User talk:Niteowlneils/Archive4

[20041220-20041231]

Annotated article

The annotated article is a good idea. When it's done, it should be linked from the Tutorial, but probably also from Wikipedia:How to edit a page and possibly elsewhere. You might consider making it an independent page (i.e. Wikipedia:Annotated article rather than a Tutorial subpage. Another thing to consider is whether you want to use a specific version link for the non-annotated article, so that it'll always match the annotated article even if the original gets heavy editing. Isomorphic 19:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hooray for Hollywood

Salve, Niteowlneils!
Thanks for your work on the Variety disambig page. I had cited the newspaper in my articles before but only last week did I ever click to see where the link went when I wrote Life As We Know It (currently on WP:PR).
I also see you did some updating of the links in my Dawson's Creek article. What did you think of the substance of the article? Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

My revert on Talk:Patricia Heaton

Sorry for reverting you without mention. I was trying to avoid that person, for I assume it is all one guy, from questioning why his old username had appeared behind my writing; clearly I'd been vandalising his posts again. Was a little preoccupied at the time, so sorry about not coming here and explaining. Thanks for that anyway - I forgot to include that name. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD link

Oops, thanks for fixing that. --fvw* 01:37, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Seattle Meeting

Hi! I saw that you may extend your stay in Seattle for the Wikipedia meeting.

I invite you: Feel free to stay at my apartment, for any duration you may need. I see that you lived in Seattle before, so you probably know about how the bus system works. But if you need any help, I and my girlfriend know it well, and can help.

I really like meeting wikipedians, and have no problem with your stay.

Just e-mail me (lion at speakeasy dot or, or lionkimbro at gmail dot com,) and let me know at least 3 days in advance.

-- User:LionKimbro

another FAC candidate

When you have a chance, would you please review, critique, and do your thing with this article? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Hampton Roads/archive1. I didn't create this one, but I have worked on it and several related linked articles. Thanks, Vaoverland 03:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

ETP-TV

ETP-TV and WSJK-TV are the same station, you realise.

Battle of Hampton Roads

The Battle of Hampton Roads is now a featured article. Thanks for your support. Vaoverland 23:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Tag and bag?

Hello. I was wondering why you tagged Rachael Yamagata for Speedy instead of deleting it yourself. Are you voluntarily holding yourself to a standard that isn't a policy yet? SWAdair | Talk 04:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, only one of the CSD criteria lends itself to an interpretation allowing speedy deletion of copyvio. The only way copyvio could be considered a CSD is if it is in (wow, five two-letter words in a row) fact blanked by the author. In that case, it could qualify as a CSD#2, a test page. I stretched it a bit. SWAdair | Talk 07:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to disagree here (not to mention butting in to your conversation, sorry about that); Blanked pages are not test pages, at least not if there was meaningful content previously. I'd definately support adding "blanked by originator within 2 hours of creation" to the list of CSD criteria though, but as it stands it definately isn't. As for tagging stuff for another admin to check out, it's a laudable idea but sadly there are some admins who'll just throw out anything with a speedy deletion template on it. Perhaps it would be better to stick a cleanup template on them, that generally gets things sorted out pretty quickly too. --fvw* 17:48, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

FWIW, the first time I tried the 'tag it for a second opinion' method, the article was deleted by Angela--hardly the sort to just throw out anything with a tag. In this case, cleanup wasn't an option I considered--the only other course that seemed fitting was to tag it with {copyvio}, but doing that to a blank page seemed weird, boardering on wrong. I definately think the CSD docs should be modernized to reflect the current reality, but I'm certainly not going to censure or admonish an admin that seems to be acting based on the spirit of speedy deletion, regardless of how exactly I think it fits the letter as it currently stands. Niteowlneils 18:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you, but as it stands I think certain admins have gotten too lax in this, which is causing perfectly good stubs to be speedy deleted (see the current VfU for one example of this which happens to have been caught); An update of the CSD will help against this I think, but it also needs to be clear that "because I think it should be deleted" or "because it will be deleted in VfD anyway" are not sufficient grounds for speedying. --fvw* 18:50, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek

Salve, Niteowlneils!
Thanks so very much for your praise of my Dawson's Creek article. I am very grateful. I've posted the article at WP:FAC and so far only two comments, both regarding my lists of information, have been posted. I wonder if you would be willing to post your favorable view of the article there? Thanks again. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

British nationalism

This topic deserves an article, and I'm unconvinced that British National Front does it justice. Of course I thought it was good enough, at least for a minute ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My reply is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#British_nationalist. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)