User talk:Postdlf/Archive22

Photo usage
Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used one of your pictures.

I found your picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Brocket_Deer_in_Barbados_10.jpg

And I attributed the picture like this: Postdlf from w with this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Postdlf and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for taking the picture and making it available.

A7-deleted article with references
I'm not going to get involved in the VP discussion, but I noticed that you asked for an example: Arthur Sanderson & Sons, an article small stub I wrote about an 150-year old firm that is quite possibly the UK's best known manufacturer of wallpaper and fabrics, got speedy deleted as "not indicat[ing] the importance or significance of the subject" despite having the same reference to Grove/Oxford Art Online it has now. (I reposted my off-line sketch after the deletion.) At the time I had ordered a recently published book on Sanderson & Sons but was too pissed off to actually do any further work on the article after the book arrived.

It was, or should have been, obvious that this was not an article eligible for A7 deletion. I think admins making mistakes like this should have the good sense to undelete and apologize. I can only imagine how I would have reacted if this had been my first article. --Hegvald (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that was a mistake, and a rather blatant one in my opinion. Even without the reference, I personally would not speedy delete an article about a company that has been operating for that long, but being the subject of an article in Grove Art Online alone should have precluded speedy deletion to anyone paying attention. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY?
Why would my habit become bureaucratic, as you said in WP:VPP? There's nothing bureaucratic about my posts, is there? I mean, I wanted to resolve this in article talk pages, but I can't because "Fry (Futurama)" is best preferred by consensus and proposing a revert is disruptive. In other words, There's nothing I can do? --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than disagreeing with the outcome of the move discussion at Talk:Fry (Futurama), what new thoughts do you have to add to the issue? WP:CONSENSUS is policy, and as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY explains, rules are not an end in and of themselves. You seem to be unable to handle that inconsistency is an inevitable feature of Wikipedia (and many would say, a desirable feature) that many content issues will be resolved one way for one article and a different way for another article. Instead, you seem to be in search of rules to govern many specific outcomes, just to tell you what the end result should be, when you don't understand or don't agree with what editor consensus has arrived at in a given instance. To put it another way, your problem seems to be that many of the rules that do exist are not mechanical, but instead call for editors to apply broader principles on a case-by-case basis. Your recent posts regarding non-free images in particular suggest that you are having difficulty understanding nuances that are embodied in policy itself, thinking these are inconsistencies and seemingly wanting broader, more simple rules to dictate outcomes even where there are clear reasons for different treatments that policy and guidelines themselves dictate. Does it bother you, for example, that Bill Clinton's article title does not give his middle initial, while George W. Bush's does? This is the kind of "inconsistency" complaint you've been raising, in complaining that there is Fry (Futurama) but Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, which is apparently intolerable in your view. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION both provide meta rules that are often to be balanced against each other, such that different articles will inevitably be titled according to different rules (full name, nickname, name with parenthetical) based on what editors believe is most common and clear for that particular article. And the way this rule works is editors discuss it and come to a conclusion for each article, such that there might be "inconsistency" between articles within a broad subject group. There is no reason to expect all outcomes to be the same. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it; if inconsistencies continue, would they strengthen or weaken Wikipedia, especially in general? By the way, I give up working on the proposal for naming a fictional character because WP:Article titles is adequate. Given recent messages about administrators and less-than-welcoming atmosphere, I was hoping that policies may change based on conversations, as not everyone knows the growing (and dying) rules. I do follow rules literally and interpretly, but I was inspired to improve rather than destruct. If destruction is not the way, then why am I feeling reluctant to improve some things, like List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes? Am I incompetent to you? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the images, like cast photos, I've given up on proposing changes of image guidelines and too tired to disobey them. Therefore, I must obey while I must competently discuss them with others. I can't force others to obey policies because not everyone, as I said, reads the rules. As for titling, fiction and non-fiction are not the same. Bill and George thing... how is it almost similar to Fry and Apu thing? --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're not a very careful reader, and you often seem to miss the point as a consequence, and to post "replies" that raise comments and questions that are already addressed by what you are replying to. The article titling comparison has absolutely nothing to do with fiction and non-fiction, as the same range of different titles (full name, nickname, short name, name with parenthetical disambiguator) exist on articles about real people as on articles about fictional characters. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If inconsistencies continue further, when is the right time to address them and propose change to policies and guidelines? So far, we have someone address contradictions between Writing about fiction guideline and no original research policy. If that's not inconsistent, what do you call it?
 * What exactly is the inconsistency you're talking about now? postdlf (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Billions of kinds, such as case-by-case move consensus, Twitter accounts, and broadly writing about plots. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Flip book
That one looked a lot better than their usual spammy offerings, I actually left it alone when I saw it, and was thinking that an explanation on the talkpage or at least an edit summary would have been appropriate. Penyulap  ☏  23:47, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is Flip page which would be a good include on your watchlist if you use such a list. Penyulap  ☏  23:48, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

FYI
this pretty obvious I think this article should be Speedy G5.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are likely the same user, but WP:CSD is only for content created by users who have already been blocked or banned, created in violation of that ban. It is not for content created by users who are later banned. So unless you can establish that the Mahdi account is itself a sock of a previously banned editor, it won't apply here. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well adding large chunks of text with fairly good wiki markup and creating controversial articles in WP:ARBPIA area is not exactly usual behavior of new users but lets wait for CU.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This clearly disruptive --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Deist thinkers
Category:Deist thinkers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The redirect
I realised that you seem to have reset the redirect for 'The Helping Hand' to Hamburger Helper instead of the halfway house with the same name (which I have put up due to a recent newsreport as you can see from my archive).

It's been some time since I have edited wikipedia pages but shouldn't relevance take precedence over history? This means that 'the helping hand' should rightly lead to the page that describes the phrase itself.

Looking forward to your response.

sithvincent

Sithvincent (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A redirect should go to the article most readers are looking for. It's not even clear to me that the halfway house passes WP:GNG, let alone has greater public awareness than a major commercial brand. The note at the top of the Hamburger Helper article deals with it anyway; that's why that kind of note exists. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better, I'll just redirect The Helping Hand to the disambiguation page at Helping Hand. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be much more systematic overall as well.

Sithvincent (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes
Hi, Postdlf, I just wanted to point you to my talk page where discussion with the user is ongoing.— S Marshall T/C 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with everything you said there. I'm also having a somewhat similar discussion with another editor; check my recent contribs if you're interested. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Statυs ( talk ) 00:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking care of that. Too many people just dig in their heels when their posts are criticized for being incomplete or insufficient. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi Postdlf. Just to clarify, was your latest comment at Articles for deletion/2006 Australian network television schedule (2nd nomination) in response to my comments, or The-Pope's, or both? (I wasn't sure due to it being indented under The-Pope's comment). I thought it was easier to ask this here rather than clutter up the AfD page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The indentation should have made it clear, but "Unsourced ≠ unsourceable..." was a reply to you. "Setting aside your cleanup issues..." was a reply to The-Pope, as he seemed to suggest issues along those I have questioned him on. But you can of course try to answer the questions I raised, something that would give me a reason not to treat these schedules the same way we would U.S. network schedules. postdlf (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for clarifying that. DH85868993 (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:United States Customs Court judges
Category:United States Customs Court judges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to Continental Congress
We have an IP who is trying to insert a fake quote. The quote is found nowhere on the internet or in any RS. It is not written in 18th century language and does not reflect the views of Franklin Adams or the Continental Congress. The quote is a heavy dose of POV. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I trust you on that. My last rollback of your edit was just a fat-fingered mobile browsing accident, which is why I reverted my reversion right away. postdlf (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it must be hard to edit on a phone. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * iPad, so a little easier. Just not the first time I've accidentally hit a rollback link while trying to click on something else in my watchlist. postdlf (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On this matter I just got a harrassing post from 24.170.192.254 on my talk page. What should I do about it? : ''"I cited links, I gave you notes, I even gave you relevant page numbers as well as direct link to the Library of Congress' own archive. What is your agenda here? It's really beginning to become more of a personal attack instead of being a nuisance. Do you intend to erase this every day where I have made the proper correction...or will you do you homework on this precise historical account and offer me a much deserved apology? I'm putting my money on the former. Furthermore, why have you not responded the the Wikipedia staff's request for an explanation? I saw it in your "talk" section prior to your deletion of my information, but I did not see the reply from you. What gives?

Gotta' run for the moment, but I've enlisted a few of my friends in continually repairing the information on this page that you've omitted. Feel free to condescend them and mock history. It's nothing personal on my end, therefore I feel it a duty to continue this concerted effort to salvage the dignity that you've cost this historical record. Hate to be a pain in the butt, but history bows to no one." '' Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the editor just lying about providing a source? Is there a diff? An ANI or vandal report post may be in order. I have a newborn so I'm not getting too involved in anything more than sporadic edits and AFDs these days. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah he's lying--his "source" is the entire Library of Congress online exhibit of tens of thousands of pages (none of which include the quote). Take care of the baby and I'll worry about this little nuisance :) Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry to bother you but he's back (24.170.192.254 that is, with a nasty attack on me on my talk page) -- can you put a protection on Continental Congress Thanks Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Zahm Hall deletion
Hello, I was wondering what it would take to get a review of the deletion of the Zahm Hall page on 03/30/11. I know that it was deleted because it did not meet notability requirements, but a number of events that have transpired over the last year and a half lead me to believe that it now meets said requirements. How does the process of reinstating the page begin? Thanks! Farnk20 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please list the new reliable sources that give significant coverage of Zahm Hall, so as to demonstrate its notability. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP: Articles for deletion/One-based numeration
You may soundly describe it as a "disruptive editing" and "edit warring", but I did not notice a single WP:vandalism edit. Why most sysops prefer drop-down menus to verbal explanations? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because most of the time it's a close enough fit that at least gets the point across, and we all balance our volunteering here with real world demands so often "close enough" is all we have time for. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I got your answer, I do not agree with, but I'll not further discuss the matter. I made certain conclusions for myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Aleph One redirect
Hi there. Back in 2011, you carried out the decision to delete the article on Aleph One (game engine) and replace it with a redirect to Marathon 2: Durandal. The editor who suggested that redirect was not aware that a much better explanation of Aleph One is on the main page for the game series, Marathon Trilogy. Ideally the redirect would specifically go to Marathon trilogy. However, the Aleph One redirect page is protected, so I cannot make this change. Is there anything you can do to help? Considering how many pages link to the Aleph One page, I think it's important to have it redirect to the best possible place. --Iritscen (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. Has this been discussed with any other regular editors on this topic, such as the talk pages of either the current or prospective redirect target? postdlf (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. The issue was originally pointed out by another user (as seen on the Marathon 2 talk page), then I simply traced the edit back to you. Do you feel this warrants a discussion? Because it seems to me that, as long as there is no page devoted to the engine, the best explanation of the engine will always be at the section link I gave above (which hasn't changed since June 2010). Alternately, perhaps you could simply release the redirect page from protection, so we can make sure it can be updated in the future if/when needed. I'm not sure if this is asking too much, as I'm not sure why the page is protected to begin with (I'm not that familiar with WP policies). --Iritscen (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again, just wanted to ping you as a reminder, before I forget about this myself! :-) Any chance that you can release the redirect page from protection so we can let the usual "wisdom of the crowd" determine where it should really be pointing? That way it can also be updated in the future if the name of the section it links to has its name changed, etc. Thanks. --Iritscen (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Iritscen (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Me! :)
This is liable to be long, and please forgive me in advance for being so verbose. I beg of you that if you expect to take a tl;dr approach to this posting, that you refrain from commenting on me in the future.

I am writing in response to this comment you made which I saw while responding to the recent dust-up regarding Alan Liefting's edits.

First, I would like to make it clear that while I have engaged in many discussions regarding the behavior of specific editors, I am not nor have I ever been on anyone's side. If there is an appearance of being so, it is purely coincidental to the larger issues I have been addressing for quite some time now. Whether it be Delta, Rich Farmbrough, EncycloPetey, CartoonDiablo, Alan Liefting or whomever, my approach has been in regards to the methods used in such cases rather than any apparent defense of a particular editor. As many people do, I watch WP:AN, WP:AN/I and Arbitration/Requests/Case, and various other areas where disputes are highlighted. That is how I come to these cases. I have no friends here. I have never wanted friends. I believe it to be anathema to a conducive editing environment here. If I perceive someone to be a 'friend', my actions may be affected by that perception in a way that may be less than exceptional towards the ultimate goals of this project.

I have seen a number of disputes where the most popular means to end the disputes is to aggressively go after a single editor as the source of disruption, as the key component that if it is removed will halt the dispute. See the sixth paragraph here (perm). Yet, in all these cases I have seen ways in which the dispute could be addressed by other means. Take the Rich Farmbrough case as an example. A significant part of the blow up in the case was over the definition of "automation". This had arisen before in the Delta case some half a year before. ArbCom badly tripped over the definition of automation, and then badly tripped over it again in the RF case. ArbCom could have chosen to arrive at an abstract definition of 'automation' for use in cases but has not done so. As a result, they will make the same mistake in the future. There is no corrective mechanism in place for ArbCom to address such failures. The victims in these cases are real people.

As evinced in these in many similar cases, there is a mob mentality approach. One editor under heavy scrutiny has little or no chance to be exonerated of wrongdoing once the mob approach is being used. This is not to say that I think there is any particular intent or cabal or anything the like. I simply mean that this is human nature. Here I am reminded of the Lynching of Jesse Washington, a recently FA featured on the main page. I am not attempting to invoke an emotional response to my statement here, but please read that article (especially the 'Trial and lynching' section). Look at this image. Whether someone thinks this lynching is wrong or not is immaterial. The masses of the people prevent the introduction of any thought that this is wrong. If one person was brave enough to walk up to that tree and declare what the mob was doing was absolutely disgusting, what do you suppose would happen to them? The same thing happens on Wikipedia over and over again. The people who raise objection to this are, just as you would expect in the real-life lynching, rejected out of hand and criticized for their actions. I do not mean to claim that anyone is guilt free. Certainly in all the cases I noted in the third paragraph above the noted people had a part in creating the dispute. The point here is the means of solving disputes frequently used here are highly objectionable.

My criticism is not isolated. I have observed a shift in the general atmosphere on Wikipedia. I believe that dispute resolution is chiefly responsible for this shift. Sure, people have been complaining to noticeboards since the dawn of wiki-time. I don't mean to claim any rose-colored view of the past. Rather, that dispute resolution has become decidedly nasty over the last few years. The civility policy goes unenforced and is a farce. It will be interesting to watch to see if Requests for comment/Civility enforcement has any effect. I seriously doubt it will.

I have been highly critical of ArbCom over the last year. They are of course part of the DR process. Their attitudes and approach to dispute resolution are much akin to the lynching I noted above. If you come before ArbCom, and ten people say you're wrong and you're the only voice saying you're right, you are doomed. ArbCom has no oversight. There is no method to appeal. They claim you can appeal to Jimbo, but so far as I'm aware no appeal has ever succeeded. In practice, such a path does not exist. It has gotten so bad that if a person approaches the Foundation, ArbCom sanctions them for taking such action. They are above reproach. I could go on for a while about their abject failures if you would like. I find it interesting that of the people currently sitting on ArbCom none of them but one have any professional experience of any kind with regards to arbitration. Further, when I raised the issue of providing training for ArbCom, I was heartily shot down (even though prior arbitrators had thought this might be a good idea). I recognize that the response to the suggestion was likely motivated by negative opinions of me. Yet, that further proves the point of ArbCom incompetence.

I have been highly critical of the Foundation. As evinced here and here, the Foundation has demonstrated gross incompetence. These are not isolated incidents either. I have witnessed several other occasions where they have demonstrated this, and am aware of multiple serious problems plaguing the Foundation.

I hope with this that you will see a pattern of sorts in regards to my abstract stance. I am seeing failures in a number of areas and addressing them, in part as a larger picture. The project is failing. That's not to say I believe the sky is falling. Rather, there is an opportunity to move ahead in directions which ensure the long term viability of the project. The incompetence of the DR process, of ArbCom, of the Foundation itself are major obstacles to overcome. So, if I've 'made a career' of anything, it isn't to defend the underdogs here. In fact, rather far from it. It is to highlight the serious problems plaguing the project.

Thanks for listening, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the project is threatened, it is from editors like Delta, who was one of the worst non-vandal Wikipedians I have ever encountered: authoritarian, wikilawyerish, unable to see their interpretation of policies and guidelines as anything but objective truth, scornful of complaints and criticism from everyone else, disdainful of anyone's time and effort besides his own, a self-styled policy enforcer, indifferent to collateral damage from his edits, and someone who does all this without actually generating content, which raises serious questions about their motivation for being here. I can't speak on those other editors besides Delta and Liefting as I didn't follow their cases (or at least don't remember them now), but Liefting unfortunately has some of those tendencies to the extent he seems to feel like he does not need to communicate, respond, or modify his behavior, even when many editors have raised the same complaints. Difference being Liefting is nowhere near the relentlessly arrogant asshole Delta was, nor is Liefting someone who doesn't build the encyclopedia. Your lynch mob description is hyperbolic and inaccurate: people pile on problem editors because a pile of people keep having the same problems with them. As best as I can remember, I became aware of Delta's ANI reports and widespread community issues only after I had to go to his talk page to complain about the exact same things, and I know that's why I've become involved in many other editors' ANI discussions. So if Wikipedia is in trouble, it's because of nonconstructive rulemongering and disrespect for the community, who at best are a bigger timesuck than they are a benefit, and at worst are actually corrosive to the generation and innovation of encyclopedia content (not to mention the retention of editors who actually generate content), all to further some personal, rigid vision of How Things Should Be. That's how I see it. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Liefting
Hey Postdlf. Thanks for your note. I have now been amazed by the fact that Hammersoft has not only defended Liefting for his behaviour to new editors, but now is content to maintain a whole series of erroneous posts about me allegedly "reverting" posts etc. I'm glad you gave me an insight into Hammersoft's background, I'll just have to move on, but it's a shame I gave Hammersoft the opportunity to remove all the lies and false allegations they posted against me, and yet Hammersoft refused to do so quoting "DISENGAGE". Amazing that an experienced editor would allow a whole series of lies to persist and then glibly quote DISENGAGE as a defence to leave them there. Certainly taught me a thing or two.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Underworld (band)
Category:Underworld (band), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD
For your information, Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD
Hello, Postdlf. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UK channel line up Afd
Just to let you know, I've created Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb wordsdeeds 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD
Hiya, Postdlf. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category removals?
I figured [this] was just an error or an error of a bot so I reverted it. I went to the editor's talk page to discuss only to find you have been dealing with similar edits from this editor. I make no sense of this removal of the category (the article fits perfectly) from this article. This just looks like vandalism to me but not being an experienced editor in this type of stuff I mention it to you. Hell, I don't even know where these categories are used. No explanation was given and edit history mention stating what was done is not an explanation of why. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On further examination the edit in question my have been before the discussion began. Please verify dates. It may just be a lingering edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the edit just removed a very general category because the article was in a much more specific one within the same category tree. So I don't see a problem there. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems rather odd, to me, to remove an article from a category that fits so well but, I have no idea what the rules are for these things. I assume these categories are for search engines to find articles somewhere, somehow? Maybe I am ignornt of a useful search tool. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories are just browsing tools for readers and editors: they group together like articles and organize them into rough hierarchies and webs. They're not like metatags. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ticker symbols in article leads and next steps
Hi. I'm contacting you as you participated in the policy village pump discussion regarding ticker symbols in article leads.

I've posted a section here about next steps to take, specifically examining whether an RFC is needed to reach a clear consensus on this issue. If you have the time and/or inclination to weigh in, please do! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Soft Bathtub.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soft Bathtub.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DMCA on Commons
As an Englishman knowing nothing about the law and disagreeing with you over copyright, I am greatly embarrassed to belatedly discover you are a US attorney! Pay no attention to me. When I !vote "keep" at FFD and the like (which I nearly always find myself doing), the item is always deleted. So, I dare say in this case the closing administrator will know to disregard my opinion and your photo will be kept. I'm off on holiday now so you'll hear no more! Best wishes and good luck. Thincat (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have supported your comment at WP:AN. If you feel like taking the matter to WP:DRV I would support you. I am sorry about all this, I wish I hadn't said anything in the first place (but the image would still have been deleted!). Thincat (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting a Deleted Article
Hello, I would like to be given a chance to write and article that was deleted last year. The AfD page lists you as the deleter and instructs that I contact you. The article in question is JammerDirect.com. I am not affiliated with this organization nor do I know what was contained in the original article but I have found numerous references and became interested in the website when they participated in the SOPA strike in January. How would I go about writing the article?

My goal is to become an active contributer to Wikipedia to better my jouranlistic skills so your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance, Jess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessjoslin81 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Minor league baseball teams
Category:Minor league baseball teams, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Astros4477 ( talk ) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Its nothing personal of course. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How should I deal with articles that do not mention ethnicity
After people double-reverting my removal of unmentioned in the article mentions of people being African-American, I thought the best soltuion was to give in, and accept the ntion that surroudding items pointed to the person being African-American and then add mention to the text that the person is African-American. However, now I get people coming up with the bizrre claim that mentioning ethnicity in the lead of an lead paragraph of an article should not be done. Some of these articles are one paragraph long. I am not sure what to do. All I know is that leaving articles in categories that have no intext mention should not be the solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Enquiry from BBC TV
Hi,

I'm making a documentary for BBC TV called the Art of Winter. Can I contact you privately about using one of your images, please?

Many thanks

[contact info redacted]

Zauberdan (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded to by private e-mail. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:International commerce terms
Category:International commerce terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Syria For All at Mohamad Izzat Khatab AfD
You closed an AfD on Mohamad Izzat Khatab as delete. This AfD also included Syria For All in the discussion, as it was created by the same user (since blocked) and was repeatedly a copyright vio. The AfD noted that both should be deleted, if I read it correctly. Could you take care of this or should I open another AfD? Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oversight because the second article wasn't listed in the same format as the first. Taken care of now. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought it might be something like that. I wasn't sure how to get it in the same format when I listed it, so it was really my error, not yours.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
Posdlf, I have to say that I'm truly insulted by this comment of yours. Are you seriously threatening to block me for making a good-faith suggestion to improve Wikipedia policy? If you take a moment to think about it, you'll notice that I made this suggestion months after I had dropped the issue (at Beyond My Ken's suggestion). You'll also notice that I made no reference at all to the old dispute, so how on earth can you assume that I'm "unilaterally insist[ing] that the issue is still open"? All I was hoping for in the Village Pump thread was, as I stated, to make a suggestion to avoid similar unfortunate incidents in the future. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly find your good faith irrelevant here; I judged you purely on your comments and conduct, so there was no need for an assumption either way. I saw blocking as more of a recommendation than a threat, which was in any event prospective instead of ex post facto, so if you have no intention to revisit the Rasmussen dead horse that many others have already warned you to drop, it's moot regardless of how you feel like characterizing it. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't even respond to my Village Pump suggestion. Lame. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also add, you did in fact assume bad faith. You looked at my previous comments, concluded that they were made in bad faith, and then decided that I opened this thread in bad faith. That's an assumption, my friend. --Nstrauss (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

HI
Hi mate. Why did you delete the page of English football player Ged dalton? He is my idol and was so happy when it was created,updating it often. Begging you with all my heart get the page back please please,Ged deserves to have it. Got it while playing for Blyth Spartans in 2009. Please please please mate get the page back begging you it means me more than my own life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippavac (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus at Articles for deletion/Ged Dalton (2nd nomination) was that Dalton did not meet our inclusion guidelines, either at WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. If he's important to you, I'm sure there's some other website where you could write about him; take a look at Alternative outlets. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you here because my talk page has been vandalized?
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have previously commented at the AN/I discussion on Darkstar1st's edits, I am asking you to return to address the issue
As I have said in the discussion there that you entered into, and as TFD has said elsewhere, Darkstar1st's disruptive editing behaviour has been a long-term problem, and I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR believe that action is needed. We need an administrator to review the request by me, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR for topic bans on Darkstar1st, and we need such an administrator to review the material in the discussion because right now it is just users arguing between each other over what happened. Darkstar1st now claims he will not edit the Talk:Socialism article for the "near future". Given his long-term behaviour of ignoring consensus that TFD has identified, I do not regard Darkstar's promise as resolving anything, I suspect that the same behaviour will restart again either on another article or on that very article. Again, this needs to be discussed at AN/I. If you are unavailable to review and make a decision, if you could request another administrator to review it, that would be appreciated. I have seen some AN/Is get pushed into the archive bin without ever being resolved, and I am concerned with that happening with this AN/I.--R-41 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)