User talk:Aoidh

America

Just so you know WheelerRob has taken it upon himself to start censoring your comments. I reverted him but I felt you should know. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for reverting it; I probably wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out. - SudoGhost 22:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WBSC (AM)

The nominator has withdrawn the AFD, yours is the only delete !vote all others are speedy keeps. All keep votes are based on experience with common outcomes of AFDs on this subject. Reverting a non-admin closure on the subject is bordering on disruption to make a point, please reconsider your revert.--RadioFan (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The keep votes are arguments based on an inaccurate assumption with no basis in any Wikipedia guideline or policy and expressly contradicted by the relevant notability guideline and thus have little to no weight in the discussion per WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think that an editor that closes an AfD on an article they created should come to another editor's page accusing them of anything close to WP:POINT, especially as your "non-admin close" was inappropriate to begin with. - SudoGhost 02:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I reconsidered your revert for you. Since the nomination is withdrawn, it's a speedy keep. Also, please read WP:NMEDIA for all notability rules for radio and television stations. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately your revert was equally inappropriate per WP:SK. If you are unable to understand what qualifies as a speedy keep then you should not be closing such discussions. I see you have taken it to User talk:Drmies, so don't take my word for it. - SudoGhost 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do let me know when you have read WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:BCAST. Not only does the article fail to establish notability even through that, it also does not make your inappropriate close suddenly appropriate. If that's the best argument you want to make, make it on the page itself, but that doesn't come close to justifying speedy keeping the article. - SudoGhost 02:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does. That and the consensus built over many different AfDs (all were Keeps, by the way). So, yeah, radio and TV stations have established and inherent notability built on consensus. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's really odd, because WP:ORGSIG specifically and in no uncertain terms says the exact opposite concerning inherent notability, and WP:BCAST doesn't come anywhere close to saying anything about inherent notability, and those are both based on consensus. So...how about you try that again? - SudoGhost 02:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to. Radio stations and TV stations have established and inherent notability built on consensus accepted by the community. Sorry, but you are in the wrong here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're saying one thing and the guidelines you're citing are saying the opposite, so I'm going to go ahead trust the guidelines on this one since "I don't have to" reads a lot like "I can't", and the guidelines can and do. I can see why you'd want to shut down the discussion without having to justify keeping the article if this discussion is anything to go by. - SudoGhost 03:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Arrogant, aren't we? There's no "I can't", it's "I don't have to". Obviously you know very little about consensus, since you are showing it. Radio and TV station articles have been put up by misguided editors, they are always shot down. The radio and TV article notability subject has gone before the community, it was decided in multiple WP:AN and WP:ANI discussions that the articles are notable. There is inherent notability with strong established consensus. Since you are wanting to have said article deleted, it's up to you, not me, to prove the article doesn't meet consensus and notability. You can't, that's why you are having a POINTed arguement (with some arrogance and snide remarks) on two different pages. I don't have to prove consensus or notability, because it has already been proven. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that consensus specifically and unambiguously says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." I also know that you're saying the exact opposite, yet are unable to demonstrate that, insistent instead that you don't "have to". Saying the word POINT doesn't help you at all as it doesn't apply in the least, and calling me arrogant while claiming you don't have to show any proof for your wild claims is kind of odd. You're saying I'm in the wrong but haven't shown a single reason why that might be so, yet you've consistently been in the wrong quite demonstratably with both speedy keeping the discussion and your ideas about inherent notability that are directly contradicted by actual consensus. It would help tremendously if you'd show what you're saying. I know you don't "have to" but Wikipedia also doesn't "have to" give that opinion any weight, so for your own sake please try to show what you're saying, since what can be shown says that you're wrong. - SudoGhost 03:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You do know that you just spun everything I said to you back at me, right? Not much of an arguement. But, since I'm having a really good day, could be the weather I don't know, I'm gonna humor your "I don't take anyone's word" nonsense.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSBZ
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KNWC - Do read the closing remarks.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTMU
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHJG-LP
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CFMX-FM (Kokoya) - This shows that non-notable (or hoax) stations are deleted immediately.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUMM - Yes, that's a real callsign.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WSHR
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBGU (FM)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBCJ - An example of stations with a license (past the "license to cover" stage) are notable (Note: WBSC made it past that stage).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBNY - Another example of that.

I went back to 2010, so those are the AfDs for radio stations that I am aware of. There could be more, but probably not.

Now, on to the AN/ANI threads:

• ....which I'm still looking for, bear with me.

You might also want to read up on the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of "spun everything I said" since your comments are wildly inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I've "spun" nothing you've said. You've also got a whole lot of nothing there in that list. How an individual AfD closes means nothing in regards to how another AfD closes. You don't have to take my word for it, check out WP:ORGSIG and WP:BCAST, they say the same thing. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Media also means less than nothing, that other AfDs often close a certain way does not create inherent notability, nor does that page suggest anything of the sort. Nothing you've provided comes anywhere close to supporting your claim that radio station articles are inherently notable; they are not. Closing remarks on a non-admin closure on an different article do nothing for that claim. Everything you've provided supports the claim that such articles are very often kept, and that's not being contested, but nowhere does that come anywhere close to suggesting that notability is inherited or that articles do not need to show notability. Nothing you've said refutes a single thing I've said concerning this, in fact it only supports what the guidelines say.

I'm not suggesting that most radio station articles are not kept, you can find 10,000 AfDs and it wouldn't change that. What I am suggesting is that notability is not inherited, and that articles are not kept simply because they are of a radio station. This is supported by WP:BCAST, the guideline you yourself cited, and WP:ORGSIG, which specifically refutes your claim in very clear and direct language. There is no inherent notability in these articles, such a suggestion is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no consensus that such articles have inherent notability. There is a consensus that specifically points out that they don't. So when you say that radio station articles are inherently notable I can say with certainty that Wikipedia consensus itself says you are 100% wrong. Linking a few AfDs that have resulted in a keep do not somehow change this. - SudoGhost 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See, this is why I didn't bother. You are presented with proof of consensus and notability and you refuse to acknowledge it. Though, I think it is more you refuse to admit you are wrong. Look, you are 5 to 1 !vote wise, strong established consensus and inherent notability are on my side in this. So really this entire discussion is moot. In about 4 1/2 days, the AfD will be closed as a "Keep", as it should have been tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see proof of exactly what I said, and nothing more. What has not been presented is proof that such articles are inherently notable, in fact evidence to the contrary was given at the beginning. A few AfDs closing as keep is evidence that those AfDs closed as kept, nothing more. That this needs to be explained to you is troubling, and that you don't seem to grasp it after the fact even more so. Wikipedia consensus is that these articles do not have inherent notability. This is laid out in very clear English at WP:ORGSIG, and expanded upon at WP:BCAST. That you disagree means nothing and WP:CONSENSUS favors coherent arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and your ideas about inherent notability fall far short of that, as they are 100% inconsistent with Wikipedia consensus. Switching to meek about "voting" don't really help you as it is not about numbers, and that kind of comment only serves to highlight the lack of strength in your argument. You have been asked to back up your claim and have consistently failed to do so, so there's no point in continuing this discussion that's all you have; Wikipedia consensus carries more weight than your demonstrably false claims. That the 5 members of WikiProject Radio Stations believe that this article about a radio station should be kept is both unsurprising and unconvincing, especially given the very poor rationale used to justify keeping the article. - SudoGhost 05:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, you have been shown the proof you asked for and dismissed it, you have dismissed everything, because obviously you can't admit you are wrong. You have been shown consensus, you have been told these articles are notable, you dismissed it. So, since you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong and that I am right by saying the article is notable, I refuse to entertain you any longer. In 4 1/2 days, you will see that what I said about notability and consensus were true and I was right. Hopefully you will be man enough to admit you were wrong then. Until then...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you really think that a few AfDs closing as "keep" somehow means that all such topics are inherently notable, despite Wikipedia consensus saying otherwise in no uncertain terms, then you are more than welcome to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and get an actual consensus, but you wouldn't be the first to have tried to change that consensus and failed. Until that happens, it's not me, but Wikipedia consensus outright that rejects your claim that radio stations are inherently notable. If you want to change that, bring it up at the talk page of the actual guideline you're arguing against, because showing a few AfDs doesn't demonstrate "inherent notabilit", that's absurd. If you don't think it is, try to change the consensus, see how far that gets you. Good luck. - SudoGhost 06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem adamant about the inherent notability but did not bring it up where that might be shown to be true or not, I've gone ahead and started that discussion here. - SudoGhost 09:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A rehashing of a re-re-rehashing, should be fun. Anywho, I'm extremely surprised that you changed your !vote to "Keep". I would be interested in what you think needs to be added (reference wise) to the page so that is has a "strong case for notability". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually looking now. Highbeam might have some references that won't turn up in general searches, so I'm about to look through there now. There's going to be a lot to dig through though, since WBSC is used for a lot of things, including this, which makes narrowing it by location difficult too. - SudoGhost 09:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also used for the World Baseball Softball Confederation. I ran into several articles about that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the results on Highbeam are either about the Western Baptist State Convention or the television station, I couldn't find anything related to the AM station on Highbeam. That's not to say more sources don't exist elsewhere, but I figured since I had highbeam access I'd see what I could find there. - SudoGhost 11:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "WBSC-AM", "WBSC Radio", "WBSC 1550", "1550 WBSC", and "WBSC" "Bennettsville"....with the quotes (the last one being two search terms together in one search). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No luck on those, with or without the quotation marks. I only looked on Highbeam this time though, so I'm not saying there aren't any elsewhere, only that I couldn't find any sources on Highbeam for the article. - SudoGhost 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

CS Gas

Apologies for what seemed like a spam link to PubMed; I am new to this editing process. I have corrected the situation and removed the excessive details of the reference. Thanks. NS80 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the details that are the issue, it's that every edit you've made appears to have been done to promote this Sivathasan individual. It gives your edits the appears of reference spamming. I would recommend taking the reference to the talk pages of the individual articles instead of putting them in the articles and discussing with other editors whether or not the references are appropriate for the given subject. - SudoGhost 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

JediKnights.jpg revert

Really? What's wrong with it? No macroblocks and lower resolution despite the increased size for obvious reasons. It doesn't go against any guidelines. I don't want us to enter in another edit war, so can we please leave this be? LusoEditor (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC #3, and you were told this before you even changed it, so I don't know why you're surprised. If you disagree, you are welcome to get a consensus for your change per WP:BRD, but stop edit-warring to include your problematic changes, because they will not stay no matter how much you edit-war to push them. - SudoGhost 00:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

AAA EXcllence.jpg revert

That is Buford High School's logo. Trust me, I'm a student there. I am completely positive. Can you just leave this be, please? It'd be greatly appreciated. SirCadogon4 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC) SirCadogon4

It doesn't appear to be the school's logo, and the reference doesn't support that claim either. It is certainly used on a website associated with the school, but that doesn't make it the school's logo any more than any other image found there. - SudoGhost 02:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I go to the school! Dude, it really makes no sense that you're deleting information on a page that does not concern you. Like, you don't go there. I mean, what's up with you changing it all up?