User talk:Alpha Quadrant

Archives

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad

When AfD discussions have had substantial debate, they are not relisted unless there was a procedural issue or a deficiency in the discussion. When relisting such debates, editors should explain why they are relisting them. Would you append a rationale to your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad on the AfD pages, so that the participants understand why the discussion was deficient? Cunard (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RELIST for the purpose of relisting a discussion. Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion, one arguing userfying, and one arguing keep. That is by no means clear consensus. That is why we relist discussions, to establish a clearer consensus. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are three users arguing for deletion. Because six users have participated in the debate, there has been substantial discussion. WP:RELIST states (among other things):

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

For the first clause, I do not consider six participants to be few. For the second, I believe that policy-based arguments have been advanced regarding the notability of the subject and whether the page should userfied. It is time for the consensus to be assessed. Please undo your relist. Cunard (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment, in the event that you failed to notice my reply because of the intervening edits of Drimplants (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have reviewed several AfC creations since 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC), the time I posted my above message. I will revert your relist if you intend to ignore my messages. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Such an action would be inappropriate, as you are involved in the discussion. The debate is relisted so that a clear consensus can be established. Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is not clear consensus. It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally replying.

"Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote" – there are three delete votes, one userfy, and one keep.

It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. – You have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RELIST. WP:RELIST states:

[R]elisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

Even if there had been no consensus, your relist would have been wrong.

Your counting of the votes does not take into account the strength of the votes' arguments. I believe that consensus has been achieved.

You have failed to demonstrate that your relist meets the above criteria I quoted from the WP:RELIST. Please undo your inappropriate relist. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi AQ. There is a discussion on my talk page about this relist. Perhaps you may find in that discussion that there are reasons why re-listing discussions like this can be damaging and why it is best to avoid re-listing a discussion until it has fallen off the seven day log. I'd join Cunard in asking that you consider relisting this one; had I noticed it without having been asked to look at it I probably would have reverted it myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregori_M._Kurtzman,_DDS,_MAGD,_FPFA,_FADI,_DICOI,_DADIA

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregori_M._Kurtzman,_DDS,_MAGD,_FPFA,_FADI,_DICOI,_DADIA

Here are 3rd party sources to verify. Should you need additional sources please let me know and if you can be specific in what is needed. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drimplants (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of those sources appear to be first party sources. Can you please add reliable third party sources, particularly news sources. The sources do not need to be online. They can be books, magazines, newspaper articles, or online news articles. For details, please see VRS. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Early AfD closures

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Carbonero over three days early; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runt Marr nearly two days early; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Největší Čech, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suuret suomalaiset, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Os Grandes Portugueses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Croatian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Grootste Nederlander, and several other discussions a day early.

Given Kww (talk · contribs)'s discussion with you yesterday above, why have you speedily closed these discussions and not let them run for the full listing period? Cunard (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look, I speedy closed the above debate that Kww highlights. Speedy closing was inappropriate in that case (yes, I made a mistake here), however, if I had done an early close it would have been appropriate. Yes, early closes are not in a given guideline, and therefore can be controversial, but they are not forbidden. If you look, I am not the only editor who makes early keep closures. By the way, now that other users have commented after my relisting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, it would be inappropriate for me to revert my relisting, so please stop asking me to do that. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not close debates early because as you note, they can be "controversial". There is no harm to leave them open until the full 168-hour listing period has passed.

Regarding the AfD, Mkativerata asked you at 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist, and I asked you at 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist. There were no further comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad until 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC). You dealt with a number of AfCs in that intervening time period.

I opened this thread not to convince you to undo your relist (I did not mention it, knowing it was futile because you ignored the requests of myself, Mkativerata, and S Marshall yesterday) but to ask you not to close discussions early. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No where in policy does it say that non-admins can't close clear consensus discussions early. If someone protests the early closure, then we reopen it. If you take a look, the discussions I closed today were clearly non-controversial. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, I also closed an AfD debate 6 days early. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawal by nominator falls under WP:Speedy keep Criterion 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither admins nor non-admins should close discussions early unless there is a good reason for doing so. One, when a non-admin or admin closes a discussion earlier, he or she introduces a procedural irregularity that can make the nominator feel that s/he has not received FairProcess. Second, an early close could cause the discussion to be overturned at deletion review. Third, early closes encourage others to close earlier and earlier. I ask you not to close discussions early if the nominator has not withdrawn and if the participants are not unanimous. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1)Fair process? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. 2) That is what deletion review is for. 3) Like I said, editors already make early closures, some of them the day they are opened. Policy doesn't support your arguments. You can't go around "requesting" that editors only edit the way you want them to, and then harassing them if they don't. That is not how Wikipedia works. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Alpha Quadrant! Cunard has asked me on my talk page to speak with you about this, so I'll try to help clear this up.

  "FairProcess" is a meme from meatball wiki, which is a wiki about wikis; it's about making sure our processes are fair. AfD is the process in question, and the reason why early closures can sometimes make the process unfair is if the early closure stops a user from having a voice in a discussion when they might reasonably have expected one. If you're interested, you can read more about the thoughts behind FairProcess here. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from withdrawing your own nominations as in one of the examples on this page. The important point is that there is a strong community consensus that an AfD should only be closed after 168 hours. Would it be helpful if I linked the discussion for you where this was agreed?

  You will, of course, see editors disregarding that rule. Like all rules there are times when that is appropriate; Cunard's concern, and mine, is that your perception of when it's appropriate and ours are significantly at variance.

  I know you think Cunard is harassing you, but I respectfully ask you to reconsider that view. Cunard is a rather respected and trusted editor who has absolutely no history of harassing anyone, and I think the reason he is repeating his requests is in an attempt to avoid more difficult and formal processes in future. You don't have to listen to him, or indeed to me, but I do respectfully ask you to think about what Cunard says most carefully.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@ S Marshall, I found the discussion regarding the deletion process changes, and it appears it discussed changing the time from 5 to 7 days, as well as early closures. The discussion didn't appear to have a strong consensus to only close after 168 hours, (for deletion, yes, but for keep/redirect/merge there was actually quite a few editors in favor of early closures.) I see your point on early relisting discussions, I erred in relisting early the other day, and the debate that Kww pointed out was incorrectly closed by me. However, early closures do happen. Currently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 7, there are several early closures (both delete and keep) where the discussion hasn't been listed for a full seven days. If there is a specific problem with one of the closures I made yesterday, I would be willing to listen.

@Cunard re [1], I didn't appreciate your threats to unilaterally overrule my relist if I didn't reply to you right then and there. I didn't appreciate your "hurry up and reply" comments either. Just because I had the audacity to go back to reviewing AfC submissions, and taking a break from the discussion, rather than replying to your comments right away. I replied a mere 40 minutes after your first comment, it hadn't been 20 minutes after your comment before you started demanding I reply. I didn't mind you asking for third party input, I had a problem with you asking 3 different editors to overturn my decision, after the previous editor you asked already declined your request. Then you stated that "maybe one of the 109 talk page stalkers will do it". Then you go on threatening to open a Request for Comment if I "continued to make poor decisions". Yes, I erred the other day, however, how have I erred in the closures you linked in this discussion? Early closures are no where prohibited. Also, you canvassed at [2] [3][4][5] for opinions on whether or not the article should be userfied. You did not inform the other users who commented in the debate (partisan canvassing), you only informed the editors that agreed with you. Then, after you canvassed, you came here to criticize the fact that I made early closures, citing a discussion I had with Kww about an incorrect speedy closure, a discussion that should have been an early closure. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will leave the discussion about early closures in S Marshall's capable hands.

If a reasonable request to undo an improper relist is ignored, I have no choice but to undo it. By "taking a break from the discussion", you kept me waiting forty minutes for a response. Had real life beckoned you and you logged off, I would have understood. However, you continued editing AfCs, giving the impression that my message was of no import and that you did not intend to reply. You wrote above: "now that other users have commented after my relisting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, it would be inappropriate for me to revert my relisting, so please stop asking me to do that". At the time, both you and I knew that if more users commented, their actions would bar an undo of the relist. A resolution to the contested relist therefore required a degree of promptness. Since you were active and continued editing, I expected my request to be responded to in a timely manner. Had you continued to ignore my request, I would have undone your relist as being incorrect and unjustified. I don't consider a promise to undo an unjustified action to be harassment, but you are entitled to your opinion.

At 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC), I asked Mkativerata (talk · contribs) for an uninvolved opinion about your relist. He responded at 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC), stating that he disagreed with the relist. S Marshall joined the discussion, noting that he disagreed with several of your relists and overturned four. When I asked Mkativerata and S Marshall to reverse your relist, Mkativerata replied that he was unable to act because he had been contacted on his talk page. He then wrote: "Of course the other possibility is that a TPS, if I have any, might be inclined to consider acting." This suggestion prompted me to propose that one of Mkativerata's 109 talk page watchers reverse the inappropriate relist. S Marshall declined to undo the relist, writing:

Cunard, normally I would be delighted to do exactly as you ask. However, I'm concerned that I've unilaterally overruled Alpha Quadrant four times today already, and if I did it any more, I might appear to be victimising him. I feel that I need to back off now. (I don't normally stalk Mkativerata's talk page, but I just happened to have talked to him directly above. So there are 109 others!)

S Marshall then suggested that Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) to review the discussion. I replied:

It's unfortunate that none of us can revert this inappropriate relist. If Alpha Quadrant continues to make poor decisions (like the four times you've overruled Alpha Quadrant, which I endorse) and does not heed editors' suggestions, perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary. Also note the ongoing discussion here with Kww (talk · contribs).

Two minutes later, I asked Kww, who had warned you 10 minutes prior, to review the discussion so the relist could be reversed. Kww agreed that the relist was inappropriate, writing: "relisting this was probably a bad idea, but not so unambiguously bad as to warrant reversion".

I note that you were away for an hour during the discussion among myself, Mkativerata, and S Marshall. However, this chain of events and this wasting of four editors' time could have been spared had you reversed your relist after my 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) request:

There are three users arguing for deletion. Because five users have participated in the debate, there has been substantial discussion. WP:RELIST states (among other things):

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

For the first clause, I do not consider five participants to be few. For the second, I believe that policy-based arguments have been advanced regarding the notability of the subject and whether the page should userfied. Please undo your relist.

You did not and were unable to justify your relist per the guideline at WP:RELIST, so after my comment at 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC), I thought you would re-review the guideline and undo your relist, but you did not.

Regarding your comment here for which you've been given a barnstar: When I see copyright violations or erroneous relists or perceive other policy- or guideline-violating edits, I notify the users about their mistakes whether I am involved or uninvolved (see User talk:The Bushranger). I operate under the good faith assumption that the other user will either explain why I am wrong or acknowledge and rectify his or her actions.

My recent editing of articles has been curtailed because I do not wish to start or continue another project until Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1 for Middlesex (novel) is over. Due to the lack of full reviews, I believe that it will be archived within the next few days. My GA nomination for Shiloh (novel) has been open for over a month. That I am not currently doing article work has no bearing on how much article work I have done and will continue to do. All my recent edits that you consider harassment revolved around your problematic AfD involvement and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad.

Regarding the canvassing allegation: Had the users I notified not been involved in the discussion, it would have been canvassing. My request was directed to the "delete" participants, not the "keeps". The "keeps"'s opinions are known because they indicate that they wish the article to be retained on Wikipedia in some form (such as userfication). For the "deletes", it could be unclear for the closing admin. I asked the "delete" participants to clarify whether they supported deleting from the mainspace and deleting from the userspace so that the closing admin would not have to judge consensus based on my opinion and the opinions of the "keeps". I dispute that I have canvassed but acknowledge that my edits could be construed as improper. Keeping your suggestion in mind, I will notify all in the future.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad has now been closed. I reviewed the chronology of my actions related to your relist and the AfD so you can see my thought process when I was ignored and felt powerless to have the poor relist reversed.

The core issues here entail a lack of communication and an unwillingness to listen to other editors' suggestions. I hope that S Marshall will help you understand why AfDs should, unless there is an appropriate reason, run the full 168 hours. I agree with S Marshall's statement that both he and I wish to "avoid more difficult and formal processes" in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cunard, AfDs can and should sometimes be closed early. Sometimes they should be speedy closed. Insisting that all AfDs run 168 hours is a complete non-starter, and is not mandated by policy, nor should it be. I've reviewed all the AfDs you cited in the beginning of this thread. All of the closures were appropriate. Complaining about when they closed is a non-starter; the result was blatant in each case. The rest of this is of little consequence. Hell, at AfDs for Oct. 10 fully 10% of the AfDs there have already been closed. Almost 20% of October 9's are closed early, and etc. This 'problem' isn't isolated to AQ. If you have an issue with AfDs being closed early, I strongly suggest you take the issue up at WT:AFD. The change you are seeking to see happen isn't going to occur by lobbying AQ to change his ways. Even if he agreed with you (and he shouldn't), there'd still be a ton of people closing AfDs early. In short, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go lobby WT:AFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The assertion that a 168-hour rule is not mandated by policy is demonstrably false. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion states: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." Snow closures are exceptions to the rule, and none of the above AfDs are unambiguously snow closures.

  There have been numerous discussions about editors' closing early and refusing to abide by policy. Early closures were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 40#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 51#What's up with the early closures?, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#AfD's generally closed too soon.

  The main problems with early closes are that they (i) don't provide FairProcess to the nominator; (ii) introduce a procedural irregularity that could lead to an overturn at DRV; (iii) fail to let accommodate people who are not daily contributors; and (iv) prevent users who abide by the 168-hour rule from closing discussions.

  On the last point, DGG wrote:

  I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours."

  ...here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary.

  Early AfD closes should be seldom occurrences, not regularities. Multiple threads have been raised about this issue at various forums: WT:AFD, WT:DP, and WP:ANI. I do not wish to raise another one.

  If you or Alpha Quadrant would like to change the deletion policy to permit early closes, you are free to start a discussion to do so. But until the deletion policy is changed, I ask that the 168-hour rule is respected. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so now we are back to "the discussions above were closed incorrectly" (When one argument is failing we switch back to the other?). You know, that's funny, none of the above linked discussions had clear consensus again early closures. And the policy you quoted makes the exception for early closures in the last sentence. Like Hammersoft said, if you have a problem with early closures, start a discussion at WT:AFD. I am not going to stop making early non-controversial closures just because you told me I shouldn't. There is no policy prohibiting me from doing so, and your claims that there is are incorrect. If clear consensus is established, I will of course abide by that, but I am not going to permit you to try and establish that consensus on this talk page. It is not the right place to do so. Early closures are made often, your statement that they aren't is completely without evidence. So unless you and Spartaz have another issue with me, I suggest you get back to that featured article nominee and stop wasting my time. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Cunard; Please read #1 of Wikipedia:AFD#References. You're quite wrong. But, even if I'm wrong and you're right, tell me...why is it sooooo many people on the AfD pages are making early closures, and why is you're harping on AQ and not on all of them too? Hmm? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear Warning

I have been watching this trainwreck of a thread with utter dismay and feel I have to chip in. If you close AFDs you are acting in an administrative capacity and must respond to requests and queries with respect and courtesy. If someone calls you on a policy violation you have to address it seriously. You cannot close AFDs early unless its clearly snowing - and as a non admin any AFD closes are subject to summary voiding by an admin if they feel that the close was wrong or controversial. So, lets be very clear, you have a bad attitude and are refusing to respond to reasonable requests to stick to community expectations for closing AFDs. If this continues I'm going to undo your closes and, if you carry on after that, I will eventually block you for disruption. Finally, accusing editors raising reasonable concerns of harassment and stalking has a chilling effect and is effectively casting unfounded aspersions. That isn't acceptable. Consider this a final warning. If I feel you have been making unfounded allegations of harassment or stalking again then I will reach for the block button with no further warning. I trust this message is clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• All of these were blatant keeps. I fail to see any error on the part of AQ in closing these as keeps. There is no prohibition on non-admins making keep closures. AQ was being hounded by an editor about supposedly inappropriate closures...that weren't inappropriate. You want to pop the block button on him? Fine. But, you had better have a damn good basis for doing so. This ain't it. Not even close. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is the timing and the attitude not the outcome... Do try to keep up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

...so.....now it's the timing? I thought this discussion was about the alleged incorrect closures I made above. And what attitude? Cunard and I have gotten into a dispute, and you are telling me that I have a bad attitude? He started a discussion about something that wasn't even a problem (the closures I made were non-controversial), and you are telling me that isn't considered harassment. Yes, I messed up a few days ago at AfD, but Kww pointed out my mistake. Have I repeated it since then? Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Spartaz; Do try to keep up? Well, you know I'm a certified idiot. But, if you'll forgive my stupidity, I see a lot of kerfluffle over some blatantly appropriate early closures followed by a final warning. And this is block worthy? How? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Newspaper vending machine

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bravo on spotting that we didn't have an article on such a basic topic. Proving WP:NOTDONE yet again. ;) Steven Walling • talk 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I too was quite surprised to see that we lacked such a basic topic. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Article review

please can u explain to me how did u manage to review this in less then 5 seconds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by From earth (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

5 seconds? I spent two minutes reviewing the article. It lacked reliable third party sources and therefore met the quick fail criteria. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank You for your message in defence of me on my Talk Page, I never expected anyone to stand up for me like that here, you deserve this Barnstar. :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Retirement

Why are you retiring?!?!?!? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See two threads up, what can I do, I messed up. I am not welcome here anymore. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Don't vanish just yet. Give me a chance to read :) Hang on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I posted above. The threat to block is out of line. The keep closures were entirely appropriate, and the complaints about them rising to the status of final warning is absurd. Don't let something like this end your editing here. I've come under attack from people here God knows how many times. I can't remember 99% of them. They're meaningless white static noise in the background of productive editing. Hell, you and I locked horns in the past, and I forgot that! I only found it by looking deep into the history of this talk page, because I did remember we had interacted before but couldn't remember about what. Forget about it. Move on. And, if people come after you with pitchforks over early closures again, I've got your back. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your kind words Hammersoft. Given that I was quite rude to you when I first started editing, seeing your name in the new messages window was quite surprising. You are the editor who got me on the right track with policy, and for that I have a great respect for you opinion. If you feel I shouldn't leave over this, I'll take your advice. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• And just to be clear, yes I don't think you should be leaving over this. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, no one is suggesting that you should leave or that you are unwelcome. It may be best for you to take a break from the deletion boards, especially from early-closing XfDs, but that really is a very, very tiny portion of what there is to do around Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted your pages as requested, if you want them back drop me a line. Alexandria (Ni!) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

<Sigh> Alpha, seriously, you don't have to retire. I've seen you work in a dozen other places, AFC comes to might straight away, being that that's the place I met you. If you don't feel comfortable in one area, or your being there stirs up too much conflict, drop it and do work elsewhere. I'm not blowing hot air at you; I went from being a Featured Sounds director to leaving Featured Sounds altogether because I just wasn't comfortable with the amount of conflict it brought into my life. If you enjoy Wikipedia overall, there are plenty of other things worth doing. I hope to see you around, come back in a few days and work at AFC or ACC or whatever. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider, your a very valuable contributor and I'd hate to see you retire. Frankly I think the deletion stuff is much adieu about nothing, per Hammersoft. Monty₈₄₅ 16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

AQ, I would have expected you to have thicker skin than this, especially given your vociferous presence on WP. If you stay, I encourage you to read some real-world advice for folks engaging in quasi-administrative activities - especially the first section. Administrative work (and quasi-adminstrative work) comes under a great deal of scrutiny. I know you've participated in that. It cuts both ways. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a fairly thick skin. Other editors can think what they want, but I didn't retire to cause drama, I retired to get away from drama and hostility, I quite frankly hate it. And I would have been quite fine with continuing the discussion with Cunard. The last comment by Cunard combined with the "final warning" Spartaz gave me made me consider retiring. His comment added hostility to an already heated argument. He gave a very similar message a day earlier to a now blocked user, causing me to reconsider my usefulness to the project. After Hammersoft's comment, I clearly see that it was a poor reason to retire. I have no intention to let that kind of attitude get to me again. Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see an excellent example of what I was talking about above, see this thread, which resulted in this thread. Note: I am NOT asking you to weigh in on the subject. I am not canvassing you, so please don't post to either. I just want to highlight it as an example of bad situations that you just have to let roll off your back. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

SAS Institute Logo

Alpha,

On a personal note, there's been a lot of stories like this one on how Wikipedia is losing editors and these kinds of arguments are why people are discouraged from a volunteer process that's suppose to be fun and collaborative. I do hope you stick around, because the community needs you!! I don't know you, but reading this whole string makes me angry and sad at the same time.

Anyways, what I'm actually here posting for. I uploaded a SAS logo image for use on the SAS Institute Wiki. My image was removed due to duplication with pre-existing images. You also uploaded a high-rez version, which makes it an orphan anyway. With your permission, I'd like to edit the template/license information on your image. I work for SAS Institute and I was using a lot of specific language to help protect our logo on the version I uploaded. With your permission, I would like to preserve that language/template information on the new image. I didn't know if there was a specific reason it was changed or if there would be any problem with that.

As a side note, I'd also like to invite you to review the draft SAS Institute Wiki I'm writing here that is more updated, neutral, complete, encyclopedic, etc. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and am soliciting as many Wikipedia community members as possible to participate, to ensure the community feels I am making improvements and not adding promotional language (actually removing promotion in some cases).

Analytics447 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Hello Analytics447, I reuploaded the image in .png format, the old image was in .jpg format. As it was a logo, it should be in .png format (See Template:Should be PNG). When I reuploaded the image I tagged it with Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark because the image doesn't meet the Threshold of originality for it to be copyrighted. However, the image is still trademarked, which is separate from copyright. I'll take a look at your article. Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! In the future I'll upload as .png. The content I wanted to preserve on the SAS logo image was the logo tag and some of the text under Other Information, Purpose of Use, etc. in the Summary template. As an editor with an affiliation with the topic, I appreciate you taking a look at the draft SAS page. As my bio states, I'm familiar with the rules and committed to only keeping content the community feels is an improvement.

Analytics447 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Remove the box or the bunny gets it!

File:Steinway concert grand piano.jpg

Remove the "Retired box" from your userpage this instant or I will drop this grand piano on the bunny.

Seriously. A zillion people appreciate you here. If you have an argument with a couple of people on the street, you don't get in a spaceship and fly away to another planet, right? Ok. Bad analogy. Just remove the box or the bunny gets it! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Funny. I see a piano about to get stabbed by some rather incredible rabbit ears. ;) @AQ; what Anna said. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, done. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

your AFC page

is restored, need anything else?