This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
Hello, please take a look here. Seelefant ( talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Jehochman Talk 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you still willing to be recalled? If so, I request you hand in your bit for your conduct over Law. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, I didn't always agree with things that he did. I didn't always jump to his defense when he was being called out for something, but when I believed he was being unnecessarily called out or whatever, then yes, I would defend him. Like I said on ANI, I would never not get his back just because I'm an admin. If that's incompatible with adminship, then that's unfortunate, because I don't see a connection. Drama is the issue here. Me standing up for a friend that I believe deserves some defense does not damage the project. I would stand up for him regardless of his sock/admin/whatever status. This is not a case of me sacrificing the good of the project for the friend. It's an matter of IAR. Lara 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you'd be willing to tweak that procedure a bit? It looks to be full of preposterous ruleslawyering. Friday (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the most important thing to consider is our readers, because that's who we write articles for (well, most of us). I for one do not believe this has effected any of our articles, in any way. So that's good. That's all that matters. Does this effect Wikipedia's editors? Not really. One or two might quit in a huff over it, but in general, they aren't effected. Unless, of course, they choose to be effected by it. That's their problem though.
I am not Lara's biggest fan. There was a time when we basically hated each other. But her work on one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - one that effects actual real people - is the exemplar of how admins should treat BLPs. People can moan here all day till the cows come home, but in the end, the encyclopedia is still there, editors are still here, and the only reason I can think of for removing Jennavecia's admin rights are for "ethical" purposes. It doesn't hold water with me. Her removal would be a net negative for sure. For the encyclopedia, though perhaps not the crowd of people who have made it their business to get upset by this, even though it doesn't actually affect them in any way. Just imagine if this had not been uncovered. We'd all be going along our merry way – and we could be now too, if it wasn't for people kicking up an unnecessary fuss. Majorly talk 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
... I decided that to look myself in the eye every morning, that I needed to make a statement as well. Since I've mentioned you in the statement, I think it's only right to let you know about the link. here. At this point, I'm truly not sure where I stand with you, the community, or anyone else - but at least now I know where I stand with myself, and I'm, happy with it. For your talk page stalkers as well ... Another thing - I did not offer any apology. If someone wants an apology from me ... then you're going to have to convince me of why! ANY editor or admin is welcome to address me on my talk page, all are welcomed. Anyone is free to ask me any question they with - most of which I'm willing to try and answer. For now - I will continue to do what I consider to be the best for the wiki. To be perfectly frank, I'm a little discouraged, and more than a little disappointed in the community as a whole. I have no desire to single out any individual editor at this point, simply because I don't believe that would solve a damn thing. best to all. — Ched : ? 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change | ” |
— Charles Darwin |
“ | Two muffins go into an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says, "Hey, man, does it feel like it's getting hotter in here to you?"
The other muffin says, "Holy shit — a talking muffin!" |
” |
— source |
All drama that lives must (eventually) die. Keep your chin up. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While technically a WP:WEB issue, I'd appreciate your input on Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck as a BLP vio. full disclosure: I voted delete in the AFD. Thanks. — Ched : ? 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm the non notable biographies are coming in thick and fast. People think even the lsightest affiliation with something else of note automatically qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Now we have Lucy Vodden on the fornt page for millions of people to see, a little girl that Julian Lennon went to school with and mentioned her to daddy John who wrote a song based on a childrens painting. Now the information itself is notable but again I think people have found the wrong page to discuss it. The info could easily be merged into the Lucy in the SKy with Diamonds article rather than actually having a biography about the person itself. I think people really need to start reconsidering what biography actually means. Himalayan 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You recently nominated this article for deletion, but I've uncovered some references that I think demonstrate notability. Most importantly, they show that she was the winner of a German Youth literature prize in 2004, which, to quote from our article on the prize, is Germany's only state-funded literary award, and therefore clearly a major literary prize. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to have another look at the revised article, and let me know whether you still think it should be deleted. Regards, Scog ( talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What a joke this arbitration is. Heaps of very high-ranking folks knew of another admin's sock that double dipped. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jennavecia, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Benjamin Presley Keough has been removed. It was removed by 66.108.95.79 with the following edit summary '(Notability is not in question! References have been added. The Fact is notability is not inherited but a 5 million dollar deal is notable for any new artist.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 66.108.95.79 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are:
Sincerely, Manning ( talk) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
link. I know you're busy, but I also know you are one of the most familiar with BLP stuff .. any thoughts would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you check this for BLP? I'm thinking there's way too much innuendo, assertion, and WP:COATRACK there, despite the sourcing. I'm suspecting some things could stand to be rephrased, rather than removed, but others just plain ought to go. Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For staying calm and collected in the midst of a most nonsensical fiasco. Regardless of whether or not you emerge +sysop flag intact, your aplomb throughout this ordeal is to be admired. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks ChildofMidnight. I sort of look like her. We have the same sized boobs. citation needed :p Haha. Lara 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
EDIT WAR! CoM, I liked your change. I don't mind if people fix my spelling and grammar errors or other typos. Plus, the fact tag is funny. :D Lara 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jennavecia, apologies for this request, but I'm hoping that you could possibly clarify a conundrum that has arisen here. You see, according to posts elsewhere you have stated that you did not know that Law was The Undertow at the time you granted him rollback. Yet your statement on the Arbitration case page states "I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too......AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that.". If possible, would you be able to expand on the timeline of events in this area, so that we may all understand the matter further? Apologies if my request is impertinent, and thanks in advance for any response. Gazi moff 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It does now sadly look like you're going down Lara, I'm sorry to say. I don't agree with what you did, but I think you're being made a scapegoat of, which is disgraceful, while the real issue is being swept under the carpet. Ah well, nobody promised that life would be fair. -- Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For having the strength and the character to be able to admit you made a serious mistake in judgment, and being willing to learn from it. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
Lara, you had the courage to take ownership of your actions. In time you will bounce back, and I for one will not hold this incident against you. Jehochman Talk 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you did the only honourable thing that you could in resigning, although it's sad to see another good administrator gone.
I hope you're just resigning from the admin job though, not from the project. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(minor mail ping) The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sad to see you resign. I thought I would hand in my resignation letter earlier than you :X OhanaUnited Talk page 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I apologize for disturbing you, but I think you should add your name here. Regards,-- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I might not be as liberal on such matters as Lar, but feel free to drop me a message if I'm around and he or LessHeard isn't. John Carter ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha. Thanks, Durova. Lara 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Your attention is brought to the text of two motions passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Want I should lower them? Or just the current one? – xeno talk 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
... but I see a few issues, like teh user boxes and your name can get off the wallpaper depending on your screen res. And, as Yogi said, It's like déjà vu all over again.
Won't be soon, as we've a holiday here, so I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jennavecia. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jennavecia. I saw your edits in the Edward Fagan article and I took the liberty to search, identify and replace the missing reference you marked today - as I did yesterday when you were missing another document. As you have certainly found out by now, the article includes quite a large number of relevant and reliable sources, and I want to thank you for all the small edits you have provided. All the references have now the same format and the article looks much better than before. Still, I took the liberty to add the one reference of him stealing the money from Holocaust survivors. This sentence is absolutely relevant and crucial because his fame was founded on his holocause lawsuits and his own claims that he is "best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims". The fact that he - according to the court documents and disbarrment records - betrayed our families, the very same people he once sworn to defend, is so crucial, that it shall not be excluded from the introduction. As for using the work "stealing" vs. "misusing" or "misappropriating" I have an open mind, but still I would like to point out, that he himself never used the words "misuse" or "misappropriation" when he started to sue and fight for the noble cause. Thank you. Okinawasan ( talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's reopened. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your question before the deletion review was closed. Just to be clear, I would have interpreted the results of the discussion differently, but my believing an early close was not inappropriate is clearly not the same as advocating for "ignoring" potential arguments. I can see how it was great rhetoric on your part, but it's not an accurate summation of what I said or believe. user:J aka justen ( talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin ? She was member of German Bundestag. GLGermann ( talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This may be a question to which you would have some insight: [2]. CJCurrie ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alan J. Baverman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan J. Baverman. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
When you have to disclaim "I'm [...] not harassing David," there's a problem. The accusations, allegations, speculation, and conspiracy theories have got to stop. You can dramamonger at the other site all you want, but here it's completely out of line and becoming increasingly disruptive. Seriously, stop. user:J aka justen ( talk) 01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
Hello, please take a look here. Seelefant ( talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Jehochman Talk 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you still willing to be recalled? If so, I request you hand in your bit for your conduct over Law. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, I didn't always agree with things that he did. I didn't always jump to his defense when he was being called out for something, but when I believed he was being unnecessarily called out or whatever, then yes, I would defend him. Like I said on ANI, I would never not get his back just because I'm an admin. If that's incompatible with adminship, then that's unfortunate, because I don't see a connection. Drama is the issue here. Me standing up for a friend that I believe deserves some defense does not damage the project. I would stand up for him regardless of his sock/admin/whatever status. This is not a case of me sacrificing the good of the project for the friend. It's an matter of IAR. Lara 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Any chance you'd be willing to tweak that procedure a bit? It looks to be full of preposterous ruleslawyering. Friday (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the most important thing to consider is our readers, because that's who we write articles for (well, most of us). I for one do not believe this has effected any of our articles, in any way. So that's good. That's all that matters. Does this effect Wikipedia's editors? Not really. One or two might quit in a huff over it, but in general, they aren't effected. Unless, of course, they choose to be effected by it. That's their problem though.
I am not Lara's biggest fan. There was a time when we basically hated each other. But her work on one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - one that effects actual real people - is the exemplar of how admins should treat BLPs. People can moan here all day till the cows come home, but in the end, the encyclopedia is still there, editors are still here, and the only reason I can think of for removing Jennavecia's admin rights are for "ethical" purposes. It doesn't hold water with me. Her removal would be a net negative for sure. For the encyclopedia, though perhaps not the crowd of people who have made it their business to get upset by this, even though it doesn't actually affect them in any way. Just imagine if this had not been uncovered. We'd all be going along our merry way – and we could be now too, if it wasn't for people kicking up an unnecessary fuss. Majorly talk 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
... I decided that to look myself in the eye every morning, that I needed to make a statement as well. Since I've mentioned you in the statement, I think it's only right to let you know about the link. here. At this point, I'm truly not sure where I stand with you, the community, or anyone else - but at least now I know where I stand with myself, and I'm, happy with it. For your talk page stalkers as well ... Another thing - I did not offer any apology. If someone wants an apology from me ... then you're going to have to convince me of why! ANY editor or admin is welcome to address me on my talk page, all are welcomed. Anyone is free to ask me any question they with - most of which I'm willing to try and answer. For now - I will continue to do what I consider to be the best for the wiki. To be perfectly frank, I'm a little discouraged, and more than a little disappointed in the community as a whole. I have no desire to single out any individual editor at this point, simply because I don't believe that would solve a damn thing. best to all. — Ched : ? 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change | ” |
— Charles Darwin |
“ | Two muffins go into an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says, "Hey, man, does it feel like it's getting hotter in here to you?"
The other muffin says, "Holy shit — a talking muffin!" |
” |
— source |
All drama that lives must (eventually) die. Keep your chin up. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While technically a WP:WEB issue, I'd appreciate your input on Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck as a BLP vio. full disclosure: I voted delete in the AFD. Thanks. — Ched : ? 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm the non notable biographies are coming in thick and fast. People think even the lsightest affiliation with something else of note automatically qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Now we have Lucy Vodden on the fornt page for millions of people to see, a little girl that Julian Lennon went to school with and mentioned her to daddy John who wrote a song based on a childrens painting. Now the information itself is notable but again I think people have found the wrong page to discuss it. The info could easily be merged into the Lucy in the SKy with Diamonds article rather than actually having a biography about the person itself. I think people really need to start reconsidering what biography actually means. Himalayan 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You recently nominated this article for deletion, but I've uncovered some references that I think demonstrate notability. Most importantly, they show that she was the winner of a German Youth literature prize in 2004, which, to quote from our article on the prize, is Germany's only state-funded literary award, and therefore clearly a major literary prize. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to have another look at the revised article, and let me know whether you still think it should be deleted. Regards, Scog ( talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What a joke this arbitration is. Heaps of very high-ranking folks knew of another admin's sock that double dipped. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jennavecia, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Benjamin Presley Keough has been removed. It was removed by 66.108.95.79 with the following edit summary '(Notability is not in question! References have been added. The Fact is notability is not inherited but a 5 million dollar deal is notable for any new artist.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 66.108.95.79 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are:
Sincerely, Manning ( talk) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
link. I know you're busy, but I also know you are one of the most familiar with BLP stuff .. any thoughts would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you check this for BLP? I'm thinking there's way too much innuendo, assertion, and WP:COATRACK there, despite the sourcing. I'm suspecting some things could stand to be rephrased, rather than removed, but others just plain ought to go. Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For staying calm and collected in the midst of a most nonsensical fiasco. Regardless of whether or not you emerge +sysop flag intact, your aplomb throughout this ordeal is to be admired. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks ChildofMidnight. I sort of look like her. We have the same sized boobs. citation needed :p Haha. Lara 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
EDIT WAR! CoM, I liked your change. I don't mind if people fix my spelling and grammar errors or other typos. Plus, the fact tag is funny. :D Lara 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jennavecia, apologies for this request, but I'm hoping that you could possibly clarify a conundrum that has arisen here. You see, according to posts elsewhere you have stated that you did not know that Law was The Undertow at the time you granted him rollback. Yet your statement on the Arbitration case page states "I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too......AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that.". If possible, would you be able to expand on the timeline of events in this area, so that we may all understand the matter further? Apologies if my request is impertinent, and thanks in advance for any response. Gazi moff 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It does now sadly look like you're going down Lara, I'm sorry to say. I don't agree with what you did, but I think you're being made a scapegoat of, which is disgraceful, while the real issue is being swept under the carpet. Ah well, nobody promised that life would be fair. -- Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For having the strength and the character to be able to admit you made a serious mistake in judgment, and being willing to learn from it. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
Lara, you had the courage to take ownership of your actions. In time you will bounce back, and I for one will not hold this incident against you. Jehochman Talk 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you did the only honourable thing that you could in resigning, although it's sad to see another good administrator gone.
I hope you're just resigning from the admin job though, not from the project. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(minor mail ping) The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sad to see you resign. I thought I would hand in my resignation letter earlier than you :X OhanaUnited Talk page 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I apologize for disturbing you, but I think you should add your name here. Regards,-- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I might not be as liberal on such matters as Lar, but feel free to drop me a message if I'm around and he or LessHeard isn't. John Carter ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha. Thanks, Durova. Lara 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Your attention is brought to the text of two motions passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Want I should lower them? Or just the current one? – xeno talk 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
... but I see a few issues, like teh user boxes and your name can get off the wallpaper depending on your screen res. And, as Yogi said, It's like déjà vu all over again.
Won't be soon, as we've a holiday here, so I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jennavecia. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Jennavecia. I saw your edits in the Edward Fagan article and I took the liberty to search, identify and replace the missing reference you marked today - as I did yesterday when you were missing another document. As you have certainly found out by now, the article includes quite a large number of relevant and reliable sources, and I want to thank you for all the small edits you have provided. All the references have now the same format and the article looks much better than before. Still, I took the liberty to add the one reference of him stealing the money from Holocaust survivors. This sentence is absolutely relevant and crucial because his fame was founded on his holocause lawsuits and his own claims that he is "best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims". The fact that he - according to the court documents and disbarrment records - betrayed our families, the very same people he once sworn to defend, is so crucial, that it shall not be excluded from the introduction. As for using the work "stealing" vs. "misusing" or "misappropriating" I have an open mind, but still I would like to point out, that he himself never used the words "misuse" or "misappropriation" when he started to sue and fight for the noble cause. Thank you. Okinawasan ( talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's reopened. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your question before the deletion review was closed. Just to be clear, I would have interpreted the results of the discussion differently, but my believing an early close was not inappropriate is clearly not the same as advocating for "ignoring" potential arguments. I can see how it was great rhetoric on your part, but it's not an accurate summation of what I said or believe. user:J aka justen ( talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin ? She was member of German Bundestag. GLGermann ( talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This may be a question to which you would have some insight: [2]. CJCurrie ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alan J. Baverman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan J. Baverman. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
When you have to disclaim "I'm [...] not harassing David," there's a problem. The accusations, allegations, speculation, and conspiracy theories have got to stop. You can dramamonger at the other site all you want, but here it's completely out of line and becoming increasingly disruptive. Seriously, stop. user:J aka justen ( talk) 01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)