User talk:HighInBC/Archive 7

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Thanks for the kind words

And fwiw I'm a she. I'd call that a minor point, but certain man in my life would probably disagree. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies, I shall rearrange my neurons accordingly. 1 != 2 07:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Hi there. I noticed your revert on the blocking policy page, and I think I agree (in that I like the addition, but think it needs wider consensus). I started a section on the talk page in question, and was wondering if you'd like to comment. (Or if you think a RFC should be opened). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kick ass, I love it when a dispute of mine turns into a discussion. I will participate. 1 != 2 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Fictional applications of real materials

Your comment at this DRV appears contradictory. You said "Endorse The keep arguments were more in line with policy than the delete arguments. It is not a head count." This would appear to be an "overturn" reasoning, but you may have meant to exchange keep and delete. You might take another look when you're back? Stifle (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for pointing that out. I transposed the words. It was a brain fart on my part. I have repaired the mistake[1]. 1 != 2 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notifications

I did. Thanks for fixing it. When posting outside the mainspace, I generally copyedit my comments directly in the edit window, so I sometimes overlook such errors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

I get frustrated when I try something like that and can't figure out what I am doing wrong. I really appreciate your helping me like that. I consider this kindness important for an editor like me. I've been here for quite awhile but I have problems retaining information, as can been seen at my sandbox with all my reminders. Again, thanks for your help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the person who made the previous post did not close the box he was working in. I had to repair that previous post before yours would work properly. 1 != 2 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, I thought I was doing something wrong like not enough spaces to get away from it. I'll take a look at what you did and give myself a reminder so I remember this in the future. Appreciate you taking the time to explain. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaulim and Uyot

Hi there! You had expressed an opinion on this earlier, so I thought I'd notify you that I took these two articles to AfD. See the following discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaulim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uyot. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jeeny

Hi Until, I've protected Jeeny's talk page becuase it was getting a little silly but I see you've given him one more chance to discuss things in a calm manner. I still think protection is appropriate at this stage, but feel free to unprotect or revert Jeeny's attack if you feel it's should be removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you beat me to it. I had just given a final warning and got reverted and was about to protect myself. Looks like you have taken care of it, I just reverted the protected version to the pre-personal attack version. 1 != 2 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also adjusted the duration to match the duration of her block. She does not have her e-mail disabled, I will make sure she knows the un-block e-mail. 1 != 2 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abruptly cutting off an AfD debate

You deleted Netvouz while the debate was still on-going. 2 of the 4 sources are not blogs, I had just provided a link establishing the authoritativeness of one of them (Leslie Poston; for the other see here); you didn't give any party an opportunity to comment on this. I don't think this is the way how it should go. I hope this will not bother you too much, and I feel a bit guilty in not helping getting rid of the afd backlog... --victor falk 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article read more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedic article. The way it was resembled an advert. The article was about a website that did not make even an assertion of notability and as such was not suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps it can be recreated in an encyclopedic fashion in the future, I don't know, but the existing revisions are no good start for such an article.

The debate went on for a full 5 days, which is how long we let AfDs run before we close them. If you still wish to contest my closing you may do so at WP:DRV, I will not take offense. Or if you prefer we could discuss it further. 1 != 2 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, I'd like to discuss further. First, procedural stuff. It's customary I believe not to close an afd if a discussion is still running its course, even if five days have past. I think drv is a horrendous waste of everybody's time, mine especially among others and last but not least, yours also. Now, to the matter. After I created the article (I took the "features/limitation" format from furl to frame the article in an NPOV manner), someone replaced my (very short) lede with something that to me, seems more or less copypasted from the Netvouz "about" page. I think this is what gave the "advert" feeling. If one thinks it reads like an advert, then tagging it {{ad}} is appropriate, not deleting. What's ironic is that I did so, removing the spam and adding it's a "non-commercial site developed by its creator as a hobby project".

But by then, the discussion had moved on whether sources satisfied wp:rs ans wp:v. At the point at which you closed it, I think the discussion could have been summed up by the following question:Are or are not Leslie Poston and the Kochs reliable and verifiable sources when it comes to matters regarding social bookmarking ^[2]?
I have more to say, but I'd like to hear your opinion on that question before going on.--victor falk 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the debate it is seems that the three other people in the debate did not support the existence of the article for reasons that were in line with Wikipedia's policy. Your rebuttal while thorough simply did not sway consensus. If you think you can recreate the article in a manner that addresses the concerns in the AfD I welcome you to. If you would like the content of the previous article to work with I can e-mail it to you. 1 != 2 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Cavanaugh

You deleted George Cavanaugh based on BLP. I had asked the editor to clarify if the subject was alive, but I don't disagree with your call at all. I'm concerned. however, that the same editor has recently created several articles with similar lack of sourcing on related individuals, some allegedly dead and one allegedly in prison, and has uploaded several photos with US-PD tags. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hdxstunts1 I'm not sure how best to proceed.--agr (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I would deal with this myself if I were not about to go out. I suggest you attempt to explain the BLP policy to this person, and make a post at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding any of the subjects that are still alive.

People who are not alive need to be sourced properly as well, but we do not approuch those articles with the same urgency as we do living people. I suggest WP:AfD for any article about dead people that seem dubious and/or unsourced.

Thanks for letting me know, if it is not resolved by the time I have attention to give I will look into it. 1 != 2 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note on his talk page.--agr (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, lets see where it goes from there. 1 != 2 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colt

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colt (Supernatural), can I ask why you closed as "no consensus" on the strength of two keep votes that didn't address the concerns in the nomination? Thanks, Miremare 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the lack of strength behind the delete argument, not the strength of the keep arguments. One delete vote and a nominator does not a consensus make. The debate was well past the five days they normally run and no consensus had formed. 1 != 2 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the strength of the arguments enters into it as there wasn't really an argument on the keep side. Both articles clearly fail WP:NOT, likely unaddressably, a fact that wasn't mentioned by either keeper. In the case of so few !votes, relisting rather than closing would seem to me to have been the best decision. Cheers, Miremare 16:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My job is to decide consensus, not to decide if the article has appropriate merits. Now while there were some very good points made there was simply not a consensus to judge due to lack of participants. If you disagree you can go to DRV. 1 != 2 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of participants is why I think relisting would have been more appropriate. While I understand that it is not up to you to make a deletion decision based on a judgement of the article's merits, it is still necessaty to make a judgement on the article's merits in order to judge the merits of the arguments. I can't be bothered with DRV and will probably attempt a merge myself. Cheers, Miremare 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a second look, I agree it needs more discussion. I have relisted it at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colt (Supernatural) (2nd nomination). I will notify the participants of the previous AfD about the new listing. 1 != 2 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Miremare 23:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.Net

Would you please, when you get the chance, delete this article that you so correctly closed as delete? :) Thanks so much! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted, but then it was recreated in a manner that addressed the concerns of the AfD and another admin restored the history[3]. 1 != 2 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new flavor of SALT

Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that our free software is still improving. 1 != 2 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.