User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/9

User:TimothyRias

Dear Tim, I started, leaving a short note to User:TimothyRias. I wrote that I expect his unswer. This short note is still there. No answer followed. Then somebody deleted my note "User:TimothyRias", which I left where you discussed it and analogous note "A message from a noname", which I left in his User Talk. My homepage was deleted also.

In my talk Self-action in a system of elementary particles (I have posted it in Wikiversity later on) I discuss a trivial, but very important and widely used in quantum mechanics (see the references I made) one of the basics of the field. I should say that it went without saying, as I noted in my greater message. Nobody explained it properly in any source for students and teachers. It can not be understood from the point of view of classical physics. It is purely quantum concept. That is why I decided to contribute and wrote what I wrote.

Anyway I expected that somebody who claims that he is professional Quantum Gravity Expert, working for one of the famous universities, should understand what I wrote. But he wrote not only that I am a noname, but also that my contribution discussed here "is from the 'physics' subarchive (aka the loony bin)". I am not a great expert on the slang of american youngsters, but I feel what it is all about. So I really doubt that User:TimothyRias has a master degree in any profession, and sure not in Quantum Gravity as he claims.

After my experience with wikipedia I decided that wikipedia is not for me, it is for ambitious uneducated youngsters. Really I do not need wikipedia for myself, I just wanted to share. My results in Physics could be found in traditional printed encyclopedias. So I wish good to you & User:TimothyRias --Yuri Kornyushin (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of the deletion of your userpage. The message was not deleted but archived - see this diff. Since Jimbo's talk page was heavily used, it's archived fairly frequently. I checked the note you left on TimothyRias' talk page, which, I'm sorry to say, is a rambling mess. You need to say exactly which comment you are talking about, with link to the discussion. Imagine that, a month after you made some statement somewhere, someone you don't remember just jumped out of nowhere and started shouting at you about how wrong "that statement" was. Would you know what he's talking about? I wouldn't. As to the article, if you can cite a printed encyclopedia that actually included your research, that would surely meet our inclusion criteria. From what I can tell from the AfD discussion, however, apparently the only single source was an unpublished article. As we do not accept original research, it should be little surprise that the article was deleted. Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oasis Record Sales user:mattydd

Considering it is cited from the Belfast Telegraph, it should say 70 million records and not 50 million records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattydd (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Checking... with the editor who changed it to 50 million. Tim Song (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done per this. Please use {{editsemiprotected}} on the talk page of the article for future edits; it will probably provide faster responses. Tim Song (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Forbeswood Heights

An article that you have been involved in editing, Forbeswood Heights , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbeswood Heights. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I must have missed it in my watchlist when it was deprodded :). Tim Song (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of riots

Thank you for your fix. Any idea what I did wrong? aaaronsmith Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you subst'd the wrong template, but I can't tell which template you used. It's easier to use WP:TW anyway. Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to follow directions for a first time AfD and put {{subst:afdl}} at the top. Nothing else came out quite right.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the message to use nowiki tags for better readability. It should be afd1 (the number 1), not afdl. That's why. Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Sneakers o toole

Thanks for that, I went through the whole SD list looking for fictional but couldn't locate it, I didn't think to go for proposed. I'll know for the future! RaseaC (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call, I'm happy with that. RaseaC (talk)

Hi

Please jump by to my talk page. Aviados (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion contested: The Complete Silly Song Collection

you stated I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of The Complete Silly Song Collection - a page you tagged - because: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know

My response Thank you my good friend for checking the article. It is always good to keep as many articles on wiki as possible, believe me, i don't like to see articles deleted. It is so painful to the author. However, there are times when i just have to do it, so as to maintain wiki standards. the article in question, as you ve tagged it deserve to be deleted. It does not ve well meaningful content. anyway thank you my friend, i ve lent something from your words. 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

Well, to fit WP:NONSENSE you need to have either literal nonsense ("sfjkjdfh sydfhyivwbxc8iaskl;addvjuiffm") or a word salad that no reasonable person would be expected to make sense of it whatsoever ("good dream music smith kill play no yes right. make serve do read page any you inform?"). That page was neither. Tim Song (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of A1 in Serbia

I'll rewiew deletion criteria, anyway, article is for deletion because it's totally inaccurate. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I AfD'd it. Tim Song (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you, I'll discuss in talk page there. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Touched by an angel episode guide

Hi I'm Jolenine, just to inform you that the creator of this page Shicks921, has just removed the PROD withour any reason, did not write any comment on the edit summary regarding why he removed it, did not say anything in the talk page nor did he improved/modified in any way the article. So can you please put it back or apply further mesures? I suppose the user removed it so that it will not be deleted... Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Taken to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all of your comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my Rollback rights. I really appreciate it. Regards.--David | ^Talk 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sonja de Lennart

Hi Tim, thanks for editing my contribution. Please let me know how many links do you expect to be added so that the 'orphan' tag could be removed. Also, the biography was (originally) accepted by Wikipedia editors. I checked with other biographies and realized that all of them are written like that. If somebody went through traumatic events (or whatever it is) it is (in my mind) part of a biography. Please advise. Thanks! RoboRay--RoboRay (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Orphan, you need three articles linking to it in article space, excluding dab pages, redirects, and the like. So far there's only one page that fits the requirement. I'm not quite sure about what you are talking about in the second part of your comment, as I did not seem to have changed any part of the biography. I've read the article and the talk page discussions, and if that's what you are referring to, then my personal view is that the article does indeed sounds overly positive. So I would recommend reading WP:NPOV and WP:V before going further. In addition, since it seems that you have a conflict of interest, please also read the COI guidelines (WP:COI). Tim Song (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim Song, Thank you very much for your detailed answer, that's very kind of you. Now, I'm facing a problem: Sonja de Lennart was huge in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (before she discontinued her work because of known reasons)--but back then there was no Internet and no 'links' the way we know it today, which means, I put the correct link to the correct newspaper/magazine articles, who archived the mentioned articles 'on paper' and can be obtained by anyone at any time--but, as I said, on paper! This doesn't make articles any less reliable or valuable. Also, the articles in major lexicas, like The Great Brockhaus (Bertelsmann) or Meyer's Lexikon discontinued their 'online publication' in order to sell books. That's why I eliminated the link to their previous 'online publications' with the complete article about Sonja de Lennart and her invention of the Capri Collection (skirt, blouse, hat, belt, worn by Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday) and, of course, Capri pants. Therefore, please let me know what you want me to do. Thank you very much!! Last but not least, I don't understand what you mean by I had a 'conflict of interest.' I am a Professor of History, and I'm helping because a group used Sonja de Lennart's daughter and the respected inventor of the famous Capri pants for their purpose to go after Wikipedia. Therefore, please be so kind and explain so that I can do what needs to be done. Thank you!! --RoboRay (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)--RoboRay (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)--RoboRay (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see. I thought that, since you claimed that no one but you have a copy of something, this might be a COI case. Glad to know that I'm mistaken. Paper sources are fine as long as you provide the necessary citations. There's normally no need to upload a copy, which, as pointed out on the article's talk page, raises substantial copyright problems. Many Wikipedians are librarians who are more than qualified to verify the source's existence, should it become necessary. Our reliable sources guideline requires reliable, third-party, published sources, not sources published online. Tim Song (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tim, thank you so much for your very professional answer! I will continue to do the best for the site and hope I may contact you if I have further questions. all the best--RoboRay (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My Opus Radio

Hi Tim,

I've made the relevant changes to the article My Opus Radio. Kindly check to see if it is wiki compatible. Regards' Mithun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogster27 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Checking... Tim Song (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked. There're still some problems. I'll be  Working on it. Tim Song (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Article cleaned up and tagged as stub. Tags cleaned up as well. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For putting my post on the right board, was not sure where to make it. Bevinbell (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for alerting me to this accusation. I guess the revert in question has to do with otterathome removing the results of an afd discussion from the Jackson Davis talk page. Otterathome nominated the article for deletion, he then appealed the decision and lost. He then renominated the article some 6 or 7 days later. The admin who closed the discussion made a point of mentioning in the afd decision that the article should not be renominated for a substantial period of time. I believe this is useful and relevant information. Otterathome removed the afd box from the top of the article. When I reverted the delete I mentioned in my rational that I thought it was useful information. This is now the third time otterathome has accused me of stalking him. The only reason I know he exists is because he has attempted to delete several articles that I check on a regular basis, and use for information. Mathieas (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolah Ghermezi

Hello Mr. Song,

Would you consider redirecting this article to You Tube right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.

Thanks for your time. Ikip (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't read Farsi. So it is possible, albeit IMO unlikely, that the subject is actually notable and verifiable, which is why I'd rather let the AfD run the full 7 days. If the subject turns out to be notable and verifiable, all is well; if it is not notable or not verifiable, it should be deleted. I fail to see why a redirect to YouTube is appropriate - the article is supposed to be about an Iranian TV character, not someone in a YouTube video. Tim Song (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you for considering my request and your response. I thought youtube would be fitting because the only sources you found were from youtube. Best wishes in learning farsi. Ikip (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much!

I honestly didn't catch that typo on that user subpage. Thanks for that terrific assist. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Not getting it

Please note that TOAT has also replied to this on my talk page.

Passage is based solely on which remedy has the greatest support. Remedy 6 has 7/3/0, 6.1 has 6/4/0. Conditional votes such as first/second choice are only taken into account when there is a tie in support, or when things are unclear (if, for example, 6.1 was 6/3/1 instead). Even in that situation, Remedy 6 still has greater support, because as you pointed out, Tim, five arbs prefer 6 to 6.1 in some way (be it outright opposing 6.1 or simply showing a preference for 6), whereas only four prefer 6.1 in the same manner.

I am only a clerk - my responsibility here is to count votes and announce which proposals are ahead and which ones are not. If you feel it doesn't make sense, I would encourage you to contact ArbCom about it. Complaining to me won't achieve much. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

God of blue moon

Thanks, seems us lowly IPs can't create non-talk pages. Put simply, its a page about something that doesn't actually exist (WP:NFT), not to mention a WP:COI issue - the page author has removed the prod tag twice, so... 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - actually before I saw this message once I actually read the article. You can comment at the AfD. Tim Song (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My signature

Huh? What's wrong with my signature? mcjakeqcool 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Tim Song (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New Item on Admin Notice Board regarding Bf20204 (now editing as Ba20204)

Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevinbell 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your use of DRV for criticism unrelated to the DRV being discussed

If you have a criticism about my style of commenting, I would prefer you not choose the forum of a deletion review discussion as the place to debate over that issue, which is wholly unrelated to the process of having a deletion review of a particular AFD discussion. Please do not do that again, and in the future instead seek out my talk page. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It started as a side note but I agree that it's getting off a tangent. Do you mind if I collapse that? Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your acknowledgment that it is "getting off a tangent". It was an inappropriate use of the DRV discussion space for an unrelated criticism of an individual editor - something that WP:DRV specifically states is not the purpose of the DRV process. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, I do not think it should be collapsed, but it would be fine for you to strike out the inappropriate portion of your original comment and then collapse it. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked if you could collapse my comments, and then did so anyways, when I did not reply in the affirmative? LOL. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the 2nd part of your comment when I collapsed it. Check the timestamp. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to redact/strike-out your inappropriate comments from the DRV, and then collapse? Cirt (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how my original comment was inappropriate - I was merely pointing out that your comment did not provide others much insight into your reasoning in closing this AfD. I consider this relevant to the DRV. In the interest of avoiding DRV drama, however, I'll agree to striking that part. Is that okay with you? Tim Song (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In the future, please do not use the WP:DRV process as a forum to criticize other editors, that is not what the process is for. Note from WP:DRV: Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Nominations which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias may be speedily closed. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still quite unsure how I managed to violate that rule. Did I accuse you of bias, or defame or slander you, or otherwise violate WP:NPA? Comment struck and collapsed in the interest of avoiding drama. Tim Song (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment was focused on a single contributor, not on content of the article, and completely unrelated to the DRV at hand. And thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's focused on the content of the comment by the closing admin whose decision DRV is supposed to review. I can't review a decision unless I know why that decision is made. Perhaps other DRV participants like to parse the debate themselves and decide de novo if the closure is "correct" or "incorrect"; I endorse unless I'm convinced that the closer clearly erred. But I can't do that if I have no idea what's going on in the closer's mind. Tim Song (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Except you yourself stated the matter was obvious for this most recent DRV, you were instead inappropriately using that DRV page to single out and criticize an individual about a comment on another unrelated DRV. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Even a statement like "I closed the AfD as delete because there is no keep !votes and the arguments to delete were policy-based" would have provided insight into your reasoning. If you want to take this to WP:DR, I have no objection. Otherwise, I consider the matter closed. Tim Song (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So on every single DRV that comes up of my actions where the consensus to delete or keep or whatever is unanimous, with not a single editor commenting against the unanimous consensus, the closing admin must still point out the obvious? This seems to be pushing it a bit much. No, what happened was you disagreed with my comment from the prior DRV, and did not bring it up then, and did not bring it to my talk page, but instead waited to bring it up in a completely unrelated DRV. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you must point out the obvious. But if you have to put it that way, it's also pointing out the obvious to say that the closer will defer to the consensus decided by the DRV. And I can imagine all sorts of hypotheticals where a no consensus close is appropriate despite a unanimous vote; but I really don't want to go there. Tim Song (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the future please do raise the issue in a polite manner on my talk page, instead of inappropriately using a community process as a personal forum to air your criticisms. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After sleep, reflection, further sleep, further reflection, I realized that I deserve this, so......

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Mea maxima culpa. Tim Song (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gyp-Crete

You mentioned the AfD for Gyp-Crete was malformed. Any idea how that happened? I nominated the article for deletion and followed the somewhat complicated (for me anyway) instructions.Sandcherry (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the final step: for some reason you used [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyp-Crete]] instead of {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyp-Crete}}, so the AfD page did not transclude properly on the daily log. If you used {{subst:afd3}} instead, it would have generated the transclusion properly. Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the page called "Far East Group" on Wiki?

Dear Tim,

I noticed that the page called "Far East Group" on Wiki has been used totally to promote a company, which violates the relevant rules about Wiki. What do you think? Because I'm new here, and don't know how to do that. Could you let know your opinions of that page? Thanks very much.Facade123 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked. Not irredeemably spammy, and contains enough indications of importance and significance to pass A7. Why you decided to contact me of all people I cannot imagine. WP:AFD is the way to go if you want to take this further. Tim Song (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chetnik-based information

Tim,

I response to your last message, I strongly recommend that the information on Ivo Andric be modified, as it is completely inaccurate. In the very book, which catapulted him to international prominence, 'The Bridge on the River Drina', the first page states that "Ivo Adric was himself a Serb". I realise you say you put things on Wikipedia that can be proven, so I suggest that you update your information to show that he was NOT in fact Croatian. Also, the picture you have claiming to be evidence of him suggesting he was Croatian and Catholic is NOT true, it does not say that at all. I look forward to seeing this error corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanarsenijevic (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject, so I'm not going to change anything. Initiating a discussion on the articles' talk pages is the way to go if you want to change the material. Talking to me won't accomplish much. Tim Song (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signature tips

I am wishing you a very big thankyou for giveing me tips on how to link my signature to my talk page. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous speedy delete

Thanks for catching that, my mistake. Leoniceno (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gloomy Candy

Hey Tim Song I have a quick question about the article you moved well here it is... After | published = October 26, 2008 i want to add Availability IE were you can get it but when i tried

| Available = Japan It did not work.. how can i add it?

Oh and i apologize for getting all moody that day..if i don't get my morning/afternoon and evening coffee i tend to get a little..well uppity

Black Rose 01:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The template does not have an "available" parameter - see Template:Infobox animanga/Print. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah crud that sucks i guess i should add a spot on the article for its availability ahwell Thank You Tim Song Black Rose 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagic1234 (talk • contribs)

re:Jai Paddam: The Movie

Thanks for your assistance, Tim. A "procedural mistake" on my side. Normally I watch all my deletion candidates carefully, but in this case I also forgot to check the deletion log. Fortunately, it has been deleted speedily. Btw, I tagged another article by those Siamese accounts as {{db-bio}}. There was a really evil and daimonic image. I was almost scared :) Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vitae patrum

Hi,

Tech reason: A7. No indication of importance

Can we get on with it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit. A7 does not apply to books. And if you read the article, it's supposedly about a _book_ published in 1628. Tim Song (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I've not been active of late at DRV, and so I did not have occasion until today to examine your standard and the attendant analysis; I write to offer that even as I disagree with you fundamentally, having long—and for a good while stridently—advocated for de novo review at DRV, believing that our according admins discretion in the closing of XfDs produces a perverse framework in which disparate results dominate and that wrongly aggrandizes the role of the admin, which is meant to (and in any case should) be ministerial (there must be some barnstar for splitting the infinitive with five words), I find very impressive your argument and imagine that our enterprise would be much better off were everyone to set forth his/her guiding principles so clearly and eloquently. Good on ya. Cheers, Joe (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words - there should also be a barnstar for participial phrases that took 1/3 of the paragraph :). FWIW, my view is that, when we require admins to gauge a "rough consensus", there's an inherent subjective component in the decision. The only way to make the close be purely ministerial is to devise some sort of unified vote scoring system (+10 for citing a policy on point, +1 for each per nom vote?) - and even then there's inherent subjectivity in deciding how each vote scores. Given that, I'm not comfortable saying that my conclusion, influenced by my own subjective views, is somehow more preferable to the closer's, or that the closer was somehow "wrong", simply because I disagree with them. Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roy Eugene Davis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure why I was notified. Noted. Tim Song (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for clearing up my mess! It would appear that the {{afd1}} template (or one that is transcluded by it) links to the log page of the day it was added to the article (see here), rather than todays log. Sorry about that, I'll try to be more careful in future. I'll also see if it can be fixed. Thanks again! ascidian | talk-to-me 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I normally do with those is to remove the AfD template entirely, then renominate from scratch with Twinkle. Much easier. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The nod

Sorry about just getting back to you over this, I try to respond to every message fairly quickly, but I guess I just missed yours. It looks like the article was changed to an AfD following your PROD, so I guess no one is in agreement over this :) Anyways, the end result is the same. Thanks for the message! Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 02:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's okay - it got snow'd at AfD, anyway :). Tim Song (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which AFD?

I've closed hundreds of AFDs so I'm well aware of the procedure.

1. When leaving holier-than-thou comments it really helps if you actually mention what article you are talking about.
2. I did leave the template. What appears to have happened is that I accidentally deleted the article heading when I removed the "AFD in progress" tag. Thank you for catching that and fixing it. Manning (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah - bugger - so I did! My sincere apologies - they were all done at about 3AM after a long and tedious day of people screaming at each other on AN/I. Thanks for catching them. Manning (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. AN/I can be...exhausting. :-) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi there! Looks like you go to the other CU. :) Just thought I'd drop a line after you supported the unsalting of Wong Fu Productions. Nice work on the vandalism patrol; my recommendation as a fellow contributor is that if you're not confident of your writing, the best way to improve it is…to write! I found my writing improving a lot after dealing with the beast that is NPOV (among other things). Cheers! Arsonal (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try it when I get more free time :) Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for looking into it. I do apologize if I did something wrong by creating a new account. I guess I could have just started over with a new account. I am not trying to evade the block - just trying to get some help. I think I got blocked because of my user name more than what I did.Retired Canadian (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That block was a hard block - I personally think the blocking admin went a bit too far - but nonetheless, you are not permitted to create a new account with a hard block in place. Tim Song (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dreaming Little Things

If the band's article was deleted, the album can be speedied via A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I did tag it as A9 - speedy was declined. Check the article history. Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's wrong. That review looks like it's from a blog, and it's not really an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a student newspaper. Still, I dislike appearances of admin-shopping. It will probably be snow'd at AfD, anyway :) Tim Song (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your help

Thank you! Luminifer (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)