User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/November 2008

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period November 2008.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there or preferably link to the section in question within the archives.

↑ Index

Pre-May 2008 manual archives 1 – 2 – 3

2008: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2009: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2010: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit day anniversary!
Best wishes, SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) (17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert to my talk page! DARTH PANDA^talk 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for both of mine. treelo _radda 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anytime. I probably should have a static thread near the top for things like this. treelo _radda 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google platform

Apologies in advance if WP:DRV is a better venue for this. How did you arrive at a merge for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google platform? Imo, the nominator didn't fully deal with any of the keep arguments put forth. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the conclusion that a merge would be more beneficial than a keep because the arguments for a keep weren't strong enough to counter the article's inherent inability to satisfy WP:V and cutting out the OR which does make up a lot of the article would leave a fairly short article. I'd say WP:DRV is the best place if you think my decision was the wrong one. treelo _radda 12:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The nom wasn't able to convince any of the people who voted keep. No one voted anything else except keep and, excluding the nom, no one argued to delete/merge. I think you made a poor judgement and I'd like to ask you to reopen the debate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked again and again over this and even though it has the issues mentioned I had my doubts when closing on such a clear keep result. I'd be happy with a overturned decision or a relist but I have to say that I can't really reopen a closed AfD like that, I'm not an admin and even if I was I can't sidestep the usual procedure/wonkery. You'll have to take it to DRV whilst I go and undo my damage whilst doing what is outside my capability as a workaday idiot of reopening and relisting an AfD I closed without any admin intervention or DRVing. Trout slappings will be wilfully accepted for a screwup in the face of the obvious course of action. treelo _radda 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted in the AfD and I agree that a DRV should be considered. There is no logic in having a merge to satisfy WP:V problems. If the material is unverifiable it should not be kept *anywhere*, not even in a merge target. However no-one in the debate agreed with the nominator that there was a problem with verifiability. It is not uncommon for a closed AfD to be re-opened by the closer, in case of doubt, usually with relisting at the same time. If you are willing to perform non-admin closes you should also be willing to do non-admin relists. (It goes with the job description of an AfD closer). EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems inappropriate about doing that but DRV seems a more reasonable course of action than reopening it because of the myriad ways something can be done when it comes to NACs and others that can't be done which are different by a minor action. Just trying to be kept from being bitten here and running up reverts which help confirm I'm uncertain about this, that's all. I appreciate a little more clarity and that a re-opening is actually permissible for non-admins to perform if they closed it, thanks. So, what'd be the best course of action? treelo _radda 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to do a relist, here are the steps. Undo your last two changes to the AfD, to remove the closing templates from the discussion, and add {{subst:relist}} to the bottom. Remove the transclusion of {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google platform}} from the October 30 log, and re-enter it under today's log. Restore the AfD banner to the article. Let know if anything doesn't work. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, relisted for a better idea of what to do and to get the nominator to address the points made. Still open to being whacked with a trout for this whole "learning experience". treelo _radda 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! Consider voting in some DRVs to get a flavor of that inscrutable process. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, why...

... the retirement consideration? Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bored. treelo _radda 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afd

It might be a good idea not to close contested debates as a non-admin. I am referring at the moment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nefarian Serpine. Not that your close was unreasonable at all, but still its not a good idea if there's dissent. I choose not to reopen it, as I would have the right to, because it would come--and ought to come-- to the same conclusion -- and in particular I do not wish to take admin actions on this general subject, let alone close debates on them. DGG (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, OK... I don't know what the problem is, can you explain a bit more? treelo _radda 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Horsegirl070605

I agree that this user's conduct has been very questionable to put it lightly. The user does not seem to grasp that Wikipedia is built on consensus and it is clear that she does not understand (and has no intention of learning) many of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. The fact that she consistently ignores feedback given to her on her talk page seems to argue toward bad faith, as you pointed out. I'm not sure what to do about it though. Perhaps a WP:RfC is in order? What do you think? Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second look at the RfC page, I found this: WP:WQA. Maybe this is a good place to start? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but both RfC and WQA can be almost tortuous given how a lot of the time both rely on the accused party being responsive to accusations and how RfC might be a non-starter if HG doesn't bother to respond. I've told User:Gogo Dodo, an admin, about this (discussion [1]) and he thinks that admin intervention will be required at some point so I'm giving her a final warning now and waiting on what happens but I have little confidence it will stay or be acted on. You might want to speak to Gogo too so he's aware it's not isolated and that it's not improved. treelo _radda 13:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

So, [2], and four minutes later, [3] by an IP who had no contributions for 24 hours prior (and none as of now). Who might this be? Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me. I couldn't take anymore of Treelo or Ryulong saying "I don't care" at me. Well, I want them to care.

~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 17:22, 14 November 2008 (EDT)

Why do you want me or Ryulong to care? Legal threats won't get you it and even more so now that you had to be so immature about it. If we don't care then we simply don't, we're not obligated to do so and you cannot change that. What you can do is simply accept it and respect that fact, that'd be best. treelo _radda 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sqirrel Boy - Season 3

But the season 3 of Squirrel Boy has announced by Cartoon Network. 201.92.171.100 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it but if you're right then prove it. treelo _radda 18:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers

Thank you for your recent report at AIV, however I have declined [4] your request that 201.92.171.100 (talk · contribs) be blocked. As noted on WP:AIV, editors must be given sufficient recent warnings, and jumping straight to a level four warning without trying to communicate with the IP on why you are reverting them appears to be a textbook case of WP:BITE. I recognize that you are only trying to help keep Wikipedia clear of suspect information, but in the future please consider assuming good faith and use a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning for first time offenders who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's rules. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]