User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0015

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message
It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving. In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire. If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list. If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Country Turtle Records
Hello ArcAngel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Country Turtle Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having been founded by a notable person indicates significance. Thank you.  So Why  21:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I respecfully disagree, and the third point of this section says notability is not inherited, which is what you are implying here. Google only came up with nine hits on this company, none of which appear to have garnered it any significant coverage.  I would like to take it though the AfD process to get a consensus on it.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A7 is not about notability, a common misconception and I have not implied this at all. What can be inherited though is importance or significance (A7's criterion) because it's simply about whether a subject might be more noteworthy than others and to answer this question, all indications can be assessed. If the article fails the notability guideline, WP:AFD is the way to deal with it. Regards  So Why  14:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

List of record labels: A–H
Re this edit, while I don't think Country Turtle Records is notable and have said so on the AfD - I do think that while the article exits it should be listed in the List of record labels: A–H. Would you consider restoring it ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, I'll put it back in the list until the AfD ends, and go from there.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, once the AfD has finished, should the result be that it is deleted then it should be removed. Codf1977 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus RfA
You state that "I do feel that six editors calling for it to be a bit extreme and not showing good faith, IMHO." You are asserting that I was acting in bad faith, i.e. deliberately aiming to harm Wikipedia, when I made this edit. I believed that Herostratus' actions warranted him voluntarily submitting to a recall RfA - and Herostratus himself opened the recall petition. Could you please strike that part of your statement? Fences &amp;  Windows  21:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never thought you were out to "harm Wikipedia" - my point was that I thought it a bit over the top to be calling for someone's head over one mistake.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it, and I acknowledge you didn't mean that comment as I interpreted it. "Over the top" is a much more reasonable criticism, and one that unfortunately for me appears to be consensus! Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)