User talk:Eluchil404/Archive6

Discussion about the early closure of afds
Hello, I noticed you have recently closed AfD debate(s) early and would like to direct you to a discussion currently in progress at the administrators noticeboard here relevent to the early closures of AfDs. Thankyou and happy editing! Sorry if you are already aware of this discussion. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Quck question
As you closed the User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers DRV It seems you left out part of the summary. The reasons for the DRV were:
 * 1) Based on the existing policy and guideline wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userspace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?  (You're summery implied/stated that although the "how long" questions asked at the AFD were not answered "this hasn't reached it yet".)
 * 2) Did the closing admin ignore WP:DGFA guidelines? (??? Nothing.)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller
why was the page on Nicholas Rockefeller deleted? the information was not false. Testimony made by Mr. Aaron Russo is well documented. it is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.116.135 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on Nicholas Rockefeller was deleted as the result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Nicholas Rockefeller. You may wish to speak to User:Quarl who was the administrator who closed the debate.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistory
Thanks for pointing that out - I read a completely different MfD (serves me right for using multiple tabs late at night). I've restored it and reopened the MfD. Black Kite 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive of HaClique
Can you send me an archive of the deleted page HaClique? Mabsy (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say how much this means to me, thanks for not deleting the page completely!! I will continue to work on the page, using whatever references (in English) I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapunque (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision of redirect for 'Noble experiment'
Please note that I have made this change which causes Noble experiment to redirect to Prohibition in the United States instead of to Prohibition.

I am notifying you of this because you were a party to a deletion discussion in June 2006 which resulted in the original redirect.

My reasons for redirecting to the US article can be found in the associated talk page, and include the fact that the  US article had not yet been created when the consensus was reached.

If you agree with my judgment then no action is required on your part.

Thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia,

VegKilla (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Place names considered unusual
Hi, you have deleted the article named in in the headline of this section. Can you please undelete it and move it as subpage into my namespace? I need some information i have once read in it. Thanks in advance! --Carbenium (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

del rev
I was wondering who would be courageous enough to close. DGG (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was clearly the right close. Not the one I agree with, but the right one. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment
I don't make a habit of questioning the opposes (I think I've done it with four out of 37), but I will with yours. Please take a closer look at the conversation surrounding Butler's quote. The issue was pretty simple: could a website being run by an advocate of EVP (the concept that electronic equipment is influenced by supernatural forces) be used as a source of material for an article on EVP, even if that advocate has no recognized credentials or expertise? Another editor had removed such material, citing the lack of credentials or expertise, saying that that made the site unreliable. I agree wholeheartedly there ... any use has to be extremely limited. The owner of the site, Tom Butler, happens to have a wikipedia account, and claimed that the removal of material violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. My reaction to that was pretty straightforward: getting a Wikipedia account doesn't shield your real life behaviour from criticism. Take a simpler example: there are thousands of editors that said unpleasant things about both McCain and Obama during the last election. If McCain and Obama showed up with Wikipedia accounts, does that make those thousands of editors guilty of an NPA violation? I think the answer is no. Editors are able to criticize real people when it's relevant to their work on articles, have to be very careful about criticism of other editors, and editors that choose to make their identities known have to understand that they open themselves up to the first form.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund
Hello, Once I finish with the article, should I bring it to you, DrV, DGG, or just move it to mainspace? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It will be early May before I get to it, but I will get to it! Hobit (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello~
endulge my trespassing on your time. I'm a university student at Seoul National University, and I'm currently working on a research project on Wikipedia. My focus is on dispute resolution and the Wikipedian culture- subjects that needs real understanding rather than statistics or observation of explicit things. Therefore, I'm eagerly searching for live voices, for accounts of active users.

I see you are an administrator who has been active in Wikipedia for many years, so I thought your experience and opinions would add a lot to my research. Would you by any chance care for an email interview? If you have the time, please send a reply and I'll mail you the questions. Again, your help would mean more than a lot to me.

Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.126.178.124 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation
 The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Italian permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you.

AfD/Zipeg
I don't know what happened here ; but I think that wires were crossed. I'm going to put a note at Skomorokh's talk page as well as here. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh said that he would defer to you. I don't know whether deletion is the right decision, but we need either to have the AfD amended or to have the article deleted. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Investigating, I see that the latest tag was linked to the old nomination. (There was a second nomination.) There may be an issue with the tag design. Anyway, I'll wander over to Skomorokh's talk page. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD
An article of yours is in AFD: Articles for deletion/List of The Incredibles characters. Joe Chill (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the result was obviously going to be a keep, I withdrew my nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

TheAmazingAtheist merge
As the deleting admin, can you paste to my talk page the last revision of TheAmazingAtheist as I am going to merge a sentence or two of it to Jokela_school_shooting.--Otterathome (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej
Dear editor Eluchil404, As the closing editor of this Deletion Review case, I wish to kindly ask you to reconsider your decision. I believe there were enough opposing opinions on the AfD and the DelRev combined to warrant a Keep per no consensus, or at least a relist decision. In addition, I firmly believe that sources listed make article subject notable and WP:PROF applicable (as discussed towards the end of DELREV). I did not feel opposing editors disputed my claim successfully, they simply stated disagreement. I am afraid disagreements with article subject's ideology may have contributed to delete motivations. Despite my lengthiness in commentary and my slightly over-agressive approach, I believe we should as editors look at the essence of the argument as it pertains to guidelines. In case you firmly stand by your decision, would you kindly offer some advice on what possible further recourse I may have to pursue this issue? Or is DELREV the last stop?Turqoise127 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of over-aggressive approach, Eluchil, you might be interested in some of this editor's latest contributions in the field of drive-by tagging, specifically those added to Oscar Tompkins and George Brown (scholar). I created those articles, and I was a party in that deletion review. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Exploding tree
I would have appreciated an explanation from you as closing admin as to why this is not improper synthesis. This was being argued despite the number of sources used. If anything opinion seems evenly split on whether the topic is valid or is an expertly woven-together farrago. If the argument for it being improper synthesis was found by you to be unconvincing, surely you should have closed as no consensus, not keep? Fences &amp;  Windows  01:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Expressly associate"
Hey, thanks! :) It took me a few days and a lot of thought to come up with that little speech. Although I decided not to outright oppose anymore thanks to some discussion with Protonk on my talk page, I still had some concerns remaining (partly distilled from other people's responses to the RFA), so I figured I'd outline some food for thought - regardless of how this one ends (see the bureaucrat discussion to see how it plays out)! BOZ (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marque and Reprisal (front cover).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Marque and Reprisal (front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trading In Danger (front cover).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Trading In Danger (front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Engaging the Enemy (front cover).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Engaging the Enemy (front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax(talk) 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)