User talk:Historicpastime

FLC Kings of Assyria
I archived the previous nomination of the Kings of Assyria. Could you please make your statement again at Featured list candidates/Kings of Assyria? In future, don't forget to archive the previous nominations before nominating again. It's listed as step #4 at WP:FLC's Nomination procedure. Thanks!--Crzycheetah 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Historicpastime (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anatolia connection
Please stop removing the category connection between ancient places and Anatolia of which they were a part. There was no edit summary so an editor could understand your changes. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood your deletion in other articles because you mentioned that is was in another category, but there was no higher level connection to Anatolia in the two I reverted (and no edit summary). Student7 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The categories Cilicia and Galatia are in Category:Roman provinces in Anatolia, and/or Category:Achaemenid satrapies in Anatolia, the most specific categories for them.
 * Sorry for the no edit summary - I don't usually leave one every time I edit an article I'm actively working on, but I try to remember when I edit in other projects. Historicpastime (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC
It wasn't promoted because it hadn't received any support at all. Feel free to work on gaining support and bringing it back to FLC in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor was there any opposition! Suggestions were made, as they are made for all nominees, and I addressed them all. Historicpastime (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The list drew very little attention from the community and in the past I have been criticised for promoting lists with zero support. This kind of thing is how I would suggest you take this forward.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One would think lists and articles would be promoted based on their merits as spelled out in the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Historicpastime (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FLC instructions... "For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria." - can you point me to the consensus that suggested it met the criteria? Besides, what's the rush?  You're more than welcome to renominate.  Allow me to reiterate - I've received a lot of criticism in the past for promoting lists which don't have a clear consensus that the criteria have been reached.  I didn't see that consensus in the list, just some points for improvement (some of which you declined to implement).  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't decline to implement any suggestions; I responded to some of them and never heard anything more about it. Historicpastime (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not up to me to get community consensus for your list. I review just about every list to ensure it meets the basics, in particular the WP:MOS.  My comments, completed or not, are not necessarily an endorsement to the completeness, accuracy or otherwise of the list.  Beyond my comments you had a bunch from Matthew Edwards to which you did attend.  I'm afraid this process is about identifying Wikipedia's finest work and two sets of comments, one partially addressed and no indication of community support whatsoever (unless you consider silence to be tacit support, which is odd considering the vast array of supports in other FLCs) does not amount, in my opinion, to a consensus that the list meets the criteria.  But as I've already said, feel free to renominate.  After all, two sets of comments in ten days is hardly onerous - perhaps this time the community will find themselves better placed to support the promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rambling Man, I fully addressed your suggestions, either by making changes, or by explaining why things were done the way they were in this list, ending with phrases like "I'll change it if necessary", "If it's a problem, I can remove the links", "If necessary, I can remove them from the regnal lengths", to which you never responded.
 * I'm sorry our cradle of civilization doesn't attract the attention at FLC that such notable lists as Aesop Rock discography do. Historicpastime (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry too. But frankly, starting a nom with something facetious like " My apologies to the FLC for not submitting a sports-, TV- or indie rock-related list" probably won't do your cause much good.  I certainly won't be looking at the list again until its time is up.  Good luck with the re-nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What good would that do? When you did comment this past time, you did not follow up or follow through, and then you wrongly accused me of only partially addressing the issues raised. Historicpastime (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow the community to judge the list and offer no further comment at this time. There are plenty of other lists that need attention. And you could always talk to User:Scorpion0422 if you feel disgruntled, I'm not the only FLC director. But I am the only one who spends hours commenting on just about every list with little or no thanks. As I said, good luck with the re-nom, but I'd advise you reword your nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop using FLC to make a WP:POINT (e.g. " it can't be said this list wasn't supported."). Just try to remember we're attempting to promote the finest work Wikipedia has to offer.  Your review of the List of presidents of the Russian Federation is, frankly, insulting the to process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was making a wp:point with the support vote, but what I said about excluding a notable, growing list based solely on the necessarily small number of items in it, was an honest concern I had. Historicpastime (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the way to do it because the vote will be entirely discounted. If you wish to raise concern over list lengths then do so at WT:FLC, don't arbitrarily support a list which, regardless of its size, is woefully short of featured standard.  And please withdraw your pointed support from the list of Roman Emperors unless you wish for me to disregard your opinion there as well.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they'll not be the first fan-support votes to be taken in the spirit they were intended; but it is really rather upsetting that someone would close out a good nomination without his own following through, and then say it was me not fully addressing the issues. Historicpastime (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your supports weren't "fan-support" votes, they were highly damaging to the process and insulting to those who work damned hard to keep the standards high at FLC. The reason the list was "closed out" was not because you decided not to implement some of my suggestions, it was because (and this is the last time I'll say it) there was no community consensus that it met the criteria.  I no longer wish to discuss this as obviously you do not trust my judgement and I would hate "upset" you further.  Please address your concerns to the other FL director, User:Scorpion0422.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've been following your lively debate with The Rambling Man, and I've decided to chip in my few cents. First of all, I agree with you that it is unfortunate that most of our FLs are sports, media or music related (Hell, I haven't even heard of 60% of the bands that come through). You have to remember that most of wikipedia's users work on subjects that they are familiar with and like it or not, those are the subjects that get the most traffic.

Supports like this are inappropriate, and disrupt the process. If you would like to try giving a proper review, your input would be more than welcome. Your list is good, but it does have some work to be done (I can give you a review later if you wish), which is why it was archived. It may have failed once, but don't worry, it will pass eventually. -- Scorpion0422 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really upset about the makeup of the featured lists - it is what it is; I was upset that someone had closed the nomination with comments to his *own* suggestions still open for response, and then say I had not addressed all the issues. A review would be nice - I feel a bit like working in a vacuum here. Historicpastime (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uruk
The reference you gave me (WP:RS) says 'Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the MOST RELIABLE SOURCES in areas where they are available.(My capitals)' and my link does go to information provided by an academic source. I can see you're applying the blowtorch to this edit, holding it up to intense scrutiny - and I probably deserve it by allowing a petty disagreement with you to escalate, but you really can't fault the source


 * Then quote the source, not the quote. Historicpastime (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't the rule that you 'Cite the place where you found the material'? Then others can critique the information in the site. That's what you've been doing, I know - and that's fine, but given the extensive referencing on the site I really dont see how you can say it isn't a legitimate tertiary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdw0 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to bring in a third opinion on this, especially since I've reached the limit of today's 3RR rule - do you have an issue with that? -Preceding Mdw0 (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * *Your* source must be the reliable one, not the source's sources. Historicpastime (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Khoikhoi 05:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)