User talk:Hobit/Archive4

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 6

Hi, I don't understand your answer to my request about File:Cnit.jpg. The picture was uploaded on en: first, then transferred to Commons because it was under a free license, then deleted here because it was a duplicate. It's going to be deleted on Commons. What I ask is that the picture that was deleted *here*, on en:, be undeleted. It's much cleaner than uploading it again, as it will preserve the file history. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubefilter

Noting this edit, the "refimprove" tag was there based on the fact that the quality of references is relatively poor, and better (rather than more) are desirable. Will you consider either (a) self-reverting, or (b) applying a different tag more suitable to the need? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP & Principles

Hobit, I commend you for standing up for WP:N almost alone. The BLP is finally deleted. For me it´s almost like Deja Vu. It was in the BLP before this deleted version with referenced citations, an Ottawa Court imposed a one year probation on me with only one condition that was so extraordinary there was no box to check off. Typed in at the bottom of the form were these words, ¨Not to attend on the Sparks Street Mall or any other Street in Ottawa for the purpose of speaking or shouting.¨ Within a week, The Ottawa Citizen changed their characterization in their headers from Preacher in their 1st report on me to Emissary of God in the 2nd. I will continue my efforts in that.

This was when I gave extemporaneous speeches to willing, growing crowds on the Mall. I was sent to jail for breach of that probation. This deletion is in the same spirit. It had to be nipped in the bud as this BLP was. Thank you for recognizing and standing up for the right while so few did. Peace. Ray DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ottaviani

Hi Hobit -- I saw you had reverted my removal of the "location" note from Jim Ottaviani's infobox. The "location" marker in that template translates to "birthplace", not "where he's living now". Do you know that he was born in A2, or just that he lives there now?

I'll leave your edit intact for a few days to give you a chance to reply. Thanks! Kenirwin/(talk) 15:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at...

Stifle, as someone generally on the other side of the inclusionism/exclusionism debate from me could you look at this and weigh in? Hobit (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what DRV is being referenced there. Can you shed some light? Stifle (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D&D wikiproject

Come on by and see what's been going on lately. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of BLPs

Hobit, on my talk page there is a discussion between me and User:Fences_and_windows about the way BLP deletion debates are currently handled, that I would enjoy you to join. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Milowent/Rachel_Uchitel

You are welcome to edit freely.--Milowent (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination)

Since you participated in the DRV for Secret Maryo Chronicles, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I just realised that you are not an admin. If you were interested in running I would be willing to nominate or co-nom although I think the zealots at RFA would want more edit count than you have - which shows what they know I guess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I guess your commonsense is our loss then. I thought it might carry some weight that an editor from the opposite spectrum of the deletion debate was willing to nominate and personally I find your contributions to DRV and AFD to be weighty - well argued per policy and show a good grasp of consensus. DGG and I do not see eye to eye on deletion but his contributions are seldom to be dismissed lightly either.

		The Original Barnstar
		Because having a different point of view doesn't mean that you can't engage constructively and effectively with editors who have different approaches and few of us manage this as well as you do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear Hobit, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the ~~Queen~~ Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin?

Wow. First of all, I'm truly flattered by your unexpected offer. Thanks for your confidence in me. My inclination is to accept the offer to seek adminship, even though I haven't been interested in doing so in the past. My primary focus on Wikipedia has been article work, but the more experience I get with deletion discussions, the more I feel I could be an able hand as an admin in that area, particularly at AfD, MfD, and SfD. Secondly, I'd be honored if you nominated me. While I've no idea which editors (you think) might vote against me if you were the nom, I personally respect you highly for your well-reasoned and articulate arguments at DRV. And besides, I trust that most editors would base their vote on me, not on who nominated me.

However, due to certain issues in real life, I would prefer it if we held off on a RfA for about a month. I hope you don't mind. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as well; I'm in no rush. Real life takes priority, at least in my book. Thanks again for your confidence, and see you at DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Do you have an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA question

I've finally gotten around to answering your second question - sorry for the wait! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flo's RFA

Per your request for "pointers" I have commented at the RFA. I suggest you read the RFA talk as well, as it may help. Best. Pedro : Chat 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

If you are going to remove the prod notice, actually fix what was wrong with them in the first place. You have 7 days to do it... Viridae ^Talk 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What question?

And, more importantly, what comments have I treated like "trash"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Zhowandai

Cites to Webster's Quotations marked with [WP] are actually cites from Wikipedia and thus circular. I've removed that reference from the Zhowandai article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harmonic series with Helmholtz-Ellis JI pitch notation.gif

How I knew it was a scan ?. Because the uploader stated on the image page ""The Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation: eine Notationsmethode für die natürlichen Intervalle" in "Mikrotöne und Mehr - Auf György Ligetis Hamburger Pfaden", ed. Manfred Stahnke, von Bockel Verlag, Hamburg 2005 ISBN 3-932696-62-X" - he even stated which book it came from. Peripitus (Talk) 09:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for stopping by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. Good to see you again. Still annoyed you don't have email access showing. Ikip 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Hobit/Archive4, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

I am asking editors who are leaders to comment first to get this discussion going. Ikip 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored invitation, your idea is exactly what we are discussing. In fact I am going to copy some of your insightful comments there. thanks. Ikip 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of disappointed you never commented here: Projectification. I am sure you are busy. I am looking for constructive criticism of this idea, to see if the community will adopt it, as a veteran editor and admin, you opinion is especially needed! Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrV

I was always wondering...why is the r in lowercase? Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by analogy to AfD? Tim Song (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Hobit,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn vote at DRV

At the DRV for Niglet, you voted to overturn and restore the redirect in question "per nom and Tarc." I agree that Tarc made good points, helpfully identifying a much better source for the inclusion of the term in the List of ethnic slurs (see here). However, the consensus to delete at the RfD was unanimous, with at least one vote based on the idea that a redirect at this title would be harmful and multiple voters describing the term as "unused."

I'll get to the point: The reference presently cited by the list may make it sufficiently notable for inclusion in the list, but are you sure restoring this redirect is a good idea? I don't like the idea of overturning unanimous consensus like this, especially when WP:R tells us to delete redirects "if a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers." That guideline goes on to say that "established terms" are used by multiple reliable sources; in this case, we have one, arguably two. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source like a boss

Hi Hobit! I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 3#Boss Audio, and was wondering if either of these sources (MyCentralJersey and Twice) would help your case. Maybe, maybe not ... either way, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I really appreciate your advice. Which of my comments would you advise me to strike out? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 05:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi there - just a note to say I'd be happy to co-nom the RfA for A Stop at Willoughby that I understand you'll be nominating soon. I can't think of a better candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Stop at Willoughby

Hi Stifle, I'm planning on nominating User:A Stop at Willoughby for admin. Would you be interested in being a conom? Hobit (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any familiarity with him. And I don't especially believe in conoms either. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELPOL

Just dropping a note that I have reinstated the BLP PROD section of DELPOL. It has been discussed, and the details are set. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people for more details. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hah

The sticky prod's still not policy? Man, I take my eye off the conversation for a while .... Cheers, Ray^Talk 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Osei Opoku

Greetings. You added a prod-2 template to this article, but removed the original prod. I'm not sure what your intentions were. Regards, PDCook (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky prods

Hobit,

Thank you for this.

I understand and appreciate where you're coming from, as far as wishing for a formal proposal. But some people had started to use it anyway, and those people will not be deterred by lack of a formal proposal. Because people were using it, and partly because a couple of people had asked about it, etc., I did what I did in the past 24 hours -- formalizing and distributing the consensus summary.

There have been some problems since the general schmiel began in January. The discussion did lose a number of people, for various reasons or no reason.

But all that being said, I truly believe that the people who participated in the workshop believe that it led to a consensus among participants (with the possible exception of the meaning of "unsourced").

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you and give you a little background. :) Maurreen (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Elin

Hello, as you removed the notability maintenance tag on the above page, I thought I'd let you know I replaced it as I can't see anything there that demonstrates notability. I've made a comment at the talkpage, so feel free to weigh in there / prove me wrong or whatever :). Regards, --Beloved Freak 10:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at The Wordsmith's talk page.
Message added 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Double Bullseye

An article that you have been involved in editing, Double Bullseye, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Bullseye. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Buy or Sell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buy or Sell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clearance Sale

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clearance Sale, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McNee

From the comments posted in this discussion and from viewing the article myself, I think the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. However after 21 days there wasn't enough participation in this discussion to close "keep" so I closed as "no consensus" per WP:NPASR. This means you are free to renominate the article any time you wish.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovaks in Hungary

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Hi, Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [1] – ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 08:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. Even though you opposed me I respect your opinion. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Angels image

Sorry, I think that Twitter failed to notify you! If you consent to deletion, then it would expedite matters for you to add {{db-user}} to the image-page and then an admin will delete it within an hour or two :) Thanks for your understanding! ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not to worry, I added the tag myself since your consent was explicit. Hope that's OK? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine, thanks for doing so. If you get motivated enough to add the free image you found to the article that would be grand!Hobit (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it as soon as I marked yours for deletion :) ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

BLPPROD

Not true. It's also for articles where the sources included don't reference the claims being made. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately

And which of those sources is a reliable source? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He won an award we don't have an article on and the sourcing for the award is to the website of the organization which presented the non-notable award, and that's reliable sourcing? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he isn't notable, just that there are no reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put the BLPsources tag on the article, so I guess we can leave it for now, though it really needs reliable sourcing. There doesn't seem to be anything egregious right now, though that could change. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I don't claim to understand the Wikipedia politics at all. I just research and write a few articles in areas where I have some expertise. But I thank you for your kind notification. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Butler

Hi Hobit, The Cara Butler stub has been reproded. Please do not remove it until the issues have been addressed. If you wish to find out more about why it has been tagged, please see WP:BLPPROD, for one reason, and WP:V for another. If anything about the PROD policy isn't clear, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Awarded!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Awarded to Hobit in recognition of your 'so-obvious-it-is brilliant' statement that candidates for Rfa should be asked a mandatory fourth question regarding their ever having edited under other accounts or IP's. This should be put to the community as a permanent policy change; please let me know if you are interested in doing so - I will be happy to assist. I salute you! Jusdafax 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inre Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 19#Stephano Barberis

I opined a "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephano Barberis with the comment that that the article "needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing" as a surmountable issue... but had never stepped up and put actions to my words. So, since the DRV was initiated, I've been working the last couple days on a rewrite that would address concerns brought up at the AFD... in order to show that what I believed was possible, could in fact be done. Please compare THIS to my work at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis and offer an opinion. And yes... I think the "Select videography" section will need massive trimming. Thank you, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the page Hobit. I am new at this and still figuring it out. I resubmitted the information which was from the previously referenced article. I am not personally involved. I only sought to add pertinent information that one of the previous edits did not provide. Your assistance is greatly appreciated Librarychickie (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]