User talk:LibStar/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LibStar. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

"Citation needed"?

LibStar, what additional information do you want?

Incidentally, I'm happy to infer that you have an interest in photography. What are your own tastes in photography, may I ask? -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Kolodong, NSW

Hi LibStar, thanks for doing some digging on Kolodong, New South Wales. I knew there was a farming community of some sort there giving it a separate identity to Taree. Good work. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 08:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you like to go about editing the Orlando Article?

What information do you feel was incorrect, and how would you like to help me get this important information on Orlando's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inserthorse (talk • contribs) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I suggest you take a better look at WP:Canvassing a little more closer before you start make accusations. All I have done is notify a fellow editor, who has expressed on their user page that they were a fan of Australian and Underground Hip Hop music, requesting whether they could locate additional references for the article. I think that you had better get off your high horse and deal with more meaningful matters. Dan arndt (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

you are deliberately selecting people who are going to !vote keep. That is clearly canvassing you are not notifying a wide range of people, if you don't think it is I would happily ask some admins. Would strongly suggest you stop. This is your 2nd warning. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Think again I haven't asked any editor to vote keep - I have only asked a fellow editor who has previously expressed interest in the topic for assistance in referencing the article. Happy for you to ask some Admins as I can do the same. I think the real issue here is whether an article should be deleted or not and I would have to say I disagree with you there! Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

you don't have to ask them to vote keep and can disguise it as a "neutral" message but it is still canvassing, you have been very selective in who you notify. One of your friends says don't even bother referencing let's just vote strong keep.Next time when you're in a notification mood on Aussie music why not notify me? As I said stop this selective notification, it weakens your case for keep drastically. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't know me - I have no control over anyone. Stevezimmy is not a friend but an editor who has an interest in Australian hip hop. I certainly don't make personal attacks on any editor although I do question your wisdom in AfDing articles, without really researching them. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing about questioning my wisdom at AfDs this is about your clear canvassing, regardless your initial vote contained no evidence of research yourself. Enough of this "oh I'm not really canvassing". I've seen people blocked for similar canvassing to you. But if you don't believe it's canvassing keep it up... I strongly suggest you don't. There is nothing more to say on this issue. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Libstar, this is not an example of canvassing. It is perfectly acceptable to make people aware publicly of an AfD, to contact people who may have expertise in an area, or to post notifications to noticeboards or projects (this is in fact done all the time). You seem to think the above situation is an example of the WP:Votestacking subsection, but I can't see any evidence that the person being approached for a vote - merely to provide references which "may assist its retention". That's actually what subject specialists are supposed to do, and the point of AfD is not to delete at all costs in present form if the article is capable of improvement. It's possible to get too close to this place to see the forest for the trees (I've been there before), maybe just assume good faith and recognise that we all - you, me, Dan, etc - are here to improve the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

order, thanks for your comments, if the intent was to improve the article and actually find and add sources I support that but neither Dan and Stevezimmy tried to that. In fact, after being contacted by Dan. Stevezimmy told others to turn up and vote strong keep [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADan_arndt&action=historysubmit&diff=433537068&oldid=433366952]. Whilst Dan might be a selective "neutral" notification an intended or unintended effect got Stevezimmy interested to just vote and not find sources. I would suggest Dan be careful in future and also notify me when he notifies others, then there is no suspicion aroused. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Google test

Hi LibStar. I know you have been told this before but your simplistic reliance on a Google test in AfDs is deeply flawed. It is based on the highly questionable assumption that Google is the sole font of information and if Google doesn't have it, it doesn't exist. This has been demonstrated on multiple occasions to be untrue and the Hirschberg case is yet another example. I hope this gets through to you one day.

Further, your reading of NRU is an exceedingly narrow and tendentious one and a wider, more generous reading of the guideline would show that there is certainly no intention to exclude international players from major rugby nations such as Australia in the pre-professional era. "First-class" rugby has existed in Australia for over a century and your definition of the "early days of rugby" to be anything pre-1990 is woefully misguided. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

i often refer to google news which is good for recent coverage particularly English language major press, for Hirschberg older subjects may be covered in gbooks. I often check relevant news websites too. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

as has been pointed out to you before Googlenews isnt a good on Australian topics because it doesnt index many of the media outlets only the flagship Fairfax and Murdoch ones Gnan garra 01:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

reply to your AfD comment

(from above) actually I'd say I'm more 95% music articles ;) if you go back some pages in my contribs there's other edits. it often depends if I'm home with my books or away from them whether I'm working on music or other articles (but I have books on more topics than just music) or if I can't sleep yet (jetlag) so doing a search for the Afd's is a good jetlag activity & it's nice to read up about other topics too. I only noticed the Afd pages to monitor over the past couple of weeks (since the Wrong Kind of Stone Age - this article just happened to have already been on my watchlist). then I saw the links posted in the Afds for Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. & similarly for Australia & bands (etc). recently I've noticed the wikiproject Australia page again (I think I found it when I first started editing but get lost in all the groups and wasn't sure what I was meant to be doing), I like one of the goals "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles." I'm not sure if I've only replied to ones you've raised though? I'd have to go back & check my history. are you raising the majority of them? maybe it's just a case of percentages. I haven't replied on all of them as I don't know about those Australian standards, and army officers. & I read on Afd page that we don't need to reply on all.

You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:
A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
You agree with the consensus that has already been formed.

the ones for topics I'm not too familiar on, I've mentioned this in the comment, but I've based my decisions on the research I did. I understand this is what we're meant to do. and a couple were relisted so it sounded like they wanted more comments. anyway, I think it's just my wikipedia editing journey ;) I started with finding references, then moved to fixing some grammar, then adding/changing text to articles, then making an article, then seeing the project pages and alerts. maybe there's other things I could be helping with that I'm just not aware of yet. (& time permitting). Kathodonnell (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

then I expect you to start commenting on a wide range of non muisc AfDs, not just ones I'm involved in. happy editing! LibStar (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi Libstar, honestly not trying to pile on here, but looking at Talk:Bill Hirschberg, it looks like all the sources that were found it the AfD (and more) had already been noted down by the article creator in last July. So, in future you might want to have a look at the talk page of an article before AfDing it, just on the off chance there is something similar. Again, not wishing to pile on, just a suggestion that I hope might save you some time and effort in future. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the tip, unlike others you are working in good faith and being civil. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions to this project

Hi LibStar. I don't know how to put this more politely but your contributions and nominations to Articles for Deletion are starting to become a matter of real concern. The quality of your nominations is getting worse and your manner and the way you deal with other contributors is also deteriorating. Your zeal for ridding Wikipedia of unsourced and non-notable content is in some way admirable but flooding AfD with poorly thought-out, poor quality nominations is not helpful and tends to unnecessarily antagonise other good faith editors. Your overly and overtly aggressive approach to deletion incites intemperate responses and thus leads to unnecessary and unhelpful wikidrama. This cannot continue and sooner or later there will come a reckoning. Some advice:

Take a break from nominating articles for deletion, there is no deadline and Wikipedia can survive with a few poor articles for a few weeks. Try contributing content - create an article or two.
Read Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic and consider whether some of the essay may apply to you.
On a more serious note - stop closing AfDs you have created. This will eventually get you into trouble, especially when you add commentary to the closing remarks rather than a simple "withdrawn". It is much more polite and much more transparent to simply leave a note in the AfD giving the reasons for your withdrawal and wait for an uninvolved editor to make the actual close.

It can be good to have a "devil's advocate", someone who is willing to ensure that Wikipedia policy and guidelines are observed but you are on the verge of crossing over to zealotry. Please stop. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, please check the last AfD I think the quality of your vote is inadequate. Any nominator can withdraw an article I do this to save time if notability is clearly established or under WP:SNOW. Many of my recent AfDs have in fact gone through deleted but it seems a n overzealous and fanatical group of 3 or 4 have resorted to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me the past week on every single Australian AfD I am involved in chiming in as soon as they log on, if they're trying me to discourage from nominating articles it's not going to work, continual harassment does not work, I now do a trove search for all Australian nominations and check different search terms. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

one of these wikihounders started to follow me soon after being blocked for attacking me, and obvioiusly the plan is to wear me down. It's really laughable. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Notifying main contributors of articles nominated for deletion

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people. --Lambiam 10:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed bad faith PA

Satu Suro 11:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well, I still do on a lot of things, but hey the community cannot have that sort of thing not responded to Satu Suro 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thai_Life_Permanent_Exhibition_Hall

Sorry for messing up your entry. Fairly new to this. --TimL (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

no problem. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The arch-angle of Deletionism descends...

The breadcrumbs: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_policy.2Fprocess -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006 -> here

You might like to know that there's a section on ANI regarding you, click link above. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that that's out of the way, I'd come to discuss with you (if you're willing) the nomination of SLA2006, WeDpro Inc., and Azavar Technologies Corporation. (This is not idle commentary from some "Keep, photo of Captain Beefheart eating a sausage is verifiable and useful" drive-by editor. Back in the old days I'd delete the [[Main Page]] before breakfst. Twice.)

Anyway, all these look like good nominations but that the effort put into the words might be why you have to have the "chill" header. (Which, I have to say, probably does the opposite of what it says it's meant to do.) Quick examples: Don't use the acronyms for pages, instead include links to the policy and spell the whole page out. Include http for the searches you use. Make an english-like paragraph. Etc and the rest.

Anyway,² have a good day...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks, comments noted, happy to put more wording into nominations. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lib - you really ought to put an AfD notice on the top of each page you are proposing for deletion in a mass deletion like that. You can pipe the links to all point to the same AfD page, or you could even just redirect them all - but one way or another there needs to be a notification on each page. FWIW I agree they probably should be mass deleted, but there still needs to be a notice for interested parties on each page. Kevin (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

ok. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it is appreciated. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please slow down the rate at which you're creating AfDs on martial arts articles? It's your right to nominate them, but you've put up so many so fast that I (and probably others) can't do the due diligence necessary to make reasonable arguments (either for or against). Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

All AfDs are listed for a minimum 7 days this is sufficient time to make comment or find sources. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. You alone currently have 65 martial arts articles up for deletion. If I spent only 10 minutes on each, which is not usually enough time for thorough research, that alone would take me 11 hours. That's usually far more time that I spend on Wikipedia in a week (or sometimes a month). Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

the multiple article AfDs are appropriate because if 1 is a series is not notable (and they usually have very similar names) then it would follow that all in that series are not notable, like 6 different weight class women's kickboxing articles of the same competition? It is pointless to set up 6 different AfDs for this. You should not be the sole defender of these, there are 1000s of articles nominated a week across a wide range of topics, should we cap this so you can personally investigate each one? Why do special rules apply to kickboxing? LibStar (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

in fact many of the kickboxing AfDs have been relisted, giving you and others up to 14 days to comment. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask for special rules and I'm not trying to defend those articles. You'll notice I'm not a big fan of event pages. However, there are only a few people in the kickboxing project (I'm not one of them) and I think your quantity of AfDs has made them give up, rightly or wrongly. The reason those AfDs are relisted is because people aren't commenting, likely because they don't want to devote that much time to research. It's not about me wanting to comment, it's about me wanting informed decisions. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Third-Party Sources

Hi, Libstar. I was hoping to get your thoughts on something. I notice that in AfD discussions you have said "all google comes up with is kickboxing sources which is not third party" (most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Kombat 29). I wonder if you might be misinterpreting the Wiki guidelines for independence as it pertains to Wikipedia:GNG. The guideline reads that sources must be "independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." I think the most common interpretation of this guideline is that the source must not have a conflict of interest due to a preexisting relationship. So, for example, it would not only be inappropriate to cite information from a kickboxer's own website, but also that of his manager, the promotion he is signed with, sponsors he might have, his family members, etc. In this example, the "subject" is the specific kickboxer. In reading your nominations, it seems like you are often treating the subject as "kickboxing" rather than a specific fighter, event, or promotion, and ruling out any source that primarily publishes kickboxing articles on the grounds that it is not "third-party." This seems to me to be incorrect. A focus on covering a particular sport does not mean it is not "third-party." A niche news site that does its own reporting according to its own editorial standards (like Politico does for politics, or Sherdog does for MMA) CAN be independent, and third-party. On the other hand, if a website had a conflict of interest, such as if Politico was run by a particular candidate for public office, or if a MMA news site also sponsored fighters, held events, or primarily published articles to advance the messages of a particular fighter or promotion, then yes, is would NOT be third-party. I have found nowhere in the Wiki guidelines where it says that a source is unacceptable simply because it primarily reports on topics that fall within a narrow focus, so long as it meets the other requirements for reliability (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples). This would mean that kickboxing (or MMA) sources would not necessarily be inappropriate for articles on those topics - it would mean that each source should be considered individually to determine whether or not it meets reliability guidelines and accepted community standards. If I have mischaracterized your understanding of this issue, please help me better understand what you meant by your statement I quoted earlier. I'm posting this because I would like to have a constructive conversation about this topic, the outcome of which I hope could inform future nominations of AfDs. If you choose to respond, please do so below (rather than on my talk page, for the sake of continuity). I will look for it here, thanks. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You continue to nominate AfDs on the basis that you are unable to find third-party sources that are not "fighting sources." I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the points I raised above as I feel like your nominations may be based on a misunderstanding of the definition of reliable sources. That is not to say that you are wrong for nominating the articles, but it does mean that your reasons for deletion might be boiled down to a disagreement about the kinds of sources you find acceptable, rather than sources not existing at all. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

as per WP:GNG. ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". like anything in WP for recent events you would expect at least some mainstream press or reliable web news service coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment does not seem to address my point. You've simply copied the same guideline I did above. "Independent of the subject" and not "affiliated with the subject" does not mean no kickboxing or MMA sources for articles about kickboxers, mixed martial artists, or events. The specific kickboxer, martial artist, or event would be considered the "subject" in these cases, not each's respective discipline. An online site like Sherdog.com, which is an ESPN.com affiliate, would be considered reliable web news service coverage. Yet, you continue in AfDs to insist that people find other sources. This doesn't make sense to me and I get the feeling that you are confusing other people as well with your interpretation of this guideline. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

hardly confusing. It's like using cricinfo.com to confirm a cricket match result. Secondly, all of the kickboxing events I've nominated are poorly referenced or unreferenced series of results. I fail to see the encyclopaedic value. It just is routine sports event coverage. Some editors have pointed out that these also dismally fail WP:EVENT. Using sporting news websites is fine to confirm an event happened, but there needs to be wider coverage (like mainstream press) to establish it is worthly of inclusion in WP. Otherwise results are adequately listed in sherdog.com . LibStar (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with cricinfo.com, but I do know that many kickboxing and MMA news sites have their own editorial team and independent journalists. Sherdog, for example, reports its own news in addition to maintaining an archive of events (hence its status as an ESPN.com affiliate). The New York Times is not receiving press credentials for MMA events because it chooses not to report on them - this says more about the tastes of the readership of the New York Times than it does the notability of the sport. Organizations that are receiving press clearance for events are the ones that should be considered mainstream sources, so long as they meet the other requirements for reliability. Someone like Ariel Helwani would generally be considered a mainstream journalist that is regularly reporting on MMA events, but according to your reasoning, his reporting would not count if it appears on the MMA website MMAfighting.com/ (despite its status as part of AOL Sports). I'm sure if you took the time to start a discussion with people at the MMA Wikiproject, people would be happy to chat with you about which online sources are generally considered to be reputable, independent and third-party. I'm not trying to argue that every page you are nominating is, in fact, notable. I am suggesting, however, that there are more constructive and collaborative ways to improve wikipedia than daily nominations of articles relating to just a few subjects (like kickboxing). Anyone can nominate a page for deletion AfD and say "no gnews hits." Why not take a break for a while and challenge yourself to create a page or improve one to good article status? You might just find it as satisfying (or more so) than getting a page deleted. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

nice try in trying to dissuade me to stop nominating kickboxing articles. I knew sooner or later you would try to say that. You can check my edit history I edit a wide variety of articles. WP is not about satisfaction, it is about a collection of notable articles. Notable topics should stay and be improved, others should be deleted. There is no more conversation to be had with you. No need to post further. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add something further, an endorsement of sorts. I agree with virtually everything User:LibStar has written above. I believe that sometimes something drastic needs to be done to correct internal bias, especially nationalism, recentism and religious biases. We've seen this recently in a reconsideration of the encyclopedic notability in being a Playboy centerfold, for example. The whole BLP epic adventure only 3,000 pages away from completion at this point, I'm reading. It may be that the series of perfectly valid deletion processes you've instituted is one such massive reassessment on notability (but is mostly about ghastly sourcing, like the BLP issue). Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia. We're getting really good at history, biography, science, math, the arts. Pagespaces mature and become harder to screw around with. We're getting better on the current events and the popular culture because we've adopted and revered social norms which allow us to be bold and demand agreement, not merely input. So I'm suggesting this: ease up for a brief period of time which helps this Kickboxing/MMA/Full-contact combat group of editors demonstrate they will get on the sourcing or know it's their responsibility all their work is gone. I think the List of Pride events sourcing is crucial, for example. I'd hate to see a baby and bathwater situation here, with good accumulations of data just discarded. I'd like to see some userfying in the cases where a case can be made. Anyway, I'm off to farm my own pagespaces for a while, because I think I'm starting to see this process better from the page creator's view. Thanks for your leadership. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind my suggestion above. I see that one user has socked to make him or herself look like many. Big surprise. Nominate away. I'm still going to work on my own pages until they meet a certain standard before I start participating in AfD again. I would not interpret a message from you on these subjects as canvassing; instead I would welcome such an invitation if I could be helpful. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

University of Georgia

LibStar, at this diff ([1]) you deleted another user's contribution and implied it's not relevant to a university article. Umm, the section was about the university's membership (well, lack of) in an organization representing research universities. That seems relevant to a university to me. It probably doesn't belong in the intro, but that is fixed by moving the content, not by deleting it. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

K1, Showtime, and other related run-of-the-mill articles

Hey Libstar--

Wanted to ask if there was anything keeping you from simply PRODing a majority of these articles, as it seems like a majority of them don't seem to fulfill WP:GNG or WP:EVENT? Is it because of the editors (you know who I'm talking about) would remove them, or have repeatedly removed them in the past? Cheers, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would prod them but people get very defensive. so a clear cut consensus in AfD prevents any arguments. thanks. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

United Glory 12

Hi, why this article considered for deletion ? This is a MMA and kickboxing grand - prix tournament event with famous attendants. Many of them has a wiki articles.Mountaineer1976

it fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. simple. having notable participants does not make it notable. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not MMA expert, and how do yo know the event is not a notable ? Mountaineer1976 —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

being an expert is not how we determine notability, we use WP:CONSENSUS and notability criterion. Routine sporting results don't count. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kelly Nishimoto

I removed the prod tag you placed on Kelly Nishimoto because it was kept at AfD in October/November 2010. Policy is the only reason I did this; it is not an endorsement for keeping the article. Please open another AfD if you wish to pursue deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A connection I hadn't noticed until an AfD discussion.

You've been doing great work with your deletion processes related to events. In a current AfD discussion I was researching the subject and connected Superhero Hype! with Sherdog, both owned by the buzz company CraveOnline. This may not be news to you. To my mind, this calls Sherdog into question as a reliable source, as promotional. Thought you'd be interested. Might give you something new to read. See ya. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out. I was always wondering who controls sherdog. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy to know that's useful info. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Hildebrand.
Message added 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An prestigious award for reporting was given to Hildebrand, and I have recommended those previously supporting deletion to reconsider. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Kincaid Kawānanakoa

Hello! as you seem to be fairly close to this individual, would you be able to find independent Verifiable sources about this individual? This can be books, or web pages, or etc. we could then update or recreate the article with this new information, and make it interesting! Either that or we could make a royal family article? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not fairly close to this individual. LibStar (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tala_Raassi

Hi there LibStar! Since you were the only one to vote Delete for my nomination, probably you might want to voice your thoughts about your line (and mine) of reasoning, which, I feel, is not being understood. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

there is no need to WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a friendly reminder, but if that's how you see it, I will remove that Afd from my watchlist and have others have the last word. Thanks. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lingering K-1 AfDs

I see you have two AfDs on K-1 articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts that have been around for awhile. One of these has been there since July without being extended. I looked at the one from August 10 and did not see it in the AfD list for that date. Are you sure you completed all the steps? I thought you might want to check on them. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for picking that up. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I see you've been doing good work here on wp and I thank you for that... one suggestion though. It might be helpful to the general editing community if you added a little info to the edit summary section while making your edits. For those of us who monitor pages, it makes it a lot easier for collaboration and tracking history of edit. Mahalo! --Travis Thurston+ 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ's canvassing

Do you think someone should post on ANI about it? The user clearly knows the rules and is ignoring any requests to explain his or her actions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded now accordingly. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask both of you to answer the questions I have posted on the AfD. This is yet another case of two users opinions clashing.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

if the behavior continues an ANI is in order. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to bring it up? I don't have time at the moment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

actually I will. BabbaQ fails to see this is canvassing. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka

Hi, sorry but I have removed the Prod that you placed on this page. Since this page was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Slovakia 2008 it is not eligible for a Prod per WP:Prod. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ok. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's against Wikipedia policy to remove posts to Wikipedia discussion pages

User Fram should discontinue removing my posts to Wikipedia discussion pages. It is against Wikipedia policy to do so. You agreed with User:Fram's actions and this violation of Wikipedia policies on my talk page. It's not other users' right to make decisions for another person where they decide to post, particularly when the posts are appropriate and relevant to the discussion and the topic of the page the discussion is linked to. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Fighting Network Latvia 2007

Just a heads up, please AFD template the subsidiary nominations and notify the creators as, otherwise, you risk further proceedural keeps. It is important that article contributors have a fair opportunity to comment on the AFD. TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ok. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese

"Anthony Albanese, said he was a non-practising Catholic" - SMH "he didn't actually say he is Roman Catholic" - Libstar

You mean he might be another kind of Catholic? I think that's an extreme interpretation, given that an unqualified "Catholic" is synonymous with Roman Catholic in Australian parlance. Nevertheless, I've added the "Australian Catholics" category for now. --99of9 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

that's better. thanks LibStar (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)