User talk:Sertrel/Archive

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

British English at sickle cell anaemia

Hi Sertrel! I noticed at sickle cell anaemia that you changed the spelling of "genetic counselling" to the "genetic counseling". It turns out that "genetic counselling" (two Ls) is the British English spelling, whereas "genetic counseling" is the American English variant. And both are correct. Since Wikipedia policy says articles should use AE and BE consistently (ie, one or the other in a given article), and since sickle cell anaemia is written in BE, I've changed "genetic counseling" back to "genetic counselling". Cheers! --Diberri | Talk 03:49, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

USS Kidd (DD-661)

Did you know has been updated

and a fact from the article USS Kidd (DD-661), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Apology

Spawn Man pointed out that I had deleted your recent submission to DYK. I apologize for this accident on my part. It has been corrected. Keep up the good work. Ekem 03:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Lela Lee, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

ACC

Isn't a few sentences enough? Or do we really need a section about the expansion that is almost the size of the whole article. If it is truly worthy of so much detail, maybe it should have it's own article. But I think all of that information seemed like too much, especially considering it was wikified and seemed to ramble on and on, you know? We already have all of the memebers, the year they joined and a mentioning in the history section. Seems like plenty to me. AriGold 22:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Improving company articles

Category:Ticker symbol templates and {{Infobox Company}} should help you. --Christopherlin 04:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning II

Nice work. Were you on Google News hitting the refresh button every ten seconds? What do you think of it? I think I like it. Mark83 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the name; personally I think that General Moseley really wanted to name something the Lightning II, and since he didn't get his way on the F-22, he found a way to get the name onto the JSF. :p I had been rooting for Kestrel or Phoenix. Sertrel 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Houston

A question out of nothing but curiosity: What was the deal with Art Houston? I became curious when you deleleted the reference from Pottstown, Pennsylvania and noticed his article had been deleted and protected. Just curious—I've never heard of him. —Xanderer 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it under "recent changes" one day, and someone had just prodded it and then User:Timebuilder deleted the 'prod' notice, so I submitted it to AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Houston. After review, it was deleted, and then today, it was recreated, so I tagged it for speedy, and an admin deleted it, and then it was recreated, and then I retagged it for speedy again, and that admin protected it. I figured since now it was really dead, I went and checked the "What links here" and then did a bit of link cleanup. Sertrel 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it poorly written, or bogus, or what? (And why do I care?) —Xanderer 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just... completely non-notable, just a guy. And what bugged me was how when people said he was non-notable, he claimed that he really was 'somebody' and then started injecting himself into other articles, or writing up his better-known friends to try and have some of their legitimacy rub off on him. So I did some AfD's. As for 'why' you care, I don't know, curiosity? Sertrel 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas

Please see my comment there. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miloslav Schmidt

Although the article is currently a very small stub, it does assert notability. Considering that the author, User:Peterret, has added several articles that deal with famous Mošovce residents, I think that the contribution was made in good faith and has potential for expansion. Jaranda's deletion was not improper, this is just a difference of opinion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Tonight

I figured it was easier just to undelete the old versions in the article itself. As you can see, not much has changed. Not really sure where to go from here, but I think an AfD is more definitive than a speedy deletion (since honestly they stretched the criteria quite a bit). --W.marsh 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4

Re: Rizwaan Latif. The rules on G4 have been tightened a bit (or clarified), and the tag is only supposed to be used on articles that were AFD'ed, not just previously speedied. The reasoning is that a new article may have information the first one didn't. So the speedy criteria need to be examined freshly on each version. Fan-1967 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Kolender v. Lawson

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kolender v. Lawson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kolender v. Lawson is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kolender v. Lawson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]