User talk:Arms & Hearts/Archive 2

Comments invited
As an occasional or frequent editor of the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article, your participation in this discussion would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another comments invited
Hi. Please put in your two cents for my new format proposal on Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

unclear on unclarity
Hey, could you clarify what you find to be unclear about the polling tables on Oregon gubernatorial election, 2010? It is a lot of columns, but I'm not sure I'm seeing what you think needs to be added. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I took a quick look at the NM tables and it has some good ideas though a series of single-candidate tables seems a bit long. I might try to split the differences somehow, maybe combining parts of it. Thanks for the feedback. --Esprqii (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Election links
Those aren't 'dead links' but 'future live' links which will become live as the election season nears. If you want to use the "comment out" option for now, feel free, but it's fairly unproductive to delete them completely. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time in which to constantly check out which links might have turned 'live' on any particular day, and even more unfortunately there are few (aka no other) Wikipedians interested in doing so. It's quite time-consuming to find these links, and there's no particular pattern I can discern in which elections these sources are currently polling for (other than the 'safe' elections which I've not currently working on). So many elections, so little time. Flatterworld (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of that distinction. The outcome for the average reader of the article is the same: he or she clicks a link promising to show a graph of polls, and receives a 404 error. In future, I'll comment them out rather than delete them, and it'd probably be most productive if you'd check if the links are live and, if not, do the same. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I have been checking, but I couldn't find the markup code for commenting out until today. It used to be elsewhere on the edit page, and I don't have the codes I only use occasionally memorized. Flatterworld (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm fumbling my way through this process
Hi - I'm touching base w/ you re. the John "Ole" Olson page recently deleted. Yes, I've reviewed the "so you've created a new article" materials, and I'm sure it's my own slow groping for the right format and materials that got the page deleted. I've been soliciting some assistance from exactly the same community I'm trying to document, in fact. Basically, the community involved is the tiny, and withering, hang gliding community. There is, of course, an article here on WP about hang gliding in itself, with supporting information on Francis Rogallo and a few others from the ancient history of the sport. But there is no mention of any of the founding fathers of modern flight, like the Wills brothers or Bill Bennett or Ben Abruzzo. And that's a shame. Because all these people are literally dying off, and their history is largely being lost. Ole Olson is famous as the guy who single-handedly popularized hang gliding tours of Mexico. I wanted to say that in so many words in the article, but I was deferring to Ole's own sense of modesty. So the simple truth is this: Ole is a famous figure in the hang gliding community, knows and writes about a vast swath of HG history, and a very large proportion of the HG community knows exactly who he is. If more material to that effect would make the article publication-worthy, I'm glad to add it. But as I say, I'm just trying to grope my way through this process with some regard to the people who have a stake in hang gliding history. And by the way, not all the works listed were self-published, though his three books are. So since you tagged the article for deletion, I'll ask you what you'd like to see done to the article to make it WP-worthy. Sure hope Ole doesn't have to die! Glenngnormanorg (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't/wasn't with the format of the article, but with the notability of its subject. Notability is the standard by which the Wikipedia community decides whether subjects deserve articles, and is summed up in the general notability guideline, which says:
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * There's more information available at the link. If you feel Mr. Olson meets this criterion you need to cite those reliable sources in the article to ensure that it isn't deleted again. Finally, if you're interested in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia in this specific area, you might wish to do so in collaboration with, or under the guidance of, the aircraft or extreme sports WikiProjects (or another you feel is more appropriate.) If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010
Neither link you listed is of any value in explaining the revert of my revert, but I'm fine with letting it sit since it's just a style change. Either way, [] was uncalled for by the IP user. Markvs88 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that edit warring over such a minor issue would be counterproductive, and I obviously agree that the personal attack was completely inappropriate. I disagree with your contention that my links were irrelevant, but if you're not planning on continuing to revert I see no reason to argue over it. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome. I'm not entirely sure why you gave this IP such an edit, though -- it hasn't edited anything in 5 days, so far as I can tell, and it wasn't me that did the editing. But thanks anyways! 209.123.188.11 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Apparently, the welcome came 5 days ago, and I apparently just got it now. Odd, that. Thanks anyways, though. 209.123.188.11 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

infobox election imagemap
Ping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy
Namely, WP:CRYSTAL. One argument used for his addition involves the assumption he'll do good, despite a lack of polling data to confirm this. This idea clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits speculation or original research. Additionally, adding him violates agreed-upon consensus, which requires a candidate to poll 5% or better to be added to the infobox. Currently, Clements has yet to poll 5%, and 'Other' polling 9% does not count towards him; aside from being akin to 'Some other candidate', it is impossible to confirm what percentage knew he was running and specifically chose that option, compared to those that picked it out of dissatisfaction with the two candidates or those that plan to cast write-in ballots. Toa  Nidhiki 05 

Help
I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, and wanted help to retrieve my previous account electoraljew2. Somebody hacked into it last year and has it deleted. I asked wikipedia for help last year and never got a response.
 * Do you have the password to this account? It appears to be still registered. Tyrol5  [Talk]  20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be rude, but why are you asking on my talk page? (I've removed the helpme tag from this page and will move it to User talk:69.117.59.216.) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox and Illinois senate election
What's your problem? I saw what you posted on User talk:Fastily. There was an edit war, and it's only temporarily protected.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is the incorrect assertion that vandalism was involved. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But why do you care? Is it because you favor more people in the infobox?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because I favour the assumption of good faith. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
What does this mean in plain English: ''The question is whether adding a fourth candidate to the infobox constitutes a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In my view it clearly doesn't, and the page should be unprotected.''--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of Vandalism explains that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (The italics are in the original.) In simpler terms, this means that vandalism is any edit intended to make Wikipedia worse rather than better. In the post you quote above, I question whether adding a fourth candidate to the infobox meets that definition of vandalism, and conclude that it does not. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

West Virginia vote
As a frequent editor of United States Senate special election in West Virginia, 2010 please go on the talk page and vote.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Shelly Laurenston Page
Hello, I'm darkalter2000 and I created the page on Shelly Laurenston which you have put up for deletion. You put it up for not meeting notibility guidlines but I thought an author who had a New York Times Bestseller would be considered notible. Am I incorrect in that? I thought a book talked about in a national newspaper would qualify for notibility, but I am kinda new at this so I'm unsure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkalter2000 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria on who is and isn't notable (when it comes to authors and the like) is at Notability (people) and General notability guideline (GNG). Having featured in the New York Times best seller list isn't one of the criteria, but if you feel that Ms. Laurenston meets any of the other criteria or the GNG, feel free to remove the Proposed deletion/dated template from the top of the page. (Under Wikipedia's proposed deletion policy, the article won't be deleted until a week after I added the tag; in this case September 9.) If you have any further questions feel free to ask here. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Chicago mayoral election, 2011
FWIW, the person I reverted quite certainly is banned, and is known for introducing very slanted, POV statements into political articles. If you're sure it's well sourced & NPOV then I'm of course happy to see it added back. Amalthea 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but the edit you reverted was by the IP 71.182.209.194, who (again, unless I'm missing something) isn't banned. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's editing anonymously.  Amalthea  22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sam Lesser
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

straw poll
Your comment was completely un-necessary. We already had a discussion and a straw poll was not a substitute for that, it was a summery of it. Please remove that comment.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, of course I'm not going to remove the comment. Attempting to condense a 3,000 word RfC into a series of one-word responses is hardly going to capture the nuances of the arguments made, or allow readers to give due weight to each point of view, which is crucial to consensus-building on Wikipedia. I understand that we all have real-life time constraints and endless debates on these issues become pretty wearing, but abandoning discussion isn't the answer. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being silly. If we don't poll, than we may never come to "consensus." How do you even define consensus? 100% approval? What happens if 100 editors oppose putting Stein in the infobox and only two editors support?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is difficult to define, but I think knowing why people feel the way they do is crucial to determining whether consensus exists. That's simply not possible if polling is used as a substitute for discussion. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Polling is a substitute for discussion, and I am not in anyway trying to do that. I am simply holding a vote. People can still discuss this matter. So again, please remove your false accusation.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to remove the comment. Can we consider this disussion over? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gus Douglass
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012
No worries. You were correct in getting rid of many of my edits. I have a couple of articles I almost babysit. They aren't visited very often, but I watch them. I'm still very new to this and do not know all the ins and outs. As far as changes go this is what I would like to discuss with you. The big one that got deleted for understandable reasons: Giving geographic reference to where each new district is as it would explain why some members of Congress no long live in their district (ie Judy Biggert no long lives in the 13th because it now spans Downstate Illinois from Champaign Urbana to Madison County). I have two maps from which to do this. They are PDFs.

I don't know if all the new edits are yours, but kudos. They are very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Hysteria18, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Vermont Gov 2012
Thank you for creating the Vermont 2012 Governor's race article. In the source you listed, it says Phil Scott has "all but said he’s not going to run for governor.". Do you think it warrants putting him down as "declined"? Normally I wait until the candidate announces such, but I think that would be good enough. What do you think? Thank you! America69 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have any strong opinion either way: I took the view that "all but said" explicitly means "hasn't said" and so decided against it, but I'm open to the alternative, especially if there's a better source. Thanks for the barnstar by the way! – hysteria18 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome for the barnstar, wanted to express my thanks for all the work! When I saw the "all but said" I was also 50-50 on it. Wanted to ask your take since you created the page. I assume leave it for now. As you said, I'm sure more will come out through this year, so let's wait for a better source! Thanks for the reply! America69 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
So the vandal comes on my page and pretends not to be a vandal. Right. When you come to a page detailing political races, then erase ALL of the controversial and verified things that one particular candidate out of 5 candidate has done, I'm sorry. You're vandalizing.--98.213.3.48 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can rant about what vandalism is NOT, but here's very clearly what it is...

Blanking, illegitimate Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. In your case, you just blanked out almost the whole section on Mr. Mullen, including all of the verifiable references with no valid reason. You are SLAM DUNK a vandal in this case.--98.213.3.48 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point to a diff? I'm not sure which edit of mine, if any, you're referring to. Thanks. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma 5th Congressional Race 2012
My apologies, I am still learning how to properly contribute to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, could you check to make sure I edited the United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma, 2012 section correctly? CJakeS (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I've removed the reference to Mr. Martin again. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources; the website of the Modern Whig Party (or any other party) isn't suitable. If a newspaper or news organisation had written about Mr. Martin, that'd be an appropriate source. Thanks. – hysteria18 (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives election in Alaska, 2012
This is starting to smack of the suggestion of page ownership by an SPA. The first instance was "rm trivia," which I addressed in my subsequent edit. It's trivial to mention the presidential election. Seeing as how our corporate media in the United States cover every presidential election for as much of the four-year cycle as possible, often to the exclusion of real news, it amounts to overkill. In other words, if you weren't aware that there was a presidential election next year before you read it in that article, I would think that you're in need of help that Wikipedia can't provide. Seeing as how this is an article about an event in Alaska, providing content related to Alaska, rather than D.C., might prove helpful. I would not attempt to say that Roll Call is not a reliable source. However, neither Miller nor Young have actually filed for the seat, so that article amounts to speculation with the real purpose being to namedrop big-name political figures. I get the impression that you wish to maintain the primacy of that source, however. I also get the impression that you wish to marginalize those candidates who actually have filed for the seat, but obviously aren't planning on spending a million dollars on their campaign. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site for a reason. The corporate media needs to take their content in a certain direction in order to attract advertisers. Those considerations don't apply here. Furthermore, I only use citation needed when it's obviously necessary, not when I'm trying to tell another editor what I do and don't consider to be my job versus theirs. Addressing the first two such tags, I found this and this in barely more than the time it probably took you to tag the article. As to the third tag, the cited article states: ''Political party candidates with the highest number of votes from each race in the Primary Election will advance to General Elections and will appear on this list after the Primary Election has been certified. No-party candidates who filed for office with the Division of Elections on or before June 1, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. and who submitted their signatures of support on or before August 28, 2012 will appear on the General Election candidate list.'' So is the issue here the placement of the citation? If so, that doesn't require a citation needed tag. Or is the real issue here that I'm not limiting my sources to corporate media outlets outside of Alaska, who are likely to present a detached, The Boy in the Plastic Bubble-like view of this race, just like they did with Alaska in general during Sarah-mania in 2008?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your argument. But if you think my edits to the Alaska article amount to ownership, I'll refrain from editing that article for the time being. Feel free to boldly revert any & all of my edits to that page. Also feel free to reiterate any specific points here, ideally in a more coherent manner. Thanks. – hysteria18 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't handle soundbites very well, if that's what you're getting at. Reliable sources are everywhere.  Too many articles are edited, often with obvious selective sourcing, to make it appear as if that isn't the case.  Reading between the lines, it gives the impression that editors are holding out their favorite sources as all-important.  Witness the deafening silence to the revelation that Levi Johnston didn't actually run for mayor of Wasilla.  You know what, fuck AGF;  I am absolutely not buying that a scholarly journal such as Us Weekly is a reliable source for discussing a city election in Wasilla, Alaska, but that the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman is not.  And that's exactly what the Palinistas are expecting the world to believe.  Other examples abound, often due to a myopic understanding of the subject matter involved.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So be bold and make the changes you'd like to see. Stop complaining, or at least stop complaining on my talk page. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Has Cramer "Declared" his run in United States House of Representatives election in North Dakota, 2012?
Hello. Two days ago, you rightly reverted my edit that listed Kevin Cramer a declared candidate simply because he had filed paperwork with the FEC. In the edit, though, you added a reference that made it sound as if he really was running: "Republican Kevin Cramer opened his fourth congressional race late Thursday, announcing in a short video on his campaign website that he would seek the GOP endorsement for North Dakota's lone U.S. House seat." Is "announcing" different than "declaring"? Since you seem to have experience with creating and curating these election pages, I was wondering what the normal cutoff point was for a candidate being "declared." Is it actually creating a campaign committee and declaring one's candidacy with the FEC? Or is a candidate who is actively campaigning, but only technically has an exploratory committee also considered a "declared" candidate? These pages are WP:NOTYOURS or mine, but for future reference, I want to know the general guidelines you and your fellow editors have used in the past for such things. Thanks. —LinkTiger (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience is that there's no hard-and-fast standard and that it's usually better to judge such ambiguities on a case-by-case basis. My main reason for thinking Cramer shouldn't go under the declared header was the quote I put in my edit summary, specifically the word "possible" and the candidate's denial that he'd "definitely enter the race." I see that's since been removed from the cited article, which has been updated to reflect that he's definitely running (I'll update our article to reflect this). So I think any confusion here stems from the changes made to the AP article, not any especially complex or stringent definitional issues. (For what it's worth I'll add that I've found my own laissez-faire positions on similar issues to be in the minority amongst others who favour a more concrete approach, so don't take my comments above to mean that nobody draws a more definitive line in the sand over "declared" v. "announced" and/or the significance of having filed with the FEC.) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, those darn newswriters, changing their stories. Thanks for your help, and for updating the article. —LinkTiger (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're on ANI
User:98.213.3.48 has complained of you on the administrators' noticeboard. Weigh in if you like — though the admins seem to be handling it fine without you, actually. :-) Bishonen &#124; talk 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

CT 5th district
I have filed paperwork with the FEC and am attending Democratic Town Committee meetings. However, I will not be fundraising unless I gain ballot access by getting support from 15% of the district convention delegates. When I tried to add my name and website to Wikipedia, I was informed it was a conflict of interest. I understand the concept, but how is it less of a conflict others have hired staff that make sure their information is included? Randy Yale
 * Thanks for your interest and co-operation. Your adding information about your own campaign would be no more or less of a conflict of interest than someone adding information about a campaign they work for. If you think other editors may have conflicts of interest, you should consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page or posting at the conflicts of interest noticeboard. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. – hysteria18 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2012, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Stay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Vauxhall
It's Bacon : http://www.election.demon.co.uk/1997LB.html

doktorb wordsdeeds 18:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on removal of endorsement information...
...regarding the 14th CD on the Illinois 2012 Elections, was wondering why it was removed. The explanation for many of the edits made were : "rv addition of content w/o a reliable source". The endorsement linked to the former candidates facebook page, is that not considered reliable?Wickie edit (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. You can find out more about reliable sources at Identifying reliable sources. The part on self-published sources is especially relevant. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

California elections
First off, posting a template on my page is the coward's way out. If you have a problem, say it, tor a request for sources, make one. Candidate websites should be enough since an establishment of candidacy is not one of those things covered by self-published sources. The article is useless and outdated as it stands, and I doubt there are many editors who care about the California elections. It's verifiable as it stands, but a verifiable, outdated piece of crap.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think allegations of cowardice can safely be considered personal attacks, which I don't feel obliged to respond to. I think you raise valid points though, so if you'd like to discuss them in a more civil manner that'd be welcome. Thanks for your concern. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Northern Ireland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northern Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International recognition of South Sudan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International recognition of South Sudan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Please remove the speedy deletion tag from List of former Buddhists. Thanks. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't see much value in replicating content already available elsewhere though. If (e.g.) everything at List of converts to Christianity from Buddhism can also be found at List of former Buddhists, shouldn't the former redirect to the latter? (I'm vaguely aware there's been at least one XfD on these articles, so I'm wary of effecting those changes myself.) – hysteria18 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * well to be honest I nominated all of them for deletion, the only problem is that aside from listing List of converts from Buddhism to X articles you really can't redirect the article anywhere... =/. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you mean like... redirecting List of converts to Christianity from Buddhism to List of former Buddhists? that might work... Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was what I had in mind but I'm not sure whether it's permissible given the results of AfDs (and RfDs?). Either way my main complaint is with the replication of content; I don't really have much of an opinion on what should be where beyond that and don't especially want to get involved in a potentially contentious dispute. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensei_Devadanam
I am not sure why the above page was suggested to be deleted as just using google would have made it clear about the yeoman service of Sensei Devadanam of handpicking street children and making champions out of them. He has been honored with the President's Medal and also was involved actively in training the joint forces during the first Gulf War and was the Guest of Honor for his services. If more references are required, that could have been suggested instead of blindly suggesting deletion of a living legend - Sailesh Varma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saileshvarma (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for deletion because I was concerned that it didn't meet the general notability guideline, which says a subject deserves an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you feel otherwise, then you should make that clear at the deletion discussion. (Take a look at Contributing to a deletion discussion to find out more about how best to participate.) Thanks. – hysteria18 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sensei Devadanam
Enough references have been given that are very much independent of the subject and have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are national newspapers - the references mentioned as well as references added. The snaps by themselves authenticate the claims mentioned in the article. More references were not provided as it would clutter the whole section. With no bias at all, I, Sailesh Varma, the author of this article, have evidenced whatever has been mentioned and can vouch for all that is mentioned. Thank You Sailesh Varma 125.62.200.66 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again I'd ask that you make your views clear in the deletion discussion. Articles for deletion works through consensus: if other editors are in agreement that the article should be deleted then it will be, but if significant objections (such as yours) are raised, then it might not be. The process really wouldn't work if we all just expressed our opinions on each other's talk pages. Thanks again. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)