on your little encyclopedia!! You know you want to, even if it proves that you shouldn't have blocked me for no reason! 1,726 people looked at the Boston Bruins page yesterday. That's 1,726 people that were misinformed because you're too proud to revert this vandalism! MisterRichValentine (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The file File:Prof Nocera as Shown on M&M Candy.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Boston Bruins Ice Girls has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not meet WP:GNG. All the sources are WP:ROUTINE, does not show any evidence of notability beyond being affiliated with the Boston Bruins.
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. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)