Jump to content

User talk:One: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 155: Line 155:
==Recent Afd close==
==Recent Afd close==
Could you explain your interpretation of this afd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_extraordinary_diseases_and_conditions], which had 18 arguments for "delete" and 7 arguments for "keep" as "no consensus?" That looked like a strong consensus to delete to me. Probably off to DRV with this but wanted to hear any explanation first.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain your interpretation of this afd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_extraordinary_diseases_and_conditions], which had 18 arguments for "delete" and 7 arguments for "keep" as "no consensus?" That looked like a strong consensus to delete to me. Probably off to DRV with this but wanted to hear any explanation first.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Con ==

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

Revision as of 11:51, 26 May 2009

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message.

Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
Archives [edit]
WikiFan04 Archive (June 16, 2005 to September 9, 2005)
Archive 1 (September 7, 2005 to December 9, 2005)
Archive 2 (December 9, 2005 to February 21, 2006)
Archive 3 (February 23, 2006 to May 23, 2006)
Archive 4 (May 24, 2006 to July 9, 2006)
Archive 5 (July 10, 2006 to August 25, 2006)
Archive 6 (August 25, 2006 to November 23, 2006)
Archive 7 (November 24, 2006 to January 31, 2007)
Archive 8 (February 1, 2007 to April 22, 2007)
Archive 9 (April 22, 2007 to September 18, 2007)
Archive 10 (September 18, 2007 to April 22, 2009)
Archive 11 (April 29, 2009 to November 12, 2009)
Archive 12 (November 16, 2009 to June 13, 2016)

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

Updated your user page

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

Thank you for your support

Relisting AFDs

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

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

Could you please leave a note with the relist or reconsider your relisting. I am seeing a consensus to merge, an explanation on why you extended the discussion would be helpful in case another administrator closes the debate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just leave your explanation right below the relisting template so new commenters can easily see why it's still listed. Talk pages are rarely used on AFD debates. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sekritwikicookie.png

I tagged this for G7 (author requests deletion). Images can be G7'd too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank You

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Microsoft Venus

Updated DYK query On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microsoft Venus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gamma Beta

Hi,

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

Nice work

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

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

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

_____________________________

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

Interop Vendor Alliance

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

DYK for Tom Kramer

Updated DYK query On May 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Kramer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Your signature disrupts the height and spacing of a whole line of text in which it is located. It can disrupt the entire page. Please change it, only using a maximum of one level of superscript (or subscript). Thanks, hmwithτ 14:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's no problem at all. It's hard to tell with sigs, especially when everyone's screens render them a little differently. Thank you for the quick response/change. :) Have a good day, hmwithτ 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:MASH AfD

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

Temple of the Presence

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

Just curious about the basis for your deleting the page.

Thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make It Home

Did you read the discussion? The only reason I ask is because you didn't give an explanation, which I believe was warranted given the amount of discussion.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Eli Whitney Students Program

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

Articles for deletion/Your Choice Records

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

Userifififification

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

Recent Afd close

Could you explain your interpretation of this afd [1], which had 18 arguments for "delete" and 7 arguments for "keep" as "no consensus?" That looked like a strong consensus to delete to me. Probably off to DRV with this but wanted to hear any explanation first.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Con

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