This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timotab. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Template:Proof is a huge self-reference and somewhat non-neutral when it says that the "proofs are considered interesting in themselves," almost as if it is justifying the articles existence (there have been objections to the notability of proofs in the past). Otheruses can handle clarification between the notable topic and the proof of the notable topic (ie, This article is about the proof of foo. For information about foo itself, see foo.Atropos03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Radiant!; unnecessarily detailed/compliacted, we don't need an ugly box at the top of an article when we can just use {{seemain}}. It should be self-evident from the article that it is about mathematical proof. Melsaran (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but not necessarily use {{seemain}}. I was horrified to see that it was proposed for deletion, but after really thinking about it it does seem useless, if not bad. However, please do not discourage the ArticleName/Proof idea. Main articles are great, but sometimes you need a proof that's bound to an article, to support it. — Ben pcc01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That actually contradicts naming conventions, and they should be moved to Proof of Article Name, like how Transportation in Azerbaijan is not at Azerbaijan/Transportation. They also aren't actual subpages, because this has been disabled in the article space. Atropos02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Yeah, well, I'm gonna violate the request above, because the deletion of this template clearly violated basic WP proceedures. Did any of you guys actually read what the template said, or participate in the discussions that lead to the creation of the template? No, of course you didn't! Instead you choose to do the equivalent of a speedy-in-bad-faith on the thing! No wonder large parts of wikipedia are up in arms over the nonsense and shenanigans that goes on around here. This template was the result of a year-long discussion and debate by dozens, if not hundreds, of editors, and you four just sort of decided to ride rough-shod over the whole process, and, I assume out of pure malice and hatred, whacked the thing. I am thoroughly disgusted by this sort of juvenile behaviour. In no way are you helping wikipedia. If you think you are, then you need to think again. linas (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.
Thought your assignment might be related to the article in some way. It was a very long-shot - looks like too long. Stay Warm and Well, Shir-Eltoo03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Question about a speedy deletion.
Timothy,
An article that I wrote (back in September last year, admittedly) was speedily deleted, citing Rule 7 under Articles. I can understand why: I made no attempt to convey why this web-based comic strip was 'important' in any way. I was unaware of the guideline, but see the sense in it.
So, to my question: Can the pages that I wrote be re-instated? I would, of course speedily add a list of the various web-comic awards that the site has won, as well as making the argument that it started around 2002 (citation required...?) making it an early starter in this type of artform.
Would that answer the reasoning behind the first SD?
