User talk:Shooterwalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Shooterwalker, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --A NobodyMy talk 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why you’re delete vote logic was flawed[edit]

Shooterwalker, this is an attempt to explain in detail why I believe your deletion logic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Jews was flawed.

  • Article titles are governed by our naming convention policy WP:Article titles. The List title convention in WP:Lists is a derivative of this policy.
  • Article subjects, not titles must be notable for inclusion. Notability of subjects is determined by WP:RS which is a content guideline supporting our verifiability policy WP:V
  • Any attempt to equate an article title literally with an article subject and impose notability requirements on the literal title is not consistent with our policies.
  • Original research WP:NOR is simply a policy that says any content in WP must be attributable to reliable sources. It does not say a literal article title must be attributable to reliable sources. When arguing OR, one must simply state that a specific fact or conclusion in the content is un-attributable to a reliable source.
  • Synthesis policy, a sub-set of WP:NOR simply says that editors cannot add content that states a conclusion of otherwise attributable facts, that cannot in itself by attributed to a reliable source. When arguing Synthesis, one must identify the conclusions that an editor is making that is not attributable to a reliable source. It is an often misunderstood policy because most all WP content is synthesized (the common interpretation of the term) from reliable sources. Our policy refers to a special case of synthesis, in that un-attributable conclusions are not allowed. There is a very important distinction here. The operative condition is un-attributable, not un-attributed. Something that is un-sourced, is not de-facto Original Research or Synthesis. Something that cannot be attributed is.

When evaluating an article for notability, evaluate the SUBJECT, not the title, they are not the same. When evaluating an article on OR or SYN, focus on un-attributable facts and conclusions not un-attributed content. Un attributed content can be fixed, un-attributable content cannot. OR and SYN are serious allegations and one must make their case properly if they are to carry any weight.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

    • I suspect that the problem is that you're splitting hairs between titles and subjects. I'm not looking for literally "list of fictional Jews" being covered in reliable sources. But some sources that address the topic of Jews in fiction in some direct way would be a necessary ingredient for the topic to warrant an article. If the topic hasn't been covered by sources in a significant (direct, detailed) way, then someone is essentially making up the topic themselves by compiling a bunch of factoids. I could do the same thing for an article about "fictional redheads" or "television shows with lyrical theme songs". I could easily verify a bunch of individual facts, but can I establish the notability of the topic among reliable sources? All this theory aside, thanks for pointing me in the direction of Colonel Warden's sources. I will try to look at them later today and may revise my !vote accordingly... but seeing as there is no consensus to delete it doesn't look like it's all that urgent. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for re-considering your position on the AfD in question. OR and SYN are very serious allegations to make in the context of both entire articles or specific article content. It is an easy allegation to make because the words have common meanings far beyond the WP policies they reference. Most OR or SYN allegations just not correct and the only way to ensure they are is to provide concrete examples of material and conclusions that are simply un-attributable (not unattributed). I am confident I overreacted to your litany of deletion rationale in this AfD, so my apologies. That said, I think any allegation of OR and SYN must be supported strongly and will probably overreact again when I see otherwise by any editor. Happy editing.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I just don't believe in creating an article out of a pastiche of passing mentions or quotes. If you're going to advance the conclusion that the topic for an article is notable, you can't synthesize that out of a bunch of passing mentions. You need that direct and detailed coverage that one of the editors found. That's quite consistent with policy and actual good practices too. It's a theoretical discussion now but it might give you some insight into my !vote if a similar topic comes up again. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor [edit]

Information.svg I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong confer 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional magic users[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists and notability[edit]

Urgently needed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists: a reliable third party defintion for a list or listacle. Can you help? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to mediate and offer a third-opinion. Wasn't sure which topic you needed help so I focused on the discussion between you and Masem. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
SW: FYI - Here's one example where the List Title argument was being made to delete an otherwise notable subject. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms. There were many more.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I looked it over and had trouble finding the part... looks like one user found a list in a textbook somewhere. But if you honestly say that people are nitpicking about the title, I believe you. We verify topics, not titles. Facts, not the exact expression of those facts. I'm just nervous that saying so means that every topic gets a list, which means that we're just putting more weight on how to define "indiscriminate" and how to define "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" and such. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is important to break this issue into two parts: 1) what is the verbage that determines where the burden of notability is--List title or List topic. 2)Is that verbage notable--we know how to do that. WP:RS. The sticking point is part I, not Part II.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:EVENT[edit]

I reverted your addition to this guideline, I don't see the motivation and the tone wasn't in keeping with how we write guidelines. Is WP:EVENT being misused/abused? It very much defers to WP:BLP1E and WP:Notability (people), it is not a guideline about when to write about people. I feel that adding disclaimers like "don't game the system using this guideline" is redundant - we could add something like this to every sentence of every policy and guideline... Fences&Windows 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I respect your right to revert and I won't push it any further. I may be overly cautious here. But I feel like this is the kind of clarification that bares worth mentioning. Would you object to me migrating this conversation to the guideline's talk page, just in case someone else wants to chime in? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, raise it on the talk page or on an appropriate noticeboard like WP:VPP. Reverting doesn't end the discussion, and a clarification might be necessary - I just don't see it myself. Was there anything that prompted this, or was it just a general worry that it would be misinterpreted? Guidelines are often misinterpreted, sometimes wilfully, but it is hard to prevent even when the clearest of wordings is used (the most interpreted in my experience in WP:NOTTEMP). Fences&Windows 14:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I tried to add something to the talk page. Feel free to chime in at the guideline talk page. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing the List RFC[edit]

SW - I have asked Admin J. Milburn, selected at random to see if he can close this RFC. You might want to second the request. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot. I posted a comment at the user talk page. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of Star Control races, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

SW - Re your userpage/Lists[edit]

Stick {{db-u1}} on the page instead of the Prod and it will get speedly deleted. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you! I wasn't sure what to do there. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Loopner[edit]

The article you offered comment on no longer exists. Using User:Mandsford's comments as a guide, Uncle G did a complete rewrite, added some quite decent sources, and moved the article to its new name... "The Nerds". Perhaps you might wish to revisit the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re List redux[edit]

SW - although I agree with you that option 3 might seem less than ideal, it is probably the best way to go. My suggestion would be to ask user:Masem to close the RFC without any additional summary of findings, indicating only that attempts to have an uninvolved admin close and summarize were unsuccessful. The current bevy of summaries in the RFC are sufficient to support any policy/guideline changes that might be proposed. That said, given that there is no evidence that drastic changes are needed in List policy anyway, having the initiator of the RFC close it would seem to be in order. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SW: as I was going to ask Masem to close the RFC, it dawned on me that it is already closed. Beeblebox did so when he agreed to summarize it. Therefore the RFC does not need to be closed again. The fact that an uninvolved admin has not (nor may never) summarize the results may prove problematic should someone come out of the blue and contest the summaries already contained and endorsed in the RFC. But, that is something I believe will be unlikely now that GC is gone and even if it does occur, the objections can be dealt with through the usual discussion mechanisms. So, my new recommendation would be: do nothing except to refer to the RFC as needed in any subsequent policy discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
SW: Have started the process with this proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Proposed_language_changes_to_WP:CLN_and_WP:ATA_based_on_List_RFC. Will be thinking about others in the next few days. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds alright. We'll chip away at this. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)[edit]

Hi :) I reverted one change you did to a policy page. Do kindly discuss the change on the talk page as I believe the wording you used, though perfectly right in principal and philosophy, might not be appropriate for the page. Do please chat up with me on my talk page in case you wish further clarifications. Apologies for the inconvenience this is causing. My sincere regards Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shooterwalker. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've answered the question you asked at ACE2010 :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs[edit]

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice job[edit]

Just wanted to say "Nice Job" and Thank You on the discussion in the lists RfC, and the changes to WP:NOTE. I look forward to getting to the undecided parts! Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It was hard to find the areas where we agreed since opinions were all over the place. But there are a few basics that people agree on. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo[edit]

Hello Shooterwalker. David Fuchs knows exactly who I am. Polargeo (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Polargeo[edit]

He's actually not new (although he seems to be creating new accounts to avoid past scrutiny). Either way, he's one of the people topic-banned in the Global Warming case, so I can't say I value his opinions much. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to avoid any scrutiny. And that kind of comment is pretty dire and poor for an arb candidate. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're trying to avoid scrutiny to me. Seriously, try to disengage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try to review contributions. Polargeo (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
What are you trying to accomplish here? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a full guide on all of the candidates User:Polargeo 2/ACE2010 this is linked to in the election template Template:ACE2010. I am trying to offer analysis of the candidates from the position of an editor who is an ex admin with over 10000 edits. David Fuchs is just a candidate to me and I have no history regarding him. Therefore his smear of me is very poor. Polargeo (talk)
No one here is smearing you. If you're a former administrator who's been topic banned, maybe some of us are trying to help you be more constructive. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
So please review David Fuch's contributions as I am trying to do in the election pages rather than unconstructively attacking me for either being a new editor or topic banned. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Good luck and try not to get yourself into trouble. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting the List Notability guideline to the test[edit]

FYI I just referenced the new List Notability guideline in this AFD. It will be interesting to see how it is recieved. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By my interpretation... it's a keeper too. I'll sit back and watch just in case someone thinks this is stealth canvassing or something. But I expect it to be kept. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Mathewignash has started a bunch of SPIs as a precautionary measure. You're listed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah. Likely due to him trying to be careful and get rid of all sockpuppets than you displaying any truly suspicious behaviour. NotARealWord (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification. I will go on record saying I'm not Wiki brah. But just to curtail checkuser abuse, I'm going to ask for a little more evidence before submitting to a checkuser. If the evidence is good, you won't even need my permission. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: there is no such thing as "submitting to a checkuser". Although the evidence was a little thin, I did check and have marked the case above showing that this account appears unreleated to User:Wiki brah. Please do be aware of the situations in which multiple accounts are permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT; there is a fine line between acceptable circumstances and abuse.  Frank  |  talk  00:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to you[edit]

(In response to the message you left on my talk page, entitled "Sympathies") I really don't think you should stay out of the topic area. This is Wikipedia, and any legit help should always be welcome. NotARealWord (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List[edit]

Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability (video games)[edit]

I've done some edits to condense info and posted what changes were made and why what remains, remains. Since, aside from those opposing it for reasons that don't make sense, yours is the only opposition, I'd like you to comment on the changes. If you feel more can be trimmed, please explain what you think needs further trimming. Thanks.Jinnai 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more editing and added an explanation, but I'm not sure how to really merge the sections you talked about entirely. I've explained more on the proposal's talk page why.Jinnai 05:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You haven't commented on the proposed way of adding examples.Jinnai 19:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey sorry... things got busy. I like your approach for examples. I would say that not every single one needs an example. Some go without saying. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a stamp catalogue nor ...[edit]

Hi, Shooterwalker! Thought you might like to know that a thread you participated in recently has come to a !vote in the event you don't already have that page watchlisted. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I already put in my opinion but figured I'd try to help move the discussion along. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

AH edits[edit]

Hey, I have noticed some of the edits you have been doing to several alternate history related articles. Good job, it had to be done and I am happy to see someone taking the initiative. BTW, anything I can do? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying to organize the categories and make them more clear, with the occasional clean-up. Mostly just gnoming around. I could maybe use some help relocating some of the book series from the root alternate histories category, into the alternate history book series category. But I will get around to it in due time if no one else pitches in. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just categorized a few into the book series category you made. I think next I might work on categorizing them by nation. Besides American and British, I know there is some French and Polish novels out there. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how big the category is... but if there enough articles, do it. I'm personally wary of categories with less than 10 items in them though. Strikes me as overcategorization. Thanks for helping out! Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I will do my research and see if the number of articles is large enough to deserve a category. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shooterwalker. You have new messages at Talk:Dickson McCunn.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD[edit]

With respect to [1], I don't want to see redirect/merge discussions being taken to AfD. Proposals to put them at AfD (and effectively change to "articles for discussion") have failed in the past, it would further overwhelm AfD, and you end up with non-subject specialists making calls about content. So I tend to object to all uses of AfD for that purpose. I feel, in this case, that the bureaucracy has a very good reason for existing. Not expecting you to agree, just letting you know I've got reasons for my opinion there beyond slavishly following rules. Hobit (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't trying to be snippy. I just find it frustrating when people get hung up on procedure instead of just trying to build a consensus. What little I've seen, you seem like a smart and basically honest editor. I'm sure you could put out a real defense of the article if you wanted to, and still wish you would. You don't need to be a subject specialist to look for sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A good point, I really should have done both. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... even if you don't agree that procedural roadblocks aren't really compatible with Wikipedia... they're also pretty weak in achieving a favorable result. The AFD closed as no consensus and I can't imagine someone won't at least try to take another kick at the can a few months from now. (That's not a threat, BTW... more talking about what other editors will probably do.) Anyway... I'm sure you already know that finding sources is one of the most powerful counterarguments at AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD/Saints Row characters[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you contributed to the discussion for Saints Row 2 characters. The page List of Saints Row characters was also nominated, and your feedback would be appreciated here. Thanks. CR4ZE (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability (video games) - take 2[edit]

Since the info has been addressed at NOT and I've offloaded some to WP:GAMECRUFT, I wanted you to have a look at the current version before I put it up again. I've addressed some issues regarding giving stylization info (minor, but there), added some examples and rephrased the award section, including adding a notation about it not being a free-pass, but merely a holding measure before any final decision.

I would consider removing the awards except the fact I believe this would endager indipendant games who usually have their reviews done after such awards, not prior to and even then it may take several months.

Since you participated heavily in those discussions, I'd like your comments. Thanks.Jinnai 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for including me. I like helping out. I think offloading some of this onto WP:NOT has been a good idea. But I think you need to do a more radical overhaul to get support for this. As of now it's too similar to the last proposal, which didn't get much support. The main objection is still that it's a wordy guideline that doesn't add much value to the GNG. There are two ways to address that: either offer more value (e.g.: get into more than just games and remakes), or reduce the wordiness. I might be misreading it... but wordiness isn't an issue of style or grammar. It's an issue of getting to the point. Or presenting the point in the clearest shortest way possible. You've actually made the guideline longer. I wouldn't personally support it, and I don't think it would gain consensus.
  • Take a different tact. Instead of having a multi-bulletted notability guideline, why not have a single general statement, followed by a brief section on what's an appropriate source? You could quickly state that good sources include reliable published works, scholarly works that can verify their importance in forming a genre, or certain awards (insert short list here). Then quickly state that press releases or basic announcement info aren't enough. I think that will make the first section shorter, and allow you to dispense with the awards section completely.
  • I also think there may be a better way to handle the derivative game releases. I know I helped you simplify it but either it wasn't enough or it got expanded back out again. Again, it's not a matter of trimming a few words. It's fundamentally rethinking this. Either you need to state a few very general principles that can be applied without an exhaustive list of examples, or you need to turn the examples list into a very concise and readable table.
  • And the lead is just long. You have to assume that people don't actually want to read these guidelines. Because in reality, most people don't want to read these guidelnes. Let them get to the point. Quickly.
  • I think your goal should be something that's either 8kb, or where everything between the "nutshell" and "see also" fits onto a single screen. Even if you fall just short, it will be far less WP:CREEPY. Keep in mind that this is already very similar to the GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the second point is probably beyond what this is because it is handled by WP:VG/S. I could add a sentance pointing to that, but that just makes the subject more verbose.
    • As for shortening it, I might be able to shorten the deritivite work section. The basic point of that section is that reception from multiple RSes and promotional and release info isn't enough for derivative works except sequels. In addition, splitting because of plot changes and gameplay changes are also not justified. Something more needs to be shown and the best way (we've come up with so far) is through signifigant and distinct development and reception. I think that deals with everything except episodic video games which i gave the comparison to chapters in a book.
    • Not really sure how to cut down the awards section. I added the info basically to #1) address the issue that simply having the award would be allowing a perma bypass of the GNG and 2) to note why some major non-publisher awards, specifically Spike awards, aren't acceptable.
    • I'm also probably not the guy to be coming up with the proposal to shorten it. I can do some basic copyediting to tighten it up, but if it would need a serious reduction then it probably needs a 2nd pair of eyes.Jinnai 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I might take a shot at it. Busy this week. But I hope you don't mind if I'm WP:BOLD when I get around to it. You can always revert if you think I've mangled it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution[edit]

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Narnian timeline[edit]

I've attempted to rewrite the Narnian timeline article to address some of your concerns, but I don't know the proper convention for doing such an edit during the deletion process. I was wondering if you could offer any advice. LloydSommerer (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know how to fix the issues. The main thing is that the timeline has been copied from a source under copyright. There's no rule against trying to improve the article at AFD though, and maybe you'll convince enough people that it will result in a keep (or buy you time with a no consensus). Even if it closes without a consensus to delete, I plan on visiting the library and bringing a photocopy with me, at which point I'll contact an administrator and it will be deleted under the speedy deletion policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Discussion on running a trial[edit]

Hi. This page appears to have been compiled from copy/paste merges. As such it would not be a valid discussion. Could you let me know what you think we ought to do with it. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a migration of a legitimate discussion that had wandered off topic from the main Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles discussion. See this diff for the cut/paste. The best thing to do would be to properly attribute it. You could also merge it back into the main discussion, but then it would get far too near a full Megabyte for my liking. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

DC Universe events AFD[edit]

I'm surprised my suggestion hasn't gotten more traction, as it would be an easy fix of all the list's problems. The source that Colonel Warden pointed out is about DC's crossover events as well, many of which have been motivated by attempts to deal with the seventy year-old company's continuity. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully agree it solves anything. But at least it attempts to, in good faith, address the rationale for nominating it. If the AFD closes again as no consensus, I'd be willing to try it out and see if it makes the list more discriminate with more consistent sources, instead of just !voting "keep" and running away. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
What constitutes a crossover event is clear: a storyline that crosses over into multiple titles. I don't know how familiar you are with comics (I was an avid reader as a boy), but the crossovers are usually anchored by a limited series, and then the ongoing titles that are tied to the crossover story are expressly branded by that series' title on their covers. So there's no guesswork involved as to what constitutes a crossover. All of these crossovers have articles (and merit them too: these are always big publishing events and so always get commentary from trade mags and comics critics), and a list of them would not be plot-only (fictional events) but focus on real world publication/marketing. So it then would just become a list index of article topics organized by a defining feature, and given the commentary in Warden's source, would have the potential for a lot of annotations. It's a list of articles at present actually, but it's an indiscriminate one because it doesn't distinguish between story arcs, limited series, and crossovers, and doesn't explain why some but not others have been included. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That's somewhat reassuring. I'm a casual fan of comics. I saw that the Template:DC events looks consistent with what you're proposing, just that the name of the template is vague. Something more discriminate would address a big part of rationale for the AFD (the rest is about the quality of sources and whether they can speak directly to the topic or only nibble at the edges). I'm not the type of guy to overhaul an article mid-AFD, but making some changes might invite a stronger a consensus to keep. Or you could take your chances on "no consensus" (which are always pretty good in these types of discussions) and try to make some changes after. People aren't inclined to keep revisiting an AFD if an article actually improves. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination)[edit]

As someone who participated in the first AfD, you might be interested in participating in the new AfD. Due to the sockpuppet problem with the nominator and by suggestion of the original closing administrator, it was decided to relist the AfD even though there was no consensus to overturn at the deletion review discussion. I'm contacting you because, although it is mentioned as a relist in the deletion review closure, it is in fact a new AfD and, therefore, your previous rationale is not taken into consideration in it. Jfgslo (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your votes on Bombshock and Dropshot[edit]

I noticed you voted merge to Micromasters for Bombshock and delete for Dropshot, yet they are nearly identical characters, they were released at the same time, appeared in the same comics as each other, had the same sources, they are nearly identical characters. I don't see the consistancy. Mathewignash (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to lean different ways in an effort to reach consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying your vote is swayed by the majority? That's not really adding anything to the deletion nomination. Moreover, it doesn't make sense. These are two guys on the same team, who appeared in EXACTLY the same fiction. Deleting one and not the other is like saying you want to delete Abbot and keep Costello. Majority doesn't necessarely make the opinion correct. Also, per WP:BEFORE #5, you should look into redirecting or merging a page before deletion is considered. Since there is a page that this would be easily and correctly merged/redirected into, I can't see how a deletion vote makes any sense. Mathewignash (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a vote. The point of a discussion is to build a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Marvel Crossovers[edit]

I feel that your editing of the "List of Marvel Crossovers" is wildly inappropriate. First that you did not discuss such major changes on the discussion pages. Secondly if you wanted to make such a page you could have made your own and not totally change the existing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vashdog (talkcontribs) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But it was changed to bring it in line with policies on discriminate lists. This has been discussed numerous times at AFD and a lack of action would only ensure that this type of article will be nominated for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeline AfD discussion[edit]

As you have been an involved editor at Talk:American comic book industry timeline, this is a neutral notice that the page has been tagged for AfD discussion, and that one editor today unilaterally attempted to close the AfD without discussion or consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

About Eddie Quist[edit]

Hope I didn't step on anybody's toes, but when an arbitrator even looks like they're acting bitey or rash, they must be called on it for the good of the entire project. IMHO, that editor owes you an apology. BusterD (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. I've found Jclemens to be pretty reasonable and we've had disagreements on AFDs before. There are far worse comments I've endured. Jclemens strongly disagreed with the nomination, but didn't get personal. To that extent, I feel vindicated that most editors agree that this topic should not have a Wikipedia article. Thanks for looking out. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, the editor did cross a line. I have also disagreed and agreed with Jclemens. But we have levels of trust here: Editor, Admin, Crat, and Arb. To my view, cavalier (and as it turns out completely unfounded) AfD comments like those displayed would never be tolerated in a run for Bureaucrat, much less ArbCom. Courtesy, fairness and neutrality are absolutely required for these positions. So now I have slightly less trust in ArbCom than I did before. Actions have consequences as it regards public perception and public trust. I even asked the relisting admin if I was too harsh myself, and was reassured. BusterD (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you think there's a pattern of behavior on his part. If it is, that's troubling. I'll keep an eye out for it. But I'm going to assume good faith for the time being, and treat it as something harsh but rare. Maybe after the AFD closes I will drop him a line to make sure there are no hard feelings, and invite him to help me tone down the rhetoric at AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wisdom in your consideration. I'm seeing many folks wielding BEFORE as a multipurpose tool lately, that editor among them. Have a nice night. BusterD (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I usually DO look around WP:BEFORE. The biggest problem is that it's impossible to tell who really looked or not. In instances like this where there are a few sources that mention it, but none say anything of substance, it's easy to argue about who did their "WP:BEFORE AFD duties" more diligently. Like I said, I assume good faith here, but it probably warrants some kind of good faith conversation with him. Jclemens is a good guy in my experience. I'd take it differently if it was some AFD warrior who has been subject to an RFCU or major block. Have a good night and enjoy your weekend. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultima Avatar[edit]

Two different editors have tried to restore it, the IP address guy and me. One seems to be against this. Do you not agree the reception section clearly proves notability? The majority was against eliminating that article to begin with. See [2] for information about that. Dream Focus 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • There are better places to have this discussion where we can hopefully solicit more feedback. Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't do things based on local majorities. We do things based on policy which represents consensus best practice. Me personally, I don't think there's enough unique information about the character's reception and significance to support a stand-alone article. I summarized the quotes and added it back into the list article, which is where the consensus thought the information was more suitably covered. I would obviously yield if more sources could be dug up. Would you agree that covering this character in the list article is a good policy-based compromise? Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Compromise? There is no compromise when you eliminate an article you don't like. And of course people ignore "consensus" of everyone else when they don't agree with it personally. It doesn't matter what the majority of the people that show up to comment say, you ignore everything they say, and do what you want. Dream Focus 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I politely ask that you retract all of that -- the accusation that I eliminated the article, that I ignored consensus, and that I'm acting on personal dislikes instead of policy? It's a huge assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. I'm asking you to work within the policy to build a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You did eliminate it from the viewing masses by replacing it with a redirect. Whether you don't like it, or honestly believe it goes against policy somewhere, I can't be certain, nor do I really care. And I was referring to those in the past that ignored consensus and redirected it anyway. Dream Focus 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Despite your unwillingness to apologize, I'm going to be the bigger person and let this go. I hope you'll stop mischaracterizing other people's edits as deletion when you disagree with a merge. I also hope you know that ARS is for articles being deleted, not for disputing mergers. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    So its not a deletion even when most of the information is no longer seen, because a small token amount is put elsewhere? Fine, I object to the 90% deletion. And yes, ARS is for valid articles being eliminated, by actual deletion or replacing it with a redirect which achieves basically the same thing. All semantics really. All Wikiprojects cover deletions as well as redirects, mergers, and whatnot. Dream Focus 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Merges by definition can include as much of the article as is desired/necessary. It's completely appropriate to summarize quotes, which is what I did. Instead of mischaracterizing people's edits and using ARS completely out of process, why not just add whatever information you think is missing? Ordinary editing is very effective at achieving consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am intervening with a question. With first redirect you did, Shooter, your edit summery said "longstanding consensus that this is best covered in the list." - where can i find the discussion that you think reflects that? I saw the keep AfD with suggestion possible merge could be discussed later, but didn't dig around farther, I figure I could just ask.--Milowenthasspoken 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    I didn't dig deep into the discussion. I just looked at the edit histories of the article and the list it was spun out from, noting that Dream Focus was one editor against several who merged it three years ago. That's just an ordinary example of Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#reaching_consensus_through_editing. For the past three years, we covered this character in the bigger list, and it's been in decent shape. A drive-by IP tried to split it out again, so I reverted it. In all sincerity, I would yield to the spinout if a few editors who aren't so close to Dream Focus thought it made policy sense. (Maybe the video game WikiProject would be legitimate?) But I'm honestly a little frustrated that Dream Focus keeps twisting this reverted-spinout / re-merge as me "eliminating an article I don't like", instead of just helping me improve the full character list if he's so concerned about the alleged loss of information. I don't want to destroy information. Just comply with the WP:GNG which focuses on whether we should spin out new articles, not whether we should include the content. It seems to me we could meet policy and make Dream Focus happy by covering it in the list, but he doesn't want that for reasons I never seem to understand. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    By the way, your longstanding friendship with Dream Focus aside, I do appreciate that your first reaction to the conflict was to ask me my side directly and try to intervene. A little respect means a lot to me, and keeps Wikipedia a decent place to do work. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Shooter. It looks like you guys are working through the article and its issues, so whatever its outcome hopefully we have improved things a little bit.--Milowenthasspoken 02:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Two years ago, I see two editors that kept trying to redirect things, while I reverted each of them once. Many people participated in the merge discussion on the list article's talk page, and most were against a redirect/merge saying the article was fine on its own.[3] Seven people were against any mergers, one said only the companions(not the Avatar but the companions) article should merge, and four said merge them all. This doesn't just include people from the Article Rescue Squadron, but others who happened by to notice. Lot of people worked on it during that time and made improvements. One person against the articles posted on the Wikiproject Videogames canvasing for deletion votes stating "I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated." [4] Instead of edit warring, I took it to the ANI for proper discussion, and waited, and it just got archived without response. Dream Focus 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What exactly transpired three years is moot now, because consensus occurs naturally through the editing process and you still have to build a consensus when you change something three years later. If you had a problem with something three years ago, you should have either worked with those other editors through ordinary editing, or looked for a compromise. Whatever issue you had, the dust settled. Maybe not in the way that you wanted, but when something is a certain way for three years, that's a consensus. Read WP:CONSENSUS:
    • "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."
  • By that token, it's sometimes acceptable to revise a three-year-old edit, because consensus can change. But if someone still reverts you, you should give it up or discuss a compromise. You did almost the worst possible thing: mischaracterize my edit, accuse me of operating in bad faith, and then run to ARS for a dispute outside their scope.
  • If you want to expand the scope of ARS to cover spinouts and disputed merges, we should have an honest and broad policy discussion instead of just unilaterally slipping this in under a completely different discussion about "speed deletes, prods for deletion, or redirects". If you want to change policy in the middle of a dispute, at least have the courtesy of letting me and others know about it, and represent the issue fairly and accurately.
  • Within this small dispute, there isn't a consensus to pull Avatar out of the list. My hand is still outreached to build a consensus where we preserve and expand the content at the list, instead of creating a new article. But you keep smacking my hand away by saying that keeping it at the list equals deletion. You don't even try working on it at the list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't sneak over and post it where it didn't belong. Try to assume good faith and stop mischaracterizing my actions. Every single Wikiproject that I know of list redirects and mergers along with deletes, prods, and whatnot. There is no reason this one Wikiproject would be any different than the rest. The ARS is not out of their scope. They help find sources and work on improving things that should be saved. And you can't copy the entire article over to the list article, no way to fit everything, so some perfectly valid information would be lost. And I don't think anything changed in the past two and a half years. I just got tired of arguing nonstop with people, as did others, and moved on. Forgot all about it until someone else reverted it and started working on that article again. And when I Google for "Ultima" and "Avatar" I get 26 million results. Kind of hard to sort through all of that, or even the 2,440,000 results from a search of what the Video game Wikiproject has for their custom search of approved reliable sources. [5] So me asking for help for that is perfectly legitimate. Maybe someone will figure out a better search criteria to narrow things down. The ARS has done some pretty amazing work in the past after all. Dream Focus 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    I never accused you of operating in bad faith. Only that you could have worked with me, and instead used very odd procedure instead of engaging with me. The rescue list is a new creation, and came about because of problems with the old template. It's not an uncontroversial issue. If the scope is going to expand from what it was when it started, then it needs a wide and fair policy discussion. It sounds like we disagree, and we need to have that discussion. Would you at least agree with that? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Kindly stop edit warring at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. Wikiprojects have always been allowed to list things like this for discussion among their members. Three members have stated it was fine, you the only person who seems to have a problem with it. You have not discussed your misgivings on the talk page with us at all, but instead keep trying to remove my post instead. Use the proper talk page to discuss this. Dream Focus 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't revert any further, noting the WP:3RR. But I don't think consensus has been established. I guess we'll see after a few opinions trickle into this RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Shooterwalker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney AFD[edit]

Hi,

I had to restore an older version because when Edison made this edit he deleted my vote and possibly others. I did not see that you had added a comment and my restoration inadvertently deleted it. Would you mind readding it? Thanks and sorry. SÆdontalk 23:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks...[edit]

...for your kind message. I really appreciate it! Happy editing. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (D&D)[edit]

Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Dispute Resolution in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.[edit]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm busy day today, but I'll take a look if I have time. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cruise[edit]

Just a heads-up that your comment has been replied to. Also, have you read Tom Cruise#Litigation, more than half of which is about allegations that he's gay? He's a favorite example in law reviews and books on whether false allegations of homosexuality is defamation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hope the discussion is taken in good faith. I certainly take it in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on differentiating reference syntax in text window[edit]

Hi Shooterwalker-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project[edit]

I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. I'm contacting you because you expressed an interest in a previous discussion in regards to a more stringent enforcement of BRD. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just testing the waters at this stage to see how much interest there would be in such a co-ordinated task force. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked in over there. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC[edit]

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists/Survey[edit]

Hello, just a note regarding the deletion of this page. Neither Proposed deletion nor Articles for Deletion were appropriate in this case as the page in question was in the Wikipedia namepsace. The correct venue would have been Miscellany for Deletion, but as you are the only editor who has contributed to this page and requested its deletion, I went ahead and deleted it. Regards. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD enforcer[edit]

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The formal proposal is up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase[edit]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Conan[edit]

Sorry for the delay, yes please feel free to continue clean up. The reliable third party sources being used are minimal at best. i would presume that in some actual published content in magazine review/commentary or fantasy encyclopedias there must be some content about the chronology that could be added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added some information regarding the sources in the Talk section of the Conan Chronologies article, which address some of the questions that you had. I would ask that you take this information under advisement and reconsider some of the edits that were made. Thanks. Theagenes (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AFD Renominatoin[edit]

Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.-MQS

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement[edit]

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you![edit]

Featured article collaboration.svg
Hello, Shooterwalker. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for whether article DoDonPuchi Zero should be deleted[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the page's discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)