User talk:DustFormsWords/Archive004

This is an archive of posts on my talk page between March 14, 2010 and May 6, 2010 . Please do not edit this page or post new messages here.

The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft - Got your message and thanks!

This discussion relates to my work on The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft. I helped rescue the article from deletion, and subsequently TaylorTime gave me a barnstar for the work and offered me a copy of the book on behalf of the author. I declined that offer (with thanks) on TaylorTime's talk page.

Just got your message now, my fault, still getting to know my way around Wikipedia, didn't know there was a message! Thanks and will do! TaylorTime (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities in the Southern Border AfD

This discussion relates to the Largest cities in the Southern Border AfD, in which I made a Keep argument and complimented the relevance and layout of the article.

I know your doing your job and that it is just Wikipedia, but thanks for your keep comment :). SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. It's actually really refreshing to find a list that actually has a clearly defined scope, sources, and an eye-pleasing presentation, so in a very small way you made my day. :-) - 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, i also enjoy neat and tidy lists. As we sometimes say in California, catch ya on the flipside! Thanks again for your help :). SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General AfD discussion, continued from Donna Simpson AfD

This discussion continues a conversation I was having with Milowent on the Donna Simpson AfD. The conversation moved here after it strayed away from the particular facts of that AfD.

  • But as you'll see in that blogpost, 2 out of the 4 earthquake articles were deleted, and 2 were kept. Balloon Boy got kept. Other things don't. It's very random, though people are citing policies.--Milowent (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I argued in Balloon Boy, although I can't now locate the AfD. If I remember my argument, I argued Keep on the basis that per WP:EVENT it had long term consequences in terms of a spate of re-analysis of journalism standards. And certainly the article's now reached GA status so I'll take that as being proven right. The 2010 Illinois earthquake I can understand in that it at least passes WP:N although today I would have argued delete on a WP:EVENT basis (impact was sub-national and had no lasting consequences). Eureka 2010 was a marginally deserved keep in that it passed WP:N and appeared to have long term consequences for the Eureka community. And Inglewood 2009 appears to have been a deserved delete, again on the WP:EVENT basis of sub-national scope and no lasting consequences. So I'd have to say I actually agree with all these outcomes and can see clear reasons for them. That's not to say the admins who closed might not have closed for the wrong reasons, but we nevertheless got (in my view) the right outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "play" in policies usually only happens in the marginal cases. A large number of easy deletes happen via prod, or simply get a large number of delete !votes at AfD. A good number of keeps are de-prods that get left alone, as well as AfDs that snow keep. Its that middle group where consistency is affected by who votes. Of our 3.2 million articles, which ones get plucked for AfD is very random, because average article quality of less-trafficked articles is usually poor. And sometimes subgroups of editors develop different opinions on notability, Valhalla Vineyards being a good example of one where myself and a bunch of WP:WINE folks simply saw things differently, though all about whether it was notable.--Milowent (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, honestly I see very few AfDs that end up in an obviously wrong outcome, and the more I learn the policies the less and less I'm seeing "wrong" closures. Pretty much the only ones I get worked up about now are the pop culture ones, usually being either anime articles or "In Popular Culture" lists, and at their worst they at least do no real harm to Wikipedia beyond a general sense of dilution of overall encyclopedia quality. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We get 1,000+ new articles a day. Deleting a few of them doesn't do much for overall quality. I was wondering what standards apply to those actually as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future in popular culture is currently pending.--Milowent (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no clear policy (WP:TRIVIA and WP:LIST don't quite cover it). See also the essay at WP:POPCULTURE. As I understand it, the position is that each entry on the list must explain its notability. That is, a good entry on a pop culture list takes the format "X appears in Y. This shows that Z.", where Z is something like "X is used as a byword for time travel" or "the appearance of X is assumed to be instantly recognisable to the audience of Y". Doing it well requires sources, usually being critical analysis, but failing that something unsourced can usually get by in this area. I'll go do a cleanup of that article to improve it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian State/Territory Government Templates

This discussion relates to some edits of Wikistar2's that I reverted, on the basis that the position of Leader of the Opposition was not a part of the Executive branch of government.

Is it possible for there to be another section suitable for this office (by the way Im about to do Deputy Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory and Ministry of the Australian Capital Territory). If not, would you mind deleting Opposition Leader and Shadow Cabinet from the below table.

Wikistar (Place order here) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Wikistar. "Leader of the Opposition" can probably be safely placed in the Legislative Branch (as can the various shadow portfolios, if you get around to them). I'll have a look at the NSW template you've linked and see if there's any reason I can't change it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance request re: AfD log for March 23, 2010

This dicussion relates to a request I made to Cirt to fix some small format errors on the AfD log for March 23, 2010.

I have fixed your AfD concerns from User talk:Cirt CTJF83 chat 06:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. CTJF83 chat 06:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameCrush AfD

This discussion relates to the GameCrush AfD, in which I voted delete.

I have added a number of references and content derived from them to GameCrush, and !voted keep at the AfD. I hope you will look at the revised article and consider whether you still favor deletion. DES (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. The sources are excellent but my chief objection remains that they are all dated to within a very small period of time. Per WP:SBST - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." I will copy this reply to the AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand that objection. I disagree with it, but it is not irrational. Of course this would mean we could never cover a new development until well after it occurred, and we often do cover recently created things. DES (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy with us not covering new developments until well after they occur. That's the primary difference between an encyclopedia and a news site. The world doesn't fall down if Wikipedia doesn't have a complete article on something the day after it hits the news. We can afford to wait a while and see whether anyone is likely to give a damn about GameCrush this time next year. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, but that isn't our current practice, and therefore does not have consensus as policy. DES (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I understand, that's precisely the point of WP:SBST, and for that matter WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Wikipedia's not a news site, and while it occasionally may be appropriate to cover events as they're happening where it's obvious to everyone concerned that they're notable (eg parliamentary elections, major terrorist incidents, wars, certain large natural disasters, celebrity deaths), in the vast majority of cases notability will only be able to assessed well after the fact, and Wikipedia has absolutely no reason to hurry in assessing notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John XXIII College (ANU) / User:Rebecca

This discussion started on Rebecca's talk page, where I thanked for an edit she made to the (now deleted) John XXIII College (ANU) article, effectively creating a compromise between myself and another editor.

Sure! Thanks for being kind about it. Are you based in Canberra by any chance?

It's been a while since we had any particularly active editors from there, and it'd be good to get things going again somewhat. I've moved on since I lived there, but it'll always be kind of home. Rebecca (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, lived in Canberra since 1996, graduated Dickson College 1998. I'm not editing ACT-related stuff much but I'd still like to stay across the work that's happening there and jump in where needed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship: Skater 2

This discussion relates to Skater's second Request for Adminship, in which I asked questions relating to the CSD criteria, and on the basis of the answers voted oppose.

I would like to thank you for contributing to my RFA, If one thing I learned my grasp on CSD was not as strong as I thought and you gave me some very helpful advice. All the best,--SKATER Speak. 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorble.com deletion

This discussion relates to (unintentional) irregularities in the closure and deletion of an article on Dorble.com.

Hi! I'd speedied the content twice before in rapid succession as spam/NN web content; looks like you and I may have crossed paths on his last attempt to post it. Would you like me to reopen the AfD? Thanks for the nice words, by the way. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jonathan Nash Hearder

This discussion relates to the article Jonathan Nash Hearder, for which Cassandra 73 directed me to possibly useful information in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I asked if she was able to help me access that text, as it was behind a paywall.

Great work with the expansion! I've sent you the Oxford DNB source by e-mail. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood (Message from User:Raaggio)

... I don't remember what this discussion was about. Which is why I have these headers, and which is why I should add them early, rather than late. Sorry. :-)

Probably wasn't the best choice of words, I will soon elaborate. Sorry, RaaGgio (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW / Rosalie Cadron-Jetté AfD

This discussion relates to the interpretation of WP:SNOW, as invoked by me in the AfD debate for Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté.

Hello, DustFormsWords. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Cadron-Jetté.
Message added 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aditya Ex Machina 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I thought WP:SNOW was to be used only when there were multiple delete (or keep) votes. My interpretation was wrong. Again, thanks for the reply. Aditya Ex Machina 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Whitfield AfD

This discussion related to the Ashleigh Whitfield AfD. The original title left for this message by Michael was "Later this evening..."

Only have a few minutes, but I did find a few articles that deal with the woman and her work... Sunderland Echo 1, Sunderland Echo 2, Sunderland Echo 3, Sunderland Echo 4, Evening Chronicle... but it all seems to be local coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jonathan Nash Hearder

This discussion relates to Jonathan Nash Hearder, which I nominated for DYK after 5x expanding.

Hello! Your submission of Jonathan Nash Hearder at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! . Length doesnt seem to be a 5x expansion since March 31st (requirements are based on a 5 fold expansion in the last five days). If you have any queries please feel free to contact me Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length should be fine per Rule D8; the timing is confused because it had to wait until its AfD closed before it could be nominated, and the work happened during the AfD. Other concerns also addressed at the DYK nomination discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
gotta love the backlog ;) and Rule D8, sorry bout that then. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated DYK query On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Nash Hearder, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Rudolf-Kalweit-Stadion

This discussion relates to Rudolf-Kalweit-Stadion, which was nominated for DYK by Calistemon, and which I reviewed and discovered problems with missing alt and rollover text for the attached image.

I've added some text to the picture, is this sufficent? I'm not tu sure, never provided a hook with a picture before. Please let me know, thanks Calistemon (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Better now? Calistemon (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Calistemon (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Muppet Monster Adventure

This discussion relates Muppet Monster Adventure, which was nominated for DYK by Tom Black, and which I reviewed.

Hello, I've responded to your comments on the DYK nom page. Thanks for your help! Tom Black (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Beanie Babies AfD

This discussion relates to the Special Beanie Babies AfD, in which I commented.

See my comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Club AfDs

This discussion relates to several articles about cricket clubs which were nominated for deletion on the basis they didn't comply with WP:CRIN, a project-local guideline. I pointed out this was not, of itself, a sufficient reason for deletion.

Thanks for your note. The heading at WP:CRIN clearly says "Notability criteria guideline". So, while it is not a Wikipedia policy, it seems perfectly reasonable to appeal to it in argument. I guess I was looking at it as being like an essay. Anyway, thanks for alerting me. StAnselm (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. AfD,

This discussion relates to the McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc. AfD, in which I initially voted delete and then changed my vote to keep.

Thanks for changing that !vote. I'll admit I'm a hyper-inclusionist on legal topics so I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I work in law myself. I have to say though, it occasionally seems to me that Wikipedia is not a legal database and possibly the notability for legal cases should be higher than merely setting precedent. A sensible reading of "significant coverage" would require the case to be not merely cited, but actually analysed. Doesn't seem to be a problem here though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call and response deletion

This discussion relates to some confusion around the deletion of a page entitled Call and response.

Howdy.  :) The article as I'd first encountered it was just a single, semi-complete sentence under an implausible title. My message on the user's talk page shows me advising him against creating single-sentence substubs. It would appear that he recreated the article with a lot more content - albeit really rambling content - without realizing that there was already an article under the proper title. I wouldn't have otherwise closed the AfD. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLE

This discussion relates to a barnstar I gave to Dweller for his work on the essay WP:POLE.

Thank you very much for your kind words and the barnstar. --Dweller (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté

Updated DYK query On April 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Joe Chill)

This discussion relates to a message I left on Joe Chill's talk page, welcoming him back to Wikipedia after a break.

Thanks for welcoming me back. I'm glad that I finally decided to not let rudeness towards me keep me away. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Morenooso / Stinking badges

This discussion relates to a disagreement with Morenooso over the proposed deletion of Stinking badges.

Keep this on the appropriate talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, you need to know when to take a hint. --Morenooso (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about "taking hints". If you've got a position on how an article should be edited, you can explain it politely and respectfully with reference to policy, or you can admit you don't know of any policy to support you and argue there should be some, or you can keep silent. "Move along little doggie" may not be directly offensive but it's not an appropriate way to talk to an editor you've never met who's making policy-supported edits in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy

This discussion relates to Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy which I proposed for deletion on the grounds that it consisted largely of unsourced negative statements about living persons.

I have removed the prod tag from Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy and removed several unsourced assertions. The page still needs considerable clean-up, but like you I am not knowledgeable enough to make the required changes. You may wish to keep an eye on the page and continue to push for improvements. Let me know if I can help. Cnilep (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That should be enough to address my concerns! - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for 1903 Turkey earthquake

This discussion relates to 1903 Turkey earthquake, which was nominated for Did You Know and which I reviewed.

I think I have addressed all your concerns; thanks for raising them, I'm sorry I missed them. ceranthor 21:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds

This discussion relates to the DYK nomination of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds, which had some initial problems relating to the creation date, which were subsequently resolved.

Thanks to you and Scapler for the review and approval. I don't know how I missed the creation date but well, it somehow happened. Happy editing! --Remy Suen (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bishop Ignace Bourget (photograph).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for St. John's Catholic Church (Delphos, Ohio)

This discussion relates to Nyttend's nomination of St. John's Catholic Church (Delphos, Ohio) for DYK, which I reviewed and objected to on the basis of the word "rare" not being supported by the article.

Replied at T:TDYK. By definition, if most of a group of anything are one way, something that's not is rare. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I check the page frequently when I have a nomination there, but it's nice to know without having to look. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Union Hall (Adelaide)

This discussion relates to the DYK nomination of Union Hall (Adelaide), which I reviewed and raised a question about the possible confusion of fire wardens with firemen.

Hi, I've responded at Template talk:Did you know#Union Hall (Adelaide). Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (character counts)

This relates to a question I asked at DYK relating to character counts for articles containing merged text.

I've always ignored ones that had merged content. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (DGG)

This is a continuation of a discussion begun on DGG's talk page about a dissenting opinion he had made.

I'm sure we agree about most things; the debatable stuff is really only a small part of WP. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]