User talk:RadManCF/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, RadManCF/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions relating to roads. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you wish to continue editing U.S. road-related articles, please become familiar with the Wikipedia and U.S. Roads standards by checking out User:Rschen7754/Manual.

Additional road article-related questions can be answered at the following links: United States, Canada, or other countries. You may also ask questions at my talk page.

Feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads on IRC as well.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian and a roadfan! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Again, welcome!  --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand tag

Hi, you've just added an expand tag to this article, it's just a list of winners from a young award with all necessary information and references so an expand tag is not really needed there, do you mind if I remove your tag? Grenouille vert (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Steel (album)

How is the page "written in an overly promotional tone"? It's pretty much a clone of most other album pages out there.

I removed the blurb about Dr. Steel preferring digital releases; perhaps that's what you were referring to. (I put that in after an admin complained it wasn't a CD release... you can't please everyone, lol) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, guess I forgot that time.RadManCF (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Project HERMIONE

In view of Talk:Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas#Disclosure of interest, do you feel it's still necessary to keep the {{COI}} tag up on the article header, or will the talkpage notice suffice? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the talk page message should suffice (I added the tag to err on the side of caution), but I think we should ask for more opinions first.RadManCF (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had asked at "WP:COIN#FYI: HERMIONE project. Please AGF.", chiefly to forestall User:Hermione p getting a sudden COI-block, but my secondary question there about the need for the {{COI}} tag on the article wasn't addressed. Should we restate that as a primary question there? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good.RadManCF (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Events overtook us: Burpelson AFB was bold. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Tristan Schack just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome template, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. I had never placed a speedy delete tag before, and was hazy on procedure. RadManCF (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, read WP:CSD carefully - the grounds for speedy are deliberately tightly drawn. There is good advice from an experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You recently tagged Sarah Ryan of Good Counsel for speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. But the article included the statements "Sarah Ryan won an All-Ireland Junior Championship medal with Dublin in 2006" and "in 2009 she was named Dublin Player of the Year". Those are both claims of significance, and either should be enough to save the article from an A7. Please heed the advice above about being careful with speedy tagging. DES (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
DESiegel, I do not agree that the statements you quoted are assertions of significance. First, the article text does not indicate the sport this person plays. Second, after looking at the infobox and seeing that this person is a camogie player, a sport played almost exclusively in Ireland, I feel it is absurd to consider any current individual player to be significant from a worldwide standpoint. Third, the article was one of several created in a short period of time by the same author User:Gearoid69, about various current camogie players, many of which were tagged for speedy deletion, and not just by me. While I AGF, it struck me a spam campaign. For the record, I left a message at gearoid69's talk page suggesting that they focus their efforts differently, such as consolidating information from the articles they had added into articles about camogie teams, tournaments, etc, and to expand the camogie article itself. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Then allow me to suggest that you read User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes and the pages linked in its See Also section. To suggest that an article about someone who is stated to have not only competed but won a championship in any sport at a national level in any country is subject to a A7 Speedy delete is IMO seriously misguided. A person notable on a national level in any country, even if unheard of outside that country would be notable enough for an article. WP:N mentions coverage by reliable sources, it says nothing about worldwide notability. Mayors of sizable cities, and members of state or provincial legislatures are generally considered inherently notable, yet most such individuals are known only on a local or regional basis, not a national basis much less worldwide. If Wikipedia allowed biographical articles only for people know worldwide, we would have only a fraction of the ones we now have. To quote the old joke, "He's world famous in Poland". If s/he is, he belongs on Wikipedia. And that is to say nothing of the fact that "claim of significance", the standard for A7, is a much lower bar than "notability".
As to "spamming" I see lots of editors adding quickly several short articles on related subjects. it is a common editing pattern by people interested in a subject and it is in now way spamming. If there is a consensus decision that the particular sort of article is unwanted (minor characters in a particular TV show, say), then the editor may be asked to stop, and considered disruptive if s/he continues against consensus. If we actually develop a consensus that there should be no articles on current camogie players then it would be time to ask this editor to stop. (I would object to any such proposed consensus by the way.) Do you have any reason to doubt that the editor was adding in good faith articles on people who s/he thought significant? If not, that wasn't spam. I now int4ed to review User:gearoid69's contributions and see if any were deleted improperly. Many people are, IME, far too quick with speedy tags and at least some admins are, again IME, far too ready to click delete on a speedy tagged article. speedy deletion is supposed to be for narrow classes of articles which pretty much everyone (at least a wide and deep consensus) would agree should not be here. If deletion at all might be controversial at an AfD, then it shouldn't be done via speedy. I urge you to rethink your views on this matter. DES (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the definition of spamming, and I agree that I had misunderstood it, but I would also point to WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. However, I am not saying these individuals should not be covered on wikipedia, just that the level of coverage being given is excessive based on the limited popularity of their sport. I never said that I doubted good faith in this case. As to my CSD tagging, I am unaware of consensus against a "when in doubt, use the CSD tag and let the Admins sort it out" approach, although if there is, please let me know. With regards to the question of whether we should include articles on current camogie players, my feeling is that they should be consolidated into one article. Perhaps we should start an rfc on this. I apologize if my actions have been offensive in any way. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And i assume your good faith in tagging articles you believed do not belong here. As to WP:NOT, please note WP:CSD#Non-criteria where it says "The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. 1. Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. ... 5. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant." Again I urge you to read User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes and Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion, where in regard to A7 it says "A good rule of thumb: if there's content in an article subject that qualifies for A7 that looks like it may have importance, don't delete it. Truly unimportant subjects will be deleted through a more valid and consensus-driven process." Speedy deletions generally mean that only two sets of eyes have a chance at assessing the article: the tagger and the reviewing admin. Therefore, IMO both people are obliged to be careful in this assesment, and the motto should be "if in doubt, use a cleanup or maintenance tag, or WP:PROD, rather than a speedy". The exception would be copyvios and attack pages, which are truly urgent matters. But it does no particular harm if an article about a non-notable person sits around for 7 days in the Prod process, where more people can ahve a chance to consider and possibly improve the article. A7 is intended fot he most clear cut cases "John is my friend and the cutest guy in my school" "XYZ is a band and plan to issue their first free EP next year" "Joe Bloggs lost the election for Happyville town council in 2007" "ABC is the local chapter of DEF charity. They do a lot of good work" and the like.
If you really think we should have a consensus that individual camogie are inherently non-notable (at least for playing camogie) then feel free to start a discussion to that end. I would disagree, and I can't think of any sport, however obscure, to which such a practice has been applied. But if there is consensus for such a practice, I would of course go along. Currently WP:ATHLETE speaks of "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" as not merely significant but notable. Since camogie does not have an Olympic presence, the All-Ireland competitions are that "highest level", as far as I can see. DES (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on CSD. With regards to WP:ATHLETE, the relevant section reads "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." I would emphasize "usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". You mentioned that the highest level of competition for camogie is the All-Ireland competions. I would like to point out that the NCAA Division III National Football Championship is the highest level of competition for NCAA division III football players. As of yet, I have not found any articles on div III football players, even though they participate at the highest level of their sport. Given the status of div III within the NCAA, I see no problem with this. I see camogie players as having the same status. Giving teams their own articles makes perfect sense. So would giving notable players their own sections in the appropriate articles. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think your analogy is a false one. The NCAA Division III National Football Championship is the highest level of competition for NCAA division III football players, but it is not the highest amateur level for the sport of football. So far as I know there is no higher amature level for the sport camogie, and WP:ATHLETE speaks of "a sport" not "a sport represented in the Olympics". it seems obvious to me that for sports not so represented we must take the highest level that actually exists. (in practice I think competition at a national level is usually accepted, but that isn't what WP:ATHLETE says). If you think that there should be a special exception for camogie or perhaps a more general exception for sports not included in either the Olympic Games or the World Championships, and not having international competition, then start a proposal for such an exception. DES (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The take I had on WP:ATHLETE was that if it was not represented at the Olympics (or at an international level), then it generally is not worthy of inclusion. Also, I brought up NCAA div III football because it struck me as being similar in stature. Also, since the participants of div III football operate under diferent rules than participants of div I, div II, and the NFL, I would argue that the analogy is valid, as differing rules can greatly affect gameplay (most notably the designated hitter rule in the AL). Regards, RadManCF (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If that were the intent of WP:ATHLETE then I would expect it to say "highest international level" or to omit "usually" and limit things to the Olympics or World Championships. Well if I get some of these articles a bit cleaned up and someone puts them up for AfD on notability gorunds, we may have a consensus decision. DES (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I presume you would agree that a player of any sport who passes the WP:GNG, that is who has had significant coverage in 3rd-party reliable sources such as news media is notable, whatever the level of sport played might be. That is, the WP:GNG overrides WP:ATHLETE. DES (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but regardless, this seems like an excessive level of coverage for us to give a subject that is not likely IMO to interest many people outside of Ireland. On the Gaelic Wikipedia, I would not object to these articles. To clarify my position, my objection in this case is that we have so many of these articles, and would be open to keeping articles on players who are extremely notable, such as record holders, historical players, etc. With regards to the GNG, recall that the guideline tag reads "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I feel that this case is one of those exceptions. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Drown (disambiguation)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (disambiguation) for a Merge proposal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rachel Ruddy

Hello RadManCF. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rachel Ruddy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging as BLP unsourced

Hi, please do not tag articles as BLP unsourced if they already have some references/external links as you did here. If you do not think the sources are sufficient please use {{BLP sources}} instead. Regards King of the North East 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I had generally distinguished between external links and references, but I will use {{BLP sources}} in the future. RadManCF (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

RadManCF/archive 1 - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Suoi Bong Trang

Hello Radman. I have to ask: why did you add the {{no footnotes}} tag to this article? The article actually has 15 notes, include more than than 2 for every para (except the lead which is not required as it summarises the text as per WP:MOS). I have reverted your edit as I really cannot see what the issue is. Is there some issue with the markup that means these footnotes aren't displaying in your browser as they display for me? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That tag is used to indicate that the notes aren't referenced in the text. Also, those references are generally linked to the corresponding notes. I did not see any such links, so I used the {{no footnotes}} tag. BTW, I was impressed by your article. It is a much better article than most of those I come across while patrolling new pages. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I still do not understand, is there an issue or not? The inline citations in this article use the short reference method i.e. author, date and page and these are written in full in the References section. As far as I am aware this is fully compliant with the WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Are you say that you want an intext reference i.e. something like "15 Viet Cong had also been captured during the battle, as had a large quantity of equipment, including small arms and ammunition, crew-served weapons and grenades (Carland 2000, p. 180)." Thanks again for your patience in explaining this to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If you link those inline citations to the notes at the bottom of the page, there won't be a problem. Thats how the inline citations in other articles are done. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

China PR national football team results (1990–1999)

These are lots of similar articles in wikipedia,such as U.S. men's soccer records (2000–2009),Korea Republic national football team results – 2000s,England national football team results – 1900s(more articles can be found in Category:National football team results).If I merge all football team results into one article,China national football team results,it would be longer than 100 kilobytes.This is why I splitted it into different articles.Alexchen4836 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexchen4836, Please read [[WP:NOT]. It clearly states that Wikipedia articles should not contain long and sprawling lists of statistics. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 17:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this article is excessive listing of statistics.It is just a subarticle of China national football team results or China PR national football team.And it is important.Football clubs' fixtures and results can be found in wikipedia,why national teams can't?Maybe this article needs to be wikified,but I don't think it meets the deletion policy.Alexchen4836 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Alexchen4836, It would be more productive to post these arguments at the article's deletion discussion, located here:China PR national football team results (1990–1999). It would also be worth reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it applies to some of the arguments you have used in this discussion. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Alexchen4836, I would suggest that you take a look at the article List of Green Bay Packers seasons. It refrains from providing excessive amounts of information, and discusses the subject of the article in the lead section. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
OK,I will try my best to rewrite the article.I thought that articles in Category:National football team results is the format.So I followed their styles to write this article.But I was wrong.Thank you for pointing it out.Alexchen4836 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm going to remove the NPOV tag for the article Base Connect because you didn't explain why you posted the tag. Without that explanation, it's not possible for me or other editors to figure out what, if anything, needs to be done to improve the article - unfortunately no one here is a mind-reader. Feel free to put the tag back up once you've explained, on the article's talk/discussion page, what changes you'd like to see. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed that tag because the article consists almost entirely of criticism of the article's subject. I figured the reason for the tag would be obvious to anyone viewing the article. Regards, RadManCF open frequency 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. NW (Talk) 03:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for granting me rollback. Your confidance in me is much appreciated. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Bezus

I added reference on English from Transfermarkt, and delited other. Now this article can stay in Wikipedia?--Noel baran (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag I added to the article was just to point out problems with the article. It did not mean that the article had to be removed from wikipedia. The reason I tagged the article is because it is a biogrophy of a living person (BLP). Due to leagal concerns, we have very high standards for BLP articles. These articles must be well referenced, and use inline citations. I see that the article has a list of external links, perhaps some of those could be used as references. Just make sure to have a references section, where the sources used in the article are listed. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Be so. But first, let me finish with those Two. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created a page in my userspace on which we can communicate, User:RadManCF/Mentorship. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RadManCF. You have new messages at Crusio's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonefunkers

Hi, User:Theleftorium has found source coverage in Swedish, so I can't read them, I am willing to withdraw my nomination if you and the other user have no further deletion concerns. CTJF83 chat 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I will change to keep. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

It's one thing to make a blind revert, without explanation, on an article subject to probation. It's quite another to issue a vandalism warning, on top of the revert. That's really out of line. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the article probation until after I had made the rollback, and the edit looked like vandalism to me at the time. The warning I issued was for the sake of consistency. Had I known about the article probation, I wouldn't have touched this one. I appologise If I've offended anyone, and ask that you please AGF. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also point out that I was on vandalism patrol at the time (using Lupin), and have no interest in editing this article's content. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the revert, take a look at this diff: [1]. If not vandalism, it was at least an extremely biased edit. The term "stonewall", in particular struck me as a particularly biased term. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The term stonewall was used by the source, not the editor. AGF has to start somewhere, in this case it should have started with you checking the source for the statements before reverting their inclusion, regardless of whether the article was on probation or not. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I see your point. I reiterate that, at the time, the edit struck me as vandalism, and that I was on vandalism patrol, and am not interested in editing this article's content. I apologise for any problems this has caused. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you even understand what vandalism is? And have you bothered to apologise to the editor you falsely accused to vandalism? If you can't use anti-vandalism tools properly, you shouldn't use them. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There really isn't any need to abandon civility at this stage Guettarda. Your attitude here is out of place. Weakopedia (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To begin with, that green banner is hard to miss. If you missed it, you are relying far too much on automated tools. Secondly, biased edits and POV pushing are not vandalism. If you thought the edit had POV problems, by reverting it, you take responsibility for the version you're reverting to. Which had POV problems. Even if, as you thought, the text was not a quote, it still wouldn't have been vandalism.
Kenosis is a long-established editor, but if you did this to a newbie, this would have been a serious problem. And saying "I was on vandalism patrol" is no excuse. In fact, it's entirely the opposite, since you're going to encounter more newbies than you would on an average day of content editing. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree that I made a mistake, I do know what vandalism is, and I have said what I have just to explain my reasoning for my actions. I freely admit that I missed critical information in this case. This wouldn't be the first mistake I've made. I apologise if my statements seem tendentious, but the discussions have helped me see the light. For the record, the timeline of events was this:

While using WP:LUPIN, I see the revision made by Kenosis. After reading it, I thought the edit was disparaging to the article's subject. I reverted the edit. After seeing the changes, I realized that I had possibly made a mistake. I decided to warn the user, for the sake of consistency. After discussion with you and weakopedia, I realized I had made a mistake. I do plan to apologise to Kenosis, but just havn't gotten around to it yet (I'm a college student and was working on wikipedia between classes). I don't expect you to stop chewing me out just because I've given you this information, I'm just posting it because I feel it's relevant. I hope you don't think I was intentionally misusing my tools. I will certainly be more careful after this. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Re

Yes, that's what I meant. I was in a rush, I must've just typed that in by accident. It's been duly struck. Oops!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Thank spam!

Hello, RadManCF. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Metallurgical_education

Would you have anything to add here Talk:Metallurgical_education#Redirection? Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Metallurgical education

An article that you have been involved in editing, Metallurgical education, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallurgical education. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011

Why should it be deleted? Are the informations wrong? And, are the other 6 sites OK? Redpower94 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I didnt mean to offend anyone or stuff the ballot box, I just wanted to see my page get a fair trial. Your right in saying that I dont want it to get deleted, because i put a lot of time into it. thank you for spending your time to administrate Frebel93 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Understanding the process

As I am going through this whole learning process, I have run into a few questions that I hoped you could clarify for me. I was looking at Buzz out Loud, another podcast page from CNET, and I looked through the references, in order to see what a good, verifiable reference page looks like. I only found 2 sources independent of CNET and 1 that was active. Why is the 404 page being considered for deletion and not that one? Im not trying to drag that page down, I simply trying to understand the differences. Frebel93 (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the most important things to know in this case is that articles are generally judged on their own merits. The deletion of one article cannot be used to disparage a similar article. I would suggest reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. After reading the article you mentioned, I question whether it would stand up at AFD. It's very possible that nobody has ever bothered to nominate it. It could be a worthwhile learning experience for you to nominate the Buzz out Loud page for deletion, just so you can gain familiarity with our standards for inclusion, and the deletion process. If you don't want to do that, I would advise you to follow WP:AFD and WP:DRV closely, so you can gain familiarity with our standards for inclusion and our deletion process.
On the issue of sources for Buzz out Loud, one independent source may be all that is necessary to establish notability. Sources affiliated with the article's subject aren't disallowed, they just aren't sufficient to establish notability. They are acceptable as sources of information about a subject that has received significant coverage in independent sources. For more information, see WP:RS. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

STiki on Linux

Hello, RadManCF. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Requests for comment/Mlpearc

First of all I would like to thank you for your cmt at the RfC, I am also asking for some advise the editor that opened the RfC is now harassing me Here. Any suggestions ? Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like you harassed me? I wouldn't class that as harassment. If you open yourself up for questioning, then you can't class it as harassment if I want to ask a question. Your continued stubbornness by refusing to answer questions/apologise is what is keeping this going. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I got some advise here, sorry to bother, Thanx Mlpearc powwow 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

[1] Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 23:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"It would be wise to ignore Paralympiakos" - please explain that. I'm confused as to why I'm being made out to be the bad guy here when I'm not the one who has broken many rules and acted severely inappropriately. Is it so bad that I want action to be taken? Paralympiakos (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RadManCF/archive_1&oldid=1139007846"