User talk:Ratherhaveaheart

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ratherhaveaheart has not edited Wikipedia since 27 September 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, Ratherhaveaheart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

By the way, you don't have to worry, I didn't discount your comment in the AfD on Andrew Nellis. :)

Again, welcome! Mango juice^talk 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD decisions

First and foremost, they're debates, not votes, so it's not always about the vote count (see also What Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not a democracy). In fact, it rarely should be, but in a lot of cases, it comes down to people simply expressing their preferences, and then there's not much to do but see if one side has more support than the other. In this case, I didn't go entirely with the count, because the delete voters pointed out that the article fails to meet the verifiability policy, and no keep voters even made the weak claim that it would be possible to meet that policy. Even without the count, this indicates to me that the delete camp wins the debate: it's an unanswered and important point. Your vote was one of the few on the delete side that relates to policies: you were arguing along the lines of Wikipedia is not paper.. but that doesn't trump verifiability. But on top of that, the count favors deletion enough that deletion would be the outcome even if the debate was a wash.

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators explains the basics of how admins are supposed to decide the outcome of debates. What we look for is not, technically, "consensus," but rather "rough consensus," which is purposefully vague. A razor-thin majority is rarely thought to be a rough consensus, but 100% is far better than "rough consensus" implies. My way of interpreting this, which I believe is not controversial, is that we want to get an idea of what the majority of Wikipedia thinks. But we look for a strong majority in any vote, especially ones with small numbers of participants, because that reduces the likelihood of misinterpreting the majority desire. In votes with 10 or fewer participants, I usually look for about a 2/3 majority, so 6-3, 4-2, 5-2, et cetera, I consider consensus on the majority side. Cases like 6-4, 5-3, not so much.. and 5-5, definitely not. In my experience that's pretty standard. When I see more votes, I feel the required percentage starts to drop... so I would feel comfortable calling a 12-8 vote in favor of the 12, for instance, even though it's only a 60% majority. As for the "few edits" issue, basically: comments left by those who are not part of the Wikipedia community are welcome and matter in a debate: if they bring up arguments no one can refute, they can sometimes radically affect a debate. But when things come down to a vote count, their votes shouldn't count: we're trying to gauge what the Wikipedia community thinks, so we should limit it to members of the community. That isn't meant to exclude relative newcomers like yourself, but it does tend to exclude anon voters and users who create their account just to participate in the debate (like Drvoke (talk · contribs), for instance).

Anyway, I hope this gives you an insight into my decision making process in general. I wouldn't normally do this, but you said you were disillusioned, so I thought I should explain myself thoroughly. If you think there are problems with our general process, the best place to bring them up is on the talk pages of the various policies or guidelines you disagree with: then, the discussion can be general. If there are specific cases you think were handled improperly, you could list them at deletion review, where people will generally review my closing decision, and to a lesser extent, the arguments in the debate itself. Most admins (definitely including myself) don't mind as long as the purpose is to review a tough decision, and not to cause disruption. Anyway, hope that clears things up. Mango juice^talk 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your edits in good faith in The Quran and science article. All the people are not neutral and fair like you. --- ابراهيم 08:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Just thought I'd tell you - creating pages is really simple, just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{put anything here} - if the page exists, you'll be taken to it, otherwise there'll be a page with a link you can click to create the page. - Valarauka^(T/C) 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Jesse Brown; Thomas Wright (astronomer); Charles R. Jackson; United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs; Camp Whitehorse; Henry Brockholst Livingston; Iraq prison abuse scandal; Charles Grabau; Robert Trimble; Defense Science Board; Domestic partnerships in Hawaii; Bushrod Washington; Something for the weekend; Charles Hanna; International zone; USA Weekend; Civil unions in Connecticut; Film studio; Domestic partnerships in District of Columbia

Cleanup: Purchasing power parity; Homosexuality in Iran; Irish American
Merge: Military of Slovenia; David Geffen; Derailleur gears
Add Sources: Courage the Cowardly Dog; Dante (Devil May Cry); List of U.S. states' largest cities
Wikify: James Baker Institute; David Choi; William J. Luti
Expand: Magic number (programming); Demographic history of the United States; Court

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEST

It could be the "roll over and die" argument, but it's intended to be the "F.U." argument. Some guy didn't like the page, he tried to get it deleted once, it failed, so he pushed it again, and he won the second time. It's a good thing I didn't tell him where the "putting pants on animals" hoax page is, or he'd be pushing for deleting that, too. But since he got two votes on one page, maybe someone could enter the article a second time also. Not that that would be "trying to prove a point" or anything. Wahkeenah 05:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template for US court cases

I've created a modified version of template:SCOTUSCase, suitable for cases before any US court. See template:USCourtCase. I've also modified California v. Anderson to use it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CA SC seal.jpg

Hello, Ratherhaveaheart. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CA SC seal.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Ratherhaveaheart. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]