User talk:A Nobody/Archive 8

re:RfA
The best thing for it would probably be disengage. Don't shoot, and they won't return fire.

I have mostly altered my stand-point for AfDs. When we butted heads at AfDs in the past, I generally held a rather deletionist viewpoint; I consider that changed. I did mention this amongst the questions; I consider myself at a midpoint between inclusionist and deletionist. I now only engage in AfD if I can add something reasonable to the arguments. You may want to see some of the most recent AfDs I involved myself in this year:
 * Articles for deletion/Calcon
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore: Ultimate Soldier
 * Articles for deletion/High Speed Ring
 * Articles for deletion/Corvette (game)
 * Articles for deletion/Transport Giant
 * Articles for deletion/Factions in Supreme Commander

You and I will differ in opinion; I disagree with you and the Pixelface crowd's interpretation of inclusion, but I disagree with the TTN approach as well—both are too extreme for me, I prefer the middle ground. In any case, AfD would not be my focus as an admin, I cannot see my current level of AfD involvement changing that much, and I'm certainly not going anywhere near controversial AfD closures until I feel I can handle it and fully justify my position. I certainly would not end up closing AfDs I felt I was biased in, I would merely register my views in it as though any regular editor. As one can probably tell from the steadily accumulating list of articles on my userpage, I am a writer first and foremost—that is what will take precendence. I want to do maintenance work that feeds into that line of things (WP:RM and the like), not get rolled up in AfD. -- Sabre (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the honest and detailed reply. I will change positions accordingly.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day

 * Thanks, you too! Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Yeah I just forgot to login. Sorry! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:PlayStation 2 Resident Evil 4 covers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:PlayStation 2 Resident Evil 4 covers.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Come again? It has been located at Resident_Evil_4 for months...  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam
Hi A Nobody, Many thanks for your support in my RFA. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here PS I'm intrigued by your criteria system, but was wondering how far back you go when considering block, AFD arguments and so forth?  Were Spiel Chequers  20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! For blocks, it depends really on the nature.  For personal reasons, I am not all that forgiving of blocks for harassment or gross incivility/personal attacks.  Put simply, I expect no more or less than my own history.  Every block that I have received has either subsequently been unblocked or the admin who blocked me is no longer an admin.  So, if someone had comparable blocks as me, but they were all unblocked and/or the admin resigned under a controversy of bad blocks, I cannot really hold it against them; however, if that individual's blocks were for serious issues like harassment and personal attacks and they were not unblocked, then it is hard to feel sympathetic.  As for AfDs, I basically use this tool and consider any AfDs in which we both participated.  If the candidate is someone who seems likely to be in significant disagreement with me then I am apt to oppose, because a) I don't want to empower someone who might use tools against me or against articles I support and b) if we disagree frequently then that means I don't believe thier judgment or interpretation of policies and guidelines is correct and as such do not trust how they will close discussions.  With all of that said, if the candidate approaches me in a reasonable manner as say S@bre did above, I will glad give them the benefit of the doubt and change my stance accordingly.  The worst thing anyone can do is to harangue me prior to allowing the candidate to do so, because candidates have and can change my mind, other editors acting aggressive are more apt to make me want to dig in and take defensive approach.  There are some candidate's however, who are so biased toward deletion, that I cannot support and I base that on experiences of obviously bad biased closes.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with you that blocks or other evidence of harassment or gross incivility/personal attacks would take a long period of good behaviour and a good explanation for me to show trust. But with AFD and someones inclusionist deletionist tendencies I would be much more inclined to only look at recent behaviour say from the last 6 months, as I see that as behaviour liable to change as someone's wiki career develops. PS since I've commented on your RFA criteria feel free to give your views on mine.  Were Spiel Chequers  22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair point as I probably have focused maybe too much on overall AfD participation rather than recent trends and it is something I should keep in mind. After all, my early AfD work under my old username was hit or miss and I would much rather people consider my contributions since my rename which better reflect where I am as an editor now.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee
Hi, I saw a box on your page mentioning something called the welcoming committee. Would it be ok if I joined it? I'm still fairly new myself, only a few weeks on here, but i've dived into the project. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, we'd be happy if you joined! :)  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the note of the welcoming committee, I've just felt the full force of it, and I'm feeling the love! Thanks a lot, this is a great scheme and I'm really thankful for the message.Quincel99 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
While i've got you here, I was wondering if I could get your take on Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. I've worked hard on it and I could use someone else's two cents, positive or negative. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have gone through and made a number of fixes throughout. I think some of the footnotes need more in their citations than just the websites, but off to a good start!  :)  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's tough to see through all the gobbledygook. If you know of any way to make it less dense in the editing screen while keeping that in there, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for your grammatical support! If there was an award for grammatical support, i'd give it to ya. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! For awards, see Barnstar.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How nice! :)  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability
So what is "notability" if not a policy? A guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
 * Lol funniest post I've ever seen. Notability is a guideline, not a policy. Remember that.-- Patton t / c 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please notice thatI am not opposed to this guideline, but I think it should be implemented a little differently in certain cases. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We are discussing at Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation ways to rethink it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll partake in the discussion there. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Take care!  --A NobodyMy talk 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the request for input, AN. I'm not much on writing/commenting on the rules (I try to avoid it because it takes time away from the interesting stuff-- working on articles), but I know it's important, because the rule-makers influence what we can and cannot write about here... Anyway, I'll give it some thought and try to give some input. In the meantime, looks like you've made a good start. Good luck! Dekkappai (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! I tried to notify just about everyone who commented at the RfC (if I forgot anyone, it was unintentional, or in some cases I figured some editors would likely find their way to it anyway due to having my talk page watchlisted).  I think if we have a visible alternative to play with we'll have a better means to a compromise.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also left my 2 cents. If you want more support, you need to write something that cover verifiability of the article (it exists) and the verifiability of its content (content != bullshit) that something too many inclusionists fail to take account.--KrebMarkt 14:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I, as one that might be considered "Inclusionist" (I'm not sure I am), completely agree. I think every fact in every article should be cited to appropriate sources. ("Appropriate" being secondary, and as "reliable" as possible given the nature of the article. i.e., Expecting sourcing in an article on a Japanese manga to be of the same nature as that on Queen Victoria would be absurd.) Where I differ with the Deletionists is that I don't think, once an article is sourced and cited, that I have any right to step in and say, "No, that's not 'notable'. Delete it." Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I absolutely believe articles should contain in-line citations to the kinds of stuff found on Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar.  But yeah, when the articles are sourced, the deletionists lose me, by still wanting to delete it anyway, because it doesn't meet their personal version of "notability."  Well, a lot of stuff isn't notable to me, but they may be because of ignorance or lack of familiarity with the subject rather than an actual lack of its notability.  So long as it isn't nonsense (i.e. has been cited or a realistic chance of citing exists) and matters to someone, then that should be enough.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What gets me-- I may lose you on this :-)-- are "Plot summaries". I've done a lot of these, and I always try to make them concise, and to cite them to a secondary source: a review or description of the film. Yet I have seen self-described Deletionists fill plot summaries with endless unsourced detail, all taken, apparently, from personal viewings. That, to me, is Original Research... It's almost as if the Deletionist believes that, once the article's "notability" is established, a little OR is fine. Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the few precisionists around and noticed also that flaw in the Delationist logic ;) Until the content verifiability issue is solved, i prefer to have the Afd page as point of contention rather than countless mini-content deletions conflict across each project. By the way, i have an example of what happen if you can't prove your content : WP:V does hurt --KrebMarkt 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To develop a bit more about the proof of existence VS proof of content. Proof of existence can as weak as a link the Amazon.jp referencing the item in their store. Proof of content is way stronger as it indirectly prove existence and the origin of that proof is someone RS so evidence of notability. --KrebMarkt 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

 * You're welcome, congratulations, and good luck! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * }

Re: AGF
I'm not Deor. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, but I was replying to the comment on your talk page, which I noticed, because I was going to post a quick note to the effect that we probably aren't going to convince each other and maybe we should step back so we're not just going back and forth, but noticed his comment and replied there. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)
I'm currently working on a DRV request for that AFD. I agree that, at the very least, it should be undeleted and redirected to preserve the edit history. MuZemike 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, Yandman will just undelet and redirect it and readjust his closing statement so that we can forgo the DRV, but yeah, I really don't see how there's a consensus to delete. If you looked at the last version of the article from the AM hours prior to deletion, I had revised it and added some published books as references for sections on Innovation for example concerning the units of the game where a book author called the game a "notable example" of the change in these kinds of units.  Moreover, if "gamecruft" was the basis for deletion, well, the policies reasons should trump that, not just preserve, but also that I added secondary sourced information which means it passes WP:V and passes OR and RS.  Finally, while I realize AfDs are not votes, more editors said to keep, merge, or redirect than delete and even the deletes largely seemed okay with a merge.  Zxcvbnm said, "But if necessary, Redirect."  Sephiroth BCR said, "I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well."  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late. Already done. Hopefully it's moot. MuZemike 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, hopefully. I wish there was a way that those in the DRV could see the last version of the article as I was in the process late last night making some pretty substantial improvements that should have addressed the nominator's concerns.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try working on articles in your sandbox and syncing it periodically. This also removes the need to go asking admins to undelete pages so that you can continue to work on them in the event of deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you saw the version just prior to deletion, you would agree that at worst there was no additional mergeable content. I even cited a book source that called the game "notable" because of its innovative use of units.  Plus, how could undeletion of reliably sourced mergeable content and a redirect possibly be a bad thing?  I really hope that despite our past differences, this one time at least you will reconsider.  Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to remind you, I didn't actually participate in either of the AfDs. The purpose of DRV is as a check on the AfD process, to ensure that the result is in line with the discussion. Based only on the discussion, I think the close was correct. DRV is not a whole new opportunity to present one's case. If you feel so strongly about this article, request userfication. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the close inaccurate is that the stated "reasons" for deletion do not actually reflect how the article looked prior to deletion. All the non-admins saying "good call" is basing it on not seeing the final version of the article, which despite the list title had multi-paragraphs sections cited with published books and reviews on Innovations, History, and Reception.  The article was morphing into being more an article on the units rather than just a list of units.  It would be like someone deleting the article on Napoleon based on a discussion in which less than half of the participants type "fails such and such policy" and yet without seeing that the article those claims are not entirely true still delcaring their "arguments" somehow stronger.  The arguments have to actually reflect the condition of the article, not just "sound good."  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was clear enough in my point. The DRV can, by its very nature, only be appraised based on the contents of the AfD. The material that you believe would save the article was, by your admission, added on the last day of the AfD, once most of these comments had already been made. You can hardly argue that people were incorrect in their arguments at the time based on events which happened in the future. I'm rather annoyed that DGG's comment on the DRV essentially says that the AfD was closed in bad faith because the closing admin did not discard every comment in the AfD in light of recent and unnoticed changes - that's a rather fringe definition of the closing admin's role. Once again, if you genuinely think that the article would have survived given another few days of work, request userfication and ask the closing admin again once that's been done - the DRV is, insomuch as can be derived from appraisal of the AfD, pretty straightforward. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't start the DRV; as I indicated elsewhere I was hoping it would have been avoidable by just discussing with the closing admin. Given the changes, it should be relisted to take these into accounts.  It really should not be that big of a deal to undelete edit histories and redirect when there was far from any unanimous calls to do otherwise.  And given some off wiki comments, it seems like a number of those both in the AfD and at the DRV are making stances just to go against me, i.e. seeing going against me as somehow more important than the actual honest impression of the article, but in any event, doesn't it suggest you as not right for you and I to only have to go on the comments in the AfD than being able to point to the actual article to see if those comments are indeed accurate?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The closing admin offered pretty much straight away to userfy the article, were you to need it for this purpose. I don't buy that the DRV process is broken for this reason because pretty much every time-limited process on Wikipedia has the same problems, and indeed it's simply human nature to focus on early arguments. And really, the less said about the "people are out to get me" argument the better - that, sadly, is part of politics the world over, and there's no way to legislate it away. I've tried reaching it to you on occasion despite our differences in opinion, you and AMIB seem pretty amicable on occasion these days, and it's only through that kind of rapport that these things can be combatted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep emails private, even the bad ones, because I want people to know I don't violate confidentiality even to help my cases, and when I attempted to vanish in September I deleted my old email account, but I did have some swear-word laden and rather vicious emails from some in these discussions (they know who they are) and yes, a few in the AfD and DRV based on what they have said not just on Wikipedia Review, but elsewhere are indeed saying "delete" and "endorse" just to go against me. Not everyone by any means, but a few nonetheless and it only takes a few to get a ball rolling in one direction.  Yeah, I think with you, Randomran, and even A Man In Black, there's potential to get along and all despite the past and despite the occasional tension, but the sad reality is that some will never be open to me no matter what peace gestures I make.  As soon as I had the first block on my log, from then on, no matter what I did, some would never give me a second chance and won't.  This is not a place where one ever fully repair a reputation...  But anyway, my concern here is not simply to userfy the article; sure, I'd work on it in userspace, but even with the closing rationale explained, I cannot see any decisive consensus in that discussion to delete.  A minority opinion to delete when admins and established editors beyond just me argue to keep because they believe it meets our inclusion criteria doesn't seem right.  Yet, those calling to overturn are saying that with that said, just meet us halfway, just undelete the edit history and redirect and there are indeed benefits to doing so.  How could that possibly be a problem?  It is by no means a clear cut case and because there were improvements, I don't see why when in such an instance someone requests to at least undelete and redirect that could even possibly be something that requires even a moment's hesitation to allow.  I am greatly disappointed in that AfD and in teh DRV thus far and will log after this post.  Have nice weekend.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wilson (Home Improvement)
No point in retaining the history, there was absolutely zero material sourced to any references. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless if there's copy vios or libel in it, no point to delete either. By contrast, public edit history is helpful should anyone wish to add references to that content and for the sake of RfAs, i.e. for non-admins to look at candidate's work.  Moreover, the consensus in the discussion was to merge/redirect, not to delete the edit history.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussions
Could you avoid floooding discussions with identical comments in future? This really isn't the bess way to get your point across. Thanks, yandman  09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to just undelete and redirect to make that discussion moot and to save everyone needless hassle. Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blackmail really isn't the best option here. yandman  19:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The best option is to just undelete and redirect this valid search term so that we can do what we can with the mergeable content in its edit history. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

? [[Image:Icon confused.gif]]
While I don't agree with all your RFA comments1 I generally support them, however I think "I like to see barnstars and such on userpages (shows pride in work, appreciation from colleagues)" is a very unfair one. I never post barnstars and the like on my userpage, and it's not at all a matter of pride or the lack of it; firstly, I don't want to clutter my already-cluttered userpage with material that's irrelevant to most people reading it, and secondly don't want new or new-ish editors seeing a page full of stars and thinking "hey, this user's really important/popular/influential" and possibly feeling they shouldn't criticize me if they think I warrant it. I don't think this is a particularly unusual attitude or that there's anything wrong with it, and I do think using that as a specific reason not to support this candidate is rather unfair.2 – iride scent  20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1 Although I'd count myself firmly on the inclusionist side – AFAIK I've never closed an AFD as delete with even a single legitimate "keep" argument – I recognise that some material does warrant deletion even when sourced, and believe that people making the effort to take their opinions to AFD for discussion rather than just plastering an article with prod tags should be commended, not criticized. 2 I have no ax to grind for this candidate; prior to this RFA I'd never heard of them.
 * Fair enough; I may reevaluate that point in my criteria when I have some time. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have counseled others (maybe you before): refactor refactor refactor. Then apologize, even if you don't mean it. that way the issue is closed, and editors cannot use those particular words against you in the future. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Attack page
I would support you putting this page up for deletion:
 * User:Edgarde/tools there is a lot of precedence for deletion of such attack pages. Ikip (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ovious attack pages like this can just be reverted on sight and then an admin can delete from edit history if necessary. MfD isn't even needed.  I'll remove whatever is obviously in bad faith and then you and anyone else can revert as needed.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Polite note
You may wish to consider the recommendations of the essay WP:BLUDGEON in the context of your activity at the DRV of the list of units in Age of Mythology. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you are willing to send the same advice to the nominator of the article in the second AfD, i.e.
 * "It is not necessary or desirable for someone to reply to every comment in a discussion." as that editor replied to everyone who did not argue to delete or who did not endorse the close.
 * "Repeatedly nominating an article to be deleted or another process to win at all costs may be seen as abusive." as it was a second nomination.
 * If this applies both ways, then fine. Had no one replied to me initially in the AfD itself, I most likely would have left my initial comment and let it be.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I always feel like you're shooting yourself in the foot. Why not accept the advice with grace, and realise that by doing so you would have risen above those others? Seraphim &hearts;  19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I am happy to accept this advice, but that it should be applied to others as well, because I wasn't planning on getting all worked up over this article until after I started getting replies to my comment in the AfD. If you look at the AfD, I didn't reply to anyone first; only after I started getting replies and then I spent a decent amount of time while going back and forth actually improving the article only to see it deleted with a claim on the talk page that "merges" and "redirects" were not even counted as "merges" and "redirects", but as "delete," which is taking the stance of editors to mean something other than what they intended.  That is a clear misread of consensus and to see people endorse that is excrutiangly frustrating.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is about you, not about other users. You are very, very fast to apply tu quoque fallacies when you're called on your behaviour. I have advised several editors previously about the recommendations of the above-mentioned essay, and will advise others if I see them engaging in similar behaviour. Please consider the recommendation of Matthew 7:5. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am far more concerned about what was an obvious no consensus closure not being applied to the detriment of our project. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)