User talk:Barton Foley

Notabiltiy of books
Please read WP:NB, if you haven't already, before creating any more articles on individual books. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the standing of David Drake in the science fiction community and his well regarded body of work, sumaries on his individual books, particularly those that have been re-issued due to their popularity should meet the notability threashold, despite the guidelines of notability. There exists many books on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for notability, but are still granted entries due to their otehr notable qualities, outside the realm of movie adpatations and awards. Barton Foley (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" tags
Please refrain to put arbitrary "notability" tags on book articles: it might look like you are just trying to illustrate a point in a not too subtle a way. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for the advice, and I do agree, it may looks as if I am trying to make a point. But after my own Notability errors were pointed out to me, I realized there is a great deal of book articles that do not meet the criteria as they are currently written. By placing notability tags, I was hoping that the community could expand the articles to meet the requirements. Would it be better to use an expansion tag instead? Barton Foley (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. Perhaps, before putting a notability tag, you might want to do some basic checks or research. For instance, I see that you have tagged some books by William Gibson, which have been widely reviewed by major newspapers and magazines (so satisfying a basic notability criterion). In addition, some have received literary awards, and so forth. This said, I agree that there are many book articles (and not only books of course) that are not notable and are so only in the eyes of their fans, and also that many article about notable subjects might use more references and information. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Last Legionary merge
Where is the discussion for this merge? The merge template used on the 4 articles has the default value Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal and not a specific location. Possible locations could be on the Last Legionary redirect talk page which does not yet exist Talk:Last Legionary, or on the Douglas Hill talk page Talk:Douglas Hill. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to use a talk page where the article page already exists which is why I suggested the two above. The page you created Talk:Last Legionary Merger proposal will/should probably be speedy deleted as it meets WP:CSD.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the redirect at Last Legionary and moved the section about the merge discussion to Talk:Last Legionary, the talk page is where the discussion should take place.--Captain-tucker (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was merciful and moved it to User:Barton Foley/sandbox but clearly it should be in the Talk: namespace somewhere. Captain-tucker. your edit summary says "move merger proposal to talk page". So why didn't you? You copy&pasted instead! If you had actually moved it, you could have got rid of Last Legionary Merger proposal easily with the appropriae speedy tag. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem.
I wouldn't presume to speculate on whether you're honestly confused about the notability guidelines, or whether you're trying to make a WP:POINT. But please refrain from tagging things like William Gibson novels for notability. He's arguably the most important science fiction writer of the last twenty years, and has won considerable acclaim even from the mainstream. All of his novels are notable (and of course, they all have scores of reviews in reliable sources.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are the guidelines are the guidelines. You will notice I did not tag all of Gibson's novels, just those that did not have their notability spelled out within the article. I would even go so far as to point out that you used the word "arguably", rather then say "he is one of the most" you said "he is arguably" indicating that there is less then universal agreement on that point. And as such, his novels should be subject to the same guidelines as everyone else. I would also point out you did not make any mention of the other novels I tagged for notability as well, so I am not totally all wet.


 * And when you say "I wouldn't presume to speculate", you kinda are. Barton Foley (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To add to the *ahem*, if you are going to prod a bunch of articles, please take the time to do the appropriate notifications to the article creators per WP:PROD. It may not be required, but it is extremely rude not to do so, and gives the nominations a bad appearance. Also, prod tags go at the very top of the article, above infoboxes. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Barton Foley (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Film Prods
Hi there. I noticed you've been mass-prodding a bunch of film articles. A random sampling of these reveals many that certainly aren't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to argue with you about this. But I do have two pieces of advice. Firstly, I recommend using a slightly better explanation in the template than the one word, "notability". Secondly, please try to ensure that the article being prodded really isn't on a notable subject. Remember, if an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable, so adding prods to "just those that did not have their notability spelled out within the article" isn't a wholly appropriate use of the template. You should at least perform a cursory check of your own for good sources. To do otherwise is merely going to generate work for the film wikiproject and may come across as needlessly POINTy to others. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Please see this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my response was as written above. In retrospect, my point about David Drake may be correct, but it does not automatically grant notability to his novels. Without providing the needed notability, the deletion of and redirection, I believe, was/is correct. If I disagree, it is my responsibility as the author of the article to provide the needed information. Further direction by User:Goochelaar and User:Collectonian as to notability, as well as the talk and discussion for both Douglas Hill and the David Weber novel Off Armageddon Reef I believe has given me some direction. The movies being tagged are in alphabetical order of the list of horror films of 2000. If one follows that list, there are several that I did not tag, as they met the notability guidelines. I also tried not to tag those films that were from a foreign market, such as Thai or South Korean films. However, the ones that were tagged are not notable per the guidelines. Originally, I was going to redirect these items back to the list, but after wandering and observing other editors actions, the prod tag seemed to be the most appropriate action. As I am not the author of these articles, I do not think it is my responsibility to Google or otherwise provide the notability credits to meet the guidelines. If the author(s) of the article believe the tag is incorrect, if my understanding of the procedure is correct, can remove the tag and state why I am wrong to apply the tag to the article. If I disagree, then I can AFD the article. Unless my understanding is incorrect as to this process, I do not think I did anything wrong. Also, unless I misunderstand again, the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists, not how it might exist or might prove its notability in the future or might exist in a Google search.  Now, if the admins decide I did or was misguided, I will take any advice they have to offer on future edits.


 * I would state that I plan on moving to the Chick Lit book list next with my notability (and other) tags in tow. And as per User:Steve T • C I will provide more then a single word justification for my tags.Barton Foley (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the more I think about it, let us say I was trying to make a WP:POINT. Why would I do so in the horror film list of the 2000s in a group of articles written by people who would have no idea of the WP:POINT I was trying to make? If I was trying to make a WP:POINT, I wouldn't expend energy on people who would have no clue of my purpose, I would track the contributions of the editor whom I was trying to make a WP:POINT to and tag his/her articles with notability tags and prods. That would be making a point. Tagging Anaconda 2 as not notable is not, IMHO. Barton Foley (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the AN/I thread - I removed some of your prods, and gave some sources for the Drake book articles you created. IMHO you are now interpreting some rules incorrectly and overstrictly, perhaps based on advice which may not be accurate or mainstream. Your original "notability errors" you refer to above may not be as errroneous as you now think. For book notability, movies based on a book, awards, etc are not necessary - a more basic desideratum is reviews and other sources directly about the book, which one can find at google news etc. Very well known, bestselling authors' books are less likely to be good candidates for prodding.

The prod tag is there "to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". The basic reason for deletion is lack of notability. By longstanding consensus and rules, notability does not depend on what is in the article, but essentially on whether reliable sources exist that can support the article. So "the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists" is not really a good formulation. Prodding depends on judgment, and that can take time to acquire, although there are many who loosely speedy or prod articles. The usual rough formulation is 2RS=N, two reliable sources equals notability. Basically when one prods an article, one is saying that it would fail an AfD, which means that reliable sources cannot be found. But for this, experience at AfD is very helpful, and I suggest hanging out there to see how things work out in practice. It is accepted to be good practice, although not actually required, to do a search before prodding, otherwise one is putting a task on the admin who eventually has to do the actual deletion. Cheers,John Z (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted and I will attempt to put your suggestions about notability into practice. The reason I became invovled, rather then just remain a user is that Wiki, to me, started to look like a series of intellectual fiefdoms run by the topics fanboys/girls, whose only yardstick for notability was the work in question simply existed. (You been to the anime section recentally? And no, I am not going anywhere near that powderkeg.) I still maintain that there is a huge pile of articles on topics that are not notable and I will take a more reserved and pragmatic approach now to those articles. Barton Foley (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are of course right that there are many horrible articles and topics, that should be deleted, particularly newly created pages and some particularly bad sections of the encyclopedia. I am  on the "inclusionist" side of the spectrum personally, but I hope I gave some help, and didn't slant things too far in that direction.  The hardest and most debated thing usually in assessing whether an article should be deleted is whether the sources, if  one finds them, are extensive enough or show enough notability (in the ordinary sense).John Z (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Believers (film)
With the efforts put into this article to fully meet your concerns for notability, would you now consider withdrawing the nom?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be an excellent, low key solution in a normal situation. However, at this time it appears that every action I take, every response I post here on my talk page and elsewhere is taken as further evidence of my arrogance and deliberately planned disruption of the project and malfeasance. So, I fear that should I withdraw, that will be taken as a sign that I knowingly did something wrong and an admission of guilt, thus justifying blocking, banning and restricting my account. The level of discourse on the part of some has led me to the conclusion that since any action I take is considered more evidence of my bad faith, that taking no action is the prudent course until the Admins settle this whole AN/I molehill. Barton Foley (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you cannot be feeling as if you have no options. With Wiki, one can always slow down, take a deep breath, and begin anew. We are not in a rush here to get it all done at once. Wiki is an ever-evolving entity. That aside, all I am myself concerned with is the prodding of this particular article.... a prod that for whatever reason, resulted in it being improved... I am looking at the Believers (film) article and my own accepted responsibilities to WP:Film. When articles are sent to AfD, either they get improved and "survive" the AfD or they do not and are deleted. For a nom to recognize a serious effort has been made to meet concerns with an article whose subsequent improvement improves Wikipedia is the greatest of strengths, and never a "weakness". I thought you might chime in at this particular AfD and say something like, "Wow... I am pleased at the result... I hereby wish to withdraw the nomination per improvements made"... or some such, as the entire purpose of an AfD is to get a bad article either improved or removed. It is not to get an article removed upon how it looked last year or last week.... only about how it looks now. One always has options. Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And please keep it in mind... we are not in a rush here. You diligently tagged that article with a request that notability be proven. A simple explanation of "article does not assert or show notability... Sources and cleanup needed" would have been ample, and all anyone might hope for or expect. The long over-kill list of sins was unneccessary. But when another editor saw your tag and began sourcing, you prodded it for AfD within hours. That hurry was what is being perceived as perhaps "bad faith", as it appeared you did not want to wait as it was improved and simply wanted it the heck off of Wiki. When tagged for notability, subsequent responses addressing that improvement could taked days or weeks.... not mere hours. Just as does tagging something for cleanup or sources. One has to give it time to be fixed by editors who are trying to do things all over Wiki. And indeed, as an editor you are yourself invited to improve sub-standard articles... as every bit helps... and simple removal is not always the answer.  Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to understand my confusion, if we can call it that, please call up the history of Ranks of Bronze. You will notice that an editor, with a long history, axed and redirected my slowly improving first article within ten minutes of it first being posted. The same editor axed and redirected my entry for The Forlorn Hope within six minutes of it first being posted. The same editor followed me to the already existing entry for Off Armageddon Reef and blanking, prod'ing the article and redirecting the article due to notability after I added some edits to the plot. So as you can see, from my first experiences with the project, this appeared to be the norm, as I would point out *no one* said a single comment (and still hasn't given this editors large amounts of prods and redirects) no one AD/I'ed or made any issues. So imagine my surprise when I followed the example set for me and had people screaming for my head.
 * Give your advice above, I will use it, and the criticisims from the AfD page and attempt to be more reserved in my tags. Barton Foley (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * THIS was a very gracious and courteous thing to do and say, and will go far to molify concerns from those that thought you in too great a hurry. Being able to say "Wow... the article got better. Good job!" is much the kind of affirmation many editors hope for... since we are all here as volunteers. I have only just now returned home from a long day on a film shoot, and have not had the chnace to look at the examples you offered above. Trust I will do so and give my best advice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay... first a present to you. Check Ranks of Bronze to see that I have added 3 reviews from 1986 to 2004... showing an interest over at least an 8 year span. I also added several sources and cited the statements in the plot summary. This is often a good way to beging improving an article... add your sources as external links and then use them to expand and source the article. I will suggest you study the articles of other, perhaps more famous scifi novels and see how they have been set up so as to get ideas. Ranks of Bronze has a long way to go. Hopefully I have shown the way to approach it. Study Manual of Style (writing about fiction) carefully so as to learn how to make an article that will pass the harshest of critics. Study Notability (books) to see what is required to show notability. Study Notability (web) to see what sources are better or worse. Importantly, study Policies and guidelines to learn that Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, and guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Do not stick to 'guideline' like it was an ironclad law. Its not. My advice is to not rush to try to get it all done at once. Wiki is not in a hurry. Mostly though... and absolutely the most important... be polite... what Wiki calls "civil". Imapatience, terseness, rudeness, sarcasm, bitterness, snippiness... all make more enemies than friends.


 * Okay... as for User:71.204.176.201... it is obvious that he/she is a very skilled editor... one who has been aboard quite some time. Why the editor is using an anonymous IP is something I cannot answer, but one can suppose there is a good reason. Studying the user's talk page, you'll see that others have concerns about the editing practices... but that this editor also is quite willing to aknowledge when a concern has been addressed. Please do not take it personal that this editor seemed to be cutting your earlier edits to pieces. The histories show that you were just "collateral damage" in a much larger mission of tagging articles. He did address legitimate concerns about copy violations... and believe me, Wikki is always VERY concerned about any potential for a possible copyright lawsuit. Had you summarized the text you used, and simply cited the copyrighted material as the source for your summation, you would have been fine. Take a look at how I cited the plot summary at Ranks of Bronze. I saw that your information was contained within the much longer publisher's summary and was able to cite it as a source. That way is okay. Anyway... you did write that you chose to emmulate his style and immediately caught grief. Well... that can happen. Looking at his talk page and at the comments and responses, you can see that his style makes as many editors unhappy as happy... and he's been at it for a very long time. You might search articles that you find decent and follow the editors who seem to get a lot done... editors who seem to gain friends through their contributions. And never be afraid to ask for advice or input. Period. You will be pleasently surprised at how many folks are quite happy to share knowledge and experience with newcomers. Hell... look at what I just did. Never be afraid to ask for help. Ever.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

James Rouch & copyright violation
I'm not trying to add to your woes here, but I couldn't help but notice that all of what you recently added to James Rouch is cut-and-paste copyright violation of the two references you used. I have undone your additions. You should read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the bottom of the referenced pages states "We are happy for people to reproduce pages on this site for their own use. If it is for commercial purposes please ask us first." When I read the WP:COPYVIO before I placed it, it appeared to me that this was an acceptable use per the referenced site. What did I misunderstand?Barton Foley (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the other site says: " WARNING: Please be advised that duplicating and employing this material for commercial use without written permission from the copyright holder/s is strictly forbidden. Please see  AUTHOR RIGHTS" etc. I'm not sure what you misunderstood, but you clearly need to be more careful about copyright. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OFFS. Barton Foley (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be more attentive in the future where copyright is concerned. Barton Foley (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional advice
For the "chick lit" books you said you were moving on to an AN/I, I have found that some of them have even have academic references discussing them at Google Scholar. Please at least check Google and its related databases. You should also check WorldCat--it shows how many libraries holds the book--the figure includes mainly American libraries, and so is a minimum, but it gives an indication. Books held by several hundred libraries are very likely to be notable, and have reviews, since public libraries buy on the basis of reviews. Consult a local librarian for how to find reviews--there are databases for the purpose. And when you put a PROD tag on an article for deletion, it is required that you say so specifically in the edit summary so the editor and administrators can find them.
 * and there is another way of dealing with books that are borderline in notability, which is, according to Deletion Policy, preferred over deletion--which is to merge the contents with the article on the author. When you suggest this, remember to use the mergeto and mergefrom tags first, use an informative edit summary, notify the editors writing those articles,  and await discussion. Even when there is essentially no useful content on the page for the book, it can still be changed to a redirect--again, notify first and get agreement, at least by default.  DGG (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Barton Foley (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Batch of opposed prods you placed.
A user has decided to oppose an entire batch of article prods you placed on horror related movies for dubious reasons. After quite a bit of "discussion" both at talk pages and at ANI, along with a procedural keep of a group AFD the articles are currently left untagged for removal.

As the procedural keep was solemnly due to no inter article relations it is now up to you to decide what to do with them. As you were the original PROD tagger i guess its your call to decide if those articles should be forwarded to AFD; Any more involvement from me on this issue would probably raise COI and harassment issues. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. But as you can see from my talk page, I got AN/I'ed and a great deal of grief from these prods. So, I may AfD some, but I am going to come up with as much tangibile evidence that there is no evidence (how does one prove a negatvce anyhow?) of the films noteriety. Barton Foley (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that an AfD is by no means required after a PROD removal. Don't nominate them out of spite or stubbornness, or out of some imagined procedural suggestion, but because they are truly worthy of being deleted. If they're not, then don't. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Proving a negative is done when you cannot prove a positive; In general people try to find sources that make an article notable and then add these to the article. If an (extensive) search doesn't give any notable sources, or gives sources that indicate that a subject is not notable (For example by claiming it only played in 2 theaters) the article is presumed to be not notable.


 * And please don't worry to much about having been on ANI and remember to BE BOLD! (But carefull) when it comes to editing. These was honestly nothing wrong at all with placing the prods, its just that the situation afterwards escalated a little bit (And you cannot exactly be blamed for that, can you?). And of course, keep Kafziel's line in mind. There is absolutely no procedure whatsoever that dictates its a rule to send all opposed prods to AFD. If you believe that some of those articles should be removed you can forward them, but if you don't believe this, there is no problem whatsoever with not forwarding them :). Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 06:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD 13th Child
I AfD'ed 13th Child but I think I may have confused myself as to procedure, given the AfD discussion page loaded the archived procedural keep discussion of the article. The instructions on the review page seemed to be unhelpful. If I mis-edited, many apologies. Barton Foley (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. The trick with earlier nominated articles is replacing "page=13th Child" with "page=13th Child (2nd nomination)" so that it is clear to both the Mediawiki software and the people that there has been a previous nomination :). I updated the WP:AFD page so that it will correctly display the article. I also see that you removed the nomination from the 13th Child article. I already updated it, so you can just navigate back to my revision and copy the AFD over from there and then continue with the procedure. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you need any further assistance? Based upon your last few edits it seems that the AFD isn't working the way you want it to :). Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sigh" I screwwed it up as you were fixing, I was blissfully trying to do the same. So. I am stopping and can you revert it back your intial fixes? So sorry....*facepalm*Barton Foley (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, give me a minute to get it back up. And to be honest second nominations are rather complex to create, especially when two people work at it at the same time. Since i only did half the procedure (step 1 and 3) its not exactly strange that this went bad because i should have told you what i was doing. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There we go, its up. But honestly you did most of the work yourself already. All i did was re-list it. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Barton Foley (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

13th Child
I added the link for this movie from Turner Classic Movies. Do you still want it to be deleted? miniluv (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The link is simply a box summary blurb. No different then that which one finds on IMDB. if the film had been shown on TMC, well, thats a different kettle of fish. but it hasn't been shown on TMC, has it now? Barton Foley (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's been shown. Do you know that it hasn't??? miniluv (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What list are you using for your horror movie deletion attempts??
13th Child isn't listed in List of horror films:2000s. Can you please tell me what list you are using??? Thank you. miniluv (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know what list it is on, if it is not on that one. It was an article that I prod'ed for deletion, then it got a procedural keep, so I went back via the links on my talk page to the article and AfD'ed it. So, if it is not on the list, I have no idea why it was removed. (And I didn't remove it.) And, to be fair, this is only one attempt. And no others are being made. Barton Foley (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what happened. I took the prod off it because I wanted people to have a chance to improve it. Hut 8.5 put the prod back even though he wasn't supposed to!!! I removed it again with a better reason. Excirial then made an AFD for all of the horror movies you tried to have deleted plus some separate AFD discussions for some of the same articles. He said that he was following prod policy but there is no obligation to start an AFD just because the prod is removed. The AFD discussion was closed because the articles aren't related. Excrial told you that you could start AFD discussions for each one. Today you started a new AFD discussion for 13th Child with Excirial's help. Is this the last one or are you going to do this for all of the ones you put a prod on??? miniluv (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD for 13th Child is the only one I plan on doing right now. I may examine my other prods at a later date, but until such time until the AfD on this film is resolved, I am not going to AfD any other articles.Barton Foley (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. miniluv (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

James Rouch
I looked at your article James Rouch hoping that I could find some sources to improve it. I didn't find any reviews from reliable sources. (I actually couldn't find any reviews even on blogs!!!) There just doesn't seem to be very much written about him or his books although there are lots of sites offering them for sale. I'm going to nominate the article for AFD discussion but I wanted to come here first and let you know. I don't want you to think that is because of the horror movies deletion attempt. I really did try to find sources!! Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. miniluv (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that the problem with an author who wrote books pre-internet. Many of the reviews and critical readings are not archived via internet. Barton Foley (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying but I looked in newspaper archives and nothing came up. I had the same problem with some of those horror movies because a lot of the genre magazines like Fangoria and Rue Morgue don't have their a lot of their archives online. miniluv (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it does not measure up, it does not measure up. Be shame to see it go if it gets deleted, but thems the breaks. Barton Foley (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Rouch
I have nominated James Rouch, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/James Rouch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. miniluv (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)