User talk:Leflyman/Archive8

Post replies to my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive9

Elizabeth Austin

Please do not delete material from an article which is referenced without discussion in the talk page. Thanks. Edison 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Someone's own posts are a reliable and valid source for their own philosophy. Ms. Austin's religion is an important part of her writing, as in the case of the evangelical Christians denying that Episcopals are Christians. Her being an Episcopal is crucially relevsant to that article. Disputed text may be moved to the talk page for discussion of how to improve it. Regards. Edison 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections were removed because they cited an online community web site "FaithfulDemocrats.com", which is generally not used as a reliable source-- even if it is the author writing about herself. Further, in biographies about individuals, neither ethnicity nor religion are appropriate for emphasis, unless they are specifically relevant to the subject's notability. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies). In this case, Ms. Austin is not notable for being an Episcopalian; she's notable for being a writer. Similarly, apart from perhaps Mormon writers and Jewish writers, you won't find religious affiliations listed for other biographies of authors. Finally, not all edits require use of talk pages. Remember, editors should be prepared to have any article to which they've contributed to be edited mercilessly. Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly one does not become notable by virtue of being an Episcopalian. But in her case, she is an author of a couple of books and numerous articles in mainstream national publications. That gives her notability. Given that an individual is notable, other facts of her life become worthy of mention. As an example, given that Larry Craig is a Senator, the fact that he sings in an amateur barbershop quartet is apparently notable and encyclopedic, but he would not get an article just by singing in the quartet. An author or other celebrity who has notability sufficient for an article may then be entitled to mention of his birthplace and birthdate, his college, his spouse, his children etc, none of which are sufficient in themselves to justify an article. Edison 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, her being an Episcopalian has no bearing on her notability; if that's the basis of the article, I would likely consider it a candidate for AfD.--Leflyman^Talk 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Elizabeth Austin--Leflyman^Talk 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Thank you for the courtesy note, I'll go ahead and participate. I'm a bit confused as to your reason for nominating both of them this weekend though, as it's not an area of Wikipedia that you normally participate in? --Elonka 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Twice now you have claimed with no validity that my AfD listing of two articles you authored about your family members were "revenge AfDs":

• at WT:NC-TV#ArbCom_notice? (on 14 December, where you further make a veiled threat)
• at Josiah Rowe's talk page (on 15 December, as a "hypothetical")

I had intended to let the issue alone, but as this appears to be part of a pattern of mischaracterising the actions and intentions of other editors (as pointed out in the above sections), I ask that you apologise for these personal attacks, strike them through and desist in further such characterisations. Thank you, --Leflyman^Talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point to any evidence that you have edited in those subject areas before? Otherwise it seems pretty clear that your only link with those two articles, is me, potentially Josiah's talkpage, the Naming Conventions dispute, and our disagreements about the definition of "original research" at the Lost articles. Or in other words, just how exactly did those two articles, about my grandfather and great-grandfather, come to your attention? Further, do you think it was appropriate to just immediately nominate an established and referenced article for deletion, without making any other attempt to raise concerns about it? To my knowledge you never asked for a citation, never edited the article, never raised a concern at the talkpage, and never even posted a {{prod}} template. You just went straight to AfD, on both articles at the same time. That seems to me to be a pretty clear demonstration of a "bad faith nom." --Elonka 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Elonka#Mischaracterisation

Thank you

Leflyman, thank you for your eloquent defence on Elonka's talk page. It's very much appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And thank you again. I'm really getting quite tired of this... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, that means a lot. Hopefully the current situation will be over sooner rather than later and we can all get back to putting 100% toward actually making an encyclopedia (whether we agree on a particular issue or not). Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

Undoing the edits of banned vandals like Alienus does not constitute 3RR. LaszloWalrus 06:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, my blocks were the result of reverting User:Alienus's edits. Alienus is banned from editing Wikipedia for vandalism. LaszloWalrus 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA RfA

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted the formatting you added to Boston's RfA. Tangobot needs the whole page to be left without any sections added otherwise it can't read the page correctly and is unable to calculate the number of differing types of votes and check for duplicate votes. There's more about this on WT:RFA at the moment where there is a proposal underway to modify the bots that monitor RfAs. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)