User talk:Dryguy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Template:Fact
Thanks for the nod. dryguy 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I do think some of the points you were making in that discussion were valid, but by going to TfD, the only thing that was heard was "Don't delete that template!". --DragonHawk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy (second nomination)
Your analysis at the AfD has been altogether sagacious and cogent; you are to be commended. Joe 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aw shucks, twerent nuthin'. (blush) dryguy 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lincoln Kennedy Rewrite
I thank you very much for that rewrite. It truly created an article worthy of Wikipedia. I would just ask that you had waited for the AfD discussion to close, so as to not confuse the admin who has to determine whether or not to delete it. Thank you again though, I believe the article does not need to be deleted anymore. --kralahome 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. I believe that if you change your nom to a vote to keep, it will carry great weight with the admin who makes the final decision. dryguy 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Very good work on the rewrite. I'm always pleased when I get to change my "vote" to keep. I hope that you or others watchlist the article to prevent its reverting to a "didja know," but your changes were worthwhile and really did help. Geogre 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JFK, AL and MrDolomite thank you!
- Thanks for the note on my talk page, that had almost fallen off my radar. And I was pleasantly suprised on the fabulous improvements. Certainly restored my WP:FAITH in the AfD process. — MrDolomite | Talk 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the very kind words. dryguy 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] L-K Markup
ach! sorry I missed that because I was in a rush. Thanks for fixing it!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tfd
Sure. thanks for bringing the missing day to my attention. Unfortunately, I am very busy right now, and I will need trchnical help to close some of the nominations, so it might be a few days until all of the debates are closed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent change to WP:CITE
I personally, support your change. I don't think anyone ever asked for "every statement" to have an in-line cite, just enough to base WP:V meaning that important claims can be verified. For GA consideration, you just need enough to be considered well-referenced. Agne 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I object to the claim that the poll was "unanimous"
Subject line says all. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Semantics, in my opinion. A neutral and a non-vote aren't opposing votes. dryguy 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Semantics, indeed. And the dictionary says: "u·nan·i·mous ADJECTIVE: 1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. 2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement." That's not a fair description of the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is fair enough. In any event, I can't change the comment line. dryguy 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Semantics, indeed. And the dictionary says: "u·nan·i·mous ADJECTIVE: 1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. 2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement." That's not a fair description of the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CHILL
Hey, I redirected WP:CHILL back to its original spot, both to preserve the integrity of debates where it was previously used (of which there are many) and because it is as relevant where it was as anywhere else. As the ... mastodon page already has 4 shortcuts (including WP:CHILLOUT), and shortcuts are available on a first-come basis, I think the WP wheels will keep on turning. Kylu and I discussed the need for complimentary articles a while back and I'm glad to see CHILLOUT has found an appropriate home. I've been contributing less often for a couple of months thanks to some interesting real-life stuff, hence the reason I haven't noticed this before. Cheers, Deizio talk 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup template messages
Please stop putting the {{unreferenced}} template on the talk page of Inheritance semantics. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup clearly states that ...should be added to the articles needing cleanup, not to their talk pages.... The OR template is a little more open to interpretation. But I think the fact that it directs readers to the talk page (implying they aren't there already) is a pretty good indication that it is intended to be placed in the article rather than the talk page. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor (second nomination)
Hey, I'm not gonna fuss about if you think its worth keeping but I hope you realise that the reslist was mainly due to the problems with the original nom. If the comments of users with potential conflicts of interest or odd voting patterns are removed, it leaves a 'score' of 2 for delete and no keep votes; to my mind, the sort of discussion that would be relisted for more input. --Robdurbar 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
