Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?

Your !vote at this AfD

Can you please expand upon your comment? This was one of 40 or so "Strong Keep"s that you made in the last hour, so I'd just like to confirm that you did read the article and all of the arguments made for and against it. Leebo ^T/C 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I speed read, and anyway, I think I voted to keep 50 articles, because it's a nice even number. Anyway, the main thing that I was seeing was that some people seemed to want to keep it, so as I prefer more articles to few, I thought those arguments seemed valid and I throw my lot with them. Regards, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern was that the "people who seemed to want to keep it" didn't have a policy-based reason for keeping it. The article does not conform to our policies. Leebo ^T/C 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, I'm learning how y'all vote on stuff. Most of my previous edits have been minor grammatical stuff or some article creation and I thought it might worth broadening my horizons and so today I just felt like supporting others who spent time on articles that might be deleted before they can be improved or be deleted only to have someone recreate it anyway. Sadly, though, my back is killing me now, so . . . --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pneumatic Detach

Please expand on your reasons for your "strong keep" vote on Pneumatic Detach ([1]). As you probably know, an AfD is not a vote but rather a discussion, and not giving a proper rationale for keeping an article does not help out the discussion. Rockstar915 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a useful article and someone went through the trouble of keeping it, so I just want help out a fellow article-creating Wikipedian. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading for you re: AfDs

Arguments to aviod in deletion discussions. Thanks, Rockstar915 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Take care! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD (umpteen)

Hello. Several people are concerned because of your rapid additions of "arguments" for "Strong Keep" on several AFDs today. This concern comes from the fact that they don't believe that you are actually understanding the reasoning behind the deletions and are just trying to keep things on Wikipedia because you feel that work should not be wasted. This is not the case for deletion discussions. Things are brought up at AFD because people feel that it does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. This may range from being completely unsourceable original research or not meeting our inclusion criteria for a certain topic. None of your "Strong Keep" rationales actually have anything to do with the discussion at hand. I would suggest that you avoid commenting on further AfD discussions for a little while and focus on writing articles (or just going Special:Random and spellchecking).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have already discussed this with others (see above) and am taking a break from voting until I have a chance to read some of the links above before I return to voting to keep articles that people spend their time and energy on. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Voting to keep articles that people spend their time and eneryg on" is the main issue here. That should not be a reason that an article should be kept. Reasons should be "it meets X criteria" or "it is notable because..." Please do review the links that you were given.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on my own experience, it might be useful sometimes to give a comment about some aspect of the article related to the AfD discussion without actually giving a keep or delete opinion. I hope to continue seeing you around. new voices are always needed at AfD. 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive suggestions and kind words. Have a nice night! American Idol starts soon! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources

Thanks for your edits on Parma, Ohio. You're doing a good job. Please check out the WP:RS and WP:ATT pages, however, for what constitutes a reliable source. Two of the sources on that page are unacceptable: The first one is the answers.com page, which is merely a copy of an out of date Wikipedia page. Such sites are never acceptable as sources, I've removed the offending section and tagged it citation needed. The second one is the blog.cleveland.com section. Yes, I know it's written by a journalist, but we have standards of inclusion for blogs, and this unfortunately does not meet those standards for inclusion. If you can find a better link, you're welcome to add it in. What I did, was I merely removed the weblink, and left the rest of the material and citation as it was: now it shows the reference as being "Jim Nichols, The Plain Dealer, February whatever, accessed March whatever". As of right now, the sources are in acceptable condition, with the sole exception of the remaining Citation Needed tags. Thanks for editing wikipedia, and you'll learn the policies better the longer you edit. Keep with it. You're doing a good job. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help and pleased to see that people are working together on that! Take care! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, as you can see above, this account was being used to help resolve edit disputes on the Parma article (to the pleasure of at least some) and other well-intentioned efforts. Yeah, I tried to show some support for article creators on the article for deletion stuff,Family Guy but as soon as I got a slew of messages from people on my talk page, I stopped. So . . . Well, might as well watch at this time of the night. Have a good one! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)