User talk:Starblind/2006

Tourettes Guy
Do you understand what you are keeping deleted? Tourettes guy is a popular website and 300,000 people go on every month. Is that proof that it should be an article? Probably not to you! You wikipedia administrators are very pompous and it looks like you love to mess with new users like me. I have used wikipedia before, and it appears you all have to be unreasonable. Try to stop messing with people like me, and unprotect Tourettes Guy, because this is unreasonable. Thanks Sportsguru9999 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Show us some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and there should be no problem. Our insistance on reliable sources isn't intended as a way to "mess with" people, but to keep unverifiable material out of the encyclopedia.  It protects us and our subjects against sourcless claims: "tourette's guy", you, me, Nebuchadnezzar, everybody.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above is a load. We showed you "reliable sources" in the Deletion Review, and you admins still endorsed the deletion. I agree with Sportsguru 100% because I too have noticed that Wiki admins are extremely mean. 75.31.102.186 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is simple. The administrators are lazy, worthless, and stupid. It's pointless to try arguing with them. Vokhuz
 * There is an online petition (although the site, ipetitions, is blacklisted) to bring it back. What more do you need? There are many of subjects on wikipedia with less popularity.

I thought we were friends
I thought we were friends, I didn't try to block you when I was administrator. I didn't abuse my powers. Anyhow I forgive you and would appreciate it if you unblocked my bpazolli account even without administrator privallages. -- Bpazolli


 * I'm not sure what you mean by friends, but if you're somoneone I talked to before you know I can't treat you any differently than any other user. The evidence is extremely clear: You added admin tags to your user page in this diff and attempted to add yourself to the list of admins in this one.  You even posted to this very talk page and announced that you were impersonating an admin, which is not at all a smart thing to do. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to say thank you very much for all your support in my quest for adminship. Thanks to you I am now an administrator, couldn't of done it without out. Thank you very much. --Bpazolli 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

4-4-1
Greetings -- you commented on a DRV which was overturned and is now back in AfD here. Just thought I'd alert you as I have produced references to support the article as well as reworking the article with reference and better format. Gh228 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228


 * Thanks for the heads up. I've voted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Google King??
When will people like you learn that "Zero hits on google" is not a reason for deletion. When will you learn that something not being on the internet dosn't mean that it is not noteworthy or important. This is even more true when you use google which only represents a segment of the internet. Luckily, your reputation means your comments are never taken seriously -- Bpazolli 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rescue Award
I gladly present Starblind with this rescue award, for saving my Axehandle Hound page !paradigm! 00:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
 * Thank you, I shall display it proudly. That was a fun article to research, too.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Support
I hope I can count on your support when I repost for RFA. -- Bpazolli 09:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey DO YOU READ BEFORE DELETE
Did you check the discussion page? Did you read the article? Did you look at the supporting references? The answer in the case of Percy Nobby Norton is a resounding NO! The article was deemed a hoax but then I replaced it with a compleltly factual article with supporting evidence and citations for every point. In the discussion page I made references to the fact that this replaced the hoax with facts. If you don't know anything about the subject then you have two options, 1)Learn about it, 2)Don't delete it. The article was completly factual, I can't belive it was deleted 4 hours or less after creation. Do you have a personal problem with me? How dare you insult me and ruin my creditability on my talk page. From the looks of things here I am not your only victim. Who knows what other informative articles you have deleted. I will give you one more chance, in 1 day or more I will repost the article, unless you state a specific part of that article you question. Though all the citations were there! -- User:Bpazolli 1) In the article you just deleted I never said that he was writing a blog, that dosn't make very much sense, but good luck to those who say it
 * The AfD on this subject resoundly and completely declared it a hoax, and with good reason. It wasn't even a particularly subtle hoax, and had a silly photoshopped picture with a spraypaint-style beard on it.  With that in mind, I don't much see the point in going over (again) all the reasons why it was a hoax.  If you really desperately want me to point out something specific, though, I will: You claim he started publishing music in the "late 1800s", yet you also claim he's alive and writing a blog (in which he says he's starring in upcoming gay porn movies).  Which would make him at least 130 years old or more.  This isn't even believable enough to be a decent hoax article.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Point, except it has nothing to do with article published.

2) The picture you talk about was in the original not the article you deleted

3) All the reasons why it was a hoax were about the original not the version that you deleted

4) It is not that uncommon for someone to live past 130, such as Norton, in peak physical condition

5) The blog created is completly independant of the article, I only put an external link as it showed how his life is speculated on by some as a result of the mystry surrounding his character

6) While I might claim that he is still alive, I do not mention this in the article and what I believe is of little or no importance on the article, if a terroist created a great article about EPSON would you delete that too.

At this point I see no reason not to repost it -- User:Bpazolli


 * Yet more nonsense. The oldest living man is Emiliano Mercado del Toro, who is 114.  We have an article on him.  If "Nobby" were really 130+, he's be world-famous for that reason alone, and there would be lots of information about him.  Especially if he's acting in gay porn movies, as claimed on his blog.  One more time: it's a hoax, and not just a hoax, but an obvious and patently-absurd hoax. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you have not talked about the article. All you have done is insult me and the creator of an external blog, as well as the original article. If that's your argument, then good luck to you, your an idiot. The correct response was. Sorry, Bpazolli for ruining your great work, Please forgive me, I will not cause you anymore trouble. Deleting articles without cause are grounds for suspension. If you continue to do it I will persue action against you. I was planning to repost the article tonight, but I have had other things on, so you have another day to come up with a constructive argument. If your idea was to discredit Percy Norton, check the top of the AFD, the person asking for deletion said he was a real folk song writer, or better yet see the citations on the article, oh no wait you deleted that. Also no one is impressed that you can delete things, I will continue to fight for a proper article about Percy Norton. --Bpazolli 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting your mistake I will repost ASAP.--124.178.97.171 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to make an apology, I seem to have some how threatened you. This was not my intention. But seeming you have admitted guilt. All is forgotten I hope.--Bpazolli 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are in the right BPazolli. Starblind is an absolute disgrace and should be banned from wikipaedia (note correct spelling). People who display such inappropriate photographs on their user page should be reported to the police.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Lord Protector 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

EBEARD FILMS
What do you have against ebeard... have u viewed any of the vids made they are classic. a guide to these videos can be seen at Ebeard Films
 * I have nothing against them, but with no media sources, the topic does not currently meet our verifiability requirements. Don't let it discourage you from making more movies though, it's nothing personal. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

EBEARD FILMS revived
if a website was to be made, m i.e www.ebeardfilms.com, would the ebeard films page be permitted?
 * That would be a good first step, but it isn't enough on its own: there are tens of millions of websites, and far less than 1% of them get encyclopedia articles. If you really want an article, first try getting the films themselves on the IMDB.  After that, get some mentions in the media: (published magazines, newspapers, and books) so that the article will have reliable sources.  There are a number of publications specifically dedicated to independent film. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron Horsley
your vote for deletion I don't think is entirely in keeping with Wiki policy as I've read it. You stated the 'alexa ranking' as being a reason to discount the article, but the ranking as I see it is a ranking of website traffic. how busy a person's website is is not an indicator of necessraily their value to a given field (I'm sure there's a site or two about William Shakespeare or Stephen King that barely get any traffic, or are hosted on freebie website services and get very little notice). I wrote the article and I think it's at least as valid as a number of other authors who have had their admirers write entries for them as well without comment from admin about it. as for the vandals, that's their fault not the author or Wiki's. I realize the article doesn't seem as big a deal and I'm not saying the author is the same rank as those I mentioned, but your main reason for your vote just doesn't seem very applicable. Anyways, I'm glad to have a chance to "speak" to you. Thanks. --Zeppelin85


 * Could you please clarify your vote standard for me a little, so I can understand how a website ranking site is a defining point of merit for an article's deletion or retention? I'd really like to understand it, since as best I can figure there are plenty of literary sites dedicated to recognized authors that probably don't get a lot of traffic or have an Alexa rank.

If you're going to cast a vote for deletion based on it, could you at least explain what the Alexa ranking as you cited it means in terms of actual subject merit? Otherwise, would you please consider retracting your vote? One of the votes received for this was already corrected in light of incorrect information that the voter made their decision on. I respect your vote and reasoning, but I'm trying to see how it actually applies in terms of Wiki article/subject worthiness. Thanks. --Zeppelin85

The principal claim of notability in the article as I remember it involved the subject making some allegedly controversial statements on a website/forum/messageboard/etc. It would seem, therefore, that Mr. Horseley's chief claim-to-fame is primarily internet-based. With that in mind, the best guess we have as to his overall notability (based on the size of his "audience") is Alexa rank.

Please note that Alexa doesn't just catalog the top 10 websites, or top 100, or even top 1,000,000. Alexa ranks at least the top 10 million or so. My own personal website, mostly visited just by my own friends and family, has a present Alexa rank of 4,739,743 at the time that I'm writing this. I've never done any advertising for my site, and I'm certainly not a famous or encyclopedically-notable person. For a site to have no Alexa rank at all, it has at best a small handful of visitors. While there's nothing wrong with having few visitors, it doesn't speak well for the supposed notoriety of the article subject. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You present your reasoning well enough. My only concern here is that what you're going by is one website referred to for the author, which even now is currently being revised.  The website had significantly more visitors in its past, but Alexa doesn't seem to take that into account, only its more recent standing while it's not being actively promoted.  There are plenty of notable figures who have a website or two out there, as I said, that probably get few if any regular visitors of note.  That's again why I brought up that using internet ranking as a statement of notoriety or notability isn't a wholly valid claim.  Not only that, but the other claims to their noteworthiness have nothing to do with the Internet, they are merely cited with Internet-accessible sources.  Locus Magazine, for example, is not a solely-online publication, but its archives are accessible online.  So Alexa ranking doesn't really wholly apply.

But thanks for clarifying, and it looks like the page is being kept anyway, so I appreciate you taking the time in participating, even if I didn't agree with your reasoning. Zeppelin85

pseudonymania
categorizing my true and legal name, which if the truth were really known, i adore, as a silly pseudonym... hmm... what would be the appropriate mature response? maybe i should change your name from starblind to, oh, lets say, my bitch? Zen Destiny 01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My gratitude!
I just wanted to thank you for supporting my recently passed RfA. I doubt you knew this, but in my earlier days on the Wiki when I mostly trolled the VfD, I really looked up to you and tried to learn about the Wiki based on your level-headedness, light attitude, and extensive and even-handed use of Wiki policies and precedents, so it really meant a lot when I saw your supportive comments on my RfA. Anyway, thanks again, I hope I can make myself useful, and happy new year! --InShaneee 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keyra Augustina
Saw you discussed this before, people are trying to delete it AGAIN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keyra_Augustina_%28third_nomination%29
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've voted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom locations

 * Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but as I know you are a regular AfD editor, I thought you might know. Could you take a look at the above article, and subpages, and tell me whether it would likely get through AfD? I initially expressed my doubt about its usefulness as a page, and the original contributor's justification is stored at Talk:List of United Kingdom locations/A. I agree with him, and think that if it was complete this page would make an awesome resource, but I also think there are completeness issues. I am willing to work on it to make it complete (though obviously I cannot really do it alone), but before I did that I just wanted a more experienced AfDers assurance that someone will not just come along and delete it after I have spent what would be a large chunk of time wikifying it. Thanks in advance, Jdcooper 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lulu RFA
May I ask you something... the diff you cite for your opposition to Lulu's RFA from last april, and the RFC Grue points to is from last may. Wouldn't you say that a user can improve over the course of eight months, and it would be a good sign if there hasn't been any controversy since then? Especially considering the fact that the average RFA candidate has far less than eight months' experience. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD Eeyore's
I just wanted to thank you for voting Keep on the Eeyore's AfD page. I know it is important not to take these things seriously, but it is hard not to be a little upset when you create the beginning of a well researched, verifiable article with cited sources only to have it immediately nominated for deletion. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the point?
What is the point of "This nonexistent article"? It appears to have no use and therefore should be deleted. You appear to be the only contributor. Please correct me if I am wrong. The Neokid Talk 19:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem Deletion
Hi, I noticed you voted to on the abovementioned article. Initialy I wanted to keep it, but when I compared it to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info: I'd like to urge you to change your vote to Redirect to SEO Contest where I have created already made a copy of the article. This way they dont have "their own article" but they are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Seems like a compromise to me. Right now w/ all the Delete, Keep, And Redirect votes it will be hard to reach a compromise.
 * It's a search contest
 * It has begin/end dates
 * It has a prize
 * It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

My RFA
Hi Andrew. Thank you for voting on my RfA, I am sorry you decided to oppose it at this time. You cited JJay's evidence as your reason for voting oppose. I feel it's a little bit unfair, and makes me look like a big giant ass. I don't think I'm an ass, and so I have responded it to it. I hope you will take the time to review this. If you have any questions, please let me know overe here. All the best. Proto t c 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean JJay's evidence is a bit unfair, rather than your vote. Proto t c 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Libby Hodges vfd
Hi. Regarding your vote &mdash; I know what you mean. I was working on disambigs when I came across it. I can't believe it's survived nearly two months! Mark83 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WeArePhilosophy Speedy
Howdy, I noticed you deleted the WeArePhilosophy page under speedy (I originally nominated it for AfD per non-notable web). It appears the page was recreated and is again up for speedy. I wanted to let you know the page EFNet seems to be closely related. I'd be happy to nominate it for AfD, or speedy; if one should be speedied, I suspect the other should be as well. I am not, however, at all sure what is going on and will hold off on doing so until it is clearer. Many thanks, --Hansnesse 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction, the page EFNet was originally a redirect to EFnet. The redirect, however, was changed to a copy of the WeArePhilosophers page (which has now been deleted), and the redirect on the EFNet page has been restored.  Thanks, --Hansnesse 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gazeebow Unit
Hi Starblind! I have decided to just close this AFD as "speedy delete" right away. Last time Tony pulled off a stunt like that I blocked him for 24 hours, but David Gerard informed me that such a block was IAR and hence unacceptable. . What shall we do about it? Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Starblind, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Universism raises its self-promoting head again...
This time created it under the title Universist movement back in December, and just created a redirect to it under Universist Movement. I'm not an admin, so I can't check to see if this is just a recreation of the previously deleted versions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OTOH, it looks like they may have actually met the bar for notability this time: . -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not label it self-promoting per se. Yes, the Universist Movement would like to see the article relisted but only because we believe it is relevant. No one who represents the movement is asking anyone to start articles on it, but there have been several over the past year because there is active interest and support it, even from fellow freethinkers outside of Universism. --Mindbender 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Starblind, you voted to undelete the Universism article last year. The outcome of that VFD shelved the article until March 2006. However, the issue has come up again just shy of that date, the article is again undergoing a DRV. Since last year, Universism has been featured in many media outlets, including the LA Times and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. --Mindbender 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Khurshid Marwat
Hi, This is up for AfD again. As far as I can see, an anon user changed your vote in the last AfD. You might like to check that out. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk   20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 91 to 1! Wow, congratulations! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rspeers RFA
Just thought I would let you know I saw your suspicions about Rspeers possible sock/meat puppetry and requested a checkuser to see if your allegations were correct or not. M o e  ε  21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly note - next time I'm being talked about here I'd really appreciate someone leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Cmouse 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh - and I most certainly exist. I use the handle cmouse in other places. You can find my (pretty crappy, yours is much better) photography at Deviantart for example.  Cmouse 07:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, don't take it personally. 2 votes from the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other is extremely suspicious to say the least, and I feel it's my duty to explain the rationale behind my votes, especially the oppose ones.  I'm not familiar with either you or rspeer otherwise, with the possible exception of the occasional AfD vote, so it's nothing personal. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin.

I appreciate your diligence in checking out the histories of candidates for adminship, even if I feel it was misdirected in this case. I will do what I can to earn your trust as an admin.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Shakila
Hi, you voted delete on Articles for deletion/Shakila. Could you have a look at that page for my response and the article to reconsider your vote? TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism.
Hi Starblind, my name is Jared and I'm having a little problem. Another user and I recently put up three users for a possible sockpuppetry claim (see here) because of overwhelming evidence that states so (and its taking a long time to get this over with; only one user has posted a comment). My problem is that User:Wintermetal keeps taking the sockpuppery template off of his home and discussion pages, stating in his edit summary that I should "ruin my own home page". He has done this every time I revert it back, and I warn him of a potential block every time, but he doesn't care (and I'm not an admin). Could you please help me....maybe block him or something...let him know he is not supposed to take the notice off of his page (which incidentally makes him more suspicious of sockpuppetry!) Thanks a lot! (P.S. I contacted another user about this, too, but she hasn't responded as of yet, and it is sort of important.) -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 14:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

John Fullerton
Thanks for the kind words. These kids have been pushing this joke for far too long now. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Starblind! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between Merge and Delete
You reverted my PRODS wrt to King Of Fighters. So I added merges like you suggested. Those were reverted. So is there some middle ground merge/delete? --ReptileLawyer 04:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For a deletion or merge to happen, there has to be a consensus for it. It's unlikely that an article like Terry Bogard would ever be deleted or merged, for several major reasons: a. The article's been around since early 2004 and has something like 700 edits  b. The character appears in several game series, meaning there's no obvious merge target c. Even if there were an obvious merge target, the resulting article would be extremely long and hard to read.  Merging a bunch of pretty-big articles into one extremely huge article just doesn't happen.  (Technical issues sometimes arise with articles above 32K.  See Article size for details).  My advice would be to hold off temporarily, spend a day or two on the Articles for Deletion pages and get a feel for what sorts of articles really can be deleted (vanity, garage bands, minor websites, forum stuff, etc.) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time
The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...
Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A merge can be done with or without AFD consensus, though if the merge is controversial you may want to suggest it on the List of groups referred to as cults talk page before doing it. I think I'll leave my vote as it is for now, as votes for merge are sometimes miscounted as "keep" by admins when closing an AfD debate. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. A couple of voters think it could be merged as well.  I might try the talk page method.  Thank you...cairoi 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Proof that .999 equals one
Hello, I just saw that you closed the discussion on that article's AfD about 10 seconds before I pressed submit. Should I delete my comment, as it was added after you closed it? Thanks, Chuck 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to delete your comment/vote :) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent vote
You recently voted a speedy delete in Create new deletion, now i believe it does deserve speedy delete as well.. however how would i go about adding it.. Do i just remove the AfD from the main page and replace it or should it be left AfD untill a concencous (spelling error?) is reached? Any help would be appreciated thanks.--Matthew Fenton (t) 13:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just add a tag to the article and leave the AfD for now.  If a consensus is reached (i.e. if the next few votes are to speedy and nobody seriously argues to keep), then I'll speedy it myself. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like somebody else deleted it first. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq
Hi, you recently rolled back the inclusion of this link in the article on Iraq without comment. I thought it was worthwhile, so I put it back in. Did you made a mistake when you rolled it back or is there a compelling reason to exclude it from the article? Thanks. NoIdeaNick 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, it was part of a linkspam campaign by 201.51.176.238, who is now blocked. See his contribs and there's also a discussion of the issue on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents under the heading "Linkspamming and possible malware". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deny recognition poll
(Note that this is a form notification.)

Hello Starblind. Since you commented on the Deny recognition proposal, this is to notify you that a formal poll has been opened concerning it. If it is accepted, it will be be used as a launching pad to amend other policies such as the deletion policy; that page itself will be marked as historical, not policy. Feel free to reread the proposal and place your vote. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank You!
Thanks Starblind,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:ORG
I hope you've already read what I wanted the "bar of notability" to be set. Media coverage at a "Major regional" level, I just don't know how to put it in appropriate Wikipedia legalese. I understand what you are saying and I actually agree with you. I wanted local and student newspapers to be excluded from consideration when asserting notability. Your help would be welcome.
 * I think it's a fallacy to attach too much importance to newspaper coverage, regardless of whether local, regional, or national. I've posted a more thorough examination of the topic on the proposal's talk page. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey bro!
What have you been up to? I've been too busy to swing by AfD much, so I haven't said hi in too long. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: MonsterGrrls
Hello from the Monster Shop, and thank you for your input and suggestions.

I admit that the blog has not been updated, but my reason is that several times over the years, I have seen other creators solicit something that they have not started yet, and then discovered later on that the project had fallen by the wayside. This has never failed to bug the hell out of me, and so I have refrained from talking too much about upcoming MonsterGrrls projects until we actually had a body on the slab. (As it were.) In accordance with your suggestions, I will start blogging in a more regular fashion, but I do feel there should be some caution.

After thinking about it, it is possible that maybe this was started too early in the game. I admit to feeling a bit insulted that the article read like an ad; that was not my intention. I had no intention whatsoever of advertising on Wikipedia. But that's also someone's opinion.

I will research getting on Amazon.com, but it must be stated that this project is pretty much a one-man show--I do everything as far as creation. And that means that it is also being largely funded by one man (me), so there may be a wait with some things. I admit to an impatient spirit where some processes are concerned, and I'm still learning as I go.

Thank you for your advice and time.

Sincerely, Constant Reader (the MonsterGrrls' Mad Doctor)

Articles for deletion/TotalGaming.net
Thank you for doing the right thing and voting your conscience in the recent AfD. It was successful, and the article has now been deleted. GreenReaper 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Epics RFD
I'm not contesting the deletion but I did wonder what exactly about the article you felt was "horrendous"? --66.0.196.74 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (the author)

Still curious. --Thera2400 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with encyclopedia articles about internet forums is that generally very little enyclopedic information can be said about them. As a result, to pad out the article, they usually get filled up with trivial and non-encyclopedic information: server changes, downtime, technical problems, lists of memes, lists of active or unpopular users, inside jokes, etc.  The problem with this is that none of this information is of any use to the encyclopedia reader, and is almost never verifiable using what wikipedia considers to be reliable sources.  The article was what, maybe 16 or 17 paragraphs long, and contained not a single cited source, nor any indication of any media coverage, references in books, newspapers, etc.  In fact, if I recall correctly the article made little or no mention of any impact on the outside world at all.  The result is an article that only those who are already regulars on the forum would care about (or even be able to really understand).  A good article keeps the reader foremost in mind and presents solid facts backed up with reliable sources, without drifting into trivia or unencyclopedic material. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: In case you're wondering, this is by no means an anti-Star Wars thing. Several of my Wikipedia articles have been SW-related, I've done SW fan art, I've written numerous Star Wars action-figure reviews, and I even own a vintage 12" IG-88. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable sofas
Please revisit. Uncle G 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. More media coverage provided. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

World War III
If deleting TICK A BOX World Tour starts World War III, at least I can claim notability for having a hand in it. :) --DarkAudit 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring as an alternative to deletion
Have you considered refactoring, as per the suggestions in the discussion? Uncle G 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Axehandle hound
I changed my vote to keep -- nice work! Do you think we can get that creature to come delete some pages for us? ;) NawlinWiki 18:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice article! I added categories to it. NawlinWiki 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. :) --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mini-nuny
Can you revisit this AFD. I have added a second, similar article from the same source. Same situation: it was incorrectly prod'ed a second time. Fan-1967 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dieter Zetsche
you should expand the article regarding Dieter Zetsche.

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to look into the Dr. Butler deletion.Rentwa 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck with making a new article out of it, and let me know if I can be of any help. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary Pearcey
Great work. Uucp 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Great work from you too... that Catalyst transcript you found certainly clearifies things about the recent DNA evidence. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughtful
[which means you agreed with me] vote on the Connor Barrett deletion vote. Life is good. Carptrash 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of AfD
After reading Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton, I hesitate to ask, but could you review Articles for deletion/Emil Christensen (2nd nomination). I think the WP:V part has been met, but I suspect the revisions won't overcome your objections. I just wanted to ask to clarify. Thanks! --Habap 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a second look at it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hely
Have another look at the Steve Hely deletion debate. There have been some developments there / arguments posted that I think may prompt you to reconsider your position. This is it, make no mistake anymore 15:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look at it, but I'm not sure which argument I should reconsider upon. The closest thing would be Ohconfucius's claim that the Emmy nomination was "falsified", but he gives no evidence to support that.  I suppose that IMDB's info could be wrong, but the Official Emmy site confirms it too.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you think someone like Sandra Masone is encyclopedic? This is it, make no mistake anymore 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. And besides, according to the history, you created that one! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulahla
The article is back and without an AFD tag. Does it stay or will it go now. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunno. I asked the creator why they disagree with the previous AfD decision.  There may or may not be cause enough to bring it to DRV. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Hogan
Didn't know all that about Nick Hogan. Interesting. Yea, I really feel that article needs to stay after finding out that information. someone should add that stuff to his page if it's not there. It'll prove that girl wrong as she keeps saying Nick hasn't done anything. Tonetare 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The P Funk Mothership
Hey dude, I've changed a few bits around on the P Funk Mothership page... I thought it would need to be entirely rewritten too, but I've removed a few of the descriptive words, and added in qualifiers to indicate what is real and what is part of the P Funk mythology, and I think it's looking pretty okay. What do you reckon? Drett 10:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I have changed my vote to Weak Keep. It still needs some more help though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata
Thanks on the support with the Theta Beta Potata article. Are you interested in joining the WikiProject Punk music? Hope everythings going good. Xsxex 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA
Thanks, Starblind, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Past AfD nomination of Intercounty Baseball League
Just noticed this past AfD and I fully support the decision to keep this article. Anyone familiar with Canadian baseball knows that the IBL is a serious men's baseball league with a long history (since 1919) that has produced several members of Major League Baseball, AAA baseball and AA baseball, A baseball, while also featuring former MLB players and former Negro Leagues players of the past. To delete it would have been a travesty. Additionally, several former IBL players have been inducted into the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum in St. Marys, Ontario. Barry Wells 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to the above AfD nomination, I'd like to add that the IBL has had numerous former MLB players in the league, including Fergie Jenkins (who's the only player to have been inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame and the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame), Frank Colman, Denny McLain, Dave Rozema, Paul Spoljaric, Rob Butler, Oscar Judd, Tim Burgess, Mike Kilkenny and several outstanding former Negro Leagues players.
 * Additionally, many many players have been paid to play (albeit under the table), the league has many corporate sponsors, fans, competent, paid umpires, an official media guy, statistician, commissioner and local TV contracts. It is serious baseball, with most parks (all but one, I believe) charging admission. The 1948 London Majors not only won the Intercounty title, but also the Ontario title, the Canadian title and the Can-Am title. Drinking beer while playing is not permitted, as one user frivously suggested. Many former IBL players have also gone on to baseball scholarships at U.S. universities, pro careers with MLB organizations or AAA ball, AA ball or A ball. The London Majors play at Labatt Park, the undisputed (to date) world's oldest baseball grounds in continuous use since 1877 (a heritage site under the Ontario Heritage Act) -- a park which won the prestigious Beam Clay Award as the best natural grass baseball park in North America in 1989-90. Barry Wells 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA


A favor?
Hi,

User:Sj has restored Anarchopedia, and seemed clueless as to the motives underlying its deletion; I'm not sure, but I think this is a case of a long-time Wikipedian being unfamiliar with recent greater stringency in demanding reliable sources. Since I was only the closer in the last deletion debate, I feel limited in my ability to argue strongly for deletion. You participated in that debate, though, so I thought you might be able to question Sj directly regarding Anarchopedia's encyclopedic fitness. Thanks, Xoloz 10:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Afd nom of Battle of Durham
Could this possibly be the Battle of Durham Station? It is mentioned here and here which also mentions it on the same day as the surrender of the Army of Tennessee in Durham, NC. I'm asking you this because you seem to be knowledgeable on Civil War battles. T REX speak 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, there was neither a "Battle of Durham" nor a "Battle of Durham Station" in the American Civil War (though I'm certainly far from the only "expert" on the subject). If you type in "Battle of Durham Station" in Google, you do get some hits, none of which have much information besides a date, which suggests it's confusion over the conference/surrender near Durham instead, which is covered at Bennett Place.  However, note that if you do a Google Books search for "Battle of Durham Station", there are no results at all.  Though some Civil War battles are certainly more famous than others, they've all been studied a great deal, and any real battle would have been mentioned in print hundreds of times. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Bennet Place does seem to be the battle know as Durham Station. It could possibly be one of those alternative names by the either the north or the south. T REX speak 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible that the "this day in history" lists that refer to the "Battle of Durham Station" actually mean the surrender at Bennett Place. However, it's quite incorrect to call it a battle at all, as it wasn't an armed conflict.  It was a verbal conference that resulted in mass surrender for thousands of troops.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Vahid Tarokh
Hi Starblind. Could I urge with great urging of urgency to revisit Articles for deletion/Vahid Tarokh? -Splash - tk 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we must agree to disagree here. I have a belief that if the subject of an article of borderline or marginal notability requests deletion, we should honour such a request out of courtesy.  I realise this belief is not necessarily supported by any Wikipedia policy, nor is it shared by the majority of AfD voters, and I'm unlikely to "win" such debates.  That's alright by me, as I respect consensus greatly (If I didn't, I wouldn't participate on a website ruled almost entirely by consensus).  But I still feel it's worth it to speak my mind on the issue when relevant AfDs come up.  Who knows, in time perhaps others will come to agree.  And if not, at least I'll know it wasn't because I didn't try. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. OK. But how do we/you know that the IP is the subject? -Splash - tk 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't know with complete certainty, I guess. But the concept that some evil mastermind is behind a scheme to impersonate Vahid Tarokh (of all people!) so as to get his Wikipedia article deleted... well, it seems to me an unlikely scenario, and one which doesn't sit welll wi th WP:AGF.  Besides, in the unlikely event that the IP is an imposter, and the article gets deleted, and the REAL Tarokh shows up and gets pissed off, it would take all of about 5 seconds to undelete the thing.  So no real harm is done by assuming good faith on the part of the IP.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject Fan Fiction
I'm getting a redlink! Did you already delete the project less than a day after I got your message - and before I could respond? That's not good. :\ I do actually still consider it active; I've actually been prepping to invite new members and go over some of the more obscure sub-articles (I've been focusing most of my attention on the main article, the Mary Sue article, and the main article's two direct spinoffs) and see what's wheat and what's chaff and what's wheat unneccesarily wrapped in chaff. Remember, some of us don't always get to access the site every day. :\ I wasn't even online most of yesterday, and even when I was online in the wee hours of Sunday night/Monday morning, I wasn't on Wikipedia since I was just reading and responding to some email before bed and placing an order for something! Next time, please give a person at least a week or two to respond. There have been times when I've been able to respond immediately, but I'm back to having classes two days a week right now and also working most days of the week, so I don't always get to check in on Wikipedia every day. The project is small and was relatively inactive for a long while, but it's far from dead - as a matter of fact, I was really getting excited about reviving it! Merging may or may not be an option (though I don't know of any truly "related" WikiProjects that could be a viable merge. Certain aspects of the subject cross over with any number of other things, ranging from science fiction fandom, to internet culture, to classic literature and copyright and trademark law, so there's really no one single project it could be merged with. Possibly if there's one for literature, but it really would have to be that general, and even then - much of the subject is more related to copyright law or internet culture than literature in and of itself). However, deletion - especially without giving me time to respond to your message - is a bit extreme. Small and slow does not = completely dead does not = worth completely deleting, and a day does not = a fair amount of time to allow for someone to respond to a message left on their talk page regarding the level of activity (or lack thereof) on a project or page.

Coincidentally, I might accept a merge if it's possible to add it as a sub-project to more than WikiProject (namely, Literature, International Law - which I do know there's a WikiProject for - and if there's one of Internet Culture, which would cover all three major aspects of the subject and cover probably every single fan fiction-related article); I'm not against that, just against deleting the entire project just as I'm prepping to promote it and actually get some work done and some people involved. :\ Runa27 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't deleted it, the above link is incorrect due to a typo. It's still there at WikiProject Fan Fiction.  I'll take your word for it that you're planning on inviting more people, and I'll check up on the project again in a couple of weeks.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, good! I'm glad to hear it! (Not least because it reminds me "capitilize the P, Runa, capitilize the P..."). :D Runa27 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for AfD work
Every day that I look at AfD these days I see a slew of insightful comments by you, injecting much-needed common sense. Perhaps I just notice your comments more because of the flashy signature, but whatever you say in AfD, you're nearly always right. Your philosophy, "A topic should have an article if a non-stub article can be written without resorting to trivia, unverifiable material, or unencylopedic material," should probably be a guideline. When all sanity seems to disappear, it still seems to hold true. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well thank you very much, it's always nice to be recognised. I agree that my "A topic should have an article..." (Starblind's Law?) would make a neat little guideline, but something tells me gaining consensus for it would be tricky.  I like to think, though, that whether it's a guideline or not, the underlying concepts behind it seem to be catching on: just within the last few months I've seen quite a few unverifiable articles be deleted which not long ago would have been kept as "interesting".  I like to think that we're moving in the right direction. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, what do you think about the use of deletion as a cleanup tool? Often articles are created about subjects that satisfy Starblind's Law, but for which the article is completely unsalvagable and any rewrite would use basically none of the original material.  These articles often get deleted--do you think they should be kept and rewritten (as they satisfy the Law) or should they be deleted with no prejudice towards recreation? &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. If there's someone around who intends to rewrite the article immediately, I don't think it matters much whether it's deleted and rewritten or simply rewritten over the original.  In cases where nobody wants to fix it immediately, I think the question that needs to be asked is: Is the present text better or worse than having no article at all?  Sometimes as WP editors, we're too close to WP to truly see things objectively.  We need to approacjh it from the reader's perspective.  Imagine a 12-year-old girl using WP to look up the topic of a homework assignment.  If she looks it up and finds nothing, she thinks "Oh well" and looks elsewhere.  No big deal.  On the other hand, what if she does find an article, but it looks like it's been machine-translated from Japanese to Klingon to Norwegian and back again?  Or worse, what if the article she finds is so irredemably POV and biased that it reads like something a crazy homeless guy would shout on a street corner to nobody in particular?  That sort of thing hurts WP far more than having no article at all would.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The wit
Never ends it's not everyday that someone makes me laugh out loud while reading DRV. Whisp e ring 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Message moved from user page
Andrew,

no mistake, i am new to wikipedia and sorta suck at it. Can i convince you to change your vote? Hines is a worthy entry.

-Gordon Brown (UtzChips)

(moved by JoshuaZ 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Someone already moved it... I just reverted your userpage.--Isotope23 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Could you expand on "worthy"... preferably using reliable sources? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy
Do you understand what you are keeping deleted? Tourettes guy is a popular website and 300,000 people go on every month. Is that proof that it should be an article? Probably not to you! You wikipedia administrators are very pompous and it looks like you love to mess with new users like me. I have used wikipedia before, and it appears you all have to be unreasonable. Try to stop messing with people like me, and unprotect Tourettes Guy, because this is unreasonable. Thanks Sportsguru9999 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Show us some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and there should be no problem. Our insistance on reliable sources isn't intended as a way to "mess with" people, but to keep unverifiable material out of the encyclopedia.  It protects us and our subjects against sourcless claims: "tourette's guy", you, me, Nebuchadnezzar, everybody.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above is a load. We showed you "reliable sources" in the Deletion Review, and you admins still endorsed the deletion. I agree with Sportsguru 100% because I too have noticed that Wiki admins are extremely mean. 75.31.102.186 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is simple. The administrators are lazy, worthless, and stupid. It's pointless to try arguing with them. Vokhuz

Fate of Slashdot subculture article
Hi there. I noticed you added a redirect from Slashdot subculture to Slashdot. I was surprised to find the original article gone, and I can't find any AFD page (other than earlier failed nominations). Can you provide any more information on how and why it was deleted? --Saforrest 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. It was on AfD last month, and deleted by landslide consensus (16 to 3!).  The AfD is Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (3rd nomination). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any way I can find an archive of it? I found the article quite useful. Communisthamster 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be archived at . Please note however, that it was almost entirely original research (at best), and should not be re-added to Wikipedia in any form unless reliable sources are found. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support of my recent RfA. I have been a fan of your work for a while and i am especially honored by your vote of confidence. If you ever need me to check out an article with disinterested eyes, please do not hesitate to drop me a line.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Norton
Good lord. Percy "Nobby" Norton is a real article with genuine, verifiable, reliable sources. I am stunned. DS 14:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks so much, it's very much appreciated! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please apply Clue
The category Furry contains many completely unreferenced articles on subjects which fail the Google test, but it seems that you know enough about the subject to spot the crap articles about good subjects from the plain crap articles. If you have a minute I wonder if you wouldn't mind going through the category and pointing out the ones which should go, because I'm damn sure some of them should but its evident that I have insufficient knowledge of the subject area to spot which ones. Thanks, Guy 13:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The category is pretty svelte anyway, I supect this is because the truly NN have been speedied/prodded long ago, and the borderline ones have probably been transwikied to WikiFur.  I could possibly see Chakat being deleted, as when the gloss is stripped away it's more or less an article about fanfiction.  Ursa Major Awards is another possibility, they aren't really well-known outside the con scene.  Speaking of cons, FranFurence is extremely small (30 attendees), and Califur, FurFright and Eurofurence have attendence in the low hundreds compared to thousands at Anthrocon and the like.  The furry comics category looks good to me, and I don't see any obvious deletion candidates in there at the moment, although the stuff in Category:DeMontfort University may be borderline.  There are, of course, plenty of deletable/transwikiable candidates in Category:Furry webcomics though.  What's with the sudden push to delete furry stuff? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No special reason, I just found a lot of dodgy-looking articles, so I set about checking it. Guy 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I started off as a fan of a particular anthropomorphic webcomic author (ralph hayes) and a fan of wikipedia (I contribute to both the english and romanian versions). There was a lot of nasty talk about how Wikipedia was on a tear to delete furry stuff unfairly and I thought that I'd just improve some articles and hopefully get something up to snuff. What I found, instead, was a lot of animus to the genre.

That bias came out very clearly in the deletion debate for the Ursa Major awards relevant afd. Out of 7 pro-delete comments, 4 and perhaps 5 of them showed animus as to subject matter (it depends on what is being referred to when one delete comment says 'per above' and I'm not a mind reader). That struck me as pretty rotten. The deletion of the award page is leading to deletion of further articles that were notable because the strips themselves or their authors were notable because they got that award. I don't think the furry guys are getting a fair shake. How can that be fixed? TMLutas 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Demented Cartoon Movie
May I ask why this article was deleted?

The movie has embedded itself into the internet culture quite well, and the Wikipedia page for it is the third result from a Google search.

Quite a large part of the Internet knows about the animation as well. I saw no need for the article to be deleted and protected.


 * I don't actually remember this article, but apparently it was deleted twice by AFD: here and again here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review
You voted Delete at the article's AfD. You may wish to make your voice heard at its deletion review. Thank you. -- Avi 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I love art and artists
It's a great thing to meet an artist in wikipedia. Best wishes. A sad thing is that wikipedia is dominated by some teenage computer professionals. They dont know anything about art or literature. But they edit and delete articles as they wish.  Nileena joseph (Talk 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Always nice to hear from a fellow artist! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2006 November 16
I didn't mean any criticism of the AFD closing, just reading the AFD discussion, which is all the closing admin is obliged to do, makes it a perfectly fine close. That said, the site itself is minorly notable, as you seem to agree. So I ask you to consider supporting the undeletion or recreation of the article. I'm not asking that you criticise the deletion, it was a fine deletion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, reviewing the deletion is what Deletion Review is all about. It's possible to disagree with the conclusions of a deletion and still consider the deletion properly done.  I don't feel extremely strongly either way, and it's an extremely borderline case at best anyway.  One of the problems with writing about restaurants and such is that there tends to be little to say about them without writing a review or getting into ubertrivial stuff like what the menu items are and how the dining area is decorated.  Even Le Bec-Fin, a truly legendary restaurant, is still a small stub article despite being around for more than a year.  That's why I think Yesterdog should be merged, perhaps into the article about the community it's in: not only could that be done without need to overturn, and it would save some pour soul from trying to come up with several long paragraphs of things to say about a hot dog joint. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Enknowed
Don't you think that your block of Enknowed was a bit harsh. Firstly, Percy Nobby Norton lacks notability (maybe) but it is not completly false. Then him adding the page to his user page seemed perfectly reasonable. I also don't think he is a sockpuppet as Silentbob or something is a lot more personally offensive compared to this user. There attitudes are completely different. I think you should reconsider, post back your thoughts. --Starblindy 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, re-posting deleted material on a user page is not acceptable, especially when that material is a libellous hoax. As for the sockpuppet claim, that was discussed at AN and later confirmed with an IP check.  Besides, it's impossible to imagine that more than one person would be interested in spreading such a silly and obvious hoax.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic
Verifiability asserted in the second post from Ghastly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all been sorted out now, but thanks for letting me know! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press in about two hours, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Leah Dizon
It is my understanding that the article was nuked several months ago. Ok, what happened since the deletion is that she is planning on making a CD (http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/leahdizon/ is the official website, Japanese language). Would this merit an article recreation or no? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it's probably best to wait until the CD is actually released, just in case it doesn't happen. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So would it be best to put it in my userspace, such as User:Zscout370/Leah Dizon for now? Thanks a bunch. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Starblindy
Yes it is me and I want to know why you felt it neccessary to block me. I have had around 20 useful edits including, Apple Extended Keyboard (created), Casio 9700GH (created), Little Birdy, The Grates (discussion) and minor edits to other pages such as Typewriters providing links between articles that increase userability. While this isn't amazing, I am a new user and was working up a good reputation. I was reading through some Afd or something and came over the story of these deleted users. I ask you nicely just for a bit of comment why you did delete them, It wasn't like I said unblock them or else, and you answered back satisfactorly. But then this nice gesture was ruined when you decided to block me indefinetly, WHY??? According to you I am a sockpuppet of this user I asked about, I can assure you I am not (though you probably don't trust me anyway), it seems that this is pretty weak, I haven't had any other involvement in Percy Nobby Norton and I didn't comment on your page until a fair while after being active. Surely if I was this guy, I would create a new user and start annoying you immediatly or trying to recreate the article, but I guess you think that not doing this was some plan by me not to look like a sockpuppet. All you seem to have is very very weak suspicions, if even that. Please respond back ASAP. --87.74.17.152 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. You're one of the few people who have recognized my link to Tiny Toon Adventures, though a vandal did once, was rather funny. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom
On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Small reminder

 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange juice cd trick

Don't forget to remove the "" things. 152.91.9.144 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking it over, you're absolutely right. I somehow did forget to remove that.  Thanks for the reminder. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Baker's Dozen
You voted while I was adding a second page to the nom in response to the first delete vote. Please ensure that you also want to delete the second page. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No change in vote but a strong thanks for having notified me. I wish all deletion proposers were that courteous. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did want a response
I did want a response to my comment Starblindy. I assume that you just overlooked it. I was just saying nothing cause I thought you might of just not been answering any comments but your response above indicators that is not true. BTW block my IP if you want but it is a hotel and I am leaving tomorrow morning so it will not be my problem. Thanks. --12.16.126.98 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume there won't be a problem!!

I assume there won't be a problem with my new username TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy. Think carefully before complaining because I am in no mood for more of your nuisance, but if there really is a problem notify me as soon as possible so I don't waste my time building up a reputation for you to destroy it, as in the case with Starblindy. Please understand that your actions were disgusting and annoying, but as I am sure you would, I won't push this any further.--TheWikipedianFormallyKnownAsStarblindy 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's common practice to block accounts with usernames similar to or containing the names of other wikipedians. It would get quite confusing if we had a Jimbo Wales and a Jimbo Wa1es, for example. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Donation in your honour, apparently
Found this on the fund drive donations list:


 * Anonymous: "Rogue admins like starblind are ruining wikipedia" - 2006-12-19 02:17:41 - HUF 1 (USD 0.01)

Thought you might be entertained. :-) — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehehe, that is entertaining. Not sure what it refers to, but it might have to do with a certain four-letter internet group whose article was deleted not long ago.  No objections from me if they want to fork over their dough to Wikipedia, of course! :) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)
Hi. I noticed you voted on the last AFD. Just wanted you to know it's happening again at Articles for deletion/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) (2nd nomination). - Peregrinefisher 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SPAM #6
A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination). brenneman 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)