User talk:Danorton/Archive 2009 May
I paid close attention to your comments at the AfD. And while not understanding why someone else could not have done as I have just done (after all... I was not editing back in '06 and was unaware of the article until the AfD). I streamlined the article itself... doing some major cuts, some reasonable copyedit for format and style, and added a few more sources. What was most important was to remove the taint of advert, remove the extraneous fluff, and set a properly neutral POV. I think the result is now much better and ask that you revisit it and offer an opinion. I can do more, if required. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found RS directly citing "shoe drops" and "Friends of TOM" and so added the now properly sourced informations back to the charity section. All a matter of looking. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Votestacking comment
[edit]Hi, Dan. I was surprised to see you raise the issue of votestacking against User:OlYeller21 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination). One reason was because I was aware of your own solicitations for comment from previous deletion voters when posting this Afd. Athough Wikietiquette permits a simple notification to all concerned parties, it is commonly done only for the creator, active editors and project talk pages. Anything greater than a simple notification -- that is, relating reasons or background for the Afd -- can give the perception one is canvassing for support. Even if it is a misinterpretation, the perception of votestacking should be avoided. I didn't mention this on the Afd page because I assume you weren't aware of this -- plus no harm, no foul. It's simply something to be aware of for any future nominations. However, your own comment about votestacking is a false accusation yet you haven't responded to the explanation. For the sake of civility and good editorial relations, you really should strike the comment and add an apology to OlYeller21. Regards. — CactusWriter | needles 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Votestacking includes the notification of an AfD discussion to a group with a biased opinion about Wikipedia policy. The Article Rescue Squadron most certainly is such a group. I didn't "accuse" OlYeller21 of anything (I didn't even look to see who actually added that template), but in this instance I do believe it's an issue that warrants discussion. In contrast and contrary to your false accusation, I did not focus my notifications towards biased groups, but included all parties (who are still around) who participated in the prior discussion and both editors of the current incarnation of the article. That the prior discussion was unanimous in its decision is a side note, and there was no evidence that that discussion had been votestacked. I appreciate your comments, but I owe no apology to anyone for my notification to the normal collection of likely interested parties. —Danorton (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is never a problem with the addition of the rescue template. As I linked before on the Afd page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD states "you may request help in the task by adding a bolded {rescue tag below the AfD template". If you think there is some bias with it that warrants a discussion, than it is probably something you could take up on the deletion policy talk page. I'm not sure what sort of response you'll get though. As I'm sure you aware, if an article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, it seems most policies on WP are geared towards keeping and improving articles. I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of any bad intentions. I wasn't. I was merely trying to explain about how things can be perceived -- which is why whenever I nominate an article for Afd, I only notify the creators and projects and then let the discussion come to the afd. For me, I find it easier to maintain a neutral tone that way. Thanks for your reply. — CactusWriter | needles 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- In theory, the practice could be constructive, but the result in this instance seems to have been that the discussion contains a disproportionate amount of "squadron" input (evidenced by identical canned remarks that don't even respond to the reason given for the nomination), and virtually no constructive editing of the article itself from those same commentators. It seems to me that the only material response from that tag was votestacked commentary. I'm not familiar with the result of that template on a broader scale, so I can't comment of the practice, generally. I completely favor hanging on to an article that is likely to be improved in a timely manner, but the squadron's strongly biased position doesn't allow for such qualification. —Danorton (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... Okay. Now I get it. Now I understand what you are thinking. Here's the thing: The only editor involved with the rescue squadron is User:OlYeller21 and he was involved with editing the article before the Afd. There were only two editors who arrived after the rescue tag was applied. I'm familiar with both of them. User:C.Fred is a longtime administrator who patrols speedy deletions and Prods; and User:TenPoundHammer is an Afd specialist who offers opinions on most every Afd listed (or so it sometimes seems). Both are extremely well-versed on policy, provide good opinions and, if you check their contribution records, they delete as much as they keep. I have seen them on both sides of discussions and I can assure you that there is no bias in their positions. I hope that helps. — CactusWriter | needles 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- And then I stepped into the puddle... directly as a result of the rescue tag. I have a habit myself to review the article, improve if I am able, and then opining at an AfD. If I feel a rescue willnot help, I am just as willing to suggest a userification or deletion, but accept the challange to improve an article and bring it up to code. Removing the advert and establishing a beutral POV was paramount... and between us, I think we did a darn good job. And point here is the only rescuers who opined at this AfD were those that had a hand in trying to meet the concerns brought up at that AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... Okay. Now I get it. Now I understand what you are thinking. Here's the thing: The only editor involved with the rescue squadron is User:OlYeller21 and he was involved with editing the article before the Afd. There were only two editors who arrived after the rescue tag was applied. I'm familiar with both of them. User:C.Fred is a longtime administrator who patrols speedy deletions and Prods; and User:TenPoundHammer is an Afd specialist who offers opinions on most every Afd listed (or so it sometimes seems). Both are extremely well-versed on policy, provide good opinions and, if you check their contribution records, they delete as much as they keep. I have seen them on both sides of discussions and I can assure you that there is no bias in their positions. I hope that helps. — CactusWriter | needles 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons
[edit]I noticed you reverted my talk page blanking. I'm not sure why you thought that was necessary, but the link you provided says, "Others delete comments after they have responded to them." I responded to the comments and deleted them; therefore, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that again. (someone reverting my talk page has been an issue in the past)
You also made this comment, which I assume includes my use of the template. The only reason I commented on the Sir Walter Raleigh Hotel deletion request was out of common courtesy. Otherwise, I have retired. The edits I made today were typing up loose ends and I assure you, APK is no longer active on Commons. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues but, as the policies and practices at Commons are different from those here, they're better discussed there at Commons (on my talk page rather than yours, please, so that we have an easily accessible record). —Danorton (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's no need to start a separate discussion on your Commons talk page. I was just informing you of why it would be best to not revert my talk page (very bad timing). Peace. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-Moving images to Commons
[edit]Thanks. --Like I Care 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you satisfied with the updated version of that article, or would you still like for the debate to run until 30April? I am just working through overdue closes, and have no opinion. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but no. There seem to be references that intend to support notability, but they do not provide enough detail to allow verification. Considering the auto-biographical/spam history of this article, the benefit of the doubt has been fully consumed. The primary editor only just returned Thursday, so let's give him a few more days. —Danorton (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently Juliancolton couldn't wait and closed it to keep as I was typing my reply above. —Danorton (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it because seven days had elapsed. I could relist it, in which case the discussion would remain open for another seven days. Would that be alright? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that it could be re-opened. Yes, I would appreciate that. Thanks. —Danorton (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, done. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that it could be re-opened. Yes, I would appreciate that. Thanks. —Danorton (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I closed it because seven days had elapsed. I could relist it, in which case the discussion would remain open for another seven days. Would that be alright? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)