User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2010 b

Prod removal

Hi, I see you removed the prod from this article, what was your reason to do that and do you support the articles existence ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. It is a bit of a dilemma. A redirect to the conservative party today would be a bit wrong really imo as the nickname was about a party that has moved on from that or claims to have completely moved on and they now claim to be Liberal Conservative . So imo a redirect is not correct as it was a derogatory nickname from a moment in time. A merge would get no support at all imo and the nasty party is not mentioned on the Tory article at all. We have Loony Left which is kind of comparable but cited and more comprehensive. As it was, uncited and such a stub it was imo a bit of an attack article, perhaps if a decent article balanced article was written and cited it could be of value but I don't see a balanced article being created. I don't think we have seen the last of it though, as the creator has created it more than once this week, so lets see what happens. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portbury Ashlands

Would you be kind enough to take a look at a new article Portbury Ashlands for me and correct any glaring errors I've made?— Rod ^talk 10:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludlow Griscom Award

Thanks for the catch on phrasing there. I'm so used to hearing it merely referred to as 'Birding's highest honor' that it slipped my mind to reference it. I've now added a mention of that (qualified!) to the article itself, with a quick ref - there's better ones, but I'd have to dig around for them and I haven't the time at the moment. Anyway, hope to see you around, and good birding! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox NVC community

Template:Infobox NVC community has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

The article List of disability-related terms with negative connotations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a random collection of terms, some of them medical, some seemingly made up, which are all alleged to have "negative connotations" when used with regard to people with disabilities. However, no references are provided to back-up these claims. This is original research in the cause of POV-pushing.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Parrett at FAC

Thanks for your previous help with River Parrett. I thought I'd let you know it is now up at FAC.— Rod ^talk 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a trusted editor and have a long history here on Wikipedia, so you know what we stand for, and I trust your judgement to assess others' contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]