User talk:Mellowed Fillmore/Archive 1

Welcome!

 * Thank you! Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for your participation at RfA. here is some reading that you may find useful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not a poll
Please read Consensus and Polling is not a substitute for discussion before joining further deletion discussions. You commented in a couple dozen of AfDs, but apparently none of your "votes" is an useful contribution. Comments such as "Delete as non notable" or "Keep per above" are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please keep in mind that deletion debates are not a vote but discussions based on policies and guidelines, and you have clearly not enough competence to participate in them. My best, Cavarrone 12:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone is not notable, how am I supposed to say it? Are you going to chastise the other participants who said similar things? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "non notable!!!" or "it's notable!!!!" are not valid arguments, they're just votes, you are supposed to say WHY they are/ are not "notable", i.e. HOW they fail/meet our Notability general and specific guidelines or how they fail/meet other policies. Furthermore, while sometimes it could happen to give a brief "per above" comment, I doubt "other participants" who spread similar poor votes have your voting-rates, i.e. even voting 7 AfDs in 6 minutes. Please read the guidelines and the policies I linked above, thanks. Cavarrone  17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to be more specific in my votes. However, I do not appreciate the negative aspersions regarding my competence. I can assure you that I am quite familiar with AfDs and that I have the required competence to participate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

 * I hope that the ban can be lifted sooner rather than later. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. We always appreciate new users showing initiative, but perhaps you would like to give it more time before commenting on meta topics you appear to not yet have fully investigated. Happy editing :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All I said was that the block was a bit harsh. Obviously you aren't going to agree, but that doesn't mean you need to come over here and leave a patronising comment. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Improper AfD non-admin closure
Articles_for_deletion/Mitch_Morse should not have been closed, please revert the closing :
 * 1) You are involved in the discussion, and therefore should only close if you are the nominator withdrawing the nomination when there are no votes other than keep votes (WP:NACD)
 * 2) There is no way this is no consensus
 * 3) No consensus closures aren't supposed to be done early
 * 4) There is no harm done to the articles by having them in an AfD for the full time
 * 5) WP:IAR doesn't apply, there is no improvement to the encyclopedia here. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  14:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you can persuade me otherwise, I will have to disagree with your last point. In fact, reopening the discussion would be harmful to the encyclopedia. Quite simply, a mass AfD of articles that are not all extremely similiar is too unwieldy and it is a waste of the community's time to let the AfD run its course. Furthermore, there was no real consensus, contrary to your second point. (Also, please don't lecture me about the rules. As I said, I knew I was breaking all sorts of rules.) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * MF, if you encounter more AfDs on point for college football players who are newly drafted/signed in the NFL, I would appreciate being pinged immediately. I work with CFB and NFL notability on a regular basis, I understand the interplay of WP:COLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, and I am familiar with most of the AfD precedents on point.  I agree with you that these articles should not be mass nominated, but treated individually, with some kept and some deleted.  Nominating a couple dozen at once is a formula for wasting everyone's time.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be watching for any AfDs for these articles and will try to make sure they are listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football‎. Do you still want to be pinged or is the delsort page sufficient notification? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not likely to withdraw my nomination on that one and certainly not before more WP:MLB regulars weigh in. So far, the two that have participated are among the few in the 'bullpen catchers are notable' camp. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Being uncollegial is fun. Alex (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded 2015 Burundian protests
Hi Mellowed Fillmore, I have made major expansions to the content on 2015 Burundian protests. I hope this should bring the article up to the quality that you think is needed for an article on the news page. I would certainly appreciate your collaboration and/or feedback.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, my oppose was not based on article quality, but rather on the fact that I don't think these protests rise to ITN level, at least not yet. Having said that, I do applaud your hard work on the article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem. Thanks for the barnstar! Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Hello there

I noticed you nominated a few police departments for deletion. They are quite notnotable, if not all of them. It's an issue not only with police departments, with my experience. For example, fire departments such as Paterson Fire Department, Jersey City Fire Department, Dennis Volunteer Fire Company, and Clifton Fire Department are problematic. Let me know if you need some help. I won't be watching your page, so you have to send me a message on my talk page. I hope to collaborate in the future with you.96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comment; ya, it will help if you respond on my talk page. What can I do?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion is not changed at all. The article should be titled 'Hillary Clinton' and any other outcome is flat-out foolish. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The barnstar
Thanks a lot! CSD-ing is kind of in my comfort zone, seeing as WP:NPP is basically where I started. Thanks again, JZCL 07:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you take another look?
You previously commented in the Mark Twain ITN proposal that you would require a stand-alone article to evaluate it. That has now been done. Would you mind taking another look and updating our comment? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion criteria
Just a general comment. If you believe (after a wp:before search) that a baseball player does not meet GNG, and does not meet the alternative sport-specific standard, please say so in your nomination. Just saying that a minor leaguer "is unlikely to ever make it to the bigs" is irrelevant (as well as crystal-balling). The player never has to make the bigs ... if in fact they satisfy GNG. GNG is key notability standard. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know about GNG (as you can see here). A player's likelihood of making the bigs in not necessarily irrelevant, as it affects whether we might consider merging/redirecting the article to the team's minor league players page. Having said all that, you are correct that I should have stated in the nom that I felt the article fails GNG. It was a poor word choice and I will try to avoid that in the future. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tx. Some editors thing the sport-specific criteria are the key (such as making the majors), and GNG the backstop. It's the opposite. The only reason the sport-specific criteria have weight is they are taken as indicia that the subject likely meets GNG. As notability/sports states, towards the top: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Best. The same criteria should I would think be used for a merge/redirect criteria, rather than crystal balling a secondary criterion  that for AfD decisions don't drive the analysis. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Serious question
Can I ask why you have it in for me? Is it because you disagree with me on articles relating to homosexuality? Of course you extraordiarily said this 'It is my view that AusLondonder is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He is likely to remain a problematic editor and I'm not sure that any more patience needs to be shown' - in stark contrast to the 37 pages I have created (one of which, interestingly, you are now 'voting' for deletion, despite little prior interest in the subject) or my 861 contributions. Do you stand by what you wrote? Do you honestly think it was fair to report me to ANI, despite you accusing me of having an agenda! AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported you to ANI because I was tired of dealing with your double standards. While you are more than happy to shout WP:AGF at anyone who thinks you might be a sock/SPA or have a conflict of interest, you don't seem to understand that you should also AGF. After all, is saying 'Can I ask why you have it in for me? Is it because you disagree with me on articles relating to homosexuality?' an assumption of good faith? No, it isn't. Keep in mind that the blocking admin referred to your block as a 'shot aross the bow'. So far, you don't seem to have gotten the message. I won't hesitate to raise the issue again if you continue to attack me. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be very clear. This is not, in any conceivable way an 'attack' and I resent your threat to report me once more. With regards to by views on WP:AGF, it is wrong to falsely accuse people of things with no evidence, and I didn't appreciate it when others did. You are now criticising me for not assuming good faith in you, which you regard as an 'attack' - yet you wrote at ANI 'It is my view that AusLondonder is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He is likely to remain a problematic editor and I'm not sure that any more patience needs to be shown' - the starkest example of failure to assume good faith imaginable. Can I ask what message it is that I have missed and how I have missed it?
 * If you don't want me to report you again, the smartest thing to do would be to leave me alone. Your continued insistence on arguing about this indicates to me that I was right in my assessment at ANI. Your recent conduct was bad enought that it led to you being blocked by an uninvolved, objective administrator. Insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong is not likely to get you very far. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, do you not think it is interesting that you are 'voting' (without providing a detailed reason) on a number of deletion nominations surrounding me despite little or no prior involvement or interest in the subject? AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that my actions are in good faith, correct? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)