User talk:Over The Desk

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Over The Desk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your comments on an AfD page[edit]

You need to be aware of WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith. You made no explanation at the club's page about why you were posting that list there: your edit note simply said where you had moved in from. You are right that the addition of that info to the club page was not controversial: there is no controversy at WT:FOOTY, where notable players lists are consistently rejected and denounced, so it was not "the right thing to do". Why are you telling me that I should have done what EA210269 did, when you didn't do it yourself? Finally, I would point out that WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V are not "obscure codes of conduct". Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse me of backtracking. I approve of what is there now because it is a list with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, described in the section heading. I did not approve of your edit:

a) because it had no criteria;

b) because it is precisely the type of list that has been consistently described as suitable for deletion at the relevant Wikiproject;

c) because it reverted, with no explanation, a deletion that had been well explained in the edit notes;

d) because describing 2 players, out of the whole history of a club, as notable is POV, unverifiable, and, while is was without sources, OR;

e) because providing references is the responsibility of the person posting information, not something to be left to later editors.

Perhaps you would like to explain what you think was so good about your edit that made it of great benefit to the project. In the meantime, perhaps you should wait until you have rather more experience in Wikipedia before you adopt such a critical and aggressive tone. Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you consider yourself unconstrained by Wikipedia's most important concepts, of verifiable, sourced, non-opinionated contributions and compliance with the consensus of the community, and I have no interest in continuing this correspondence. Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Richard Phillips (captain)[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Coe poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Coe poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Elephanthotel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Elephanthotel.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Coneyislandelephant.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Coneyislandelephant.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Cie plan.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cie plan.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mark Fidrych, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Mark Fidrych was changed by Over The Desk (u) (t) deleting 8831 characters on 2009-04-15T19:42:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Mark Fidrych. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. ^LeaveSleaves 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider discussing your change to Mark Fidrych on the article's talk page before removing that much content. Thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider wholesale removal of content that has been present on a page for a considerable length of time without being challenged (since November 2007, it would appear) without at least an attempt at opening up a dialogue to be, at least potentially, vandalism. There's being bold, and there's editing in a deliberately contetious manner, and your re-reversion of two separate parties who undid your edit put up a red flag in my eyes that your edit was intended to be the latter. If I was wrong about that, then I apologize. -Dewelar (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your reaction. If I had been the one to spot the edit first, I would like to think I would have simply reverted it without calling it vandalism. I will partially blame LeaveSleaves for this -- as you pointed out, he should have looked at what he was reverting before out-and-out calling it vandalism -- as I was following the discussion chain, in conjunction with my observations as noted above. I guess we can just chalk it up to a bad day all around and move on, hopefully without any hard feelings :) . -Dewelar (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of 1976 season[edit]

I've begun a thread on the articles talk page. For the record I strongly disagree that your edits were vandalism. I believe they were good faith although WP:BOLD. Now it's turning into a content dispute so I think it needs to be talked out before it progresses into an edit war.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't considered them very bold at the time, given the amount of other information and the incredibly fine grained, almost day by day, content that I removed. However, if it is controversial it should of course be deleted. I may not have time to contribute to the discussion right now, but thanks again for letting me know. Over The Desk (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2009 Ashwell Prison riot[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2009 Ashwell Prison riot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

duplicate information

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. Avatar 06349 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Émilie Lavoie[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N. While there are plenty of trivial references (list rankings, mentions among oldest people etc.), there only seem to be two non-trivial sources: her obituary and another article that's more about longevity than it is her

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. Cheers, CP 01:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island Elephant listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coney Island Elephant. Since you had some involvement with the Coney Island Elephant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bluefist ^talk 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]