User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

Clockwork Soul 04:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Yes, I am a real person)

I removed several of the links you inserted on that page. I mean, come on, making links to common meals, exercise, religious study, etc, is not very helpful in this context. This is just an opinion, it could be hard to say for sure which way to go. So I trimmed just some of the links you put, and left most in place. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 05:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Football (elliptical)

Hi Tony, I moved that page back to "Football". Although your Template:redirect is very useful (I already inserted it in a number of places), it is not the right place to have it in that article (and therefore change the name). The name of "Football" and "Football (soccer)" have been debated ad nauseum, and this is the conscensus many have come up with. --Dryazan 02:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting for BJAODN suggestions

Hi Tony Jin, thanks for making suggestions on the BJAODN page. I'm always pleased to see someone new contributing! However, we do have a couple of rules on the page that I would like to point out.

First, do not sign your own suggestions. The consensus of users on the page is that we don't want everyone to be staking out territory. A suggestion should stand or fall on its own weight, not because of who suggested it. Plus, if every suggestion was signed, the size of this already long page would almost double.
Second, users should not vote on their own suggestions until someone else has voted on it. The reason for this is, if you vote on your own suggestion, it's pretty much the same as claiming it as your own. By having this rule, one knows that the first person to vote isn't the suggested title's author.

I have removed your vote from you "house divided" suggestion for these reasons. It's a good suggestion! And if someone else votes in favour of it, then you're free to vote, but please don't do so until then.

Rule-mongering aside, please feel free to make suggestions. We need the input on BJAODN!

Regards, -- Kevyn (talk) 04:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History of music on peer review

Hi, Tony, thanks for listing History of music on peer review. Unfortunately, nothing seems to have been done to fix the objections made last time the article was on FAC, and you have not made any reply to the user who complains about this on peer review. For these reasons, it is very unlikely that any other peer reviewer will comment. Could you please reply to Piotrus' criticism? If there is no response from you, I'm afraid I'll have to remove the listing as an inactive request. --Bishonen | talk 14:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, since you haven't replied to Piotrus or me, I've had to remove the listing. I do appreciate your wanting to see articles improved and listing them on peer review, but it's important that they are articles that you intend to work on yourself, and try to get up to Featured status, while dialoguing with the people who post advice. (Compare also Ludwig van Beethoven.) The list is not intended for asking other people to improve articles; it tends to become overlong and "dead" if it's used for that, and then the reviewers lose interest in posting comments. That's the reason "housekeepers" like me remove inactive requests. Please don't let it discourage you from listing articles that you do want to work on!--Bishonen | talk 12:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COTW

Please note that the rules of voting for Collaboration of the Week candidates have changed. It is now allowed to vote for only three users on the list. I am not removing the votes you already gave, but any further votes will be removed if the rules are not followed. Any further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the project. Thanks. --Eleassar777 07:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Culture of Ancient Rome, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Proposed deletion of Four-letter abbreviation

The article Four-letter abbreviation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a proper thing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amisom (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Four-letter abbreviation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Four-letter abbreviation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four-letter abbreviation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amisom (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)