User talk:RMHED/Archive 1

Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

• Articles started or significantly contributed to
• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Recent db proposals

I see that you have reverted my proposed db on Joan E. Goody and Amanda Levete, citing "assertion of notability made". May i ask why? they don't seem to show any change since my proposal. I will propose both artciles for deletion using the regular process, hope you don't mind. thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Both are principals at notable architectural consultancies, Goody also has authored several books, while Levete apparently helped design the Lord's Media Centre which won the Stirling Prize. AfD is indeed the best place to discuss notability. RMHED (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

February 2008 - "Chucky Styles"

The entire article reads as an advertisement.

"He is the owner of DGAF along with his buddy Gillies." "Today, Chuck plays shows occasionally but hasn't been touring with the Subnoize Souljaz lately. It is expected he is going back on tour once the "DGAF" album comes out." Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes the article has problems but I don't think it's "blatant advertising" which it would need to be for the CSD to apply. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Coolie Hajj Song

Please do not simply remove the speedy-deletion box. Please put {{hangon}} if you would like to challenge the deletion. --jftsang 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Any editor excepting the article's creator may remove a CSD tag if they believe it has been mis-applied. RMHED (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This

diff is absolutely one of the best support rationales I've ever seen at an RfA. I belly-laughed. Spot on assessment! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, shame the RfA seemed doomed from the start really. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hi RMHED. I'd be grateful if you would explain your rationale for this closure. While I was involved in the discussion, and may therefore have some bias, it looked like consensus was fairly clear. I'm curious about your reasoning. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hey if you can see a Consensus to delete or Keep then you be not me. I saw it as a no consensus, all else is semantics. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Gibson (musician)

From your edit summary i'm assuming you didnt bother reading my comment on the articles talk page: YES the person is notable, but in its current form it's also a complete waste of space. It tells you nothing the band page doesnt. It's like me creating pages for all the people who used to work at enron going "A worked at enron" "B worked at enron" "C worked at enron". Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• So quite obviously not an A7 then, so why tag it so? The practice in such cases is usually to redirect to the band's article. RMHED (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vidal confectionery

You removed the speedy template on the above stating, "importance is asserted". With all due respect, importance is not the same as notability. I am reapplying the SD template. – ukexpat (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• It certainly isn't, but a possible lack of notability isn't a reason to speedy delete. Notability would be determined via the AfD process. All the article needed to do to avoid a speedy demise was give a credible assertion of importance or significance, this it did. RMHED (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Beard AFD discussion

I'd like to gain some understanding... I don't understand how the Ronald Beard AFD discussion was closed as "no consensus" when only one editor supported delete, all eleven others who partcipated in the discussion specifically showed interest in keeping this article. I understand that "consensus" does not equate to "popular vote" but at the same time, I'm left confused... Of course, part of it might be that mutliple articles were nominated in the same AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches, and only the Beard article was specifically called out. Can you help me understand?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I fully understand what you are saying, but as Ronald Beard was part of a bundled AfD you can't really have seperate outcomes for the individual components, they are judged as a whole. I think it very unlikely that anybody perusing that AfD would seek to renominate Beard as it was largely agreed that he was notable. The others though, who can say, which is why in cases like these individual AfD's are usually best. RMHED (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Makes good sense. Thanks for clearing it up! (one can never learn too much about the AFD process, eh?)--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia loves to process process. RMHED (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

in case you didn't see it

I noted your request at Engima's RfA that he answer Filll's question before you reconsidered your neutral vote (and I noted Filll's and others' support of Enigma as a result) - but in case you didn't know that he had answered I have linked to it in the heading above.--VS ^talk 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I shall peruse and likely come off the fence, one way or t'other. RMHED (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cheers!--VS ^talk 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cauda_Pavonis

Hi RMHED, My article Cauda Pavonis was A7'ed by Gwen Gale today, I noticed that you have challenged her inappropriate use of A7 before and was hoping you could help me as I'm quite inexperienced and I would very much like to get my article back, thanks Darqmann (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see Gwen claims that the article didn't meet WP:MUSIC and so speedied it, but to avoid being speedied an article is not required to meet the guidelines for notability merely to assert some credible degree of significance or importance. If you can argue that the article did this then try deletion review and follow the instructions on how to add an article to the deletion list. RMHED (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Darqmann (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Procedures

I note that you are someone to whom proper procedure is very important. I am going to short-circuit procedure here: if you can show me independent proof of the existence of the subjects of those articles, I will obviate the DRV by restoring the articles myself. Otherwise, they stay gone. DS (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think that is a rather arrogant attitude? Process is there for a reason, but I guess it doesn't apply to you. RMHED (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"The reason for rules is so that you think before you break 'em." Trust me, it was not an easy decision. And you'll note that I didn't have to tell you that I'd done it. DS (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have just noticed regardless. Still this is a mass deletion totally out of process, if you believe the articles lacked verifiability and were OR then send them to AfD, why the reluctance to follow the procedures? At least if they went to AfD and were deleted any recreation could then be legitimately speedy deleted. RMHED (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread about your comments at AN/I

I guess the standard procedure is to notify you that a thread about your comments is at AN/I: [1].--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The remark on the talk page was clearly over-the-top and out-of-line. I've removed the comment. Please try and remain constructive and do not comment on the editors themselves. It's important everyone remains cool as a kava when the editing gets hot. Mahalo, RMHED. --Ali'i 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)