User talk:RMHED/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Postal Dude (Postal) 2 Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department 3 Re: Gerald Gustafson 4 Talk Page 5 Alex Shagin 6 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN 7 Thanks for supporting my RFA 8 Sopranos Episode Guides 9 RfA Thanks 10 Re: Deleted prods 11 Schools shouldn't be speedied? 12 Lynn Valley elementary deletion 13 Thanks for supporting my candidateship 14 See Talk:Constantine II of Scotland 15 Rob Swire (physio) 16 What wikipedia is 17 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (t.A.T.u. song) 18 Aramasa Taku 19 Douglas Carver (chaplain) 20 Deen Kemsley vanity article 21 Southern Oaks, CA 22 Regarding Notability of Crack Cartoon 23 {{db-spam}} removed from Asymptote Architecture 24 The National Socialist Party of Great Britain 25 speedy for Yuria Kato 26 Greenbrae Primary School 27 rollback 28 Talk page notices of bundled AfD keeps 29 Otto's Pub & Brewery 30 Rudget! 31 AfD for Buster Gonad 32 Centralized TV Episode Discussion 33 Mylène Farmer International Fan-Club 34 Royal Ones 35 RfA 36 RfA thanks from Happy-melon 37 link to old afd 38 What does "per consensus" mean? 39 Thank you spam 40 Closing AfDs 41 removal of CSD from Beyt_Tikkun 42 Beyt Tikkun 43 Your RfA was unsuccessful 44 Speedy Delete Help 45 Fair use rationale for Image:Kathy-Augustine.jpg 46 1968 Chrysler Town & Country.jpg 47 San Diego Highwayman 48 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Will-Hay.jpg 49 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Buttons-Sayonara.jpg 50 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fred-trueman.jpg 51 Doczilla's RfA

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Postal Dude (Postal)

Per the deletion process, ambiguous closes should be left to an administrator. This was one of those cases; as such I have reversed your closing. I (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way was it ambiguous? An Admin does not have any greater insight than other editors.WP:DPR#NAC is a guideline and not an official policy and guidelines are malleable. My regards to you. RMHED 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was ambiguous in that it wasn't clearly obvious to anyone. While an admin does not neccesarily have any greater insight, their insight has been deemed trustworthy through RfA. In ambiguous cases, the closer's opinion and ability needs to be vetted, an admins have that. Non admins don't always. Also, just because it's a guideline and policy does not mean it can just be disregarded; it still represents consensus. I (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good answer, but remember that an admin is "vetted" primarily because of the powers of deletion and blocking they are entrusted with. Ambiguity by its very nature is ambiguous, where some might see ambiguity others might see a clear result. If you weren't a participant in the AfD how would you have closed it? RMHED 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They've been vetted by passing an RfA. How I would have closed it is neither here nor there, but I probably would have relisted it to see what other people thought of the sources that were there. I (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your answer, nicely thought out. RMHED 13:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department

An AfD in which you commented has been brought to Deletion Review, You may wish to comment there. [1] DGG (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I doubt I'll make a comment though. RMHED 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. RMHED 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gerald Gustafson

Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Tom (talk - email) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

Is there a particular conversation you need from my talk page? I'm curious as to why you are so interested in the restoration. Were we in the middle of an important discussion? the_undertow ^talk 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nope I've never posted on your talk page, I just think policies regarding deletion of User Talk pages should be followed. If a non-admin wanted their talk page deleted there would have to be a very good reason for allowing it, so it would be nice to see policy applied evenly to all. Nothing personal against you, just in the spirit of equality for the masses. RMHED (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather I go through the process of requesting deletion? the_undertow ^talk 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. What I'd like is for your talk history to be restored and then if you want it deleted you'd have to go through the proper process. RMHED (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the process! Joking. It's all restored with no selective deletions. I'd prefer you come directly to me next time, but since I was in the process of venting to a select few, I understand your hesitation. Nobody really wants nor deserves to be in the crossfire. But hey, if there's anything else, just let me know and I won't delete it :) the_undertow ^talk 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good decision sir, may your troubles and cares fade to naught. RMHED (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My troubles are over. My cares, well that will always be my downfall, as I let my emotions get the better of me. But I'm somewhat rational and your logic about my talk page was quite compelling. the_undertow ^talk 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe partake of a few stiff drinks and the cares too will fade away into the background. The warm fuzzy glow of alcohol induced well-being may be fleeting, but what the hell, it'll do. RMHED (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I'm actually laughing out loud. It was probably those same stiff drinks that got me here in the first place! Good show. the_undertow ^talk 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Shagin

Good find on the award. All I came up with were shop sites. Speaking of which, isn't http://www.nasacoins.com/theCollection.html a bit spammy to be a reference? Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could well be, you might want to send this article to AfD to get a wider viewing. See the message I left on the articles talk page re the images, could be copyright contravention, it's hard to tell for sure. RMHED (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Further digging shows most if not all the text is also a copyright violation, which is a shame because he sounds an accomplished sculptor. I'm certainly not inclined to rewrite it, so I guess it'll have to go. RMHED (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

Hello, this is a friendly notice that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN is up for deletion. I saw you were involved with the deletion review, so I thought I should let you know. Thanks! Taric25 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. RMHED (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for supporting my RFA

	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sopranos Episode Guides

I'd like to ask you to take down the tags you put on all the Sopranos episode guides. All it takes is a cursory search of current literary journals to see that the 86 hours of The Sopranos will no doubt be the most studied contribution to American television in history. Currently, scholars are compiling unprecedented studies of the show. Characters from the show are often mentioned alongside the great literary figures in the English language. Since 86 episodes are a relatively small amount for a TV show and The Sopranos so clearly has established itself as the pinnacle of television, each episode meets the standards for importance. Yes, there's a danger of wikipedia becoming bloated, but there are over 400 episode guides for The Simpsons and every pay-per-view wrestling event since the beginning of time seems to have its own page. Are 86 pages for what many have called the most important work of pop culture in the last quarter century really too many when you consider we have a couple dozen pages devoted to Friday 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street films? Wesleymullins (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're a big fan of the show and accordingly are somewhat biased towards how notable each episode is. I agree that The Sopranos as a series is extremely notable, but I doubt that each individual episode is. I'd be very happy to see real world notability established for these episode articles, but as yet that isn't the case. If you wish to remove the tags I placed on them then please do so. I will not restore them if you do so. My regards to you, RMHED (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleted prods

Hi, RMHED! I review every one of my CSD backlog deletions manually, then clear out the ones that need deletion with an automated tool (i.e. no human intervention). I wasn't aware of that specific clause for PROD deletions, and will try to leave more informative deletion rationales in the future. Thanks! east.718 at 20:00, December 23, 2007

• Thanks for your quick reply, and thank you for explaining how you do the deletions. You do a thankless task wading through all the prods, it must get monotonous. RMHED (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools shouldn't be speedied?

You canceled two of my CSD nominations with the edit summary "Schools shouldn't be speedied". For the sake of my education could you explain why not. I thought I had seen elementary and high schools speedied and I did not see any stated exception for schools. I knew that universities were kept but not lower level schools. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure no problem, Wikipedia:CSD#A7 the last line says "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." this line has only been added in the last few days, mainly due to the consensus that has existed for some time that schools really shouldn't be speedied (see the CSD talk page). If it's a non-notable elementary or primary school then best just to prod it. If it's a high school it's best left alone as they are generally regarded as being notable, at least that has been the recent trend at AfD's. I hope that helps you. RMHED (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Valley elementary deletion

I just now noticed that you had the same question of Old Mishelu that I had about the speedy deletion of the "Lynn Valley elementary article" last week. I've nominated that decision at Deletion Review here. Old M. explained to me that the speedy-deletion tag was still on the article and that he acted before the deletion-criteria policy article was changed to discourage some school deletions as too controversial. I still have objections, which I voiced in my nomination. I'm asking that the AfD be relisted. Noroton (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for supporting my candidateship

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my request for adminship. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're very welcome, I hope you try again sometime soonish. RMHED (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Talk:Constantine II of Scotland

Please go to this page if you actually have an opinion, rather than blindly supporting mass recent undiscussed controversial changes. I'm not actually on the bad side of this my anonymous status may lead you to believe. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, the only reason I reverted was your addition of the Gaelic names was creating a whole load of link redircts which didn't seem helpful. RMHED (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no addition. That's the way the pages have been for ever. I was simply restoring the default in response to mass undiscussed controversial changes. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes a regular Gaelic minefield, I'll butt out from now on. RMHED (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Swire (physio)

I did have a reference for much of the information contained in this article, but it seems that the website it came from (Physioroom.com) is on the spam blacklist. Also, I am unable to get a specific URL for the other webpage I obtained info from, so that's no help either. – PeeJay 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the BBC ref to at least establish his general notability as chief physio. RMHED (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I would like to know if it is possible to get Physioroom.com removed from the spam blacklist. I have requested the page be removed on the appropriate page, but I have no idea why it was put on the blacklist in the first place, or even how good a chance I have of getting it removed. – PeeJay 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll get back to you soon. Can't say I'm at all familiar with the blacklist and how it operates, still if they say no maybe other sources are out there. Is there anything on the Man U website about him? RMHED (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be mentions of him in places, but I don't believe there's a personnel profile on him or anything like that. – PeeJay 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What wikipedia is

Just out of question, do you think the person who has created 3,500 more articles than anybody else in the world -12,000 articles on wikipedia doesn't know what wikipedia is? and WP:NOT and all that. I'd suggest merging into an article such as List of shipwrecks in the Bristol Channel (which I've now merged other similar stubs) and could easily add anohter twenty or so ships to make it a decent article rather than isolated stubs. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good for you. RMHED (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (t.A.T.u. song)

Oops, I think I meant to say A1 there.   jj137 ^♠ 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't suppose it matters much in the great scheme of things. RMHED (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aramasa Taku

Hey, regarding Aramasa Taku and diff. a7: "An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." How is Aramasa important? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article's one sentence describes him as a "renowned Japanese photographer", that is an assertion of notability. RMHED (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you're referring to the old a7: "An article about a real person ... that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The new a7 is how I quoted above. As far as I know, an assertion is not enough. If I say "X is important." then I must say why, or I still fail a7. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merely stating that the subject is a "renowned Japanese photographer" is an indication of why the subject is important or significant. The key word is "renowned", if it had merely said he was a "Japanese photographer" then that would have been a viable A7 candidate. RMHED (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Carver (chaplain)

Just goes to show how fast edits can happen here - that piece wasn't included when I had pulled up the article off of C:CSD, so I didn't see it until you pointed it out on my talk page and I checked the delete log. It's back now. I don't know whether major generals or chief of chaplains are inherently notable, but it sounds like it clearly removes it from the realm of A7, which is good enough for me.

Thanks for the catch. Tijuana Brass (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick restore. RMHED (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for improving this article. Yours, Morninghasbroken (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deen Kemsley vanity article

If blatant self promotion isn't a valid db-reason, then why does WP:Autobiography discuss that with a link to speedy deletion? I think it IS a valid reason in the minds of others in the community based on this. Why do you think it is not a valid reason? Can you refer me to a similar policy page that supports your position? As a professor, Deen's publishing seems very modest to me. I've published more and I'm not a professor. --Pearrari (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes that part says If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. Now there are some claims to notability in the article, whether they meet our standards is another matter, but speedy deletion isn't for borderline notability candidates. RMHED (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Oaks, CA

As far as I could tell from a web search, this is a development. Do you think we should have articles on all the developments and neighborhoods in the US? I don't understand the idea of having tiny little non-notable developments listed. So coach me on this point. How far along the continuum does it make sense to go? I live in a county, township, and within that, a city, a named community and neighborhood development. I live in a named subdivision of the community. I live on a named street. At which of these levels (or some other) do we stop? --Pearrari (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Personally no I don't unless they can show notability, but CSD doesn't cover locations, there's no getting away from that. Either Prod it or AfD it instead. RMHED (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Notability of Crack Cartoon

Excuse me, RMHED, but you may want to have a second look at this article where you removed the CSD tag; the author of the article himself stated that the subject was not notable. Therefore, it perfectly qualifies for speedy deletion. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not Notable isn't a CSD criterion, notability is decided at an AfD, if the author wants it deleted they can blank the page, that hasn't occurred. Cartoons whether notability is asserted or not do not come under the CSD criterion and this article doesn't come under any of the other CSD criteria so that leaves a prod or AfD. RMHED (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also note you removed User:Kannie's Prod when you added your CSD tag, by doing this you made an AfD inevitable as once a Prod is removed by another editor it cannot be re-added. RMHED (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the speedy deletion criteria, and concede defeat :-) Good job knowing your stuff ;-) As for the prod removal/forcing the AfD thing, I was going to list it for AfD anyway when I saw that you already did it. The guy who created the article was upset and felt it deserved a chance, and since he took the time to re-edit it and to ask me if there was anyway at all to save it, I felt I should list it for AfD, just in case something turned up somewhere that made it notable (though I think the chances of that are zilch). -- 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Smile. My regards to you, RMHED (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{db-spam}} removed from Asymptote Architecture

I see that you removed the {{db-spam}} I placed on Asymptote Architecture, wich, you say, doesn't meet CSD. I fail to see why not. My reasons were:

• The overall language and intention of the article pretty much jumps at you. It's advertisement.
• The article seems to have been edited by a number of users with COI regarding it's subject matter.
  • 72.43.147.186
  • Asy Arch
  • Asymptote Architecture
• These users contibuted only to this article and uploaded images only useful in this article's context.
• A number of the images uploaded by these users have already been deleted, here and here.
• As you can also see here and here, the main image of the article was deleted and the user uploaded it again.
• There is a definite POV in the overall tone of the article and in the external links presented.
• It has no sources.
• It would take a significant amount of work to rewrite this article to make it comply with the sheer amount of WP policies it violates.
• 72.43.147.186 removed at one point the {{advert}} tag wich was placed on the article. It is clear that this (these? I'm pretty sure they are sockpuppets) user is not interested in improving the article.

Do you suggest a different venue? In the mean time, I'm placing the {{advert}} tag again. --W2bh (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message, I agree it is something of a puff piece but not unsalvagable, it can be rectified. I removed the CSD because they seem like notable architects, granted there is quite a bit of coi from the editors involved. In cases like this a speedy delete seems a bit harsh and an AfD would probably be a better venue to get a wider viewpoint and perspective. So by all means please do list it at AfD I'd be interested to see others opinions on this article and the subjects notability. RMHED (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The National Socialist Party of Great Britain

Actually I was taking a third look at that just now :O). I originally tagged it as a db-recreate, as I remember it at AFD, although I didn't participate - and I had added notability tags to the article in a previous incarnation. I am still not 100% sure what to do with a recreated article that was speedied during an AFD; my own interpretation of G4 is that it shouldn't be "db-recreate"d, but I am might be wrong FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tricky isn't it, but I'd say you could probably delete it under either criterion. The AfD was closed early, but even so a very clear consensus had formed to delete it from a fair number of users. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much what I was thinking. I saw it at AFD, but I was only online for a few minutes, and pretty much all that I would have said had been said already. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Either way, it's got a 0% survival chance. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The one thing I noticed about the logo, which the article said was redesigned to remove the Swastika, was that the Swastika was replaced with what I think is a character from the Windings or Webdings font. :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
        • That would fit within the financial means of a party with less than 50 members, I expect they have to save up just to pay for photocopying. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy for Yuria Kato

I didn't see a second AfD. I checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato (2nd nomination) Vinh1313 (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato (second nomination), it's also on the article's talk page. RMHED (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Was there a difference in the automated afd nomination template a year ago that changed from (second nomination) to (2nd nomination) or do users have to manually create a (second nomination) article? Vinh1313 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a good question, to which I do not know the answer. I'd guess manually. RMHED (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenbrae Primary School

What tag would you suggest for such a non notable primary school? Paste (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you think it's non-notable try a Prod. RMHED (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rollback

Per your e-mail, I have set rights for this. Please remember it is only to be used to revert obvious vandalism, and not in content disputes. Enjoy.--Doc^g 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I will exercise extreme care in its use. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page notices of bundled AfD keeps

Hi RMHED,

I noticed that you removed the keep talkpage notices I placed on some album articles as part of my non-admin close of the Moi Caprice discussion ([2] [3] [4]). I'm thankful for the help, but I'm wondering if it might not be better to leave them on? It seems to me that even though the main article discussed was Moi Caprice (band), the articles were nominated for deletion together.

I don't mean to sound like I'm doubting you--I'm just trying to clarify my own understanding--but is there any guideline or discussion you can point me to that confirms the tags should be removed? I couldn't find anything in the materials I looked through and was going to ask at WT:DELPRO, but since you might know something I don't I thought it best to ask directly first.

Thanks in advance! --jonny-mt 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hello, first an apology for not letting you know I'd removed the AfD links on the article's talk pages. Now an explanation, the main article up for deletion was correctly done the AfD tag was placed on the article. For the bundled album articles the AfD tags were never placed on the article's pages, so the nomination procedure wasn't properly followed. So technically those bundled articles were never part of the AfD. Hope that explains it OK. RMHED (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No worries about the notification; the ol' "my contributions" link took care of that ;) As for your explanation, while I think the articles can be considered nominated in that they were part of a discussion, I see what you're saying about the improper way in which it was done. Since there was no notification on the article that it was ever nominated, it makes sense that a notification telling the reader that it was kept is unnecessary. At any rate, it was just something I was curious about--thanks for the clarification! --jonny-mt 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otto's Pub & Brewery

Please, what is the assertion of notability at Otto's Pub & Brewery? Does being chosen #37th best place to get a beer qualify as notable or was there some more important assertion that I missed? Sbowers3 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yep that's an assertion of notability, whether that qualifies it as being notable is irrelevant as far as CSD is concerned. Oh and you failed to notify the article's creator that it's been speedy tagged, not compulsory I know but polite.
  My regards to you, RMHED (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget!

[edit] AfD for Buster Gonad

First of all, I feel dirty typing that headline. Quick question, how does adding the info on the comic (not the plot synopsis, just info on the character), violate the GFDL? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• You can't merge any content from the Gonad article into the Viz article and then delete the Gonad article as you would lose the editing history, which would violate GFDL. You can merge the article and then turn it into a Redirect as then the editing history is not lost. RMHED (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mylène Farmer International Fan-Club

Sorry I missed the previously declined speedy; I do usually check. Precious Roy (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, to be fallible is to be human. RMHED (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Ones

Hello, RMHED ... given that you put a {{Prod-2}} on the articleRoyal Ones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), does that indicate that you would have tagged it for speedy deletion if "neologism" were a deletable category? Do you think that there should be a Quicker Way to delete them than a WP:PROD or WP:AFD, either of which can take a week? Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neologisms don't come under any obvious speedy criteria, unless they also happen to be an attack or blatant vandalism. I'm very glad that the CSD criteria are narrowly defined and would not wish to see them broadened. An AfD or Prod may take five days, but there's no hurry. RMHED (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Copy that ... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... guess I'll just MOVE ON. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Succintly put. Anyway it's goodnight from me, sleep beckons. RMHED (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Be careful with that mop Eugene and always remember to be the mild mannered janitor. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link to old afd

Hi. How did you do this? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just a cut & paste job from another AfD. RMHED (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You just planted this on the page? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No I took this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria and inserted it in an Afd infobox that you highlighted in your first diff. I just cut & pasted the infobox from another AfD. RMHED (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I'm an idiot, but what do you mean by "infobox"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Below is the AfD link infobox, after Prefixindex/Insert the Page You want To Link To

• • <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria}}</ul></div>
    

RMHED (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • ok, thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does "per consensus" mean?

I notice that some of the AfD's you listed links for at your RfA you closed with "keep per consensus" when there were some "delete" votes. What does "per consensus" mean in this context, and is that a common practice? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hello there, sorry for the delay in answering. Here's what I use to determine consensus WP:PRACTICAL. It's not perfect but it works pretty well. Oh and add a health dose of common sense into the mix as well. Hope that answers your question.

Regards, RMHED (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, RMHED, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

[edit] Closing AfDs

Hi RMHED -- I notice that when you close an AfD you don't include the outcome in the edit summary. This is useful for the lazy amongst us, as those following the debate then don't have to click to find out whether the article survived or not. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that the lazy should have to make an effort. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of CSD from Beyt_Tikkun

RMHED, I am very concerned but perhaps it was just a mistake. I will AGF, but this is to let you know that you removed a CSD from the above article. Unless I am mistaken, only admins may remove a CSD tag. You are not an admin. So, I don't think it's appropriate for you to be removing CSD tags. Thank you for your attention to this detail. Bstone (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes you are mistaken, any user can remove a CSD tag. Increase da peace, or total war, my goodness what a bore. RMHED (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyt Tikkun

Has been tagged for deletion due to lack of notability. FYI.... Bstone (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA was unsuccessful

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I hope you are not too disheartened and will take onboard the concerns raised by those opposing and will consider running again in the future when you feel you have addressed them. Best wishes, WjBscribe 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Really!! and I thought it was all going so well. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Delete Help

Thank you for your help at Sonia Sui's page. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• You are welcome, so many are in a rush to delete, and don't even bother to do a basic search. The Fortress Wikipedia mentality seems to gather strength by the day. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, the same person, on the same article, nominated for delete again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Sui I have already addressed his issues on the page's discussion, well, I guess it isn't good enough for him. TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your continues support. Please feel free to let me know how I can improve in the future. Thanks again. TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kathy-Augustine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kathy-Augustine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1968 Chrysler Town & Country.jpg

Speedy deletion? And no sooner than I've uploaded it! What's up with that? There are a lot of other photos of cars on this site that have the license plates clearly visible, and I don't see anybody threatening to delete them, so why are you singling this one out? Josephew (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] San Diego Highwayman

You may want to chime in on this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Will-Hay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Will-Hay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Buttons-Sayonara.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Buttons-Sayonara.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fred-trueman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fred-trueman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doczilla's RfA