Hello Fly by Night, I just wanted to let you know that I've just converted your speedy deletion nomination of Theotis Beasley into a PROD, because I think the article contains indications of importance, although I don't believe they're enough to save the article from deletion. SalvioLet's talk about it!12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
(edit conflict) That's fine. I can't say that I disagree. It didn't quite fit the CSD criteria, but I thought that the spirit was about right. It was clearly worth deleting quickly: "A currently obsolete high school football rivalry between…." — Fly by Night(talk)03:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I don't think a rivalry qualifies under any of the specific types of subjects whose articles may be deleted under A7: real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[4] or web content. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said: the spirit was about right. I'm fully versed in all of the CSD criteria. Please browse by deleted edits to see how active I am. I didn't see the point in posting a WP:PROD that will be contested, and then posting a WP:AfD that will pass. The article's so poor that I was hoping that the rule of common sense might be applied. Having said that, I also realise that WP:CSD leaves no space for common sense and that your hands are tied. — Fly by Night(talk)03:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have time. The article's not been tagged for deletion. I was just suggesting that you focus on why the subject of your BLP is notable, before you add unsourced material about his education. — Fly by Night(talk)04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does your list of 57 articles on your user page contain so many incorrectly capitalized letters? One thing many newbies need to have pointed out to them is that an article about round circles should be called Round circle and not Round Circle. Displaying the titles with incorrect capitals, so that your links are to redirect pages, doesn't make it easier to help newbies get adjusted. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way it is because that's the way I like it. I've tried to discuss this with you before, but you have a habit of ignoring people on you talk page. There's no point turning up on my talk page 11 days latter, leaving a curt message, when we could have discussed it politely several days ago; but you ignored me. What do you expect to a achieve with your opening message? "Oh yes, Michael, sorry Michael, I will try harder Michael."? It's more likely that you'll just annoy me and I'll tell you to get lost. — Fly by Night(talk)21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)==Orbital Replacement Unit==[reply]
It's better, but it does still read like a long shopping list. The value of the article is given by its introduction. The rest of it: the long, long lists of technical components don't add anything and, in my humble opinion, they take away from the article. If you were writing an article about a painting. You're write a bit about the painter, a bit about his motives for the piece, a bit about the critical reception, etc, etc. You wouldn't just put a list saying Red oil paint, a 12 inch brush x 3, a 12 x 12 canvas, etc. You've made a good start, so please continue the good work. If you want to keep the ingredients in the article then I recommend you use a collapse box, see {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. As for the deletion, it's not up to me. It's subject to an article for deletion discussion. The aim to to find out what other people think about the article. After a week, there's consensus to keep or delete then the article will be kept or deleted. — Fly by Night(talk)16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still up for deletion, its been on there for awhile. Can the Deletion request be removed now that there is more to it.
Its very relevant to the ISS page but no one will let me put it there. These components are critical spares for the future of the ISS.
Can you please let me know, its been much longer than a few weeks now.
Lee Leebrandoncremer (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:AfD lasts for a minimum of seven days. After that time an admin will read the discussion, judge the consensus, and decide whether to keep or to delete the article. You should never remove an AfD template until the discussion has been concluded.— Fly by Night(talk)16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than insulting editors it might be more constructive to work on a draft article in user space User:Leebrandoncremer/Orbital Replacement Unit and make sure that its up to the standards of wikipedia WP:MOS. In particular that its well referenced and is more than just a parts list. If need be I can restore the previous article to your userspace.--Salix (talk): 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments on the Summit Medical Group page and your flag for deletion. I removed a number of sections about the mission, etc. But I think the details that I left in are relevant pieces of information. They are things that someone looking for information about Summit Medical Group would want to know. I am basing that on having read other articles on New Jersey hospitals as well as on other companies in general. However, I am completely open to suggestions to fix the issues that concern you if you are willing to share a bit more on what you think I should to do make it a better fit for guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJmeditor (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, and thanks for your message. Some points have been raised on the page's AfD; which you have already commented on. For example "it needs an overhaul. Grammar, formatting, categories, possibly expansion&hellip" There are other worries about the notability of the group. Take another look at the AfD. The beauty of an AfD is that it doesn't mean an article will be deleted, but it's a discussion about whether it should be deleted. — Fly by Night(talk)18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement and warning. Problem is, the other person refuses to engage in any discussion on the talk page. They just ignore my arguments and do whatever they please - to the detriment of the article's quality IMO.
What can be done in such a case? WillNess (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome! Firstly, I'd try to engage with them on their own user talk page. Be as calm as possible, and ask them what they think should happen. Then give feedback. That way you take the heat out of the confrontation. In fact it changes from being a confrontation to being a collaboration. It's really important to remember that you're both probably right and wrong in different ways. One of the skills of being a good Wikipedian is learning how to get the best out of several people's ideas. Secondly, I heard about this problem from WikiProject Mathematics. Actually it was from the Edit War section of the project's talk page. The project is where many mathematical editors gather and talk about different mathematical articles. I would suggest that you make a post in that section. Remember that there will be a lot of people reading that, so be cool, be calm, be collected. Write your main suggestions succinctly, and calmly. Don't comment about what other people have done; only comment about the content of the article. I know I keep repeating it, but keeping calm and being friendly is the key. The maths Wikiproject has a big audience. If you come across as bad tempered and irrational on there then you'll lose a lot of support for a long time. If the other user ignores all of these attempts then there are further measures that can be taken. But I don't think that that will be necessary. Please, give me a shout if you need any more help. — Fly by Night(talk)20:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you misunderstood me. I didn't mean any negativity towards those proficient in WP, at all. I meant something completely different, but couldn't formulate it quite short enough. That's like saying I dont like police - that the police must exist at all. That what I meant. Of course I respect the police, it gives me protection. WillNess (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that I don't. I asked you if you did or didn't mean your comments with negative connotations. You stated, quite clearly, that you did. I've done my best to be helpful, and so have others. It doesn't seem to work. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help you; I did try very hard. I even sent you a personal email. But you seem to have carried on regardless. I feel very sad about that. I feel that our dialogue is over. — Fly by Night(talk)21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to repeat it again, I respect very much any efforts in enforcing WP policies and those that do that. I regret there having been a need for it, is what I meant. I haven't yet got the email for some reason. WillNess (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very greatful to you for the time you've taken to talk to me. Never for one second did I intend anything like "wikilawyering". It's my bad, I didn't look what's written there, or else I'd understand what you intended. I was just foolishly speaking in my own language. WillNess (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
