User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2015/June

NASTRO
Helo Headbomb, I am somewhat concerned with your edit to NASTRO that was never voted on and has no consensus for the change in policy. I am not comfortable with such a change because someone may simply abuse the guide. Now that Tom.Reding has recently done a bot re-direct for an additional 8,240+2790+555 (11,585) asteroids, I am inclined to think that it is best to place a notability tag on articles to prevent someone from pulling a reckless "I don't like it" to numerous articles without doing any checks. If the article still has a notability tag 6+ months later, then it can be redirected. This will keep anyone from abusing the system. -- Kheider (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's unnecessary bureaucracy. Anyone can and should be bold in redirecting non-notable asteroids article after a good faith literature search to establish notability. See the second half of WP:FAILN, amongst other things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia seems to be becoming more of a bureaucracy every year. My NASTRO edits have been called disgusting for making edits without voted-on consensus. Your edit actually changed written policy. I will have to consider if I should do a partial revert. People can always be bold and work somewhat outside the guide. And I have yet to see anyone merge content from the asteroids being re-directed to the actual list articles. For asteroids that say more than, "Asteroid X was discovered on Y by Z", this should be considered. -- Kheider (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Policy has been unchanged. Anyone can, could, and have boldly redirect articles before, and they will continue to do so, regardless of whether or not the article in question is on an asteroid or not. Having to tag random Asteroid #249353 with a notability tag and wait six months before redirecting it is utter nonsense, and is a solution in need of a problem. If you see someone redirecting articles willy nilly without doing a good faith search to establish notability, trout them. But having a moratorium on redirects is silly. That's the whole point of the Asteroids <2000 must be discussed cutoff. Above 2000, be bold. Below 2000, create a discussion first. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The NASTRO/DWMP written policy was changed. Restoring the 2012 written policy will help prevent someone from redirecting articles willy nilly. The system needs to be protected from abuse by either side of delete debate. When in doubt, AfD is obviously also an option. -- Kheider (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted. If you got a problem with this, take it to WT:NASTRO, not here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44/Archive
A poster on my talk page believes that this is Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive who is (and will be merged with) also Sockpuppet investigations/Goblin Face/Archive. I can see reasons to think this is correct, but I'd like your comments first. I'm also asking User:Reaper Eternal. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, that wasn't a poster, that was a Goblin Face sock, typical. But I think correct. Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what you think I can contribute here. But with that massive a sockfarm, it should be rather simple CU investigation to make, if a tedious one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We only can go back 3 months with CU, so would have to rely on behavioral cues. No problem though if you don't think you can help in this case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could, but I'm swamped with conferences at the moment. By the time I have time to even dig in, it'll probably be long closed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)