User talk:Azathar/2011 Archives
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Azathar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Looking for D&D cover images
Hi there,
It looks like you've been inactive for a while, but since I can't e-mail you I'll take a shot in the dark and see if you still just use the account without editing. :)
I was looking at the cover images uploaded by people and making a tally to see who I could contact for help, and I noticed that you have uploaded several such images. Obviously I'm not asking you to take this whole thing on by yourself, but any help you can give is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Need book cover images. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I get what you mean - I know all about how annoying the deletionists can be to people who just want to work hard to make things better! Still, I persist, and I find that they haven't gotten in my way anywhere near as much as they could have. :)
- Whatever help you can give would be awesome! BOZ (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry Quebec
Just letting you know that your remarks there were discounted as invalid when I closed the debate. You argue that you are an inclusionist, and you found the article useful, and suggest the article would only be deleted because of "deletionist sentiment." These "inclusionist vs- deletionist" type of comments only serve to create a battleground mentality, exactly what we should be trying to avoid at AFD, and everywhere else for that matter. The idea that usefulness is enough has long been considered an invalid argument. This message is not intended to discourage you from commenting but rather to suggest that you limit your remarks to arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy and leave "wiki-politics" out of it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- And this is why I don't get into Wikipedia much anymore. Better to read and just use wikipedia. It's too much a pain in the ass to try to say or do anything and some one else not get all pissed off or annoyed because of something, whether its because of the inclusionist vs deletionist arguments, or anything else. So, lesson learned, no more getting involved in the behind the scenes crap. Oh, and by the way Beeblebrox, I'm sure you weren't trying to call me out, but that's what it felt like, so thanks for calling me out when you closed the AfD, quoting from my comment directly. Much appreciated. That's all, I'm done.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many users feel that admins should leave a detailed rationale when closing AFDs. If your argument had been a valid one, I may have felt compelled to close the debate as "no consensus" instead, given the low level of participation, so I felt it was important to note in my closing rationale that this argument was given no weight whatsoever. I'm not "pissed off or annoyed", I just thought that you should know that such an argument is invalid and unhelpful. Arguments in AFD, or any other discussion, should be based on policy and/or logic, not your "wiki-political" views. Think about from the opposite perspective. If you saw "I'm a deletionist and so I think this article should be deleted. If it's kept because of inclusionist sentiment it should at least be redirected" as an argument wouldn't you have a problem with that? Doesn't it seem like an opinion based only on ideology as opposed to the merits of the actual article in question? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- And this is why I don't get into Wikipedia much anymore. Better to read and just use wikipedia. It's too much a pain in the ass to try to say or do anything and some one else not get all pissed off or annoyed because of something, whether its because of the inclusionist vs deletionist arguments, or anything else. So, lesson learned, no more getting involved in the behind the scenes crap. Oh, and by the way Beeblebrox, I'm sure you weren't trying to call me out, but that's what it felt like, so thanks for calling me out when you closed the AfD, quoting from my comment directly. Much appreciated. That's all, I'm done.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Marki Ann Meyer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marki Ann Meyer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marki Ann Meyer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cind.amuse 08:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
 |
New England Wikimedia General Meeting | |
|---|---|---|
The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
| ||
|
| |
| Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England! | ||
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.