Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Please sign your comments. I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply on your own talk page or an article's talk page.

In addition, when starting a new discussion thread, please add it as a new section at the bottom of the page, to keep things organized.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

Contents 1 Smile! 2 Your claim that Wikipedia's policies are infallible 3 Proposed deletion of ConScript Unicode Registry 4 Deletion review for Jealousy Curve 5 Relisting notice

[edit] Smile!

[edit] Your claim that Wikipedia's policies are infallible

I've taken an issue with you on my own talk page. It's not personal; it has to do with Wikipedia's general policy of publishing IP addresses of people who forget to sign with four tildes.

I do maintain that that policy IS indeed obscure. Your argument that it's practical for Wiki's admininstration department doesn't make it less obscure or less of an invasion of privacy.

While I was, indeed, sincere about my apology for my flippant first reply, I have to say I find the response condescending; and I remain in the opinion that publishing people's IP addresses without their express consent is as offensive as any name-calling I might think of.

Of course, I realize that you have nothing to do with Wikipedia's decision to invade contributors' privacy in this way, but there's no other obvious venue of discussion for that matter. Perhaps you could direct me to the proper forum for such issues?

Bantaar (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues with Wikipedia policy, the best place to bring it up is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The "village pump" pages are the main venues for project-wide discussion.

FWIW, I have never claimed that Wikipedia's policies are infallible. I have, in fact, had input on some changes. — Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! You're a good sport, evidently :) . Of course you didn't claim that Wiki's policies are infallible, but hyperbole may sometimes expedite understanding, if you know what I mean. All best to you! Bantaar (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of ConScript Unicode Registry

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ConScript Unicode Registry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

There are no reliable independent sources to establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Ashley Y 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Deletion review for Jealousy Curve

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jealousy Curve. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting notice

Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)