User talk:ScottyBoy900Q/archive 1

Your RfA

You're quite welcome; I wish you the best of luck. As for the ASCII art, I can't claim it for my own. ;) Good day, --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Vote on your RfA

Well I've retracted my vote on your RfA, there feel special. I just won't vote on RfA's anymore if I'm going to oppose them, since I guess my standards are too high. Even though they should be since admins should be the best possible to get the honor of the "mop and bucket" or whatever you people call it. But there be happy that you aren't being opposed anymore. Privat e Butcher 17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry, I retracted my vote as I said before. I just seem to assume that people are like me, and have no personal life, or any life, so I just work on wikipedia most of the time, because it keeps me from doing anything stupid, like starting up meth again. I'm not angry at you or anything that you all think I'm too harsh. I know I am, because I think that admins should be like the best. Privat e Butcher 17:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

I'd probably vote to delete, but I suspect the end result will be the same as the first AfD. He seems to skate near the edge of notability. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right?

You've published books, and taught university courses... all with a recent bachelor's degree? And there are 85k google hits on stuff you've written too, I suppose. Good luck with that. (I would, however, believe that whoever Tanya Ravine is has emailed you outside WP to request the annoying AfD). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wonder if you are the Scott Brian Rubin who lives or lived at Boreman Hall South; about whom Google shows zero hits, rather than 85k; who Amazon shows no books by; who never taught at a university level; who does not hold a graduate degree; who is not on the board of any well-known national organization; and whose articles (if any) are read by fewer than thousands of people, rather than more than hundreds of thousands. If that the one?

I know I'm being caustic, but the AfD is just an insult. The first round was put up completely dissimulatively by folks who were only concerned with a WP dispute. I only copied in the original bio from another Wiki because I noticed WP had mentioned me already in several other articles; and never wrote the thing myself. Maybe your AfD is sincere but misguided; your note on Tanya Ravine's talk page gave a different impression than that, but I could be wrong. Of course I'm not Stroustrup and I'm not Derrida. My notability is about a thousandth of theirs (if that); but I'm sure as heck a lot more notable than every indy band that sold 2000 records, or every village of 2000 residents... and those things do (and should have articles). It's hard to see anything but bad faith in the AfD nomination. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last message on my talk page: I hear what you're saying. If everyone else agrees with you, the AfD vote will be shot down and you won't have anything to worry about and I'll appologize and we'll move on. (Also, your opposing vote to my adminship is understandable as you are upset I have nominated your article for AfD. Don't let that stand in the way of all the other good work i've done here though as it comes off as childish on your part.) --ScottyBoy900Q 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that as soon as you put the article on AfD, you wrote messages to the talk pages of all the editors you could locate who would seem likely to vote Delete really does not suggest good faith, and particularly is unbecoming of an administrator. However, if you can tell me honestly that you were not recruited to place the AfD (presumably in a side-channel to WP) by someone with an unrelated animus towards me, I will withdraw my vote on your administratorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with absolute certainty that none of the former opposers contacted me. I ran across the page clicking randon articles looking for things to edit. And the reason I contacted those people was to see if since the article withstood the previous vote, if they had changed their minds after seeing other peoples arguments. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability vs. NPOV

You wrote on your admin nomination:

I was aware of the guidelines as a matter of fact. That's not really what I was protesting by listing it for deletion. I'm just a little concerned the article is extremely prejudiced as you yourself have done a considerable amount of the editing to the article. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Well, IMO and all. If the article is "prejudiced", I presume you are claiming it violates WP:NPOV. But the solution to that is to edit it to cure the POV. An AfD is for a topic that is non-notable, not one where the current text is POV.

Perhaps somehow illustrative, I've been involved recently (and again, more or less by accident) in editing an article on a fellow named Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. He has definitely violated the autobiography suggestion there (it's not a rule though): multiple reverts of other users, 3RR violations, using sockpuppets to evade multiple IP blocks, etc. I understand quite well that there's something wrong with someone writing their own self-prosyletic article; Merkey is a pretty striking example.

If you look at the edits I've made to my own page, they are all stuff like Wikifying links, adding external links to things already mentioned, minor typographic correction. Yeah, I made a bunch of those type of changes, but I have never tried to remove or substantially change any edit made by other editors—I know to defer to them on David Mertz. Even the very first version (that, yes, I created) was mostly copied from another bio someone had written of me elsewhere (I give the source on the talk page, I should have done so on the first edit comment, in retrospect). It's true I think I'm notable enough for WP, and yeah, I'm more invested in the page about me existing than I might be for someone else of comparable (minor) noteriety. But I haven't directed the content there in any significant way (and it's all easily verifiable). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still not quite getting it

On you adminship self-nomination, you wrote:

The comments all really deal with the AfD, which was ultimately voted down, but had a great deal of support. The issue of the AfD was blown way out of proportion by this certain user simply because he took the deletion vote way too personally and sought to ultimately avenge my listing his article for deletion by campainging/hampering the voting here.

Whether I took the AfD way too personally or not, it's absurd to claim that it had "a great deal of support"... as you perfectly well know. Only four of the delete votes even bothered to mention notability, which is the only criteria that is proper to consider. A chunk of them were people responding to utterly unrelated edit conflict (i.e. hoping to "avenge" themselves on Lulu, not expressing any actual opinion on "David Mertz"). Of the minority remaining, almost every single one only commented on (a misunderstanding of) the autobiography rule. I.e. there's no question of notability, they just want to use the AfD for something that is at most subject of an RfC. It's just so darn hypocritical for you to have campaigned so bloody actively for the AfD, while bemoaning the injustice of anyone advocating against your adminship nomination.

But then, I know you actually know all that. And the failure to admit it doesn't suggest good admin material, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Message

It's a pleasure to meet another West Virginia contributor as well, ScottyBoy. I read your profile and that's awesome, I'm a recent graduate of Virginia Tech with a Bachelors degree in Political Science and Intl. Studies and a minor in History. I've had a little extra time on my hands while awaiting my background clearance from the US Government for a job I was recently hired for. I've been taking advantage of this extra time on my hands and have been adding articles here and there on whatever strikes my fancy at the time. Good luck with the adminship! If you ever need assistance, just give me a holler --Caponer 21:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom? You should have come to me. Anyways, you have my vote. --Caponer 23:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thanks for your message regarding your vote, but I must admit I'm a little surprised you asked for my vote, having not had an awful lot to do with each other and all. I know from the diagrams discussion that you are a reasonable person and always trying to do what is best for the site, even if we do have different views on this occasion. I am glad to support your nomination. Raven4x4x 08:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Ann

Hello, ScottyBoy. Yes, I'm afraid there are eight oppose votes. If you look at the history, you'll see that Private Butcher changed back to oppose. ("I now oppose for reasons that have been brought before me.") [1] Also, while fvw didn't write the word "oppose", he did use the # sign, and so his vote was originally numbered. In the last few hours, he numbered it again, with the edit summary, "hey, who denumbered my vote?" [2] Regardless of whether you were right or wrong, you were wise not to change it back; it wouldn't have looked good. People don't always actually write the word "support" or "oppose", when voting; they sometimes just put their signatures (with or without comments) in the right place, with the #. And no, sorry, I don't know where to find the correct procedure for dealing with 2nd AfDs for the same article. However, I've noticed with RfCs, RfAs, etc., that in the case of a second attempt, the title of the page always has "2" at the end of it. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I'm an RA so we have to make bulletin boards every month. One of my boards was for Homecoming, thought you might like to see. ;) Here! Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the RfA support

My support vote on your RfA is now even stronger. I will keep my new dustbuster neat and clean. Denelson 83 22:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using Commons for PD images

Hi. I've noticed you uploading several PD NASA images. It is highly recommended that you upload them to Commons instead so they can be simultaneously available to other language wikis without having separate copies on each. RedWolf 05:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA extended

I have extended your RFA nom by a day since the vote at this moment stands at 77.5%. Please *do not* solicit any votes, directly or indirectly. Thank you, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi ScottyBoy, the number of support/oppose votes hovers around 75%. I, as the deciding bureaucrat, believe that there isn't a clear consensus and so have failed your nom. You may ofcourse try again after sometime. Please also take this time to reflect on the reasons why your adminship was opposed. Thank you, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

It is good Wikiquette to archive previous discussions on User_talk pages rather than simply delete them, so that editors may refer to them later more easily. Surely knowing this would be helpful for a hopeful admin. I took the liberty of helping you out by creating User talk:ScottyBoy900Q/archive 1 (chiefly discussion of your AfD nomination and RfA). It's kinda obnoxious to call that favor "vandalism" in the edit history, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]