I have only looked at a few, but the ones I looked at were all offcentered. The highlighted route should be centered in the map. Also a few, didn't need to be replaced, SR 64 and SR 67 were just made and work fine and I have reverted back to the previous versions. -- Holderca1 talk 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be something wrong with this image. The pointer is off to some other county but not the one it's supposed to be at;-) -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC) already archived but not answered yet. Could you please take a look at that? Thx! -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
I've noticed your nice county maps from Arizona and would like to help out. I am interested in working on Texas, and have made maps currently for the southern 9 counties in Texas. For reference, see Brownsville, Texas. I have created these starting in ArcGIS using the newly updated 2007 TIGER shapefiles, then exporting as an svg into Inkscape to add the state map in the upper right hand corner. This is definitely the slow way, but it's the quickest I can do attm, and without the use of a bot. Let me know if you're interested and any suggestions. Thanks! 25or6to4 ( talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sherburne County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Zimmerman Highlighted.svg somehow has the wrong county in the picture. Not sure what to do with it; and I must say, this is the first time that I've observed an error in your thousands of maps. Nyttend ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arkyan. Regarding the recent closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism, I wanted to ask you as the closing admin about the fact that the AfD nomination reasoning was a lack of definition for Hindu terrorism, raising concerns about the possible errorenous inclusion of Hindu nationalism. I believe that as far as wikipedia is concerned the fact that Noam Chomsky concluded that Hindu fundamentalism, extremism, and nationalism are all equal to Hindu terrorism}} Religious Fundamentalism in the Age of Secularism and Globalization by Maria Marczewska-Rytko, p.3 is sufficient to keep the article, regardless of a majority !vote. Might you agree? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi; I like the LDS temple map you updated. However, may I point out that the Curitiba Brazil Temple is colored blue on the map, whereas it should be red since it was dedicated on 1 June 2008. I wasn't sure if I had the skills to fix it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You have merged the article but you haven't deleted the original one. Just reminding you it still needs to be done. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you just deleted the article "What's Up, What's Happening", of which I was the nominator. However, just before the deletion of the page someone added a reliable source from Rolling Stone's website, in which T.I. explicitly says that it was to be "the next single". I had also made some adjustments to the page, but I had forgot about the deletion nom. (thanks to the vandal that removed the template!) Since I'm sure it will be soon re-created, could we just restore the article since it would pass WP:RS? Just asking. Do U(knome)? yes...| or no · 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my RFA. I will certainly try and keep on the track I am now. Thanks again for your comment. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm suprised that you closed this with a keep on the grounds that there was no consensus. By my count, 13 editors voted to delete this article and only 6 voted to keep it, which looks like a consensus to me. Moroever, AfDs are not decided by simple voting, but by the weight of argument and the closing admin's views of the relevant policies, and several keep votes should have been ignored as they were themselves not in line with WP:NOT as they were advocating this article being kept only as the topic may be judged notable sometime in the future (clear cases of WP:CRYSTAL) and you noted that WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here. Could you please reconsider this decision? Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
12 to 6 isn't consensus? thats a very strange rationale i think. A lot of article get deleted by 4 out of 5 or 8 out of 10 deletes, i think there should be a reconsideration, especially since you think the arguments for delete were persuasive and that deletions should be based on the arguments not votes and the blaring lack of an argument to keep. Myheartinchile ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
error on my part, removed comment. Myheartinchile ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning my recommendation for a merge in your closing summary. I would say that you were clearly sympathetic to a delete/merger, as was there a clear consensus for delete. As a Chinese, I understand about 'face', and would point out that you did not need to endorse the close, even if it was your own. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
could you make a map for North Richmond, California based on this map? It would be really easy, North Richmond is the white area on the far left, almost completely surrounded by the red ( Richmond, California) and only bordered by San Pablo, California in grey to the right, this would be awesome, as would one for Dogtown, Marin County, California. Thanks! Myheartinchile ( talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to contribute, and of course, thanks for voting to support :). I'm going to focus on article writing for a bit (less chance to bite) until my exams are finished and i'm relatively stress-free. Ironho lds 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
i was just in the process of expanding it, did you see my rescue tag i put up? I recreated it, have a look, maybe you can help it out somehow. Myheartinchile ( talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with
this edit to
Quahog (Family Guy). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.
Ryan Delaney
talk
20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Recent changes patrol goes fast and sometimes mistakes are made. In the future, a more meaningful edit summary (like the one you used in the end) should prevent confusion. Thanks, -- Ryan Delaney talk 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. No ill will intended. Cheers, -- Ryan Delaney talk 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder - you should leave relevant categories in place when you make an article into a redirect. It is useful to have The Lumberjack listed in the Category:Student newspapers published in the United States, so that readers looking for college papers can find the NAU paper and be redirected to a discussion of it in the NAU article. FCYTravis ( talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You have recently deleted article Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy on the following grounds: "the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best". Actually, all statements in the article were supported by the published cited sources and therefore do not represent OR. At least, no one of this discussion participants was able to provide any specific examples of unsourced statements. Some participants expressed concerns in reliability of the sources. However, all these sources were published books or established newspapers (the newspapers/journals even have their own articles in WP). Furthermore, statements cited in the article were made by several notable experts (we also have WP articles about them). Have any of these "unreliable" sources been discussed at WP:RS noticeboard and decided to be unreliable? No, as far as I know. Could you then please explain what exactly represented original research in this article? Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place. Myheartinchile ( talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it. I had thought i put it in the right place but thanks for fixing it.
Slingshotecity ( talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been listed as a sock puppet. How do i go about getting this removed from my user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sling21012 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you incorrectly closed the AfD on David Graham (Scientologist), closing it prematurely under A7. While the likely result of the discussion would have been delete, the article DID indicate why it was important (see 18,000 hits for '"David Graham" Scientology' on google, and the source that WAS in the article). I still don't think that the article would have met notability requirements, but these are a HIGHER standard than A7. DigitalC ( talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight ( talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I really wasn't sure what the proper procedure was. It's good to have a clearer idea. I'll make note of this from here on out. - Vianello ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That was a really balanced closing message, and I appreciate the opportunity to let interested parties try and salvage some content. I'm not living in some magic land of moonbeams and rainbows, I know some IPC articles can be unsourced crap repositories, but honestly, most of them can be saved with some proper care and attention. Cheers, and thanks. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Shereth,
Sorry if I am causing any problems (confusing you etc.) with my Vandalism fighting - I only started using Huggle today so I am still getting used to it (until now I used VP, so this is a big change).
Thanks to your message I found the correct menu for nominating pages for deletion accordingly.
Again, sorry for any trouble,
Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the status of this article. As sgeureka pointed out in the AfD, Patrick Star, which was the article on this character for years, was legitimately redirected in late November of last year. The page was even protected to keep it as a redirect. The article about Patrick that was the subject of this AfD was created a week ago, in contravention of this. The only article that really should ever be discussed is the main Patrick Star article, as the one in questions is really just a duplicate of a years-old article. In accordance with the consensus I just noted, I have redirected the article to the main show article, to be in line with the Patrick Star article. This is reverted, stating that your closure of the AfD did not mandate redirection. However, AfD is not for merging or redirection, and cannot overrule a merge; this is an editoral process. Since the main Patrick article has been redirected for months with no objection, consensus is therefore needed to unmerge and unredirect a Patrick article. The newly created article should not be its own article at all, regardless of the status of an independent article on Patrick, because it is a duplicate. As I have previous involvement in Spongebob–related articles, I won't use my tools here. I request that you, since you were the one to close the AfD, look into this situation, and ensure that the correct course of action is taken. Thanks. seresin (public computer) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yomin Postelnik. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davewild ( talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am an employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department adding information that is in the public domain to many lakes and other bodies of water within Arizona. I am only copying information from the AZ Game and Fish Deparment. A few other employees are doing the same thing in order to provide more fishing and boating information to the public. Any help in resolving this issue will be appreciated. Scottbulloch ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your consideration. I felt that the articles of the three Gateways rabbis should stand together or merge together -- after the Rietti article debate closed with a decision to merge, I sensed the debates, which were essentially 'one large debate,' were futile. If consensus is that the regulations are to be applied in their strictest sense, I suppose I myself agree that the three personalities do not merit their own articles. Although I do not believe the regulations were applied fairly and I do think each individual merits their own article (based on their notability + merely mildly supported by the fact that other articles that have existed for many, many years feature biographies of much less notable individuals), I do not rule -- consensus does. So, I folded. And since the AfDs had been open for more than 5 days, I figured I'd take the initiative. Thanks for your work and effort -- they were much appreciated! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to post a comment to WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson and ran into an edit conflict with your closure. As you know, the AfD was divided, with 9 Delete comments, 10 Keep comments, and 4 Merge/Redirect. Unless arguments are clear, such a situation should properly close as No Consensus, for Merge comments are a kind of keep, as you noted: some notability, but perhaps not enough for a separate article (and so they are also a kind of delete). Your closure reason stated: the fact that there was a rough split between keep and delete tells me there is some weight to the argument that she is somewhat notable but perhaps not enough for an article - thus merging seems to make the most sense. That is using vote count as if it were an argument, which is not proper. The matter would hinge no the arguments. This is what I didn't post because of the edit conflict, I'll repeat it here for your convenience (I also posted it to Talk for the Upson article, before any editors started merging.)
I urge you to carefully consider what I presented in that comment. If we discount !votes without arguments and those which rested on clearly flawed arguments (such as "failed mayoral candidacy," as if the candidacy alone and the vote record were the justifications for the notability, which includes the nomination), we have not one Delete !vote standing. This subject, as I note in my comment that ran into th edit conflict, did, in fact, receive extensive independent coverage in RS; some of it still stands (enough to serve for an article as brief as the article was), but more clearly exists, see the blog mentioned. For the print sources, all somebody has to do is go to a library that preserves that newspaper. The article could be expanded (the blog contains quotations of articles that might be of value if the original source is confirmed). Much of this, though, violates {WP:UNDUE]] if put in the Ottawa election article, and nobody thought to notify them before the AfD, that merged content like this might be descending on them; yet those who have taken on the Merge task seem to assume that there is a consensus for Merge, see the edit history of the Upson page and Talk for that page.
I'm trusting that you will reverse your decision to what would have been proper, No Consensus or Keep, addressing the arguments themselves instead of !vote counts. This would save us all the trouble of a Deletion Review. (No Consensus would respect all those who !voted for Delete, while Keep would be a decision that confirms what I've been saying: WP:POLITICIAN, far from indicating that the subject is not notable, indicates the opposite: this person received substantial independent RS coverage, starting in 2000. That there is none I could find after that doesn't make her not notable: that's why I said that notability does not expire. The earlier AfD had a very strong Keep consensus, and that may have been due to better availability at the time of the sources, so people did a search and, bang!, there they were. I normally don't even look at blogs in reviewing an AfD, but I decided to look deeper, perhaps a blog referred to something usable. And the one I cited did, indicating, from 2003, that there was wider source than we now might think, from our internet bias.
(I've seen before that an AfD results in a Merge decision without having considered the effect on the target article. I consider Merge results to be a recommendation, not a consensus applicable to the target article, since it didn't have appropriate participation. The biggest problem usually created is undue weight, as properly sourced material from the original article can be too much detail for the target. WP:SUMMARY#Levels of desired details, in fact, suggests that an article be split off if this becomes a problem.) Thanks for your attention to this. -- Abd ( talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, again, for your continued consideration. I did some more research. My suspicion that sources may have been more extensive wasn't exactly speculative, I had quotes from them, but I now have a lot more, see User:Abd/Donna Upson. I do disagree with your assessment of my motives, I'm considering precisely the improvement of the project, and the addition of reliably sourced material on this woman is not appropriate in Ottawa municipal election, 2003. There is lots of stuff I've already found, and more that could be found. In particular, her media attention from 2000 and 2001 isn't in the archive I found, it only starts with 2003. That SPA who !voted was right, it appears, there was CBC coverage. But it isn't needed, I merely mention it to indicate the degree of notability. -- Abd ( talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, this is fine. Generally it is best, if possible, to resolve issues at the lowest level available (consensus of the least number of people distracted from other work on the project). I can't see how I could possibly object to your compromise! (It is, in fact, quite the same as what I was asking for.) There has been work done, in the meantime, to merge the information with the new article, which is relatively harmless (A little extra detail, a little WP:UNDUE is not an emergency by any means.) My opinion is that, in any case, the actual Redirect should have been postponed until the new information was settled in the target article; at that point we know better which is best: merged content or separate content with appropriate reference in summary style, and future AfD !voters could be looking at both options, with fuller references, more able to compare. There may, however, be some objection from those who really wanted Delete. Merge is an option that doesn't require an AfD, actually. All it would take is a consensus of the editors working on Donna Upson and Ottawa municipal election, 2003. My biggest problem is that the AfD made a decision about the Ottawa election article, without consulting the editors of that article. Seeking and finding editorial consensus, in my view, is always better than going for AfD right off the bat. AfDs attract !voters who will vote without actually researching the issue, unfortunately; the AfD process works best if serious attempt has been made, first, to find consensus, so there is an existing debate that can be referred to, and then neutral editors become involved if consensus can't be reached. Thanks again for being willing to reconsider your decision, and, by doing this, you have avoided a big hassle for me. As I wrote, I understand why you decided as you did, it was not unreasonable given what you were presented with. -- Abd ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, GreenJoe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reopened the 3rd AfD nomination of this article, which you closed earlier. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You can bully all you want, but I'm leaving. I refuse to tolerate it anymore. GreenJoe 01:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
While I may have quit, you need to remind Abd to assume good faith. Never in my entire time on Wikipedia, have I ever contributed to an AfD under different names. A checkuser will confirm I am neither of the people he accuses me of being. GreenJoe 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this has now been left dangling, since the page it redirects to is no longer there. Would it be appropriate to delete this as well now? Or does it require a separate discussion? The same applies to List of purported cults (and maybe others?). Cheers, Jayen 466 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Good close, that - quite well-written, on an AFD that I thought would not reach any sort of consensus. Well done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of groups referred to as cults. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. neon white talk 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, never realised I had done that, I had the edit box open for a bit so am surprised it didn't come up with an edit conflict warning, sorry. Davewild ( talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In deleting this, you missed these (as they related to the deleted article). JohnABerring27A ( talk) 08:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi shereth. the reason I chose this username is because I really like The Simpsons and I think Matt Groening is a great person. if this does not satisfy the dispute then I will change my username to something more suitable. Matt groening ( talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Heelo again Shereth. would it be okay if i Changed my username to Matt G or would that still be confusing. please let me know. Matt groening ( talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again shereth. I have just requested that my username be changed. do you know how long i will have to wait for the change, or is there any way I can check the status. Thanks. I have one quick question seeing as we seem to be getting on quite well I hope this isn't too personal but my question is: Matt groening ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)How long have you been a Wikipedian for as you seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia?
I don't really understanding your reasoning for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate as you did. It seems completely arbitrary. The points brought up at both debates should apply to one another, as none of them are specific to bills rather than amendments of bills or vice versa. --- RockMFR 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again shereth, I have had my username changed. Matt G ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I just want to thank you for all your advice and I hope that we can stay in contact through our respective talk pages. Thanks again :)
I am trying to update the coordinates for Stoneman Lake and the coordinates I received from the field officer was missing the seconds. I put the degrees and minutes there until I received the seconds. I just updated the page to include the seconds. Jayba ( talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have only looked at a few, but the ones I looked at were all offcentered. The highlighted route should be centered in the map. Also a few, didn't need to be replaced, SR 64 and SR 67 were just made and work fine and I have reverted back to the previous versions. -- Holderca1 talk 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be something wrong with this image. The pointer is off to some other county but not the one it's supposed to be at;-) -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC) already archived but not answered yet. Could you please take a look at that? Thx! -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
I've noticed your nice county maps from Arizona and would like to help out. I am interested in working on Texas, and have made maps currently for the southern 9 counties in Texas. For reference, see Brownsville, Texas. I have created these starting in ArcGIS using the newly updated 2007 TIGER shapefiles, then exporting as an svg into Inkscape to add the state map in the upper right hand corner. This is definitely the slow way, but it's the quickest I can do attm, and without the use of a bot. Let me know if you're interested and any suggestions. Thanks! 25or6to4 ( talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sherburne County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Zimmerman Highlighted.svg somehow has the wrong county in the picture. Not sure what to do with it; and I must say, this is the first time that I've observed an error in your thousands of maps. Nyttend ( talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arkyan. Regarding the recent closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism, I wanted to ask you as the closing admin about the fact that the AfD nomination reasoning was a lack of definition for Hindu terrorism, raising concerns about the possible errorenous inclusion of Hindu nationalism. I believe that as far as wikipedia is concerned the fact that Noam Chomsky concluded that Hindu fundamentalism, extremism, and nationalism are all equal to Hindu terrorism}} Religious Fundamentalism in the Age of Secularism and Globalization by Maria Marczewska-Rytko, p.3 is sufficient to keep the article, regardless of a majority !vote. Might you agree? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi; I like the LDS temple map you updated. However, may I point out that the Curitiba Brazil Temple is colored blue on the map, whereas it should be red since it was dedicated on 1 June 2008. I wasn't sure if I had the skills to fix it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You have merged the article but you haven't deleted the original one. Just reminding you it still needs to be done. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you just deleted the article "What's Up, What's Happening", of which I was the nominator. However, just before the deletion of the page someone added a reliable source from Rolling Stone's website, in which T.I. explicitly says that it was to be "the next single". I had also made some adjustments to the page, but I had forgot about the deletion nom. (thanks to the vandal that removed the template!) Since I'm sure it will be soon re-created, could we just restore the article since it would pass WP:RS? Just asking. Do U(knome)? yes...| or no · 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my RFA. I will certainly try and keep on the track I am now. Thanks again for your comment. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm suprised that you closed this with a keep on the grounds that there was no consensus. By my count, 13 editors voted to delete this article and only 6 voted to keep it, which looks like a consensus to me. Moroever, AfDs are not decided by simple voting, but by the weight of argument and the closing admin's views of the relevant policies, and several keep votes should have been ignored as they were themselves not in line with WP:NOT as they were advocating this article being kept only as the topic may be judged notable sometime in the future (clear cases of WP:CRYSTAL) and you noted that WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here. Could you please reconsider this decision? Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
12 to 6 isn't consensus? thats a very strange rationale i think. A lot of article get deleted by 4 out of 5 or 8 out of 10 deletes, i think there should be a reconsideration, especially since you think the arguments for delete were persuasive and that deletions should be based on the arguments not votes and the blaring lack of an argument to keep. Myheartinchile ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
error on my part, removed comment. Myheartinchile ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning my recommendation for a merge in your closing summary. I would say that you were clearly sympathetic to a delete/merger, as was there a clear consensus for delete. As a Chinese, I understand about 'face', and would point out that you did not need to endorse the close, even if it was your own. Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
could you make a map for North Richmond, California based on this map? It would be really easy, North Richmond is the white area on the far left, almost completely surrounded by the red ( Richmond, California) and only bordered by San Pablo, California in grey to the right, this would be awesome, as would one for Dogtown, Marin County, California. Thanks! Myheartinchile ( talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to contribute, and of course, thanks for voting to support :). I'm going to focus on article writing for a bit (less chance to bite) until my exams are finished and i'm relatively stress-free. Ironho lds 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
i was just in the process of expanding it, did you see my rescue tag i put up? I recreated it, have a look, maybe you can help it out somehow. Myheartinchile ( talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with
this edit to
Quahog (Family Guy). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.
Ryan Delaney
talk
20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Recent changes patrol goes fast and sometimes mistakes are made. In the future, a more meaningful edit summary (like the one you used in the end) should prevent confusion. Thanks, -- Ryan Delaney talk 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. No ill will intended. Cheers, -- Ryan Delaney talk 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder - you should leave relevant categories in place when you make an article into a redirect. It is useful to have The Lumberjack listed in the Category:Student newspapers published in the United States, so that readers looking for college papers can find the NAU paper and be redirected to a discussion of it in the NAU article. FCYTravis ( talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You have recently deleted article Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy on the following grounds: "the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best". Actually, all statements in the article were supported by the published cited sources and therefore do not represent OR. At least, no one of this discussion participants was able to provide any specific examples of unsourced statements. Some participants expressed concerns in reliability of the sources. However, all these sources were published books or established newspapers (the newspapers/journals even have their own articles in WP). Furthermore, statements cited in the article were made by several notable experts (we also have WP articles about them). Have any of these "unreliable" sources been discussed at WP:RS noticeboard and decided to be unreliable? No, as far as I know. Could you then please explain what exactly represented original research in this article? Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place. Myheartinchile ( talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it. I had thought i put it in the right place but thanks for fixing it.
Slingshotecity ( talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been listed as a sock puppet. How do i go about getting this removed from my user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sling21012 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you incorrectly closed the AfD on David Graham (Scientologist), closing it prematurely under A7. While the likely result of the discussion would have been delete, the article DID indicate why it was important (see 18,000 hits for '"David Graham" Scientology' on google, and the source that WAS in the article). I still don't think that the article would have met notability requirements, but these are a HIGHER standard than A7. DigitalC ( talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight ( talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I really wasn't sure what the proper procedure was. It's good to have a clearer idea. I'll make note of this from here on out. - Vianello ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That was a really balanced closing message, and I appreciate the opportunity to let interested parties try and salvage some content. I'm not living in some magic land of moonbeams and rainbows, I know some IPC articles can be unsourced crap repositories, but honestly, most of them can be saved with some proper care and attention. Cheers, and thanks. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Shereth,
Sorry if I am causing any problems (confusing you etc.) with my Vandalism fighting - I only started using Huggle today so I am still getting used to it (until now I used VP, so this is a big change).
Thanks to your message I found the correct menu for nominating pages for deletion accordingly.
Again, sorry for any trouble,
Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the status of this article. As sgeureka pointed out in the AfD, Patrick Star, which was the article on this character for years, was legitimately redirected in late November of last year. The page was even protected to keep it as a redirect. The article about Patrick that was the subject of this AfD was created a week ago, in contravention of this. The only article that really should ever be discussed is the main Patrick Star article, as the one in questions is really just a duplicate of a years-old article. In accordance with the consensus I just noted, I have redirected the article to the main show article, to be in line with the Patrick Star article. This is reverted, stating that your closure of the AfD did not mandate redirection. However, AfD is not for merging or redirection, and cannot overrule a merge; this is an editoral process. Since the main Patrick article has been redirected for months with no objection, consensus is therefore needed to unmerge and unredirect a Patrick article. The newly created article should not be its own article at all, regardless of the status of an independent article on Patrick, because it is a duplicate. As I have previous involvement in Spongebob–related articles, I won't use my tools here. I request that you, since you were the one to close the AfD, look into this situation, and ensure that the correct course of action is taken. Thanks. seresin (public computer) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yomin Postelnik. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davewild ( talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am an employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department adding information that is in the public domain to many lakes and other bodies of water within Arizona. I am only copying information from the AZ Game and Fish Deparment. A few other employees are doing the same thing in order to provide more fishing and boating information to the public. Any help in resolving this issue will be appreciated. Scottbulloch ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your consideration. I felt that the articles of the three Gateways rabbis should stand together or merge together -- after the Rietti article debate closed with a decision to merge, I sensed the debates, which were essentially 'one large debate,' were futile. If consensus is that the regulations are to be applied in their strictest sense, I suppose I myself agree that the three personalities do not merit their own articles. Although I do not believe the regulations were applied fairly and I do think each individual merits their own article (based on their notability + merely mildly supported by the fact that other articles that have existed for many, many years feature biographies of much less notable individuals), I do not rule -- consensus does. So, I folded. And since the AfDs had been open for more than 5 days, I figured I'd take the initiative. Thanks for your work and effort -- they were much appreciated! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to post a comment to WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson and ran into an edit conflict with your closure. As you know, the AfD was divided, with 9 Delete comments, 10 Keep comments, and 4 Merge/Redirect. Unless arguments are clear, such a situation should properly close as No Consensus, for Merge comments are a kind of keep, as you noted: some notability, but perhaps not enough for a separate article (and so they are also a kind of delete). Your closure reason stated: the fact that there was a rough split between keep and delete tells me there is some weight to the argument that she is somewhat notable but perhaps not enough for an article - thus merging seems to make the most sense. That is using vote count as if it were an argument, which is not proper. The matter would hinge no the arguments. This is what I didn't post because of the edit conflict, I'll repeat it here for your convenience (I also posted it to Talk for the Upson article, before any editors started merging.)
I urge you to carefully consider what I presented in that comment. If we discount !votes without arguments and those which rested on clearly flawed arguments (such as "failed mayoral candidacy," as if the candidacy alone and the vote record were the justifications for the notability, which includes the nomination), we have not one Delete !vote standing. This subject, as I note in my comment that ran into th edit conflict, did, in fact, receive extensive independent coverage in RS; some of it still stands (enough to serve for an article as brief as the article was), but more clearly exists, see the blog mentioned. For the print sources, all somebody has to do is go to a library that preserves that newspaper. The article could be expanded (the blog contains quotations of articles that might be of value if the original source is confirmed). Much of this, though, violates {WP:UNDUE]] if put in the Ottawa election article, and nobody thought to notify them before the AfD, that merged content like this might be descending on them; yet those who have taken on the Merge task seem to assume that there is a consensus for Merge, see the edit history of the Upson page and Talk for that page.
I'm trusting that you will reverse your decision to what would have been proper, No Consensus or Keep, addressing the arguments themselves instead of !vote counts. This would save us all the trouble of a Deletion Review. (No Consensus would respect all those who !voted for Delete, while Keep would be a decision that confirms what I've been saying: WP:POLITICIAN, far from indicating that the subject is not notable, indicates the opposite: this person received substantial independent RS coverage, starting in 2000. That there is none I could find after that doesn't make her not notable: that's why I said that notability does not expire. The earlier AfD had a very strong Keep consensus, and that may have been due to better availability at the time of the sources, so people did a search and, bang!, there they were. I normally don't even look at blogs in reviewing an AfD, but I decided to look deeper, perhaps a blog referred to something usable. And the one I cited did, indicating, from 2003, that there was wider source than we now might think, from our internet bias.
(I've seen before that an AfD results in a Merge decision without having considered the effect on the target article. I consider Merge results to be a recommendation, not a consensus applicable to the target article, since it didn't have appropriate participation. The biggest problem usually created is undue weight, as properly sourced material from the original article can be too much detail for the target. WP:SUMMARY#Levels of desired details, in fact, suggests that an article be split off if this becomes a problem.) Thanks for your attention to this. -- Abd ( talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, again, for your continued consideration. I did some more research. My suspicion that sources may have been more extensive wasn't exactly speculative, I had quotes from them, but I now have a lot more, see User:Abd/Donna Upson. I do disagree with your assessment of my motives, I'm considering precisely the improvement of the project, and the addition of reliably sourced material on this woman is not appropriate in Ottawa municipal election, 2003. There is lots of stuff I've already found, and more that could be found. In particular, her media attention from 2000 and 2001 isn't in the archive I found, it only starts with 2003. That SPA who !voted was right, it appears, there was CBC coverage. But it isn't needed, I merely mention it to indicate the degree of notability. -- Abd ( talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, this is fine. Generally it is best, if possible, to resolve issues at the lowest level available (consensus of the least number of people distracted from other work on the project). I can't see how I could possibly object to your compromise! (It is, in fact, quite the same as what I was asking for.) There has been work done, in the meantime, to merge the information with the new article, which is relatively harmless (A little extra detail, a little WP:UNDUE is not an emergency by any means.) My opinion is that, in any case, the actual Redirect should have been postponed until the new information was settled in the target article; at that point we know better which is best: merged content or separate content with appropriate reference in summary style, and future AfD !voters could be looking at both options, with fuller references, more able to compare. There may, however, be some objection from those who really wanted Delete. Merge is an option that doesn't require an AfD, actually. All it would take is a consensus of the editors working on Donna Upson and Ottawa municipal election, 2003. My biggest problem is that the AfD made a decision about the Ottawa election article, without consulting the editors of that article. Seeking and finding editorial consensus, in my view, is always better than going for AfD right off the bat. AfDs attract !voters who will vote without actually researching the issue, unfortunately; the AfD process works best if serious attempt has been made, first, to find consensus, so there is an existing debate that can be referred to, and then neutral editors become involved if consensus can't be reached. Thanks again for being willing to reconsider your decision, and, by doing this, you have avoided a big hassle for me. As I wrote, I understand why you decided as you did, it was not unreasonable given what you were presented with. -- Abd ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, GreenJoe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reopened the 3rd AfD nomination of this article, which you closed earlier. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You can bully all you want, but I'm leaving. I refuse to tolerate it anymore. GreenJoe 01:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
While I may have quit, you need to remind Abd to assume good faith. Never in my entire time on Wikipedia, have I ever contributed to an AfD under different names. A checkuser will confirm I am neither of the people he accuses me of being. GreenJoe 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this has now been left dangling, since the page it redirects to is no longer there. Would it be appropriate to delete this as well now? Or does it require a separate discussion? The same applies to List of purported cults (and maybe others?). Cheers, Jayen 466 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Good close, that - quite well-written, on an AFD that I thought would not reach any sort of consensus. Well done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of groups referred to as cults. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. neon white talk 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, never realised I had done that, I had the edit box open for a bit so am surprised it didn't come up with an edit conflict warning, sorry. Davewild ( talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In deleting this, you missed these (as they related to the deleted article). JohnABerring27A ( talk) 08:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi shereth. the reason I chose this username is because I really like The Simpsons and I think Matt Groening is a great person. if this does not satisfy the dispute then I will change my username to something more suitable. Matt groening ( talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Heelo again Shereth. would it be okay if i Changed my username to Matt G or would that still be confusing. please let me know. Matt groening ( talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again shereth. I have just requested that my username be changed. do you know how long i will have to wait for the change, or is there any way I can check the status. Thanks. I have one quick question seeing as we seem to be getting on quite well I hope this isn't too personal but my question is: Matt groening ( talk) 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)How long have you been a Wikipedian for as you seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia?
I don't really understanding your reasoning for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate as you did. It seems completely arbitrary. The points brought up at both debates should apply to one another, as none of them are specific to bills rather than amendments of bills or vice versa. --- RockMFR 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again shereth, I have had my username changed. Matt G ( talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I just want to thank you for all your advice and I hope that we can stay in contact through our respective talk pages. Thanks again :)
I am trying to update the coordinates for Stoneman Lake and the coordinates I received from the field officer was missing the seconds. I put the degrees and minutes there until I received the seconds. I just updated the page to include the seconds. Jayba ( talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)