User talk:A Nobody/Archive 6

Belated Happy Holidays

I have no fancy template with which to spread good cheer, but I thought I'd drop by and wish you the best in 2009. McJeff (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and same to you. By the way, I wish you'd ask for restoration of User:McJeff#My wikipedia opinions as I thought that a thoughtful and interesting read. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

you have email. DGG (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ip

Is it possible for an admin to monitor which all accounts log-on to wikipedia from the same IP address --Areastrips (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only checkusers can do that and generally are only supposed to do so in extreme circumstances. What makes you ask? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MISS TOURISM WORLD Editors should practice what you preach

Well some of YOU editors should practice what you preach! Hiring some one in 2002 to direct African Operations is also not relevant is it? so who directs ASIA, AMERICA, EUROPEAN OPERATIONS ETC?

JOHN SINGH LEGAL TROUBLES ARE NOTEWORTHY IF THEY INVOVE HIS BUSINESS PRACTICES.........THIS GUY IS A CON MAN!! WHY IS Ted Bundy FEATURED ON WIKI IF HIS LEGAL TROUBLES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO HUMANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.165 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I just encourage you to try a more measured approach when addressing your fellow editors. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror needs your help

A Nobody/Archive 6 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll offer a suggestion there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction

I have drafted a revsion to WP:FICT that may address some of your concerns. I would be grateful for your views at WT:FICT#Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the survey I wrote

Hello A Nobody! You said you weren't sure how to fill out the survey I wrote? The directions for filling it out were here. But I don't want people to answer it yet; I want to know if people think the questions are good or not (well, most of the survey is fill-in-the-blank...), or if any survey would be a good idea or not. Would that be a good survey to present to a thousand people or more? Is it too long? Should I start over? Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests conducting a survey, and the survey I wrote is meant to generate discussion on making a notability guideline (or inclusion guideline) for fiction or fictional topics similar to the notability guideline for people. If you could write a survey about fictional topics, what questions would it ask? You can blank the survey page if you want and write your "ideal" questions, or feel free to write a survey in your userspace. If you don't want to edit the questions, I would also appreciate any comments, criticisms, or suggestions about the survey on its talkpage. Good work on the E-frame article by the way! I would have helped improve the article, but I seem to be attracting a lot of attention these days... --Pixelface (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think trying the fiction talk page is the way to go. I would say try something simpler, i.e. if I or anyone has to ask how to work with it, then it's probably too complex. Anyway, I am focusing on the moment on defending you at the RfC/U and starting a new idea I had at User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame. But in any event, the idea of a survey seems reasonable. We need to get community wide input so it doesn't feel to members that the guideline is imposed on them. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Five formerly deleted articles recreated and taken to WP:GA-class

I have taken John W. Rogers, Jr., Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch from being deleted to WP:GA. I do not seem to be eligible for your hall of fame. Do you know any recognition for a feat like mine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Hall of Fame was something still as a work in progress, so by all means please bounce some ideas on its talk page and good job! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Story, Arkansas

I replied to your question about "Story, Alaska" on the WikiProject Alaska talk page. In short, I think you'll find the road and the ridge you're looking for in Arkansas rather than Alaska, but a little more research is needed to confirm that. -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Underworld characters

Let's move it to the mainspace! -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco

I struck my comment because it appears that David has had email off him - but then of course we need to confirm that and so on and so... :-0 - either way, if true, it's a horrible thing to happen to someone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll email him myself to see what's up, but of course won't post anything considered private. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you for being the first to comment on my Talk page. I am a long time user of wikipedia who decided to register and contribute due to a content dispute on the page for the medication paroxetine. I requested help from an experienced user, who made some useful changes. But the "antagonist" in my dispute seems determined to have it his way. Hopefully it will be resolved in a many agreeable by all. Mwalla (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

You're welcome and good luck with everything! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Is it possible for my talk page archive to be on the right rather than the left side of the screen? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. float:right works (lucky guess), or you can use {{archive box}} which floats right by default, and you're quite welcome. :D So, how have you been lately? – wodup – 07:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay, up an down, you? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Up and down, eh? Well, I hope that you get more ups than downs. As for me, I've been very busy lately; I wish there were more hours in a day. – wodup – 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had more ups as well, but while there's things to look forward to (new season of Lost starting tonight!), I a bit dismissed over the events concerning a recent RfA, the health of a pet, the economy, how no matter how nice I try to be someone will never give me a chance, etc. Life has its moments, but it is also depressing and disjointing. And yeah, I wish we had more time... :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment needed

Your view at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion was not clear:

• I am interested in gauging your opinion on changing the name from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion

Thank you. travb (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks for the heads up, I am moving on, shipping out, because you know what the only solution to problems deletion editors have (it starts with a "d"). I hope you don't mind, I am removing your comment, to avoid an esculation. travb (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for you; no reason to allow for escalations! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Preemptive deletion, like Stalin did with Moscow. Better to destroy it at your leisure than on the other editor's terms. <<great essay by the way. I really owe you one. When you need anything at all, let me know, and I will repay you in spades. :) travb (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No one owes me anything.  :) I hope all is well with you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Please, please, please, please for the love of god consider using {{welcome2}} instead of the other template...I always have to go back and add == == at the top of welcome sections.

Good job welcoming people...the way I see it, the more editors that are retained, the more who will not like the status quo and want change.
travb (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Okay, I'll consider it! :) Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and best wishes in the future! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments used in AFDs

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (fourth nomination) I noticed you used a few arguments for "speedy keep" which are prescribed against in WP guidelines.

You said that the article had survived previous AFDs, but editors should objectively evaluate the article every time it is nomination for deletion (see WP:NOTAGAIN).

The fact that the article gets hundreds of thousands of pageviews a month does not prove that its subject meets WP's specific and objective notability standards (see WP:POPULARPAGE).

And just because many editors make countless edits to this article, doesn't mean that it meets WP guidelines (see WP:EFFORT).

I hope this helps you make effective arguments in future AFDs. Blueaster (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I find multiple renominations for articles when they have been kept previously disruptive, Wikipedia's notability standards subjective and constantly disputed changing, interest in the article (those interested contribute to other articles and even donate here) trumps a handful of deletes in a five day discussion, etc. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tangent

if we don't cover characters studied in high schools and colleges then we are really moving away from the whole point of being a reference guide/encyclopedia

I'm not exactly trying to refute this, but the English teacher in me is jumping up to point out that often characters in and of themselves are mechanisms or delivery devices for understanding something else -- methods of characterization, or some other facet of an author's style. e.g., My students read The House on Mango Street and talked about that book's protagonist not because the protagonist is a big deal, but rather to assess the mechanisms Sandra Cisneros uses to adopt a 13-year-old's voice. One of our department's mottoes is, "We don't study books; we study the ideas books deliver". Esperanza (The House on Mango Street) probably doesn't (and won't, 100 years from now) deserve an article, but she might be worth mentioning at Sandra Cisneros, characterization or writer's voice.

Yes, those depressing Dickensian folks and whatnot have garnered lots of coverage and deserve articles; but, "we studied it in high school and college" probably isn't the most apt bar. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Esperanzo does appear to be a topic covered in schools, but if additional sources do exist, then I don't see why we wouldn't have an article on it. The specific characters I am referencing, i.e. the Dickens ones, also appear in as many as TEN cinematic adaptations of the stories as well as stage versions as well. Doing relatively quick searches, I found at least two academic journal articles that focus entirely on one character or character type, i.e. not just a paragraph in a review. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, anyway.... you either missed my point or I wasn't clear. Never mind. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take care (hope the weather is better where you're at than it is where I am!). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, A Nobody. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okay, I'll answer there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First award from: User:A_Nobody/Article_Rescuers'_Hall_of_Fame

Coding:

Feel free to add more, and to award other people this award also. See the little Life Preservers at the top of your page? Ikip (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, cool! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming

Welcoming new users, eh? Never was too big a fan of that - most messages don't have an impact anyway, and I'd much rather be reverting vandalism or blocking vandals... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(though thanks for the new message - been a while since I had the thrill of seeing the orange bar...) 140.247.14.141 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}. On my userpage at the bottom, a Smile seems to be on top of a Happy New Year image. Can they be reformatted so that they are not on top of each other? The New Year greeting should be first as I am listing these chronologically as received. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. I did this on my userpage, and they overlapped also. You are only allowed I think it is 2 of these. Thanks and sorry DylanIloveYou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DylanIloveYou/Guest_Book 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think someone corrected it for me in the past, but am not sure how he/she did it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, and I for one think welcome messages do have an impact, they give new users things to look at and let them know Wikipedia's a community rather than a bunch of articles. My 1st edit as 87.blah was 2 years ago but I still enjoyed the welcome. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OKay, thanks! Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My Photo

Do you mind to return my deleted "JPG" in my user page.

Thanks!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 04:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I am not sure what you are referring to and as I am not an admin, I do not have the ability to undelete images. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep

AN, in AFDs like this one, you're overusing speedy keep. While you're right in a legalistic sense that the list is not exclusive, as a practical matter you have to have a better reason for an admin to speedily close the discussion than the ones you're giving. As it is, speedy keep in examples like that just starts a useless argument in which you get to expound upon your inclusionist views.--chaser (away) - talk 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind in future discussions, i.e. I'll be sure that if I use it, it will be one of the reasons listed at WP:Speedy keep. On the plus side of things, the discussion did close as a "keep". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You never know who will pop up on your talk page!

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is you never know who will drop in to say hi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to use the template just cut and paste this:

{{subst:User:Ukexpat/welcome1|A Nobody|Feel free to delete this template if you don't want it.}}~~~~

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, people are so much better at computer templating than I! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know there were favorite pages. Okay, I'm off to have a look at the orange section issue. I was looking at the basset hound article today and I almost added one to your page. But then I wasn't sure if the one I liked was iconic enough. Each one has its own personality. 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The orange bit was great, and it's hard not appreciate all b hounds. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NPP

{{helpme}} Hello! I have noticed this "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom right of the screen on some articles. What is that? What happens if I do that? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out New Page Patrol for an explanation. //roux   20:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The link is now appearing everywhere as a result of this bug request: [1] You can pretty much ignore it on userpages, as far as I know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. Yes, I had not noticed it before and have been seeing it more and more lately and was wondering what is up. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul K. Davis

Hi A Nobody, I just wanted to say I removed a couple of your additions from the Paul K. Davis book; mostly because they are pretty superfluous. That book is itself a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is supposed to be, so it is at least one step removed from the best and most important references, at least for the Siege of Jerusalem and Battle of Hattin articles (I don't know about any others that you added quotes to). In addition to that, his summary of the Siege of Jerusalem was essentially incorrect, which I suppose shows the dangers of using one tertiary source as a reference for another. The Siege and Battle of Hattin articles are, I admit, not among Wikipedia's best, but still, I didn't think they were improved by Davis' quotes. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! If you have better sources, then please by all means use them instead. My primary concern is when the articles have no citations someone coming along and prodding it or AfDing it on the "unsourced" claim. I would rather have at least some sources in place that can be replaced with better sources as we come across them even as place holder sources in the meantime. I have been working on a list of battles referred to in printed texts by scholars as "decisive" and as these are arguably among the more significant battles in history, I just want to be sure that all of them have at least some sources so that they are kept and improved over time. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Skullhead...

It could be a different Mr. Skullhead. Furthermore, it apparently never made it past pilot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it should be looked into, i.e. so that the article isn't redlinked and then an appropriate article is developed and someone doesn't speedy it under the deleted before rationale. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I still don't think that's enough to save it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, there doesn't seem any pressing reason why we would not redirect. My hope is to write some lists of the animaniac characters similar to what I started at User:A Nobody/List of characters in Tiny Toon Adventures as a merge location/compromise in the hopes of expanding the sections on development, merchandising, reception, etc. If you are cool with that idea, then please help as I think it is clear from edit histories and page views that our editors and readers have an interest in these characters and from source searches that secondary sources are out there. Perhaps not every character should have a separate article, but as a compromise a list may be the way to go and I am as usual willing to help in that regard. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Going in circles

I feel like I'm going in circles with you. Before I delve into this, please answer me one thing: when you made this comment, did you actually think that I was saying that "notability guidelines are not helpful for building a paperless encyclopedia"? Pagrashtak 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure how to read that initial comment, as I wanted to and typically try to assume the least harmful of reads of your post or anyone's posts. I can read it a few ways as written, because it's not like a real life conversation where tone and all is there: were you saying that the in a nut shell proposal in general was unhelpful and just happened to be indented to my reply? Were you saying that discussing fictional notability in general is not helpful so why even bother with the in a nut shell stage? Were you saying that my good faith reply that we can reword the proposal or at least cut the word that is made thrice (significant) in the in a nutshell proposal is not helpful? Etc. I went with the middle interpretation. Just saying "That is not helpful" without an explanation or clarification, i.e. a "why" leaves something to the imagination or interpretation of the reader. I do not like reading into things or having to guess and I certainly did not want to immediately go into a confrontational reply to your reply. Same reason why I can't stand "it's cruft" votes in AfDs that do not explain how or why it is. Now as regards the efforts to write that fictional notability proposal, I have mostly seen Randomran, Phil Sandifer, etc. as proponents of this proposal and not so much you (unless I have overlooked it), so, I figured the least harmful read of your post would be that it isn't personal to me or anyone else, but maybe you just don't see it as helpful in general (that notability is perhaps not the way to go) and that if I agreed with that read rather than my initial reaction that it was some kind of terse reply and made a proactive suggestion in my initial response to you then we would just move away and ahead, but who knows, we're not telepaths after all. I hoped that if I explained where I stand, at least made it seem as if maybe we're in agreement, and then got back to the actual discussion by reiterating my feeling that "significant" is repetaed too many times, it would be better than having some kind of other response or to read too much into the reply. Obviously, based on your reply to my reply, you meant what I had hoped you did not mean, but what can you do? In any event, no need to go in circles, as it is certainly not something worth fighting over, I have no bad feelings over it, and would rather not have any further needless escalation of tensions over that proposal (its talk page is already riddled with too much aggresiveness among editors). So, I'm getting ready to head out and have dinner. Take care and have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to raise any tension here, so I hope you don't mind if I reply. If you want to say my statement was terse and unhelpful, I'll take that criticism. In my experience, if someone is being unhelpful (whether intentionally or not) sometimes all it takes is a statement to that effect to turn the situation around. That was my sincere intention when I posted, but it didn't work so I'll take the blame for that. I revised my statement so I'm hopefully more clear. What I was saying wasn't helpful was your suggestion to rewrite the proposal based on your nutshell, when nutshells are supposed to be written to summarize the guideline instead. For example, if someone were to suggest "Original research is good and is encouraged on Wikipedia." as a nutshell for Wikipedia:No original research, and that the policy should be rewritten to match that nutshell, that would clearly be a nonhelpful suggestion. That case is admittedly more extreme than this, but I hope you see my point.

In the future, if you don't understand what an editor means in a post, as you say was the case here, the best course of action is to ask for clarification. Making incorrect assumptions as to an editor's beliefs is far more damaging than making no assumption at all. If I was talking to one of my Christian friends as responded to a comment with "You're right, there isn't a god!" or responded to one of my athiest friends with "You're right, there is a god!" that would likely been seen as an insult. When you say you agree with someone that notability guidelines are not helpful, but that person actually believes the opposite, that's quite likely to bring any meaningful discussion to a grinding halt. We've run into each other a few times, and I thought by now you'd have some understanding of my positions, at least enough to know that I don't want to throw notability out the window. Pagrashtak 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your clarification on the talk page was clear and I replied there a few hours ago. I see what you meant to get at and understand the point now. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

might as well change your vote to oppose

"Somewhat on the fence, i.e. not sure how it would be implemented, but if everything I argued to keep that is listed at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions would at worst be merged or redirected with edit history intact, I can support. If anything that I argued to keep on that list would be redlinked or have the edit history deleted, then I can't support."

you know editors will use this as a blank check to delete hundreds of articles. Look at the behavior of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2Ikip (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting... but people already have a pretty wide mandate to delete lots of articles. It's called WP:N. The proposed guideline at WP:FICT markedly relaxes the requirement for reliable third-party sources. It's a lower standard than WP:N. That's why the guideline is getting opposition from deletionists too. The guideline is trying to seek a middle ground. It would certainly be easier to rescue many articles. Randomran (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Randomran. I am touched that you and Product are watching my edit history.

Three hurdles (prongs) is hardly a lower standard. Editors are going to put articles up for deletion, and demand that other editors meet those requirements, or the article will be deleted/merged.

If this isn't the case, why are all the editors who were in the last two AfDs, because they deleted and removed so many articles, so supportive now? Ikip (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's "Protonk". Protonk (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [2], in such instances, please allow neutral admins to review these things. You and I have a history; we have seemed relatively okay with each other lately, but there are a number of editors who have come back in different versions to harass me throughout my entire time as an editor because I have played a role in identifying their various sock farms such as the various incarnations of him, him, him, him, and him among others. It is obvious vandalism, because obviously no "new" IP's first edit would be to refer to an editor by a username not used in months now. And even after being warned by both A Man In Black (A Man In Black also removed a modified reposting of the IP's comment) and DGG, the IP responded by mocking their warning formats. So, it is either an existing user using the IP as a bad hand, or some old rival evading a block. Neither scenario is acceptable, nor is it acceptable for an IP or account's sole editing purpose being to antagonize one specific editor. The IP has NO edits other than regarding me and it evens scoffs at warnings by two admins. Just as surely as no one would approve of me using an IP in such a fashion, I would hope we hold "critics" of mine to the same standards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not blatant vandalism. WP:VAND#NOT. That determination is simple. Making it doesn't require that I like you or that you like me. I didn't say the claim was baseless of the editor wasn't "trolling" or "baiting you" or that the editor was adding to the discussion. I just said that it wasn't blatant vandalism and that the report didn't belong on AIV. AIV is only for cases of blatant vandalism and (for IP editors) where the vandalism is ongoing and the editor has received sufficient warnings (usually uw-3 and above or any of the "last" warning templates). Removing that report was a fairly mechanical decision. If you want to file a sockpuppet investigation or a request at AN/I, be my guest. But I don't have a problem with that report being removed. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not keen on bringing things to ANI as certain accounts have a tendency to show up and disrupt threads I start just because I started them, but in any event, fortunately, an admin did block the IP as it kept up its unconstructive editing. So, I suppose, all I need to do is just wait as someone will see what's going on and do something as in these case two admins warned and another blocked without my having to have started an ANI thread. Still not sure if the IP as one of the above mentioned users evading a block or some other current eidtor using the IP as a sock (which is of course ironic given that the IP mocks me for changing names, but is clearly someone else using the IP as A Man In Black pointed out). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just poking around on A Nobody's talk page. But you're missing something important: we have WP:N now, and it basically had a consensus at the last watchlisted RFC. The only thing we learned there is that people were open to relaxing WP:N for specific subjects like fiction, but not eradicating it completely. A lot of people who support WP:N are opposed to this guideline. But then many have been willing to move to the middle, just to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND. If this compromise guideline gets rejected, the battleground will probably get heated again, with both sides blaming each other for failing to compromise. That's not a threat. That's just human nature. Randomran (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do I keep hearing the same line over and over "Your missing something" "You don't understand". Actually yes, I do. Editors will use the 3 prongs a hurdle for inclusion and as a tool for deletion. This is an expansion of WP:N. A heated battle, with no guideline is better than a purge. Ikip (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep hearing it because you're wrong. This guideline carves out an exception to WP:N. Without it, we only have WP:N. Randomran (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I keep hearing it because editors are attempting to sell snake oil to a unsuspecting public.

Prong 1: "This requires external sourcing for the work itself beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline."

"Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles. "

"A subject that meets all three prongs may qualify for a standalone article."

links to: "Wikipedia:Fancruft", "Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT"

These sentences, and the entire article show me that there is no "exception to WP:N" this is simply the final push to delete or merge most character and episode contributions.

misleading statments do not change that fact. Ikip (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not reading it properly. The work itself has to be more than just WP:N-notable, but if you pass that threshold then the fictional elements can be less than WP:N-notable as a result. That's the compromise. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've elaborated on my views at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Why_the_policy_exists. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, you seem hesitant on WP:FICT but you seem against Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Why_the_policy_exists.

Based on past behavior, editors promises to consider PRESERVE are empty. Right now FOUR editors who supported this proposal are attempting to merge Logan_family in a AfD. There was no attempts to preserve first. The editor who made those PRESERVE promises has 14 Afds, in the 3 that were redirects, there were no efforts to preserve first. The first and only edit on the page was a Afd tag.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, WT:Television_episodes#3 is where you have to look and see the way editors will act. I see this argument as an issue of respect and tolerance for other editors contributions and values. Many of these editors who support this guideline way these editors contributions are "cruft", with no value. Ikip (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I see similarly weak non-arguments here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to change your vote to oppose. Ikip (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am considering it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)