User talk:Achromatic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Hardwick

You appear to have been basing your comments on a faulty diff provided by another user, resulting in your incorrect assertion that I deleted most of the article. I'm sure you'd want to correct that mistake. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst there may have been intervening edits, as discussed in the AfD, I believe the argument made has merit. In particular, one revision prior to the article being blanked, it contained 780 words. Your revision, immediately following this blanking, contained 191 words. By your very own edit summary, you remarked you "stubbified" the article. I'm not really convinced that "stubbifying" an article has any real practical difference from "deleting a large swathe of it", and as such I'll carry on with my dissenting opinion on the matter of whether or not you deleted most of the article. Achromatic (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You are effectively making me responsible for the edits of another editor, accusing me of deleting material because I didn't restore 100% of the material deleted by an editor claiming to be the subject. If you think the material belongs then you can add it back yourself. The article hasn't been changed, except for reverting vandalism, in a year. It doesn't show any signs of being improved and so should be deleted. If you'd like to approve it then I don't object to keeping it. But no one is going to improve it then I don't see why there is an encyclopedic need to have an article about Erica Hardwick. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GWH

Thank you very much for your comments (dressing down?) GWH on AN. Sometimes I find that admins believe themselves to be on some pedestal for us to admire. Might you consider reviewing and commenting on Wikipedia:OMBUDSMEN Bstone (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland Arbcomm case

You said "I believe several things need to be done here both for justice to be done, whatever that outcome may be, and for the perception of justice being done. Per SarcasticIdealist, I would also suggest that Morven recuse. I am not in support of allowing WordBomb to participate - whilst his treatment may have been unfair in the sense of (assuming the findings are upheld) the proxy war, his other actions have struck down his ability to be able to freely participate here.". I'm not sure if the third sentence was intended as a response to what I said, but coming on the heels of the second, I got the impression that it might be, so I thought I'd better clarify: I don't support unblocking WordBomb generally, and I think that his conduct has been so abominable that I don't think he should ever be a user in good standing again. I just believe that his participation in this particular case would be helpful to this case. Just wanted to make sure that you weren't misinterpreting me. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if that was the interpretation, will clarify. Thanks for the note :) Achromatic (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Achromatic, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)