User talk:BalthCat/Archive 4

I don't think that was me
I edited the geophagy article, but I think I was just reorganizing it. None of what you were talking about sounds familiar and I can't see where I added anything. The article was only .05 bytes bigger after my edits, so I couldn't have added anything substantial. Abyssal (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poe's law
See Talk:List of eponymous laws. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Psych Folk
Hello BalthCat, Thanks for comments about my edit and the need for citations. I will look into it. Also might be useful to include references to two seminal psych-folk albums: Skip Spence's amazing Oar and Barrett's The Madcap Laughs.

Lysergicdan (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Check Yourself
Civil!?! I've been civil with this moron for over a year now and he STILL insists on making changes to this article that he can't back up with ANY type of facts or references under a puppet account. I've had it up to here with him! Excuse me if I'm a little UNcivil to someone who repeatedly and willingly makes changes that are just plain WRONG and keeps making them cuz it's HIS opinion and wants his way like a friggin' 4-year old! White_Bishop (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply moved to user's talk page where the conversation was begun) - BalthCat (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shane Martinez
Some of your structural edits seem to be very helpful, but your removal of previously verified sources is unhelpful. Please refrain from removing sources and sourced material. Thanks! Frank Pais (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying this to your own talkpage, to keep the conversation in one place. - BalthCat (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit reversion
Hey, sorry about that, I was just going after Dr.enh's vandalism and didn't mean to revert you work. I did not accuse you of vandalism and did not intend to insinuate any sort of illegitimate activity on your behalf. - Schrandit (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lynn Aloysius Belvedere
A tag has been placed on Lynn Aloysius Belvedere requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Patchy1 Talk To Me! 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully it was appropriately shot down. - BalthCat (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstuerzende Neubauten
I removed the material and after flagging up issues here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Einst%C3%BCrzende_Neubauten#Language_corrections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.247.186 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shona Holmes
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shona Holmes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I'm relisting this article and you participated in the first discussion so I'm contacting you if you want to be apart of this discussion. Fire 55 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timbits


The article Timbits has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is article does not meet the standards of inclusion and is redundant to the donut holes section of the doughnut article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Article specifically states importance. - BalthCat (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
I enjoyed your comments at the Chronology of Star Wars AFD. For your !vote to count, you should put "keep" or "delete" at the beginning of your comments.

You maybe interested in a group I am involved in.


 * That's a good idea. Lately I've been getting sick of the tendency to head for the scalpel instead of the correcting-fluid on Wikipedia. - BalthCat (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jason Adonis

 * I have undeleted and AfD'ed Jason Adonis. See Articles for deletion/Jason Adonis. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt Bixel
Apologies for missing that a follow-up comment was on the AfD. After a bit more digging it looks like the whole thing should be moved to his birth name with both stage names leading there. He was apparently a somewhat talented baseball player in college so a short but decent article can encompass it all. -- Banj e b oi   11:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charlie Frost
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Charlie Frost. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Charlie Frost. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and AFD
I reverted your edit to Spartaz's talk archive. It's not a good idea to edit an archived page. Sourcing in the notability context, like in the verifiability or original research context, is "surmountable" in the sense that, hypothetically, there might always be some reliable sources out there buried that no one in the debate found. But to accept this as a basis for keeping would result in keeping about every piece of crap there is. (Maybe some newspaper covered random guy #1's garage band the other day? Who can tell?) So we draw a distinction between something being unsourced - a surmountable problem and normally not a reason for deletion - and being unsourceable - an insurmountable problem that is one of the more common grounds for deletion. The presumption at AfD is that, once good faith searches for sources turned up empty, the content is not merely unsourced but also unsourceable, and hence should be deleted. Tim Song (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it was archived a day after my last comment there. Spartaz appeared to have some sort of crisis or fit, and I made the decision to reply on the archive page where it was in context rather than start a new thread on his talk page.  Secondly, if you take as a given that a "good faith" search during AfD proves "unsourceability" it opens up every last article without solid sources to AfD despite assertions of notability in the text which are backed by common sense and reasonable marginal sources.  IMDB is not sufficient, fine, but it's more than reasonable to IMPLY sourceability.  If people decide to ignore editors and their reasonable assertions in favour of being deletionists, then they run the risk of coming across people like me who are ticked off about it. - BalthCat (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello BalthCat! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Raghav Sachar -

Your view on WP:BRD
...it may only be an essay, but it captures in a clear and concise manner the policies of Wikipedia editing in that you may indeed be WP:BOLD, someone else may then WP:REVERT once. At that point you must try to obtain WP:CONSENSUS by discussing the edits you wish to make. Sure, sometimes it's easier to obtain consensus, then be bold ... but BRD is fully valid and accepted, and as it includes policy, it does not ever need to be anything more than an essay ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Preamble) When I read the essay I went to check the history and saw to my surprise that it is a rather established essay. However in my editing, including watching some contentious articles, I do not recall seeing it referenced, and have practically certain that I've never seen it used to justify a reversion. (Why I'm not a fan) It may be accepted as useful, but I don't believe it is a gestalt of other guidelines and policies.  Some of its core is already established, certainly, like diplomacy, AGF, CONSENSUS, CIVIL, etc.  It's perhaps because much of it is such common sense, and explained very well elsewhere, that I saw some of the essay's likely uses as problematic, such as the justification to make contentious edits in the hopes that no one would revert ("I knew it was v. BOLD, but I was prepared to follow through with BRD."), or as a justification for reverting without cause and "turtling" ("rv WP:BRD Justify yourself.") despite the essay's prohibition of both of those behaviours.  I believe it is clear, when you consider Wikipedia's stance on personal responsibility in interpersonal relations (AGF, CIVIL, etc.), that WP:BRD is best used as a personal guideline, rather than one to expect others to adhere to, or to use "against" others.  WP:BRD itself appears to agree.  (My advice post) When I quickly glanced over BRD again, before commenting on his talk page, I missed the explicit prohibitions against three aspects of his use of BRD, and another which would justifies the other party's second BOLD attempt.  If I had remembered them or seen them again, referring to them them might have been a more effective tack for Verbal's talk page.  However, my suggestion that he consider himself the active (B/D) editor, not the reactive (R) editor was not to say that he must settle for the BOLD edits going through, but that he focus on the other parts of the essay: diplomacy, patience, discussion.  I believe that advice is sound, and the more closely I read BRD, the worse I realise his implementation was. - BalthCat (talk) 11:09, 11 June 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) 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. - BalthCat (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gothic rock
Your post to my talk page ends with I would like to know if. Could you complete that thought for me? (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, music genre lists do seem especially prone to constant back-and-forthing over whether any particular band fits the genre or not, but unfortunately, there aren't a lot of things that we can do — Wikipedia policy frowns on using page protection for anything short of outright vandalism or persistent WP:3RR editwarring, so it's not really an option in most "is this a (goth/hip hop/Canadian/whatever) band?" cases.

Traditionally, the first line of defense has been to require a source for every entry (even the seemingly uncontroversial ones), which explicitly uses the list's defining label in reference to that entry. However, I've found that doesn't always work as well as intended — at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people, for example, I've seen quite a few edits get through with reference links that were completely faked or simply copied from another entry, even though they didn't pertain to the new person at all; page reviewers too often simply let the entry stand if it has a footnote, and don't actually check that footnote to see if it actually supports the entry.

Editnote banners certainly stop some users, but not all of them; they may cut down somewhat on the volume of the problem, but they don't entirely eliminate it (presumably the phenomenon of banner blindness plays a role.) If you'd like to try that route, User:Mindmatrix created the banner that's present on List of bands from Canada, so he might be a better person to talk to since I don't actually know how to do it.

And lastly, as discouraging as this may be, I've found that very often people simply throw their hands up in the air and take the list to AFD to have it deleted as an unmaintanable article which isn't entirely necessary anyway since the corresponding category serves a similar function. It's not the ideal solution, but it's there as a last resort nonetheless.

Truthfully, I'm still convinced that Wikipedia needs to stop allowing anonymous IP edits — requiring registration to edit would solve a lot of our problems. But unfortunately, given how most people choose to interpret the "anyone can edit" rule, I think I'd die of shock if there were ever actually a consensus to actually do that. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

revision
That was weird !

I went to look at a revision to the "Scientific method" and it said to accept the IP's change as "..1..(etc)" but when I clicked to accept, you had already undone it from the ip's bad edit and I accepted his revision which was actually deleting the "..1.."

something not quite right there !

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure? I'll keep an eye out for that sort of "review conflict" and report it if it happens again. - BalthCat (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

care to explain
would you explain to me how the wikiproject lebanon talk page ended up on wikiproject egypts'? please use your sandbox for edit tests. Eli +  20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rescue
Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin
Please see User_talk:Penbat--Penbat (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User talk:C.Fred the old deleted version of Sam Vaknin is now at User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin. If you can improve on it, feel free. It certainly needs bringing up todate for one thing. --Penbat (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reworking ELNO on Official Links
Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice," I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Homeless Heart
I know the article was deleted based on the weak argument that there are no reliable sources. There are. Adminstrators only google for it; sources can be found through academic news archives. But such is the case for Wikipedia. Just a note.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

hi This e-mail me wait .. miladmtow@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.182.40.36 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New article help
I've been editing for a while, but am now building a new article. The subject is an organization for which I am a board member, hence I want an uninvolved editor or two to review before moving it. If you have time, could you take a look at my sandbox and share your thoughts (perhaps in the talk page there)? I'd appreciate it much. Uberhill 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

List of gothic rock bands
Requesting your assistance with this list as it seems to have become overrun with metal acts and consensus is being ignored. You seem a rather experienced editor and I am requesting that you look at the current debate on the talk page. Thank you. Klarion L-7 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)