User talk:Spring12

Who am I? I have been popping in and out of Wikipedia for years. There is something about making knowledge accessible that just thrills me, and Wikipedia seems like an acceptable outlet for putting my grammar skills to use. Although avoiding inherent Drama is a daunting task on a collaborative site like Wikipedia, I shall try my best to produce work that is agreeable to most of the community. It is impossible to produce an article that everyone agrees on, but there are a set of standards that have to be met.

Current Status Please excuse me as I get back up to speed, I have not been on in a while.Spring12 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Message

Hello, Spring12, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Macromonkey (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

AFD For "Sheree Silver"

Hi Spring12! I think the main reason that the article is flagged for deletion is because the subject of the article is not really that notable. But, I have to congratulate you on the construction of the article. It is well written, and you have given sourced etc, and the layout is good. So don't worry if it is deleted, it will be because of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the way the article is written saves it from deletion! Macromonkey (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver mention on "psychic" page

By all means , get rid of the previous psychic, but the replacement is not much better. Better off with john edward or someone similar. btw, are you a believer of mediums etc? Macromonkey (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert back to the original, Macromonkey? In answer to your question, though, I saw Dr. Silver on Wife Swap when it first aired and i saw what she didSpring12 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two were of about equal quality and I saw no point in changing it to something basically the same, it should be improved. And if thats a yes, it's good to see another believer in these things :) Macromonkey (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate the change to Dr. Silver, then, because I'm trying to remove of the orphan tag on Dr. Silver's page. Thanks for the clarification behind your reasoning, though.Spring12 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting information

I notice that you have been deleting information on some articles so that you can insert information about a certain person. It is better to add information than to replace it. The exception would be if the information you are removing is completely wrong or completely irrelevant. NJGW (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this, my theory was that the article comment was uncited and a citation would have been better. I was trying to create more links to this article, and I will follow your advice of mentioning the person under digit summing. Thank you for your advice.Spring12 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Chan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14 Thank you for commenting on the abovementioned article which I have put up for DRV. Sources have been updated for the DRV. Appreciate your review, thank you. Ncknight (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver

Spring, I have given Sheree Silver a tight edit, because it sure needed it. Lots of fluff removed. I haven't finished yet, so will be back later. Regarding your constant use of the title Dr, please look at Sally Ride. No need for Drs all over the place. It is enough to record she got a Ph D. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This article was just restored in a deletion review, so I was trying to cite all the sources so it didn't go back to an AFD discussion.Spring12 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your change in the intro, reinstating "metaphysical counsellor" because it describes an activity/occupation etc, but "doctor in metaphysical philosophy" does not. I guess that some of the references got mixed up because I changed many links to wiki style. Thanks for offering to go through them again, but please use links as per those in the intro. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I suppose, although my reasoning was that a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Philosophy attributes to the notability of a psychic. Also, Sally Ride, the article you mentioned, listed that she was a Ph.D. in the intro... so I think it should be mentioned there, maybe by relocating the note under "family," hm... Spring12 (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in Sally Ride mentions Ph.D. The second paragraph in Sheree Silver also mentions Ph.D. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::Although the second paragraph in Sally Ride is included in the intro, and the second paragraph in Sheree Silver is under the category "Family."Spring12 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)~~ ~~::::::I'm going attempt to upload an image of Silver from her site, under fair use rationale...Spring12 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sheree Silver

You have put a lot of edits and time into this article. I enjoy your civil and mature conversation on that AfD. Just a note of appreciation. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments! I was beginning to wonder if I was doing too much. :-) Spring12 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Spring12. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very best way to save an article from deletion is to tag it with the rescue tag. Ikip (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver

Hi, in the end the major issue is whether there is a consensus to delete the article, which there was in this case. The rest of the closing comments are my own, and clearly you are free to disagree with them. If you wish to appeal the closure of the AfD, then this is the place you need. (The instructions tell you to contact the closing admin, but you've already done that and don't need to again). Thanks, Black Kite 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to list votes that you think should have been discounted, and your reasoning for that, then I would certainly look at it. Black Kite 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Posted on your talk page) Spring12 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst I agree with a few (a very few) of those comments, there is a large amount of assuming bad faith going on by you here. One could also argue that many of the "Keep" votes were problematic, mainly variations on WP:ITSNOTABLE. I think WP:DRV is necessary here if you wish to dispute this one. Black Kite 09:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologized to the users on your talk page. I was just figured that (based upon) Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions (which you just cited), and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_is_not_in_numbers, the comments should have been examined with consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). The two "arguments" going on seemed pretty balanced, if majority voting wasn't taken into account. Thanks for considering, though, Spring12 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't offend me, it takes a lot to do that! I just think that you are at risk of alienating other editors by not letting this one go. The redirect does not mean that the article cannot be re-created at some time in the future when and if notability can be better established. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Spring, from what I've read of this last episode, I'm not certain you understood what the issue is here. First, I don't think the majority of us are offended, rather most of us are disappointed that you raised the issue that this article should not be deleted with Black Kite, then failed to let the rest of us know that you had done so. It's a custom or unwritten rule that Wikipedians ought to extend that courtesy whenever possible. Second, as Shoemaker's Holiday pointed out on BK's talk page, what you did does come across as Wiki-lawyering, arguing the rules when the evidence is against one. Your selection of arguments for deletion & how you rephrased them only strengthens this appearance. I believe I later made a much better arguing for deletion of that article -- which you also made a cogent reply -- yet you selected my first, off-the-cuff argument. Once we had that exchange, I felt we were at the point where everything that could be said had been, & it was time for an uninvolved Admin (like BK) to make a ruling. And once it's done, unless the ruling is clearly flawed everyone needs to live with it & move on.

I know having an article deleted hurts, but don't take it personally, or as a judgment on your contributions in general. With almost three million articles on Wikipedia, there ought to be one you can find to work on -- or will lead you to a missing topic the encyclopedia should have. -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken this personally, but I'm still kind of new here, so then sorry for not informing anyone of my decision. The first step of deletion review was to discuss with the deleting administrator, which I tried, made my case, and ended today. Right now, I'm exceptionally leery of taking it to DRV, because of the large quantities of members involved, and the likelihood it would end up at AfD again without additional sources to support notability, if the close was overturned, anyway. I'll wait for a while to see if anything else turns up, but thank you for your advice, and again, apologies. Have a great day, Spring12 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason to apologize to me. I feel that my remarks were pretty much self-explanatory: she just doesn't fit within my understanding of the parameters discussed. There are marginal figures that never make it to notability, and I feel she's a classic case. New editors make far more embarassing gaffes than anything you did, and nobody makes a big deal about it. Keep active here; but I would advise you to let the Silver matter drop, as not worth the time spent on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are requested

I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.

The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spring12. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]