User talk:Winger84/Archive1

Don't Forget

Your nomination of "Don't Forget" is silly and does not follow Wikipedia's Article's For Deletion policies. Please be more careful of your AfD nominations in the future. 66.197.51.199 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You nomination is not within reason at all. Everyone who has voted has voted "keep" except you. I guess you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Looking at your recent edit history, I see you have had your share of problems, being blocked and all. I suggest you review Wikipedia criteria for deletion and be a little nicer and more open-minded. 66.63.178.229 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One more comment like this one, anonymous editor, and I'll block you for incivility. Tan ǀ 39 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tan. If you have a moment, could you take a look at the IP's revert actions today, specifically to WAKS and Template:Rihanna? Thanks! --Winger84 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not much that can be done right now. This is immature and unnecessary, but nothing warrants action... yet. Alert me if the shit hits the fan... Tan ǀ 39 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just blocked both these IPs for edit warring, on the assumption that they are the same person. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Winger84, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks for the two questions! If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposing over CAT:AOTR membership

Hi! It seems this oppose of yours came up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_admin_recall_process_is_dead. If I had seen it at the time I would have commented. Please don't oppose over that reason alone. AOR is a voluntary process. It's not for everyone. Don't make it be a litmus test. Thanks. (apologies if this was already mentioned to you but I did not see it till the AN discussion mentioned it. )++Lar: t/c 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As I explained in that particular RfA, I had other reasons to oppose that candidate, but the refusal to add themselves to AOR happened to be the one that I chose to cite. I believe that I explained my reason for this (admittedly "token") gesture being an important part of my decision-making process during the RfA. I will not comment on that particular AN thread because I could honestly care less one way or the other. If that category goes away, it's not really any skin off my back, so to speak. --Winger84 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Winger84/Archive1, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

How is that not notable?

The articles 3 Peat (song) and Playing with Fire (song). I do not understand, i understand they are not singles, but what I don't understand is that 3 Peat has charted, and Playing with Fire has a controversy. So that is what I don't understand. But if i can fix it..how can I make it notable?--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither song has achieved charting (#40 or better) status on an airplay chart. Until that happens, they're not notable and there really isn't all that much that you as an editor can do. Once they reach that status, I'm not opposed to them having their own articles, but until such time, they should be redirects, at best. --Winger84 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Carter, You Ain't Got Nuthin or Mrs. Officer has not reached that status neither. --Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both Mr. Carter and Mrs. Officer have achieved top 40 status on the Mediabase 24/7 Urban airplay chart, as of a few days ago. That's why I haven't challenged any edits making them articles of their own standing over the past few days.

Tan, the definition of "charting" as being #40 or better is the industry-wide accepted standard within the music and radio industries. I am strongly considering opening an RfC to adopt that standard on Wikipedia, as well. Without a defined standard, editors are going to have this discussion over and over and over and over again, leading to a plethora of records / singles / whatever someone would like to call them having their own articles when they would otherwise have zero business having them. --Winger84 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this "top 40" notability criteria found? WP:MUSIC simply says a charted hit... Tan ǀ 39 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Piazza: Stop using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument for inclusion. Winger, that's fine and reasonable, but until you change the current consensus for Wikipedia notability requirements, please don't categorically state that they are not notable and "there really isn't all that much that you as an editor can do". You are pushing your own agenda into current consensus. Tan ǀ 39 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not intend for it to come across as pushing an agenda. I was merely trying to state that it is an industry-wide standard, in relation to the subject. My comment that there wasn't really anything the editor could do to the article was simply to say that the article is off to a decent start, but the article's subject needs to continue to grow in order for the article to stand on its own, rather than as a redirect. --Winger84 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right on. It's obvious you are involved in the industry, and I nominally agree with you about the notability standards. If you start this RfC, make sure to let me know. Tan ǀ 39 01:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And also as i mentioned on Carter III Talk section, Illmatic has pages for each of its songs. Which I also added reliable sources.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pud Galvin

Every source I can find lists him as Pud--Yankees10 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. --Winger84 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know about that, but check ESPN, Baseball-Reference, and other websites say Pud--Yankees10 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. --Winger84 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but you are acting like ESPN is a non-reliable source, my point was that he is best known as Pud Galvin--Yankees10 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. --Winger84 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about this and agree with you, it says Jim at MLB.com, which in my opinion is the most reliable source.--Yankees10 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by the way, do you plan on creating templates like this for other positions--Yankees10 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, but it will take me a few days. I live in the Southeast, so I'm having to pay attention to Fay as it moves into my area. --Winger84 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, stay safe from the storm--Yankees10 00:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adminship, another run

Hello Winger. Thanks for dropping by, but I think Im not yet ready to handle this gigantic responsibility and I'm afraid I will not be making GAs and FAs after I get overwhelmed by the lots of tasks. =) --Efe (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Smashville RfA

Winger84, I've left a remark with some questions beneath your oppose on Smashville's RfA. I'd be interested to see your response, if you have the time. Thanks, Avruch ^T 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Account

This is my first account its just that one of my family members used to be on wiki and he teaches me how to edit. I dont have another account or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CiaraFan4Ever (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Winger, please don't edit war over a NPOV tag; the three revert rule applies. See the talk page for why editors are removing your NPOV dispute tag. - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)