User talk:Averross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Hello
2 Thomas Henderson (1874-1951)
3 Edit summaries
4 Christopher Greatwich
5 John Stevens
6 Your RfA
7 Request for Adminship
8 Re: Vandals
9 So, my friend...
10 Transclusion of signature
11 Template substitution
12 Parapsychology
13 Thanks...
14 User:Averross/Penny Arcade
15 Thank You
16 Response from fishsandwichburps

[edit] Hello

Hey, if you need to drop a line, please place your message at the bottom and sign it with a timestamp. Also, put a horizontal line below it to help divide the letters a little more. K? K.

Your article List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 was deleted because it was previously deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2. Please do not create the article again; if you want a review of the deletion decision, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there was a consensus to delete the article already. If you have a good argument why it should be recreated, make your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It won't do much good to persuade just me that the article should be kept, because the next admin to come along will delete it based on the prior consensus. At Deletion Review, you may be able to get a consensus to reinstate. NawlinWiki 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Henderson (1874-1951)

Why did you tag this article for speedy deletion, when it clearly asserts the subject's notability under WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just didn't see anything other than the fact that he was in the British Parliament and didn't think there was any point in keeping it up.

Alright, alright. I'll take the tags off and give you time to improve. I forget things easilly, soooo... I'll just let other Wikipedians deal with them. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Averross (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 December 2006.

(The comment above is copied from User_talk:BrownHairedGirl

I really think you should do a liitle bit more redaing about what the speedy deletion criteria actually involve. WP:SPEEDY A7 is not about the length of the article, it is about the notability of the subject. Since this is a biographical article, the relevant guideline is WP:BIO. A member of a national parliament clearly meets that guideline, so the article cannot be speedy deleted under those criteria.

Yes, the article on Thomas Henderson (1874-1951) is short; but it is verifiable and referenced, and correctly tagged as a stub. There are no speedy deletion criteria for deleting stub articles.

Whether the article is improved or expanded is not an issue for speedy deletion, and as long as it can be expanded it's not grounds for deletion at AFD (the issue is not whether it has been expanded, but whether it can be).

It's always useful to have people watching new page creations to catch some of the non-notable nonsennse which gets added, but please please do check the criteria before tagging articles in this way. It takes a lot of time to undo a tag which is added in haste.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

(see [http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Averross your edit summary usage). This seems particularly important when you are adding speedy delete tags to articles. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Greatwich

Why did you tag this article for speedy deletion, when it clearly asserts the subject's notability under WP:BIO? (as a member of a national team, he clearly plays his sport at the highest level).

Please note from WP:SPEEDY:

"Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author—remember, everyone was new once."

The speedy deletion tags you have added have, in several cases, followed within moments of the article's creation, and you do not appear to have notified the editors who created them.

Please slow down, and consider articles a bit more carefully before applying speedy deletion tags. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

I ought to join, I imagine, in BHG's admonition that you might do well to proceed a bit more circumspectly vis-à-vis speedy deletions. It is important, I think, to remember that there is a distinction betwixt a facial assertion of notability and an assertion the veracity of which would render an article encyclopedic (that is, would render the article likely to survive AfD). I happened upon your talk page in view of your having tagged this version of Jeffrey Meyer as {{db-bio}}, notwithstanding that WP:BAND provides that an other-than-cursory member of a notable music group is presumptively notable. At the most, you ought probably to have PRODded the article as being apropos of a putatively non-notable person (that is not, to be sure, the same as its failing to make an assertion of notability). Your zeal in patrolling new pages is commendable—the use of Wikipedia to promote non-notable individuals or corporations is surely one to be disfavored, and speedy deletion is appropriate in order that such uses should not be promulgated to mirrors—but I wonder whether you might proceed a bit more cautiously where an article's speediability is not plain. I suppose that sounds a bit high-handed, and I mean not at all to suggest that I understand the criteria for speedy deletion any better than any other editor or to malign your contributions in any way; I mean only to suggest, as does WP:SPEEDY, that when there is reasonable doubt whether a page [meets the criteria for speedy deletion], discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under deletion policy. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page should you think me entirely wrong here; it's eminently possible that I am... :) Joe 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Stevens

Is there a particular reason why you are defending this [1]. Its speculation based on the extrapolation of the Flyer's current record. If that dubious fall does indeed happen at the conclusion of the regular season, then yes of course it should be mentioned. ccwaters 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Fair enough, but what you said was "as I see fit". Clear and precise communication is an important skill for an admin to have, since you will end up spending a lot of time talking to frustrated users. By the way, there is no "ban" button. There is an important difference between banning users and blocking them. Again, I fear that you don't yet have the understanding of what an admin does. I'd strongly suggest you withdraw your current RfA and gain some more experience. You might find this essay useful. It gives you some ideas of what I look for in an admin candidate and how you can learn more about our policies and demonstrate that knowledge. Good luck, Gwernol 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my userpage: I did see your answers to questions 2 and 3, but question 1 was the one that was relevant to the particular oppose vote I asked. As for the other admin tools besides blocking, you didn't express a need for them (why would you want to do protections, deletions, or any of the minor abilities? You haven't explained in question 1, which is where you list the admin responsibilities you want). As for "just because I've never used it doesn't mean I'll use it irresponsibly", administrators have to be trusted by the community; there just isn't enough evidence at the moment. New administrators, even those with several thousand edits, have been known to mess up using the admin tools; the danger of inexperience is just too big a factor here.

Besides, there are many RfA regulars who rely on edit counts as a first filter to check whether a user is obviously too inexperienced. Many of them would require 2000, 3000 or possibly more edits; you have less than 200. As RfAs with less than a 75% support rate are historically very unlikely to pass, I don't think you have much of a chance here. Still, keep up your work; if you're still participating and still have a good record six months and 3000 edits later, it's much more likely that you'll be promoted. --ais523 17:27, 10 January 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk) 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandals

Thank you - I appreciate the compliment. You're an excellent vandal fighter as well! And I thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page - it's been getting quite persistent lately! --Nevhood 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, have you tried WP:TWINKLE? It's very helpful for fighting vandalism! --Nevhood 18:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just copy the code on the page onto your monobook.js file (click edit this page and then paste it in). I suggest copying the code on my monobook, however - it's configured so it doesn't add every single page you revert to your watchlist! --Nevhood 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, my friend...

Have you tried Twinkle yet? Your monobook seems blank... --Nevhood 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Whatever works for you! --Nevhood 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion of signature

Transclusion of templates for signatures is unfortunately forbidden on Wikipedia (as explained here. Could you also remember to substitute user warning templates (for instance, use {{subst:uw-delete1}})? Thanks. Trebor 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. "Remember to always add "subst:" to substitute messages, so that the message does not change from what the user originally saw and perhaps responded to. (See Wikipedia:Template substitution for more information.)" Regards. Trebor 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template substitution

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Atomic1609 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

I think you misunderstood my edit. I deleted nothing. As I said in my edit summary, I was moving content to Controversy in parapsychology - after your revert there are now copies of that section in two different articles. Please revert one article or another to avoid this duplication. I think moving the content is an improvement since currently the "pro" arguments are in the article while the "con" arguments are largely moved off to a secondary article - it makes sense (and is most NPOV) to have both in the same article, whichever article that may be. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are OK with the move of material, would you mind undoing your revert? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the barnstar! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Averross/Penny Arcade

Fair use image(s) used in
User:Averross/Penny Arcade
removed per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9

--The Dark Side 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

It feels good to know that someone notices and appreciates my fight against vandalism. Thanks for the Barnstar. Live long and prosper. --Savant13 12:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)