User talk:Petersontinam

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Petersontinam! Thank you for your contributions. I am Kudpung and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion debate
Hello. I have been closely  following Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove but  apart some adding  some purely procedural  notes, I  am  not  in  any way  involved. I have read your message with  great interest, and I  would point  out  that  AfD is not  a place to  argue about  policy, but  a place where articles under discussion  are matched wherever possible to  existing  policies. Nevertheless, our policies are not graven in stone, and Wikipedia is actually  a fairly  flexible place, and that's why  issues such  as these are decided by  the community. In actual fact, the current  tally of votes in  this particular discussion already leans very  heavily    towards 'keep', but  the closing  administrator will take into  consideration the knowledge of policies that individual participants have brought  to  the discussion, and the strength of their arguments. This may, or may not,  mean that  some 'votes' will  be discounted. We'll have to  wait and see. Regards and season's greetings (from a 62 year old user), --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I have made the reference on your sandbox -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yep you. :) &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * +1. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

☆Barnstar☆

 * Melbourne, thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, lots of information! Petersontinam (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're worried about... Looks good! Thanks! :) &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Danjel, I was talking about the converstation I had on Girard, OH...but if you think it is OK, I will keep going then. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * My heart skipped a beat when I saw this...Holy cow, Thank You! Petersontinam (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad that discussion is over, frankly
What distressed me the most was the repeated vile and despicable accusations that those of us who leaned towards deletion were motivated by an animus towards Christianity. As you can tell from my userpage, I am a devout Christian (a former lay preacher and president of my congregation, in fact). I simply remained faithful to my trust as an editor, to examine religion-related articles with the same attitude and criteria I abide by for all other articles. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Orangemike- First, I reread the whole deletion discussion and I do not personally see "vile and despicable accusations" against you. What I do see is opinions laid out on both sides of the debate and I believe that they were also very personal opinions on both sides.
 * Here are your (kind) comments:
 * "If the latter, no problem; we create a new article on solid ground (not blog posts and one-cause websites). There is no deadline in Wikipedia, and the fact that people want to use this kid's death to promote their WP:NOBLECAUSE is totally irrelevant." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a cause, however noble, is spamming. Full stop." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Delete - per our actual policies, as opposed to all the glurge from single-purpose accounts and anonymous drive-bys. This is an obscure dead blogger who's getting a brief bubble of notability, a matter covered under "Subjects notable only for one event" and "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And here are other various (Kind, intellectual, and Christian) comments:
 * "Teenager makes You Tube videos then dies. Delete. I feel sorry for his family but this is ridiculous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.106.54 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 92.235.106.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "despite the temporary media storm and the many sudden visitors here at AfD, this was a piece of media hype about a non-notable individual who will soon be forgotten. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and AfD is not conducted by amassing votes, canvassed or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Personally, I think we need to be stronger in opposing such as this facebook memorial stuff straight away rather that allowing the educational and encyclopedic aims of the project to be demeaned by such trivia. He didn't warrant a wikipedia biography before he died and he doesn't now either. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before he died. Even his "This is my story" videos. Yes, it's tragic, and yes, it's moving, but I doubt seriously that he'll go down as a historically significant individual". "Wikipedia is not a memorial." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.99.175 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 74.37.99.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "By that argument, we could introduce a lot of unencyclopedic material just because thousands of people want to know about it. Thousands of people are seeking information about celebrities' sex lives, but that's not an excuse to provide that sort of information. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * '''And the one that would hurt his family the most:
 * " Should we create biography articles for every cute baby playing with a puppy who shows up in a viral video that the media latches on to? Of course not. This isn't any difference. --Crunch (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike, Do those delete comments sound Vile and Despicable?! You bet. Also Insensitive, and some eventually hypocritical also: While so many experienced wikipedians were touting policy titles, some were Policies that didn't apply and many comments were crude and vulgar from people who should know better. You can sit on your high horse, but be fair about the heated discussion that happened on both sides of this debate and acknowledge that very intense personal opinions were flying back and forth. You say that you are glad the discussion is over, yet you start it up again here. I am not ashamed of anything I said, exept to Ritchie333. And once and for all...the fact that this deletion discussion had the drama that it did should show many that the Policies were most likely not clear in the situation of Ben Breedlove's article. The fact that there was a quantity of input that may very well be the highest number of comments on a deletion discussion...well, that is worth noting also. Petersontinam (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was NOT trying to "start it up again here"; I was expressing my relief, as one Wikipedian to another, that that particular discussion was over, and that we can all go on to work on improving Wikipedia in whatever ways we see fit. I was offering a hand-across-the-border in peace, while attempting to explain how it felt for me as a person of faith who found himself on the other side of this discussion.
 * "Because the subject matter of the article has ties to goodness, religeon, and hope is proving to be a handicap to it here"
 * "I am starting to believe that if anything even touches on religeon here, it gets deleted and THAT is not open and honest for an online encylcopedia"
 * "I presume a lot of the claims for removal are from people that want to keep Wikipedia clean from religion"
 * I rest my case. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will also concede that when we get a flood of people who've never participated in a discussion before, all flocking into the same discussion with similar arguments that reflect a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works, the experienced editors do tend to get a little harsh, because most of the arguments (unlike some of yours) boiled down to pious thoughts and noble intentions and "he's so inspirational": none of which is a cogent argument to retain an article. (Neither, of course, is the "look at the articles on unworthy and foolish people; Ben was more worthy than they of attention" argument, which is shortcutted as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or with a somewhat more vulgar shortcut I won't inflict upon you.)
 * There have been deletion discussions with far more comments than this one, by the way; I've been on both sides of several of them. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Orangemike, your quote above: "I was NOT trying to "start it up again here"; I was expressing my relief, as one Wikipedian to another, that that particular discussion was over, and that we can all go on to work on improving Wikipedia in whatever ways we see fit. I was offering a hand-across-the-border in peace, while attempting to explain how it felt for me as a person of faith who found himself on the other side of this discussion." What you actually said first thing on my talk page was: "What distressed me the most was the repeated vile and despicable accusations that those of us who leaned towards deletion were motivated by an animus towards Christianity." If you had actually come here and left the message that you think you left, instead of what you really left, then it might have gone better.
 * And so bloody what if some people said Ben was inspirational?! Let me remind you that the top of the deletion discussion page said that people (any people) were welcome to join the discussion, were advised to be civil, and also noted that the verdict depended on editor's points on policy and not majority vote. There were comments from both sides of the issue that really didn't reinforce policy. So what? People were expressing themselves also, as you just said you needed to do. Some expressed more crudely than others. I admitted that I was very carried away towards what I thought were comments on a public page that could hurt the family. I also jumped fast and hard on comments that I thought were only quoting the Policy name and not the complete policy or the intention of the policy. We all fought over an issue. Saying that people's thought were Pious and they had noble intentions is so darn condescending. There were very strong points made about policy, and if someone also added a positive comment about the subject matter, it should not decrease the vaildity of their arguement. It was the job of the closer to pick through which votes he could use. If you don't want to allow public discussion, then don't say it is allowed at the top of the discussion page. And you knew what I meant about how rare it is for there to be that quantity of discussion on a deletion discussion page. Believe it or not, I don't want to argue for months on something that is done; I want to learn how to edit! Petersontinam (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Looks good; ref for Blue Ribbon school? &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

+1. You know you can remove these talkbacks once you've responded to them right? &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, sure I do... now... Petersontinam (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. Much cleaner. :) &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 05:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but less colorful... ;) Petersontinam (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Go Pack!
See, there are things we can agree on! I'm only wishing that Sunday's game were against a less snow-savvy team than the Giants. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cheese is thicker than water. It's going to be tough if we don't have Philbin. My thoughts: if we have Starks, Jennings, and a healthy Center..we will be OK. My worries: The Giants are going to do all they can to disrupt Rodgers' rhythm. Usually he is very cool under pressure, but if a defense is persistant in knocking him around he gets a bit flighty. Petersontinam (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a Green Bay fan in Connecticut, it's been a rough day. I think Matt Philbin's funeral got to their heads, and it carried over.  Much as I don't like to give teams excuses, I find it hard to believe that didn't have something to do with it, so I'll give them a pass this year; all it means is that they'll do it next year instead.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tragedy affected them...this was not the usual team. Rodgers doesn't usually rifle bullets, Khun doesn't fumble, etc. And the dropped passes? Aye Chihauhau! Bonehead call on the early onside kick, also. Oh well, I've loved my team through thick and thin for almost 30 years now- they had a season to be proud of and being super bowl champs last year was incredible. Feel very bad for coach Philbin. Petersontinam (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey thanks so much for that very nice comment on my talk page, Petersontinam! I really appreciate it and I'm just honored and thrilled to be a part of such an amazing community and project. Seriously, it's hard to call it work ;) Thank you also for everything you do to contribute to Wikipedia and for your candor with this very significant piece of the history here. Wednesday looks like it might be very interesting. Best Matthew (WMF) 05:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Smile
 Hello Petersontinam, Viriditas 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! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove
You posted a comment on a discussion that has already closed, so I removed it. The article in question was not deleted, so there isn't any further action you need to take. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nominated again. Please see page. Petersontinam (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An anonymous editor put an AfD template on the article, but didn't actually nominate it for deletion, so I've removed the template. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Time frame before deletion
If I understood your proposal correctly, you were suggesting that an article should not be proposed for deletion just after a deletion discussion. But this is already the rule: Proposed deletion says that, to be eligible for proposed deletion, an article must be: "not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never discussed at AfD." Have I misunderstood the issue? Deb (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)