User talk:Yesenadam
Yesenadam, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Yesenadam! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
May 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Bertrand Russell has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Bertrand Russell was changed by Yesenadam (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.892484 on 2014-05-03T04:20:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it makes very few mistakes. It made 2 with me in my first few edits on here.
Maxwell
The page was last deleted in 2011 due to two deletion discussions (one and two); policy is that pages deleted due to a discussion should not be recreated; if you want to recreate the page you will need to address the reasons it was deleted; if you are interested you can review this page for information on how to go about recreating a page. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Ok thanks, will do. Uh, if you aren't a bot; I'm not sure. Yesenadam (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a bot. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- :-) Ok sorry. Hmm yes thanks, I did read those two pages before I wrote what I wrote. 'To address the reasons' involves assessing whether the judgments made are fair - how can I do this when the page has been deleted?! As far as the PROF vs BIO debate etc. As I've commented, this seems irrelevant to me. Maxwell is clearly notable. I don't need a wikipedia category to tell me that, although I have read a fair bit about the notability criteria etc before. If by the letter of the law he doesn't merit a page, by the spirit of it he clearly does. But I'm in the dark here without being able to see the page that was under discussion, aren't I. Yesenadam (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I obviously don't know anything about the person you are speaking of or the page; I can only suggest that you begin a discussion about the subject. You can request at Requests for undeletion that the deleted page be userfied or emailed to you if you want to improve it; or you can request that the deletion be reviewed at Deletion Review.(You could start that at the Undeletion page first, but I'm not sure it meets the criteria) 331dot (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- :-) Ok sorry. Hmm yes thanks, I did read those two pages before I wrote what I wrote. 'To address the reasons' involves assessing whether the judgments made are fair - how can I do this when the page has been deleted?! As far as the PROF vs BIO debate etc. As I've commented, this seems irrelevant to me. Maxwell is clearly notable. I don't need a wikipedia category to tell me that, although I have read a fair bit about the notability criteria etc before. If by the letter of the law he doesn't merit a page, by the spirit of it he clearly does. But I'm in the dark here without being able to see the page that was under discussion, aren't I. Yesenadam (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a bot. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Oh, that wasn't obvious to me; I thought you did!) Thank you very much for the help, very kind. :-) Yesenadam (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 16 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Candidates Tournament 2016 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)