User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 6

Adminship

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I've noticed you a few times on the help desk. Are you interested in adminship? Do you have a dark history I should know about? Xiner (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xiner. I've noticed you at the help desk (and other places) as well. Thanks for dropping by and the invite. I could certainly put the tools to use but have never felt their lack hampered me greatly (there's so much to do). You have impeccable timing—I had been thinking recently of adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls (I have nothing against self-noms per se, but would find doing so distasteful). As for my deep and dark history, I think my closet is relatively free of skeletons, relatively being the operative word. May I assume you are willing to write a nomination? If so, is there any information you'd like me to provide to aid you in that task? In the meantime I'm going to be a bit presumptuous and start drafting a response to the standard questions.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as long as they're not too scary, I can handle it. Feel free to email me anything that may be sensitive - I just don't want a nasty surprise to pop up in the middle of the RfA. If it's nothing major, I'll start writing a nomination. Also, do you have good XfD participation? Xiner (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm emailing you my tentative draft of the replies to the standard questions, which should give you a lot of material to material to work with. As for xfd, I have participated in numerous afd debates--quite a few hundred, though narrowing it down to an exact range would be difficult. A much smaller number at mfd, tfd, cfd and deletion review. I'm getting the feeling you must have nominated someone in the past and halfway through the nomination process they confessed to killing Jimmy Hoffa.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you rephrase the sentence "...failure of users to read {{copyvio}} allowing creation of a temporary page"? Xiner (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know you were moving that fast! Sorry I didn't give input on the draft; I was just about to! Anyway, I will look into the co-nomination process very shortly-like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know I was moving too fast. As for the ending time, yeah it's to be done manually. If no one fixes it by tomorrow, I will. Xiner (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Great (though it does say something to the effect of "failure to follow these intructions before posting will reuslt in a malformed nomination". I just saw your note about the copyright sentence above, but I caught it in my last gasp copyedit separately:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with a very large majority in support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 02:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang; I got edit conflicted out of being the first to congratulate you. Go forth and use the new buttons wisely.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Now I can bug you every day to do editprotected's for me. >;-) — [[User:SMcCandli

sh|SMcCandlish]] [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Your Administratorship! I guess I'll have to start treating you with the respect and dignity due to your office. Here, hold this tray of cream pies for a moment, will you? -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I liked your answer about "trigger-happy". I don't think you will abuse the tools.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations from downunder - see you round about as always. Cheers!--VS ^talk 02:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your well deserved elevation to the upper echelons of the hierarchy.--Anthony.bradbury 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You deserved it, and I know that you will use the tools with great respect. Best of Luck. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed

I'm impressed that you figured out where you had run into me before - it was a long time ago and I had a different username then. I liked some of the answers you gave to ~a, so I was actually reading your talk page for some time when I was a newbie. You were mentoring me a bit, though you didn't know it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Third party question: Who were you before? Seen you around, and have to say you've been a goodly Wikipedian, K. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I briefly edited under the name "Qball6". The name was an old nickname from my younger days when I once foolishly cut my hair very close - apparently it was not a good look for me. I enjoy playing billiards, though I have never risen past the level of middling ability. Thus, I adopt the attitude that adequacy is the mark of a gentleman, while proficiency is the sign of a misspent youth.--Kubigula (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Humor break

[1]. You can probably guess what my contributions were. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Am I really the first to notice your promotion to janitor status? Congrats and best of luck with your new toys. Pascal.Tesson 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of subpage - Thank You!

I have no problem with deleting the subpage. Just wondering if you had considered that you could move the subpage to the article name, thus preserving your edit history, and then tag the subpage (automatically made into a redirect by the move) for deletion. Up to you.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - hope this finds you well! The way I piece an article together, I would have 100+ edits per article - I love playing with the words, and piecing together the history. Some take a while to put together, so hence my current preference for use of sub pages. Thanks for your thoughts though, and perhaps if I have some time/a simple (?) subject, I will give it a go! Best Regards, - Trident13 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Great just wanted to check. Deleting away.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One more question. Are you familiar with the DYK process? You seem to create many articles (with references!), which is perfect for dyk articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and in example my originated Rollie Free article was featured! As you mentioned in the debate in your nomination for Admin status (congrat's - very well deserved), personally I'm not here for the publicity. If someone wants to put any of the articles I create or add to through the procedure then happy to support, but other wise would prefer to continue to add to the project and its aims by research/creation/addition - and supporting newbies, plus the odd bit of vandal hunting. Some I think (verging on know?) are here for what it can do for them outside Wikipedia/their careers, than adding value (be that in creation, editting or Admin, etc) to the project. The Rollie Free article in example created more debate on the Waterpump/Admin BB in nomination than it did on the article itself - the debate centred around the licensed use of the photo: some in hindsight were adding to the debate just to get more 'counts" in certain areas: Woo-pe-Do! I hence prefer using the Feedback process and resultantly gain artcle improvement; than the high publicity DYK option. Rgds, - Trident13 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AsianYachting

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, "AsianYachting" not on wikiwedia.Been trying to start "Asiayachting" but deleted as being advertisment."AsianYachting" has been a Yachting news media in SE Asia since 1999 and quoted by many, including "CNN", for it's news. Would welcome comments on how to put "AY" on wiki.Hope this is the right place to get help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hasslan (talk • contribs).

Hi Hassan. I checked the deletion log under various spellings and see that the article was deleted twice (neither time as advertizing): once by another administrator as "empty," meaning it was a very short articles providing little or no context to the reader, and the second time by me as a blatant copyright infringement of a website, meaning the text was cut and pasted from somewhere else, thus infringing on that third party's copyright. The deletion log entries are here.

The reason you have messages on your talk page about advertizing is because the editors who placed the tags requesting speedy deletion, felt it was blatant advertizing (though as I said, neither I nor the other deleting administrator deleted it for that reason). In order for the article to remain on Wikipedia, it must not be a cut and paste of another website's material (unless that material is released under a free license such as the GFDL), it should be long enough to be informative (generally 3 to ten full sentences providing detail about the subject to the reader (please see Wikipedia:Stub), it should read like an encyclopedia article rather than a marketing piece for the subject (please see Wikipedia:Spam), and it should base its information on (but not be copied from) reliable sources by citing to those sources in the article (please see Wikipedia:Citing sources). I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hillside Drive Deletion

I was just wondering why you deleted my Hillside Drive article. They are largely growing in my area and Iwas looking to put up a bunch of information about them in order for people to get to know the story and facts about Hillside Drive. Unfortunately, the article was deleted over the night. I just hope that you would be able to undelete the artice so that people and fans can learn more about Hillside Drive.

Thanks, Jzegarski12 12:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by me and by a different administrator under section A7 of our criteria for speedy deletion because it contained no assertion of notability. The band may be great and up an coming and loved by you and your friends, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles have to assert notability. Please note that "notability" does not refer to worth, or our own subjective judgment of whether we like the subject or think its important. The primary basis of notability is whether the wider world has deemed a subject notable by publishing material about it in multiple independent reliable sources. Citing to those sources also verifies the article's content. A specific guideline for the notability of bands is set forth here. Thanks for understanding.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nam Gyu Ri

The reason why I left the page blank is because there is another page on Nam Gyu Ri before, I was the one who created this page and now I need to delete it because there is really no point to have another page about her..--User:Amuro_Namie 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

30 Rock

I'll take care of it. np! --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc

Your change and comment at WP:N is pertinent to many recent discussions including the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc. I also left a response to your comment at the WP:N talk page. You'll not get an argument from me about your change, but odds are someone will have an issue. --Kevin Murray 01:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just reading the template deletion discussion and the template's talk page. Frankly I find the whole kerfuffle baffling. Getting rid of notability is one thing (which I strongly oppose), but "multiple reliable sources..." is, de facto, the primary notability standard, and properly so. Place your bets. I'll put my chips on being reverted within...hmmmm...three hours.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit less supportive of the absolute multiple, but I really feel that we should have some consistent standard throughout the guidelines, and for that matter fewer guidelines, or at least simple and concise guidelines. But any reasonable consensus is a good solution for me. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. I have seen dispute over "multiple," and can see why that might be contentious. Nevertheless, sourcing is the only way to actually achieve verifiability (which is not negotiable). So even if "notability" in its current form was gotten rid of entirely, we would still need a mechanism for deletion of unverified and apparently unverifiable content. We might call it something else but the heart of that criterion would have to be retained regardless. That's why, in addition to my belief that it is still a consensus criterion, I think "primary" fits like a glove.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Whitcomb

You are most certainly correct. I have no idea why I might have thought this an A7. I'm guessing it was in the middle of a lot of WP:BAND beef poo, and got thrown out with the bathwater. (How's that for mixing metaphors!) Guess that's why the editor-tags-admin-delete double check is a Good Thing(tm).  :-) Coren 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Angelika Kluk

An under-participated debate in a very high profile murder case, I relisted it, asked for a little more time, and drew it to the attention of people in the appropriate wikiproject knowing that they'd want to opine. I was right - two immediately did, and others will want to as well. What did you feel the need to close it, just an hour after my re-listing? What was the rush? Yes, the new contributors agreed with deletion, but others may not. Could you not even have left it for 12 hours in case anyone from the wikiproject felt differently? (Please note I'm not grinding an axe here, I'm fairly neutral on the article itself - I just don't think the debate has yet covered all the bases. The story is front page news here in Scotland once again. Please consider revering yourself for 12-24 hours.--Doc^g 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I see now it was partly my fault for a faulty re-listing. It will probably be deleted - but better a slightly longer debate than a DRV later.--Doc^g 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would never do what you thought I did! I always find it funny when each person in a situation is acting perfectly logically but both are wrong for other reasons:-) You logically thought I went ahead and closed a presently relisted article; I logically thought the relist was from five days ago! What's weird and caused more confusion, is that for reasons unknown your four tildes in the relist template are still tildes so I never saw the timestamp. I removed the listing from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 21.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have really sucked if I had not been online at the moment you posted here so this could all be taken care of in a few minutes:-(--Fuhghettaboutit 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, all's well that ends well. Actually, had you not responded, I'd probably have let it drop. The article will probably be deleted - and that's probably the right decision. But thanks for being so cool about it. Nice working with you, :) --Doc^g 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I can't see why anyone would take a different stance—it was purely a confusion resulting from process. Now, I'm off to work.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtform

I have reverted the abovementioned article and invite you to re-edit being sensitive to content that is already in the article. I have also left a request on the article's discussion page. I invite collaboration and dialogue in relation to this page and have added it to my watchlist.

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You have confused something here. My only edit to the article was to remove the afd tag after closing its articles for deletion debate. Please see the edit history of the article. When you look at such an edit history you can see exactly which actions were taken by different editors by comparing different versions of the article. To see what my edit was, you would check the box just prior to my edit as well as the box next to my edit and then click "compare selected versions." By doing so you would see the actual change I made to the article, which you have not reverted. I believe the edits you are referring to were made by Quacksalber. On a separate note, the current introduction is just about impenetrable and needs a substantial rewrite.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

questionable deletions by another ed.

You left a note on User talk:Coren asking for a explanation of an absurd speedy he placed. You might want to keep an eye on him, because he also marked a page copied from a US government site as copyvio--I left him a note explaining. It seems a great many of his deletions get challenged, judging from his talk page. I rely on your judgement to know how to instruct him. DGG 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for you comments

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I was in discussion with another user User:Darkbane on my talk page and I was wondering if you could weigh in and give your opinion? I removed a link to a application from the Mantissa page because I did not feel it satified WP:N or WP:EL. I am still rather new at editing and I would just like a third-party to weigh in on the issue. Here is the diff in question and the discussion on my user page: [2] User_talk:Meshach. Thanks, meshach 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. meshach 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Flint-Town Mafia

Ah. I wasn't aware of that. I had originally tagged it as db-band, but when I went to their talk page I saw that it had been deleted once before so I retagged it. Corvus cornix 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP IT

STOP DELETING MY ARTICLES, ITs NOT NONSENSE SO STOP IT!!!!!!!!! Flat chicken 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, dude, the chicken's absolutely right. I can't believe you deleted Fuzzy Wuzzy The Furbolg, a topic which has been in the news so much in the past decade that I can't believe there wasn't an article already. The power has clearly already gone to your head. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?!

U DELETED IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT THIS IS WAR U DICATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sure is war, you "dicator': [3]. — Scientizzle 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK IM SORRY BUT IF I MAKE A DESENT PAGE AND SOME1 DELETES IT IM GOING TO GET REALLY ANGRY!!!

Hmm

You mis-spelled "furbolg".--Isotope23 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I will not repeat that error.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Great subpage.--Isotope23 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate...

I worked hard on creating the 30 rock infobox. It was very rude of you to delete it and all that work I did. --Ohmyn0 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest notion what you are talking about. My only interaction with 30 rock related articles was recently when I moved a whole series of them from one name to another upon a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I then performed some disambiguation edits to a few of the article. I have no memory of deleting any infoboxes from any articles (I think ever). Please refer me to the edit you are complaining about, at best by providing a diff, or at the least the name of the article. Once I know what you are referring to we can have a conversation about it and be on the same page. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hollar

No skin off my back!  :-) This also why I think admins should (almost) never speedy delete articles that weren't tagged by someone else. Having two editors match the article against the guidelines is valuable counter check. That particular article was sitting squarely in the obvious pale gray area, but pegged my BS detector. I'm not going to AfD that one though, I don't like giving someone the impression that I'm gunning for their articles. Another editor will eventually stumble on it.  :-) Coren 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Buena Vista Social Club FA

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, as someone who has taken a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buena Vista Social Club, I wondered if you could add any comments if you have the time, as it has been difficult to get reviewers to make an oppose or support on the article. It's been up for nearly a month.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good article. I have to study it in more depth than I have time for right now, but will comment soon.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Too late. The article has been removed and was not promoted. The only reviewer who bothered to make a decision in a month claimed it had "sloppy copy" which is obviously garbage, and I feel I've wasted too much time on this nonsense to be bothered to return. Thanks anyway.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jean Balukas

On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Balukas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Wizardman 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Russell Parkhouse

Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to inform me about taking the speedy delete tag off of this article. You are right that the article did assert notability and shouldn't be speed(il)y deleted. I'm going to try and put it through an AfD and see what comes from that then. Thanks again for the note. Phydend 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cody Hauri

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm new to editing wikipedia and whatnot. I've used it my whole life, but decided it was time to give back. I created that page with my name to make sure I even had the skills to make a simple page and forgot to delete it. Once again, sorry about that. --Cody Hauri(talk)67.142.130.53 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi from RailbirdJAM

Thanks for your kind welcome. I am not the Railbird Video guy, though I know who you mean. I have received some videos from him in the past.

My expertise, if one can call it that, is American pool and its players, and I am a Wikipedia newbie. I have been working on a book for several years now, and it is, as they say, a work in progress. Wikipedia provides some great data about American pool, but so many of the great American pool players are missing in the articles, which is why I wanted to get involved.

I do have many photographs of pool players. When I upload the pictures to articles, I keep getting warning messages from Wikipedia, even though they are MY personal photos. I am trying to read and learn more about the encylopedia guidelines, so that I can resolve this issue. Then I can, and will, contribute more photos.

I do not have any personal photos of Irving Crane or Jean Balukas. BTW, did you know that Irving Crane had a side-armed stroke like McCready? He is one of a few players with this distinctive side-armed stroke.

Thanks again for the welcome. Hope I can become a good contributing Wikipedian in the future. RailbirdJAM 07:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI to F.: I have offered to WP:ADOPT RailbirdJAM; he's a really productive WP:CUE member, but could use some help with things like how citation templates work and avoiding disputes at places like Talk:Kevin Trudeau. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Priority Message

At the top of the Keith McCready Discussion Page, there are three colored boxes. The third one is a WikiProject Biography box which states the Keith McCready page has been rated a "Start-Class" on the Project's quality scale. THEN, at the bottom of this box, there is a dropdown-type thing that says "More information about this article...." When you click the Show link, it says "This article has a depricated non-null importance= paramater. It should be replaced with priority=." What is that? I have tried to find out what this means on the Wikipedia help pages, but I can't seem to find anything explaining it. Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.

I talked to Ronnie Allen today in Vegas, and he is going to e-mail me a personal photo of his that I can use on Wikipedia, as well as provide some biographical data, but you are right in that it is going to be difficult finding references and sources in newspapers or print media. RailbirdJAM 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the photo, it can't be used if he is releasing only for use on Wikipedia. It has to be released under a free license such as the GFDL so that Wikipedia can freely redistribute it. Crap, I'll answer the "class" thing later, gotta run.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See the talk change. Basically, having an importance class has become deprecated, priority is what is used now.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Toolbox Use?

Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I would like to use your toolbox on my userpage. Would that be okay? Thanks! Bwowen 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it okay, but you are free and invited to do so! It is in the template space at {{{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}}. Just post that wherever you'd like, or you can substitute it, and modify at will.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fuhg, I went out on a limb, assumed that that was an open invitation, and added your toolbox to my userpage. What a handy thing to have! Thanks for sharing : ) Doc Tropics 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I wrote it both for myself and for others and, since it's on Wikipedia, by definition you are free to use it, edit it mercilessly and redistribute it.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you noticed, I'm something of a new Wikipedian, so I wanted to make sure! Thanks a ton! Bwowen 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

You probably noticed I snipped the lead sentence per your original suggestion. I did that as a temporary measure (because I liked it), but it shouldn't preclude a total rewrite if you think one is necessary. Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic that a philosophy which could largely be summed up as "I don't think so..." should be so difficult to define? BTW - are you still dealing cookies at the Help Desk? (I'm assuming you recall our first encounter, but that may just be ego on my part) Doc Tropics 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I remember you and our previous interactions well! How's things? Regarding the article, It's just the first sentence. It's not English. Philosophical positions don't affirm or reject things; people holding philosophical positions affirm or reject things. I'll be away for many hours, starting...now.--Fuhghettaboutit

I can't resist

I value your opinion, so I can't resist asking about this comment. Do you mind sharing what you think the current version gets wrong?--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you have asked in a nicer way! Okay. I simply don't feel like waging a campaign over this guideline, and I think it's pretty clear that, at least with respect to those who are actively involved with that page, the changes they have made have a lot of agreement. They are highly motivated editors but I don't think their changes necessarily reflect at all the reality on the ground. That most of them are operating in good faith I have little doubt, but I nevertheless think this is a walled garden of "talk page consensus."

First, I think it's an absolute mistake to take out "multiple." Are there exceptions where multiple might not fit? Maybe (and it better be one damn bedrock-reliable source), but that's where common sense should come into play. Multiple goes a long way in ensuring that verification is independent and yes, it's technically redundant with sources, but that doesn't mean its exclusion doesn't have a vast effect on interpretation. Test: try to think of a topic that you think is notable that has only one source. Not easy huh? Let me add to that test. Try to think of a topic that has only one source but there is enough information upon which to write more than two cited paragraphs—something that has the possibility of ever being more than a stub in the absence of future publication of more reliable material (source crystalballery, if you will).

Next: Explanation. I can't tell you how much I disagree with the notion that people can't read, and therefore ever guideline must be bare bones so we don't befuddle the great unwashed. Actually most people can't parse, but that's not an argument for making the page a skeleton and screaming "bloat" and "instruction creep" at every attempt to provide clarity and elaboration; quite the opposite (I'm not necessarily referring to just this page). Of course there's a balance to be struck, but guideline pages should provide examples, explanation, a rationale... People who are unwilling to read a bit more are the same people who aren't going to be helped by extreme terseness, while a bit of explanation will do wonders. Only a very, very small number of people who would be enlightened by a bit of guideance in the guideline will delve into the archives to wade through miles of shit for an answer (and why should they have to?). Uncle G's essay provides a lot of useful explanation where the current guideline explains little. I could go on about some of the changes but I think I'll leave it there.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I find I agree with both your points - particularly the second. I usually find the explanation part of guidelines to be more valuable than the bullet points or nutshells. Yes, it's hard to find explanations that we agree on, but a guideline without explanation doesn't really offer much guidance.

I half suspect we are reaching some critical mass of interested editors that makes it exceedingly difficult to reach consensus on a concept like notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A7

Yes, that's fair enough. Let's see if the AfD digs up anything notable. Cheers, EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most articles like this are not-notable. What we're insuring against is the 1 out of 20 but I've been surprised before (I just made up that number, don't hold me to it:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AmazeStar

In regard to your comments "[edit]Delaware County Ohio

The article Delaware County Ohio has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles and if you can provide more material for the article please re-create it. Also articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)"

Changes/Additions made by AmazeStar

On 07.05. 24, I worked on Delaware County Ohio I added References and sections - Rivers and lakes, Transportation (Highways and Airports), Media, Points and Activities of Interest, and Notable natives and residents.

Hey Amazestar. I left that message only because I wanted to inform you why I had deleted the article. I see you have found that the article already existed under a different title and have made some great edits! Keep up the good work. By the way, when you leave a message on a person's talk page you don't have to go to the effort of manually typing out your username; just type four tildes at the end (~~~~) which will automatically format as your signature, linked to your userpage when you save. You can also add those tildes automatically by clicking on the button at the top of the edit screen that look like this:. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

say hello once more and I'll block you!

Hello old pal. So I did manage to pass on my second attempt! I don't know if you took a look at the RfA but I mentioned WP:BK as a pretty good guideline. I don't think any notability guideline has been so rarely contested since its promotion to guideline status. Of course, the true explanation is probably: "because nobody cares about books" but I prefer "because we did a great job". Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm vaguely aware that there's been a pretty active debate on WP:N but I don't have the courage (or patience) to get too involved. Too many people are forgetting that the most precious resource on Wikipedia is not disk space but editors' time and energy and sometimes I wish we'd rewrite the line about Wikipedia is not paper to mention that... Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy do I know the feeling. Months ago I removed all the policy pages that were on my watchlist and found it amazing how much time I lost with little to show for it (except WP:BK of course!). Yet we do need someone to get involved but I've done my share. Pascal.Tesson 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Stein and Rubino book

Did you get my e-mail about that? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta check that email more often. I have a more personal account I use more commonly. Thank you for thinking of me. Isn't that something: selling everywhere else for almost triple the price and he's willing to sell for $200 plus shipping. The thing is, I own the damn book. I'm not buying it again. The guy who borrowed it has been living in Pennsylvania but is moving back to New York and I will see him at one pool room or another--that's inevitable. Oh, on a separate note, regarding Kelly pool, I just noticed the edit. Em-dashes should never have spaces around them (one day we need to arm wrestle over our intractable punctuation kerfuffles:-).--Fuhghettaboutit 05:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH disagrees with you; says either style is acceptable. :-) It's common in actual print to not use spacing around them, but online there's an accessibility argument for using the spacing (especially since most editors here do not use real (either unicode or &-entity) em-dashes, but plain hyphen-minuses; if the Wikpedia "habit" becomes to leave off the spacing, this will produce illegible results for screen readers, which will interpret what should be "something — something else" as "something-something else". Maybe not a huge rationale (and not applicable when actual em-dashes are used). I also just think its more readable with the spaces. Not worth a big argument or anything. Book: I hear ya. Good luck on retrieval! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: I would argue that, like "end punctuation inside quotes," even where it doesn't belong to the original quotation, the non-spacing is simply a paper media typesetting tradition. I find it notable that Stunk & White's The Elements of Style (4th ed.), the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.), and Fowler's Modern English Usage (Burchfield's Oxford 3rd ed.) — i.e., the latest editions of all of them — each illustrate its use, without spaces (which makes sense, since they are printed works following print typesetting conventions), but not one of them says they should not be spaced, despite all three being persnicketty and prescriptive works. According to this analysis (I didn't read the entire original PDF), the style guide ("Captioning Key") of the Captioned Media Program (CMP) of the National Association of the Deaf declares the spacing a matter of "house style", but recommends spacing around em-dashes for readability. While the web is not TV subtitling, they are similar in that they are electronic media that people have a tendency to skim rapidly rather than pore over on paper, and are not generally laid out an examined for readability the way a paper book is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first, since MOSDASH says it depends "on the writer's preference or in-house style rules" (as you noted), and I am the writer, you know my preference! Second, dash says quite rightly "According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em dash should never be surrounded by spaces." According to that same article, "The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes". In the end though it just looks plain wrong to my eye, trained through the reading of thousands of books. Oh and I laughed out loud at the commented out "Spaced, just to irritate you!"--Fuhghettaboutit 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Loyola2l

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Loyola2l. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dear Sir, I hope I did this correctly. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_9 for more information. Updatethis12 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. Navigating through Wikipedia can be hard at first. Just note that on most talk pages, posts go at the bottom. I already responded at the deletion review. If the debate ends with an endorsement of my deletion, please review the notability material I posted and if you think the article meets it, you should recreate it, but this time citing to sources and asserting importance. If you need help with anything do not hesitate to call on me.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any regrets?

You've been an admin for a while now, so do you mind if I ask whether you have any regrets about taking the plunge? For example, do you find it distracts you from contributing or the other things you enjoy doing around here?--Kubigula (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no regrets, though it has distracted me from other contributions, at least in the short term. I have been exploring new territory and attempting to find me admin legs, so to speak. That's all volitional however; I can choose to put the mop in the closet any time I'd like. Have you thought about standing for admin yourself? I'd be happy to explore nominating you (meaning every interaction I've had with you leads me to believe there wouldn't be a problem, but I'd have to vet your contributions first to make sure there's not a Mr. Hyde to my experience with Dr. Jekyll:-).--Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Khukri had offered to nominate me, and my question to you was part of my thinking about it. I've seen a few admins make comments that suggest they enjoyed working on the encyclopedia a lot less after they got the mop. However, after asking you the question I decided that we each have a lot of control over what we do here and how we react to things, and a few extra buttons doesn't change that. So, I took the plunge. That being said, I am still relieved to hear that you have no regrets.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I might have been a little less squeamish about the CANVASS issue if things hadn't been going so smoothly. I must say that after having seen many recent intense RFAs, I was surprised how un-intense mine was. I guess many folks were distracted by the latest chapter in the Daniel Brandt article saga, and I slipped under the radar without anyone finding my Mr. Hyde edits :). Anyway, now that the RFA has passed, I am finally free to drop the nice guy act and pursue my real agenda.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD/Afternoon Fun

Thanks for the heads up! I guess it could be problems with my ISP, recently it seems forever for Wikipedia pages to load, and edits don't seem to register properly. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, your ISP? Are you sure? Could it be…SATAN?:-) Seriously, anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey, thanks for the information. I'll make better use of this tags in the future. -- Magioladitis 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)