User talk:BlueSquadronRaven/2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:BlueSquadronRaven. 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. |
Good question...
I thought the lock template was automatic. I'll look into it ASAP. Thanks.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You were one of the people who voted to Speedy Keep this article as obviously notable. The same editor who put it up for AFD under flimsy rationale is now tagging it with a notability tag, despite overwhelming consensus of the AFD. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Closed AfD.
Fixed. Thanks for the notification. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion input
Hello You voted to keep St. Elmo's Fire (song) because "Rick Hansen" even though he has nothing to do with the song (I'm pretty sure you're thinking of "St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion)".) Can you please explain further at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elmo's Fire (song)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:EVula, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(I'm totally just picking on you for slapping me with a silly template, even though I made it abundantly clear in my edit summary that I knew what I was doing)
Barnstar
Many thanks. It is good to see my efforts appreciated especially since some have not! LibStar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Notifcation: Afd copy and pasting to over a hundred articles
See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting I am bringing this up with WP:AFD.Ikip (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
RAH
May I use your Heinlein userbox? I'm a lifelong fan and still jealous of my cousin who actually got to visit him somehow... (I'm still getting round to creating my own userboxes as I can't find many that suit me.) Peridon (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ta muchly. Peridon (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
paying attention
I am paying attention, I'm sorry it appears if I am not, but the whole discussion is going down a very unhealthy track. I we all spent more time editing main space I'm sure much of this would be less of a problem. AFD just engage everyone negative side, unfortunately. Persoanlly i don't think your contributions to all those AFD's were problematic. The problem was that they all appeared separately. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My worry about you
I am deeply concerned about your activity in regards to AFD on here. That you could willingly delete this yet seem thrilled to have an unreferenced list about children's television is very concerning to me. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I can see you are a decent fella and my first impression was wrong of you. I did picture a spotty teenager actually LOL but I can see you obviously aren't. I do like films myself and am guilty of starting too many articles in this area so it's not I am opposed to fiction. Sometimes I do question some of the content we have though and whether or not we should really include it from a traditional and consevative viewpoint! Regards.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on what you expect of an article like this. If the name is taken to imply only formal inter-government relations, plus maybe economic relations, this article is mis-named. If the name is taken as including historical and current relationships between the people of the two countries, it is acceptable. In the debates about articles like these I have seen comments that they just list routine head of state meetings, statements and agreements and say nothing about the relationship itself, or vice-versa. Because of the confusion between "relations" and "relationship", I am inclined to think the articles should be about the relations and/or the relationship. Some will cover both, some will just cover one aspect or the other. In this case, it seems that the Irish and Colombian people have a relationship, and there are probably other aspects that could be covered, perhaps to do with drugs or agriculture, but the governments do not have many formal relations. In others, like Nicaragua/South Ossetia, there is a highly significant relation (recognition) but apparently no other relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer to be more inclusive. If a series of high-level meetings were each reported in the press, I consider they are notable. Otherwise there is a risk of bias of the sort: "I don't think it is interesting". There are many articles in Wikipedia about subjects in which I have no interest, but I accept them if the sources are good. Yes, meetings between heads of state tend to be highly staged and rehearsed, and result in bland statements like "They discussed mutual interests and agreed to work towards improving economic and cultural relationships between the two countries..." Blah, blah. But the meetings are still notable - as non-meetings can be. There was a lot of press attention over which leaders chose to attend the Beijing Olympics and which stayed away, even if they carefully avoided saying anything of apparent importance. And perhaps the bland statements are very interesting to those in the know, conveying subtle meanings in the choice of words. I see no reason for special rules about the notability of bi-lateral relations. As with any article, well-sourced content should stay and unsourced content should go. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, BlueSquadronRaven. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ThankSpam
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No need to be rude
Your comment here was unnecessary. I am here to volunteer to work on a comprehensive encyclopedia. I have created over 100 new articles, and saved almost an equal number from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- As an admin, then, you should know the difference between what constitutes a source of notability, and what is grasping at straws in deletion arguments. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what passes generally under WP:N, but bilateral relations articles often can not be sourced in the usual way. I have previously, at other AfDs, addressed these issues in extensive detail. I had a proposal for some standards, which nobody else accepted. At some point, the community needs to create a specific standard for these types of articles. So I can see why, in isolation, what I wrote appears to be grasping at straws. It was not intended that way. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it cannot be sourced in the usual way, it's not notable enough to warrant an article. End of story. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what passes generally under WP:N, but bilateral relations articles often can not be sourced in the usual way. I have previously, at other AfDs, addressed these issues in extensive detail. I had a proposal for some standards, which nobody else accepted. At some point, the community needs to create a specific standard for these types of articles. So I can see why, in isolation, what I wrote appears to be grasping at straws. It was not intended that way. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Your rollback request
Hello BlueSquadronRaven, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops
You're right. I could've sworn that one had been discussed in a recent venue, but it appears it was only cited. I simply removed the entire exchange spawned by my error, hope that's ok. –xenotalk 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you restored the entire exchange. I do not believe removing it serves any greater good. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I've restored it. The reasoning for removing it was to not confuse folks, but as you wish. I've struck an annotated instead. cheers, –xenotalk 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I've restored it. The reasoning for removing it was to not confuse folks, but as you wish. I've struck an annotated instead. cheers, –xenotalk 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [1]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
re: barnstar
Thanks! :) I actually thought of a better one right after I submitted that: "We told you don't you ever come around here. Not GFDL? You'd better disappear! Infringement's in your eyes, with your cut-and-paste so clear, so beat it! Delete it!" - 2 ... says you, says me 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
RFPP report for Total Drama, the Musical
Hey there! Just dropping by to provide you with a link to my explanation of why I dealt with your report in the manner that I did. If you object or think I've gone insane, feel free to tell me; my decision isn't binding at all. Keep up the great work, though! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)