User talk:Tyrenon

John Watts page on album entitled "It Has To Be" up for deletion
Sorry to stand up against your grain of "proud deletionist". However, I feel very strongly about the work of John Watts and Fischer-Z, and that the album will be noted on Wikipedia, because there is a section about Fischer-Z & John Watts with very little information on it, off which I have adding to and improving drastically. And seeing as I have all the albums by Fischer-Z and John Watts solo, then who better to do it, then either another devoted fan or perhaps John Watts himself. Although, I'm sure he's very busy touring his latest album released this year (keep your eyes peeled on, as information for that album will hopefully be on here soon). I don't expect you'll have heard much of John Watts, but there is the odd album that is quite hard to find (he's never hit a mainstream market, but he certainly has a loyal and noteable following). The album in question entitled "It Has To Be" is sadly one of them. And due to it's title it's not easy to find information on it when searching on Google, Yahoo etc. But wary of a hoax you need not be. First, there is a picture of the album on the page, as there are pictures of all the Fischer-Z and John Watts albums in that section, but if that does not satisfy you, then I can provide Fischer-Z & John Watts fan sites which note the album's existence link, the official John Watts & Fischer-Z discography which notes it's existence link (feel free to look at the bottom of the page, as that's where it resides) and if you take the liberty of searching on the official iTunes library for it, you WILL find it in there available for purchase. Trust me, for I have seen it. It's unfortunate that I can't link you to that one, as it opens in your own personal iTunes library. But if you have one, then feel free to search the music store.
 * Reply. Fansites do not tend to be sufficient for inclusion; neither is Mr. Watts' website.  A lot of this falls under the general vein of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the deletion discussion has indicated.  It just isn't notable on its own.Tyrenon (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
The correct format to at to the top of the list (as instructed in the  ) is:
 *  Article name , where "Article name" is the actual article name, not the name of the Articles for deletion subpage.

I added it correctly for you, but does that help? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Local parties
Good spot that some of these parties are not notable, but I think it'd be best to merge these articles rather than deleting them. Perhaps you could withdraw the deletion nominations, and find a suitable venue to discuss a mass merger? There already is List of political parties in the United Kingdom, but that might not be appropriate. Local political parties in the United Kingdom might be a suitable target.

On a related matter, I've been gathering opinions on the parties to mention on the UK political parties template: British political parties. See Template_talk:British_political_parties. Fences and windows (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

British political parties
Hey Tyrenon

Many months ago now, I tried to help form a policy on political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doktorbuk/pp ) but it not quite work. It needs to be revisited, and I am happy to do so with you.

doktorb wordsdeeds 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New Pages
Hey, since you nominated Tsukkomi Shime for deletion, I thought I'd point out: Special:Contributions/Hkdharmon, this user has created a lot of similar pages, that might need to be delete or redirected.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste AfD nominations need categorization
If you're going to copy-and-paste hundreds of AfD nominations for similar articles, could you at least take the effort to set the category letter in the nomination template appropriately, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about G, since Judo is a sport or game? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Judo nominations
can you consolidate all the Judo nominations to one single one? You can combine them as explained at Afd. It will save discussion time and probably increase participation. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know which pages you want me to consolidate to one group, and I'll take care of those. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like if I do it for AfDs already created, it'll throw something off, the old one continues to stay and a new AfD is created in addition to it. You might want to check with an admin first. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could check with any of the admins who've posted recently on AfDs or anyone active on NPP. I've sent a note to Dank. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MA technique deletions
Could you go back & group nominate these? It will be rather boring to paste the same or similar comment on 20+ discussions. A summary of those comments would be; "What about a merge?" --Nate1481 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination convention
Hi Tyrenon

It is not required, but it conventional and courteous, to add a template to the creator's talk page when nominating an article for deletion. If you can't be bothered to do this manually, Twinkle automates this process (and generally makes nominating articles for deletion straightforward).

Regards, Bongo  matic  03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no talkback or other comment on my talk page is required.

p.s. the AfD on Jerry Rosenberg will certainly fail. Even the most cursory search for him would demonstrate that he is the subject of a full-length biography and overwhelmingly satisfies the notability guidelines.


 * I checked the button to turn Twinkle on over on my prefs page. Is there anything else I need to do as far as that goes?Tyrenon (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know&mdash;when I started using it, I don't think there was a preferences checkbox for it, so I had to edit my monobook.js. It creates tabs at the top of the page, below your user line. Also, try adding Friendly, too, which does tagging that Twinkle doesn't.
 * Also, thanks for withdrawing the nom. Actually, you are permitted to do a non-admin closure by (per Deletion process):
 * adding the at and ab templates to the AfD (in this case, you might want to do something like keep at the top and simply at the bottom; and
 * removing the AfD template from the article (and the rescue template too).
 * Bongo matic  06:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. Looks like Twinkle is up and running...it'll be nice to have it around when I'm going through the new page logs, since C/Ping the CSD criteria and whatnot was getting a hair on the old side.Tyrenon (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wwwwolf makes a fair point in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroid: Other M. Since it's clear that the article isn't going to be deleted, could you oblige us by going there and saying that you withdraw the nomination? It'd make it easier to get this over with and close the discussion. Thanks, Kiz o r  15:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get to it in time. Sleeping stinks, but his point is fair.Tyrenon (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dinkleberry Shortcake
Hi, Tyronon. I saw you AfD'd Dinkleberry Shortcake. Next time, you might want to consider trying a Prod before you move to AfD. Thanks for your work on New Article Patrol and my best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait For The Summer
Hey man...

One of the reasons I decided to make this page was to expand on what there is already of the artist Yeasayer. This is a single they put out recently due to rising attention. They are a relatively new band but have been reviving a lot of good press lately such as Pitchfork, NME as well as being part of the line up at this years Bonnaroo. I only put this single up because fans are becoming more curious about this band just as I have and I was only trying to make it easier for people to access what they want to know. So if anyone, like myself, asks "I wonder if Yeasayer has any other albums?" they will now be able to know just by checking Wikipedia. I hope that is enough of an argument not to delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathersufi (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Attila atasoy
Hi Tyrenon, I've declined this speedy as I suspect it needs translation.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To Market, to Market
Good luck on the M*A*S*H debate. The proliferation of pages for every episode and every character of every show (Law & Order is my pet peeve) has been driving me crazy for some time now, but people on the other side of the debate seem a bit more persistent and vocal than I'm interested in being. But the more it happens, the more it justifies pages for even less notable episodes and characters. Godspeed. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Joes nominated for deletion
Hello. You nominated my Hamilton Joes page for deletion.

I tried to follow the guidelines for submission, and thought I did. I don't see what is wrong, so I may need some guidance. This is my first article. I will gladly change what is needed to conform to Wiki guidelines. Please explain to me what is "illegal" and what needs to be edited.

Also, while the Hamilton Joes are an amateur team, there are NUMEROUS other amateur team pages on Wikipedia (see Southern Ohio Copperheads, every single team in the Cape Cod, and the list goes on), as well as their respective leagues. (Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League, Cape Cod League, etc.)

As for the prospective reference problems, I included an article from the Cincinnati Enquirer website, the largest newspaper in Cincinnati and the Cincy-Metro area. I included references from Miami University, and the city of Hamilton's Foundation fund that dedicated the stadium, and the Hamilton Joes' own website.

Please let me know what needs to be done to resolve this and keep the Joes Wikipedia page going. --Joshuadmanley (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic banned from AfD
Tyrenon,

You are now "topic banned" from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, until such time as we have a good sit down about your resposibilities. What this means is that you may not start new deletion discussions, but you may continue to participate in discussions which you've started. Feel free to continue to improve articles, or tag them for improvment using WP:TC, but your speed and lack of discretion in nominating articles is disruptive.

Please read WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:ZEAL, and explain to me (responding here is fine) the expectations on and responsibilities of a deletion nominator. Ideally, this is merely a course correction and you can continue submitting AfDs after demonstrating an understanding and willing to do so in an encyclopedia-improving manner. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you don't appear to be around at the moment, here's a bit more of what I'm looking for.
 * AfD is a process for when other process have failed to improve the encyclopedia. AfD takes a lot more time and effort than speedy or proposed deletions, and shouldn't be jumped to until something else has been tried and failed.
 * For things like TV episodes, redirection is preferred to deletion. That helps keep track of the content, and a redirection doesn't require the discussion that AfD does.  Feel free to initially redirect articles per WP:BRD.  If no one reverts you, the final outcome happened quicker and with less administrative overhead. If it's reverted... then you've got a discussion on your hands.
 * For articles that clearly are supported by one WikiProject or another, tagging the article for its issues prior to an AfD nomination is a preferred method: give the editors who have expressed an interest in articles on that topic a chance to fix things.
 * Too many AfD's at once is a bad thing. Even if that's your sole goal in Wikipedia, it tends to elicit knee-jerk reactions, such as blanket opposes.  AfD's should be considered carefully--too little scrutiny tends to result in improper results: things kept that should have been deleted, things deleted that should have been kept.
 * If your goal is to start as many deletion discussions as possible so that some might stick, you're not likely to be successful. There are a number of well-respected deletionists who may be able to help coach you in how to strike the balance in precision vs. speed needed to successfully help clean up Wikipedia.  User:TenPoundHammer might be a good one to chat with; User:TTN appears to be inactive at the moment, but has some valuable experiences (both good and bad) in trying to clean up e.g. television show episode articles.
 * I await your response, Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * JClemens,
 * First of all, my goal is not just to start deletion discussions "for the sake of it". It's at least in part because I do see something of a lack of quality control (and control over notability) here (as witnessed by the substantial number of notability nominations I found at the back of the "new article queue".  The front may yield patent nonsense, but there are a lot of things that got tagged which showed no signs of improvement from a marginal level of quality).
 * Second, I do thank you for suggesting people to talk to. Hammer seems to have a good head on his shoulders.  I will ask him for guidelines on when to AfD (vs. Prod or CSD, especially since the latter seems to fall in a bit of a "middle ground" between the other two).  I had asked someone else for guidelines there, but never got a response.
 * Third, what is a good amount of time to wait for improvement? A number of articles have sat for close to 30 days (I'm thinking the "back of the queue" ones in particular), which seems to be more than enough, but again I'd like a bit of guidance.
 * Fourth, what would be a good "daily cap" (at least barring a glut of new articles with major issues) on nominations? I know I've been running at about 50 a day (which may be a hair on the high side), so what would be a good cap to shoot for?
 * Again, I'm not nominating for the sake of nominating. In some sense, I do honestly feel that too much gets let in sometimes and would like to see a constructive pruning of the encyclopedia.  While my personal motto is a bit of hyperbole (it's a play on a line from Warhammer40K), I do think it would be better to err on the side of "talk about this" rather than "let it stay forever".  It's an earnest philosophical view that I could explain in depth, but it is what it is.

P.S. I've written to Hammer seeking advice.Tyrenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good. Thanks for your direct and polite responses. Consider yourself un-topic-banned as of now.
 * Thanks for confirming your goals--it's unfortunate to have to ask, but given your newness and enthusiasm, the question needed asking. I agree that there are a ton of things needing to be excised from the encyclopedia.  For the record, I have almost 6,000 pages deleted since I was made an administrator about six months ago.  Most of them have been done through the Prod and speedy processes, though--probably less than 100 have been AfD closures.
 * Aside from TenPoundHammer, have you gotten hooked up at WP:SCISSORS? Not sure how active the Wikiproject is, but I'm sure someone is watching that talk page.
 * Waiting for improvements... That's a tough one. WP:DEADLINE and WP:PRESERVE tend to support keeping bad but non-harmful articles, but there have been numerous AfDs that cited lack of improvement in the nomination, so those opinions aren't universally held. In general, I'd say it depends.  If it's just bad grammar, tag and move on.  If it's something that has notability or verifiability problems, consider WP:PROD right away, and then try and get the person who de-tags the article (if anyone does) to improve it.  All this presumes you're not in a position to improve that particular article, of course.  I routinely see things tagged since 2007, which indicates to me that no one is systematically going through the old categories of articles needing cleanup and proposing them for deletion.
 * As far as a daily cap goes... if you're going to be consistent about it, how about a dozen articles to AfD, not counting prod or speedy tags nor redirections. AfD can only handle so much, and if we can get the same amount of cleanup by channelling some of the AfDs into more streamlined processes, I think you can continue to nominate things at about that rate without taxing the system.  Mind you, I've not found serious deficiencies in your nominations... other than that not all of them needed to be AfD's right away.  If you're making use of the full spectrum of deletion tools, you should be able to accomplish as much as you have been before.
 * Deletionists play an absolutely vital part in keeping Wikipedia relevant and useful. I focus more of my efforts on cleaning up articles on encyclopedic topics and/or the more streamlined processes for deletion, but respect those who choose other paths.
 * Oh, one final bit of advice? WP:BEFORE can be your friend as a deletionist. I don't know if you realize this, but when you've been recently citing the lack of search results, you lend credibility to your AfDs.  One of the less pleasant outcomes in Wikipedia is when a crappy article on a real topic gets deleted.  Yellow Star (book) is one such article--look in the history at what it looked like before I started fixing it.  Not exactly a diamond in the rough, but a worthwhile article was hidden underneath a childish contribution. Too many AfDs at once risks such articles never getting a chance, as they look terrible and no one takes the time to give them a second look.
 * Any further questions for me? Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * JClemens,
 * I understand the concern and I fully respect it. I think you touched on an idea I strongly believe in, that of a "constructive tension" being needed, but your points go well towards warning me away from being too aggressive on the deleting side of things.  I think the limits you have set work well enough (and keep me from being too overzealous in my nominations).  I do think that's all for now, but again thanks for the help and guidance.Tyrenon (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Isotopes of oxygen
Hi, I think I may have come off a bit more snarky than I intended in my comments to those three AfDs. Sorry about that. However, what you have proposed is a merger of the several articles. This does not require actual deletion of anything, just moving content around and putting redirects at the no longer needed titles.

Unless they have changed it since last time I helped someone through the process, the instructions can be a little confusing. The idea, however, is fairly simple - notify everyone interested in each article that a merger has been proposed, and direct them to one discussion (probably the most common mistake here is starting a separate discussion at each talkpage). When consensus is reached, just delete the tags if no merger is necessary or (most likely in this case) write everything into the appropriate place in the final article. In the latter case, make sure you remember to mention in the edit summaries that you are merging content from Oxygen-24 to Isotopes of oxygen or whathaveyou. Good luck and feel free to ping me if you would like any help or advice, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidance
Hmm. Well, first, I would carefully Google the topic. I check through the first five or six pages of Google hits, and if it's all junk, then there's a very likely chance that it's not notable. Then I would check Google News and Google Books just to make sure. If you can't find any substantial coverage (i.e., a whole article on that particular subject, or at the very least, several paragraphs' worth of information), then you've probably got something that isn't notable. Albums and singles can usually be verified through Allmusic, although I should point out that a lack of a biography on Allmusic does not necessarily indicate a lack of notability (case in point: Rachel Proctor). Similarly, an article may not turn up a whole lot on Google, but may turn up more useful infomation on Google News. For instance, almost all the Google hits for Daniele Alexander are Allmusic mirrors, Facebook, and directory listings for her singles, but there are several articles about her on Google News, since her highest level of notability was in 1989. Just search carefully for sources through Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

House of Lords
Notability might interest you. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, really not sure. The question with that sort of person isn't "are they elected properly" but "do they gain their position in such a way as to make media references likely"? Not quite sure how to handle elected stampers :S. Ironholds (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure how that'd work exactly, but it's 6:40am over here and I'm not thinking clearly :). I'll put some thought into it and chip in with my ideas later. It might be seen as instruction creep, however. Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar
I believe your nomination was made in the fullest of good faith. However, once made, all the concerns needed to be addressed. I dig deep as possible when sourcing articles, trying all sorts of varying parameters. And yes, my own search was hampered by the name, and its original Machivelli play... but I dug through the grift to find the gold. If I hadn't found the gold, I would have opined a delete right alongside you. I take a small bit of pride in breathing life into articles lying on the gurney waiting for the last rites. Feels pretty good, actally, to give them a new life. I appreciate the withdrawal. It shows class. Happy editing,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ellis Watson
I would urge you to take more time before nominating articles for deletion. User:Phil Bridger stated that you nominated this article less than 3 minutes after it was created, and I checked the edit history and found this to be true. Taking more time to properly research, per WP:BEFORE, and also, giving editors some time to respond (an article less than two minutes old may very well be a work in progress) ensures a more constructive and harmonious atmosphere here on wikipedia, and ultimately results in better quality for Wikipedia in the long run as editors' time is spent less on unnecessary conflict and more on constructive editing. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some you might have missed
I notice you are very active in AfD's and there are a couple I haven't seen you opine on. I was hoping you'd take a look at these:,  ,  ,. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive and unresearched AFD nomination
Before you nominate something for deletion by AFD, please look to see if it satisfies WP:N by virtue of multiple reliable and independent sources which offer substantial coverage of it. I consider your nomination of Ippon seoi nage to be disruptive, since many books discuss this important judo throw, as I showed in the AFD. It is like nominating Field goals, important in many spots, or Home run in baseball, or Uppercut in boxing. You have previously been topic banned from AFD, and counseled to read WP:BEFORE. Please read it again. A hint: there are lots of references for Hane goshi as well:. Thanks for your efforts to remove non-notable articles from Wikipedeia. Edison (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Botsina
It's a mess, but deletion without discussion at WP:AfD would be controversial. I found many sources, easily, in a few minutes, online. See Talk:Botsina. Therefore, I removed your ProD tag. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

e-Rotic Deletion
Hello Tyrenon.

I'd like to see what I can do to avoid the deletion of the e-Rotic television show page I created. This is a legitimate program airing on Playboy TV. If there's any way I can edit the description to help it to meet your standards, I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks

(Zepolekim (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Talk:Timewave_zero
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero, an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sekou Odinga
I've closed this debate from June on a procedural basis; near as I can tell, it never made it to the dated list, nor is there a notice on the article itself, and it's 4 months old anyway. No objection from me if you wish to renominate, but please do follow all of the steps at WP:AFD to make sure the debate is properly formatted and listed. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this in the last week or so. Yeah, that would be a fumbled AfD move from when I first got on here...I wasn't used to the code and didn't have the tools I have now to get things filed properly.  Thanks for the notice, though.Tyrenon (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Beale AfD
Thanks for re-reading it. I made some additions today as well, based on sources brought to light by others at the AfD (specifically, third party RS references to his work). The reason I'm commenting here and not on the AfD is that its rather cluttered there already, and I think my thoughts here are best shared therefore on your talk page. I think that others (though perhaps not you?) are impacted by the combination of what they seek as a keen desire by Beale to have an article about himself (which by itself is OK, though quite clearly off-putting to many) and an article that is highly detailed about his background (people confuse that w/puffery or self-promotion, as though he wrote it, but neither did he write it (I did, for the most part) nor does it misrepresent the facts or balance of the RS coverage of Beale). It may well be that you are able to stifle your reaction to his desire for an article, and look at the latest version on the merits, and still believe it does not warrant an article. If that's the case, we just have an honest difference of opinion. But having spent some time at AfDs, I think that something else altogether is impacting many of the delete votes. IMHO. Anyway, its been nice working with you. Oh, and thanks for your kind works about it being better than your recollection of past versions. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I suspect we have an honest difference of opinion here. I guess what it comes down to is that I ultimately think that Beale, as the junior author on QoT, doesn't quite cut it in terms of notability.  QoT does, Beale doesn't.  Now, to be fair, I'm somewhat put off by Beale's apparent campaign to get on here, but even absent that I find his notability to be dubious at best.  Then again, I do take a narrow view of these things (something that I make no secret of), and that's ultimately what's at issue.Tyrenon (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your note, and agree that we appear to have an honest difference of opinion. I've said my piece, and appreciate that you've listened, and drawn a different conclusion.  As may have been implied in my notes, I feel that at least one or two others have been less than honest, consistent, or aboveboard in their actions/votes, but I certainly don't view all with a different view as being in that category, and respect your candor.  As to Beal not being likeable, I feel that that has swayed some votes, to his detriment, which IMHO isn't how it should play out.  Question -- assuming this does not come out as no consensus, what is the best way to keep the article in a form that can be worked on and resubmitted should his current efforts attract additional RS coverage?  I've not dealt with a phoenix before, but have put enough time into this one that I think it worth the effort ... and that at some point the No voters such as yourself may cross the divide between us.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise asking to move the article to userspace or copying the code down in Notepad if the consensus comes to a 'delete' result. If there's no consensus, though, I think the article just remains in place, so you wouldn't have to do anything to keep it there.Tyrenon (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I hereby nominate you for...
The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.

Hi there! In response to your post in Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodges of North Carolina I have decided that you are a perfect nominee for the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. After reading your post I took a look at your last 500 contributions over the past two and a half years. The data there shows that of those 500 contributions, 330 of them had something to do with deleting articles and zero of them were creating new articles. This makes you one of the biggest deletionists I have yet to encounter on Wikipedia. Congratulations!

Eric Cable |  Talk  16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuff
See User_talk:Tim1357 for a bot that swept recently and found which articles have the least edits in several years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't use the bot. Whoever owns it does. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask Tim. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina Councils of Governments proposed deletions
I saw your multiple prods relating to this on the proposed deletion list. I have not researched to see if there is material out there that would justify separate articles for some or all of these local agencies. But it seems to me that even if you are right about not needing these separate articles, it seems to me that the better method to deal with this would be a merge and redirect, not proposed deletion. Your prod reasoning notes that there is some information in the local articles that could be included in the main article. The names of these local agencies are likely search terms so the redirects are useful. And, if one of these local agencies turns out to have substantial individualized information justifying a separate article, maintaining the editing histories will facilitate that. If there is some compelling reason not to do this, please let me know; otherwise, I would think all these articles should be deprodded, and merge/redirect can be implemented if consensus agrees.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina Grand Lodge...
So it turns out that jackass He to Hecuba who was all "Copyright Infringement! Delete! Delete! Delete!" on the NC Lodges list was a sock puppet of a banned mamber. That's just great. And people wonder why I have come to hate participating in Wikipedia. Eric Cable |  Talk  15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)