User talk:Random Fixer Of Things

Welcome!

Hello, Random Fixer Of Things, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Rigadoun (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your booty

Is not clear vandalism, let's not get trigger happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyant (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

FYI, A discussion has been started here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could see that it was a WP:SNOW Keep, but you had actually contributed to the debate, which was, er, unusual. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liber Oz

Actually I removed the tag to give the author the chance to provide more context. But if you feel it is still warranted, I don't have a problem with that.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops too late, it's gone.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Because the article is under development. The references are valid not only for the actual phrase. It would imply repeating the notes for each phrase of the article. If required, the references will be arranged when all information has been posted. Afil (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I donţt know if you are aware that there are about ten thousand articles to which your comment should be applied. What I have difficulties understanding why you single out one of those articles for your corrections. Afil (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Random Fixer Of Things. You have new messages at Kannie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kresty

Hi there! Can you address the things raised in Kresty's prod notice? Neither can I, and I seem to be the only one around here who even knows that there are four different villages by this name in Pskov Oblast alone. What use is in having a substub about "a small town in Pskov Oblast", if we can't even say for sure which one is meant (not to mention that it is not a "town")? I am going to AfD this now, but, I am just curious what your motivation was for deprodding this useless thing. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured that much myself. However, the difference between this article and any other poorly written article is that while the latter can be improved, this one cannot be until we first determine what exactly we are trying to describe. The last thing we want is for a person from one Kresty to add information to this stub and another person from a different Kresty to "improve" upon that under incorrect assumption that there is only one place by this name. I've seen this happen in the past, and the results are horrible and take an inane amount of time to fix. Considering how much content the article currently contains (almost none), wouldn't you agree that giving a person interested in Kresty a chance to start from a clean slate (by deleting this stub) is a far better option than risking building upon the base which is already fundamentally flawed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, in order to improve this particular stub it first needs to be moved to an appropriate title (as per WP:NC:CITY#Russia). Since no one is able to do that because there is not enough information, the article is essentially useless. It's kind of like having an article about "Washington" which would include a piece about Washington, D.C., a piece about Washington state, and a piece about George Washington without making any effort to distinguish between the three. Just because it happens elsewhere does not mean we should not make an effort to correct the mistakes, even if it means deleting a few uninteresting and uninformative lines for good.

Having a dab page would be perfect, of course, and I am perfectly capable of making one which would list all four villages myself, but please see my concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresty and a discussion at WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposed rewrite of "Red links" section as to why it is currently a solution non-compliant with the existing guidelines (I am yet to explore the set-index article option, though). Perhaps you'd want to comment there as well :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Antillano and other Cuban artists

Hello, Random Fixer Of Things ... since you declined the mal-formed WP:PROD on this article, I thought that I should make you aware of a Larger Issue and invite your contribution ... User talk:72.75.72.63/Cuban artists is a list of articles being discussed at the talk page for a category created by a WP:SPA and populated with articles, Grupo Antillano being one of them ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubén Torres Llorca is an AFD from a declined PROD in that group ... over the past few weeks, my attitude has changed, and this discussion has led me to hold off on PRODs and AFDs for a while, but instead recruit editors to try to make them worthy of inclusion.

So, last week I would have started an AFD for this article (since the PROD was declined), but this week I'm asking if you'd care to get involved with some of the articles on the Category:Cuban contemporary artists discussion page ... I'm willing to turn WP:ELs into {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} references, but (a) I don't speak Spanish, and (b) "I'm here to repair it, not research it!" (said the "recovering Wikipediholic." :-)

There has been a recent development ... it turns out that a lot of these articles have clones in the Spanish Wikipedia, most with the same WP:LINKSPAM that was removed from 147 articles by a bot after the WP:COI/N discussion about the articles in this category ... some are just literal translations (as if by a bot), with both versions having been created by the same editor using a stencil ... where this will lead is anyone's guess.

Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet L. Kolodner

Hello Random Fixer Of Things. Thank you for removing 'prod' from the article Janet L. Kolodner. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Dock

Hi, I see you removed the prod on Canada Dock (disambiguation). I was reluctant to do this myself for fear of stirring up a trivial edit war. I created the page originally (and renamed Canada Dock to Canada Dock, Liverpool, recently reversed by JHunterJ) because like you I'm pretty sure there are more than the two currently on Wikepedia. But I can't find any refs to your one in Aireborough - do you have one? Pterre (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Avenue (Ottawa)

All streets are not "inherently notable". Yet once again you have badly misinterpreted our criteria for notability. I appreciate your enthusiasm for saving articles, I really do, but you need to slow down on the PROD tag removal and please take some time to properly educate yourself. — Satori Son 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Satori Son, you removed quite a number of prods that I did (as an anon), even though the articles has serious sourcing issues and won't survive an afd for life. Secret ^account 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I have de-prodded a number of articles which have either not gone to AFD or have gone and survived and many of them were very obviously articles that should have been kept. I don't understand the negativity of some people for giving articles a chance. I certainly do not unpord articles randomly and you seem to forget that if the article is discussed somebody often comes forward to provide sources. Satori is unhappy with me, I believe, and making a point about interpreting criteria because of the decision he made to speedy Trium which was overturned by a large majority at DRV. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roads aren't notable unless they are a state route or an highway, there is long standing consensus on that issue. Same with Geneva Red Wings‎, teams from minor college leagues never survive anything, some prods were valid removal, like phone brands, etc, but try to read up on WP:OUTCOMES, and all our policies, as you do have some confusion on our notabilty guidelines looking at your prod removals. Secret ^account 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are open to interpretation, and will also change of time with more discussion, so maybe we see them differently - that is not a difficulty in understanding. You seem to be trying to pressurise me to err on the side of not de-prodding articles, where I believe we should err of the side of de-prodding where a discussion could be helpful. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, if an article has no sourcing, and no reliable sourcing can be found, and it's long standing consensus to delete those types of articles, it's easier to prod and delete, than to keep, as AFD is backlogged as it is. Secret ^account 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's easier to delete without discussion than discuss and maybe keep, but what adds more value to the encyclopedia? Wikipedia would be richer with the occassional extra discussion than with fewer good articles. I don't think that a backlog at AFD is a reason to not try to keep potentially good articles, even if they do need a bit of work. Also, each discussion is valuable in reviewing the criteria, just because "we have always deleted articles of type X" doesn't mean that "we always will delete articles of type X", none of this is set in stone, unless there is never any more discussion. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find sources though, having weak claims of notabilty would take it out of WP:CSD area, but still isn't a good reason for a prod removal, again while consensus can change, you have to check would it survive an afd or not, as removing a prod just for the article being redeleted in afd is more or less process just for the sakes of process, and we try to avoid that. Secret ^account 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real thing that we are trying to avoid, at any cost, is good articles been deleted. Sure, a few I de-prod may end up getting deleted at AFD, but a whole lot don't - so I don't think that is a bad outcome. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Trevor Steedman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Steedman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Steedman. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]