Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs) |
Nineteen Nightmares (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
I understand the concern on this, with all of the socks involved, but could you take another look at this? If you remove the votes of the socks, you are left with what appears to me to be a 'no consensus' decision. Three users were for deletion (Orangemike, Nineteen Nightmares, and Daniel Case). By the same token, there were three for keep (DDG, GregJackP, Minor4th) - with a fourth if you include the puppetmaster (Dmartnaus). At the least, I would request that it be re-listed. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
I understand the concern on this, with all of the socks involved, but could you take another look at this? If you remove the votes of the socks, you are left with what appears to me to be a 'no consensus' decision. Three users were for deletion (Orangemike, Nineteen Nightmares, and Daniel Case). By the same token, there were three for keep (DDG, GregJackP, Minor4th) - with a fourth if you include the puppetmaster (Dmartnaus). At the least, I would request that it be re-listed. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:See request above, I just opened a DRV on this case due to the unusual circumstances of the AfD.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
:See request above, I just opened a DRV on this case due to the unusual circumstances of the AfD.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment''' Baloonman, please note that Minor4th and GregJackP have also been suspicisouly behind keeping this article intact and I have wondered why it is so important to them. Please go back and review the discussions on this stuff thoroughly. Also, as a punitive measure, Minor4th has nominated the first article I started here, [[Valley Entertainment Monthly]] for AfD. Odd timing, really. Why? And why are both of them so concerned the article be retained? What is the real value to ''Wikipedia?'' It does not make any sense. As I suspected socks before anyone else and was banned for a day for suggesting it, I think its safe for me to assume both of these editors are possibly meat puppets of some kind for Donald G. Martin of Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas. It would be nice to know why they are so entrenched in regards to retaining what amounts to a piece of junk mail. [[User:Nineteen Nightmares|Nineteen Nightmares]] ([[User talk:Nineteen Nightmares|talk]]) 06:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares |
|||
::Thanks - missed that until I had already posted this. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
::Thanks - missed that until I had already posted this. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*I'm sure that part of my wanting the article restored is directly and proportionally related to the time and effort I put into arguing with socks during the editing of the article. :D In any event, I appreciate your efforts on this - and if the DRV results in an 'endorse', I'll just go back to working on my latest GA effort. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
*I'm sure that part of my wanting the article restored is directly and proportionally related to the time and effort I put into arguing with socks during the editing of the article. :D In any event, I appreciate your efforts on this - and if the DRV results in an 'endorse', I'll just go back to working on my latest GA effort. Regards, [[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] ([[User talk:GregJackP|talk]]) 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:31, 19 June 2010
Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine. |
|
Quicklinks |
---|
Other Excellent articles on CSD |
{{Talkback|Balloonman|RE: }}
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | 196 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 00:35, 15 June 2024 | 3 hours | no | report |
Deletion Review for Buck Humphrey
Hi Balloonman, I plan to take Buck Humphrey through deletion review based on his national exposure and press coverage. Eudemis (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"discuss the matter with the deleting administrator" I understood what you were stating in your summary. I have the impression that people were put off by the added media attention he receives as the grandson of Hubert. I believe his role in the democratic party locally and nationally and his coverage in a very large number of reliable secondary sources, whatever the reason, satisfies WP:Politician: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Eudemis (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I don't take it personally and it is always possible (although unlikely) that I can make mistakes ;-) I will, however, stand by my decision to delete. While he is oft mentioned in the articles provided, there was very little about the man himself. It was always in relationship to others that he was being mentioned.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Buck Humphrey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Buck Humphrey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eudemis (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Baloonman. Can we rename the above article to Donald G. Martin rather than use the name of his business as the title of the article? This is how they disambiguate individuals in academia (by middle initial) and there is no reason we can't do the same here to avoid two conflicting titles. Another editor and the subject himself have both said they favor this as well. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- I have no problems with that.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would you be the one to do it? It seems the more admin activity we have on this one the better. The subject is clearly upset about the way a Wikpedia article is vetted and I think we should show him we are doing things as a group and not as individuals. Thanks for your patience! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- Done, I also created a dab, there were a lot of Don MArtins out there.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would you be the one to do it? It seems the more admin activity we have on this one the better. The subject is clearly upset about the way a Wikpedia article is vetted and I think we should show him we are doing things as a group and not as individuals. Thanks for your patience! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- Thanks, Baloonman!
. .
- Disclosure: This is Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I appreciate the name change as the way it was before did indeed raise questions. The previous name Don Martin (public affairs) was created by another major editor, Orangemike, not me even though Nightmare thinks I nefariously named it that way in order to advertise my company. See edit below In fact I vocally and strenously supported the new name change and challenged Nightmare to please change it.
- 15:25, 4 June 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) m (14,349 bytes) (moved Don Martin (Austin, Texas) to Don Martin (public affairs): naming conventions)
- Based on comments from Nightmare above and below, I feel compelled one more time to say that the reason for the difficult edits is not just me. I have been difficult, I admit, but I have made NO edits whatsoever. Substantial, long-time editors like GregJackP and Minor4th are the primary ones who reverted Nightmares edits. The reason is simple: Nightmare has continued, as far as I can ascertain, to simply "make up" so-called facts to support his own purposes in killing the page (he has so stated that his purpose is to "kill the page") presumably I am guessing because he disagreed with the Afd decision. His edits are nearly all incorrect and needed correcting. Here are a few examples:
- Questioned (very rudely) if the "Austin" book was really a book, and whether I was really it's author. Called it a "just a book of pretty pictures" and questioned if I had gotten paid for the use of the postcards and not as an author (when he could have easily done a Google search of Arcadia Publishing to get the answers to all of those questions). I even provided my book editor's name and phone number to him but he did not follow up.)
- Accused the book of being "just a a vanity book" and that vanity books "often" appear on Amazon. The book is in fact listed on ALL major on-line bookstores as well as from a very legitimate publisher (they are NOT a vanity press), Arcadia Publishing.
- Said that my company (Don Martin Public Affairs) did not belong on an article about Don Martin, and that I was "purposefully gaming Wikipedia for advertising." Seems to me that it would be hard to write any article on an individul without mentioning the name of his company. Especially so in my case.
- Told me that there was "Wikipedia policy" against listing clients in the article (I provided numerous examples of other consultant articles with clients listed). Also said the list of clients was "exhaustive" when in fact it is far less than 10% of the clients listed on my web site.
- Said I was essentially "advertising to sell land" re the real estate project I did and implied that it was not significant to the article (It is in fact the second largest mixed-use project in the Austin metro area at approximately 5 MILLION square feet, and is financed by Texas billionaire Ed Bass . But more importantly, it was completed in 2008 and there is nothing to sell!
- Questioned whether I was the "co-developer" of La Frontera and changed that language to diminish that title, when EVERY article on the subject in fact lists me as the co-developer with my long-time development partner Bill Smalling. See La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas)
- Blatantly questioned the references to almost all of the article-based references and said the "they don't even mention Martin's name at all!" The articles are from major daily newspapers and the like who use paid archives, so he could not have actually read the articles without a subscription. So to assist all the editors I downloaded, at my expense, the full text of EVERY article referenced and posted them on a dedicated web site for anyone to examine. 100% of them deal significantly with Martin (i.e., "me"), and not as mere "mentions," either. http://www.wikipedia-article-verification.com
- Has repeatedly said the article subject is not notable. (see below)
- Removed references by telling me that we only one reference per item is needed and that there are too many references anyway, so "not to worry." However User:Sarah told me we need MULTIPLE secondary, credible, published refernces to help establish notability. (PS- I have now posted many more freference articles to the web site as well).
- Removed the reference entirely to a significant bio item about a newsletter I published Texas Government Newsletter
- Lastly he showed an new interesting bias when he wrote on GregJackP's talk page that the article is "a 'PR pump' vanity piece used to promote a private business and one that helps corporations alter the public mood to allow for development." (Apparently he is against development?)
- I could give many more examples, both large and small, where his edits are simply not factual. Since this is an article affects my business reputation, I am of course VERY concered about it being factual. Hence his assertion that "the subject is clearly upset." He's absolutely right on that count. (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the website with the articles (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Reference Articles | All articles are available on-line at click here |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For coming to the rescue of the article Donald G. Martin in regards to renaming it quickly by request amidst a sea of contentious editors and even the subject himself all getting their collective underwears in bunches. You are awesome, man! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares |
AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin
An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
Baloonman, this nom had nothing to do with not liking the decision to keep it. I have spent countless hours trying to clean this article up with language constantly reverted back. I'd appreciate if you would look into this a little deeper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- You'll want to see this one too: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_G._Martin_(2nd_nomination) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- if there is edit war going on, then there are ways to handle that. I'll take a look at it, but generally any afd nomination within a month of the previous nomination will be closed and could be seen as disruptive. I looked over the afd again, and this one wasn't close, I don't know if I would have !voted to keep, but this one was an easy keep. Again, if you are having problems afd is not the avenue to take.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect
Thank you for not taking the easy way out with a "no concensus" finding on the AfD debate. I read your reasoning for determining "keep", which was well thought out and presented, and I agree with your assessment (not that it matters). I think there has been a tendancy in the past toward vote tallying without giving thought to the points raised in the discussion. I should end this before I start to ramble, so I'll finish by saying: Good call. Movementarian (Talk) 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with those sentiments. Well done, and nice to see a competent administrator! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Add another thanks to the list. I'll still disagree with it, but your reasoning was throrough, well documented and still managed to be concise given the amount of comments! Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- That was a model close. Thanks for taking the time to look at it carefully and review the facts and arguments. (I apologize for a little too much repetition in my comments there.) Every time a closing admin does a good job at closing, I think it influences other admins to do a good job in future closings. You may never know exactly what future closes you've influenced, but I'm certain that will be the effect (we could call it "The Balloonman Effect"). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks... when I close something, unless I think it is uber-obvious, I try to explain my rationale. (I do that largely because if I am challenged down the road, I want to be able to see why I closed something the way I did. If I am closing something that I know is going to be potentially contentious, which I know this one can be, I want people to know that it wasn't done spur the moment or without thought. My hope is that by demonstrating that I did put thought into it, that it lets "the other side" know that I did consider their position/argument and WHY I came down where I did.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice job. I'm probably a bit biased, as a Keep vote, but you echoed many of my thoughts. I was jokingly considering telling every sysop they should weigh in at the AfD, if only so that they would have cover for not doing the close. I half wondered if there were straws chosen, with you getting the short one. Of course, the kudos from someone on the other side of the ledger as above, is the strongest evidence you nailed it, but I think JWB's point, "model close" is also on target.--SPhilbrickT 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For actually reading all the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect, and closing based on the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
In your closing you did not mention the fact that numerous commentators at the AfD had brought up about the fact that about a third of the (and generally more reliable) sources in the article were discussing a use of the phrase in a different manner than the supposed effect that Gore's appearance has on lowering local temperatures. Did that enter your decision process at all? Active Banana (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes---The_Gore_Effect#Other_use_of_the_phrase, and that would be a place wherein I would expect those who have a differing view on the term to step forward and ensure that those different usages are covered.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Modifications to Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect
Hi. I am bringing this to your attention as you were the closing admin. I would have reverted it myself, but it isn't nonsensical vandalism and I'm not too comfortable dealing with it because it feels like there might by a larger issue. Comments were added to the AfD after it was closed claiming that one of the users quoted in your summation was a sock puppet or something and it really feels like there is a grudge against another user in there. If you could look into and do as you see fit, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Movementarian (Talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the edit is fine. The user in question was NOT quoted by me in my closing statement and was blocked as a Sockpuppet of Scibaby. Making notes like this on blocked socks is not uncommon and whether or not this particular person was a sock really doesn't impact the conclusions. It probably would not have impacted the result if it had been one of the two people whom I explicitly cited, but if it had been it might have opened the door to re-evaluate the close. As this is just one of 44 keep !votes, it has no real bearing.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I didn't go back and check myself before posting, you see I was a bit distracted as the South African goalkeeper had just received a red card, but I digress. Thanks for pointing out my error and taking the time to look into it. Cheers. Movementarian (Talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
World Series of Poker Casino Employee Championship
-(Spoiler Alert) ;) Just a head-ups a World Series of Poker Casino Employee Championship has won an open event winning his 2nd bracelet. -▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As the closing admin on the relevant AfD you redirected Pathfinder Platoon to 16 Air Assault Brigade in accordance with the majority view. This is now disputed by an editor who in the past has been sanctioned for his behaviour around the Pathfinder Platoon article and a small number of others. Can you take a look please?
TIA
ALR (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I made a comment on the talk page and if the reversions continue, I will protect the page. The verdict at AFD supporting the merge was pretty clear cut.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I put this on Ty's page, thought you might like to read it since you make a mistake and it is covered in the text.
" Ty, yeah, I messed that whole thing up. I thought Sarah (another editor) wanted it proposed again, and when "jessi0421" showed up reverting all the old sales language back to the sales language that had been removed, I went ahead and nommed it because I figured it would just be a constant battle to keep the article neutral and encyclopedic, which is exactly what is happening. I believe the subject of the article himself is using friends, family, whomever, to vote "keep" and any of a number of other shenanigans. It often happens when a "new" editor pops up out of nowhere, and restores or creates language favoring the subject, often with the obvious intent of gaining free advertising and linking via Wikipedia. The guy has his personal business and commercial real estate development company's sales sites listed as External Links one and two. I figured one of you supes would have figured it out by now, but I'm done shouting from the rooftops over it.
Let's look at the facts:
Me: seeing a Wikipedia discussion for an AfD and randomly joining in. I don't know the subject of any of the principal editors. Discover a nest of WP:COI and WP:NPOV violators obviously doing everything in their power to control the article down to the n'th degree and accusing anyone who questions anything of engaging in personal attacks and a lot of other nonsense that would be easy to refute point by point, but for some reason we don't do it that way. In any case, I spent a good two weeks trying to fight the good fight, let people know what was going on, etc., meanwhile a group of editors obviously working with the subject or for him accuse me of all kinds of miscreance and effectively get me banned for a day by making up lies about my behavior that goes uninvestigated.
The proponents of Donald G. Martin: Constantly reporting anyone who makes any attempt at removing biased language or sales literature from the article to supervisors for "disrutive edits." Claim that all the language in the article has been reached by concensus and that it can't be changed. I was even challenged to "take it to the discussion board" before I made a grammatical correction. Get that? No content change, just correcting some grammar. I mean, did we fall down the rabbit hole here or what?
Bottom line: the article should be deleted. I said it before and I'll say it again if necessary. It is a fluff piece on a non-notable person who developed some real estate and sits on some corporate or charity boards. Oh yeah, he's also an "author" as he published a collection of his own postcards. As for the article being kept, I think that was engineered by the subject but I went along with keeping it and tried to clean it up. Almost within a day, the sales data from the large commercial/business development that the subject has down in Texas was restored. I was accused of wanting to sink the article. I do. But I respected the decision to keep. My intent was not, as Balloonman mistakenly assumed, to try and delete it because I "didn't like the decision." On the contrary, it was proposed because it should have been deleted in the first place and through some shenanigans, the subject and others working with him managed to save it from AfD by canvassing for people to join in.
P.S. There have also been obvious socks, bogus accounts and masks used by this crew to make sure the Hero of American Industry, Donald G. Martin, is properly shown to be a proper combination of Abe Lincoln, Donald Trump and Ernest Hemingway.
But I'm leaving for a while. I tried. Have fun, kids"
Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
Given the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus, perhaps you might wish to reconsider your close of the above AfD? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will DEFINITELY review it... probably won't get to see it until this evening. Right now, my kids are still up, so anything I is more or less thought free.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Balloonman. I came here to suggest the same thing since there's now evidence that about half the users involved in that discussion were socks of the article subject. There's no rush, though, so please take your time and enjoy your kids. :) Cheers, Sarah 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- deleted---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Cheers, Sarah 04:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- deleted---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Balloonman. I came here to suggest the same thing since there's now evidence that about half the users involved in that discussion were socks of the article subject. There's no rush, though, so please take your time and enjoy your kids. :) Cheers, Sarah 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The nice thing about all of this is that I don't have to shift through all of the edits and comments and allegations that were posted on my page like I thought I was going to!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've done a rough edit at User:Tyrenius/M removing sock puppet comments with a summary of !votes from editors in good standing, which is:
- Keep GregJackP (talk)
- Keep GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
- Keep Minor4th (talk)
- Keep DGG ( talk )
- Deletion questioned. C.Fred (talk)
- Keep (subject of article) Dmartinaus (talk)
- Delete (as nom) Orange Mike | Talk
- Delete Nineteen Nightmares (talk)
- Delete Daniel Case (talk)
The consensus is not for deletion (and the subject favours retaining the article). It would be unfair on legitimate editors if their voice was not heard, because of the loud noise from socks. Would you consider restoring the article and running a fresh AfD, which could be conducted properly?
Ty 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, but I went ahead and started a DRV To see if others concurred with my decision.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Another problematic article
Hi Balloonman, thanks for your work on the Donald Martin article (which I peer reviewed). I checked La Frontera (Round Rock, Texas) and it is almost entirely written by sock or meatpuppets of you know who - see here. Although it may be notable, the article reads more like a promotional brochure and is full of extraneous promotional details. I was considering AfDing it, but wanted to ask your opinion. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- looks like Sarah got to it before I did, but I was probably going to do the same thing. People who use socks and then pretend that they have to be convinced by one of the socks, don't get long leashes in my book.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Request for Review of AfD - Don Martin (public affairs)
I understand the concern on this, with all of the socks involved, but could you take another look at this? If you remove the votes of the socks, you are left with what appears to me to be a 'no consensus' decision. Three users were for deletion (Orangemike, Nineteen Nightmares, and Daniel Case). By the same token, there were three for keep (DDG, GregJackP, Minor4th) - with a fourth if you include the puppetmaster (Dmartnaus). At the least, I would request that it be re-listed. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- See request above, I just opened a DRV on this case due to the unusual circumstances of the AfD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Baloonman, please note that Minor4th and GregJackP have also been suspicisouly behind keeping this article intact and I have wondered why it is so important to them. Please go back and review the discussions on this stuff thoroughly. Also, as a punitive measure, Minor4th has nominated the first article I started here, Valley Entertainment Monthly for AfD. Odd timing, really. Why? And why are both of them so concerned the article be retained? What is the real value to Wikipedia? It does not make any sense. As I suspected socks before anyone else and was banned for a day for suggesting it, I think its safe for me to assume both of these editors are possibly meat puppets of some kind for Donald G. Martin of Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas. It would be nice to know why they are so entrenched in regards to retaining what amounts to a piece of junk mail. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
- I'm sure that part of my wanting the article restored is directly and proportionally related to the time and effort I put into arguing with socks during the editing of the article. :D In any event, I appreciate your efforts on this - and if the DRV results in an 'endorse', I'll just go back to working on my latest GA effort. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the sox really throw a wrinkle into this... when I first read the AFD, I was leaning towards delete, but decided to let it go as the subject (presumed) supported keeping it and the wave of sox that supported it. I found it to be questionable, but kept it due to the apparent consensus. Well, I'm off to see what the DRV says ;-) Like I said, however it turns out, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, I just wanted to get a second viewing of my close.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Honourable Artillery Company
Hi there the Honourable Artillery Company is going through something of an edit war between two editors, can you semi protect the article or direct me to who can ? Thanks in advance --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- there have only been 3 edits made to the article today and prior to that it was a few weeks ago. Right now it would be premature to semi the article. Plus, when there is only one or two editors involved, it is generally advisable to block specific users if it becomes necessary after the appropriate warnings have been issued. Semi/full protection are generally reserved for when there are multiple editors inovled over an extended series of edits.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)