User talk:NYKevin/Archive 2

About the Personal issues
Firstly, I'd like to say that this is completely unrelated to Articles for deletion/Sandbox Effect (2nd nomination), or anything else on Wikipedia, for that matter. I don't plan on refactoring this comment, so it may not be very clear. I'll try to keep my down time on the order of days or weeks rather than months or years. The basic reason for this is that I have to sort out my priorities. I hope to return soon, and if I'm not back for Christmas, I'd like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas (Well, I'm an atheist, but my family celebrates it and so do I). This comment was added at the same time as the above. -- Thin boy  00  @862, i.e. 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I have removed the, however, the other template is going to apply more stringently except from Friday afternoon (EST) to Sunday afternoon (ibid).  And of course, that template... well, your mileage may vary.  I am not currently in the mood to edit, but I should be back tomorrow afternoon (EST; in system time, that would be a few several hours ago tomorrow).  -- Thin  boy  00  @172, i.e. 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate? How? –68.224.117.152 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "... Spread this code" had nothing to do with your edit. -- Thin  boy  00  @126, i.e. 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have wisened up a bit, but that response still doesn't answer my question. I don't consider it vandalism. -68.224.117.152 (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused. I did not revert that edit (as far as I can remember anyway).  Someone else might have, probably for a different reason, but I do not consider it vandalism.  The problem is the Edit summary, which was unrelated to your edit, making it (the summary) unhelpful for other editors.  The summary's purpose is to explain to other editors what your edit did, and in this case the summary does not explain anything.  Also, I just noticed that another editor left a note about vandalism on the same page about an hour after mine.  Perhaps you meant to contact him about "vandalism"?  I recommend that you try to resolve the issue with him (he may have made a mistake), or perhaps on the article talk page.  If you did mean to contact me, could you explain the summary?  I can't quite understand its helpfulness, to be honest.  -- Thin  boy  00  @876, i.e. 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane Salema
Hello, ... I'm using my Warn-bio protocol on the article for Diane Salema ... care to 2nd my WP:PROD? And I'd appreciate any feedback you have on the warning protocols in general. Happy Editing! &mdash; 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the concept, but you should assume good faith in other editors and not assume that they will remove the CSD (unless there is a reason to do so, of course). I really think that using "token changes" to prevent editors from undoing you is not a good idea.  The templates should be put in separate edits specifically because people can revert them.  If you make it difficult to deprod/deCSD the article, it won't stop most editors, but it will annoy them.  WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions.  If anyone objects, they should be able to deprod.  If someone decides that the CSD is wrong, then it should be easy for them to remove it.  It is simple enough to revert the author if they deCSD it, so you shouldn't try to keep people in general from doing so.  I seconded your WP:PROD because it seemed appropriate.  However, I feel your system needs some work.  Please don't take this personally, it is intended as constructive criticism.  The system otherwise seems pretty good.  Maybe, with a little work, it could become policy, or at least a guideline.  -- Thin  boy  00  @26, i.e. 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we're pretty much on the same page ... the difference is that you assume the author is an experienced editor, and knows how to simply revert attempts to flag or tag an article for deletion, and I guess my assumption is that these protocols are for dealing with a newbie who is Totally Clueless that WP:1ST even exists ... we have procedures for deletion (CSD, PROD, or AfD), and I have no desire to make any changes to them ... it's the order in which they are applied that I am attempting to influence with the protocols ... these are not intended for the obvious "kill it before it grows" articles, but for the ones which probably should go to AfD, or at least get a second chance through the dated PROD.


 * You "seconded" a PROD on an article I tagged under my previous IP account, and I didn't know that such a tag existed ... that's why I decided to ping you on my very next PROD to solicit feedback ... as you can see from the Talk page, I sat on this one for a month, and only noticed it because it was still on my watchlist, but I didn't recognize it ... I'm going to think about this "soliciting a second opinion" as one of the steps ... OTOH, I think that may violate one of the spam guidelines. :-) &mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's your position then could you explain or revise this? Assume that a CSD will be rejected by Some Other Editor, so include a prod as well ... the point is to leave enough changes to make a simple UNDO edit an inappropriate response ...
 * The "assumption" seems in bad faith with regard to other editors (non-newbie). How would a newbie know enough to know when an undo is inappropriate?  Also, I said minus spam because it did not have any external links (Linkspam).  -- Thin  boy  00  @114, i.e. 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad ... that reflects my attitude before my epiphany a few months ago ... thanks for catching it, and I'll revise that section Real Soon Now (I fixed Warn-bio, but it may have gotten replicated in the other warning protocols as well) ... yeah, this article is more fancruft than anything else ... I mean, the subject doesn't even have a MySpace page that could be linked. :-) &mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK ... I've added the following:"Ping Some Other Editor to consider adding a (affirms a willingness to voice Delete at an AfD.)"with this edit to Deletion warnings ... what do you think? &mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that page, with a little copyediting (1st → 3rd person etc), could become policy, or at least be moved to the Wikipedia namespace as an essay. Contacting other editors is a good idea, especially if they are impartial, but you have to be careful not to get inexperienced users overexcited. I carefully examined the article, history and talk page before seconding your prod, but a new user might not. I'm not saying that you would deliberately introduce bias, but anyone affiliated with something has some bias and saying things like "could you add prod-2 to article x" (not what you're saying, but inexperienced users are so creative) defeats the purpose of prod-2. Encourage the editor to remind "Some Other Editor" to be impartial, and I think the system will be perfect. -- Thin boy  00  @203, i.e. 03:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Copy that ... my deletionist prejudice stands exposed ... how about something like: Remember that your opinion about deleting an article is just that; your own. Consider involving Some Other Editor who either has some expertise in the subject area, or whose experience you trust over your own ... they may decline your PROD, or they may second your opinion with a . Either way, you will have a better idea of how well your opinion matches the current consensus, which tends to change over time.

&mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty good. I'm going offline to sleep now, bye.  -- Thin  boy  00  @223, i.e. 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kewl ... I've integrated it and done some tweaks to the individual warning protocols (like Warn-inc and Warn-web) so that they are "regularized" ... thnx fer giving me an incentive to work on these again ... Happy Editing! &mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jamierush AIV report
Hi. I removed your request for Jamierush to be blocked, but later realised that I should not have, as the sort of image uploads he was making were disruptive and perhaps are classified as vandalism. He's been blocked indefinitely now (see block log) by Stephen. Sorry for any inconvenience I have caused here.  Spebi  00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to clear something up.
You seem to have misinterpreted the snowball clause. Please don't take this as anything other than friendly advice, but in the interest of avoiding potential confusion I feel it should be mentioned. The snowball clause states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process," or that if something is not going to pass, there is no reason to put it through. Articles for deletion and so on must still be put through the process. The policy would point out, that if you know it won't be deleted, don't bother putting it in in the first place.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I interpret that as meaning that whichever result is most likely can be applied earlier. So if an article should have been prodded, or was and the author deprodded without explanation, and the article is just plain bad, "keep" is an unexpected result, and in all likelihood the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to be kept, unless anons flood it with WP:ILIKEIT votes and the admin interprets this as no consensus, which IMHO is an inaccurate interpretation.  If I am interpreting the snowball clause incorrectly here, could you clarify where it specifically indicates that it may not be used for positive results?  In the mean time, I will do my best to avoid using this "vote" (it's not a vote but vote is easy to say) until this is cleared up one way or the other.  Thanks and happy holidays.  -- Thin  boy  00  @670, i.e. 15:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After seeing a deletion closed using the snowball clause, I'm pretty sure that it's allowed. Have a nice day.  -- Thin  boy  00  @273, i.e. 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anastacia Rose
Hello again, ... Just thought I'd solicit a second opinion on  before I stick a PROD on it ... the author  has created a bunch of articles about fictional characters, actors, and WWE "divas" that have already been deleted (see this old IP talk page, this AfD, and this AfD, as well as earlier versions of their User page) with the assistance of  ... Happy Editing! &mdash; 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fingerskate
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fingerskate, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

11th millennium and beyond
Could you revert again. I'm at 3RR, and, although vandalism, it's not OBVIOUS vandalism. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour
We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Meetup/NYC. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane Salema redux
Hello again, ... the dated proposed deletion that you seconded for  has been declined by Some Other Editor ... do you feel strongly enough about this article to take it to WP:AfD? &mdash; 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else thinks that it does not belong ... see Articles for deletion/Diane Salema. &mdash; 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fingerboard AfD
Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled)
69.25.80.2 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Why do you keep reverting that content, i did what you said and put in  the reason the content was deleted. moved here from top of page
 * You violated WP:3RR. Also, multiple different editors have reverted you, I only reverted once. -- Thin  boy  00  @933, i.e. 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not violated it until your 3rd revert I had also entered the comments requested by original Admin at that time. Please read the TALK page next time so you will see those comments first. You went out of your way and i dont like you to waste your time :) 69.25.80.2 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically you had violated it before I even warned you, but we assume that you did not know that your actions were wrong. You then reverted again immediately after I warned you.  Your edits are not excused by WP:3RR.  I have reported you to WP:AN/3RR, as you reverted after being warned.  -- Thin  boy  00  @960, i.e. 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)