User talk:Arbitrarily0

Restoration of site

Arbitrarily, Can't thank you enough for restoring the article about my work. The deletion seemed quite 'arbitrary' to me. I do appreciate what you have done so very much. Which does not mean that the article can't be improved. Someone else did this for me and I have no expertise in how to adjust Wikipedia sites. If you could 'adopt' me in this case, I would appreciate that. With very kind regards. Peter --Waverleywattle (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC) --Waverleywattle (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you. Just note that your draft is currently under a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waverleywattle/Peter Nicholson (poet and author), where you are welcome to comment there. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily, Thank you for getting back to me. As I have no expertise in formatting for Wikipedia, I am in your hands. Thanks for 'adopting' me! All I ask is that the article be treated dispassionately in the spirit of the people's encyclopedia. Peter.--Waverleywattle (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know what I can help you with, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbitrarily. I have just put up a justification for why I don't think the article about my work should be deleted. If you could help me out here, I would appreciate it, since I'm not sure how to proceed beyond this point. Thanks.--Waverleywattle (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delayed reply! Well, since I was away the discussion was closed as delete as there was a consensus to do so. Let me know, however, if you're still interested in pursuing this subject (since this reply is now nearly 3 weeks late). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfied band article

Hi. Re WP:REFUND#Skye Prison, do you think it's really kind to userfy an article like this? It just raises expectations that it can be made acceptable by some kind of rewriting, whereas they are actually far short of WP:BAND. While not actually citing WP:No one cares about your garage band, (which I have actually been driven to do for the first time recently) I would have been inclined to tell him that just being "a real band with real fans" isn't enough and he should read WP:BAND and come back when they have achieved that standard. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I was trying to be as kind as I could and didn't intend to mislead. My thought was that, as long as it's not advertising, this user is welcome to have their own article in their userspace. It also gives the topic some time to incubate. Obviously, since you were first to handle this situation, if you think something I did was mean, you have my full permission to undo it. Best regards John, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, certainly no need to undo - we just have a different approach to what is kindest for the newbie. I prefer to userfy or incubate only if there seems to me to me some prospect of an article resulting - for instance, if it looks as if it might actually be notable and just needs adding some sources. In this case the band's total achievement seems to be "They can be found playing around the Kc area". Also, I think people sometimes end up happily maintaining their userfied article as "our wiki page", contrary to WP:FAKEARTICLE, though as long as we can put {{userspace draft}} on the top, I suppose that doesn't really matter. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good John. Sorry, also, about the reference to you in my wikibreak notice. I meant to ask you for permission beforehand, but lost track of time. Thanks for following through so generously. I hope this did not cause too much extra work for you. Know that I'd be happy to return the favor for you anytime. Take good care John, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Large adoption backlog! Can you help?

--Swarm^Talk 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never adopted someone before but I'm fairly confident that I can help. As you can see Arbitrarily is on a wikibreak. Mr. R00t ^Talk 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look into this shortly, as it seems there is still a noticeable backlog. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is. Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)

Alright, thanks for the update on developments. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I am an old editor of CPIM article and I am feeling that a kind of Groupism is done against me and other fellow editors like Soman, Ravivajpayee and NithinJ, by Deshbhakta and a mediator Mr. Root.
Deshbhakta(many users doubts that he has an rightwing agenda to push) is given a free hand by Mr. Root, Mr. Root warned other editors time to time, when they reverted the attempts of vandalism of Deshbhakta.
Please if I will be get block(as Deshbhakta, Mr. Root are claiming from months), then it will prove that "Wikipedia has no place for Ideas and freedom of Editing, Freedom of Research", but just it has a sympathy for GROUPISM and SUPPORT to POV Vandalism.

Please in any case if you come to mediate, then make a balanced opinion after talking to all the editors of that article, I am giving a list below.

• User:Viplovecomm
  
• User:Soman
  
• User talk:Nithinj
  
• User talk:Ravivajpayee
  
• User:Deshabhakta
  
• User:1234r00t
  
  

Warm Regards
-Viplovecomm (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a very bad job at mediating that article and apologize. I now realize that all I did was escalate the problem further instead of just getting the hell out of there. Mr. R00t ^Talk 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Viplovecomm, it is with great regrets that I must inform you that I am withdrawing my wish to mediate in this case. My reason is that I am too utterly out of touch with the subject of the case to neutrally help the involved editors reach a conclusion. I'm very sorry about this, but I hope it is for the best interests of the case. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Another potential adoptee

Hello Arbitrarily0, I believe this should be fine to wait until you've returned. I see you have a lot of adoption requests; so, if you would rather not take this on, could you pass it along to another willing adopter (unless another willing adopter is watching this and will step in)? User:Shrik88music is having difficulties with editing. S/he appears to be a non-native speaker of English. Anyway, I feel an experienced adopter would be capable of helping him/her better than I am able to. Obviously, it's contingent on him/her wanting to be adopted, but I think s/he has shown a willingness to ask for, and accept, help. Would you, or someone, mind approaching User:Shrik88music with an offer to help?  Chickenmonkey  19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I'm not accomplished at adopting users but I'm fairly good with languages- I know about 15- and am very handy with Google Translate. I'd be willing to deal with an editor even if they have bad grammar and are making mistakes. I can ask on their talk page. Mr. R00t ^Talk 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, that's great!  Chickenmonkey  20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I contacted them on their talk page. Mr. R00t ^Talk 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot R00t! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ocean surface waves.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ocean surface waves.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the update. I'll also look into the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ocean surface waves.jpg. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat

Hi Arb!

I vote to reopen Boba Phat based not only on validity of links but also a mention on Wikipedia's own REAL Boba Fett page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boba_Fett . Read the last line in the last paragraph under the "#3 Reception" heading - if he has enough visibility & notoriety to be FEATURED ON the ACTUAL Boba Fett's page, CLEARLY this establishes credibility on an entire different level than considered previously. Also there were SO many KEEPS I believe this MUST be reopened for discussion, particularly because he is already about to be a feature at Comic Con SDCC in less than 2 weeks. Additionally, the HARD COPIES of "Sign on San DIego" and several other links that no longer work STILL EXIST, and once the page is reopened, these citations can be updated. Additionally if you review the (lengthy - expressing MUCH arbitration) AfD, you will see there are MORE than enough keeps. With this new discovery of a DIRECT MENTION on THE ACTUAL Boba Fett's page, it is OBVIOUS Boba Phat as a cosplay character deserves to be recognized as the most highly-known Star Wars cosplayer coveted & discussed EXTENSIVELY in interviews with both celebrities, media & the general underground cosplay culture. Isn't making Wikipedia as factual as possible the goal? Why leave out arguably the most famous cosplay character of the present generation? Thank you for your consideration. I DID file a review for Undeletion as well but wanted to express this to you, as were the unfortunate one to be put in such a lengthy review process, as the notoriety of Boba Phat remains strong & is simply only growing.-SheighZam (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for your interest in this subject. Note, though, that some topics have only enough notability to merit mention in a parent article, rather than meriting an entire article themselves. However, I'd be interested in taking a look at some of the sources you have for Boba Phat's growth, if any are online. Another option is just to try to start a new Boba Phat article yourself, although know that it may be at risk for deletion. Let me know what I can do, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

State church of the Roman Empire

Hi. Could you remove the AfD banner from State church of the Roman Empire given your action on the talk page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my mistake. I assumed it had been removed automatically - thanks for letting me know! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Arbitrarily0, thanks for taking care of the closure. If you have any advice (as a disinterested party) on how to proceed with the article itself please feel free to share. I'd like to go back now and keep trying to move the article forward (hopefully getting it to GA) but I honestly have no idea how to deal with the fact that there will always be parties that will need to see the topic as invalid (I once got a controversial article to GA, but my success unfortunately amounted to wearing down the opposition, which is unlikely in this case). --Mcorazao (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mcorazao! Thanks for taking an interest in improving this article. If the article is improved enough so as to pass a GA review, I suspect there will be little worry about the article being deleted or merged. The key here is the article's sources. Good and plentiful sources will help keep a neutral point of view. Good and plentiful sources will help establish the topic's notability (making merging is unnecessary). Good and plentiful sources will give this article a narrower and more specific topic. In other words, the first place to start is with improved sourcing. :) I hope this answer isn't too vague. Let me know what you're thinking, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no, what I'm asking is how to deal with those who will continue to want to tear down the article by finding ways to end-around Afd. Sources only matter if the people involved are willing to read them honestly (which has already proven not to be the case). And I cannot prevent individuals from continuing to put in tags and/or making semi-malicious edits (so far the malicious edits have been minimal but I expect if I try to push the article forward that will change). Ideally I would like to settle the direction of the article before investing too much more time on looking up page numbers in the references and so forth (i.e. make good use of my time). The other controversial article I took to GA was a nightmare (I took several others to GA and FA). It didn't matter how many references I put in that other article. I tried to find reasonable compromises but ultimately it was a war of attrition and the opposing factions simply got tired of fighting. I never felt good about how that ended but at least the article did go to GA.

In this case, though, I don't think that there will ever be an end to people who need to see this topic as invalid, either because of religious persuasions or for nationalistic reasons. But honestly I think the topic is an important one, which is why I was willing to delve into it knowing that it would be controversial. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to just keep doing what you're doing. If the sources exist, I think this article is a great potential candidate for GA - well worth your time. Continue to invite civil discussion on the talk page in order to avoid conflicts. Other than that, keep up the good work! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

There is a merge discussion going on here. The basis of the merge is whether or not Jack Conte should be merged with the Pomplamoose article. We need someone who unbiasedly close the discussion since it's been going on long enough. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI I've already merged the material, but I can undo it if that is the outcome. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I've closed the discussion in favor of merging the page, as it seemed that was the way of the consensus. I hope this is a decision everyone can live with. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not mad or anything. I wanted an unbiased party involved in closing it. People who have an interest in the subject may want something for it in a way that someone like you wouldn't. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you probably weren't, but I'm glad to hear it for sure anyway. I understand. Feel free to stop by anytime. Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Illegals Program

[1] While i have no issue with the re-naming of the article, the thing is that the new (or rather, old) name does require a different wording of the lead; otherwise the latter looks quite incongruous.Axxxion (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not super familiar with the topic, but I gave it a shot anyways. See here. It's not perfect, but I think it makes more sense with the new title now. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed a recent {{afd}} on Moroccan training camp. Would you please userify this article, its full history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Moroccan training camp? Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done - as you wish! :) Note that the article did not have a talk page, I believe. Take good care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added {{noindex}}. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! Best wishes, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

3 cheers

Moving the illegals program article and saying "rough consensus" is a good start for administrative terminology. Too many discussions proclaim consensus when there is not. A rough consensus is not quite right but far better than what others have used. You are smart! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my intellectual deficiency, but are you saying closing it with a rough consensus was the correct thing to do? :) Yours confuzzled, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that many admins do it far less well, especially if they claim consensus when there was not a clear one. For example, if it were 40-60% with decent reasoning on both sides. I'm not sure if "rough consensus" is the best but it's certainly better than saying "the result is keep" or "the result is re-name" or "the consensus is re-name". Also, I actually disagree with the decision (I was in favor of spy swap, but not prisoner swap). But the decision is not wacky. Rather than fight the decision, I will edit the article according to the title, that is, concentrate on the spy program and not emphasize the swap, at least for now. There are many swap details but, for now, I will edit pertinent SVR information...unless the 13th illegals agent gets me first! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just counted. The vote was 5-5-1. The one was Neutron, who wanted Illegal or Spy Ring. For now, I'm just concentrating on improving the Illegals part of the article and can worry about the swap details at some future date. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, well thanks! And keep up the good work mate! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also started a re-write of the article which will take me probably a month. It needs work. For example, escaped agent Christopher Metsos was under the list of people swapped. Hah-he escaped. Makes WP look like amateurs. There are also many other problems. This is not edit warring but fixing up things. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This I get! ;) All sounds super-duper to me, go for it! Let me know if there's anything I can do. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Arbitrarily0

Hey Arbitrarily0! You made a note on my talk page saying hi and I figured I should reply. How are my edits? Am I doing well? Lately I've been helping with reverting vandalism and AfC. I watch the admin dashboard- even though I'm not an admin :)- and help out new users a bit. Have a nice evening as it appears to be 10:40 by you. Cheers! Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did have a nice evening, thank you! =) But now it is morning! I took a look at some of your edits and see no problems. One thing that I especially like is that you are very willing to accept constructive criticism on your talk page. That will make you into an extremely knowledgeable and experienced editor in no time. Keep up the good work friend! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Victoria

If I read it correctly, the move request deal with Victoria City (disambiguation), instead of directly dealing with Victoria City. Second, Victoria, Hong Kong was suggested only by one participants. Third, the common name for the Hong Kong city is Victoria City, and rarely simply as Victoria. There was consensus to merge Victoria City (disambiguation) into Victoria, but no consensus on the Hong Kong city. And finally, after moving from Victoria City to Victoria, Hong Kong, many incoming links are now directed to the wrong material. 112.118.185.139 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What do you suggest be done? Maybe another move request for Victoria City, Hong Kong? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus on merging Victoria City (disambiguation) into Victoria. All other moves should be restored to the status quo ante, since there is no consensus. I suppose it's better for the participants to re-request by themselves. 116.49.137.19 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)