User talk:Aeternitas827

Alphabet Synthesis Machine
In case you are not watching Articles for deletion/Alphabet Synthesis Machine (2nd nomination), I've added a comment that encapsulates a good faith web search, which was used to enhance the article somewhat with ref and external links. You might be interested in reading the new input as you indicated a 'keep' opinion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back
Hey, thanks for getting rid of the problem that I created by making a comment header over at Articles for deletion/Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column. Question: If I had chosen a smaller headline, say, Level 4 instead of Level 2, would that have worked? It just seems like headings could really make it easier to keep AfD discussions a bit neater, especially when they get a bit nasty. Unschool (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem on the cleanup. Headers, regardless of size, will indent the table of contents on any page, and I'm not sure that a smaller one in that case would be overridden by the next AfD in the list.  I agree that current AfD discussions can get a little unwieldy, especially when they get heated, but using indents (:, ::, etc) to respond directly and bulletpoints for a new voice usually helps with keeping everyone with it.  It takes a bit to get used to it, I think it's just one of those things that the Wiki markup just doesn't handle well right now. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Unschool (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Request board
Regarding your post here, has anyone taken up the issues at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? That would seem like the first step, a RFC could work for the content disoute (recent activity or not) if needed, but I think the reliability of the sources would need sorting first. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any indication that the article's sourcing had been addressed at the RS Noticeboard (to be honest, I didn't actually know it existed :P). Probably a better place to go for starters on this, as the sources likely are going to drive any next steps/actions to be taken with the article.  You might not be the right person to ask, but am I right in assuming that (since no movement/discussion has occurred with it) I would be OK to remove it from the RfC board? Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think moving it over to RS/N would be a good way to go. I think I'm the only one who watches that RFC board regularly, and its main purpose is to direct people and/or their questions to wherever would be most helpful. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks for the guidance. Hopefully we can get some progress made on that article. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)