User talk:Hobit/Archive3

Taking a break as I'm spending too much time here. Back next week maybe. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave a note here. If you are looking for something older, please check out my archive (above) Hobit (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that its Wikipedia that is particularly conservative about copyright, but rather it seems that your main issue is with the laws and case law. That pokemon check for example, I voted weak delete. The US courts have held that a mere "spark" of creativity is needed to get some level of protection for a work. Facts and data and purely mechanical data outputs aren't protected, but even a little formatting and layout applied to that data can make a protected work. Of course the protection is weak, since you can transcribe the data into your own layout very easily and form a new non-infringing work.

Another example is the gray area of photographs of public domain paintings. Right now the foundation is dealing with a bunch of crap because a museum is claiming that their very mechanical photographs of public domain artwork are protected. The foundation is standing up to them, alleging that the photographs just document reality and don't have a creative element at all. That's not particularly conservative of the foundation, since it's not a 100% settled legal question, although the museum's claims are pretty weak. Anyway, my point is, I think that most of us would rather err on the side of keeping fair use and likely non-infringing gray area works, but the case law has been very explicit about certain things. Gigs (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you at the deletion review. I am not opposed to NFC, and I think we are a fair better encyclopedia because of it. However, we already have our compromise with the NFCC. I am not the one arguing for policy change at every image, at all- that role is already filled by others I will not mention here. What I argue against is the constant attempts to water down our NFCC which are being fuelled by this mindless bureacracy. I really don't think you're going to get anywhere arguing that I "misunderstand our fair use policies"- you're honestly barking up the wrong tree there. It is only because I have respected your work in the past that I even bothered to read past that point- if it had come from someone else, I would have just reverted without comment. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I kept adding the wrong tag in error, so I think we were at cross purposes there. The applicable CSD criterion is C1, not A3, so the template would have been incorrect. Anyway, that's it properly tagged now.

Xdamr^talk 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I sure do appreciate you and GRuban sticking up for my article. I appreciate your thoroughness and objectivity very, very much. Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what "undo yet another redirect." means (unless you've undone other merges that I missed), but I assume you're attempting another "have a discussion with nobody" session. Seriously, if these were articles with a lot of recent activity or something I could understand, but there is nobody that cares. I have merged at least a dozen of the characters at this point, and not one person who actually edits the articles have said a thing. That indicates a silent consensus, thus no need for discussion. TTN (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make bold changes without discussion, but please don't be offended if someone disagrees with you and undoes the redirect. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you "disagree", but not for an actual valid reason. Either way though, these obviously will not be kept for any reason through a merge discussion. Why bother when the outcome is clear? If you actually are interested in the series, work on the main article instead of hassling me over terrible articles. TTN (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hassling? I'm undoing edits I feel hurt the encyclopedia. If you feel you are in the right, please discuss. Otherwise leave it alone. Again, if you are going to boldly make major changes to an article without discussion you shouldn't be upset when someone undoes those changes pending a actual discussion. Please see WP:BRD and note the image in particular. If you do wish to discuss it this, I'd suggest the Sonic wiki project as the right place rather than my talk page (put another way, if you want to discuss this further, please use that page). Hobit (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All comments removed after the post where I asked further discussion to happen elsewhere. If you all want to discuss this with me or each other, I'd ask that you do so elsewhere. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kristen McNamara, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen McNamara. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put this on the AfD page too but thought I'd put it here as well. Apparently the user has been just adding sources as references without any indication as to what relates to what. We don't do sourcing that way. I didn't see it until this edit where a source was added but material wasn't added at the same time and at the same time, no existing material was pointed to the source. We don't just do random sources like that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 22:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ludicrous assumption of bad faith. Your "unfounded suspicions" about my closing of that AfD are indeed wildly incorrect, but to be fair, they did make me laugh. As Cunard has pointed out to you, I had no intention of doing anything else with that AfD until he contacted me.

Perhaps I should have deleted it the first time - despite all the website's "it's notable" supporters, it still doesn't have any significant third-party coverage. You'd have thought all those supporters would have found some by now, if it's that notable, wouldn't you? Black Kite 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you should have if you felt it was the outcome of the discussion. Clearly you didn't. But if by closing with with explicate permission to reopen immediately you were hoping for some outcome other than someone renominating it immediately I'd be curious what that motivation was. Hobit (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but if you'd looked at the history of the 2nd AfD I closed it normally [1]. I only added the "permission to renominate" line after I had been contacted [2], so that people were less confused as to why it had been nominated straight away again... Black Kite 09:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report BOZ (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Kww's RfA. Be well. Crafty (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit. I saw your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) and noticed that your signature seems to lack your user name. Has something gone wrong with it, or was it a one-off system glitch? Your signatures above all look OK. You might like to check this and then re-sign your comment. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like a lot of your comments at the Shankbone DRV, but please keep it to a cool, frosty outrage. The less anger you and I and others show, the worse this kind of bad behavior by Jake looks (and I know, it's so much easier to say this than do it, and I may not always be doing it). Some of the arrogance shown on that page is going to hurt the other side. Everyone knows Jake did the wrong thing, some just won't say it. Let the closing admin on this feel guilty and embarassed to think about support that delete. I'd say we have something like a 50 percent chance of that. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was helpful in preventing the deletion of the BLP on Ray Joseph Cormier in March of this year, and Hipocrite has nominated it for deletion again. Being the subject of it, my opinion does not count for much. Would you please take a look again? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having recused myself from participating in the AfD discussion, naturally, I am following it. You can be assured ALL the references are reporting on the subject exclusively. A few of them can be seen here [3]. Even when expanded, it still requires a magnifying glass to read them.

In reading the comments, it seems the delete side is going on the fact that at the beginning, when I discovered this BLP, I was somewhat overbearing in attempting to exhort editors to improve the article. This is an emotional reaction, ignoring the benchmark standard of Wikipedia in determining Notability.

I have recused myself a long time ago from editing the article because of COI. Having realized my attempts to exhort others to want to work it was counter productive, I reformed my ways, even in the article talk, and basically withdrew from participating, waiting, hoping, some Editor would ask me to e-mail all the original references and more just to take a look. No one can know the substance of any story by the headers the newspaper chooses.

The article Talk is not exactly a hotbed of activity, and my last entries were to say if anyone is interested, I will forward all the references and more to them. No requests as yet.

I cannot edit the article myself and rightly so. I agree with that principle and policy. I cannot exhort other Editors to take an interest, knowing if it is not improved, the AfD process will kick in time after time. This leaves me in the position of being damned if I do, and damed if I don´t. AS it is, except for the ´Early Life and Conversion" Section, I agree the rest, not reflecting the realities that can be drawn from the actual newspaper references, is NN. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I´d like to know what an IAR is? [4]

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the response. You might be interest in this from the Talk of the creator of the subject article,

[5] DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having become hyper sensitive that anything I might say will be interpreted as canvassing, all I can say to you Hobit is :) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, trying to fix it now. The transclusion is causing a problem. Black Kite 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on my talk page. Thank you for your patience while I was away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I just wanted to thank you for your support in keeping the Article in the AfD discussion. I was told an Administrator not involved with the Article would review all the comments to determine a result. I don´t know if that Administrator is the person User:Kevin that closed it. but he obviously did not do any evaluation or investigating at all.

What I find most disturbing about the process is four delete opinions were based on this comment

• Weak Delete - The number of references to reliable sources almost caused me to make a kneejerk "keep" argument. Normally I would say that they would clinch this as an establishment of notability. But I looked into the long discussion on the talk page, and the last two AfDs. Particularly compelling was something that KillerChihuahua said in the first deletion discussion:

I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. -- Atama頭 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The very next comment below that is this, which no one bothered to read evidently.

This is why I put considerable weight in the variety of references. He's garnered media coverage from every corner of Canada, which I think makes him somewhat more than a local character, and these references have come from several different years, making him not a flash in the pan. As for what he did - well, he ran for office and lost, caused a ruckus at a variety of events, and travelled across the country acting like a prophet. Most importantly, though, he got coverage from multiple reliable third party sources while doing so. Also, your characterization of the sources as "small newspapers" is off—the majority of them are major dailies in markets of well over one million. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As I know how to read, four delete opinions were based on an erroneous statement in the 1st place. Where is the fairness in the process? Did the closing Administrator even look at that?

Again, thank you for standing up for WP:N. Now that it is gone, and even though there were more references edited out of article than shown in the last deleted version, I suspect some people just could not countenance a BLP on a modern day prophet of the God of the Bible still living. The deletion does not change that at all. Peace and Blessings to you. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit, while the result is disappointing, it´s not like I haven´t experienced it before. I went through a similar type of experience in Pheonix, Arizona in 1976.

This is one part of self published information in CNN´s iReports. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-267228 It is only one day in the life. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When I went to sleep last night, I was resigned to the deletion. It doesn´t change much as far as what I do. I rarely mentioned it to anyone unless some relevance in conversation came up. I was pleased this morning when I saw your comment in the closing Administrator´s Talk. I was also pleased to see Nomoskedasticity´s comment since he !voted delete. It´s not over yet, I thought.

Kevin replied to his comment, but not your´s. I have no intention of pursuing a deletion review, and this is the last comment I have to make on this matter and perhaps on Wikipedia unless I am invited to comment on anything.

I will watch for a few more days to see if there are any new developments. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On a totally different matter, I was moved to upload this new 1st person experience on CNN´s iReport just now.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-352348 Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit, before they were called Prophets, they were called Seers. Granted, everybody sees different things, mostly determined by individual interest. The more one meditates and thinks of God in a world of so many things to think about, the more those individuals will begin to see evidence of God in their lives and working in the world.

While I wait to see the consensus that develops, I must still be about the business the Article implies I do. While I did not write this CNN iReport, mine is the only comment. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-352783 Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when people show integrity, as you did at the "default to keep--despite how I voted" matter. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then ... I guess I take it back! Till next time.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]