User talk:Historyday01/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

List of feature films with LGBT characters – nominated for deletion

If you haven't seen the edit:

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page."

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I'll definitely make a comment in that deletion discussion. I saved a copy of the article in case it is deleted, if that helps. I went through a deletion process for the List of fictional vegetarian characters, but only ONE person was in favor of deletion and everyone else was in favor of "keep". I truly hope the page is saved from the axe of deletion. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A question of how much

I will just say that there can come a point that further replies by the same person in a discussion begins to hurt, rather than help, the position they're supporting in said discussion. Most of the time, as when an AfD is relisted, there's plenty of time to come back to a discussion later and reevaluate what needs a response. Not saying this necessarily applies to your participation there -- just a general note for what it's worth. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I can agree. I'll keep that in mind. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Just to let you know, as of now, you have commented 19 separate times in this discussion. Some would say this is bordering on (or breaching) WP:BLUDGEON. Everyone has a right to be heard, and you have, but there comes a point when your adding more comments upon more comments interfere's with other's right to leave a comment without feeling badgered. Please respect those individuals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I would not say that I'm bordering/breaching WP:BLUDGEON. I'm only passionate about the topic and don't have the time, or energy, to reply to every person. I got that point from User: Rhododendrites already, and I will keep that in mind. I will say, in my defense, that a good number of those comments were replies to other people (like the two in response to SpinningSpark, three in response to Hut 8.5 and Pyxis, two in response to ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, two in response to Bearcat, and four times to valereee by my count), comprising 13 out of the 19 comments. If one of those people that I mentioned hwere replies back to me, then I will reply to them, but that's it. Its not like I wanted to have this AfD anyhow. And my involvement in the discussion made sense due to my role in the page. Pyxis had a lot of comments too, so I have no issue with the amount of times I replied, at the current time. I thank you for adding in that "A bit of distraction that isn't related to the merits of the discussion" section, where I replied to that editor who definitely brought up an unrelated issue (I still feel that way). I really appreciate that. It annoys me that the discussion will be up for another week, but the admins already made their decision and there's nothing I can do to challenge it. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have no dog in this hunt, I don't care how it turns out, really. I just want the process to be smooth and fair, which is why I'm clerking the page as an uninvolved administrator. The essay is worth reading, for bludgeoning actually hurts your argument and when you do bludgeon, the closing admin will end up giving your arguments less weight. It is fine to be passionate, but you can't let it affect behavior. The discussion may be up another week, or two, or three. If there is participation, then it will stay up, I will relist it myself. You have to understand, my goal isn't to get it deleted or kept, it is to get it discussed and to let a consensus develop. Period. Otherwise, it would have just been relisted and started over again. A full discussion is something we seek, not something we avoid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. To be crystal clear, I'm only going to participate, going forward, ONLY in the situation that someone replies to one of my comments (which I see is somewhat unlikely). That is it. No other comments whatsoever. Otherwise, I'll probably peruse the discussion and thank people for their comments. That's it. What annoys me about this whole thing is that the nom didn't initiate a discussion on the original page, they completely bypassed that and immediately nominated it for an AfD. I would hope they want to continue discussions about the page following the AfD, but we will see what happens. Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, many have shown up to request a keep. You need to learn to trust the community. They aren't a pack of hateful article deleters. They are normal people, and often, leaving a discussion open and attracting a whole range of people will bring out better arguments, either for or against, but in the end, better things will happen. This doesn't guarantee that next week the outcome will be to keep, but it does guarantee both sides will fully be heard, and THAT is a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree that those on here aren't a "pack of hateful article deleters." There are some people who are like that, but luckily its not the majority. I do hope the discussion continues afterward, as the engagement in the AfD does indicate interest in the page, which I suppose is a good thing. Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I created the page in the first place, way back when. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I HAD to go look this one up. I can't ignore that title. I ended up voting to keep after easily finding one good source not in the article. It is a bit obscure, but known enough in the underground press, it would seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda only voted weak keep on it because I created the article and think, it might, maybe, be marginally notable. But, I did watch a couple episodes at one point and it is a strange series. But, if someone can find some better sources, then the page can thrive. Historyday01 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm agnostic when it comes to AFD. I don't care if I like the article, if it passes my definition of "notable" (which I think is in line with Wikipedia's) then I vote to keep. One I started that is pretty obscure is Pigs in the City, an art initiative in a pork love, BBQ city. Or another about a guy that makes art from spider webs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. It is definitely an obscure series and series like Peepedo aren't really my cup of tea as a person who stopped watching some anime series because they had too much fan service. I guess I'm moving toward watching more wholesome and less...sexual series? I say that as I'm totally ok in watching some bloody animated series, ha, from time to time. Historyday01 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested Page Protection

Since you did help me get back-up by providing me with information about how things should be handled for the 2022 in animation, I just requested page protection for the article. Please help me with this because C.Fred, an administrator, is concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#2022_in_animation

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you get no help in this smear job--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Aren't we supposed to believe good intentions of users, via WP:AGF? Anyway, I contributed to that discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I will try to follow good faith more from now on. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I know its hard at times. I really was talking to CreecregofLife about that, though, but AGF can apply to anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I assumed good faith initially, but then Baldi went with personal attacks. Personal attacks that are documented, I no longer had reason to believe they were acting in good faith.--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I still believe this can be resolved through discussion rather than edit warring... Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So why give Baldi the pass? His behavior is unacceptable. It really seems like you're not addressing what I'm saying. CreecregofLife (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not taking any sides in this and am only going to say that this can be resolved through discussion. I have been pulled into too many discussions where people snipe back and forth at one another (including myself in some regretful occasions), that I really don't want that to happen again, if at all possible. Historyday01 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)