User talk:WatchingYouLikeAHawk

Nominating candidates for deletion

If you're going to propose deleting Republican and Democratic nominees (they're not just "candidates"; they won primaries), you might want to narrow your proposals down to those expected to LOSE. For example, Gus Bilirakis is now the favorite (see United States House elections, 2006#Florida), which means that if he wins in November, he is AUTOMATICALLY NOTABLE (as a U.S. Representative). I don't think too many people will see the point of deleting an article for a month, then going through the process of creating it again. John Broughton | Talk 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Following AfD procedure

Please do the following in any future nominations for deletion - include in the edit summary the phrase nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]], per Template:AfD in 3 steps. This alerts other editors who may only be looking at a page history that you've done more just edit the article. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello WatchingYouLikeAHawk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Muchas gracias

Hey WatchingYouLikeAHawk, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA's

Hi, would you mind terribly making constructive comments on RfA rather than heckling? "I pity you," might be construed as a bit incivil. Thanks.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to change your RfA standards, by the way. Something like 95% of all current administrators have fewer than 5,000 mainspace edits, so I'd question the validity of such a metric. You should especially pay attention to the comments raised [RfA], by the way. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, your standards indicate you might be unfamiliar with the RfA process considering very few people attain such a high edit count. Wikipediarules2221 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your comment. I changed my sample nonsense page, so you can re-evaluate my request if you like. Biruitorul 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the ringing endorsement. Biruitorul 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I just was looking around in WP:RFA and came across one of your votes and I clicked on your user page.

I saw you put this message on your user page: My decision on requiring 5,000 mainspace edits stands. We need quality in adminship, not quantity. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pester you about your own guidelines, which you are entitled to have, but 5,000 mainspace edits doesn't mean an editor makes quality contributions. It just seems a bit contrasting to me, since if a person is a quality contributor, they would tend to have smaller, but more beneficial edits, in regards to a person with 5,000+ mainspace edits such as myself, who has many small edits, but not as many big contributions (mind you, I have been working on the mainspace quite frequently since I slowed down with the admin chores). I just wanted to point that out, and see what you think. Also, what's up with the WikiWatch? Have some admins done stuff to you or something? Anyway, respond back on my talk page. Nishkid64 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've left a response on your talk page on November 30 that can be referenced by other people potentially reading this talk page in the distant future. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My decision on requiring 5,000 mainspace edits stands. We need quality in adminship, not quantity. How do numbers trump quality? Yanksox 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimers

Hey. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. Also, both your edits on suicide methods broke the image link for Image:Suicide rates by methods, aged 15-19 (1992-2001).gif. Thanks, Prolog 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated.JoshuaZ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I appreciate your additions to the talk:Evolution page, and think that your concerns are legitimate. I do think that the Intelligent Design objects are also scientifically credible. It would be good to know some of the flaws that make up the Fact of Evolution.

Wyatt 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

Please move it back to the original title while (a) it is on AfD and (b) there is still discussion on the talk page about how to rename it, if at all. The last time it went through multiple name changes and moves, it disrupted the AfD considerably. Thanks. Risker 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Health care in Pakistan"

Sorry about trying to delete this page without following the 3 steps. I will complete these steps and see that this worthless article is removed.

OrcShaman42 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Health care in Pakistan

It's yours. Take it, I insist.

But please, after you've won your little battle and saved an orphan page, after you've chalked my name up on your board of "newbs i've pwnt", please do me a favor: for the love of God, correctly capitalize it. OrcShaman42 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

2005-06 ACC Men's basketball season

Now that you deleted the prod, be the first to defend it staying. Stand up for your actions. 172.132.19.76 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

2002 Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament

ditto for this. Very easy to deprod something. Something else to defend why you did it. 172.132.19.76 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Watching the Watcher

I've put you on my watchlist. I have no objection to a right-wing editor keeping close tabs on Wikipedia; on the contrary, I applaud it.

But the dishonest, and frankly partisan (pro-Big Insurance and Big Pharma) nomination of the Linda Peeno article was inexcusable.

Conservatism does have an honorable tradition, in politics as in scholarship. One may hope you will refrain, in future, from sullying this tradition as you have done here. Rhinoracer 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A comment cautioning against wikistalking has been left on your talk page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing against it, if you continue to remove sources like the Slate because you consider it to be "left leaning." Instead, you should fill out the paragraphs with additional sources to balance out the article, but removing entire paragraphs and sources for a non-valid reason is only going to make others, like myself, question your contributions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions are not sources and Wikipedia is not a debate site. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A further note: I removed one sentence that happened a one-sentence paragraph. This tells you something its relevance to the article. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a point of future note, the above editor apparently couldn't stand my comments above, so he felt it prudent to remove these from his talk page. Guess reason scares away the POV warrior. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was discovered after a five-minute news article search, that the Slate had a verifiable source: an interview with Strom Thurmond himself, as a main feature, at the Charlotte Observer's newspaper. That's a credible and reliable source that isn't an "op-ed." Furthermore, the statement is well-cited, with both the Slate and CO newspaper backing up the claim. Nothing was taken out of context. If you want to delete a portion of text that may be controversial, please discuss it on the talk page first and achieve consensus, especially with a topic that can be controversial. Also, if you do remove text, please do not corrupt the references, as it makes it difficult for other editors to fix the mistakes! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

_{PS: Your comments on my talk page were removed because they were horribly constructed and made little contextual sense. I encourage open debate, but you need to come up with something more than a one-liner for a reply!} Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)