User talk:Star Mississippi/Archives/2008/November

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk page

Sorry for the accidental edits. :( I've fixed your page. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks so much for your help! StarM 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

re-creation

you closed an afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligo Primer Analysis Software about 10 days ago. Its been recreated with many additional references as Oligo Primer Analysis Software -- I declined to speedy in G4 as recreation because in m view the references show very widespread use and the consequent notability. Letting you know since you probably want to check. I have not yet started actually checking the text of the references. I do note the name and fragments thereof are also possible generic terms so I do not go too far in accepting by themselves the gsearch results the article quotes. DGG (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I only closed it from the AfD consensus. I'm not remotely familiar with the topic and I'm willing to give the creator the benefit of the doubt with that many references. I agree that it's not a G4, the article deserves a chance and I'll let someone more familiar with the topic handle it. They'll know more whether the person is legit or not. StarM 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of deletion of Jeopardy! set evolution

Hello. I was composing an argument to keep this article but you happened to close the discussion before I was able to hit the save button. I was wondering if you could tell me whether the following rationale, if it were added before you closed, would have changed your decision:

Keep. There is reliable source material available in addition to what is cited in the article. Prisoner of Trebekistan: A Decade in Jeopardy! and Television Game Show Hosts: Biographies of 32 Stars both contain detailed descriptions of the Jeopardy! set and changes made to it. This is enough reliable source coverage to make the set of Jeopardy notable and thus worthy of a separate article. Any defects in this article can thus be cured through regular editing, and therefore, per policy, it should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for considering this. DHowell (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't find it to be enough but as it's a well reasoned argument and I'm familiar with your contributions, I'm willing to re-open and re-list. StarM 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for relisting this. You are a truly reasonable, just, and fair administrator. DHowell (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we all have a lot to learn from one another and there is very infrequently one absolutely right answer. I've watchlisted it because I'm curious to see how it turns out. StarM 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearless (Ali Lohan album)

You missed the second album in the AFD, AliPersonal.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, got it now. StarM 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Kww) In the future, if that happens, you can just tag the article with {{db-g6}} and include a link to the deletion discussion. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi

I was going to ask (As I know there has been a ridiculous amount of vandalism on a page that originally was set out to be an interesting article) The article was on Actor Leon Ousby. Orson Griffith originally started the article and then a load of silly nonsense was edited by trolls and the article went pear shaped and Orson decided to leave it. I would like to take the article over and request that it gets put under my user space, whilst I source the necessary information and references you require to fit into the criteria of WIKIPEDIA. I know that Leon Ousby is a notable performer and originally requested that the article be edited to respect the privacy of certain aspects of his life, which has been done. I would really appreciate it if you would allow it to be placed there until I can gather the relevant information that Orson was sourcing. Kind regardsKirsty Welles (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing there that was salvageable. I suggest you start from the beginning and build the article with regard to reliable sources keeping in mind that it's never been established that Mr. Ousby is notable as Wikipedia defines it so you may have an uphill slog. I'm happy to help you if I can. StarM 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

newbie help

Was working on adding sources to Lisa Masson ... do we not have five days from beginning? Wouldn't that be tomorrow night? Thank you for advice. Webwinnow (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

there's no requirement that is has to be absolutely five full days especially when consensus is clear. I sugges you work on it un your own sandbox, for example at User:Webwinnow/Lisa Masson and establish notability before moving it back to mainspace. StarM 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Archive

Done for privacy reasons. It's all there. Not hiding anything. But I think they're essentially resolved. StarM 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

*blink* Wow. Star Mississippi, huh? This will take some getting to. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You tried finding a free username of late? I was trying to remove any plausible connection to my old name. I'm too googlable and this is one I can at least relate to this one. StarM works, or anything along those lines. I try not to confuse StarM 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, I'm not complaining, (Me? Complain??! Pfft.) it's just so many people are renaming. Jennavecia, Possum, RyanCross, Garden, Caulde, Fish-and-karate, etc. (I could find more, but I'm too lazy.) Every time I get used to one rename, someone else does it. (NOOOOO!!!! INFORMATION OVERLOAD!!! *runs around room, smacking head into various objects* ;-) Seriously, it's not a big deal, I just thought it was strange that so many users I've know for quite a while are renaming so close together, even though they have all been here for different amounts of time. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I know a couple of those, don't think I know all. I hope not to change again. It takes me a whle to get ised to it. Caulde luckily kept his sign formatted the same so he was recognizable in that sense. I guess it's our job to keep all of you on your toes. Will see how long it takes me to remember to log in with this one. StarM 02:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! My whole wikilife is all messed up. You see, due to my general inability to relate to real people and real life issues, my psychiatrist suggested I get involved with Wikipedia, where I don't have to deal with people's moodswings, genderconfusions, namechanges, etc. etc. Now this! --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Says Mr. Iuseanamethatdoesn'trevealmytrue allegiances :p At least I'm only guilty of 1/3. StarM 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Who told you about my gender confusion issues?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone, that would be me. Do you know how many times it's been assumed I'm male just because 99.9% of wikipedia editors appear to be? StarM 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, why is that? BTW, my entire watchlist is filled with your archive maneuvers. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry o:) And I just saw another rename come across my watchlist. StarM 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

StarM? Hey, works for me! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

and just happens to be one of my favourite songs. StarM 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure yer just trying to throw me off. I had to actually log in and see my watchlist to figger out who you was. Off again, hope yer well! No name changes for me yet :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Foiled again! How did you notice something was off? The old me not showing? I just raided your userpage for my admin puzzle piece and Jeff code StarM 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that scared me when I saw your userpage was deleted! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Same! —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 03:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you two StarM 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Afd mess

Thanks, I'm in the middle of (probably) sorting it out (Epistemos (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).

:-)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

why thank you :p StarM 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with me with this? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? I'm confused. Tag as suspected puppet or the you have been suspected.. talk page notification. StarM 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When I paste the notification regarding the accusation "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ 211.143.190.162" comes up as a redlink. But don't get into a sweat about it, its not that important. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have fixed it, which is good because a)I couldn't figure it out and b) I was distracted... Sorry! StarM 02:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing this one-eyed as well, but no it's not fixed. It comes up blue here and when I use the normal wikilink format, but when I use the notification template it comes up red. Blue, red, and white. No your not looking at Jeff Feagles :-)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:o, do we actually agree on a team or are you a bird fan? I went to the SSP and realised it wasn't fixed, but I don't know why. I don't know who is active at the moment who might be able to help. I don't have as many TPSers, and I I don't know who's a wiki magician to understand that stuff who's online now. StarM 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Who just fumbled? Lots of turnovers in this game. An Eagles fan! If I were an admin I would perma-block you just for that question. I hate all things Philli, especially after this disaster. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Me calling it for Philly in 5 won me money, so I can't complain though I'm wholly disinterested. this would be a runaway if the Giants would quit turning the damn ball over! StarM 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy to hear you made a couple million. It looks Madden, the coach of the Rays, made the same bet. BTW, did you notice the big red button right below your tabs? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The donate one?? Yeah I obliterated it via prefs and adblock. Irritating. Not quite a couple milliom but it meant a free lunch. Going to be a long baseball offseason. StarM 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

hugs

you confused me by disappearing :( *hugs* -- Gurch (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. Glad you and others tracked me down. Hope all is well in your world. StarM 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

RockManQ ^(talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think I've given you one before. Oh well. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I never mind an extra cookie. StarM 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

iSouljaboytellem

"May not fail WP:CRYSTAL but no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC." Uhh.. what? My keep vote read like this: "Album has a title and release date verified by reliable sources, which is enough for inclusion." What more evidence is needed? WP:MUSIC#Albums states that any article that isn't a WP:CRYSTAL violation and has "sufficient reliable sources" can be included. I assumed the closing admin would be familiar with this guideline, even guaging consensus. Since when does a keep vote get canceled out by two delete votes that even you admitted are wrong, and a delete vote not rooted in any policy whatsoever? How is that a consensus to delete? That right there, is a keep. At the very least, no consensus. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC it needs to pass WP:MUSIC in order to be kept. simply not being a crystal ball is not reason to keep. If you disagree, please feel free to take it to deletion review but I suggest a more polite tone when doing so. Thanks! StarM 17:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It meets the guideline for albums. I already explained that it has a title and release date that's verified by reliable sources. Can you show me how it doesn't meet the guideline? Because I've already shown how it does. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not meet that criteria, plain and simple. Existence (which satisfies WP:CRYSTAL, possibly) does not mean it's notable. Verified is different to notable. You have not proven it meets WP:MUSIC in that respect. If it did we'd have an article on every n-n band and their album StarM 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability = verifiable by reliable sources. That's why we don't have an article on every non-notable band and their albums. This article was reliably sourced, which means it's notable. You don't need to keep posting on my page, for I watch everything I edit. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it, I don't know who watches and doesn't watch where they've edited. Notable does not mean its existence is verified. Per the now-deleted article, iSouljaboytellem[1] is the second album by pop rapper Soulja Boy. It is set to be released on December 16, 2008 (see List of albums released in 2008).[2] That confirms it will exist next month, not that it's notable per WP:MUSIC. As I said, you're welcome to take it to Deletion Review if you disagree with my close but I find no evidence nor did others participating that the album was notable. I'm not debating the album's existence, just whether it's notable as Wikipedia defines it. StarM 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it to DRV. But the fact that there are reliable sources covering the subject means it's notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll weigh in there when it's listed. If not as soon as you list it, then later this evening when I come back online. As I said here, reliable sources mean it exists, not that it's notable. In this case, it doesn't exist as per your sources. StarM 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Princesses

Could you please userfy this article for me? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

done :) StarM 17:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You rock! :) --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That was easy, no worries. Feel free to ping me again in the future. StarM 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rolling on the river

Hey there, Connecticut River Museum just got a DYK honour! Woo-woo! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

High five! StarM 03:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: High School AfD

No problem, it seemed like the appropriate thing to do. I've only just now remembered that I also voted in that AfD, but as there was a clear consensus, it seems to be fine. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbank Plains State High School, which I had properly closed as an NAC but which was disruptively reopened by another admin. I am grateful for your input on this matter. Hey, you deserve to call yourself a "star"! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

‎

Eco, you're welcome. To me it was a no-brainer. As I said to Julian on his talk, I'd have closed the other as well if I hadn't !voted in it. To be honest, I don't think high schools are notable. That's my personal bias, but I don't see the point in prolonging the inevitable for the sake of process. I'll say as much when/if it goes to DRV. At the rate I'm going I'll have two there today.

Julian, agreed. Shouldn't be an issue. StarM 03:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my NAC on this AfD gave two reasons for closure -- one was ignored (about WP:RS issues), which was annoying since that, by itself, warranted closure. Oh well, that's why pencils have erasers and keyboards have delete buttons. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo question

File:Malba2.jpg

Which of these two photos do you think is better for illustrating the current version of MALBA, which is too short to warrant more than one photo in its current form? (At some point I'll try to expand it which will make the issue a moot point) Neither are exactly going to win any photo awards, but I'm torn between them as each has its plusses & minuses. – iride scent 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the first, and the one that's actually present. I think the cars are a distraction whereas the fountain and associated lights add to the photo. Plus, without knowing MALBA, they seem more fitting maybe because I'm used to museums having fountains. I have no time these days, but if there are Spanish sources from which you'd like me to wrok to help expand, let me know. StarM 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, confirms my gut feeling – the second is better from the "showing the whole building" side of things, but is just plain ugly. Don't hold your breath for the article to actually get written, I suspect it'll be one of those that sits on my to-do list for a year. – iride scent 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think we need the whole building for this article. Travel guides need the whole building, we need the more creative side of it. LOL, re: actually getting written. Welcome to my to-do list which is a wishlist these days. StarM 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the nine entries on my my original to do list of April 2007 (before that I just did what popped into my head), one has been done by me (the thrilling and ever-fascinating A215 road); one has been done by someone else; seven are still on said list today. Admittedly, most stem from my brief stint writing BLPs – which I've gone off somewhat for obvious reasons – but even so! – iride scent 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are icky. I don't understand anyone enjoying the drama of working on them. I'm happy to edit in low drama areas. Really when was the last time you saw an edit war over a museum? And I'd love to keep it that way. Saner StarM 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I saw an edit war over a museum? That would be this sock-magnet. – iride scent 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

EEK! And what's so fascinating about that? StarM 12:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason anything mentioning the magic word "train" tends to erupt into a flurry of flaming and fanatical editwarring. One of our more productive editors remains indefblocked for his behaviour in a debate on the burning issue of whether the length of railroad lines should be given as "miles/kilometers" or "kilometers/miles". – iride scent 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please tell me that made WP:LAME at the time? StarM 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it did. If you want to see the original debate in all its insanely pedantic glory, feast your eyes on this. (The resulting multi-talkpage flareup did result in the unmasking of a long-term bad-hand account from the leading "kilometers" advocate, and a fairly impressive sockfarm from the leading "miles" advocate. It was one of the more surreal weeks, even by the fairly always-surreal standards of WP:TRAINS.) For a general taste of the full glory of the train-warriors in full voice, this AfD will probably never be bettered. Although Talk:Railway stations in Cromer comes close for sheer lose-the-will-to-live value. (I wrote the article for which that's the talkpage. It is fair to say I did not expect it to cause that much debate.) – iride scent 03:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just had a cursorty look over those but wow. I'm in awe of the passion that some people bring to editing. I think in some cases it borders on lunacy, but I wonder just where this devotion comes from. I guess I wonder why people care so much about topics. I guss that's why I don't *get* edit wars. What is so important to endlessly revert and argue over something. Is it really that important to be right, right now? The mind boggles. StarM 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dizzy Devil

Hello! You closed a discussion concerning this article as "keep" on November 10th. That same day, someone went ahead and renominated it for deletion. Well, today, while that discussion is still ongoing, another editor (the same one who made the nomination you closed as keep) has gone ahead and unilaterally redirected the article, again, while the AfD for an article that was started the same day a previous AfD closed is still under way.--A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just !voted that it should be procedurally kept as it's an insane way to do these AfDs. Not sure what it's going to anount to StarM 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the renomination, it's that it's currently redirected while the discussion is underway, which means anyone going to that article will not see the AfD template. I don't think it is appropriate to redirect an article while the discussion is underway and especially not appropriate to redirect two days after a discussion closed as keep, i.e. going against consensus unilaterally. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, I don't know if there's anything against re-directing during an AfD as I know I've done it myself (especially in schools when the outcome is a foregone conclusion). I'll look a bit into that. I have a feeling this AfD is going to close as m/r for simplicity sake to keep someone from doing what TPH did again. Not saying it's right, but I have a feeling it's what's going to happen. This is why I get sick of AfDs for the sake of AfDs, they just waste time. StarM 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern in this case is two-fold: first, the user who did so had been sanctioned by arbcom (check his block log) for disruptive redirecting/going against consensus; second, if the article is redirected then anyone going to the article will not see the AfD template and thus not participate in the discussion for good or bad. So, it seems a way of limiting discussion or going around discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know his history and as I said somewhere, I'm surprised he hasn't yet taken me to DRV because in most cases that I've closed there's no consensus whatsoever to delete. Merge, maybe, but that doesn't need an AfD and I don't think the solution to "Someone will overturn my merge" is AfD. I've just reverted his re-direct and will note same in the AfD. StarM 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks and have a pleasant afternoon! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I had just thought that was the old AfD tag rather that a new one. I didn't even think that it would have been renominated. TTN (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor?

In a discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nurasko/myminicity.com (and WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nurasko/myminicity), I have a rather long winded but detailed explanation regarding two different user pages (copies of each other) that are up for delete. Rather than explain it here and create a bias, I would ask that if you have the time, could you look at this situation in a bit of depth, and tell me if I am correct (or plausible) in my reasoning, or if I am just full of WP:BOLLOCKS? If you don't have the time, or don't feel comfortable, I will not take any offense, I promise. My request is for a brutally honest opinion, whether or not I will like it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with you. While I think editors need/deserve time to work on userfied articles I think the bigger question is whether the subject will ever be encyclopedically notable. I think the difference, and this may be my interpretation vs. wiki policy, is that promotion is lesser than spam. Spam implies clear bad faith and while promotion is less so, I think the motive is still the same. In both cases the article (and I use this term no matter which space it's located in) exists solely to promote the company. Is my miny city notable? I don't know, I haven't looked that far into it. Also I give the user credit -- s/he did not choose a username that's promotional so maybe there's no promotional aim. I'm quite liberal on potential when I userfy--I frequently do't check back to see what the user has done with the userfied content and rarely read MfD. In this case, I'd lean toward letting it stay in userspace for a bit longer. How long? don't know. No defined period. If then the person hadn't worked on it, I'd be more inclined to think the user is happy with having his/her company "on wikipedia" and does not care to make the article compliant with guidelines. Does that make any sense at all? I admit, my brain is fried so I'm not sure if this is clear. StarM 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. If it was 90 days or more, I wouldn't have interjected. In this case, it was only 7 days, so I don't think they were applying enough good faith. I think we feel the same way, even if I argue it a bit stronger when being an "advocate" to allow more leeway in userpages. In my opinion, we shouldn't judge notability on an article in user space simply because it isn't fair to the user, who is trying to establish notability, as long as they have done something on it in the last month. If for no other reasons than honestly, some articles can only be sourced by books or newspapers perhaps, and for you and I to sit and judge it in userspace using google isn't reasonable. ON another point, yes, my rationale was too long, which is something I need to work on. Thanks for taking the time. Getting an outside opinion once in a while on stuff like this helps keep me honest and centered. I owe you a cookie. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll collect on my cookie when my cold is gone, couldn't taste it now and it would go to waste. No worries on long rationale -- there isn't anything wrong with it -- it's just that some here don't read it. I'm guilty of that at times, I'm also guilty of writing too much at times. I agree re: more time for offline sourcing, but I admit a bias against web-based companies that lack coverage because by the nature of their businesses, they should have online sources. But each case is different. It's part of the reason I rarely get involved with MfD.

Good to have you back

Nice new name :)

In the spirit of the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, here's something to eat:

Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks, *munches* StarM 04:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hey Star. Thanks for taking care of the nitty gritty and dealing with some of the AfD closures. Sorry to say I'm actually wondering about one of them: Cass Lewart. I was actually working on the article when it was deleted. I was able to save it to a user page user: ChildofMidnight/Cass Lewart sandbox (I believe) but I can't see who started the article and I have some questions for other editors who might have worked on it. Would it be appropriate to reopen it or is that a bother? Sorry about this, I had plenty of time to do it before, it just piqued my interest just now so I was trying to see what I could find and what was there. I believe he may actually be a notable subject, but I don't quite have enough information yet. I will watch here for your reply, and I apologize for the inconvenience. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're fast. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CoM. Thanks for the note. I moved the deleted version with its revisions here so you can work on it and see its history. That way you can reach out to other editors and improve it, if possible. I think consensus was clear to delete but I think some sandbox work to improve it may make it pass notability guidelines, in which case I'd fully support a move back to userspace. Thoughts on that? I'll be headed offline shortly for a bit but will then be back online later this evening (New York time) to answer any questions. StarM 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with you. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you just happened to catch me online at the right moment. Happy to help. StarM 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay Star, I'm done. You can have a look and put it back up for prime time viewing if you think it's okay. If you think it needs another round of AfD I'm cool with that too. The article is still at User:ChildofMidnight/Cass Lewart sandbox Thanks for your help. He's certainly not a conquerer of nations, but I think he'd be okay for a corner of Wikipedia. Ten books is a lot! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll look at it when I have a moment later today. StarM 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK CoM, very good job. My remaining question stems from the fact that I'm not sure those sources establish notability. Any objections to my putting your draft through DRV for consensus? Let me know. StarM 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the article bears little resemblance to the old one, I think an AfD might be more appropriate. I voted delete on the old version, so I don't think that decision to delete warrants review. But I think this article passes enough muster, so I'd welcome the judgement of other editors on whether it should be deleted. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually what I've seen done at DRV is along the lines of: Article A was deleted at AfD. It was userfied and User created Article B in his/her userspace. Discussion on whether it passes merit ensues. That's not a rule, just what I've seen as normal practice. It's seen my some as a validation of content in the form of COnsensus is this article is sufficiently different so as not to be a G4, and also addresses the issues that resulted in deletion. That usually keeps it from being re-deleted, but does not prevent a future AfD. If you'd rather move it right back to article space, that's fine, but it's my opinion (as an editor, not as an admin) that a DRV would be better. Thoughts? StarM 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to seek a fresh set of eyes unprejudiced by the negative implications of the article having been retrieved from the garbage. My concern is that it will be reviewed in light of it having been already determined to be garbage once, and now is proposed to be picked out of said garbage because someone is trying to retrieve and revive it. I think it's new enough and completely rewritten that a fresh AfD would be appropriate. I have no problem with it being noted in the AfD discussion that the article was recently deleted before being rewritten and developed. And in fact I'd be willing to refrain from voting and just commenting so as to encourage a fair hearing. The rewrite did begin before the actual deletion if that matter, so it would be a kind of do-over based on a much improved version (though one I am not convinced will survive). I guess a do-over is what you're trying to avoid? You've been very helpful and cooperative, so I'm willing to defer to your judgement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see and semi-agree with what you're saying. My concern is that there are people who will see it as an end-run around the AfD result to restore it would AfD. I'm not convinced it will survive either, which is why I think if it does -- a consensus DRV will help it. THe way I see it, there are three choices - in no particular order 1) restore it to main space 2) restore and send to AfD 3) send it to DRV as a new draft. I personally (again as an editor with ~ 10 months experience, not as an admin) think 3 is the best bet. I think 2 is likely to be seen as an, if you don't think it's notable, why was it restored which would mean neither you nor I could list it. I'm just not convinced #1 wouldn't be speedied as a G4. It shouldn't be, but that's not to say it wouldn't be. That's where my concerns lie. I think you've done a very good job improving the article but the lack of significant reliable sources cast doubt in my mind that he's notable. Thoughts? ETA: Going offline for a bit now, will be back online this evening StarM 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is ETA? Estimated time of arrival? I don't think there's any rush, so I'm not worried about that, should I be?

What about reopening the AfD then as per the revised version not having a chance to be considered (and having been begun before the matter was closed)? I actually think this hurts it's chances as there are already delete votes, but maybe that's the fair way to go so those same editors would have a chance to review a revised and improved version.

Otherwise I would suggest retoring it to main space with a note on its talk page. Anyone who wants to can put it up for AfD can. It's not the same article that went through the first AfD.

Are you saying you would be implicated in what could be construed as an apparent "end-run"? Hmmmm... It's not the same article really, so I think, especially with a note on its talk page, it would be legitimate to go that route.

Here's my broader though: he's certainly not the most notable guy in the world, but he is a holocaust survivor who has written about his experiences, he is the author of 10 popular (but outdated) books on computer technology. If someone published 10 substantial books on the internet would they be appropriate to include? So I think the article is legitimate (barely).

Again, having indicated my personal preference I will bear no ill will if you choose to go another route. But those are my thoughts on the matter. And I respect whatever approach you think is best. Sorry about such a long discussion.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA=Edited to Add. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think re-listing the AfD two days later will accomplish anything. I'm not comfortable restoring it as I'm not sure he's met the guidelines for notability. What I will do is ask another editor who sometimes sees things differently than I do for his input. (I'll direct him here) I may be wrong and I'm happy to restore if he thinks it meets notability guidelines. I definitely see your thoughts, but I think the guidelines for creative professionals are skewed to those whose notability is easier to confirm. That said, the other editor I"m going to ask may be able to weigh in on holdings of his books so we'll see. Here is my request for input. StarM 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

you know, anyone can do holdings--just link to [1] and put in the title. , find one book, and click on the author, to get the list of al his works sorted approximately in order of most holdings at the top. Doing that, I see his books are in 100 - 150 OCLC libraries each. Thereal problem is interpreting the counts. This is only fair,but that this are slightly outdated practical computer books. Academic libraries try not to buy practical computer books, because they get out of date too fast. and what public libraries keep is pretty random: For example, his '98 book on modems. what this article really needs tho is a proper listing of the book reviews in the references in a more formal way. it should if at all possible indicate something about the size of the review or have a quote. The hobbyist of the year award from the NJ club is not impressive unless you can show that the award is important--there are after all a few impt local computer clubs. What exactly is intended by "sourced to NYT technology articles" do they quote him? if so list, them as formal references. I'll take another look in a day or two. Unless there is something quite surprisingly good there, I don't think he's going to be notable. Such articles sometimes get kept when some established wpedians know the guy, but he;s from the wrong coast. It's not a G4, because the revised article is much fuller, but i think if there's nothing more it will inevitably be deleted again.DGG (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your input. Good to know it's possible to link to worldcat to sort some of this out. Appreciate your suggestions. I agree that it's not a G4, but I know others don't look that in depth. Thanks! StarM 03:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready to roll the dice and put Cass out there for all the world. He is who he is, and if the decision is made to delete him I think that's a reasonable outcome. My personal view is that his inclusion makes the encyclopedia better and more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back, but tagged it with notability because as I said above -- I don't think he's notable. We'll see what happens. Best of luck with it -- you know where to find me if you have any questions. StarM 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate all your help and kind consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I also restored the talk page. I think I forgot to userfy that for you when I did the rest of the article but I don't think you made any edits there anyway. StarM 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

Hi, I thought you might be interested in this project, which we'll be discussing on Sunday. Also, we're looking for other museums who may be interested. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll look into it. Not sure I'll make it Sunday, but if I don't I'll catch up on details and see what I can do to help. StarM 13:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi, i just found you deleted the page Extreme Smoke. The band is notable, it is the first grindcore band in Slovenia and then Yugoslavia. The most influental Slovenian magazine wrote about Sloveninan noise music and you can read there about first Slovenian noise-grindcore group Extreme Smoke - [2]. There are many articles about this group and that is certainly a claim of notability. They released albums for well-known alternative labels american Wild Rags, english Psychomania and german TVG and many split albums with influental bands (Agathocles (band) etc.). Please can you re-activate the article or nominate it 2nd time? Thank you! Patashnik (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted via a discussion here. I suggest you work on the article in your own userspace (I'm happy to move it there if you wish) and try to improve it via sourcing to relaiable sources to show how the band meets WP:MUSIC. A claim of notability is not sufficient to pass AfD, only not to be speedy eligible. Passing AfD requires reliable sources, which this article did not have to sufficiently pass WP:MUSIC. StarM 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an explanation. Please move the article to my userspace and i will try my best to improve it! Patashnik (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, it's here. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm happy to help. StarM 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I will add some references and links to coverage in third-party sources. Hope it will help. Patashnik (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They definitely should help, remember - they don't need to be in English, per WP:NONENG. StarM 03:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i hope there is enough references for this one. Next time i will use 'move', didn't know that. Thanks again. Patashnik (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely seems much improved. I'm going to tweak the formatting a little, but that's it. I'm not familiar with the band, but they certainly seem notable now. Good sourcing. No worries re: Move, that's why I let you know. StarM 20:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This was left on your userpage

Why was my page deleted????? You deleted my Mike Krompass page ,on a so called copyright infringement! I own the copyright used from my website...I am MIKE KROMPASS...I'm trying to restore my page and don't know how to contact you....can you please restore my page? my email is [email protected] Left by 71.228.216.238 (talk) at 15:51, November 14, 2008 (UTC). Moved by J.delanoy (talk · contribs) at 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JD. IP, it's inappropriate use of copyrighted and unencyclopedic material. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials regarding granting permission to use the material, however please not there's no evidence you meet WP:MUSIC, and I also suggest you read WP:COI StarM 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?You've deleted my Mike Krompass page ,on a so called copyright infringement, I do own the copyright used from my own website...I am MIKE KROMPASS...I'm trying to restore my page and don't know how to contact you....can you please help to restore my page? my email is [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.216.238 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC) again you have deleted my page ,whil I was constructing it...what is your hate on for me?

WKP 225 - Advanced administrative functions

Lecture: Performing history merges

14 November, 2008 - Professor J.delanoy

Delete Destination page under CSD G6 (housekeeping or other non-controversial cleanup).
Note: If you use Twinkle to delete pages, there is an option you can use to make a note in the log that you are about to perform a histmerge.
Move Other page to Destination page.
Go to Special:Undelete/Destination page and restore all the edits.

(sorry about the college-esqe format, I couldn't resist.)

Hope that helps, and don't worry too much about my dire warning. If you think that you are doing a histmerge correctly, you probably are. Just be careful and do not do one unless you are sure it is non-controversial. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Love it, that's great. I killed the blinky because it made my browser crawl but point taken. Thank you professor JD :) StarM 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Babs and Buster Bunny Question

Hi. No problem. I welcome all questions about my decisions made here. :)

Many editors commenting on this AfD didn't show clear their preference for keep or delete. They were simply unhappy with inappropriate group nomination of articles with different notability level. So that AfD was quite a mess. I gave this one a "keep" instead of a "no-consensus", because opinions in favor of keeping, after I include all the "reject nomination" comments, are stronger. This seems to be only the second AfD nomination of one in those articles, and the first AfD for most of them, so it's not easy to predict whether re-nomination will prove to be more fruitful. I think we can hope that editors who intend to nominate any of these articles to AfD again will do more careful research to select the rightly "deletable" ones. Some articles there may or may not get consensus for deletion if nominated separately, but future separate renomination will cause less confusion because each page is judged on its own merit. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hauppauge High School

Whoops! Sorry about that. Thanks for the heads up, though. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll enjoy this...

See User:Leon Ousby. Time to open a sockpuppetry case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm on it. StarM 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You see this is what I have been talking about. User:Delicious carbuncle and User:Star Mississippi/Star M are clearly enjoying the ridicule and downward spiral of this potential article. It has been vandalised on numerous occasions, deleted, re-produced, ridiculously trolled and now victimised by editors. Why are you enjoying this so much: Comments like the above are insulting and will be reported to wikipedia. I am not enjoying contributing to this site. This site feels more like a student forum, where you can all delete and edit at will. But those contributors that say please and thank you to you and beg that their article isn't speedy deleted, get granted special added time. Editors have rules that they must abide by. I truly feel that I am being treated unjust fully. Yes it certainly does appear that there have been several contributors that have tried to re-launch the article and have not succeeded. They are now being accused of being sock-puppets. I have never heard such nonsense. This article was first created by Orson Griffith to bring light to a stage actor all the way from Perth, WA. A well-known (Notable-Award winning) theatre actor. That was one of the agreed terms that the article could be started. The second agreed term was to cover early life that would lead to Alcoholism and prescription drugs, hospitalisation and being sectioned, rehabilitate and sent on a journey of helping other that are in those circumstances that Leon Ousby was in. The Article was not to solely promote an Actor that is not notably renown worldwide, but to show certain people and organised treatment groups that dysfunctional and violent family life isn't always the reason kids turn to crime culture and continue abusing. The article was to link this information. That chance did not happen. Trolls, vandals got involved started mentioning death and ridiculous comments. One contributor added personal details that I simply didn't want mentioning and asked for those to be removed. That’s when the Article started to look bad.. All messed up by users. Why would an actor want to promote himself referencing Alcohol and prescription types, it's out of the question. So, you can feel my frustration on what Orson originally created has been messed around. And now this enjoyment is coming from the editors themselves. I am extremely disappointed with this site. I was lead to believe that you could use this site to source, gather, take, learn, link and contribute worthwhile information.Leon Ousby (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obama Boxes

Yeah, I was just contemplating that myself. This also adds to my suspicion. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and if you look in the creation log for DellLaptop, it is brand new and hit me and two other users. As I don't know their political stance, I'm not calling it vandalism but something is DUCKY. Saw that other edit to your page when I looked at contribs because TheAccount v. MyAccount is also a little too close for comfort. I'm sure others will pop up. Nuiscances drive me crazy. StarM 23:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was quite willing to call it vandalism. I can come up with a medium-sized list of users that C. Fred and I interact with frequently, but I really don't interact much with you. Given our short list of common interactions, Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is really the only editor that comes to mind.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Need to look into that user's contribs to see my interaction, as it doesn't ring a bell. The only interaction I recall with C.Fred is at User talk:Community service, but that was a while ago and not over anything political. I don't get this one since I've avoided anything political on wiki because it only causes drama. StarM 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

is this about me? DellLaptop (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Victimisation

To be honest with you. I find your comments insulting. Orson Griffiths who is part of the creative management team at TJ Management created the original article on Leon Ousby. The article was then deleted, re-created, deleted etc... Vandals and trolls then edited the page and added ridiculous accounts on the Actors life. Kirsty Welles then tried to succeed in re-creating the article, but that failed at the hands of her and now it has been removed. She originally commented that the article was looking good (See history) but it all seems to me a waste of editors time, yours for instance. It is hard to understand and trust editors on this site. I believe that some editors sabotage articles from development and victimise certain contributors. So I really don't know what to say besides the I am left feeling insulted. I feel that this is bullying. As you are interested in Australia I suggest you re-visit Perth/Fremantle and visit the arts and culture centre which covers Australian Actors.Leon Ousby (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't Understand

I don't unterstand the message you sent me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DellLaptop (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now i wrote on the page with the evidence about sock puppets —Preceding unsigned comment added by DellLaptop (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What happens now? I replied to the accusations you put about me on the Sockpuppet case. DellLaptop (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

you know...

Sorry for clogging up your watchlist with all those log entries :/ I think I got rid of all of it. I also blocked the guy who was adding it, and removed it from his talk page. If he adds it again, I'll lock his talk page down. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome, thank you so much. You're clearly more adept at this than I am. He wasn't going to get a clue StarM 02:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing and blocking the s.puppets on L. Ousby. It's been a nightmare. Regards. T.J Management —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.0.50 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Update

Hi just left this note to tell you how I'm doing today. I took up an interest in patrolling the New Pages section and caught two pages for speedy deletion, I figured it wasn't too bad for my first day. Oh and i also figured out how to change my signature! I hope you like it! P.S. I put in a suggestion for wikipedia at the village pump too!DellLaptop! Talk 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I also read over the WP:LOP (list of policies) so there won't be anymore userboxes. :) I hope we can be friends! DellLaptop! Talk 00:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem totally awesome!!!!

So, like, you seem, like, totally awesome, and like, I hope we can be wikifriends! Because like, no one's signed my guestbook yet, and it like totally rocks, OMG. LOL, do you like my signature? I like your signature. You seem cool. Your username, like, totally rocks. So, can we, PUHHHLEEEEEEEEZZZZZ be wikifriends?11/1/1?!!?!?!/1/!/?? ok, i gotta run now, mom's calling. I'll check back to see if you write back, so write back, K? Promise? W/B, K? BFF! Keeper ǀ 76 02:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) (I promise I'm not drinking....water...Keeper ǀ 76 02:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. What prompted that? :D J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He just realised she's a girl. – iride scent 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

LMAO! Love it all :) CHatroom flashback ca. 1995 :o I feel even older than this weekend is making me. I swear I'll be back on the planet following our event on 12/2 which is sucking time like you wouldn't believe right now. Actually I lied, the event on 12/2 and then vacation! *Happy Dance* Warm weather here I come. Keeper, can you *keep* your cold air in state please and stop sharing it this way? Too cold, TYVM! If one of you has a moment can you look at the Nick Savoy thread above? He deserves an answer and I told him it was going to be some time before I got to it - but I don't see that on the reasonable horizon. I'm not exactly sure how it landed here in the first places, but it did. Thanks and TGIF! StarM 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My car thermo said 4 on my way in to a meeting this morning. 4. As in degrees above zero. Why the F do I live here? Oh, and this thread was inspired by a different thread on your usertalk, that made me want to be nothing more than BFF with you. It was probably over the top. But glad you, like, liked it. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's nuts. Insane. I thought NY was bad. I had a hard enough time returning when I came back from overseas, I couldn't deal with that tundra. My talk is full of WTF these days. I'm hoping for one in particilar to wear himself out since I'm not sure which drawer he belongs in. JD has helped me with the other ones. What did I jinx when I said I was a below the radar admin? StarM 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're getting all the nutjobs today… – iride scent 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw yours when I was getting ready earlier. You are a nutjob magnet. I'm usually nutjob free so to have two active in one week (one now blocked, thanks to JD and Jayvdb) is nuts for me. Can't they all freeze? StarM 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How long

How long does this sock puppet deal go on for?? DellLaptop! 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi StarM,

There seems to be a misunderstanding with the deletion of the page "Nick Savoy". The consensus reached at the deletion review did not in my opinion follow the voices of the voters. I was wondering if another party could have a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_6

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look to see if I have time to review it this weekend, but it doesn't appear controversial. Can you tell me what you find troubling? I don't see any issue with the closer's remarks. StarM 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. The majority of opinion on the topic seems to favor to keep the article, but at the consensus it was not taken into account. Some of the opinions of new people voice the right arguments and so do the senior editors. However, one cannot ignore the majority votes and arguments. The last statement of the consensus do not to be congruent with the voting and voiced opinions. I appreciate if you looked at it. Thanks. Coaster7 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just by looking quickly, I think I agree with the close. We don't count votes in either AfD or DRV, but rather look at the merits of the arguments. I don't think winning a Wikipedia commendation for him should be the goal given the purpose of Wikipedia. That said, there may be something I'm missing. I don't have time to look into this yet. I can't promise I will have time soon, but perhaps someone watching my talkpage will be able to help you. StarM 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi StarM -- the "winning a commendation" was my comment, not Coaster's. Sorry if that set you off. I was perhaps being hyperbolic, but I was just trying to explain that we've done a lot to improve the page and that we're continuing to do so. I think the three salient points with the AfD are as follows:

1: Misunderstood terms of the debate The first commenters (until I jumped in to clarify) appeared to think that I was challenging the deletion of a previous article months ago on Nick Savoy (which was not written by the same group of people as this one). Since they did not see overwhelming problems with that article's deletion, they voted to keep deleted. Even some later commenters appeared to have made this mistake, referring to the old article and old AfD discussion in explaining why the article should remain deleted. I take full responsibility if I did not navigate through this process correctly, still, that should not punish the article that many people other than I worked hard on and which now seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards.

2: User quality A number of people who voted no cited the existence of supposed "sock puppets" or "sleeper accounts" in the debate. While I understand that people without an active wikipedia editing history will not have their opinions accorded the same (or even any) weight, it strikes me as unfair that they would count against an article. Taking that logic to its extreme, one could have any article deleted by having sock puppets line up in its favor. In this case, there were no sock puppets I know about. In fact, there is a very good explanation of why so many new users (as well as users who edit infrequently, but who do have an editing history going back years in some cases...not sure why they were tarred with the same brush) chose to comment ont his debate. Someone (not me) made a post on The Attraction Forums, the largest free forum for the seduction community, about Nick Savoy's page. (http://www.theattractionforums.com/forum/discussion/81896-savoy-has-wikipedia-page.html?highlight=wikipedia). I asked them to remove it because it was hurting our efforts here, but they refused.

3: Generalizations Because there were a few people who did not have long editing histories involved in the discussion (even though some of these users appeared to know Wikipedia policies well, better than I did), others implied that all or virtually all of the article's supporters shared this charcateristic. This is not true, as users other than myself have pointed out on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz Spartaz's talk page. A couple of quotes from that page. "Many experienced users including Mathmo, Secondsight, and woodenbuddha (and others) argued against deletion, some quite strongly" (me) and "May I ask you to relook at this DRV? To quote in its entirety what you wrote: "There are so many comments by users with few contributions that do not really city policy reasons that its really hard to reconcile a policy based consensus with the overall level of opinions cast. While by no means disregarding or disrespecting the opinions of the new commentators, I have been swayed by the fact that the experienced users have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. Deletion is therefore endorsed by the last version will be made available on request to any editor who would like to work on this in their userspace. I think it would be much easier for the article to be undeleted if we are presented with a well written version of the article that is fully compliant with core polcies to review" You twice here make reference to the apparent consensus among editors for deletion (if ignoring the new editors), for instance: have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. While I'd normally agree with the point being made that the correct action for the closing admin to take is the same as "pretty much all" the editors took as consensus is important. Yet when I read through the DRV I see the majority of opinion is towards keeping this article (even when completely ignoring all the new editors, but then strictly speaking you could also exclude an additional couple of editors who were for deleting as they were mainly swayed by the flood of new editors. Ironic really that a person's popularity is causing a hindrance to them being covered by Wikipedia. Anyway, the level of opinion for keeping the article comes out on top regardless of how all the new editors are treated. Though ideally their opinions shouldn't be completely ignored either, some of them have obviously carefully thought about this such as the last editor on the DRV with his references to relevant policies.). While I of course do know these are not decided by simple majorities, the lack of consensus for deletion does appear to be at odds with your closing statements. Thanks for you time. :) Mathmo Talk 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)"

I know you're busy and I'm sorry to take your time with this. I wouldn't bother you with this if I didn't feel that something is missing here. Thank you for your time and consideration.Camera123456 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

From the review: "The experienced users have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. Deletion is therefore endorsed", "the last version will be made available on request to any editor who would like to work on this in their userspace. I think it would be much easier for the article to be undeleted if we are presented with a well written version of the article that is fully compliant with core polcies to review." Why not rewrite it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We're doing that too. But I think they key point is that "The experienced users have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion" is NOT at all true. Even stripping out everyone without a previous contribution, there still appears to a preponderance on the side of undeletion. I know this isn't the only governing criterion, but I'd hate for a page to get deleted based on something that isn't actually true, just because some experienced users were louder than others.Camera123456 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I don't mean to bother you, but I wanted to draw your attention back to Mathmo's comment (and mine) in Nick Savoy before it gets auto-archived. I hope you're having a great weekend! If you tell me I should just give up and work on something else, I will, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to bug you this one time :) Camera123456 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It won't be auto archived. ChildofMidnight is discussing it with you. I'm sorry that I don't have the time, that's why I asked someone else to look at it. See a couple of threads up, please. StarM 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Camera, My 2 cents is that I don't think you have to give up on the article, but I do think you have to move forward on it. The old article is available to you and you can create a new and improved version that will be considered fairly with fresh eyes and involvement. Happy Birthday StarM. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

only one day late -

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Millenial Era AfD

You closed after only one day. It sometimes takes longer than that for a balanced assortment of people to show up. Please revert that close, because i at least want to try to a argument for it. DGG (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

10-1

AWOL is right. Just been really busy with stuff... real life and whatnot. I couldn't be happier with the G-Men. But if the Yanks don't get CC - piss on that. This is where I now call home. It's a small group and I'm the only Giants fan, so I shouldn't be hard to find. Happy Turkey Day!! --Endless dan and his problem 20:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

*munches* thanks StarM 02:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 03:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) (2nd nomination). Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

What do you think of the Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA? See my comment on the talk page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson the Volleyball

Your closure of the AfD was one of the most gracious things I have read in a long time. Thank you much. Working on Wilson the Volleyball was a treat. That others came forward to improve upon my improvements and further defend the article is a good feeling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, you did a very good job with it. In closing I looked at it like this and while others worked on it following your work, you stepped up and took it further than "it can be fixed" and fixed it. That's my issue with many AfDs. If an article can be fixed, it should be. It's always easier to start that fix with an article in some form rather than a blank sklate, which is why even if an article has issues that mean it can't be kept, I'm happy to userfy. I've been involved in some fun clean-up, here and here are ones that come to mind and I lke knowing I helped keep an article. Oh and I'm so glad to see the You've got messages was not someone coming here for a bad close comment. Whew! Have a good day/night. StarM 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ecoleetage wrote on my talk page; "Congressman Sam Rayburn once said: "Any jackass can kick down a barn door, but it takes a carpenter to build one!". Delightful words. I'd like to see WP:ATD used more often to close an inappropriate AfD... as building or repairing that "barn door" improves Wiki, and kicking it down diminshes. Keep up the good works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's a good one to use. I also hate the use of AfD for merge/redirects. While we're not all adults (speaking in terms of having reached the age of majority) we should be able to act like them and discuss concerns like rational adults rather than running to have it deleted for some perceived problem. Work would be a lot more constructive if that happened more often. There's a special layer in hell -- or should be -- for pointy noms. Keep up your good work as well. StarM 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Remember your post RfA promise

Heh. Well, if protecting Cancun and blocking the hurricanes doesn't work, I guess I can topic-ban the tropics! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. :) Have fun on vacation, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)