Thomjakobsen

blank

Mir Aimal Kasi

What do you think about the Mir Aimal Kansi article? AFD or not? Mrs.EasterBunny 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do you think of Ahmed al-Ghamdi‎, a minor hijacker? Merge? Some people support him and want an article on him to remain. As far as I can see, Ahmed has no news articles on him (just on the hijacking). Mrs.EasterBunny 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation of separate articles is logical. While one could point to certain wikipedia guidelines and say that having separate articles contradict the guidelines, there's certain logic to creating separate articles, too. For example, wikipedia recommends article length, possibly because the internet is not like a book. You can't turn the page (only scroll down or click to another page (except that wikipedia doesn't have pages like msnbc.com news articles). So, one has to break one rule to follow another rule!

Thank you for taking the time to explain your ideas in so much detail. Mrs.EasterBunny 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly erroneous A7

Synthphonia Suprema - articles that have been around for almost a year are not CSD. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - David Gerard 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No sources, no indication of a label, no amg entry. Sure looks speedyable to me. Please consider fixing the article to make it suitable for the project, rather than simple reverting the speedy tag. Friday (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I don't want people to mistakenly think that I'm mad and want to delete other articles in retailiation. On the contrary, I think I understand WP better. Your thoughtful insights have helped.

What do you think about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Abrams

It says he is a director of Viacom. He's one of many directors. Nothing is mentioned about notability. Is he a famous broadcaster or a well known investor? Is he a killer (he's probably not!)

What if the person has slight notability but the article is so poorly written that one cannot see any notability? Delete then allow recreation when someone writes a well written article that mentions why he is notable? Or allow article on notable people that are so poorly written that the person is not notable judging from the content of the article?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful advice. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For bringing a swift and reasoned end to an AfD started largely due to a misunderstanding on my part, with the intention of generating a spirit of good faith between all editors involved, I hereby award Thomjakobsen the Barnstar of Peace. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments below in reply to discussion on User Talk:Hersfold:

You are quite welcome. It has been noted before that I don't always look into things as much as I should before nominating them for deletion - I suppose that this is unfortunately another one of those times. In any case, I would much rather see a page kept and improved than deleted. The above award is for your efforts to knock some sense into me with some solid and polite reasoning, and for doing your best to bring a new editor back onto Wikipedia. The "Rescue from Deletion" award didn't seem quite appropriate, since as you pointed out, we were running towards a landslide keep. But you do get something out of the deal. Excellent work, and thanks once again! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Since it doesn't seem anyone has said this yet, Welcome to Wikipedia! (Sorry, it is several months late, but what the heck...) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Castle

An article for the Austrian film can always be created - a one liner holding a place where an obvious redirect should go really isn't the right solution. Carlossuarez46 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Stone

Thanks for your most informative input to the Stone afd.--Alterrabe 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing AfD results on talk pages

Wow, I learn something new every day, no matter how hard I try. (Actually, I learned two things at WP today!) Bearian 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Drapetomania

I think the drapetomania still needs expanding. I don't know much about the subject but from reading the Talk pages, I can tell that you do. I'd appreciate it if you could add to the article, but if you're busy then that's ok. - Cyborg Ninja 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Undertones influenced by Glam rock

Wow, thank you for that, I had no idea. It seemed on the face of it to be highly unlikely to me. Sorry my skepticism was misplaced and thank you for enlarging my knowledge (and improving the article incrementally). --John 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Killercop.com

My talk page is not the appropriate place to debate a close debate. Why did you not raise any one of these issues in the centralized debate at AfD? I have no idea what do do next, except to post it at WP:AN. Should I request assistance there? Otherwise, please appeal my decision at WP:DRV or WP:AN, or post another nomination at WP:AFD. I closed the debate and kept per the general guidelines at AfD and admin boards. I'll get a cite for you. Bearian 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which states clearly to keep if one is unsure about consensus. Bearian 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I did raise all of these points during the debate, with the exception of posting all of the incriminating links out of respect for his privacy, but I did make repeated comments to the effect that he was Sutcliffe. I've raised the issues on your talk page because I thought that was standard procedure: to discuss any issues with the closing admin rather than going through the more formal DRV process. In regards to "unsure about consensus", the consensus is a unanimous "delete" once you discount Wheresleaelat's duplicate votes. I may have been remiss in not striking out the earlier votes myself, but I thought it was the kind of thing a closing admin would usually check as part of the process. Is something like WP:DRV required if the closing admin reviews his decision and then changes his mind? It would only seem to make sense if the admin stuck by the original decision, although I'm not really familiar with the process there. Thomjakobsen 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've review the closure and get back to you by tonight. Bearian 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You were right. It is done. Bearian 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lansing Bennett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Sander

Where were all these "keep" people when the Lansing Bennett AFD was being discussed? They must have been busy watching porn! Just joking! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EricDolphyOutThere.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EricDolphyOutThere.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)