User talk:DHowell

Five Pillars Trivia discussion

Hello, Dan. Obviously I'm late in checking my wiki-mail, but I did want to drop you a note regarding the whole "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" debate (which an edit of mine helped to spark! Wow!). It is sad that this simple phrase (and simpler is always more powerful) caused trouble. Even Jimbo endorsed it, but it has been misinterpreted to mean that Wikipedia should contain no "trivia" whatsoever. The rational debate was nice to see, and Wikipedia is better for it. I've taken a position here which I think you'll find reasonable. I'm just glad nobody wants to resurrect the awful "writers' rules of engagement" phrase. __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dan Barreiro

An editor has nominated Dan Barreiro, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Barreiro and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Poleman

Nothing is stopping you from re-adding this article but you must explain how he is notable and provide citations from reliable sources to back it up. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've replied to you on my talkpage regarding Tom Poleman, if you don't have me watchlisted. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Baka Boyz

HM, you have a good point. Granted, I'll probably relist it on AfD again procedurally, though it does seem notable now. Wizardman 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Replied here. DHowell (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion

I recently closed the AfD discussion on this AfD debate. If there are any other changes that need to be made, let me know. Cheers. TN‑X-Man 17:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Please cleanup both User:DHowell/Sandbox and User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California by market area to prevent them from being included in Category:Radio stations in California. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. DHowell (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Real World/Road Rules

I understand your reasoning for wanting to keep the article, but at the same time I also understand that the deletion the original article in question was not in good faith.

You were wrong in your summary. The community did not decide to delete the article (that was not even mine to begin with.)

Here is how it went down:

1. Article was put up for deletion.

2. Five days later I happen upon article. See that it is without sources and poorly written. I spend an hour updating it, adding sources etc.

3. Four people comment on the updated article. One thinks it still should be deleted (same person who spammed the RW/RR Challenge AfD thread) - Three think it should be kept.

4. Article is deleted before further discussion can be had by random admin in the middle of the night.

5. I create an article that is similar, but add more sources and more content. A better article and one with sources that hold water.

6. Article is deleted 5 minutes later. Not even a courtesy message left on my userspace saying 2 hours of my work was just wiped out.

7. I ask for the article to be reviewed. Everyone reviews it on being a recreation and misses the point that the article that was deleted was never debated (with what little debate going in favor of keeping.) The new sources are not debated AT ALL. Nothing is debated except the fact that it was a recreation.

8. I withdrew the review request as I realized I would not be heard and it was a worthless exercise.

As for putting the article in my own userspace. No....I quit. I have invested enough time for naught. Six months from now someone will rewrite that article and it will be exactly the same as I had it 2 weeks ago except completely unsourced, so why fight it. A handful of "wikisnobs" have decided that my article doesn't fly (even though the same sources are all over 90% of Real World/Road Rules Articles) and even though the facts are correct, there is nothing that can be done when elite users dictate the lay of the land. Zredsox (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the process sucks big time. But I was trying to give you helpful advice, to explain how your invested time would not be for naught, by actually working with other editors instead of against them. It is unfortunate that it seems you would rather complain about the "wikisnobs", retaliate, and throw virtual temper tantrums, than actually work towards making Wikipedia a better place. Consider that even if you are 100% correct, isn't it possible that the tone of your reactions only helps those "wikisnobs" feel justified in their actions? Six months from now, the show will have presumably aired and there will be plenty of reliable sources. But neither deletionist wikisnobs, nor those retaliating against them with their own brand of snobbery, will make the article about it any better. You could come back in six months, ignore the wikisnobs, and make the inevitable "completely unsourced article" better. Or not. Wikipedia will go on regardless. Wikipedia would be better, though, if people treated it as a collaboration instead of a battleground. DHowell (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the cast: http://vevmo.com/f187/rw-rr-challenge-2008-leaked-photo-1847/ It is all the people on the list that I previously stated would be on the cast: http://vevmo.com/f187/real-world-road-rules-challenge-panama-2008-a-1692/ I think that alone makes the source much more viable. Hard to beat photographic evidence! Maybe you could help me get an article together based on this information being you seem to be in the know.....and I am not "quitting" like I mentioned previously. I will continue to help update and maintain articles in this genre as I know what I am talking about when it comes to this subject matter and enjoying helping the community. And no, there is no hurry. I hear this is slated for a fall release, leaving all sorts of time to get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zredsox (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Black Kite/Archive16

Our concern was archived without even receiving a response. I recommend considering a deletion review. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cheshire Cat in popular culture

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheshire Cat in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AADD

I've just come across your suggestions from last October at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#"That's what categories are for" and "Delete and merge". I'm strongly in favour of incorporating those, and I think you've written them very well (although FWIW I disagree with the last sentence of "lists v. categories" for reasons given by myself and others at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Categories vs Lists).

What happened to those proposals? So far as I can tell the discussion petered out, without being followed up. AndyJones (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in Music

Preface: I am the same IP editor as the one to whose comment you responded at the bottom of the AfD discussion. I was not trying to argue that the comparison was not legitimate. Rather, I meant to suggest that evaluations of articles are independent of one another. There is no Supreme Court of Wikipedia, and AfDs do not set precedent for one another. On the whole, we probably agree for the most part on articles and deletion (I do not consider myself an inclusionist, but I revile deletionism): note my response to a Speedy Delete vote here: "Offending section removed. Focus on the article's potential for an article, not its current state. Is the subject notable? Can it be a good article?" That is the criterion I judge articles on. In my opinion, WP:CRYSTAL details why the 2009 in Music article could not be a good article at this time, regardless of the effort put into it. For example, I'd love to add The Never Ending Way of ORWarriOr to that list, but I'd have also added it to a similar article in 2006 and 2007. The album just didn't show up . I can only imagine the release date crystalballing for Duke Nukem Forever -- the original release date was 1998 and the game still hasn't showed up. Saying that something exists is fine; saying that something will be released at a certain time is not. I hope that clarifies what I meant. Cheers. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)