User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 7

⁂ Main Talk - Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ⁂

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Backslash Forwardslash. 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 1

←

A question...

Inre your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (2nd nomination): The title has been moved to It's Complicated (film) and the article has now been expanded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF, as filming had commenced, completed, and the film has a slated release date. Any thoughts on modifying your delete opinion? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn, for obvious reasons. Thanks for the note. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your actions and do appreciate your nomination as it allowed to article the improvement it required. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikael Johnston

Hi, you deleted this via AFD just yesterday and now someone just put it back up.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Already been deleted per WP:G4 by another admin. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That was me: see below for a communication from the user, and my talk page for details. I actually SALTed the page but after discussion with the user who remounted the page have unSALTed it. The user feels that he has a case to make for that remounting. He was advised by me that his only option seemed to be deletion review, and I also advised him to contact you as a first step. I unSALTed it to make it easier to take to deletion review if that was required. I haven't assessed his citations that purport to demonstrate notability to any extent but I believe that you'll take an impartial look at what he has to offer; I'm not sure if you'll think that a second AfD or a deletion review process is warranted. I'm not expert in the finer points of WP:MUSIC, at least not this genre, but if I can be of any assistance, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

mikael johnston

Hello - I started a new article hoping to rectify the main concern with the original article which was that it was autobiographical because the subject had originally started the page. The consensus on the talk/delete page for the original article was that notability was established through credible references that met Wikipedia guidelines. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than they share some of the same references. I was also in the process of editing my article when it was deleted. Could you please un-delete this page or move it to the sandbox? Thank you

Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

Hey Lishlet, and thanks for the note and the email. I'll respond here simply for the sake of convenience. ;)

Since you are new, I'll start by saying that all discussions on Wikipedia are judged by consensus. Consensus is judged not by the number of votes, but the strength of the arguments. Numbers can be used to reinforce the arguments, but aren't used solely as a way of judging consensus. When I go over the AfD, I see a valid reason for deletion from the first two participants, despite the somewhat weak nomination. The indepth analysis by Abc was incredibly valuable, going through every source and outlining why they don't satisfy our notability policy. On the other hand, I notice there were considerably longer yet weaker arguments for keeping the article. Many of them were simply long winded votes saying that they like the subject, and others said that there was 'obvious notability' but didn't explain why. Furthermore, I have some concerns about the reason behind many of the voters, many of whom had little or no edits to anything other than the AfD. This makes it harder to judge consensus, as it gives the appearance that there was some level of off-wiki canvassing. If you didn't want to read all that, in short; 'The keeps weren't as convincing as the deletes'. If you do not feel satisfied by my closure, in that it didn't follow the consensus of the discussion, I will fully understand if you wish to list it at deletion review. (Instructions on that page) However, there is no rule against working on an article on a subpage until it meets our criteria and moving it back; many of our articles have been deleted yet were improved significantly. If you have an improved copy, let me know as I can help advise what needs further work.

Hope this satisfies your concerns, if not let me know. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,Backslash Forwardslash

I am surprised to see that you have concluded the consensus of the discussion for deletion of ‘Lin Chen’ is to merger ‘Lin Chen’ to ‘Chen Model’. To my understanding the discussion has not reached a consensus. Given the indecisive result, the best solution is ‘status quota’, to leave the article ‘Lin chen’ alone.

Here is the result of the votes in the discussion: 3 keeps: 1 delete: 2 mergers ( Lin Chen to Chen model) 1 merge (Chen model to Lin Chen) In particular, DGG, a senior editor of Wikipedia, best interprets the Wikipedia criterion and suggests to keep the article. If merger, DGG added, Chen model should merger to Lin Chen, not the other way around.

As you did not participate in the discussion I am not sure if you have full knowledge of the discussion, but I hope you could take the majority’s opinion seriously. At least you should take DGG’s opinion seriously. Thank you.

Bankert (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bankert. Firstly, in nearly all AfD discussions, the closing administrator isn't someone who had voted in the debate. This is to avoid someone closing it with a conflict of interest, or against consensus to support their point of view. Let me assure you, I read every word. ;)

All discussions on Wikipedia are judged by consensus. Consensus is judged not by the number of votes, but the strength of the arguments. Numbers can be used to reinforce the arguments, but aren't used solely as a way of judging consensus. Merging can often be seen as sort-of-satisfying both keeps and deletes; the useful information is kept while non-notable material is culled. In this particular debate, there was considerable debate over whether Lin Chen met our notability criteria for academics. While many of the keeps said the economic theory made them notable, the deletes and merges agreed that there was little notability outside of that theory. While I did take DGG's thoughtful comments into account, I didn't feel that was enough to sway consensus. Of course if you disagree, I will happily give you a copy of the article to work on, or you can list it at deletion review. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Please note the followings: 1) Lin Chen has notability beyond his model. He was at least twice made a national headline in his home country, China. One is several years ago when he became the highest paid college president in China’s history; the other, when he was a college sophomore he taught himself physics for three months and successfully passed the entrance exam for the graduate studies. 2) DGG made a great point that Lin Chen’s case is similar to athletes’ case; once an athlete makes a record he/she becomes notable. In Chen’s case, if Chen model is considered notable then the author of the mode is automatically notable. 3) If you guys still insist merger, I think you should follow DGG ‘s suggestion that ‘Chen model’ merger to ‘Lin Chen’ not the other way around.Bankert (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bankert. The consensus in the argument was that the above cases did not make Lin Chen notable. Whether or not you disagree with the consensus is not enough to overturn an AfD. AfDs can be overturned through deletion review only if the closure was against consensus.

Merging is an editorial area, so you are more than welcome to request such a move on that articles talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

HI\/

Still funny? Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for The West Wing presidential election, 2006

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The West Wing presidential election, 2006 . 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. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why has my page gone and how do i get it back?

i understand the fact that you are thinking about my privacy and are thankful but please can i have my page back Leanne Gallagher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to say no to this one, because your userpage did nothing but attack Leanne Gallagher, who I don't think you are. Continue making attacks on other people, even if you 'claim' that it is yourself and you will end up blocked. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD Thank you

Thank you for your fair judgement in administering the AfD. Keep up the good work. Lattefever (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever

Please help me navigate

I feel like I am bouncing around between conflicting guidelines here. I am attempting to create an informational entry about a quantitative financial risk model. I responded to a request to add internal links, but you say I have too many links. I am in the process of removing language I thought could be construed as promotional and replacing it with methodology, but received your order to stop writing. Can you help me find the acceptable course for posting this information? Thanks, userpeUserpe (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to reread Wikipedia:ADVERT#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, which gives a few hints on how you can avoid having possibly advertising edits. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Roger Currie

Could you explain what you mean by "The keeps failed to explain why this user is notable". Do you mean that the sources listed didn't meet WP:N or that he's not notable in a more basic sense that he hasn't done anything "worthy of note" even if sources have covered him? Hobit (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

response to the decision by \Backslash Forwardslash/ - I just want to go on record as saying I think the second deletion of the article I created for Book Author Alan Roger Currie is totally subjective, unwarranted and even the target of a "personal vendetta" by the editor Theserialcomma. Theserialcomma was the #1 editor who encouraged me to write a new, edited version of Mr. Currie's page after the original one was deleted, and then he/she turns around and pushes for a speedy delete of the second, more improved article. In the meantime, you have an article for a book author such as Ross Jeffries maintained, and anyone who knows about dating and relationships knows that Jeffries is not even in the same league as Alan Roger Currie. Even worse, you have an article maintained for a so-called seduction guru named JDOG. The presence of these latter two articles, among many more, makes the decision to remove Mr. Currie's page appear very excessive, not to mention borderline laughable. My $0.02 Chicago Smooth (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

you continue to abuse and manipulate the context of my friendliness to you. i said userify the article and when the subject is NOTABLE, the wikipedia article should be created. you simply recreated the article within 24 hours without any change in notability. i did not tell you to recreate it before notability. you have repeated over 5 times on various pages that i told you to recreate it, when that is a lie. i told you to userify it and wait until it's notable. you just recreated it, and so i voted delete again. you have a clear COI anyway. if he's worthy of an article, someone will create it when the time is acceptable Theserialcomma (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

response to Theserialcomma - "Notable" in who's mind? Yours, or mine? In my mind, Mr. Currie already is "notable." As I've mentioned before, it depends on who you are directly comparing his notability to. Compared to the vast majority of dating and relationship authors, dating coaches, seduction gurus and even radio personalities, Mr. Currie is notable. Has Mr. Currie been a cover story in TIME magazine? No. But how many dating and relationship authors have? Have you seen his caliber of guests on his radio show? Mr. Currie has interviewed a good number of high profile dating and relationship experts, many who are featured right here on Wikipedia. And I don't believe that I have that much of a true "conflict of interest" simply because I've exchanged e-mail messages with him and I'm generally a fan of his book and principles. I'm a fan of "Zane's Sex Chronicles" on Cinemax; Does that mean I have a "conflict of interest" there too? I'm a fan of "Diary of a Tired Black Man" written and directed by Tim Alexander; Does that mean I have a "conflict of interest" there too? I don't want to necessarily bring race/ethnicity into the discussion, but the reality is, many people are "notable" in the African-American Community far before they are "notable" in mainstream. You take Bernie Mac and Robin Harris. Both of these comedians were extremely "notable" in the Black Community way before they ever became truly "notable" in the minds of mainstream media types. So, in my mind, notability is highly subjective in many ways for me. My final point is simply length. I know that's probably irrelevant to the debate, but I honestly don't see how an article can remain in existence for 24-30 months, and then all of the sudden be considered a target for deletion. This is over half of the reason why I'm so adamant about keeping the article maintained. That seems inconsistent. Currie's article between Spring 2007 and Spring/Summer 2009: Very few citations and references, but maintained, and rarely even challenged; Currie's article during the latter part of Summer 2009: A good number of citations and references, but challenged at every turn and ultimately deleted. That makes no sense to me. Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry I don't have enough time to give you a full, in depth rationale, I'm keeping this one short. Basically, every one of the links and references presented by the keeps in order to display notability was rebutted or noted and considered not enough to pass WP:N. In any event, the fact it had just failed an AfD meant that there was already a requirement for significant improvement for the article to be kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The one person who actually listed all 10 sources and looked at them !voted to keep. I see 2 undisputed RSes, both from local sources (Gary Post-Tribune) as well as one from The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. 1 person !voted to weak delete after that (who agrees those sources are reliable) and one person !votes to delete based solely on the previous AfD. I'd say we pass the letter of WP:N with 3 non-trivial RSes. And the mess of other trivial mentions also moves it well past the spirit of WP:N. Given the !votes there (6 delete, 5 keep) and meeting at least the letter of WP:N I don't see how this can be a delete. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The person who listed those refs said, and quote: "References #2, #9, and possibly #7, appear to qualify the subject as notable."

#2 was relatively accepted but not completely strong, and #9 and #7 were both disputed. I cannot see how one borderline reference and two controversial refs enough to outweigh those who still thought deletion was correct (weak delete is still delete) and the previous AfD. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that an 11th source was added (another Gary Tribune article) and not disputed? Also, the previous AfD was before these sources all came in which is why there was a relist at DrV. Also I didn't see anyone dispute the radio show. So unless I'm missing something (and that's possible, the discussion is a mess), that's 3 RSes and a 6/5 !vote split. I don't see how that discussion can an be seen as reaching aconsensus for deletion. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the delete votes to be stronger, and the consensus in that debate what that the references did not constitute notability. Another ref did come up, and again it was clear that no-one felt it was enough to constitute notability. Feel free to list at WP:DRV if you are that concerned, but there I can't see a good reason to come to any other conclusion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Last question: how the heck can 3 non-trivial sources covering the topic not meet WP:N? I mean WP:N is pretty darn clear in its requirements and these were agreed to be above the bar in the AfD. I realize I'm going to need to go to DrV (where being a second pass at this it will likely get shot down quickly) but I have a real issue with deleting articles where there are 3 undisputed RSes that cover the topic and I'm trying to understand how facts (non-trivial sources covering the topic) get weighted less than opinions ("not notable") or irrelevant arguments (was deleted at last AfD when DrV was the cause of the relist). Hobit (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply, when everyone in the debate says it doesn't. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

6 of 11 is everyone? And not one of them disputed that the 3 sources were RSes? Ah well, off to DrV later this week. Thanks for the explanation of your close! Hobit (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DrV is up. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Isola (fictional island)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isola (fictional island). 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. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

re: recent afd

Hello Backslash Forwardslash I wrote a direct email to you and did not receive a response, so I'm going to try posting to your page. It was suggested by User talk:Accounting4Taste that I first contact you. I was hoping we could discuss an article that was deleted recently that I contributed to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston. I realize I may not be as up on Wikipedia guidelines as some of the admins or more experienced users but when I follow the argument Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston, it doesn't seem like deletion was necessary. I apologize in advance if I seem ignorant to the protocol of Wikipedia but please allow me to explain.

Many contributors, (one in particular who is a major contributor to Wikipedia music articles User:Dissolve) advised to keep, Another User:Abc518 advised to Merge and cited at least some notability. He then went on to say, "There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added... I don't think this page should be deleted all together." The discussion then continued where Editing User:Mperiera explained in detail source credibility for the article's references. The credibility of those references was then re-affirmed by User:Dissolve an experienced veteran Wikipedia music article contributor, when he said, "Keep Subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources (SF Weekly[23], Allmusic[24], East Bay Express[25], Keyboard Magazine[26]), so meets WP:N." I understand that this is not a majority vote but there was a majority of contributors to this talk that cited arguments that seemed to speak to the subjects notability and that the references meet the guidelines to establish WP:Notability.

The consensus of the group discussion from what I read seemed to establish with valid arguments that Mikael Johnston has notability in his field electronic dance music, that his article should not be deleted, however, there was a concern that the page was autobiographical because the subject had started the article himself.

I understand the concern about the original article possibly being autobiographical, and this is the reason I was compelled to start a new article hoping to write something the was not connected with the subject - unbiased, well referenced and fact based. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than using some of the same reference material (as well as some new ones). Please allow me to finish and post the new article I started on Mikael Johnston. I welcome any help or suggestions to help ensure my article meets Wikipedia guidelines. My article is newly started and more of a stub than an article so far. I may ask for help from some more experienced users like User:Dissolve, in finishing this article. You can see what I've written in so far at User:Lishlet/Sandbox.

Thank you again for your time. Please let me know your thoughts.

Lishlet (talk)

Hi, I responded to you on this page, and the response has already been archived at User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 7. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read my original letter or the entire afd carefully? (see above). First of all ABC's argument isn't relevant because if you had of followed the links he discussed you would have found out the same thing I did which was that his assessment of them was largely incorrect. His claim that some of the links didn't even work wasn't true and his claim that many didn't meet WP:Notability was dispelled by Dissolve, who is more or less an expert on Wikipedia in the subject of music. He has over 13000 edits for articles related to music. He voted to keep btw... Lastly there was a direct response by Mpereira that explained every linked reference on the page that was far from being a fan letter. I'm very disappointed in your seemingly one sided assessment of this situation. You didn't bother to even consider any of the legitimate testimony in favor of the article. In fact during the afd discussion the only responses by administrators were concerning the less credible arguments as you pointed out and seemed to be at times even personally motivated. That aside nobody responded with even so much as a comment to Dissolve? Why is that? I also asked for your help on a rewrite of the article that I started as a stub, which I pointed you to at my sandbox, you never even mentioned it in your response to me. I am not feeling a lot of love at the moment... Is deletion review really my only option here, or can we talk about the possibility of a rewrite on this article, which is really what I'm trying to get at here. Thanks again for your time.

Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

By the way, since you cited ABC as your primary source of argument against keeping the page in question I'd also like to point out that ABC even after his review of the references didn't vote to delete. In fact he stated that the articled definitely shouldn't be deleted altogether and said that at most a merge was appropriate, that is far from a delete vote and should have probably been discussed further before deletion archiving of the afd page.

Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Did you actually read my response to your original letter carefully? :) "However, there is no rule against working on an article on a subpage until it meets our criteria and moving it back; many of our articles have been deleted yet were improved significantly. If you have an improved copy, let me know as I can help advise what needs further work." I don't have the time to write an article for you, but if you improve it I can copyedit and provide other assistance. As for 'ignoring' keep votes, I read every word of the AfD and found "On the other hand, I notice there were considerably longer yet weaker arguments for keeping the article. Many of them were simply long winded votes saying that they like the subject, and others said that there was 'obvious notability' but didn't explain why. Furthermore, I have some concerns about the reason behind many of the voters, many of whom had little or no edits to anything other than the AfD." I didn't ignore anything, I simply found arguments for keeping in that AfD to be weaker. Now, as for ABC. His comment was to merge the article to the band, which amounts to 'he isn't notable and shouldn't have a separate article'. Given the content of the page, any information can easily be added to the band page without restoring the article.

If you are still unhappy, WP:DRV is the way to go. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

hi.

i also just tried to create an atrticle, "Hassan Zirak" which was removed by yourself which was an exact copy of this article, "Hesen Zirek", whilst the second article is still on wikipedia after 5 years just due to the fact that the author has used an incorrect spelling of the name. could someone please sort this out as it is just boiling my blood.

many thanks. (Snndj98765 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the note. I suggest you read our copyright policies before rewriting any articles. Further, if an article is at an incorrect title, either move it using the move function or [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|request someone else do it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The wine article

As been deleted twice by speedy deletion and you shouldn't have removed the tag. I'm putting it back since I nominated before for speedy and it was deleted with no problem.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the speedy deletion guidelines in light of your obvious misinterpretation of criteria G1. G1 is not a general template, but only for patent nonsense. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, the A3 tag you used to replace my AfD tag was completely incorrect. Please ensure you know and understand the criteria before tagging. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Did it just got speedy deleted again by an admin. LOL--Fire 55 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion

Please be more careful when speedy deleting images. You deleted File:26648897-798b0ffd3a55d7485ae722cdfbe90b71.4a9b3c05-scaled.jpg, which was tagged as "copied from http://www.nasa.gov/, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia". The nasa.gov site is home to numerous public domain images, including that one, which was tagged as public domain. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Missed that. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy

I have two favors to ask.

1: Copy your archive

Do you mind if I use your archive list thingy? I like it, and I'm guessing I might need an archive box.

2: Editing

Do you know what type of article I should create? I've searched up everything I know and it is on wikipedia. Please give me a tip or so soon.

Please either answer on my page or notify me to look here. Thanks! S H 6 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. Just would you mind including where you got it from, maybe in the comments? (something like )

As for what article to create, that is a little trickier. I personally think that improving existing articles, with an aim of getting it to WP:GA is a nice goal. User:SuggestBot could be used to find articles you may be interested in. Otherwise, look at Wikipedia:Requested articles and see if there are any articles you may be able to research at your local library. Hope this helps. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! S H 6 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since you accepted that im allowed to use the archive thing, i put your name on the bottom of my userpage in 'Credits' If you want to see, go head there =). S H 6 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashida_Kim_(6th_nomination)

I'm not sure that I follow closing this as no-consensus. The keep side were exclusively arguing again a renomination despite the 8 months since the last substantive AFD and the delete side put forward solid policy based arguments based on poor sourcing. Since we close with arguments rather then headcount and the delete arguments were based on policy I'm not able to follow why you stated in the close that there wasn't a good enough discussion to justify deletion. Surely, If good policy based reasons are put forward against poor keep arguments that did not address the central core of the delete arguments, then shouldn't the deletion arguments prevail? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To quote the closure; "The majority of keeps focused on WP:KEEPLISTING objections." (emphasis added) That is not to say that there wasn't keep votes which did focus on the notability aspect, to the extent were closing as delete would be inappropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which ones are you relying on for that conclusion? When I read the AFD there is only one argument for notability on the keep side and that's by assertion and challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  - "Keep notable as author of popular martial arts books. I would appreciate a voluntary 1 year waiting period before the next afd as a courtesy. jmcw (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)"
  - "Keep There are several sources indicating notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)" (admittedly weak)
  - "Speedy Keep per above. Failing that, please also see my copious, sourced comments in previous AfDs. JJL (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)"
  - Other editors agreed with the sentiment in the form of 'per all above'. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to take this to Deletion Review at this point. I pointed out the basic verifiability and notability problems here, that the same three editors, in AFD discussion after AFD discussion, keep successfully out-voting by dint of simple unsupported assertion, back in May 2007, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination). I reiterated it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination). It was reiterated for me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination). These basic sourcing problems, for an article that both the subject wanted deleted and that is one of Jimbo Wales' few AFD nominations, and that is of course a biography of a living person, have existed for too long, and it is time that closing administrators took a firmer stand on this. Policies and guidelines have been out-voted for too long. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

On the subject of Deletion Review (and the reason that I came to your talk page in the first place): I draw your attention to events at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30#Melissa Palmer, M.D.. Diffs demonstrating the identity of Efactor1975 and Voros1975 are not hard to find from the contributions histories, note. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hey, you recently closed this AfD as delete. However, you only deleted the main article, there were two other articles bundled together with this AfD that should also have been deleted: Para Todas las Putas Celosas and The Fake Sound of Progress (EP). Could you take care of them too please? Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ashida Kim

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ashida Kim. 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. *** Crotalus *** 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

after crotalus's pointy 2nd nomination for deletion, after being told to wait a year before nominating again - and ignoring that, he's now canvassing only sympathetic users to overturn this deletion. he has specifically contacted no one else other than those sympathetic to deletion. i believe that administrator action or further discussion on this behavior might be warranted Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

Good day,

I am contacting you specifically because I have no idea which admin is responsible for what on Wikipedia, and you were the closing admin on the Jackson Davis AfD.
Only a few hours after you closed that discussion, Otterathome went after yet another page related to the franchise, this time, it was Mesh Flinders, one of the original writers. (AfD here)

Question: What exactly can we do to deal with this user? After half a dozen nominations of pages only related to this franchise, and his overzealous attempts to kill the The Last and Jackson Davis articles despite clear decisions by Wikipedia's admins and community, it is rather obvious his point of view is not neutral, and he has a personal interest in removing the LG15 franchise in particular from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear designated area to raise concerns like this. :(

I submitted a Wikiquette alert about him a while ago, but unfortunately got little response.

Can you give us any pointers how to deal with this situation? A person to contact, a page to post on? The way this has been going on for over a month now, I have no doubt he is not going to stop until all those pages are gone, probably tying up all interested editors in several more months of AfDs, DRVs, etc. that could be spent improving those pages instead :/

I am aware that it is desirable that non-notable pages are removed, and I am not questioning his right to nominate individual pages for deletion. I just think that there's a vast difference between nominating one or two pages over notability concerns, and starting a crusade to rid Wikipedia of an entire franchise...

I would be very happy if you could tell us how to proceed...Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are sort of a jungle in that regard :S

Thank you for your time

~ Renegade - 213.39.158.197 (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: My IP is dynamic, I would appreciate it if we could keep the conversation on this page :) Thank you.

Hello. This is a complicated situation, because there is nothing specifically wrong with what he is doing; nominating articles is certainly not against the rules.

However, there is a point where continually adding AfD's can be considered disruptive. My suggestion would be to either try and clarify the guideline with the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers members and try and gather their input. If the user continually nominates articles when he has been asked to stop during discussion on that or any other page, I recommend raising the issue at WP:ANI as a last resort. Alternatively, you could look into following one of the steps of dispute resolution to allow for the issue to be settled on friendly terms. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)1

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Backyard Bard Deletion

G'day,

My name is Robert Turnbull, I created the page 'The Backyard Bard'. I was told that it was listed for possible deletion so a couple days ago I went through and added the references as per the request and I put a note in the 'Article for deletion' page. Nonetheless, the page was still deleted and nobody responded about my note or my changes. Is there was something else that needed to be done, can you please tell me? What would need to happen to get the page reinstated?

I'm sorry about the hassle.

Thanks, Rob RobertTurnbull (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertTurnbull (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I've undeleted the article and moved it to User:RobertTurnbull/The Backyard Bard. Work on the article there, and once you feel that it has met our guidelines, consider asking the nominator in the AfD, myself or any other editor if it meets the criteria. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks, RobertTurnbull (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal info

I know it's quite a bit of info, but that is pretty much the maximum extent I would give anyone. 3L1J4H (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Jose Fadul

We are very sad to know that you have the page on Jose Fadul deleted. We are starting to think that A bunch of crazy deleteonists have began lording it over Wikipedia. 119.111.86.72 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Excuse me, why did you delete the page "Simpsons Stick Ems". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanc1982 (talk • contribs)

Because the article did not meat our editorial policies. Please read Wikipedia:Starting an article and learn what it required of new articles and then readd the page if you feel it is appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you help?

On the template thing that has the season eight episode list, there is a typo on the red link. There's an extra " Family Goy Abce2|TalkSign 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Abce2|TalkSign 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ding

You've got mail. Regards, Javért | ^Talk 05:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge request for Midna

There's a histmerge request for Mida over at WT:VG by User:New Age Retro Hippie, who developed the article pretty significantly on his userspace. Was going to slap a histmerge tag on it but since it's a userspace thing combined with a redirect figured it'd be better to direct you to the discussion since you did the one on Toad (Mario) recently. Discussion link.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kung Fu Man; I'm afraid I don't really understand what New Age Retro Hippie wants. Did he copy the first draft from an article? Is there some edits on Midna that aren't credited for appropriately? From what I can tell this doesn't need history merging, just normal merger. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass welcoming

Hi Saebjon. It's wonderful to have enthusiasm, but can I suggest that you only welcome users who have made a constructive edit. That way you avoid welcoming vandals and clogging up the New Pages log. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind stopping, but I do remember that when I first joined Wikipedia, I was very confused, and did not know what to do at all, far before my first edit (constructive or not.) I believe that welcoming newcomers is important, as does Jimmy Wales, in his second statement of the principles of Wikipedia, and that welcoming a vandal is not an issue at all, because it takes barely any time, and welcoming them can only change their ways. They won't do anything more if welcomed. If they take the time to make usernames, they should be respected. Being new to this site is very difficult, I wish to ease the transition as much as possible. What I do agree with you on is the clogging of the New Pages log. I do not have any previous experience with this, and do not know how bad it is. That is up to you, and if you still do not agree with me, I'll still listen to you, and not welcome others, but I believe that you should listen to my arguments first. Thanks so much for listening to my rant!:D

Saebjorn! 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means, welcome new users; welcoming is the only way new editors feel incorporated in the community. I know from personal experience how great it is to feel like there is someone who is willing to lend a hand, so I'm in full agreement with you there.

What I am saying is that only about 1 in 100 of the people actually want to edit constructively, most simply forget they have an account or are disruptive. In my opinion it would be more effective and efficient to welcome users after users post an edit, when they actually want and need the help. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging, redirecting, userfying during live AfD

There are discussions here and here which you may be interested in. pablo_hablo. 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings

When you closed the AfD on this article, you didn't delete the actual article, which its author had moved to Pittsboro, Indiana Businesses and Buildings. You just deleted the redirect he left behind. Deor (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

Hi. Thanks for approaching A Nobody directly and your comments at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Do you think that the discussion has reached a consensus, or would it benefit from RfC/CENT? If you feel that you cannot make a fair determination, would you recommend another admin to consult? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I'm not really in a good position to be calling the consensus; try contacting another admin. Sorry. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving cookies for the people who resolved the dispte at the Philippnes quickly. Thanks!--23prootie (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

23prootie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

In the future, please be more willing to participate in discussion; next time the other editor may not be indef banned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

I think the article can be safely unprotected at this point. The main warmonger, Boxedor (talk · contribs · logs), is now indefed as a sock of a known Philippine-related article warrior. I think there's some cleanup that needs to be done now that he's been knocked down again. Thanks, The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Velykyi Khodachkiv (was: Chodaczkow Wielki massacre) AfD notice

Hello \ /, you closed the AfD, but the notice on the article is still there. Shouldn't it be removed or am I missing something? Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please notice also that the article has been renamed/moved[[2]] and heavily edited by an editor while discussion was in progress. Now this article is about the village and not about the massacre. Is this acceptable since there was no consensus on deleting it?? --Jacurek (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily wrong but it does make the AfD difficult to judge. The no consensus was a reflection on the fact the article had moved, and that the participants were voting on two different articles. If you think it should be moved back, place a requested move. If you think it should still be deleted, take it to WP:AFD again. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor who moved the article participated in the discussion[[3]] and did not request move at requested move. By moving/renaming and editing the article he actually "secretly" deleted it while we were still talking about it. Is this o.k.? Why others have to request and he can do whatever he wants to, like here also[[4]] or here[[5]] or here[[6]]?--Jacurek (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't secretly delete it. He boldly moved the information and moved it to satisfy both parties. He attempted a compromise; the article is neither deleted nor kept. You are equally as free to boldly move the article back, but keep in mind you'll need to find consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried [[7]]he ignores everything and immediately reverts me and deletes my comments from his talk page. How can I reach consensus? Maybe you could help?--Jacurek (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave the ANI report and an admin will deal with it. Consensus is formed my discussion; perhaps you should try discussing it on the article talk page? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I reported it[[8]] I tried but there was nobody interested in the case. Last discussion page has been deleted/moved by him. Should I start discussion about the massacre on the new article moved/created by him, the article about the village now and not the massacre? After so many previous attempts I'm almost sure there will be no answer and if I make any changes he will revert, if I leave a comment he will delete it. I went through that already. Why some can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with this? How hard it is for any administrator to look at the case and at least leave him a note. Is this to much to ask?--Jacurek (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, looks like you are also not interested since you have not responded for a while and still on line. But please at least answer few questions? Will I have your backing if I went ahead now and moved back all the the articles he changed and start reverting him without any comments just like he does to me? Can I also delete all his comments if he leaves them and insert the the smiley faces instead? I think your answer will be "no" but if "no" then why not if that is o.k. to do. Looks like no administrator cares about such things. I will do exactly the same, nothing different or more, same amount of rivets with no explanation, I will delete same amount of comments if any and even replace them with the same amount of the smiley faces. Thanks :)--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Because his move was with consensus, yours would be a reversion on that. If you are really concerned about a users behaviour wait at ANI, go to RfC or talk to another administrator. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:) No there was no consensus. You closed it without the consensus being reached remember ??:) But that's o.k. don't worry, I understand, people have their lives and don't want to get involved. Thanks anyway for your time. Best--Jacurek (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for deleting the article. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)