User talk:Andjam

Archives:

• User talk:Andjam/Archive1 - main talk
• User talk:Andjam/Archive2 - more talk prior to my move to Massachusetts
• User talk:Andjam/Archive3 - talk subsequent to my move to Massachusetts
• User talk:Andjam/Archive4 - talk while I was in Massachusetts, and since I returned
• User talk:Andjam/Speedy1 - I read all user talk messages, but especially enjoy the vicious ones and refractor them to a page of their own.

Your interest in my wikipedian contributions

Apparently, you once asked me "What gives?" regarding my contribution to page of the user FairNBalanced in juxtaposition to my claim that my contribution to the Sacha Baron Cohen‎ page was my first. Clearly, you did not read the dates of my contributions to those respective pages, or else you would have noticed that my contribution to the Sacha Baron Cohen‎ was clearly my first, as it predated the other "contribution" by 25 days. Not only that, but I had also made a comment on a talk page of Junius Spencer Morgan. All of these contributions are easily verifiable and clearly marked. Now then, was there a point to your question?Shabeki (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment I made was

Your edit to User talk:FairNBalanced

Hi Shabeki,

According to your comment here, you first edited wikipedia on 13 January, 2007. And yet here, you leave a comment on the talk page of a user who last edited in October 2006. What gives? Andjam 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking you why you were leaving a message to a user who stopped editing wikipedia before you first started editing. Andjam (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So I could have a better idea of what conforms to wikipedia's standards and (judging by his rather acrimonious departure) what does not. That, and the chance to say goodbye to a rather brusque guy I never had the misfortune of meeting. Any other questions?Shabeki (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why say goodbye to someone you never met? Andjam (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, very few wikipedia users have met one another. That in itself does not preclude people from saying a few words of goodbye if a person leaves the community. While I never knew the person during his tenure here, I nonetheless saw it fitting to say a few parting words given his history of apparently leaving such comments of a similarly strong nature. Perhaps it would seem foolish to leave a comment for someone who would (allegedly) never read it. But obviously, you read it and your interest in it has been so piqued as to ask me about it repeatedly. So apparently, it served its intended effect.Shabeki (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

I'll be removing the NPOV and BLP warning tags next week unless someone objects as the discussion has died out and the article seems to have settled in at an generally acceptable version. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agavi

What is your interest in this article anyway? –– Lid^(Talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

See you there! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

In case you couldn't find me. My talk page etc. is thisaway --> ...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get in touch some time. Andjam (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Daniel Brandt (prosecutor)

A tag has been placed on Daniel Brandt (prosecutor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Twinkle for new-page patrol, so it must be some sort of bug in Twinkle. I've never noticed that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll send a note to the Twinkle developers, because I would definitely not call speedy-tagging "minor." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wael Abbas

I don't have any memory of it, as I'm making about 50-75 edits per minute. If you thought it was a good faith edit, please feel free to restore it. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thank you for your response on putting the article on deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wael abbas, cause I was merely only trying to add useful information on Wikipedia. Sorry for the late response, Cheers! (Abdowiki 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Your recent requests for deletion

Hi,
I would advise your to take care of WP:POINT.
It is not constructive to start these processes a few minutes after discovering two articles that do not fit the way you see wp and without reading the talk pages or discuss there... Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

accepted/excepted

Wow, that's embarrassing. I don't know if I've ever made that spelling mistake before... I must have been feeling passionate and writing quickly when I prepared the cfd. Thanks for pointing it out anyway. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

unrealistic and offensive

I accept your comments regarding minor changes. Speaking of poor etiquette.... Common sense would indicate that the citation for the characterization of honor killings in Iran as "unrealistic and offensive" would be the citation at the end of the sentence. I don't think it's too much to ask for an editor to read the citation before marking citation etc????? Thank you. Huangdi (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Taner Akçam

Most of the sources are in English. Which claims are you referring to? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the note, I think there was a security breach with some scripting, and I've cleaned it up now. But what a weird thing to spam... thanks again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Honore killyng

You misunderstood me. The article honour is at that spelling. --erachima talk 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent

Now that was an awesome edit summary.. :D Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of customs considered abhorrent

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of customs considered abhorrent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment edits

Before you edit the comments of another editor, it's usually a good idea to run it by the editor in question first. In this case, me. And incidentally, I don't think there's any BLP issue in that instance. It's hardly defamatory to a person use a recent commonly-reported controversy involving a high-profile political figure as the basis of a joke, even if the "controversy" has been settled to have become a "non-issue". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP tends to be revert first, ask questions later. I've raised it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Accusation_about_Sarah_Palin. Andjam (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's not really anything to do with BLP. It wasn't defamatory toward any living person. It was a reference to an unnamed (and apparently nonexistent) person at a political rally, not one against Palin. You don't edit others' comments unless there is a clear violation. It wouldn't have hurt to wait a few hours by at least notifying me first. Or at least let me know what you had done, rather than letting me discover it myself. In terms of your approach, in this case you reverted but then asked no questions. That would have been a minimum courtesy that I thought I could have expected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonfictional parents who killed their children

I'm planning on nominating Category:Parents who killed their children for deletion at some stage, and I wanted to let you know that it won't be intended as trying to prove a point. Andjam (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.

Since you feel that misinterpretation may be a concern, you may wish to add a parenthetical disclaimer in the nomination too. - jc37 20:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarah Palin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)