User talk:Hobit/Archive2

I've removed a section on talk:deletion policy that was pure voting trying to take the place of discussion. Please review the wikipedia page on consensus for a more complete explanation, or feel free to use my talk page. - brenneman 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wise comments in the DRV of the Murder of Joseph Didier. Some of your comments in the DRV explain why it should have been an overturn and a keep.

The biggest flaw that I see is that an AFD with a lack of consensus is "default to keep" as occasionally appears.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg

In that DRV, the editor feels that the DRV is such a wrong decision that it is a DRV on the DRV. If you want to pursue that, I will add my comments on your proposal if it is well thought through (which I'm sure you can do).

Presumptive (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, with all due respect, you are late to the party. This has been discussed for a year, then a decision was rendered through RfC, and a compromise of tagging is in the works. I realize that you may not have been aware, but we can't start the discussion anew every week -- we need some form of closure. Please read through the talk page archives to see the discussion and there is furhter discussion of resolution at the WP:N page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you were in on the discussion, then why are you looking for more discussion? This didn't succeed. I think it should be marked as failed, but am willing to compromise to calll it an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate and respect your creativity and communication. Thanks. However, (1) all proposals that fail go through multiple attempts at wording and formats in their evolution. It's not that one attempt failed, it is that no workable solution emerged. (2) While custom tags are creative, they are confusing and inconsistent. We've gone through an explosion of tag types (standard and custom) lately and I hate to encourage more. Why not join the evolution at WP:N and try to come up with a general solution which works for determining inclusion for the project rather than a segment. If that fails, then maybe subject specific is the route. As far as PROF, BIO, MUSIC,etc., I'd delete every one of those if I could. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, while we seem to disagree at the present, your solutions are similar to mine from a few years back. maybe we will grow together, but in the mean time i respect your style both willingness to be bold and be communicative without getting emotional. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love the tag on the top of your user page. It sums things up perfectly. Reyk _YO! 02:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, because A Man in Black's edit was just fine. He removed unsourced things, and did other things to fix the article. Perhaps page protection is in order for the article, seeing as how people are just edit warring. However, talk page discussions about Sonic related articles are basically "no you are wrong, I am right" type of discussions, and nothing more. No one seems to want to compromise, which is hurting the quality of the articles. A big part of this (in my view at least): people assume every detail is notable. There is plot guidelines we should be following. Plus unsourced things should be removed in many cases. The history is there, so if reliable sources can be found: the information can be re-added. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went there on my own. I view and edit Sonic articles once in a while. No one told me to go there, so don't assume. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your input. I'm still concerned about the lack of sources for Cowznofski, but the ones you've turned up seem to be more tied to Alfred E. Neuman than to Cowznofski proper. Do you think a merge to Alfred E. Neuman's page might be in order? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think there is a policy/guideline that your sig should resemble your name. No biggy, but it is confusing. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using it this way since around 2004, by my best recollection. If there's a policy, my sig likely predates it, and has not changed significantly. (First time I would have heard, too.)

There was a RFC some years ago about my actual handle, Ihcoyc, being based on the Greek letters that spell Jesus. But my user name predated that also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks - someone has to champion them.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can improve Lathander, please do so! BOZ (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, saw your note on Beholder - thanks, I'm doing what I can.  :) BOZ (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look around for sources on that group of AfDs you put in before doing the noms? Some of them are very easily sourceable. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything for Gating, Martin Gallagher, Jet-CD, or Jet upset. List of socialists from Eastern Europe is effectively unsourceable. Coverage of Oleg Maisenberg seemed trivial. Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit hadn't anything I could find in English. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peregrine, I teach mostly hardware classes at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. I've managed to miss all machine learning things (which is odd, because I've had two bosses who are machine learning folks). Hobit (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll enjoy knowing that when I see your edits. It's great how WP draws in educated people. I've worked with PhDs on the most trivial of articles and it makes it extra fun. It's like "how many years of education can we devote to [insert random article]." Keep up the good work.

As far as machine learning and AI goes, you can tell how good someone is by how they aim high while accepting that the result will (very) slightly improve some system, if at all. The most impressed I've been with a professor was when he said "it isn't going to work, but try anyways." None the less, I still want a girl robot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very interested in the articles fate, and my instinct is to go to AFD, but why don't you merge them instead? You seem to have a preference for it, so this would be a good time to do it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is, I know he is because I have read his book and he said he is Jewish so I doubt he would lie. --J-love-lee (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. For more details, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your recent participation in the AFD which closed with a snow result of Keep. Unfortunately, the nominator is not content with this consensus and is now proposing that the article be merged. Please see discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Talk:Palin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you continue to bait me there instead of presenting any arguments or pointing out how my reasoning (and that of others) is faulty, I will pursue this in the very direction you apparently want to go. Next stop AN, then RfCU on you. Everyme 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have overlooked the most crucial part, again: If you continue to bait me there instead of presenting any arguments or pointing out how my reasoning (and that of others) is faulty — just get your act together and stop spewing about ridiculous accusations of OWNership and whatnot. Present arguments and/or point out how my arguments are faulty. Nobody has done so on that talk page, and I daresay that's also the reason why most are in agreement that the page should be a dab not a redir. Everyme 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I see you've made up your mind to go down the wrong road. Oh well. As far as "taken to talk pages" goes, that applies only to your accusation and your sentiment that it "is all about [my] lack of civility". I posted here in the naive hope you would at least understand the need to avoid mixing up unrelated issues. The fact that we're now communicating that which belongs in userspace here on our talk pages should encourage you to focus on the debate there. But by using your own accusations as an excuse why you can't be bothered to present any arguments you're yet again admitting that you have none. That's all you're achieving, and it's always kinda sad to see such incompetent system gaming attempts. My behaviour has nothing to do with my arguments. You're deliberately mixing it all up, because you have nothing else to offer. Everyme 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this previous attempt of you to steer things in a more manageable (for you) direction, which I appropriately responded to here? Everyme 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you didn't provide any diffs here. Maybe you want to bring them in now? Or maybe some more uninvolved admins? The one you contacted pointed you to an essay to which I have contributed btw. Everyme 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Casliber said, I'm often blunt, but I don't recall anything out of the ordinary on Talk:Palin, no. It was easy enough to point out the valid arguments and refute the invalid ones, the idiots didn't prevail. No, that's just not a situation in which I might explode. Granted, some might perceive me as being condescending, but I'm not in it for love. I'm in it to see commonsense and good judgement prevail. That's not to say, of course, that I think my judgement is always correct. Far from it. But in the Palin dab/redir case, I still stand by everything I've brought up. Everyme 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I intend to escalate it only if you keep mixing in unrelated issues instead of focussing on the debate. Everyme 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a southern Californian, I have no idea what they might consider notable in the Great White North. But he is enough of a (minor) celebrity there that he is often cast as "himself as newscaster" in films that want a recognizable face. I'll widen the search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overall consensus of the AfD was that the article should be reformatted and renamed to act as something encyclopedic. I don't really think an actual article will ever form, but whatever for now. Leaving the giant list of crap does not help anything. The point of the restructured article will mainly be to discuss the use of the Phoenix as a symbol in life and classic literature. There will likely be a small section discussing the use in modern literature, television, ect, but only a couple examples will actually be included to add context. Leaving the list will only encourage more to be added and discourage people from working on it. TTN (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of that content is salvageable. They are either "Oh, look what I saw on TV!" bullets, complete original research, trivia, completely irrelevant, or any combination of those. Some sort of section discussing them would not be more than two paragraphs, so only a couple examples are necessary anyways. If you want to run through and salvage a few that you think could be used to build a section, that'd be fine, but the grand majority needs to be completely purged. Please keep further replies on this talk page. TTN (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Just to clarify; I wasn't frustrated, but as I'm more lenient than most admins I have to at least appear like I'm setting my foot down sometimes. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it is the most visible (and therefore effective) method, as editors usually don't check the talk page or say that didn't know they weren't supposed to revert, etc. etc. And don't worry about me being an admin; if you'd like to call me on a questionable decision, by all means, feel free to! :) After all, I'm just another user with a few more buttons to push. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the apology. I had a problem looking for past news articles on Google news, for some reason when I just asked for recent news articles, I got three or four, but when I tried "all dates", I got nothing, not even the ones that I got from the recent search, so there was something wrong with the search. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with biting newbies, when they deserve it.  :) Thanks again, though. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what you think is. I'm thinking about proposing a new set of rationale to go through RFPP to get redirects protected to deal with part of this problem. Whatever you may think of TTN, this situation happens all the time: all policies and guidelines indicate that a redirect is the right answer, but editors (generally anonymous) continuously undo the redirect and create the article all over again. I hit it on future singles all the time: WP:NSONGS sets out a list of criteria that only released singles can possibly meet, but people create the single article as soon as a release date is announced. I redirect pending release, some anon reverts, I redirect pending release, some anon reverts, and so on. You can't engage in discussion, because there isn't any way to identify who you need to discuss things with. In the cases where you can, all you tend to get is "But Beyonce is really cool, and you must be a h8r if you don't want there to be an article about this really great song."

I feel like an RFPP process is the way to go. In the case of Darkrai, TTN should be able to point at the fact that the average Pokemon is a list entry, and that no one has any independent sourcing, so WP:N isn't met. Protecting the redirect should be granted. The problem I wrestle with is how to undo them. If someone actually comes up with sources, that's pretty objective and verifiable, and presenting them at RFPP should be sufficient. When the argument is more subtle, and actually needs discussion, I don't know how to modify the processes to allow for it.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit User:Kww/redirects.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article to establish the earlier visual appearance shown in that image was notable. The arguments that "they don't look now like they did then" and "It's hard to get an image because (fill in the blank)" have been presented before for other non-free images and the images were deleted based on them violating the non-free image of a living person rule. Since nothing new was discussed here, I deleted the image based on the wording of the policy and precedents set for similar cases. The best thing to do would be to list the image at Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if I have interpreted the policy correctly based on the current guidelines. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion at Talk:Landmark Education. Cirt (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome you to comment in this ANI thread Masem started on me, seeing as you have also removed PLOT from NOT in the past. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, they're fine to link to with real world topics because you can easily see potential coverage. With fiction, often only the character's name is referenced as a part of a description of a plot summary or a cast list given to provide some context. You don't have to be extremely detailed, but can you at least point to a couple and state "This shows potential development information on character" or "This would likely provide an in-depth analysis of the character"? Without doing that, it seems to lead people to believe there are sources where there are none (I've looked through all of the available results on some of them without finding a trace.). TTN (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your request and will try to do so. I will say however, that large numbers of RS having hits can be interesting/useful by it self. In the same spirit, could I ask in return that your nominations have a bit more detail to them? For example, where the character comes from (what show etc.) and what you'd done to establish in your own mind that notability is lacking? Most of your noms are quite reasonable, but some aren't (a google/news/book search turns up plenty of detailed sources). It would be helpful to understand what your issues with the article. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, welcome back. :) BOZ (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - hope to see you again! It's a lot easier to edit with Gavin not bothering the articles at the moment. BOZ (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As deletion was out of the question, the AfD became more of a discussion regarding how to best present the information. At least one of the editors in favor of keeping claimed that the subject is notable without providing sufficient evidence to back up the claim. Also, DGG (talk · contribs) pointed out that a merge or redirect was plausible. Considering that, as well as the "per so-and-so" votes, it seemed that the editors in favor of redirecting the article provided a stronger argument. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only collapsed and struck the one from the sock User:Greg Douglas which was a CU-proven sock of User:Kallimina which had already commented on the AfD (and was thus double-!voting). I merely placed a note on User:Kallimina's comment ([1]), but it was later collapsed and struck by User:Crossmr ([2]). Best, Black Kite 18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greg Douglas is not a sock puppet of mine and hardly even posts like me. (Besides, I have a neighbor name Greg but haven't a clue what his last name is. Possible his IP is similar to mine but HIGHLY doubtful it is the exact same since we have a static IP at home, meaning he can't have my exact same IP. I'm guessing the CU could confirm this?) Don't forget that my vote was struck as well as was Nizevyn's who is also not a sock puppet of mine. (IPs should confirm this as well.) User:Theblog was also accused of being a sockpuppet, and a CU on that failed as well. User:Greg Douglas and User:Nizevyn probably gave up like I very nearly did if it had not been for two other editors of Wikipeida stepping in offsite to help resolve the situation.

Now, Cambios and I post from the exact same IP, and I do understand your decision to ban there. (Another admin explained it to me.) With the help of another admin User:J.delanoy, it's been proven that we are not sock puppets and are actually individuals living in the same house.

I understand that you have to defend your actions as you felt you were acting a capacity that was best for Wikipedia, but please, please, please stop accusing me of having sock puppets since this has very strong negative connotations on Wikipedia. And originally, you were accusing User:Cambios of making sockpuppets. I'm unclear why they've suddenly become my sockpuppets. I have not created or used any accounts other than my own. (My apologies for butting in as I came to User:Hobit's page to post a question but stumbled on this instead. If I should not have commented, please let me know.) Kallimina (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly confused now that I am still being criticised - by you and the above editors - for the above blocks. What on earth else is an admin supposed to do with CU-confirmed socks? Ignore them? Especially as I good-faith unblocked two of them!!! The above users can complain as much as they want, but all three were editing from the same IP address, and all three were SPA accounts on Threshold-related articles. How much more would you need? Black Kite 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I understand your frustration because I'm dealing with it on the other end. You unbanned us, and other administrators have reviewed this and determined that Cambios and I are not sock puppets of each other and are actual individuals who happen to have similar interests and post from the same household. I understood the meatpuppeting issue and stayed off Wikipedia until the AfD was over, as you requested. I understand that you feel the need to defend yourself, but has it occurred to you that the only reason you need to defend yourself is because we're (Cambios, me, and others who have taken interest in this and are completely unrelated to us) having to defend ourselves repeatedly from being called meat/sock puppets and SPAs. Again, let me state that it's very, very improbable that USer:Greg Douglas was posting from our IP address as it is a static IP addressed shared only by members of our household. While the IP address may be similar (assuming Greg is who I think he is), he is not posting from our IP address. So, in conclusion, I think that if there's a lot less people throwing around the meat/sock tag, you'd stop getting so much criticism for it. Again, I'm sorry you are taking the flak for what has been mixture of bad behavior and newbie confusion all around. Given what we all know now about WP's culture and rules, it's unlikely that things would have played out like this again. Kallimina (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am NOT criticizing you for your actions with the blocks and the CU because you rectified the situation with the aid of User:J.delanoy at least for my account. My only objection is this new accusation that I created socks. I would like to thank you again for the unblocks despite the headaches they are causing you. Kallimina (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY I took the "you" above to mean me, but I think you meant Hobit. I shall go away now before I look dumber. Again, sorry. Move my stuff where ever it's supposed to be. Again, sorry for butting in. Kallimina (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the CU anywhere. Nothing for Kallimina or the other user involved. I know I read it though. Perhaps you could point me to it? As I recall it involved accusations of a spouse being a meatpuppet and a block based on a likely, rather than a confirmed (and which turned out to be wrong). To quote from the DRV:

 "Should dispute resolution have been attempted before the CU requests and subsequent bans occurred? Kallimina (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)    
 It indeed should have, unless there was ironclad evidence of sockpuppetry." -- That last from an admin.

I don't think there was ironclad evidence. But not being able to find the CU, I'm working off of memory. In any case, *I* felt that admins were breathing down the neck of those supporting this. Banning and collapsing/striking relevant comments from the discussion... Ick. It was one contributing factor to creating the impression that a number admins had a strong bias while performing what are supposed to be neutral tasks. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest is pretty much an expansion of the earlier policy with a few more details to address concerns. Realize that trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing and many school logos are fine. Your opinion on the latest proposal would be appreciated. Thanks for the kind words and feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) I have nominated the article Dwellers of the Forbidden City for Good Article status, as I feel it has undergone significant improvement from the point at which it was almost deleted. Since you were involved with improving the article, and/or sparing it from deletion, I'm inviting you to help out in any way you can to improve the article so that it may join its fellow modules, Ravenloft and Dragons of Despair as a Wikipedia Good Article. :) You may want to place the review page (which may not begin immediately) on your watchlist to keep track of the review process. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now up for good article review, so if there is anything at all you can contribute to get the article the rest of the way there, let us know. :) BOZ (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for all your help with the Tin Man articles. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering if you could produce a more credible and unbiased source than Media Matters that question Mr. Rosenberg's qualifications. I assume CNN and Fox did their homework before inviting him to be part of their broadcast. Nicholas.tan (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this AFD because it was renominated too soon after the previous debate. Could you dig up the specialized encyclopedia or find someone who has it so the neccesary references can be put in so another AFD is avoided? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ray_Joseph_Cormier

Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Those are fair and reasonable questions you posed. I just added new comments to the page, and hopefully other Editors may see potential to improve the Article. If you look at the Article Talk page, it has been the same small group of Editors ignoring my requests to make reasonable changes, but rather, from my POV, set up obstacles. You don´t know how much I have hoped other Editors willing to try to improve the Article would appear. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Hobit. I am so happy to see you. I have felt so alone standing guard over my BLP, not being able to edit or improve it, waiting for so long for help.

It is crunch time now, I can only plead my case, having to depend on others to rescue my BLP. This is my POV on this dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Eyes_To_See

• The additional comments on that talk were moved to talk. I moved it again to the Discussion of the Article for Deletion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been afraid to call a spade a spade. There is another Reference not in the Article where the newspaper choose the caption for the image with the story, ´RAY CORMIER tells it like it is on the mall.´ (Ottawa Today, pp 16, October 19, 1977, Sandra Woods) I was doing just that here in the old version of the BLP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243#Lunch_with_the_Pope.27s_ambassador Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit, if there are any articles you are working on where I may be of help, please me know. I may be useful in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I´m happy to report the consensus was to Keep my BLP. I´m unhappy to report the Editor who spearheaded the effort to have it deleted, has edited the Article from the bare bones it was already, to something even worse. I know I am a fair and open minded, balanced and objective human. I am not paranoid. I am civil and respectful in discourse, but I will call a spade a spade.

I cannot modify his edits, that´s for sure, so I have to appeal to other Editors to look at it. Am I right or wrong in my POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Development_and_Improvement

Please. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you once again for your comment. Having more experience with the guidelines and policies that I, please read my last post in the link above.

In speaking with the News Editor of a major Ottawa daily, they plan to run a feature story on me in the near future. I´m hoping they will incorporate some of what´s in the old version in it. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I´m sorry to have to intrude on your Talk, but I need HELP at the link above. Please! Hipocrite is now deleting References. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your comment on the good work Kingturtle did in building a solid foundation on which to build. Seeing my BLP is now open for all interested Editors to discuss and improve, if you have some time, would you please look at the last two sections of the Talk. If you agree with my reasonings, hopefully you will make the changes I request in your own words.

Many thanks for your support during some intense arguments. Peace, and God Bless you. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It´s been less than two weeks since a consensus of Keep was reached for the AfD on Ray Joseph Cormier. Another editor has placed another AfD tag on the article. Would you please offer your opinion again?

User_talk:Clinkophonist#Ray_Joseph_Cormier

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE I thank God after waiting over 8 months for any Editor to take an interest and improve the BLP, one has finally come forward. He has all the original references in hand and more. This is his first Section and he got it right. More to come: User:Sarcasticidealist/Cormier

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User_talk:Ikip#.22Useless_Tag.22_Tag I added your tag to my user page, and then created my own, in the same spirit! Thank you. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I want your McPinion I will ask for it, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread above, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your civility is both noted and appreciated--ClubOranje^T 09:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Fritzpoll's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Userfying to User:Hobit/Jon Main. This is being done as a copy of the text of the last revision, so some conditions are attached:

• It may not be moved to the article space. If this is done, it will be deleted. This is because it will fail GFDL attribution
• If you make a DRV and it is not successful, this page will be deleted (see below)
• If you do not intend to make a DRV, let me know and I will delete this page

If the article remains deleted after all reviews are completed, I want to delete the article in your userspace. I will then happily, if you wish, userfy the entire article to your userspace for you to work on as Main's career develops. But the userifcation has to occur for GFDL licensing reasons. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you briefly explain how you got no-consensus out of that AFD? 7 to 3 to keep, the article had been kept within the last 2-3 weeks, and it has plenty of sources (not from the same geographic area) from major papers. I don't understand how that isn't a keep result. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

The primary reason was that many of the keep !votes were technical reasons (such as too soon since the previous nomination, which isn't a very good reason). A no consensus is no different than a keep result, though, so even if I agreed that a keep outcome would be correct, amending it wouldn't really accomplish anything. Stifle

Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see that you have seen my sourced revisions to the page. Just wondering if there are sentences/parts that you object to (puffery), do u mind if we discuss it a bit? thanks Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi I put a list of proposed edits/clarifications, would you look at them and see if you are willing to remove the tag if these go through? thanks

Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I made a more cogent argument and stated which two might be considered acceptable.Troyster87 (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested unprotection for the page just to see how it goes. I can see through the history that you have had trouble with a certain IP 8 months ago and hopefully that won't happen again. If we need to protect again, then I guess we will. Just warning you I guess, if you have any concerns, just contact. Thanks!

Nicholas.tan (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hobit, thank you for commenting in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14 a while back for my article Sheree Silver. It's gone to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination) again, and unfortunately I'm engaged with another editor in an RfC over the inclusion of the sources I listed at the deletion review. If you get a chance, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Thanks for your time! Spring12 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for disturbing you, by the way) Spring12 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually took me a little while but I found it - in the place I should have looked first! "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.", WP:CSD, second paragraph of the lead, last sentence. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a number of times there. But I just looked in the list parts, not those "useless" introductory paragraphs. Opps. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. It's a good point actually, might be worth putting it somewhere else in the text so it becomes more prominent and isn't only in the "summary" lead paragraph. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate knowing your opinion in this discussion. Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Improving_the_Article

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3 concerning the admin's decision of close the Dan Schlund AfD, against the consensus, as delete. This is my first experience with such a review, and I am curious to know more about the process. Please tell me who is eligible to become involved in such discussion; and who ultimately, will make the decision to restore (or not) the article? Thanks. Esasus (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (New topic) Hi Hobit. I saw that you'd like to receive the pdfs in this case, but you don't have email enabled. I don't want to post the verbatim stories here for copyright reasons. I do have email enabled, so if you wanted you could set a special purpose email account just to recieve them, and contact me that way. When you get a chance, please drop me a line to let me know how you'd like to receive them. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have closed the DRV as Deletion endorsed. But have userfied the page to User:Hobit/Dan Schlund for improvement and possible recreation. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've certainly argued, but I was surprised by that description. In what way have I been personally unpleasant towards you?—Kww(talk) 03:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on your talk page. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the revision. I'm not perfect by a long shot, but I try my best to always fight a clean fight and stick to the points. I couldn't remember ever screwing up in a debate with you.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I told David, I really think a big part of my reputation for unpleasantness is that I wind up being a major participant in discussions where there is a lot of unpleasantness going on around me. Combine that with the occasional truly unpopular opinion, and people conflate my unpopular opinion with the unpleasantness surrounding the discussions I'm in. Finding a case where I violate WP:CIVIL is actually quite difficult.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you head back to [3] and see if the sources provided on the talk page are sufficient to address the issues with WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer back to DRV 3 April, I'll have a poke at the sources and read the, frankly impressive, discussion which has ensued. The decision was a tight one and I hesitated for a substantial amount of time before issuing my opinion that User:DGGs controversial close was within reason. I'm a massive opponent of voting on wikipedia (I would probably abandon the project if it went officially "democratic" [spamocratic?]) but recognize that !voting (as close to voting as it is) is a concrete reality of the deletion process. For that reason I always try (falability is the me) to ignore vote counts (8 people saying "meets WP:N" is, to me, the same as one person saying it) when I study a close and focus on writing down the keep and delete arguements in non-repetitive lists. In this case I felt satisfied with DGGs decision at the time (keep being "meets WP:N" and "Not again", delete being discussion of how the subject fails BIO, ENTERTAINER, ATH and WP:RS concerns about available sourcing for V-N). I will however revisit it in the light of further sources provided and especially further discussion in the DRV. To be honest, in this case, I'm actually surprised there isn't more V RS out there given how cool this act probably is... :-/

As an aside, I noticed that you mentioned in the end of the current discussion that you were unable to see the deleted content. I invite you to have a look at WT:DRV where, close to the bottom and above User:S_Marshalls more Dan S related discussion, there is a less controversial discussion about the temporary review section of DRV policy and the idea that this could be made a standard part of DRV rather than something done on a request/provide basis. Now there's something we can all agree on! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented there, and certainly support that. I worry a bit about people gaming the system to keep bogus content around as long as possible, but I really don't think that's likely. Hobit (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Good point. hehe... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just moving it directly to mainspace would be fine. My reading of the DRV is that DGG's close in endorsed without prejudice towards recreation with better (even marginally better) sources. I don't think that either he or I are at all likely to G4 any article that is not a direct copy and paste. But if you like I would be happy to take the time to give my personal opinion on notability (which would of course be non-definitive). In any event, good luck. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We dont allow articles that are the equivilent of 3rd grade science reports to stay as stand alone articles. (although we perhaps do allow the equivilent of 3rd grade sports reports). -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that science and engineering and just about everything else happens at multiple levels of complexity and competency, but we dont allow the minimally competent to exist as stand alone wikipedia articles. Plot for fiction needs to be singled out because for some reason a lot of people think that a 3rd grade level of article about fiction is somehow encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not saying "dont cover fiction" - its saying "dont cover fiction as if you were a third grader" -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A plot summary ONLY (which is what the language in NOT has stated does not suffice as a stand alone article's content) is covering fiction from a 3rd grade level.

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. Been a while since we've seen you around at the D&D project! In case you didn't catch wind of it at the RfA, this year there's been an active effort to get more articles up to GA. So far we've got Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants; next up will be Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons). Feel free to help out if you like, or just drop in and say Hi! Happy editing. :) BOZ (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was I able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Opinion? Coment? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "keep", though I was asking for advice on the expansion and sourcing. I did just find that it was nominated for Best feature Film at the 2008 Swansea Film festival. Didn't win... but it's getting noticed. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look reasonable. Not ideal, but I looked into two of the sources and both look like fan sites, but fan sites with editorial oversight of writers. Nice job. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advising or contributing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my proposal [4], I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at WT:FICT when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback.

When I initiated the proposal[5], I made it clear is all very well to dismiss this approach as "being the same WP:N" or "not having consensus", but participants in the discussions at WT:FICT have invested so much time in proposals that have turned out to be flawed, I would prefer if it is not dismissed this out of hand without investigating exactly why it would not work.

I would prefer not to be reverted at all if possible, as this is a a substantial proposal, not a trivial one line change. Simply alter the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see, so your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make. Whist I would agree with you that the consensus is yet to emerge, and my revisions are supported by existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so if you are proposing similar or alternative wording, then we would all benefit from you making them known.

If you have any reservations or doubts, lets discusss them at WT:FICT#Inclusion Criteria for Ficitonal Topics before reverting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tried to boldly change NOT#PLOT. For what it's worth, I think this is the right approach. I think there's a way that people on the inclusionist side can soften the language with consensus. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think it will be possible to find a consensus to remove it. But to promote the peace, I'd like to empower a "middle option", so I'm just letting you know you have my support if you push in that direction. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of these contentious issues would make a lot more progress if people understood that making progress on Wikipedia means giving up the fight. Yes, believe in what you want, even be committed to it. But fighting for it doesn't accomplish anything, because Wikipedia has no refs, no scorekeeper, no judges. It just has consensus. For better or for worse, we need each other in order for anything to happen. No one can do it alone. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we're going to disagree on interpretation... some people see the straw poll and say "that proves there's no consensus for there to be a policy in the first place, because only a vocal minority support it". But others see the straw poll and say "the policy has been a consensus for a long time, and this shows that only a vocal minority is against it." And as much as I know how you feel, the only thing that matters is ... consensus. We don't even have a consensus about what the consensus is. The only way to move forward is to build a consensus. For better or for worse, that will require half-steps. I say that as someone who's basically comfortable with where NOT#PLOT has been for the past few years. But I also hate to see time wasted and tempers flared over the same issue over and over, and so I'd be willing to change and soften NOT#PLOT if it leads to less conflict. Randomran (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've been pretty frustrated with how many people are unwilling to budge from the usual WP:BATTLEGROUND positions. But I just want to thank you for being able to hold your personal preference without letting it prevent you from seeking a consensus. Also, I really appreciate it that you're willing to acknowledge the virtues of your opponents, and the flaws of your friends. It might not win a popularity contest, but I do think it makes it easier to build a consensus. I appreciate it a lot, and it gives me just a little more optimism and energy to know that not everyone is going to !vote in blocs. Randomran (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have our blocs, and people have their viewpoints. But there are those who can step out of their bloc every once in a while, and those who are blindly and fiercely partisan. I'm always on the lookout for those who step out from time to time. We need more of them. Anyway, hopefully we can keep making slow and steady progress. Thanks for trying to help. Randomran (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.

Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.

Focus on editors who show at least *some* open-mindedness, or else discussions will get dragged towards no consensus. (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you addition is a good one, I just think there should be more discussion of changing the guideline, especially since only a couple of people have discussed this. I have continued to appreciate and admire your work and efforts from a far, especially with WP:PLOT. Thank you again. Ikip (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the weight of opinion. If 50 editors believe a section should stay, and 50 believe it should go, that says to me that there is no consensus for it to stay but equally no consensus to remove it, and so the status quo should remain. There is no way that such an RfC should result in a change to an important policy, and I would be saying that whether I agreed with the policy or not. Black Kite 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in the slightest, because there's equally no consensus for the text of a policy that doesn't include PLOT. We wouldn't take a 55-54 !vote as consensus for inserting a new section into a policy, so I can see no possible reason why we should accept one for removing a section. Black Kite 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well ... WP:POLICY says "The process for changing the status of a guideline or policy should normally be similar to the process for promoting a page: Start a discussion on the talk page outlining the reasons for the proposed change in status ... and solicit community input. After allowing a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus." That says to me that the onus is on those wishing to change a policy wording to gain consensus. Your mileage may vary, of course. (Oh, and the discussion wasn't closed by an indepedent editor). Black Kite 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do I agree? Difficult one. It really depends what you define by consensus. Does it mean a majority is required in favour of changing something (in which case this example should stay the same), or does "no consensus" mean no one side is in the ascendancy? And then of course there are policies which aren't very popular amongst the community at large but which we wouldn't change in a radical manner (WP:NFCC springs to mind here) because they're part of the five pillars. Actually, looking at it, WP:POLICY isn't very clearly worded at all - perhaps deliberately. Black Kite 06:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I am still tempted to start a DRV on this way anyway, because there was in now conceivable way a consensus to delete, but perhaps it would be best if we referenced and improved the userfied article first. As such, I would greatly appreciate if you could help incorporate the sources you found into this article. Thank you! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

Hey Hobit, I'm not trying to steal your thunder here, but I had a moment to spare (honestly, I was bored and don't want to teach class...). Please see User_talk:S_Marshall#How_about_it.3F. I'm glad you brought it up on his talk page; I've been thinking about it for the last week or two. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having happened upon this, I imagine that I should note that either spelling is permissible, toward which see, e.g., our article. The entry in Paul Brians's "Common Errors in English" suggests, consistent with most dictionaries, that the distinction is strictly an American English/British English one (following from the dropped e), but as the latter article notes, "judgment" prevails in legal circles in those countries that use British English. I quite prefer "judgment" (and would even were I not an American inclined to the law; OTOH I prefer "acknowledgement" to "acknowledgment" and "abridgement" to "abridgment"), which looks much cleaner, but in general one needn't to correct "judgement". Cheers, and Joe 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remember which WikiProjects you advertised the WP:PLOT poll on? I'm considering similar advertising of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction. Hiding T 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you may have seen, the photographer who took this photo of Diego Corrales (Bret Newton of threatphoto.com] responded favorably to a request from me to release it under a free license. I consider this a very good example of what we can accomplish very easily. I wonder if you could be so kind (if someone hasn't beaten you to it) as to upload it? I would do it myself but honestly I don't have much experience with uploading images and I'm not sure I will do it correctly, and I've caused enough of a stir as it is!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got folks coming over in 5 minutes. If no one has gotten to it by tomorrow morning I'll do it then! Thanks for doing that. I've tried to do similar things and always been rebuffed by the owners. Plus I couldn't find anything on Flicker that didn't look like a professional shot (and thus perhaps not really theirs). Hobit (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, since you were curious what it looked like when it was deleted. Feel free to do with it whatever you like, bearing in mind CSD G4 and all that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I believe your suggestions will be paramount to the successful inclusion of RantMedia. I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as -- since Tuesday afternoon. I wasn't clear to me what was necessary to be done with the article, and you helped lead me to the answer of my question of "what is it going to take?". So from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i was canvassed too so i subbed it a bit but i dont think it deserves deleting it is kinda a sideline but so is say Newmarket and Chesterford Railway which I created now its not interesting to anyone who lives in Newmarket or Chesterford but I think it is kinda useful to those who live in these parts. And that article may be useful to those who live in those parts. Its fairly well written I would say start class got lots of references and stuff and cross links to other things sure it needs work and I got rid of the swear words out of it I would probably not pick up a copy if you gave it to me free but I think it is entitled to have an article here. If you disagree please discuss at my talk page SimonTrew (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]