User talk:Extreme Unction/Archive 1

Update to template[edit]

Hi! Thanks for updating the template from {{future}} to {{future game}} in Caesar IV. If you are interested in computer and video games you might like to become a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:24, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Template:Cat-stub[edit]

Nicely done! El_C 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now if I could just figure out how to make it a sub-category of {{mammal-stub}} like {{dog-stub}} is, I'd be in business... Extreme Unction 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on my page[edit]

Hi, Extreme. Welcome to Wikipedia. Leaving a note on my talk page is fine! I'm going to go look at the page now. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "Votes for deletion"/"Pages for deletion" system has been a bit messed up because a group of people decided to change the name from Votes to Pages recently. I think they didn't work out all the links they would have to change, like the one you reported. All I did was replace it with a redirect to the proper page, which actually doesn't require special admin powers. If it gets vandalized again, any admin (including me) can "protect" it. Thanks for the heads-up! FreplySpang (talk) 04:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple of pages for reporting vandalism: WP:VIP and {{WP:AIV]]. To be honest, they both confuse me and I avoid them! But lots of other admins keep an eye on them. There's also the Administrator's Noticeboard and the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. (No. I'm not clear on the difference here either.) If you need to get an admin for something you can post on one of those pages. If it's the "wrong place" someone will set you straight. Finally, there's the #wikipedia IRC channel, where you can pretty much always find an admin. Cheers! FreplySpang (talk) 13:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Gallagher (comedian)03.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gallagher (comedian)03.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an description of its source, as the promophoto tag requires. Note that any unsourced image will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Zeimusu | Talk page 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your table[edit]

I stole some code from the September 11, 2001 attacks fatalities section. Hopefully, this was what you were looking for. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism marking[edit]

Thanks for helping revert vandalism. Here is the code I use as it mimics what the admins can do automatically and aids in tailing a vandal:

Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/IP|IP]] to last version by USER

Grika Ⓣ 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message[edit]

I'll fix it but help. I am not absolutely certain how, again help.Thanks.-Dakota

Thanks[edit]

Think I fixed it.Thanks again.-Dakota 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

For excellent detective work uncovering the truth of False Doppler (and other AfD nomations). howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! My first! You like me! You RILLY RILLY like me!

I'd like to thank the Academy for this award... → Ξxtreme Unction

WP:WPB[edit]

Hey, great to have you on board at the Beer project. I'll look forward to seeing more of your contributions! (I've enjoyed the articles you mentioned editing, smoked beer, etc.) --Daniel11 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you've enjoyed them. The adjunct (beer) article is one of the articles of which I'm most proud. Looking forward to further participation in the project. And I'm having a homebrew RIGHT NOW! → Ξxtreme Unction

Re:Inadvertent broken foreign language links[edit]

Sorry about that, I had pasted the article into an external editor when I made my changes, I won't do that again! Thank you for fixing it for me. Foofy 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That was my other guess. Might wanna check to see if you've hit any other articles that way, though. Good luck and happy editing. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily it was the only one I did ('cause it was long). And sorry for not seeing your little policy about spreading the convo across pages. Foofy 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, don't worry about it. Not like I'm gonna flip out or anything. Just a personal preference, not a hard, iron-clad rule that MUST BE FOLLOWED or anything. Just stating what I'd like to see, if the other person is amenable to such. If not, no biggie. I'm pretty laid back. I mean, seriously, if the worst thing that happens to me in a day is that someone leaves me a comment on my page in response to a comment I left on their page, welp, I figure I'm doing pretty good. =) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mantle[edit]

Glad I could get a chuckle out of you. I think humor is important to keep a nice atmosphere here in Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up[edit]

So that explains it. I was wondering why I couldn't find any trail in the page history. Figured something was still rotten in Denmark. I appreciate your note. Durova 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"broken" talk page link[edit]

Thanks for the hint on fixing the link. I tried it on my talk page and all it does is place the Talk link in bold. Then I had a thought... is this because I'm already *on* the talk page and therefore it's the software automatically preventing a loop? Therefore, if you don't mind, I'm going to have a quick trial here and see what happens! Thanks again :) IainP (talk)

As you can see, that's exactly what happens. Good luck. =) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Just a note...[edit]

Hi Extreme Unction,

Fixed that, thanks for the message! :) Probably a (frequent!) server error didn't get the 'delete' command thrrough... =P

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of Jewish Publishers[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers

Help[edit]

Hi Extreme Unction.

Excuse me If I'm bothering you, I don't want to act inmaturely or nothing but I need help, I'm Tamao from the Kimi Finster discussion, I've tried to make clear my points but the main contributor keeps threatening me and I don't know what to do.

I've told him about his work is good but the page needs some edits, but he takes it as I'm want to destroy his work which isn't true, and he keeps attacking me instead od trying to work together to improve the page.

Thanks

Tamao 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could give some advice on how to "spice up" a user page using HTML. For example, your ID "Extreme Unction" is colorful; mine is not. I'm looking to grow my userpage, but first I need to know how the system works.

Thanks Ryoung122 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Yes I am still looking for advice on how to create a signature, where to learn about more advanced features of Wikipedia. Clearly, your signature indicates you have figured it out, and the best way to learn is from those who know.

Again, any assistance is appreciated, although there's no rush.

Thanks, Robert Ryoung122 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to copy your HTML and substitute "Ryoung122" for the words "Extreme Unction." However, the "Nickname" still turned up like this:→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_talk} 00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2. Edison didn't invent the light bulb on the first try!→ Ryoung Unction {^yakł_talk} 00:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take 3. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take 4 (Testing user-page link)→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is preposterous[edit]

Have you reported Man in Black for 3RR? - 81.153.41.72 16:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism doesn't prompt a 3RR violation. Sez so right on the 3RR page. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes needed[edit]

If you haven't already, we need votes on several Jewish and Catholic lists up for deletion:

StabRule 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D&N AfD[edit]

Thanks, now I can start ignoring this subject again. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting afds[edit]

When you relist an afd for more discussion, please remove it from the older page; otherwise, someone else is likely to close it very quickly after you relist it. —Cryptic (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my page. I am, in fact, guilty of closing an old AfD earlier today that had been relisted. However, I'm not sure how to go about deleting the old listing. Just edit the AfD page and remove the article listing? Thanks. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Be sure to mention that's what you're doing in your edit summary, though (like "relisting 4 on today's page"), so folks don't think they just disappeared. Alternately, you could comment out the discussion like Jerzy did here. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and as long as I've got your ear, I just noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Off Dead (Soundtrack). The final step of an article merger isn't deletion; it's redirecting; the GFDL requires that we keep track of the authors of any text we use, and we usually do that by preserving the history in a redirect (though not always from the article namespace). In this case, the only text that's currently surviving in Better Off Dead is the producer's name, so it wouldn't be necessary here; but if you're going to close this as a merge instead of a delete, you still need to redirect the article. —Cryptic (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wales[edit]

Actually, it's "Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells. See Diocese of Bath and Wells. FYI and all that. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simpons Vehicles[edit]

hey there, you just closed the AfD for List of vehicles in The Simpsons, as no consensus, and I was just intrigued to know why. I know it doesn't really matter, since that will default to a keep, but to my count there was 11 Keep's against 8 Delete's, which seemed relatively clear cut. Is there a policy on what the difference should be between votes for one to win outright? _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussions are not meant to be simple up/down voting processes where the decision goes to whichever viewpoint ekes out a simple majority of votes. This is why the name of the page was changed a few months ago from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Ideally, an AfD nomination will prompt a discussion which will eventually arrive at some sort of large agreement. What qualifies as a "large agreement" is subject to some debate. Some folks feel that unanimity or near-unanimity of opinion is needed for "consensus" to be claimed. Other folks feel that a mere supermajority (say, 75% of the "votes", to pick one standard used by many AfD closers) is sufficient. In addition, most folks who close AfD discussions endorse ignoring spurious reasoning when counting the "votes". e.g. If you vote "keep, because I don't like the nominator," well, that's a bogus vote and will almost certainly be ignored in the final analysis by anybody who closes AfD discussions.

I confess that I lean towards the supermajority side of things; I find the notion of requiring unanimous or near-unanimous opinion to be a bit too idealistic for my tastes, particularly in a project with as many participants as this. Under either circumstance, however, an 11/8 "vote" is near enough to an even split that there is obviously no consensus.

Hope this clears things up. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, now I understand properly! Thanks for the explanation _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted AfDs[edit]

Greetings:

I noticed that, last night, you relisted some AfDs which hadn't garnered much discussion. I have taken the liberty of removing those AfDs from the old AfD logs by commenting them out. This will keep the AfD listings in the new AfD logs while removing them from the old logs, so that new folks like me won't make the mistake of closing them out inadvertently.

Felt you'd wish to know.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot to remove them from the old logs. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats[edit]

Could you review your close on this article? I know you closed it "No consensus," but 9 of 13 users expressed a desire to see the article deleted or transwikied, by my count.

Note that at least two votes that begin with "merge" are indeed support for transwiking the article and removing it from Wikipedia, albeit saving some of the info as a merge into another article. (I know how this can be done and can do it myself, but I obviously don't want to make the final judgement on an AFD I nominated.)

Let me know what you decide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I am new to closing AfD discussions, I felt it prudent to err on the side of caution. Merging is an issue of editing, and requires no AfD discussion. And my perception (perhaps incorrect) is that Transwiki-ing requires Admin access, of which I am in short supply. Thus, I interpreted the "merge/transwiki" votes as "keep" votes since the article cannot (so far as I'm aware, though I could certainly be wrong) be merged and transwikied without being "kept", however briefly. If this is an erroneous approach to take, please let me know. I am certainly open to revising my decision if I've made it in error. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can perform the close if you endorse JIFish's merge/transwiki/delete suggestion as the closing decision. It is possible to merge and delete, through a handful of methods. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Sorry for the trouble. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the corrected the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats. But RuneScape cheats remains the same. Are we waiting for User:A Man In Black to perform the merge/transwiki/delete? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem. I am not an admin, so I don't believe I can transwiki the article. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for getting back to me so fast. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a phone call, sorry. I'll get on the closing work ASAP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Uncle G already did the transwiki during the AFD, so I've moved the page to Rune-scape to preserve the history, and deleted the redirect left behind. I'm gonna get started merging info Cheating in online games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Numbered paragraphs as a list[edit]

Thanks for your tip, but that's also not quite what I'm after. That produces paragraphs between each dot point. I'm interested in when several paragraphs form one dot point.

I think the wikiverse is trying to tell me not to use a numbered list and just settle for plain old *s. :) Thanks --pfctdayelise 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the ol' <ol>! It works perfectly (in combination with <br> or <P>). Cheers --pfctdayelise 02:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extreme Unction[edit]

As per our IRC conversation, here it is: Your own private RFA subpage. Make the most of it ;) grm_wnr Esc 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

**user:karmafist/barn award**
The Standard Barn

I figured it'd be appropriate.karmafist 22:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An answer[edit]

First, your merges are clearly ok. You would be unlikely to face any opposition to a closure of those debates as you describe. My personal feeling on these things is that, if I have been involved in the debate I do not close it, unless there is some very good reason for me to. So I personally would note in the debate that I had done so and leave it.

This seems a little bureaucratic however, since you could as well have closed the debates (both are clear merges, so that's fine) and then merged: the effect would be identical. (This is the route I would have, I hope, followed.) Since we're more interesed in product than process, you may as well close them, noting that you have merged. For clarity, I have no problem with non-admins closing clear debates (I did literally hundreds before becoming an admin myself), and I have no problem with you closing this one either. It's just no consensus debates (or delete ones, which happens occasionally) that I, personally, would prefer left to admins who have already been scrutinised and approved by the community.

My opposition to your RfA is reluctant and more a request to play around a bit more than anything. -Splash^talk 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Splash said on all points.

On the other hand, the afd process failed us on all three articles, since they're all copyvios from the company's website. (Probably posted by an employee, but that doesn't really matter.) I've removed the pasted information from Keynote Systems on that basis (and also tagged Umang Gupta, which was a copyvio from the same url; I found it through Special:Whatlinkshere/Keynote Systems, and would have merged that in also if the articles hadn't been copyvios). I didn't tag Keynote Systems itself, since it had been rewritten in place already.

I strongly suspect that Keynote doesn't meet WP:CORP, either; we don't normally keep company articles just because they're publicly traded, so the call for a speedy keep in its afd is boggling. —Cryptic (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio revisions from the histories of the first two articles, and will leave the third to WP:CP. The usual procedure when an article has been copyvio'd in place is to simply revert as has already been done. -Splash^talk 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the help on the Dobie Gillis Williams article. Your wikification of the article was very helpful. I will try to use this style in the rest of my articles. Nolamgm 20:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Dwek[edit]

I've read over some of the Hebrew articles provided by the author of the Moshe Dwek article, and they do seem to confirm the contents of the article. I've been trying to find an English source and coming up short. See my full comment on the AFD page. --Bachrach44 00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing point Barnstar idea[edit]

Great idea, but I think barnstars need to be first discussed on Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. I've therefore reverted your addition. --Nlu 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

For being such a hard worker, you are awarded this Working Man's Barnstar by me, Nlu.

--Nlu 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another question[edit]

I was wondering if you might perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hirst. I feel that what I've done there was justified based on past closures of similar articles. Indeed, I closed another article similarly a week or two ago without anyone complaining. However, I can't find any guideline pages which discuss when an article might be justifiably userfied, so I feel that I may be exceeding my authority. Any thoughts you may have on the matter would be appreciated. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not something that I would have tried. A userfication is still a deletion from the main namespace. Userfying it to User:DanielHirst might have been appropriate if you'd found it on NP patrol; it's a much more dubious call if it's already gone to AFD and there weren't calls to userfy it. Putting it on a user subpage is also iffy; in effect, you're saying that it's an article under active development that's not yet ready for the main namespace, not a user page accidentally created as an article (which is the usual reason for userfying).

As to when to userfy: we usually userfy articles (to a user page, not a subpage) when it would otherwise be deleted from the main namespace, it's clearly an autobiography, and the user has made unrelated contributions to Wikipedia. (Merely registering a user name doesn't justify having a user page, since Wikipedia is not a free web host.) Userfying to a subpage should only be done by request or specific recommendations on an afd, perhaps when there isn't the overwhelming majority required for outright deletion, but suggestions that the article cannot remain in the main namespace as-is. I don't think that was the case here.

That said, I wouldn't worry about reversing yourself unless someone complains. Consensus isn't what everyone wants, or even what a majority wants; it's something that everyone consents to abide by. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAN - -[edit]

"Children are yucky, smooth and make noise." Aaaaagggggghhh! FreplySpang (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Hey, man. I just wanted to let you know that I am in favor of your promotion, but I really do think it's early. It's not that I have doubts about your ability to deal with conflict, but I'm one of the people who thinks time is the most important commodity in administrators. Again, there is really nothing to establish, as I don't have any reason to find fault, and I'm looking forward to being among the first "support" voters on the next nomination. I haven't been as consistent as I'd like to be with the time criterion, but I can only think of one person for whom I violated it, and I don't have magic numbers, but I think a calendar page or two need to go by. Geogre 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

I restored the vote, but I made it clear that I voted after the deadline. It's up to the closing person to determine if that vote is valid or not. Good luck! howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RfA[edit]

Extreme thanks for your 100th-vote support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | talk 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I decided to support you at the last minute (actually, after the last minute but it was still "above the line") and I think you'll do fine. Based on some of the oppose votes, however, I do strongly urge you to err on the side of caution on hotly contested AfD votes and leave them for experienced admins until you are comfortable that you have a very good feel for consensus. Stick your toe into the water; don't dive in head first! In any event, good luck! -- DS1953 23:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early RFA thanks[edit]

Hi Extreme Unction/Archive 1,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. It has done very well and is currently at 67/0/2. As such, I am posting this in advance of its closure. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know. Thank you once again! – NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure[edit]

I'm not from Vienna, though I can be quite grim at times ;)

Anyway, I think you'll make a great admin, and while my nomination was fast, by the reactions to your RFA I get the impression that it was not premature and would have happened soon anyway. And where's the fun in nominating candidates that are 100% sure to win... It was my pleasure.

-- grm_wnr Esc 13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

Well done :-) You'll be a great asset to Wikipedia. The Land 13:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

I appreciate your comments. You demonstrated a great deal of patience and tact while under fire from those ip’s and afd questions which I think will be good assets for an admin. Think you will make a great one. Congratulations again. (P.S. I borrowed the Grika’s code to use on the vandals. Hope that is o.k.--Dakota ^t ^e 15:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome. --Merovingian 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!!! Yet another congratulations note to clutter up your page!!! Oh, will the cycle ever end? BD2412 T 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Yes, take off every 'zig! Good luck, I think you'll do fine :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome[edit]

Be good to the tools...let them know that you love them, and that you'll never leave them. :) Ral315 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd buy them some flowers every now and then too. ;-)

Oh yeah, do you know or know anybody who's good at statistics? Yo tengo un pregunta. karmafist 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the vote, and congratulations on your Adminship. To solve your curiosity, I had your Talk page on my watchlist following my previous AfD question, and noted that you'd been put up for an RfA so I thought I'd take a look... I've been around the place a while now, and have been increasingly interested in RfA as one of the few aspects of WP i've never played much of a part in. Anyhow, so that's about it... since I felt your previous comments regarding the AfD closure showed you did sufficiently understand WP policy (contrary to some of your opposing votes) I thought i'd add my $0.02. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 22:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hirst discretion[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you chose to userfy the page after it was voted 4/1 to keep, with no votes to userfy. I am interested in what the discretionary powers are. Just because he wrote the page himself does it mean that it has to be userfied? I certainly wouldn't have thought so. So long as he quoted references, which he did, I can't see the problem. Unless I am missing something. Also, is the closer allowed to go against what everyone else says? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions about deleting a redirect[edit]

I've answered you (at some length) on my talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]