62.216.117.62 (talk) |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnoPath Software: new section |
||
Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion|Those horse articles...}} |
{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion|Those horse articles...}} |
||
[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnoPath Software]] == |
|||
For not noticing that the nominator had withdrawn before relisting :) |
|||
{{trout}} |
|||
--[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:37, 15 May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Make it better; do an FA review. ( ) |
Admin coaching
Hi there! Wadester16's RfA finished today, so do you have a slot open for another student (or coachee)? The project is pretty inactive, so I would've registered myself there, but everyone else is overbooked. And congratulations on a successful student. =) AvN 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! I'm on my way out here, so I'm not logged in, but I'll be back in about 20 hours.
- Thanks for the opportunity. -AvN
- 122.162.176.133 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
1966 Pacific hurricane season
I created the article a long time ago but the creation history is at User:Anhamirak/PSOTD. Could you merge the history to the 1966 Pacific hurricane season?
Thanks --Anhamirak 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed that you deleted the article after an expired prod. I found out about the deletion at WikiProject Wisconsin. I looked him up on google, and I do find reliable sources, especially from the Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame [1]. Would you consent to me restoring the page and adding reliable sources to the page? He probably meets WP:MUSIC criteria 6. "member of two or more independently notable ensembles" and maybe 7. "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" but should definitely meet the general notability criteria of multiple reliable sources (1.). Royalbroil 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When closing deletion requests, you should actually be reading what is said not just counting the votes as you can only have done in this case based upon the the speed of your edits. As Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators explains, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)". If you look at the two delete votes you should see that the first one is really just an "other stuff exists" argument and the second one, or at least the particular suggestion about notable awards has been shown to be questionable. I have to admit to not having a huge amount of experience regarding closing AfD's though but perhaps relisting to allow the discussions to continue and hopefully more editors to contribute would have been the better option. Adambro (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I keep track of nearly every AfD throughout their seven day discussion periods, which allows for me to close them efficiently when appropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleated Artikel WILHELM OTTERMANNS
Dear Julian, You have been deleted the artikel WILHELM OTTERMANNS. May i please you to notice that not all knowledge of mankind can be found at wikipedia and google. Persons, their work e.t.c. should be treatet with respect, even if they are not found a hundreds of time at google inbecause google is not the nonplusultra of relevanty. However, if you would have been interested in finding pictures of Wilhelm Ottermanns you could have made a research for it. There are other ways of researche than wiki and google intern. Even here you could have found pictures: http://www.romkerhall.net/ukAtelier-Willi-Ottermanns.htm You would have become the possibility to make further research by contact the grandson, There are not all pictures to be seen, such as the political stored at archive by the family. However, erverybody can delete, deform, manupulate at wikipedia at anytime. For that reason i have to ask mysef if working on wikipedia makes any sens (for me) at all. But i have to say that pointing out that i have repect for those who have a serious interest in their, as well as OTHERS artikels. It is up to you. Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.33.37 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review of Bridge_to_Terabithia_(2007_film)
I have started the GA review of Bridge_to_Terabithia_(2007_film) here, but am not sure whether it can be promoted to a good article. Can you please help me out here? Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 09:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am passing the article as GA. I had my doubts since I have seen the film and the details included in the article were sometimes trivial. But at any rate, I too realized that it was okay. Thanks for helping me. Happy editing. Pmlinediter Talk 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pmlinediter Talk 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please move Perseus Jackson (character) to Percy Jackson (character) per WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 10:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of WP:PJTF)
- Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Template talk:GFDL-presumed
G8 explicitly exempts "any page that is useful to the project." This page contains alot of the discussion about the deprecation, and is probably linked from other pages. Could you please restore it? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
IP:78.188.21.157
Hi. This IP user:78.188.21.157 makes unconstructive edits (vandalisms) on t.A.T.u.. He/she made more than 10 edits today. More than 4 warnings have been given to this IP and yet he/she makes unconstructive edits. I gave him/her a final warning, but still, continues with edits on t.A.T.u.. I would recommend a block. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnston AfD
This should be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit.
Please, no. Don't doom WP to a replay of this. I do take the point you're making here, but could you perhaps consider adjusting the emphasis, if only by changing "should" to "may"?
[No need to reply anywhere.] -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
G11
I declined a G11 on Homestead Bicycles; you put it back. That's either wheel -warring or very close to it. Please revert it and reopen the AfD and let it run to the end. I am not sure the article should be kept, but it does not meet the speedy requirements, for it might be possible to rewrite it. I had already begun doing so. DGG (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't re-add the G11 tag, I simply closed the AfD per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- right, I should have been more specific, TPH put it back, which he has no right to do, and you abetted him in it. One does not make a snow close if an ed in good faith opposes. I had said in the discussion it was not a speedy. Amounts to the same thing. I've decided to let it rest, because the article isn't worth it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, alright. I restored the page and re-opened the AfD. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- right, I should have been more specific, TPH put it back, which he has no right to do, and you abetted him in it. One does not make a snow close if an ed in good faith opposes. I had said in the discussion it was not a speedy. Amounts to the same thing. I've decided to let it rest, because the article isn't worth it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Will you please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician), which is filled with many WP:SPA votes? The discussion has run for over 7 days, and I'm tired of having to revert the edits of SPAs who repeatedly remove my comments. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Julian,
could you please undelete this article and make it a re-direct to Foreign relations of Estonia, so the content can be merged? I or someone else will get around to doing the merge eventually, as time permits. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than outright deletion [2]. Re-directs are cheap. Other admins have agreed to this approach, for example see here. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- ditto for Estonia–Thailand relations, thanks. --Martintg (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A couple questions for you...
What are the benefits of a tree structure?
The article doesn't say.
I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).
I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What are the benefits of a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#What are the benefits to humans of using a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#In the humanities, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#With respect to the fields covered by this refdesk, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?
What benefits have you noticed?
How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?
I look forward to your answers on my talk page.
The Transhumanist 04:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like you've received helpful comments at the various refdesks. Personally, I've found outlines to be helpful in terms of organizing boatloads of info that you would otherwise have to trudge through manually; we're a huge encyclopedia, so they certainly make navigation more convenient. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "trudge through manually"? The Transhumanist 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I could have worded that better, but I meant that in, say, United States, you have hundreds of links in no particular order, and it's nearly impossible to find what you want efficiently. Outline of the United States, on the other hand, provides all the links in an organized (and visually appealing) manner. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nice comparison. That helps a lot. Thank you. The Transhumanist 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Another Coachee?
Do you have anymore space for another Coachee? Lemme Know. Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will do so. Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Advice/Opinion?
Hello,
This is sort of in regards to your Levi Johnson close, but really is mostly a general question. You closed it as "keep" and said most of the deletes amounted to "I don't like it" votes. I was expecting it to result in no consensus, which of course would have the same end result.
I was under the impression that fame didn't automatically equate with notability. If it doesn't, it is hard to imagine an individual being famous for less than Levi. Now, perhaps I am just wrong on this point, but I have seen AfDs close as delete for basically that reason - primarily for internet memes and such... So basically the question is, in your opinion should an article ever be deleted if the subject meets the letter of the law (coverage in multiple reliable sources)?
Is there some kind of general consensus about this, or is it strictly a case-by-case basis type of thing?
P.S. don't read anything into this, as I'm just trying to learn here. :)
Thanks, --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- So then, let me make sure I understand. 1) In general fame (and RS coverage) is not always sufficient? 2) It probably is in most cases, but there are exceptions as determined by AfD consensus? 3) In Johnson's case the sheer mass of coverage over a long period of time makes it not a judgment call anymore? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sniperking134
Howdy.
Blocked user, asking for you by name with a helpme. Am just passing the message along. User talk:Sniperking134#Help request. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thx, get well soon. Does make me chuckle tho, as it says you are 'under the weather' directly above the Tropical Cyclone banner :-) Chzz ► 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Levi Johnston
What is the second (or third and fourth, if more than two) event? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You stated in your early closing[3] "The subject's notability clearly goes beyond one event" - what are the other events, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The individual in question is not low-profile (and is unlikely to be for a while), so that policy doesn't apply. Moreover, Johnston's notability is not limited to the initial media craze; he continues to be covered by secondary, reliable sources, as evidenced by Google News results from the past week alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's "not keeping a low profile". That's not "more than one event". I repeat the question: What is the "more than one event"? And if there is none, please rephrase your close to reflect your rationale, which seems to be "is not keeping a low profile" and not, as you put in your closing comment "clearly goes beyond one event". Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than one event because the subject is being covered in reliable sources after the event itself; thus he is no longer notable for the initial event alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, its still one event. He got Bristol Palin pregnant. If there is another event, please name it here. I concur that he has not kept a low profile, but if it is "more than one" event, then it is two or more, and you can name the second event. Please do so, or correct your closing of this Afd, in which you very incorrectly state that "most of the keeps were IDONTLIKEITS". They were not, they were using the point I have made here. I am not challeging your early close, mind you, but I am asking for accuracy in your comments. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct; he got Bristol Palin pregnant. His fame grew over subsequent weeks and months, and as a result he was extensively covered in thousands of reliable sources. Therefore, his notability is not limited to one event. Also, I didn't say most of the delete votes were IDONTLIKEIT—I said some of them bordered on IDONTLIKEIT. That said, I still feel my close was accurate. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, its still one event. He got Bristol Palin pregnant. If there is another event, please name it here. I concur that he has not kept a low profile, but if it is "more than one" event, then it is two or more, and you can name the second event. Please do so, or correct your closing of this Afd, in which you very incorrectly state that "most of the keeps were IDONTLIKEITS". They were not, they were using the point I have made here. I am not challeging your early close, mind you, but I am asking for accuracy in your comments. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than one event because the subject is being covered in reliable sources after the event itself; thus he is no longer notable for the initial event alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's "not keeping a low profile". That's not "more than one event". I repeat the question: What is the "more than one event"? And if there is none, please rephrase your close to reflect your rationale, which seems to be "is not keeping a low profile" and not, as you put in your closing comment "clearly goes beyond one event". Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The individual in question is not low-profile (and is unlikely to be for a while), so that policy doesn't apply. Moreover, Johnston's notability is not limited to the initial media craze; he continues to be covered by secondary, reliable sources, as evidenced by Google News results from the past week alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You stated in your early closing[3] "The subject's notability clearly goes beyond one event" - what are the other events, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gonna ask a third time - just name one more event. What is the second event? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Julian didn't bring this up but this edit to an unrelated AFD caused the Levi Johnson AFD to be accidentally transcluded on the log for the 7th. When he closed it it's likely that he thought it had run for 7 days. That being said, from a quick glance at the discussion in question, it looks like their was plenty of participation and plausible arguments on both sides. A "keep" or "no consensus" close was reasonable but if it were me, I would have reopened it and let it run the other 2 days considering how close it was. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I intentionally closed it early, as it was fast becoming diluted with off-topic fluff; by the time I had closed it, the discussion wasn't going anywhere exceptionally productive. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- And I have already noted I am not taking issue with the early closure, the decision, nor the assertion that the article fails BLP1E, at least due to not keeping a low profile - my question is very narrow, and has yet to be answered. You say "more than one" and I say, please name at lest one more event beyond the relationship with Bristol Palin. thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I previous noted, the number of specific events is irrelevant in this case. However, Ottava answered your question in detail – most notably, his participation at the convention is a separate event. The custody/relationship issues are a separate event, as well. As is the controversy related to this statement. I don't think any of us are particularly fond of the manner in which Johnston became notable, but he is indeed notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- And I have already noted I am not taking issue with the early closure, the decision, nor the assertion that the article fails BLP1E, at least due to not keeping a low profile - my question is very narrow, and has yet to be answered. You say "more than one" and I say, please name at lest one more event beyond the relationship with Bristol Palin. thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- So you are saying that he was at the convention due to his own merit? Not because of his relationship to the Palins? I must say I disagree strongly. There is no indication Johnston is a notable Republican in any way, not even to the lowest level it would take for him to participate in the convention. Are you seriously saying he was there for some other reason? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did say that; I said it was a contributing factor. It seems that for the time being, we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps a discussion at DRV would yield some useful outside views? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Drv would be exceeingly pointless, as I am not arguing the decision, nor disputing it. I am asking you to explain a statement you made, which you either fail to understand the question or you are ignoring it. What is the second event? You say convention; I ask do you think that is something which has nothing to do with his relationship? and you say (if I understand you correctly) that "it was a contributing factor" - is that an answer to that question? Please be clear, I beg of you. Are you saying that Johnston was at the Republican convention on his own merit and not due to his relationship with the Palins? And if he was at the convention due to his relationship with the Palins, then what is the "second event"? I am interested only in your view, as the closing admin who stated "clearly more than one event". Thanks, KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do indeed understand your question, and I've answered it several times. Though his initial fame was derived from one event, there has been sufficient media coverage since then to propel his notability beyond that single event; including, but not limited to, his participation at the convention, regardless of how he got there. Still, I emphasize upon "not limited to" because there have been other events, which I explained above. To summarize, his relationship with Bristol Palin was most certainly not limited to one event. That he was Tripp's father is the most significant event, yes, but then you have to take into account the controversy that surrounded it, and the subsequent personal issues. So we're already up to three specific events. I'd be happy to elaborate further if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- apologies, but I have not seen where you have answered it with enough clarity to be sure I understood your meaning, and I appreciate you rephrasing to ensure I do. If I understand you correctly, your position is that the definition of "one event' in your view is that the relationship with the Palins can be broken down into sub-events, yes? I believe you understand that my view is that all of the "events" - the convention, appearance on Oprah, etc - are merely details of the One event, namely, his relationship with the Palins (due to his involvement with Bristol Palin.) Do you see any errors in my synopsis? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's true to an extent, though I don't believe it's a matter of individual events in this case, and this belief stems from my interpretation of BLP1E. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which leaves me with my original confusion regarding yoru remarks... I imagine you're getting tired of this, but if you are not so sick of this subject you want to just bury it with a stake in its heart, would you please explain what you mean by it not being "a matter of individual events"? Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's true to an extent, though I don't believe it's a matter of individual events in this case, and this belief stems from my interpretation of BLP1E. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- apologies, but I have not seen where you have answered it with enough clarity to be sure I understood your meaning, and I appreciate you rephrasing to ensure I do. If I understand you correctly, your position is that the definition of "one event' in your view is that the relationship with the Palins can be broken down into sub-events, yes? I believe you understand that my view is that all of the "events" - the convention, appearance on Oprah, etc - are merely details of the One event, namely, his relationship with the Palins (due to his involvement with Bristol Palin.) Do you see any errors in my synopsis? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do indeed understand your question, and I've answered it several times. Though his initial fame was derived from one event, there has been sufficient media coverage since then to propel his notability beyond that single event; including, but not limited to, his participation at the convention, regardless of how he got there. Still, I emphasize upon "not limited to" because there have been other events, which I explained above. To summarize, his relationship with Bristol Palin was most certainly not limited to one event. That he was Tripp's father is the most significant event, yes, but then you have to take into account the controversy that surrounded it, and the subsequent personal issues. So we're already up to three specific events. I'd be happy to elaborate further if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Drv would be exceeingly pointless, as I am not arguing the decision, nor disputing it. I am asking you to explain a statement you made, which you either fail to understand the question or you are ignoring it. What is the second event? You say convention; I ask do you think that is something which has nothing to do with his relationship? and you say (if I understand you correctly) that "it was a contributing factor" - is that an answer to that question? Please be clear, I beg of you. Are you saying that Johnston was at the Republican convention on his own merit and not due to his relationship with the Palins? And if he was at the convention due to his relationship with the Palins, then what is the "second event"? I am interested only in your view, as the closing admin who stated "clearly more than one event". Thanks, KillerChihuahua?!? 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I did say that; I said it was a contributing factor. It seems that for the time being, we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps a discussion at DRV would yield some useful outside views? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I intentionally closed it early, as it was fast becoming diluted with off-topic fluff; by the time I had closed it, the discussion wasn't going anywhere exceptionally productive. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- My job in closing the AfD was to judge consensus, and that's exactly what I did. As such my views and beliefs are irrelevant. I have my own opinion, but the general agreement is that Levi Johnston is notable enough for inclusion within Wikipedia. There's nothing more to it, I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, well aware of the job of a closing admin, and as I've said numerous times already, I am not disagreeing with your decision, only trying to understand a comment you made. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've explained myself several times, so I'm just throwing at various ideas at this point. Perhaps we can get an outside view? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, well aware of the job of a closing admin, and as I've said numerous times already, I am not disagreeing with your decision, only trying to understand a comment you made. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate the chat which cleared things up for me, and also kudos for your rephrasing which will hopefully prevent anyone else from coming knocking on your door, puzzled as I was. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Another view
- I think KC is mistaking event for one set of actions. WW2, for example, was not one event but her definition would make it seem like one. The interview on Oprah, for example, is a separate event. Going to the convention is a separate event. The birth of the child is a different event than the impregnation. Their separation is a separate event. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Ottava, if I wanted your opinion, I'd have asked on your talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the community's discussion and this is a community based area. It is clear that you misunderstood the notability requirements as pointed out above. Now, there is no reason for you to respond in such an incivil manner, especially when they were directed to -Julian- on -his- talk page. Perhaps you should strike your comments as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am asking the closing admin to explain his comment. I am not interested in your opinion. I am not interested in anyone else's opinion, because I am asking for clarification of one person's remark, and only that person knows what was in his head. There is no incivility in this whatsoever. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- His comments were very blatant. You didn't accept him. As I pointed out, the mistake was not with him. Did you read the page that you quoted by chance? I think you missed this line: "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate". So, even if you were right, you are still wrong. And expressing that you don't want to hear from others is rather rude, which is the definition of incivility. If you are unwilling to hear from all viewpoints, then there is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am asking the closing admin to explain his comment. I am not interested in your opinion. I am not interested in anyone else's opinion, because I am asking for clarification of one person's remark, and only that person knows what was in his head. There is no incivility in this whatsoever. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the community's discussion and this is a community based area. It is clear that you misunderstood the notability requirements as pointed out above. Now, there is no reason for you to respond in such an incivil manner, especially when they were directed to -Julian- on -his- talk page. Perhaps you should strike your comments as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Ottava, if I wanted your opinion, I'd have asked on your talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Wind Turbine Syndrome
Hello Juliancolton
While doing research I came across the deletion log for Wind Turbine Syndrome. Could you possibly clarify why this wiki page was selected for deletion?
Best Regards grdoorguy
05-14-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grdoorguy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings
I'd like to ask about this file "tarkin 10.jpg" whether it has been deleted or moved. It would be nice to have it in the article of Peter Cushing. Thank you :) --62.216.117.62 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, it was "tarkin10.jpg". So without a space. --62.216.117.62 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can it be found..? --62.216.117.62 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort
For future reference, it is considered inappropriate to attempt to use your experience as an admin to support your own argument. See WP:5EVIL, specifically pillar #4. a little insignificant 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had no intention of doing so; I only mentioned my position in the interest of full disclosure. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. Sorry for being so harsh. What I mean is that when supporting the temporary cease of AfDs, you stated only your experience and gave no specific reason for supporting it. a little insignificant 01:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
NPWatcher Request
Hi Julian, sorry to nag you but I put in arequest for NPWatcher several days ago and could really use it. Thanks and get well soon,--Skater (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you consider ...
Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY restoration ... it was deleted during an active discussion by speedy. It is a legitimate link to an essay I am invoking, and the opposition has nominated it and it was speeded, and now appears as a red link in those discussions --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This is already at DRV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Your RfA
Thank you! FlyingToaster 07:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
GAN/M
Hi Julian! I have just finished my first GAR, and was wondering if you would mind giving a 2O on my review and my decision to put it on hold. Thanks in advance! decltype (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. Oh, and I didn't see that you were feeling "under the weather", if I did I would have asked somebody else. Again, thanks. decltype (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
request for relist and undeletion-Optimal Thinking
Deletion review for Optimal Thinking
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Optimal Thinking. 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. Newthoughtguy (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you...
There was this title but no comment so I decided to occupy it. Thank you for your help :) --62.216.117.62 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk
FWIW, I hope you feel better soon. — BQZip01 — talk 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
For not noticing that the nominator had withdrawn before relisting :)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)