Jump to content

User talk:Sgt. bender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replaceable fair use Image:Hayes1.jpg

[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Hayes1.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our

The Great Battle of Gary Hayes

[edit]

For Posterity

  • Gary Hayes – Deletion speedily endorsed, no arguments from non-SPAs for restoring, and the discussion has degenerated into a trollfest, with one user blocked as a result. If another DRV is to be opened, it should happen if and only if there are reliable sources to provide notability and address the original concerns for deletion. – Coredesat 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|- | style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |- | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Gary Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initiating review for some users who have mentioned concerns about the article's deletion on its talk page. Their main points are:

  • "As the log states, there were four to delete, four to keep";
  • "Gary Hayes' Wikipedia page is relevant because he is running for an elected office in the government of Schoharie County in NY." Resurgent insurgent 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment I didn't feel like the people wanting to keep really addressed the arguments for deletion... namely not meeting WP:BIO. I recall looking at the sources provided before deletion, and they were all to the official campaign site or a results list. I saw nothing in the way of independent, non-trivial coverage required by WP:BIO. I'm always open to reconsidering if sources are found... with or without a DRV. Or perhaps the merge that was discussed, to a general article on the election. I guess I should have made that more clear, but I've been closing a lot of AFDs lately to help with the backlog. --W.marsh 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus of the AfD was interpreted correctly, and nothing in the article except for the sheer fact of the election was cited to a reliable source. This was classic original research. Chick Bowen 03:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least unsalt - looks like article was recreated only for temporary evaluative viewing purposes; not a reason to block legitimate recreation of a likely notable person for whom we haven't found good sources yet. — xDanielx T/C 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, unsalted and history restored. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — xDanielx T/C 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. The most recent info I could find on Gary Hayes was a listing in the October 28, 2000 obituary "HAYES, ELIZABETH 'BIRDIE'" in the Albany Times Union (search). Apparently, Elizabeth was Gary's mother. Despite his running for office he has not generated reliable source coverage, without which the article cannot meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. That was brought out in the discussion and was not reasonably challenged. The delete arguments were the stronger arguments and the rough consensus. Comment - not that this affects the deletion issue, but that article seemed attract BLP problems. -- Jreferee t/c 07:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gary Hayes does have an impact on a statewide scale. If you want to see a lot of hits on Gary Hayes, look him up on YouTube. This article should be reinstated with several minor changes and corrections. Deletion of the article should have happened after a good discussion, like this, not all of a sudden like it was. Dr.orfannkyl 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already a "good discussion" about deletion. If the outcome goes against what you wanted, tough luck. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted after a six day Articles for Deletion discussion. That's one more day than is required by the guidelines. Corvus cornix 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' result from afd is clear: unsourced blp about mayor from small town in NY is not an article that we need. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The result of the AfD was pretty clear. The keep arguments were either assuming bad faith or a WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, I hate to make these declarations, but it seems like there are sockpuppets abounding in this one...this DRV is already getting all screwy and out of hand...and the Nazi argument has been made. Smashville 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion was interpreted correctly. Keep arguments were, in general, not compelling, and consensus was clear. --Haemo 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Perhaps the closer should have specified his reasons, but the decision was absolutely correct. A local politician usually needs substantially more accomplishments and coverage to get into WP. No valid arguments for notability were presented. Mayor of a village pop. 1398, and lost the Republican primary for county clerk twice. Way below the bar. DGG (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sgt. bender, JoeC2004 (with the exception of two edits to the Coin article), Dr.orfannkyl and Squeeblz are all SPAs. Squeeblz' comparison of this deletion to the Holocaust and Sgt. Bender's comparison to Nazi-ism have invoked Godwin's law to the ten-thousandth power. Close this deletion. Smashville 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop Attacking Other Users and Restore the Page It's unfortunate to see that users are arguing the membership of other users instead of arguing the facts. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for months now, but I have only recently set up an account. The assumption that my only purpose in setting up an account to talk about Gary Hayes is not only wrong, its just stupid. Argue the facts, not the people. If you would check, I have edited other pages since I've aquired my account; furthermore, my account has only been in existence for a short time. I really haven't had time to edit or talk about other things in this short time, and my discussion of Gary Hayes is evident because I believe it to be a pertinent issue. I don't know about the other users supporting the Gary Hayes article, but I am not a SPA. Stop assuming things, please, and argue the facts. Dr.orfannkyl 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't delete my comments from the talk page. I am not arguing "your membership". I am stating the facts. The fact is that when you made this post, all but one of your posts has been related to the subject of the DRV is plain and simple. It is completely relevant to the discussion that the only people arguing to keep this page have made very few if any edits to any pages not related to this person. And I did check. The only other edit you made before I made that comment (or you made this post) was an edit to Jimmy Carter. All of your other edits prior to your edit here were related to the subject of the DRV. We're all supposed to assume good faith around here and there is nothing wrong with joining Wikipedia to help an article, but...it's a little odd when the only people arguing for the article only edit this article. Smashville 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did have another account for over a year (in fact I still have it, technically), but forgot the password and screwed up with the email. Except for that flaw, I have one active account and do still feel strongly about the Gary Hayes article. There is no need to get personal, so I will not. However, in defense of my National Socialist comment, the inability to comment freely is akin to Volkischer Beobachter. I understand that there are many articles deleted all of the time for good reason, but the way the discussion was carried out was irresponsible at least. (Check it if you're not sure.) Restore The article beat a discussion to delete, and I feel that that decision should stand.Sgt. bender 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it did not. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here. Smashville 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville why don't you actually look at the early history of the article instead of calling me a liar?Sgt. bender 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, just look at it instead of assuming. That's not very professional or administrator-like.Sgt. bender 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked. "The result is delete" and then it was brought to DRV. Where do you see that it survived AfD? Smashville 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the first two weeks of the article. It clearly is there.Sgt. bender 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I did again. This article never survived an AfD. Smashville 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not an admin. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology Sorry, Smashville I just checked the log, and it doesn't hva emuch of the early record (like when I created the article. Sgt. bender 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the history is there...and I have a hard time believing this article had ever survived an AfD. I believe you are mistaken. Smashville 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at it. Way to accept an apology. And Hayes did a great job at that fritter, don't demean the man just because he's a Vietnam vet.Sgt. bender 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I demean someone for being or even mention someone being a Vietnam vet? Smashville 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article even mention that he's a Vietnam vet? Red herring, anybody? Corvus cornix 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important As can be seen by Rpnaico's contribution, there is more than enough additional sourcing to fix the article. This bolsters the sources already in the former article. I volunteer to shoulder the work if necessary. Sgt. bender 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who's Rpnaico? Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::::::Rpanico is the first contributor on the article discussion.Sgt. bender 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--- Ah, User:Rpanico, whose User name is almost identical to the website which hosts Mr. Hayes's campaign information. Corvus cornix 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did survive a deletion request, this is directly from the History log: 08:09, 8
September 2007 Glen (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (removing speedy delete tags - speedy is contested and subject is a allbeit minor political figure but therefore does at least show some notability - I suggest prod or afd from here)
It survived a speedy deletion nomination, that's not the same thing as a deletion discussion. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources? The only ones I see are a party's website, an article written because he wants a Civil War memorial, an EPA filing, a website where he is the contact and a blog showing that he lost an election. Smashville 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a portion of the former deletion discussion, I think it significantly bolsters my case by two seasoned Wiki-veterans:Sgt. bender 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but we can all click the link and look at the AfD. Posting two comments from the AfD and making it look like the users signed them is not good practice. I have deleted them. You can link to them like this and this. Flatterworld's argument was a straightup WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Gloriamarie's argument completely ignores WP:BIO. Specifically, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Smashville 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated where the quotes were from and they are signed by the writers at the date that they were written. I think that is straightforward endorsements from two users who know a little more about Wikipedia.Sgt. bender 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were failed keep arguments from an AfD that both ignored Wikipedia policies. I still linked them for you. Smashville 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their statements were clearly applicable to this page and should be shown clearly.Sgt. bender 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, contact them about this instead of calling them incompetent behind their backs.Sgt. bender 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, this DRV is here for all to see. Secondly, I haven't called anyone incompetent. I stated that the arguments ignored WP policies. Don't post something as evidence to support your argument if you don't want someone to argue against it. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also point out that Gloriamarie's argument was to keep pending the result of the election, as she seemed to be unaware that he had already lost the election? Smashville 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly points out, (I wrote it myself)Hayes is still running in the general election as an independent despite losing the primary.Sgt. bender 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing of the sort. It says he lost the primary by a large margin in September. The next paragraph says something about July. Smashville 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, directly: Currently Hayes is running for the Schoharie County Clerk's position against incumbent Indica Jaycox. Hayes has the nod of the Schoharie County Conservative party and the New York State Constitution Party and is forcing a primary for the Republican nomination on September 18, 2007 [2].Sgt. bender 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is October 18. The election is apparently over? Therefore he is not currently running for anything. Corvus cornix 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is November 6, same as it was a month ago. Elections are usually held on the first Tuesday in November.Sgt. bender 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is indeed on November 6. JoeC2004 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he lost the primary. The article makes no mention of him running for anything else. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In my opinion the closing admin interpreted correctly both the consensus and the inherent flaws of the article. --Goochelaar 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well...every long argument always seems to have the "main arguer" and in this one, it seems to be me...but I also need to add...sometimes there is something in article that just kinda says it all...the article contained this sentence..."Mr. Hayes volunteered at the recent North Blenheim church fritter supper on September 29,2007." Seriously? Smashville 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]

Here is the discussion from the Talk: Gary Hayes page. I think that it is more than relevant. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt. bender (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 October 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • RESTORE Please restore this page with the appropriate content tags. I was able to review a cached version of this page before it was deleted using Google. The cached copy looked like it needed editing. This article should be reinstated and tagged if any of the content goes against the guidelines. Gary Hayes is indeed notable in our county as an influential citizen and former mayor. It is important that he have an entry in Wikipedia. Some additional third party references to Mr. Hayes may be found in the following locations:

Schoharie men want war-hero memorial www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1872876/posts Endorsed Candidates (NY Constitution Party) http://www.nyconstitutionparty.com/candidates.htm EPA Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/June/Day-02/i13641.htm NYS Military Museum and Veterans Research Center http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/forts/fortsM_P/middleFort.htm Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleburgh_(village),_New_York Schoharie County Tattler http://www.tryonpress.com/Tattler/valley.htmlRpanico —Preceding comment was added at 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been through one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hayes. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTOREAs the log states, there were four to delete, four to keep, then someone deleted it. Look at it again. Admins supported keeping the page at least until after the election.Sgt. bender 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hayes' Wikipedia page is relevant because he is running for an elected office in the government of Schoharie County in NY.JoeC2004 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you let it stay up long enough to get a discussion going?Sgt. bender 02:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of people deleting this page has been a serious offense of WP:GAME

Let us be heard!JoeC2004 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask here for the outcome of the deletion discussion to be reconsidered. Resurgent insurgent 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE WP:DRV says, and I quote, "Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums." Raise, not unilaterally delete them. Please put the article back up until feedback can be received and judged.Dr.orfannkyl 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting out of context there. Make the request first. Resurgent insurgent 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has already gone under a speedy deletion process and was judged to be adequate by Wikipedia guidelines. Its deletion is unwarrented. Please, review the talk pages during its recent deletion discussions and get your facts straight. Sgt. bender 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My quote is perfectly in context. It's the first sentence; how could it be out of context?Dr.orfannkyl 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally request a WP:DRV.JoeC2004 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Gary Hayes. Resurgent insurgent 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truly an example to us all...


Although "terrorism" might be a little far, the deletion of the Gary Hayes article is ridiculous.Dr.orfannkyl 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" might not be far enough. Some of this censorship is like Nazism anew. I should know, I'm a History major with a concentration in World War II. Sgt. bender 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this would be like innitiating the "final solution" all over again!

I have noticed that this article/similar ones were deleted for unexplained reasons. It's like somebody's afraid of free-thinkers. Just like Hitler was afraid of "The Infidels". Is it just me, or is there really a connection like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeeblz (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Extreme endorse deletion. The hyperbole of the keep crowd is ridiculous. "terrorism"? "nazi"? "final solution"? Provide sources of his notability, as you have been repeatedly asked to do. You have not done so, there is nothing further to discuss, and the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked. Corvus cornix 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And may I suggest to Sgt. bender and friends a quick peek to Godwin's law? --Goochelaar 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have written Godwin's law. What makes that noteworthy and not Gary Hayes?Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't read the article because you completely missed the point. But to answer your question, it is sourced with multiple verifiable secondary sources and is extremely well-known. No one has been able to present any significant verifiable secondary sources on Gary Hayes. Smashville 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Foley Hayes may have been the inspiration for Matt Foley. Doesn't that make him noteworthy? If you don't believe me, look them both up on YouTube and compare them. Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is most definitely not a reason to overturn an AfD. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Me Alone I never compared anyone to Nazis, I never deleted anyone's comments, and yet I'm being accused of such things. Stop lumping everyone together as people who support the article. And please stop attacking me. If you wish to particular address issues, address particular people. All I want is the article to be reinstated, and it's as if the admins are attacking everyone, and the lesser users are insulting the admins. Leave me out of this vitriol and discuss the issue with me, don't insult me. Dr.orfannkyl 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. And you are correct. You did not delete my comment. It looks like it disappeared before your edit. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to overturn this AfD. He's the former mayor of a tiny town in New York whose most recent claim to notability is cooking corn fritters at a church. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was attacked by Corvus cornix who lumped me in with every other anti-delete user when he said "the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked." "All of you being blocked." I never attacked anyone and the accusation of me doing so is unbelievably annoying. Dr.orfannkyl 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I attack anyone by name? I attacked those using the loaded language I quoted. If you didn't say any of those things, then there was no attack. Corvus cornix 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you attacked me specifically, I said you lumped me in with all the other people who support the article. You never said I, specifically, did the attacking, but you said that the pro-Gary Hayes article people, me included, are attacking people. Don't lump me in with others who are attacking people. That's all I want, please. Dr.orfannkyl 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importence Gary Hayes is important to over 30,000 people in the county, plus people in the nationwide Constitution Party and Ron Paul campaign. He also owns one of the last vintage Model As in the world. Not to mention ten years of elected service under three titles. This is more important than many authors, assemblypeople, and some professional sportspeople. Sgt. bender 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a car absolutely does not make him notable. Where are your sources that show that he's notable to these people? That's the entire point. Most authors and athletes have verifiable secondary sources and more importantly, meet Wikipedia guidelines, two points that you seem to be repeatedly missing. Smashville 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I owned Franz Ferdinand's deathcar, that would make me notable. He's far more notable than a pitcher who pitched in one game; and of course he's notable to over 30000 people, he's running to govern them. I think they careSgt. bender 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Owning a car does not make you notable. The existence of other articles is irrelevant per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And...per the article you wrote yourself...he already lost the primary by a wide margin. So he's not running for anything. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, the only source I can use to even prove that is the article you wrote because no reliable secondary sources seem to exist on this guy. Smashville 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 4 in the article, at least 4 put up by Rpanico. If still interested, type in "Gary Hayes Schoharie County" into Google.Sgt. bender 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only potential secondary source period was a website that mentions his name and the number of votes as "NA". The other references were youtube, his own website (which states that he was running in the primary) and a mirror to the exact same website. Smashville 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am upset that you would think that my Wikipedia account is only to help this article. I want to help Wikipdia, especially with their sports coverage. JoeC2004 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the appeals from off-site for new users to come and discuss this - http://www.artistopia.com/gary-hayes/biography. Corvus cornix 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a transclusion, not an appeal on reflection. --Haemo 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is seriously uncool, though. --Haemo 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed...it's a mirror...I'm really concerned about sockpuppetry, though, but I don't really want to start another fire... Smashville 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, you're right. I didn't realize that since the formatting wasn't the same. My bad. Sorry. Corvus cornix 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost My English might not be as good as should be, so I will write in Farsi what the person who write the article might say about its cencorship: man mored e tajavoz gharar gereftam. Cheddarbob2332 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that anytime someone doesn't want their article deleted, they claim "censorship" despite the fact that it's clearly not notable. Also note that this user joined WP less than an hour ago. Smashville 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Na namifaman... I have been subjuct to cencorship back in my home country of Iran before I got away. I know what cencorship is. Wikipedia is shekaste. Cheddarbob2332 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you said, but this is not censorship. Censorship would be deleting this article because we disagreed with his political views. This article is being deleted because - outside of 500 people in the middle of New York - no one has ever heard of this guy. Smashville 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you spoke, but you might be correct in your meaning of cencorship. man nemikham be shoma bi ehterami bekonam, vali tarjih midam daresh sherkat nakonam in Wikiipedia. Cheddarbob2332 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked. --Coredesat 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Statist

[edit]

|-Sorry I couldn't help on the Gary Hayes issue it has been closed for review thank-you for your help on ultraconservatism.


AfD nomination of Bryan Pisano

[edit]

I have nominated Bryan Pisano, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pisano (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pisano

[edit]

The result was Delete. While the number of apparent SPAs muddy the waters, there is little currently in the article to indicate that Mr Pisano is notable by Wikipedia standards. Supporting sources are exceptionally thin and don't meet WP:V standards. Pigman☿ 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AfDs for this article:
Bryan Pisano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Deleted via AFD in 2006. At that time there was no IMDB entry for him; today he has one with one entry, a non-lead role in a straight-to-video feature. There are no Google News Archive results for his name. All we have are a handful of non-reliable "references" including his MySpace and Geocities as well as non-independent sources such as a production company. Someone attempted to PROD this, but it was removed (in any case, PROD may not be legal as it had a prior AFD). The IP user then attempted to add the 2006 discussion to AFD, but was probably stymied by being unable to create this discussion page. Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per submitter 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pisano has a moderately notable acting resume in movies and commercials; however, I think the most important thing that makes him notable enough for Wikipedia is his role as Commander Ben Norstrom in a Star Trek episode. Furthermore, 65.11.23.219 just joined yesterday, so I believe the user may need more time to grasp what is necessary for a Wikipedia page. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you refer to his role on Star Trek:Hathaway, a fan production, being associated with such material is not generally an basis for notability. (I'm sure you just forgot to mention that it is not an official production of the Star Trek franchise.)--Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard of him and I've seen some of the stuff he's been in. He's definately notable since he's been in several movies and is on IMDB. Also, what's with all the fighting higher in this page? Dhartung should really leave other users alone; he's obviously trying to start an argument. Beans are neither friut nor musical (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: With those two having a combined 21 edits to date before the Pisano article on April 30th and this AfD, I'm comfortable with Dhartung's characterization. The definition of SPA doesn't include when the account in question was created. When the SPAs all push the same premise: that a person with a single IMDB credit in an unknown indie flick has not only appeared in "several" works (for which sources are not forthcoming) and that they've somehow seen him ... well, that's a tall heap of coincidence. May I ask why people are so intent on claiming "insult" from an accurate characterization? Now ... beyond that, we get from contribution history that you're a friend of Pisano's. In which case, you know what to do to save the article: provide reliable sources that demonstrate that he has appeared in notable productions, and evidence of what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfills.  RGTraynor  12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your account shows ten edits within a four day span in 2006. The account also had three edits within a four minute span on April 11 of this year. All your other Wikipedia activity has centered around this AfD. What about these facts do you find insulting? Would you prefer the terms "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" instead? (As to whether I am real, I have over nine thousand edits, having made more edits since 5 PM yesterday than you have in two years. Plainly if I'm an account existing only to bolster someone else's argument, that someone is working way, way, way too hard at it.)  RGTraynor  13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RGTraynor, are you suggesting that accounts made months and years apart are somehow in a grand conspiracy to keep a small article on Bryan Pisano on Wikipedia? Please tell me you're kidding. JoeC2004 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're trying to dispel the notion that there's sock/meatpuppetry going on, chiming in with protest edits on the different accounts seven minutes apart isn't helpful.  RGTraynor  13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask again, are you saying that accounts created months and years apart are somehow connected in a grand conspiracy to save Bryan Pisano? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? And how can you call my account an SPA when you don't make the same claim for user:65.11.23.219, who edited for the first time two days ago, and has commented on this article several times? Furthermore, I am only commenting so much on this article because of the insults being levied. So tell me, RGTraynor, are you biased or simply lying? JoeC2004 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple. 65.11.23.219 (which has commented twice, not "several" times) is a new editor, but the editor has also participated in fourteen unrelated AfD discussions; you can't claim its only purpose is to back a particular side in this particular discussion. By contrast, after not having appeared on Wikipedia in five months, what brought you back solely for this AfD? Both here and in your edit summaries, you demand adherence to WP:CIVIL, but throwing around accusations of lying and bias does not inspire confidence.  RGTraynor  13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Lord in Heaven, you ignored my first question again. Nevermind. You're just commenting on what you want to and ignoring flaws in your tales. What's worse, I'm sure you know that you're doing it intentionally to mislead people. I tried to have a debate, but it is obvious you just want to stroke your ego. JoeC2004 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget It You know what, forget it. I guess other users get some kind of pleasure by calling fellow members of Wikipedia SPAs, so voicing my opinion is worthless. And if you accuse others of being sock-puppets, SheffieldSteel and RGTraynor oddly chime in at almost the same time, saying the exact same thing, not to mention 65.11.23.219 being a clear SPA. You guys are just a pack of liars. Beans are neither friut nor musical (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SheffieldSteel, according to his userpage, is in North Carolina; I'm in Massachusetts. I'm happy with an admin comparing our IP addresses. It's a pity you'd rather make this personal than do what you would need to do to save the article, but that's your choice.  RGTraynor  14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the history of this page, Beans are neither friut nor musical's first comment was followed, not by a rebuttal, but by Dhartung marking him a SPA. It looks like Beans are neither friut nor musical tried to have a debate, but was brow-beaten into submission. It's clear he didn't make this personal until Dhartung decided to assume the reasoning behind his commenting. It's an unfortuante thing on Wikipedia that stuff like this happens. JoeC2004 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
These facts need to be shown from reliable sources. IMDB is not considered a reliable source since some of its information is user-submitted, but it can often be used to track down other information. In this case I am assuming that his appearance in "Failing Grace" was Pisano's most important screen credit, and I tried to learn more about that movie. It was produced by Mansion Media, but I was not able to find a web site for that company. Since the Google hits for 'Failing Grace' are so skimpy and no media coverage has been offered, it seems unlikely to qualify as a 'notable film' for the purposes of WP:BIO. If Pisano has not appeared in any notable films I don't believe there is case for having an article on him. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh, my. That does look fairly damning, does it not? Combine that with JoeC2004 and Beans tag-teaming to repeatedly remove SPA tags and delete other comments, it's about time for the pretense to stop. I was going to revert the deletions and send out some talk page warnings, but I think I'll wait for the sockpuppet blocks instead.  RGTraynor  15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I'm unsure how ditching a clear consensus in favor of admitted meatpuppetry and insults constitutes "compromise," rather than state my opinion, I think it's quite seemly to let the closing admin handle this.  RGTraynor  19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More than anything this is a fan page by former student(s) of Pisano's when he was a teacher in upstate New York. It's pretty transparent from the Facebook fan page for him that that is what is going on here. Waste of Wikipedia space.9:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fame has its price

[edit]

[1]

[2]

And now due to some personal grudge (which is actually kind of cool) they're trying to figuratively throw a 90-year-old genocide survivor down a flight of stairs. [3] Sgt. bender (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to release images into the public domain

[edit]

Hello, I have added {{PD-self}} to one of your images, per the comment you made on its talk page[4]. You should go to all the images you created and uploaded, and replace the "untagged" tag with the "PD-self" or a bot will automatically delete them after a few days. You can also choose a different tag from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite Pages

[edit]
  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]
  8. [12]

For Mrs. Dutton

[edit]

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content WP:NNC

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. Depending on the particular content, these policies and guidelines (along with the undue weight guideline) may require that content meet specific criteria. Care should be taken to read these policies and guidelines before adding information of questionable importance or relevance to any article.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Triumph from tragedy.JPG)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Triumph from tragedy.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Threats

[edit]

AfD nomination of World Threats

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, World Threats, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Threats. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buylocal.png listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buylocal.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Sgt. bender. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Sgt. bender. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sgt._bender&oldid=1143298844"