User talk:A Nobody/Archive 7

I like the little safety lifesaver tags at the top...

Which code gives me those? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Please ask User:Ikip as he gave them to me after I created User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then I will :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I need that somewhere appropriate in my userspace!! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A tiny request

Hello A Nobody. Thank you very much for your recent comment. I was wondering, could you please move that to the Comment by others section? I'm not exactly sure, but I think the Comment by parties is for the user and the "certifiers" — although I could be wrong; I don't know much about the process. --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Pixelface (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, bravo, and good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: email

Thanks for your email. I do understand the situation and I can see how there are circumstances where a "likely" result from a checkuser does not mean with 100% certainty that the 2 accounts are the same person. However, in JOM's case he never denied being YourLord, nor did he make any attempt to explain how, if they were separate people, the checkuser would have returned a likely result (which, if they had indeed been separate people, he could have done wihout outing anyone simply by saying "I edit from a shared/public computer", "another person in my household/office/building also edits Wikipedia", or whatever applicable explanation without giving specific details.). Since he made no attempt to defend himself in the sockpuppet investigation, and never offered a possible explanation on his talk page as to how they could have been 2 separate people, one reaches the logical conclusion that they were indeed the same. In any case the point is moot now because he has not only confessed, but it has turned up that this is actually his 3rd account and 2nd block for socking. Hopefully he will use the appropriate channels that have been pointed out to him and be able to return with honesty and positive contributions. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Anyway, I am hoping that JOM does use my assuming good faith with him as a means to edit constructively. I really hope that if nothing else I can serve as an example of previously indefinitely blocked users who have made successfuly returns. Once someone is indeffed, I know from my own experience, that some will never give you a reconsideration no matter what, but I think enough decent people are forgiving/understanding, and I would like to see more editors who were off to a bad start be able to turn themselves around. I don't like just giving up on people and thereby encouraging bitterness. I believe JOM has potential and hope he proves that hope right. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...but I am sorry that you are now aware as to why I have lost my patience with Mythdon. There are some things he understands, but he won't change the way he acts in other ways. As I said in my comments higher up in that thread, I had another administrator intervene in a discussion (where Mythdon was only involved tangentially) and he soon lost his patience in dealing with Mythdon as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looking over that AfD is one of the reasons why I find Wikipedia frustrating at times. I can only hope that an admin will close on strength of arguments and reality. The various posts for deletion are largely factually inaccurate. I found a source on Google News (a review, so not first party) that verifies some of the article's information, which means the nomination claim of "no" reliable third party sourcing to verify the subject not true. The first delete says it is "completely" in-universe, which is again not accurate as citing the actor who portrays the character is out of universe information. The next delete asks what makes these ones so special, which is clearly evident in the article, i.e. the leader of the power rangers for a time. Next is another claim of unverifiable (I don't see how if I can find sources others can't). Then you get a textbook WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. The next one seems to call for a character list, i.e. a merge perhaps? The next one is a bit more compelling, but it is note "entirely" in-universe and what it calls for is really improvement that can and should happen. Then, yet another false claim about "no" out of universe information and given the notability of the series, of course reviews and interviews exist (perhaps there's Power Ranger magazine interviews not necessarily found on Google News? Finally, you have an incivil delete. Thus, a fair and objective read of the discussion would have to discount most of the deletes and even though there's only two keeps, the most correct read of the discussion would be that the topic can at worst be redirected with the edit history intact; however, a merge is also a possibility and perhaps improvement of the article in question. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if there was a merge. Most of the content is somewhat useful or at a character list, anyway, but Mythdon has yet to suggest merges first. In fact, when I merged an article at an AFD he had participated in, he asked why I did it after the AFD went no consensus. I don't believe he's yet to learn about the alternatives to deletion to fix articles that have the sort of issues he has been seeking to fix.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be really unfortunate for that article to be redlinked, as surely the source verifing the actor playing the character is mergeable. In any event, I strongly urge you to add more sources and out of universe information to the article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh... Most of what's useful is at the article I linked in the AFD. And I'll probably be making it into a redirect if it does get deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The history should be undeleted so I can at least merge the source I added. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability

If you're not comfortable with this thread just remove it and I won't bring it up again. Anyway, I find your views on notability rather strange. The notability guidelines are important because they enpower us to delete articles for which no reliable sources can be found, something the verifiability guideline does not. Maybe you agree and I've just misinterpreted what you meant, butI'm sure you agree that all major points of information should be attributed to reliable sources. If they aren't and can't be, they shouldn't be on wikipedia.

Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning in these Afds? [1] [2] [3].

I know there's always the argument that the notability guidelines are superflous and could easily be merged into Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is true, but for some reason nobody will agree to it.--Patton^t/c 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is and has been a strong movement to eliminate "notability." See for example, User:Thanos6, Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability, User:Ziggurat/Notability, etc. Your arguments are not unreasonable as they focus on sourcing rather than notability. If we can't verify an article's content, then I agree that it does not meet our inclusion standards. Of the three, I probably would have only argued to keep Aaidh ibn Abdullah al-Qarni, but something to consider there is that you had four editors call for it to be deleted in a five day discussion versus four arguing to keep and somehow consensus only looks at those 8 comments, but what about the 20 different editors who edited the page or 1832 page views it got last month alone? Thus, in many an AfD those who declare something non-notable does not reflect reality, because you can have four people think something's not notable and several times that number think otherwise, but never comment in the discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well one of those editors nominated it for deletion, and page views are irrelevant when it comes to sourcing becuase there might not be any reliable sources out there, in which case it can't be verified and should be deleted. That particular article was about the author of the book, and as there were no reliable sources dealing only with his life, and not one of his books, I think it should have been deleted. And notability isn't subjective, it has an objective criterion written at the top of the Wikipedia:Notability page: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The converse, of course, being that subjects that have not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources should not have articles on them. That's not subjective.--Patton^t/c 19:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet, people use it subjectively in practice. I usually see WP:JNN "votes," and not any explanation how specifically it fails any guideline. All of the about sourcing is covered by WP:V, which makes WP:N redundant and unnecessary if not instruction creep or excess bureaucracy. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you on this. You know I think I'll take up asking people who say "delete not notable" "why is it not notable?"....--Patton^t/c 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You see in your examples above, you link to Google News, i.e. you don't use a WP:JNN, but say why you think they aren't, but just taking a sample discussion see here and look at any post that uses "notable" in it. You literally have one that is a textbook WP:JNN and another that says "Anyone who thinks the Power Rangers show is notable needs to get a life." Ouch! Thus, you get a lot of lack of explanation of why something is not notable or even an extreme interpretation of notability (even the show isn't notable?!). In the same discussion editors say delete as non-notable, while others say to keep as notable. And there are also inaccurate statements that sound reasonable, i.e. saying that their not notable among the characters, when if you look at the article, you will see that it concerns the leader of the group, which means it's surely redirectable at least. As far as coverage in sources, I found at least one review that verifies the character's actor, which is at least mergeable information and I suspect there are magazine articles concerning the franchise that might not have online results, but it does get thousands of Google hits, which means it's at least popular and somewhat verifiable. Anyway, I think it's a good idea to ask people "why is it not notable?" Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and congratulations and good luck and Happy Groundhog Day! Hopefully, I didn't leave anything else. I am glad to read that you are here to help "perfect this repository of human knowledge" as it shows me your mind is in the right place! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fancruft

Nice job:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination)

To bad it did not pass. Third time is the charm? Ikip (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, hey that was only the second nomination and given how others have renominated articles for deletion even after they were kept previously or take them to DRV after keep closes... I would definitely argue to delete in a third nomination and it was just remarkable to see some who rarely if never argue to keep mainspace articles so vehemently defend keeping an essay! Yes, an essay on a made up term is more valuable than articles that are actually relevant to people outside of Wikipedia, just like how having a collection of deletion discussions is somehow better than having articles. But in any event, at least it was not unanimous and some of those who commented multiple times there are currently indefinitely blocked editors who were antagonizing myself and others elsewhere. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Beautiful Place to Die

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A Beautiful Place to Die, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to be notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article indeed improved by User:Colonel Warden and I. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Good luck on WP:Canvas you are a much better diplomat than me. Probably better if I don't stay. Ikip (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't like to be alone. :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

I accidentally blocked you while fixing some old Grawp blocks. My apologies. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing that in my watchlist was my biggest "what the fuck?" in a while. --EEMIV (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes five times now that I have been unblocked for some reason or other, but this is the strangest, I suppose. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mega template

• User:Ikip/test2 Anything else we should add or remove? Ikip (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What was Template:ARS/AfD? I think we should have one for DRVs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Undermountain

Anything you can do to rescue this one? BOZ (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find, but please return the favor with this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't know much about that character, what could I do to improve it? BOZ (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Style, format, anything would be appreciated? I hope my efforts with Undermountain have helped (I'll look for more before commenting in the AfD as it seems we have a few days), whereas the VG article should close tomorrow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the disambiguation page thing worked well enough. I think you could move the page to Valerie Gray (character), redirect it to the proper character page article, then copy the disambiguation page text onto the new redirect that you create when you move the page, and all should be straight. :) Done it several times myself (see Thay for an example). BOZ (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, it has been rescued, it seems the momentum has shifted for your article too! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

You may be interested in this essay. Ikip (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good essay! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

WikiThanks

A Nobody, thanks for your support of Ben, in his time of need. It would be such a loss to Wikipedia too lose him. God bless. Ikip (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I award the Rescue Barnstar to A Nobody. This barnstar is long overdue. Thank you for your diligent work in not only saving articles, but helping to save editors too. Ikip (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Users against notability

100 users with userboxes may or may not be significant. If all of them participate in the RFC and relatively few pro-notability people do, then it's significant. If only 1 or 2 of them do and they are outnumbered by pro-notability, then it's not. Likewise, if all 100 show up but they are outnumbered 900-100 in the discussion, then it's not significant. Of course, the reality is at most a few to a couple dozen will bother to participate, and between a few and a few dozen pro-notability people will participate. This should be an interesting discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because they may see their time as best spent working on articles than worrying about these RfCs and such and thus just go with the Ignore All Rules approach when it comes to thinking about overly oppresive guidelines, which is pretty much what I have seen editors do, i.e. not dwell on the guideline writing and just edit and argue based on common sense. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but absent a scientific poll, participation-based consensus or lack of consensus is the best we are going to get. Think of it this way: Wikipedia has tens of thousands of active editors at any one time. It's possible, albeit very unlikely, that all but 100 are rabid pro-notability editors who are too busy editing to bother with userboxes and categories, or even to participate in this RFC. But if they refuse to participate in the RFC, they shouldn't be surprised if there is an apparent consensus that goes against them. By the way, WP:IAR does have its place, and guidelines are guidelines not policies. If something is a guideline, it means you have a very heavy burden to explain yourself when you come across a case that calls for IAR. This is unlike an essay, where you can pretty much just ignore it or just mention it and say "it's not applicable here" or "I think it would be good to ignore it in this case." Policies are even stronger, when you IAR contrary to policies, you are basically saying "I think it's imperative to ignore policy on this, and I'm willing to risk getting warned or blocked over it if I'm wrong." Someone who is effective at using IAR against policies and guidelines will have far more "right call" comments on his talk page than warnings or chastisements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't participate, because "notability" is so absurd that they don't even want to dignify it by commenting. Most editors out of that tens of thousands do NOT comment in policy pages. Who knows why they don't, but Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hold on..... i mesed up on something

Uber Awesome Award Nominee

Hey dude, for your many contributions, you are one of the February 2009 Uber Awesome Award Nominees. Estemshorn (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

		January '09 Uber Awesome Award Nominee
		Congratulations, A Nobody, You've been nominated!!!!! Estemshorn (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Über awesome indeed! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitter irony

Look at what the old WP:N used to direct too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:N&oldid=173960965

A helpme page for new users. Now it redirects to a page used to delete new users contributions. Ikip (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What's funny is that people think we get criticized for covering fiction and yeah maybe some comedians and bloggers who might poke fun at us, yet, others actually mock us for silly "notability" guidelines as seen here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC headings

Sorry for my many consecutive edits which I'm sure made for a lot of edit conflicts on your end. The many headings for support, oppose, for, against, humorous, non-humorous, were getting to be too much. Generally in discussions we can just have a section for discussion and a section to voice both support and opposition. All the separate sections aren't really needed. Thanks for your patience in dealing with my rapid edits. -- Equazcion •✗/C • 18:06, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure that it is not inconsistent format wise with the rest of the page. If the rest of the pages has seperate section headings for supports and opposes, so should this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest these extra sections you've added aren't quite as serious and constructive, ie. likely to garner comment, as the rest of the page. There's already one comment to that effect accusing you of WP:POINT. For the sake of peace I was trying to deal with this politely. I hope you'll at least make the compromise of toning down those headings by allowing some to be consolidated. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:12, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am okay with consolidating the essay and humrous headings, but if people dispute that it should exist, why not allow for some different specific options of possibly retaggings? Maybe some who support it, don't support as a guideline, but would support as an essay and vice-versa? To be perfectly open and honest, I whole-heartedly am convinced that "notability" as an inclusion guideline is outright morally wrong and yes, I really feel that strongly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's achingly obvious that you feel strongly about this, to the point of hostility. I'd just like to make the suggestion that you tone down that attitude. It'll be much more likely that people will listen to you if you speak in a balanced and objective tone about the issue. Pushing hard will generally make those who so far oppose your position push back even harder, rather than seriously consider your rationale with an open mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:20, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

For reasons of personal experience, I cannot stand the arrogance and condescension that is behind elitist ideologies and I view "notability" along those lines of subjective paternalistic tellings of other what is and is not worthwhile. We're a volunteer site. If information is verifiable, not nonsense, not a personal attack, and not a copy vio and relevant to some of our volunteers then what is to anyone else if it is kept? Otherwise we're left with a "busy body" syndrome of "I don't like what's important to you and because I don't like it, who cares if you like it." That is how I see "notability." I am more than willing to engage with editors in a serious discussion and compromise over objective and logical inclusion criteria, but on something that purports to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we absolutely cannot use language that smacks of needless superiority of the few over the masses. Anyway, I might take a break or something, because I am finding myself getting more upset over this than is probably healthy for me. I just think that the appeal of Wikipedia is such that it has a real chance of contributing something worthwhile to humanity and seeing this attachment to some word just becasue we have done things this way for but a few years is mind-boggling. Of course we can come up with something better, we should be able to dream and think beyond constraints. How bad it would be for humanity if our ancestors remained entrenched in every old way. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Demotion N to a failed essay

Though I doubt if it will get much support, I concur and have "voted" and opinned at your pole with a pole. The current discussion as written and presented seems designed to end up with one predetermined and forgone outcome. Keep up the good works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wish to add my thanks as well. I've been a fan of yours for a while, from the days when you were known by another name. I wish you would come back to WP:ANIME, we need you more than ever, I think. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it

A new user has added quite a bit to Jaime Jackson (and a few other articles on the barefoot horses movement). Some of it is borderline copyvio, most of it is totally non-neutral, but nonetheless it's new content in an area we're pretty sparse on right now. I've fixed the odd bit, but it's not really the kind of thing I do (if it weren't obviously an enthusiastic new user I'd probably delete much of it and take it to talk). This is exactly the sort of thing you're good at, so if you're not too busy with your campaign against WP:N I thought it'd make a good challenge for you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I appreciate the offer and would like to help; however, I have felt out of it for the past week and for off-wiki personal experience reasons seeing the comments in support of "notability" are really disturbing/disgusting me and just adding to my general unhappiness. As such, per advice of one of my off-wiki correspondents, and given what has happened, I have to step back for a time. Take care and good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not going to discuss the notability issue with you for the good of both our healths. The offer stands if and when you return; I imagine those articles will still be there, and likely won't be much improved by that point. Come back brighter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chris, okay. I might log on here and there or might just take a month off, in the meantime, I might do some source searches and compile the results off-wiki and return if/when I feel up to it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)