User talk:A Nobody/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The Motley Moose

Hey, I wanted to thank you for flagging the "Motley Moose" article for rescue. I hate to canvass, but I'm still fighting the article's deletion, and have made a variety of points that are being largely ignored by a few headsrong editors. If you still think the article's worth saving, and could saunter over to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28, I would appreciate it. If nothing else, I could use another eye on seeing if my own arguements are cogent for my work in the future as a member of the Article Rescue Squad. Cheers, mate! Ks64q2 (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! That DRV has closed and as such I cannot comment in a closed discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Hey AN. I saw you made some changes to refs on pages I was watching. I was always taught (and it seems that wiki agrees) that refs go outside of punctuation. It does say that they can be placed mid sentence but that if it's next to punctuation, it should be outside. Thanks for your time thought. From the looks of your userpage, I think we share a lot of the same opinions about wiki. It also looks like you're an asset to the wiki community. Keep it up. OlYeller^Talktome 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page

They were very rude and aggressively, and if you meant to intimidate me you have failed, miserably. I have review the links provided and remain uninspired. The article is worthless in my honest opinion and in its current state and with the references available and what turns up in searches it will undeniably be deleted, that is all.Troyster87 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Just because you don't like something is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, you should read WP:AGF. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Regarding this

Hey iam aware of the upcoming movie but iam not sure why the fiction war is allowed in wikipedia. There is so much of articles in Robotech which does not have sources and the whole is messed up. So far no one is doing anything to improve those articles. Iam not sure if i have the time to rewrite the whole article. Hopefully someone who has time can do that. All iam doing is cutting down the articles and they can concentrate on main articles and characters. Btw don't you think that this sort of article should be added in Wikia and other places?. This sort of articles won't disappear. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It is allowed, because editors and readers come here for this information, which is verifiable. I am not opposed to a merge and redirect, but deletion is a last resort per WP:PRESERVE. I agree that it should be added to the other wikis, but just as say Britannica has an article on Napoleon, we should still also have an article on Napoleon. Now I know Napoleon is way more significant that Robotech, but all the same, we should be able to cover these in some manner or other and I really think that at worst a merge and redirect would be the way to go, because clearly some number of our editors and readers do come here searching for that content. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Is there a place where we can request articles be transwikied? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's at either WP:TRANSWIKI or Help:Transwiki. //roux   18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a place to list articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have sworn I'd seen a 'request list' at those links. Try asking here, they should be able to help. //roux   18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your help on the nominated articles. Are there any punctuation/comma rules a non-native speaker like me should take a look at? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Anyway, one of the most common errors I see on Wikipedia that I typically correct is having footnote numbers before punctuation marks. A reference should follow the comma or period. If I can help with anything else, please do not hesitate to ask!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for Welcome, but...

You may regret it. I was just posting this when you were posting your welcome. Know any fair top people we can write to? Best wishes! SoCoColl (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

John's reply to you in that thread is a reasonable basis for who you may contact. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And highly appreciated. Thank you again. SoCoColl (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I see you're interested in RFA. If you like, let me know when you think you're ready, and I'll look through your contribs. If I like what I see, I'd be willing to give you a nom or co-nom, if you think that would help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the offer, but would really have to think about it. I changed usernames to avoid being too obvious to people due to real world concerns and being an admin could attract more attention than I might want and I could imagine certain accounts showing up and disrupting it, as I have had negative interactions with the various incarnations of the following blocked editors: User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:AnteaterZot, User:Eyrian, User:Dannycali, User:Blueanode, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, keep me in mind. I'd like to think that the RFA regulars wouldn't be impressed by a bunch of people we don't know showing up and all opposing for the same reasons or non-reasons, but you never know how it will turn out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would probably also have to say I would not close AfDs, because I could see some being vindictive and trying to oppose per AFDs, even though I have been reasonably successful with them since my name change as seen at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever someone has a philosophy that isn't "centrist", on any issue, it's a good idea not to be the person who makes the final call, because then you just attract more scrutiny, and people give you less leeway to do what you want to do. I think not closing AfDs would be a good idea, for now; maybe AfD will evolve over time to be more inclusionist. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, feel free to add me to your list of people who've said nice things about you, if you like. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, which diff specifically would you prefer I add? (My back is hurting again, so my concentration is a bit off today). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Please see [1]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links to Wikia

Just so you know, you can link Wikia wikis using [[wikia:NAME:article]], where NAME is Anime, or Annex, or etc. Your links on your subpage aren't working because they have spaces in. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Snow keep

You and editor:stifle mention "snow keep" at Template/Rescue. Does that have to do with WP:Snow?--Buster7 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When it is obvious that the overwhelming consensus is to keep, it can be closed as if it doesn't have "snowball's chance in hell" of being deleted, which is obviously the case here. We use it so as not to prolong needless and thus time wasting disucssion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

re Notability fad

Hello, I have read some of your comments on the GNG RFC, and I feel that I am a kindred spirit to your opposition to this "guideline." Although some have posted that articles are not deleted under the aegis of this "guideline," I have seen where they have been. I would oppose deleting it from the website as I am opposed to all censorship, but I would like it relegated to a style guideline that is characterized as the view of some editors.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to have a kindred spirit!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Add me to your list of approving editors on your user page if you desire--Drboisclair (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

We have never spoken before, but I wanted to take a moment to say that I have seen your positive contributions to Wikipedia -- both in your personal messaging and in the well-considered statements you have posted in various discussions. I just wanted to take a moment to say "Thank you!" You are wonderful editor and a wonderful person. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind words. Happy editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have spoken before. :) Anyway, let me second the above note from Pastor Theo. Your constant positive attitude, spreading of good cheer, and willingness to discuss and explain in a civil manner (rather than resorting to shouting the other person/people down or throwing wild accusations around) when people disagree with you helps contribute strongly to a good and collaborative atmosphere: we need more editors with your qualities. Best wishes. Acalamari 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to you as well. I just wish I could get more people to help me rescue articles! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ER

Hello A Nobody, your ER has been open past the 30 day time limit, and has gained many reviews (the most currently at ER). Are you satisfied with those reviews? If so, I will have to archive your review nomination, if you are not let me know to give it some extra time.--₮RUCӨ 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was hoping a few more editors would comment as I like to have a broad range of feedback (to be honest, I wish I could just leave it open indefinitely as I think it is good to have a place beside the talk page where editors can ask questions and offer feedback about general editing rather than the more specific day to day items on the user talk page), but if it needs to be closed, okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, there is a lack of reviewers so I don't think you can get any further reviews at the moment. Is 2 weeks fine?--₮RUCӨ 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever works best for everyone. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well after what transpired, do you still want me to archive it?--₮RUCӨ 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled at today's activities, so I'll trust your judgment on this one. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think since it has very recent activity, I will leave it open for a tee-bit longer.--₮RUCӨ 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I was really hoping to get some totally objective neutral feedback; if you check my edits today I have been along those lines reviewing edits for editors under review with whom I don't have much history in the hopes that my reactions won't be overly personal or emotional. I somewhat fear mine has devolved into the opposite of why I started it, but c'est la vie. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your email

The page you mentioned has been moved to a new title without redirect and then deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's a response from me too. Acalamari 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue with any editor who's not me …

… do it on that editor's talk page or your own, not on mine. Deor (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be resolved acceptably and soon. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My editor review

Hi there. Thanks for taking part in my editor review! I have replied to some of the questions you have raised. If you want to talk further about it, please feel free, otherwise, thanks again! --GedUK  21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I have replied to you there. By the way, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody as I was hoping to get some reviews and thus feedback from objective and neutral editors with whom I have not regularly interacted as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done :) --GedUK  08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for commenting at my Editor Review. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to review my contributions and give honest feedback. Firestorm ^Talk 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I'd be honored if you wished to comment at mine. All the best! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks again for your commentary; it is appreciated. Firestorm ^Talk 01:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the fair and balanced feedback. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User space edits on User:Edgarde/tools

Since you are a polite and thoughtful person, I welcome talk pages comments from you. But please do not continue to edit my userpages. Normally I welcome drama of this sort, but I today was looking for that section and it was missing.

Thanks in advance. I am presuming Ikip will understand this applies to him as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove it or I will nominate it for deletion. Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per Wikipedia:User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody (talk · contribs) writes:

Please do not keep information used to mock or disparage your colleagues in your userspace. Doing so is unconstructive and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per Wikipedia:User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") I shouldn't have to request an admin delete it or nominate it for deletion. For the same reason why I do not keep information used negatively against eidtors with whom I disagree in my userspace, I expect the same from you. Moreover, I have asked editors not to refer to my old username due to real world concerns, which DGG and Randomran can confirm really have happened. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was observed that some editors appear to be keeping lists of diffs that can be used opportunistically in various disputes. I am keeping a list that may or may not be used in future RfC's. Since I feel I have little to hide, I keep this online. I am not the only editor doing this.

• example

This information is not being used to mock and disparage. Prior to your edit, none of the information on this page was linked from anywhere outside my userspace (nor was your current userID mentioned, if I recall correctly). If you insist on having an administrator intervene, your best bet would be DGG, since a DGG section will probably be added at some point. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a section titled "Nice comments other contributors said about or in support of Pixelface" with the edit summary of "oddities" is obviously implying that it is odd for someone to say something nice about that user, i.e. mocking. Per the message on the top of this talk page; having information under the title of an old username that I prefer not be bandied about is also counterproductive. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not harangue our fellow editors in our personal space. This is a misuse of time and effort and is incredibly disappointing to see. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that this little edit war you have started wastes my time. If the wording of my Tools page offended you so, you could have communicated with me by ... (gosh, if only there was a way for editors to communicate to each other). However, I rather doubt anyone's feelings were so hurt by this heading, and would have said as much in such a (oh I got it!) User talk page communication. As it stands now, I really must believe your motivations lie elsewhere. since (as I mention on my reply to DGG) you must know you created linkage from your old username where there was none. You are not new here, and it seems likely you would know:

• how Wikipedia histories work
• alternatives for communicating this concern to me besides editing pages in my userspace

That said, nice hearing from you. This is much better than edit warring. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Once deleted from its history that linkage will not be obvious. I don't care if established editors know who I am; I do not want certain other people showing up and seeing the older username and then drawing unwanted connections. This should not be a difficult request. We should be here to write articles and use our userspace to help with writing articles. We should not be using our userspace for anything else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll make this comment here, you may remove it after reading if you like. If I see you misusing rollback to revert edits which are not blatant vandalism again, I will make a post at AN requesting that user right be removed. Please follow WP:ROLLBACK. Whatever you think of Dr.Fluffy, his edits are not vandalism. I will be leaving a similar post on his talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • His edits are bad faith vandalism and you know it. Period. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If you continue to rollback his edits without an informative edit summary, I will recommend that rollback be taken off this account. Rest assured that your opinion about whether or not his edits constitute vandalism is in the minority. Please stop. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to leave an edit summary. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No one can honestly see his edits as anything but vandalism or at least obviously bad faith given the account's history. I am happy to leave more descriptive edit summaries, but please be serious here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm being serious. I'm telling you that you may hold a particular interpretation of his motives and edits. Others may not share it. The best bet is to just leave an edit summary. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Protonk, despite our past differences I tend not to lump you in with those two particular editors and those two particular editors are when it comes to dealing with inclusionists unquestionably not acting in good faith. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I've protected that page for 12 hours. If you want to MfD it, talk to any active admin and they can remove the protection to send it to MfD. Otherwise, please just talk out your changes. Edgarde, I'd really prefer that you just remove the name and {{NOINDEX}} the page. That seems to be the lowest impact solution. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I am discussing with Edgarde and will request admin deletion if necessary. This is absolutely mind boggling that anyone could defend using userspace for something that is clearly not intended to improve articles or reduce tensions here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
              • If you guys agree to stop reverting over the content I'm happy to remove the page protection (that obviously doesn't preclude you from nominating it for deletion, of course). Protonk (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure how that would work as I am not asking for his whole subpage to be deleted only the section that seems to mock inclusionist editors (note that the section on nice comments for Pixelface was added with the edit summary of "oddities"). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Well, maybe then, include some third party in dispute resolution more broadly, rather than deletion. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • I'm probably best just requesting oversight of the diffs involved as that will prevent any edit warring, recreation altogether. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
                      • I suspect that oversight will not delete those diffs. If you prefer and if edgarde agrees, I will delete those the old fashioned way. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                        • I am not opposed to them being deleted the old fashion way, especially because if the concerns were deletion related, I do not participate in AfDs anywhere near a smuch as previously and heck the last two I commented in I argued to delete anyway. But one other thing, did you really suggest he make this edit? Obviously anyone who clicks that link will see what two editors those toilet references refer to. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                          • No. I didn't. I just suggested he change the name. I'm not really sure what's gotten into him. Protonk (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                            • See this succession:, first Ikip's praising another editor is declared an "oddity;" second, he is renamed in that listing in an obviously derogatory manner; and finally, when it's removed, well, we have this edit summary. Like what the heck? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                              • Well, WP:CDB says I shouldn't judge intent, but he sounds pissed. I don't know what happened between his contact w/ me on the subject, where he seemed somewhat perturbed but willing to let things go. Did someone email him and make some demands? I think we are probably better off not letting this simmer any more. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                                • If he's mad about it, well, what's to be mad about? Being challenged for mocking fellow editors? I mean seriously even with all the bad encounters between you and I, I wouldn't start a special section in my userspace on you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another useful alert box....

Peer reviews needing feedback: Update:

go for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I should put in on my userpage? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thanks for commenting on my editor review. :) At one stage a thought about starting a new account, but I thought, well I've made these mistakes so I'll try and repair them. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I'll have a good look through your contribs soon, probably tomorrow, and I do have one barnstart! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and good job getting a barnstar! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Editor review, seems to be closed. You defiantly seem to be a very good editor. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; it was only supposed to be open 30 days, so we've already pushed the limit. I have once again removed it from my watch list in any event as it has been archived. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely this kind of thing that I meant

Sweeping deceptive behaviour under the rug and then closing the review once the comments began to tend negative is not the kind of behaviour that inspires belief in your good intentions. "Ignoring" another editor's edits and believing them to be not worthy of notice in your edit summaries is not good behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to humor the sock of a banned editor that was created to harass an inclusionist for years. Two editors have asked that it be closed for some time now. That account is trolling that discussion in bad faith and as such does not merit your, mine, or anybody's attention there. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I told him to close it as I felt it was just going to degenerate and go round in circles. I have given some pointers and hopefully they will be taken so just drop it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should end; leave it intact and closed. Jack Merridew 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)