User talk:One/Archive 11

'''Before Archive 11: Archive 10 '''After Archive 11: Archive 12

'''These are the next fifty messages after Archive 10 that appeared on my user talk page. If you'd like to respond to any of these messages, please do so on my current talk page.'''

Articles for deletion/We Are North Melbourne
Hello, I'm interested in why you closed this as "no consensus". To me, consensus seems to be to delete the article. Including the nom, there were five voices to delete, and only two to keep and one to merge. Furthermore, out of the two that wanted to keep, one of them has only edited in the topic of this article, and has only been here a week. Please look over this discussion again and reconsider your close. Thanks,  Them From  Space  00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated your user page
I provided a link to the userpage of "One" on Wikipedia Review, for the convenience of readers, and because it is not a secret. I hope that's okay. Mike R (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support


One, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Relisting AFDs
Just a note to remind you to make sure when you relist an AFD that you comment out or remove the transclusion of the AFD on the old log. Your recent relists, including Articles for deletion/SCROG, omitted this step. I have fixed it now. There are some scripts available that automate this step; let me know if you want more information on it.

Also, per WP:RELIST, discussions generally shouldn't be relisted a second time. We owe our AFDed articles a "speedy trial", as it were (-: Stifle (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/SCROG
Could you please leave a note with the relist or reconsider your relisting. I am seeing a consensus to merge, an explanation on why you extended the discussion would be helpful in case another administrator closes the debate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just leave your explanation right below the relisting template so new commenters can easily see why it's still listed. Talk pages are rarely used on AFD debates. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sekritwikicookie.png
I tagged this for G7 (author requests deletion). Images can be G7'd too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Gamma Beta
Hi,

I believe my argument to keep the article was fair. It shows evidence that there are others that have less to none notability. I don't believe it completely fair that this article is being scrutinized or treated differently than the others stated. If you don't mind, please helping me out on this issue. I'm just trying to learn as we go through this process. (71.42.217.73 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me out on this article and explain what needs to be done. Hawee (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)]

Nice work
I saw your citations at Yovani Gallardo. Thanks! That's impressive and valuable work. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your deletion of Re.co.de. Nothing feels good like keeping Wikipedia spam-free. Vicenarian (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

_____________________________

Hi As I explained to Vicenarian and Piano no troppo, this is no spamming. There is no advertisement in the article. The concept has emerged from the designers' community, it doesn't belong to anyone, it is not copyrighted, not protected, and aims to serve non-profit initiatives. I am doing my best to share on WP my understanding of it, and have made multiple edits to comply to WP rules and clarify this design thinking approach. I am also learning WP, being a long time reader but a very recent contributor... Gregser (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Interop Vendor Alliance
I'm sorry that you decided that the article Interop Vendor Alliance did exclusively promote some entity and that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. I'd like to try rewriting it again and document its notability and also add some external references (there are about 32.000 hits on Google). I'd be very thankful if you could restore the last revision under my user namespace User:Ghettoblaster/Interop Vendor Alliance. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Your signature disrupts the height and spacing of a whole line of text in which it is located. It can disrupt the entire page. Please change it, only using a maximum of one level of superscript (or subscript). Thanks,  hmwith τ   14:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's no problem at all. It's hard to tell with sigs, especially when everyone's screens render them a little differently. Thank you for the quick response/change. :) Have a good day,  hmwith τ   17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:MASH AfD
Heh, thanks! I'll have to utilize it on an AfD more relevant next time. a little  insignificant  16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Temple of the Presence
Aryma46 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Why did you delete the entry for the Temple of the Presence? I don't know anything about it, but it apparently is a real organization since it's been referenced in a recent Tucson obituary; the person who died had made a "spiritual commitment to the Temple of the Presence."

Just curious about the basis for your deleting the page.

Thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make It Home
Did you read the discussion? The only reason I ask is because you didn't give an explanation, which I believe was warranted given the amount of discussion.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like an answer to the above question. Thank you.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the proponents of deletion made the argument that the article could not be expanded past stub status, however, I and others disproved the claim. I also proposed a criteria for albums that is within policy through the AFD, and that should have been taken into account. Most of the deletion votes could not back up their claims, and one must remember that the AFD is not a poll. I really expected to see a legitimate reason for the decision, but to me it seems you just counted the votes and went with the majority. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lost Fugitive, your query came up on my watchlist, as I requested something from One earlier, see below. It was clear in the AfD that we had refuted your claims of notability, despite your repeated assertions. You either need to campaign for change at WP:MUSIC, get it reviewed at deletion review (although I personally wouldn't hold much hope for it), or ask an admin (such as the the owner of this talk page) to userify it into your userspace where you can keep hold of it until further sources prove its notability. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eli Whitney Students Program
Why was the entry for the Eli Whitney Students Program at Yale University deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.64.189 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Your Choice Records
Please reconsider your closing of this AFD as no consensus. 2 of the !votes to keep the article are from a blocked user (the creator of these articles) and a suspected sockpuppet of theirs. The remainder of the !votes are essentially "I like it" comments. The articles themselves are promotional in nature and there are COI issues with the creator. The articles still lack 3rd party sources and the links mentioned in the AFD are the result of a "lets find these titles mentioned in a Google book search" rather than substantive references demonstrating significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Userifififification
One, grateful if you could userfy (or whatever it's called)Armorlogic to User:Bigger digger/Armorlogic after the AfD. I might need it sometime. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bigger digger (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Afd close
Could you explain your interpretation of this afd, which had 18 arguments for "delete" and 7 arguments for "keep" as "no consensus?" That looked like a strong consensus to delete to me. Probably off to DRV with this but wanted to hear any explanation first.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of extraordinary diseases and conditions. 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. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Con
Could you explain how you arrived at a no concenus decision on Articles for deletion/Cal Con? The arguments in favour of keeping the article rely on vague assertions of coverage not backed up with any actual citations. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cal Con
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cal Con. 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. Whpq (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be like Grawp
I had this in my userspace for months, and just now you delete it? I don't think it's an inappropriate enshrinement of vandalism, and at least one other admin (Jennavecia) didn't think it was inappropriate either. Can you at least restore it in my userspace? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I filed a DRV on this page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Eli Whitney Students Program Article
One,

As a contributor to the above article and as a former president of the program's student representative government, I hope you can understand how frustrating this deletion decision is to me and to others associated with the program. It certainly does not seem like a fair review process and inherently undemocratic in the sense that final decision appear to be rendered by an elite cluster of editors. If there are problems with the article's lack of "reliable third party sources" than think a better decision would be to identify the article as one that lacks proper third party citation BEFORE going as far as deletion.

The sole purpose of Wikipedia should be to disseminate knowledge and to inform readers by doing such. To say that an article is not a valid source of knowledge because you disagree with its referencing method, or because the sources are internal, has nothing to do with the actual validity of the program. The reality is that the Eli Whitney Students Program is an admissions door into Yale College and has been for over 20 years now. To delete an article that describes the program and the program's mission is an attempt to expunge information without consideration of its value, and that my friend is essentially a type of censorship.

I am asking you to be reasonable and reinstate the article, with the condition that it be cleaned up. If no other external (third party) sources can be incorporated then there might be greater justification for ultimately deleting the article down the road. For now though, the article as it stood provided a service to the public by giving a an objective description of an admissions program within Yale University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.221.180 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convicts on the First Fleet
Question: given the fairly limited input on this, why didn't you relist it? It's also questionable whether 5:2 is really "no consensus", even if one of them is a vocal admin. Rd232 talk 07:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at  (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing. --kelapstick (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Eli Whitney Students Program
Your deletion of the article on the Eli Whitney Students Program is a set-back not only for the many hands that contributed to it with care over a period of two years but also a loss to visitors to the site. It has served as a valuable source of information for people from around the Unites States and internationally considering applying or just wanting better information than what Yale provides. One of our students, a U.S. veteran of Iraq, learned about our program through the article as well as a current student who at the time resided in South Africa. By removing the article, you are depriving many of highly valuable information. Please reconsider your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan.Hale.Yale (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
One, Two, Three - at AfD LoL!. How long did you have to wait to get that Wiki ID? Anyway I wrote this here because I didn't want to go near the blue box below (didn't want to do anything by mistake.) Ti-30X (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Mifter (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Hello,

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log and I understand that the article has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that it is below the threshold of notability. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:


 * Jan 2009 - 577 views
 * Feb 2009 - 4487 views
 * Mar 2009 - 3016 views
 * Apr 2009 - 2321 views
 * May 2009 - 6826 views
 * total   - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, I get 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of I did not have sexual relations with that woman
A tag has been placed on I did not have sexual relations with that woman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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), 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. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 03:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jim_Doyle_sig.png
Thanks for uploading File:Jim_Doyle_sig.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Peace and Freedom Party.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Peace and Freedom Party.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Earth
No rationale given for delete close. Votes were even. Substantial rationale given for keep; many arguments unaddressed by voters to delete. All arguments to delete addressed by myself, and some by other voters for keep. Would you care to comment? Anarchangel (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for voicing your opinion at my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work. Thanks for participating in the RfA.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Top Marks: His First 20 Hits
I db-authored this recently because it's not a notable album — it was released by a third-party label to which Chesnutt was never officially signed, and there are absolutely no sources outside a brief Allmusic review. It's not even mentioned in his discography article. I still think G7 applies, since the only other edits were one user adding a relevant wikilink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DRV notification
Policy suggests I inform you of a DRV, to be found here: DRV. Thanks! Martinp23 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Kifflom
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WR One
I'm thinking of changing my Wikipedia Review name to avoid this continual source of confusion. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)