User talk:Hobit/Archive5

Discussion invitation
Hi Hobit, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jasmere.com at DRV
Per your suggestion: Articles for deletion/Jasmere.com (2nd nomination). Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gillian Duffy
...has been undeleted (I don't know how it got deleted), and you can read in the history the lengthy discussion which led (over much objection from MickMacNee) to a majority consensus that there should not be even a redirect at this title. There were earlier AN/I discussions on the subject here and here. Although, as closer of the talk page discussion, did the final salting, it was I who took most of the lead; and I am still of the opinion, for the reasons expressed there, that we should not have even a redirect. I will comment to that effect at the DRV shortly. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted BLP - Ray Joseph Cormier
Hobit, remembering your support in the past concerning deletion of the BLP last November, it may interest you to know several versions of it just showed up on the Internet in the last week. I have no idea how this happens, but it did.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Ray_Joseph_Cormier#cite_note-5

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier

http://nabut.com/show_page.php?text_dir=ltr&result_id=142980918&title=Ray%20Joseph%20Cormier#Rexy11

http://www.wikigrain.org/?req=Ray+Joseph+Cormier

You may also be interested in these self published reports on CNN,

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-65703

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-402662

I hope all is well with you and again, your support was much appreciated. Peace Ray Joseph Cormier DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lorenzana DRV
Hobit, since you seem like a thoughtful and reasonable guy, would you mind taking a look at my discussion with Protonk here, and seeing if my arguments in a succinct form are compelling enough for you to reconsider your "endorse" opinion in the current DRV? Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it's been closed inaccurately yet again, though it could have been worse... Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Article you participated in up for deletion again

 * I am contacting everyone who participated in the previously AFD that Megatron (Beast Era) is up for deletion again. The AFD is at    D r e a m Focus  00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI about Freakshownerd
Of course, if you wanted to avoid the comment you could always stand for RFA. I'd be happy to nominate you. There is plenty of Poisoned Chalice to go around. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome, anytime. Honestly. Just let me know if you want me to write it up properly in a nom or co-nom. Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A true thanks
Hey Hobit, thanks sooo much for the lovely support vote in my RfA. I'm dropping in here a bit late as I was thanking everybody personally; as I'm thanking you :) Thanks again for all of it. Sincerely.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
My dear Hobit (using a line from LOTR since it sounds so close *LOL*)...

You made a comment at the above page at 01:51 UTC today, but when signing you accidentally used four dashes instead of four tildes. I have as a courtesy manually inserted your signature by making the necessary modifications to a copy of an existing one.

I humbly remain a faithful servant. CycloneGU (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
That was nice what you said about my comment at the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Preserve
As far as I can see PRESERVE is a policy concerning editing rather then an inclusion standard so its something of a stretch to use it to define deletion. It gets dragged into deletion discussions as a lazy shorthand to imply that content should be preserved rather then deleted in the same way that some editors seem to think that vague waves to the five pillars means that nothing should ever be deleted. The reality is, of course, much more nuanced then that and the devil is in the detail and the context. In the hierarchy of wikipedia, policies are always stronger then guidelines which have more value then essays but it would be an absurdity to argue that a policy about formatting trumps a guideline about inclusion standards. The point is to work out where the policy/guideline actually intersects with the issue under debate. The art of closing discussions is to try and make some sense of the arguments in the context of our widely competing and contradictory hierarchy of policies, guidelines essays and such like.

Where I do think PRESERVE has a very valid role in deletion is the argument that we don't (well shouldn't ever) nominate an article for deletion on notability grounds if the nominator has made no effort to search for sources themselves. I generally give much very little weight to deletion arguments based on assertion of no sourcing if the voter doesn't declare whether they have looked for sources compared to keep votes where the voter clearly indicates the sources they have found and discusses them. I would generally only delete an article in these circumstances if the discussion subsequently depreciates the proffered sources or if the sources provided are patently not reliable. That is a very clear extension of preserve. By the same token AFD is not for clean-up and nominating articles for deletion where the text needs simply reworking is both lazy and very disruptive. I personally give no weight to cleanup based delete arguments. This is another extension of PRESERVE into deletion.

Beyond that? Well, personally, I think that PRESERVE is never relevant if the article doesn't meet our inclusion threshold and you can argue about retaining material until you are blue in the face but, if its not something we cover its not something we cover. PRESERVE based arguments are not compelling when faced with deletion arguments based on guidelines that address our actual inclusion standard. That said, there is no harm in a redirect that retains the article history or a redirect/merge of a small section of relevant material into a wider article. That's the approach I take to closing afds and I frequently redirect/merge if that is an available option instead of deleting. That said, other policies overarch the whole issue of inclusion. V requires material to be verifiable and we forbid original research. As content policies they clearly trump PRESERVE as they are part of the 5 pillars (under NPOV) and are frequently the final word on content inclusion. This is why I prefer redirects over merges for entirely unsourced material.

Sorry for such a long answer but you asked an interesting question that really gets to the heart of how deletion works and how we measure consensus in areas with conflicting policies. I hope this answers your question about how I can see a policy trumping a guidelines when N is frequently a more compelling argument then PRESERVE without going insane by the apparant contradiction. This is why we need clueful editors to become admins as they can leaven commonsense into their approach in a way that takes the fully nuanced way we approach our polices into account. This is why YOU are long overdue at RFA and why I would consider it a privilege to nominate/co-nominate you for the role. (forgive spelling I'm not a great speller and the spellcheck is playing up on my firefox) Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the RFA thing, I'm 90% sure it will fail, but I'm willing to go through it anyways at some point. As a teacher with a rather heavy load at the moment (entirely self-inflicted) it's a bit hard for me to find date that A) I'll have enough free time to respond in depth over a week and B) the stress of the thing won't mess me up too much (I'm something of a stress monster to begin with).  Again though I really appreciate your thoughts and I will do this, just maybe not until summer. On preserve, I take a more liberal stance, but my point is that the notion that policies always trump guidelines is flawed and BURDEN vs GNG is a solid example where most folks would agree it makes no sense.  Further, policies are interpreted in context--that's why we have discussions.  To claim that NOTNEWS always trumps EVENT is just as odd as BURDEN always trumping GNG.  Further, NOTNEWS doesn't define it's terms and it falls to other, more specialized documents, to do so. WP:EVENT is clearly written to do so. Gotta run... Hobit (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Just thinking about RfAs and your post on my talk page - if you are ever inclined to take the plunge, you have a standing offer from me for a nom, co-nom or strong early support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zebra Girl
Precedent is that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award doesn't translate to notability. Sabrina Online and Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures both won it several times, as did several more comics that had their articles deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have precedent. Its all about whoever randomly shows up to comment at a particular AFD, and the mood and opinions of the closing administrator.  Also, if winning a notable award makes you notable, and this is considered a notable award, the New York Times even mentioning them. Web Cartoonist's Choice Award.   D r e a m Focus  23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, isn't this funny? The first AFD for Sabrina Online ended in keep, people saying that award was notable.  Then the second one ended in delete, as the random bunch that showed up that time, said the award wasn't notable, despite it having a Wikipedia article with information proving that it was a notable award.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I requested the closing administrator review the case, so we can have that article undeleted. It clearly met all requirements.    D r e a m Focus  23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The second webcomic you mentioned was deleted years back when the award wasn't considered notable, its article actually being deleted. Since that is no longer the case, that argument is no longer valid.   D r e a m Focus  23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Col Warden
Thanks for helping the Col to accepted what they did was unhelpful and agree not to do it again. The pattern of deterioration in his behaviour is continuing and sensible people who he trusts need to speak to him about breaking the pattern before he goes too far and gets banned. We have all seen it before but the blame isn't with me or other editors, it has to fall squarely on the Col and those who nod and wink at his disruption and enable further deterioration by telling him that his bad behaviour is OK. He clearly needs to either take a break or refocus his perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I do think he'll do okay, but I agree he's had some issues recently.  I'd also say that having the AfDs become about the editors in question (which that one was already doing before CW did the rename dance) is a significant part of the problem too.  It would be nice if both sides would drop the sticks and cooperate rather than yelling at each other all the time.  I think WP:CIVIL needs a bit more enforcement these days. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

hey neat
My very first barnstar. :) Thanks! &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish more people took the time to do what you did. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind
...but I moved your comment on ANI about YellowMonkey out of the subsection and back into the discussion about YM where I think you meant to put it. If I'm wrong, by all means, please revert me. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  spill the beans 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just posted a rather lengthy reply to one of your commentss at the RFC/U: see this diff. Thought it might help to point it out, cos the page is rather busy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars & other Animal Actors
I give you this barnstar of Diligence for your work on Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Why thanks! I'm my own best source of information as I careen from one bloody mess to another. The ITP grows more bizarre with each passing week. Last week I was at 268,000. Today I am at 3,000 and leaking like the Titanic's hull. No rest for the wicked! The hematologist vows that he'll keep me going no matter what. "After all," says he, "dead patients don't pay their bills." How reassuring!

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SoftArtisans relist
Hi Hobit. I've relisted the SoftArtisans article (except now I'm not sure I was supposed to? Is that an admin-only thing?) Anyways, I also gave it the Afd tag like you suggested, but I couldn't create a new afd page. I would love any editing suggestions! Thanks. Cdulaney (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

Cowznofski
It's time to discuss the sources that you pointed to the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Break Time
Getting frustrated with this place again, mostly due to poor and random use of the tools to override clear consensus. The mop is becoming the gavel and that's just a massive problem. Ah well, break time for me. I'll be back in a couple weeks I'm sure. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC you might be interested in
I started a discussion on the status of the SNGs that you might be interested in, Wikipedia talk:Notability. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Inre this DIFF
The concept is reflected in other notability criteria where members of certain groups may be recognized for their contributions to that group allowing the group to to be recognized with a notable award... and this happens quite often in entertainment. In a recent AFD an award was being dismissed by the nominator as inconsequential because it was to a film and as part of the ensemble, not as an individual... and so it could have just as easily applied to man #3 or background player #17. However, a bit of research showed that the award was limited to a few members of the overall cast: Out of 61 cast members of the film, 54 were not so recognized nor singled out for recognition for their efforts. If an award is limited to the members of a group in recognition of their contributions to the group, that award is theirs. PORNBIO will be further deconstructed certainly, but until such time as it specifically states that awarded group efforts do not count, we have to treat the guideline as evenly as possible. Imagine the furor over at WP:ATH if someone tried to make it that winning a pennant was not to be considered notable simply because it was for a group's effort.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Arabcartoon.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:Arabcartoon.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Raphael1 10:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for putting it  right  for us. Kudpung (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your oppose at my RfA
Your oppose linked to Talk:Bookland, but I don't appear to have made any contributions to that talk page, the article itself, or the AfD on the article. Did you mean to link to a different page? Snotty Wong  soliloquize 20:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blue Links


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blue Links, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – OhioStandard  (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your best wishes on my talk page
None of your actions were responsible for my departure from closing deletion discussions and I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond but life has been very busy this week. There was a time when DRV could consider a close by looking at our policies and checking the process but its pretty clear that rearguing AFDs, political grandstanding, personal attacks and vote counting now take precedence over the way we have always been expected to judge consensus. I have been very consistent in my approach over the years buts its obvious that wikipedia deletion has moved off into a direction that I no longer wish to get involved in. Since the vast majority of my contributions have been in the area of DRV and deletion I doubt very much that I will be returning to the same level of contributions in the future. Spartaz Humbug! 08:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your DRV vote
Hobit, please see Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_7. There was an AFD but it was closed early as a G10. The consensus was clearly to delete as an attack. Please can you revisit your vote? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I only caught the AFD when I looked at the deleted revisions. Isn't it about time you found the time for that RFA run? Spartaz Humbug! 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob
Please don't engage him. He's already made it clear that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. It's best to ignore him completely to avoid further poisoning the discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Good to see you back...
Hey man, I'm glad to see you're still around! I burned out pretty badly last year, but I guess I'm still hooked, so here I am. I've only been dabbling in the project namespace this past week, which is why I haven't removed the "retired" tag yet, but I've got a few articles I'm planning on working on in the near future. Anyway, thanks for the warm welcome back. I hope you've been well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can empathize; so far, this year has been pretty rough for me as well. I've had a tremendous amount of work, with little respite. I'm glad things will be looking up for you in a few weeks, though! Your input will always be highly valued at DRV, I can tell you that much. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Infiniminer


A tag has been placed on Infiniminer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not repost of a material that was previously deleted. It is new material. --Kirov Airship (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Infiniminer


A tag has been placed on Infiniminer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ferret (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ferret99gt thinks that the game is Minecraft. I've noted then to him that the codes, publishers, gameplay etc are different and this game is not related wth Minecraft. --Kirov Airship (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Infiniminer
JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for TW targeting you with that speedy notice. I meant it to go towards the other individual. ferret (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi, in your comment here you start out by saying that RevDel shouldn't have been used and end by saying that it should. Please could you correct whichever is wrong...? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)
Hi Hobit. You participated in Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts
This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)