User talk:DustFormsWords/Archive002

This is an archive of posts on my talk page between November 3, 2009 and December 18, 2009. Please do not edit this page or post new messages here.

This discussion relates to a comment I made suggesting the ASCAAD AfD should have been closed rather than relisted.

The reason I said that the notvote was being discounted; [1]. Abductive (reasoning) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - thanks, Abductive. I still feel that a clearly explained nomination plus two others agreeing, with no further contributions after seven days, should be able to be taken as consensus. A prod results in page deletion with a much lower standard of consultation, after all. Still, it gave me the chance to dissent, so I'm not complaining too hard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to questions I asked DGG about the A7 Criteria for Speedy Deletion on his talk page.

hey, if you ask a qy, give me a chance to write an answer. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, was responding to Bongomatic. Wanted to be sure you weren't wasting your time rebutting a mistake I was already aware of. My secondary question would be, by the way, why just those classes specifically in A7 (organisation, etc)? What's the rationale for some classes of article but not others? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the 3rd Howard Press AfD process concluded in Delete I thanked Drsjpdc for his contributions and conduct during what had been a difficult process and offered him a cookie.

Cookie much appreciated! :)) ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Traditional Circle of Indian Elders & Youth was proposed for deletion shortly after I had made an argument on its talk page arguing for its notability.

The article Traditional Circle of Indian Elders & Youth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organization

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the AfD process for The Center of Hope, where I had initially argued Delete.

I was able to find some references for The Center of Hope by including the name of the town in my Google News archive search. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center of Hope. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Eastmain! And I note you or someone else has expanded the article since I first came through. I've changed my vote to Keep accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the 4th Magibon AfD in which, during a moment of bad judgement, I accused Pisomojado of vote canvassing, which turned out to be totally unfounded.

I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the notification! Please consider my concerns on your talk page addressed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look at my edit history before you make accusations! I'm notifying everyone as per the Article for deletion guidelines. I'm right in the middle of running down the list, so hold your horses!Pisomojado (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and fixed. Please excuse me, I appear to be having a poor judgement day and I think I'll just leave WP alone until I've had more sleep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Guillermo Torres articles for deletion debate.

I have found some additional information about Guillermo Torres, but possibly not enough to prove notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Visited the AfD and changed my vote on the basis that the regional emmy win satisfies WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relations to the Forbidden relationships in Judaism AfD, in which I expressed an argument for "weak keep".

On the basis of that weakness, can I persuade you to change your opinion to delete?

You wrote ...it does indeed represent different content [to Arayot], dealing with specific commandments taken directly from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, whereas Arayot examines the issue in the cultural/religious context

I'd like to point out that the article title has in Judaism at the end. And therefore, regardless of what content is there at this fleeting moment, if it was ever to become a proper article/good article, it would have to include the cultural/religious context, and not just be specific commandments taken directly from the Bible.

In other words, the only way the article can become a good article (let alone a featured one), it would have to be the same as Arayot. But Arayot already exists.

Therefore isn't it more appropriate to delete the forbidden relationships in Judaism article? Newman Luke (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Newman Luke. I'm not an expert in the subject matter; I can't speak for what content should or should not be in the article. All I'm saying at the moment is that the article content is appropriately sourced, apparently NPOV, and different from the content in Arayot, so it's not appropriate for deletion through the AfD process. A merge should be discussed on the talk page of the articles, not at AfD. The "weak" part of "weak keep" represents that I feel the opinions of experts in the subject matter should carry greater weight here, but that my view is not irrelevant. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relations to improvements to the LiveWorkPlay article.

Sorry if this is the wrong way to ask for help I tried very hard to understand from reading instructions and looking at other pages but I can't get an image insertion to go right on LiveWorkPlay Bytowne (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're talking about the bee, I think I fixed it. The problem was that Template:infobox_organization works a little differently from other infoboxes. Check out the changes I made to the article to see how it was done. If you're looking to further improve the article, the next step would be to change all the links throughout the article from external links into references. (For an example, see Far Gate which is an (admittedly mediocre) article I've worked on.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way I work on the board of an Australian disability advocacy organisation so although I stumbled on this article by chance I'd love to see it reach its potential. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for fixing the image I am sorry I have not done a better job with it yet but I think I understand what you are saying and I will work on it when I get a chance, and thanks for your help. It might be easier if you made the changes but I know this is a place of learning and I'll try and give it a shot! Bytowne (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to an overturned decision on the Gracie and Zarkov AfD.

While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to an image I uploaded without appopriate fair use rationale.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robert Kotick press photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the proposed deletion of Parkour in popular culture, which I had previously attempted to help reformat.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Parkour in popular culture. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]