User talk:Lightburst/Archive 3-30-19

Articles for deletion/Jean Mill
You didn't actually register a vote. Your Keep, Delete or Merge (or whatever) should be bolded in order for the bot to pick it up. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, and for voting. I was not sure if I needed to recuse myself. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a tabulation (somewhere in Wikiland) of each of your votes. So putting it in the right format is important.
 * Among other things, !votes only sort of count. So recusal is not such a large deal.  We just have to wait and let others say their piece, and then a result will appear.  It's out of our hands.
 * Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, surviving the afd is not a given, thanks for looking the article over, and for explaining process for me. Lubbad85 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, "!votes only sort of count". I consider first is to improve the article. Second, to make a good argument as to why to keep (or merge or redirect…). And then the !vote. Here is a bot that keeps track of AfDs: User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's StrayBolt (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the message! You are right, for sure. When the Afd was place march 7, the article was a cut and paste from another page (I used it as a placeholder). So the article deserved an afd. However since that time, the article has been improved almost daily. I may be at a stand still on the improvements for now, waiting for some further biographical reference. Lubbad85 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I am excited to receive. it is the first time in a few weeks that I could smile while on wikipedia!Lubbad85 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI
I'm sorry you have such a dismal view of administrators on Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of how your complaint was treated but if anyone asks me, I tell them to find alternative dispute resolutions rather than going to AN or ANI. Unless the misconduct is extensive, documented and is unidirectional, ANI is unlikely to give you the result you want and the original filer can be put on the hot seat which is unpleasant at best and can result in a block in the worst instances. It is almost always better to have a discussion on a talk page and seek a resolution that way.

Relisting an AfD for a third time might not be recommended but it is not egregious enough to warrant any sort of punishment. And I don't think that your complaint was a case of admins protecting admins but editors giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia over more than 6 years. It takes more than a questionable judgment call to receive a block or warning when you are a valued contributor. You might think that this is unfair but giving some slack to experienced editors (whether or not they are admins) is customary on this platform which relies almost solely on volunteers.

Right now, it looks like your AfD is heading towards No Consensus but if there is a deletion, you can go to Deletion Review and make your case that the AfD wasn't settled fairly. But my guess is that this will not be necessary if things progress as they are at the moment. Happy editing, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your words. It is a lonely feeling. I was throwing in the towel on that article. I blanked my user page and decided to retreat. I was feeling disgusted and sorry for myself. I guess my inexperience and frustration led me to that page after I was dismissed by the admin on his talk page. Sidenote: I am forever asking the question: Why does Mr. Whipple deserve a stand alone article. Yet this person does not. (giggles) Also it seems someone could have asked me to withdraw the ANI or advised me, but the admins all seemed to attack me instead - locking the subject and threatening boomerang. It is odd to work for free in a scholarly effort and then have admins get snarky and dismissive. You know the rest of the story. Anyway thanks again for the note! It is uplifting to hear kind words... I may take some time for myself now. Lubbad85 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lubbad5: second what Liz said. On wikipedia, to prevent hysteresis, the standard for reversing an administrative decision (whether made by an WP:ADMIN or not) is whether it shows an egregious error of judgment. For example, if I had relisted the AFD, it would have been easily overturned and I would have earned a trout. However, when an independent editor takes that same action in good faith that is widely accepted especially since an extra week of discussion has no permanent or even long-term repercussions.
 * About ANI: it is a high-traffic page with over 7,500 page-watchers, many heate-discussions and there is less tolerance there for newbie errors (which is often perceived to be WP:IDHT-behavior) than one would like. So the responses are often curt and written in the "just-stop-it" form, since that is sometimes needed to stop truly IDHT-conduct or separate sparring parties. As Liz said, when one is looking for a second opinion or advice it is often better to approach an experienced editor one trusts since one would likely get a more patient hearing and be less likely to dismiss their feedback as biased.
 * Incidentally, the only place I part ways from Liz is that I think the current consensus at the Jean Mill AFD is for a redirect, and I say that not as a matter of "I'm right. She's wrong" but to illustrate how different editors can sincerely hold different views despite looking at the same evidence. Frankly, a close of 'keep', 'redirect' or 'no consensus' would IMO all meet the standard of reasonability at this point and my only hope is that the AFD is closed by an uninvolved and regular AFD closer so that we don't have any drama about who made that decision. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare Thanks for the helpful advice. I value the advice. I think I am finished with the article. I did not know Jean Mill but I thought I proved that she was plenty notable. I did order books and turn over rocks to research the woman. Did background checks too. I am very surprised though at the drive to delete/merge/redirect. I never thought the article would inspire that reaction. I attribute that to my own blunder: I originally cut and pasted the section on Jean Mill that I wrote for the Bengal Cat page and that caught an administrator's attention. It was a lazy way to start the article and that got an immediate afd and some very snarky comments from the admin - WP:NPOV WP:AADD: WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:INHERITED, WP:IKNOWIT. WP:BUTITEXISTS. And he would post that I only made the article longer after I updated the research. I did not know how to vote, and how to navigate the many abbreviations that he threw at me, however I did find them insulting. The admin could have gave direction, but his goal seemed to be - take down the article. Then at each renewal of an afd I was puzzled. and of course the last one, was the most puzzling. Anyway - keep up the good work Abecedare and Liz Read! Talk! You are both valuable and helpful admins! Never once did either of you make me feel lesser. :)

Both of you have got my attention and respect by treating me as an editor AGF. I have been editing a few years on wikipedia and it is not my practice to argue, fight and create crappy articles. Lubbad85 (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)