User talk:Erpert/Archive 8

Edit summaries

 * Hi Erpert, I'm a little worried about the tone of some of your recent edit summaries. I may offer some friendly advice, please consider walking away from the keyboard for a minute and stretching your legs! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being angry, you know.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 05:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! Melchoir (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR
One thing I have to say right away is that I have never understood the point of WP:IAR 

I agree; from your statement about how you imagine WP:IAR is being used, you don't get it. Any rule or policy can be abused; would you then have us have no rules or policies? HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're bringing this up over a month later? Sheesh, get a life.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If your comment had been something that became stale as a result of its age, that would be one thing, but--unless since making that post you have declared that you do now "get it" [ WP:IAR ]--then a reply to that comment a month later is not inappropriate, nor would it be a year after posting. Plenty of discussions on Wikipedia take place over the period of months, and a post such as your invites responses as long as its out there.  Looks like WP:IAR isn't the only thing about Wikipedia that you "don't get".  HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the matter with you? When I archive a discussion, that does not mean to bring it back. Stay off my talk page.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Temperament
Honestly, can you not accept an apology gracefully? Must you always be so irascible Would it be so hard to say, "Ok, I see your point, but I'd really rather not discuss it any further?" Everything I've done with you has been no different than I've done with any other Wikipedia editor, but I've never seen this kind of reaction. Could you just be civil (as I have tried to be) in your goodbyes? HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)
I have no idea what kind of shape the two previous versions were that had those two versions deleted, but the current version... though it started off as pretty crappy, has gone through some improvements. What was nominated as a 93-word unsourced stub, is now somwhat better than when I found it. You are invited to revisit the article, and the above deletion discussion. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT hip hop musicians
Category:LGBT hip hop musicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

CFD of Category:Women comedians
Hi Erpert

I reverted your speedy close of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11, because a) the discussion was not merged as stated, and b) you are WP:INVOLVED.

If you want to withdraw your nomination to rename Category:Women comedians, just add a note to the CFD saying you withdraw it, and leave it to someone uninvolved to close the discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't merged? Um...yes, it was. And I don't think WP:INVOLVED applies here because it's not like I am closing an AfD about an article I created that is up for deletion (for example). In this case, why have two discussions open about the same issue? I have closed discussions in similar cases several times in the past and there has never been a problem.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 10:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read WP:INVOLVED as applying here, because you take a view on the issues being discussed.
 * To merge one XFD to another, you would need to add the merged page to list of nominated pages at the top of the discussion, and that did not happen. In any case, I would usually oppose an extra page being added in to a discussion which has already had a lot of contributions, let alone one which has been open for 5 weeks. If that was to be done at all, it should not be done by an editor who has taken a stance on the substantive issue, as you and I have both done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)