I have archived my various VfD-related talk page discussions on this page. This includes general discussions of VfD policy and mechanics. *User:BDAbramson/Archive - Pandeism discussion. == Tax protester == Hey BDAbramson, congratulations on having your article pass the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tax protester with a Keep. Good luck with the rest of your articles, and I look forward to reading them. Just to let you know, even when the consensus appears to be Keep, you should wait until we have finished the VfD process before you remove the boilerplate text stating the article is up for VfD (you can, of course, continue to work on the article during the VfD process, as long as you keep the boilerplate text up). I know that sometimes it seems that the VfD process takes a long time to complete, but if you have a look at WP:VFD/Old, you can see that we have a huge backlog. Thanks. :-) --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 03:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Liberty Belle VFD == Given that the article is now about the pre-existing DC character who was mentioned in the Powerpuff Girls episode, rather than about the PPG reference itself, can I convince you to change your vote? User:DragonflySixtyseven 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Reply about VfD == I just read that article that you wanted me to expand, and I think it is already expanded now. It is just as complex as the magic sword article that was originally a Wikipedia:Microstub. --User:SuperDude115 04:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Slut Girl == Hi, please do not delete the Slut Girl page, it is a very good comic book, and everyone I know who has read it thinks it's great (and everyone I know has read it). User:BlueRhythmJohnny 22:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==Papability== I saw that you added some names to the List of Papabili in the 2005 Conclave,specifically Cardinal Turkson,who was the subject of discussion on the talk page for the Papal conclave, 2005 article as to why he had been put on the list that was then in that article before being separated out. As a search determined no evidence of anyone outside the Wikipedia article itself considering that he ''was'' Papabile,he was removed. I don't see what is gained by having him back on the list and have removed him (also from the "Possible successors to Pope John Paul II" category).--Louis E./le@put.com/User:12.144.5.2 20:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) *I copied the name from the category to the list because the category was nominated for deletion, and some persons were concerned about the possible loss of information. I equated "possible successor" with Papabili, so I assumed that everyone in the category belonged on the list - if Cardinal Turkson belongs on neither, that's beyond the scope of my knowledge. --User:BDAbramson [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDAbramson BDAbramson]gab">User talk:BDAbramson 20:51, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Brand name products== I've closed this discussion as it seems to have reached a consensual conclusion. Please take a look at the conclusion and note (on the talk page) if you agree with its consensuality. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) == Deletion policy discussions == Hi BDAbramson, To add a new page to the list of deletion policy discussions, you have to manually add the entry to the table at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus. The table is a template that automatically is transcluded in VfD. Don't forget to mark the entry as ''(new)''. For what it's worth, I think the discussion will be worthwhile. I suspect, however, that we'd have to have too many tests and exceptions to make an acceptable rule. Then again, I hope there are wiser heads than mine on Wikipedia. Cheers, --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 01:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) *Glad to be of service. Happy editing, --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 01:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == Willie Morris Bioff == Vote changed to 'keep'. Thanks for rewriting! User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 11:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Vanity template== Thanks for the text -- I have integrated it into Template:PotentialVanity. --User:Arcadian 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Thanks! Badly needed humor! == Your comment '''"Keep. K-12's are inherently notable because the entire maturation experience occurs there for some."''' in VfD:Cairns Christian College was some badly needed humor! Thanks! With that kind of wit, I'm sure you'll make a good attorney. Although I've think I've been keeping my cool over the whole daily VfD spamming incidents, I know I needed some humor to take some stress off underneath the surface. ''...if only you'd posted your comments in a K-8 article instead... (it would have still been true!)'' :) --User:Unfocused 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Revotes == The policy is completely screwed up regarding rewrites and revotes. That is: it seems there is no official way for calling for a revote or for discounting or redoing old votes. I ran into the same problem with List of incidents famously considered great blunders (still on vfd). The article was totally rewritten.... so I asked for a revote, thinking that a revote only made sense, and people started screaming at me "No no! I voted already!" A big mess. The vfd process needs to be revised. I *have* made a proposal for a sensible method of called a revote, if you are interested: Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd. But note that this is JUST A PROPOSAL. It is not policy. (Yet.) Do not use this unofficial proposal to call a revote. - User:Pioneer-12 05:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :The entire VfD policy is royally screwed, and needs to be revised. Currently, by precedent, apparently articles may be deleted (or included) based on popular vote. Votes that lack any reason are counted as legitimate votes. These votes should be discounted and ignored. The VfD system, like the ArbCom system, should preserve anonymity so that biases towards specific users does not affect the decision-making process. If I were employed by Wales, I'd reform many Wikipedia policies to maximize the effect of improving Wikipedia. Most people don't realize it, and some veterans are oblivious to it, but Wikipedia is in really bad shape governmentally. User:Adraeus 06:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ==Brosnan== Voted. Brosnan, as you might expect from my user name, is on my watchlist so I took care of that ''crap'' as soon as I saw it :) User:K1Bond007 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Universism == I'd have left a note in explanation, but the number of new pages was a bit overwhelming. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 21:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames == Hi there! This discussion has drawn to a close, so I've archived it and put up conclusions. Could you please look at them and indicate on the talk page if you find them acceptable by consensus? Thanks. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 12:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC) == Names/surnames thingy == Hi there! I've copy/pasted your comment to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/names and surnames, hope you don't mind? *I'd say Wikipedia:disambiguation is somewhat opposed, but I don't think anybody would mind if it's just a couple of lines. As long as it isn't a lengthy thesis :) User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC) == Polydeism == Good catch. I've added some cats to the article, and changed vote to keep. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) :Yes, excellent work, I've also changed to keep. It's now an very good example of objectively presenting something which in any other form would be original research. --User:Thebainer (User_talk:Thebainer) 22:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Lee Harris == Actually, the new Lee Harris article is apparently about a different person; the first one was about a teenage musician. Thanks for checking up on it, though. User:Cdc User talk:Cdc 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) == HELP - Vfd Nomination fails at step 3 (III)== See discussion under Vfd (June 9th)... the three step nomination for deletion seems to have gone astray. Current page shows Wikipedia votes for deletion\Drum Wrench twice. Both times in RED, indicating to me that the Subst|vfd process went awry when I tried to nominate Drum Wrench article. Don't know how to get an Duty Administrator to see, but the second step seemed to work fine. Sorry for the hassle, but I've followed some of your comments and see from your user page you probably know what's what. Thanks. Frank User:Fabartus 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) * On the above, neither time did they show in the TOC. The first was appended to another vFd line. Both the page and the Vfd Vote Sub-page seem to be correct as of a recheck. Thus, only the Vfd Log would need attention??? **Thanks for checking... can you hook me up with a Wikipedian that's into or been primarily active in history? I could use a little email coaching on some issues I've running across. I'm primarily expanding articles in and around or related in some way to the Russo-Japanese War at the moment, and some of the language stuff is giving me grief. Worse, while I can infer an error in some cases (compare my version of Dalian to history), I'm not always sure of the best way to proceed. The biggest problem is that either Wiki or the ''Modern'' (PC) naming convention seems to want to leave 'old fashioned' names behind, despite the fact that all older source material uses it (e.g. Peiking, not 'Beijing'). Take a look at Manchurian Railway I wrote to fill a need ... note the reference to the Chinese Eastern Railway. I suspect they are substansially the same tracks, written in Modernese and Historicalese, as it were. But Modernese is severing itself from its own History, as it were. Has there been any discussion of this in standards and practices? User:Fabartus 03:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ---- **Thanks for that thought and the speedy response - it's too logical for me to have thought of. Esp. at the hour I wrote! I don't quite have the WikiHeirarchy down pat, and more often than not, I've been doing ad hoc changes on the fly when I see something that goes contrary to knowledge, or needs expansion, or is Link to something not even stubbed out. I've been looking at history pages more the last couple of wikidaze, so that's a good thought... probably would have thunk it meself, but the naval Battles of the Russo-Japanese war were mostly all (impression) Anom source - and probably a translation to boot (again, impression). Is there a definite corralation to the type of 'watcher' editor, and the area of expertise? (i.e. someone has come in with adds after such as spelling fixes, categories, et al. Mostly, stuff I've expanded so far has been changed only in niggles. One party did place an attention tag in a chemistry stub I did, but then it was a fair start for all that I was digging deep into knowledge studied 25+ years ago!) I know things are 'Patroled', but I have no sense of how well and/or the experience and experise of the Patroling parties... Perhaps it's an age thing - a lot of contributors seem to be young enough to be my issue (IIRC, yourself).
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with BDAbramson/Archive_-_VfD:
BDAbramson/Archive_-_VfD
BDAbramson/Archive - VfD
I have archived my various VfD-related talk page discussions on this page. This includes general discussions of VfD policy and mechanics. *User:BDAbramson/Archive - Pandeism discussion. == Tax protester == Hey BDAbramson, congratulations on having your article pass the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tax protester with a Keep. Good luck with the rest of your articles, and I look forward to reading them. Just to let you know, even when the consensus appears to be Keep, you should wait until we have finished the VfD process before you remove the boilerplate text stating the article is up for VfD (you can, of course, continue to work on the article during the VfD process, as long as you keep the boilerplate text up). I know that sometimes it seems that the VfD process takes a long time to complete, but if you have a look at WP:VFD/Old, you can see that we have a huge backlog. Thanks. :-) --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 03:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Liberty Belle VFD == Given that the article is now about the pre-existing DC character who was mentioned in the Powerpuff Girls episode, rather than about the PPG reference itself, can I convince you to change your vote? User:DragonflySixtyseven 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Reply about VfD == I just read that article that you wanted me to expand, and I think it is already expanded now. It is just as complex as the magic sword article that was originally a Wikipedia:Microstub. --User:SuperDude115 04:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Slut Girl == Hi, please do not delete the Slut Girl page, it is a very good comic book, and everyone I know who has read it thinks it's great (and everyone I know has read it). User:BlueRhythmJohnny 22:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==Papability== I saw that you added some names to the List of Papabili in the 2005 Conclave,specifically Cardinal Turkson,who was the subject of discussion on the talk page for the Papal conclave, 2005 article as to why he had been put on the list that was then in that article before being separated out. As a search determined no evidence of anyone outside the Wikipedia article itself considering that he ''was'' Papabile,he was removed. I don't see what is gained by having him back on the list and have removed him (also from the "Possible successors to Pope John Paul II" category).--Louis E./le@put.com/User:12.144.5.2 20:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) *I copied the name from the category to the list because the category was nominated for deletion, and some persons were concerned about the possible loss of information. I equated "possible successor" with Papabili, so I assumed that everyone in the category belonged on the list - if Cardinal Turkson belongs on neither, that's beyond the scope of my knowledge. --User:BDAbramson [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDAbramson BDAbramson]gab">User talk:BDAbramson 20:51, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Brand name products== I've closed this discussion as it seems to have reached a consensual conclusion. Please take a look at the conclusion and note (on the talk page) if you agree with its consensuality. Yours, User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) == Deletion policy discussions == Hi BDAbramson, To add a new page to the list of deletion policy discussions, you have to manually add the entry to the table at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus. The table is a template that automatically is transcluded in VfD. Don't forget to mark the entry as ''(new)''. For what it's worth, I think the discussion will be worthwhile. I suspect, however, that we'd have to have too many tests and exceptions to make an acceptable rule. Then again, I hope there are wiser heads than mine on Wikipedia. Cheers, --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 01:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC) *Glad to be of service. Happy editing, --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 01:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == Willie Morris Bioff == Vote changed to 'keep'. Thanks for rewriting! User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 11:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Vanity template== Thanks for the text -- I have integrated it into Template:PotentialVanity. --User:Arcadian 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Thanks! Badly needed humor! == Your comment '''"Keep. K-12's are inherently notable because the entire maturation experience occurs there for some."''' in VfD:Cairns Christian College was some badly needed humor! Thanks! With that kind of wit, I'm sure you'll make a good attorney. Although I've think I've been keeping my cool over the whole daily VfD spamming incidents, I know I needed some humor to take some stress off underneath the surface. ''...if only you'd posted your comments in a K-8 article instead... (it would have still been true!)'' :) --User:Unfocused 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Revotes == The policy is completely screwed up regarding rewrites and revotes. That is: it seems there is no official way for calling for a revote or for discounting or redoing old votes. I ran into the same problem with List of incidents famously considered great blunders (still on vfd). The article was totally rewritten.... so I asked for a revote, thinking that a revote only made sense, and people started screaming at me "No no! I voted already!" A big mess. The vfd process needs to be revised. I *have* made a proposal for a sensible method of called a revote, if you are interested: Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd. But note that this is JUST A PROPOSAL. It is not policy. (Yet.) Do not use this unofficial proposal to call a revote. - User:Pioneer-12 05:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :The entire VfD policy is royally screwed, and needs to be revised. Currently, by precedent, apparently articles may be deleted (or included) based on popular vote. Votes that lack any reason are counted as legitimate votes. These votes should be discounted and ignored. The VfD system, like the ArbCom system, should preserve anonymity so that biases towards specific users does not affect the decision-making process. If I were employed by Wales, I'd reform many Wikipedia policies to maximize the effect of improving Wikipedia. Most people don't realize it, and some veterans are oblivious to it, but Wikipedia is in really bad shape governmentally. User:Adraeus 06:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ==Brosnan== Voted. Brosnan, as you might expect from my user name, is on my watchlist so I took care of that ''crap'' as soon as I saw it :) User:K1Bond007 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Universism == I'd have left a note in explanation, but the number of new pages was a bit overwhelming. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 21:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames == Hi there! This discussion has drawn to a close, so I've archived it and put up conclusions. Could you please look at them and indicate on the talk page if you find them acceptable by consensus? Thanks. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 12:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC) == Names/surnames thingy == Hi there! I've copy/pasted your comment to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/names and surnames, hope you don't mind? *I'd say Wikipedia:disambiguation is somewhat opposed, but I don't think anybody would mind if it's just a couple of lines. As long as it isn't a lengthy thesis :) User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC) == Polydeism == Good catch. I've added some cats to the article, and changed vote to keep. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) :Yes, excellent work, I've also changed to keep. It's now an very good example of objectively presenting something which in any other form would be original research. --User:Thebainer (User_talk:Thebainer) 22:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Lee Harris == Actually, the new Lee Harris article is apparently about a different person; the first one was about a teenage musician. Thanks for checking up on it, though. User:Cdc User talk:Cdc 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) == HELP - Vfd Nomination fails at step 3 (III)== See discussion under Vfd (June 9th)... the three step nomination for deletion seems to have gone astray. Current page shows Wikipedia votes for deletion\Drum Wrench twice. Both times in RED, indicating to me that the Subst|vfd process went awry when I tried to nominate Drum Wrench article. Don't know how to get an Duty Administrator to see, but the second step seemed to work fine. Sorry for the hassle, but I've followed some of your comments and see from your user page you probably know what's what. Thanks. Frank User:Fabartus 02:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) * On the above, neither time did they show in the TOC. The first was appended to another vFd line. Both the page and the Vfd Vote Sub-page seem to be correct as of a recheck. Thus, only the Vfd Log would need attention??? **Thanks for checking... can you hook me up with a Wikipedian that's into or been primarily active in history? I could use a little email coaching on some issues I've running across. I'm primarily expanding articles in and around or related in some way to the Russo-Japanese War at the moment, and some of the language stuff is giving me grief. Worse, while I can infer an error in some cases (compare my version of Dalian to history), I'm not always sure of the best way to proceed. The biggest problem is that either Wiki or the ''Modern'' (PC) naming convention seems to want to leave 'old fashioned' names behind, despite the fact that all older source material uses it (e.g. Peiking, not 'Beijing'). Take a look at Manchurian Railway I wrote to fill a need ... note the reference to the Chinese Eastern Railway. I suspect they are substansially the same tracks, written in Modernese and Historicalese, as it were. But Modernese is severing itself from its own History, as it were. Has there been any discussion of this in standards and practices? User:Fabartus 03:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ---- **Thanks for that thought and the speedy response - it's too logical for me to have thought of. Esp. at the hour I wrote! I don't quite have the WikiHeirarchy down pat, and more often than not, I've been doing ad hoc changes on the fly when I see something that goes contrary to knowledge, or needs expansion, or is Link to something not even stubbed out. I've been looking at history pages more the last couple of wikidaze, so that's a good thought... probably would have thunk it meself, but the naval Battles of the Russo-Japanese war were mostly all (impression) Anom source - and probably a translation to boot (again, impression). Is there a definite corralation to the type of 'watcher' editor, and the area of expertise? (i.e. someone has come in with adds after such as spelling fixes, categories, et al. Mostly, stuff I've expanded so far has been changed only in niggles. One party did place an attention tag in a chemistry stub I did, but then it was a fair start for all that I was digging deep into knowledge studied 25+ years ago!) I know things are 'Patroled', but I have no sense of how well and/or the experience and experise of the Patroling parties... Perhaps it's an age thing - a lot of contributors seem to be young enough to be my issue (IIRC, yourself).
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
B
BA | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | BN | BO | BP | BR | BS | BT | BU | BW | BX | BY | BZ |Words begining with BDAbramson/Archive_-_VfD:
BDAbramson/Archive_-_VfD
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
