Jump to content

User talk:RMHED/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:RMHED

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMHED (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 2 July 2008 (→‎g4: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
IMO fuckwittery should always be highlighted. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for producing a more recent example.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. RMHED (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do you the courtesy of not templating you with a NPA warning. Cease your insertion of the questionable edit. Your attitude is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Wish you hadn't reverted the removal the first time, but hopefully we can all move on now. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammomax

Hi. After seeing the discussion. I took the opportunity to be bold and convert Mammomax to a redirect to the List of Brotherhood of Mutants Members. If you believe that an information can be added in the list, please do so. It's clear that the article cannot exist as is. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments like your recent one..

Don't add anything to the discussion, and actively impede anything being resolved from the discussion. Please, stop it with the sarcasm, ok? :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you opposed to deletion of "<ancestral nationality> <current natonalty>" articles?

The ones recently prodded were prodded for the very obvious reasons that having dual nationality isn't so notable in these days of easy worldwide travel, and quite apart from this, a lot of them are of dubious notability at best (some of the populations mentioned are only about 3,000 people).

Add the fact that most of the articles prodded are stubs with little or no hope of growing to a useful length, and there you have it. -- 217.171.129.79 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you prod a whole load of article's like that, the least you can do is provide a good reason for deletion. The reasons you give above still don't sound very convincing to me. Oh and not notifying the article's creator, well that just wasn't right. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility at RfA

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the butting in, but am I seeing this right? Did someone leave you a templated message saying "comment on contributions and not the contributors" because of a comment you made at RFA? RFA is entirely about commenting on the contributor. Good lord, what is Wikipedia coming to? These complaints are ridiculous. Sometimes I think we should get rid of template warnings altogether and force people to use their brains instead. Friday (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, how can you not comment on the contributor at an RfA. Fair enough if I'd said something totally vulgar and of no relevance, but I was just giving my opinion about this candidates suitability for the role. It's a sad day when a reasoned, albeit blunt opinion is classed as a personal attack. RMHED (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008

RMHED, it was not completely clear to me if your "overturn" at this DRV was because the article was sufficiently different from the previously deleted one, or because the article had not been AfD'ed before. I have replied to both reasons, but while the former is of course open to interpretation, certainly the later is simply incorrect. The article wsa deleted only hours earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II, but was moved during the AfD to another title and recreated (and G4'ed) at yet another title. I would appreciate it if you would take another look at the DRV, and perhaps clarify your "overturn" position. Fram (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Harry Potter Fan Zone

Hi RMHED. Thanks for taking the time to close this debate. I also noticed from your contribs that you've helped with keeping down the AfD backlog a lot, that's wonderful and please know that your effort doing this thankless task is very much appreciated. However, I believe I should note that, as you're currently a non-administrator, it's best to avoid closing discussions where there's no clear-cut distinction between keep and delete (i.e no consensus debate). Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions; there is a page with more detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, it's just an essay, but is written by many admins and may contain some useful information. I hope you don't feel discouraged from helping out more in the future, there're lots of unanimous "keep" discussions around. :) It's just that no-consensus often means controversial cases, and because of this nature such discussions should be left up to an administrator. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Regarding previous no-consensus AfDs that you may have closed and haven't been reverted, perhaps those AfDs were overlooked or already examined by other administrators who don't feel the need to overturn such closures. That said, I believe it's an universally accepted opinion that non-administrators should not close ambiguous discussions, and no-consensus is in itself ambiguous, because certainly it can't be obvious what the outcome is. No-consensus verdict relates to a process of determining whether there is consensus or not, and that involves weighing arguments and sometimes even counting numbers. People would feel more comfortable putting this more complicated decision-making process in the hands of administrators. I really don't think anyone could glance at a debate and say "no-consensus is obvious" right off the bat. If that's the case, I'd unfortunately have to question how much thought they have given to those supposedly "no-consensus" discussions. I hope you understand and refrain from making similar actions in the future. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator does not confer on an individual any greater ability to determine a no consensus AfD, having a sound knowledge of guidelines and policies does. Closing an Afd as no consensus is not an administrative action, the buttons aren't required, experience of AfD and common sense is though. I shall continue to close no consensus AfD's if I think it right to do so. Administrators all too often try to limit what ordinary editors can do, often without good reason or basis in common sense. A kind of power protectionism which doesn't befit Wikipedia. RMHED (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right with the first part. The "admin" title doesn't indicate that a user has greater ability/better knowledge of policies to determine consensus (or the lack of it) than "ordinary editors". That, I certainly agree with you. :) The difference, however, is that admins are editors who have officially gained trust of the community to perform such actions as closing difficult debates. Officially being the operative word. This is only a temporary difference though, as any users who are interested in helping out with administrative tasks can stand for RFA process anytime. In any case, I believe it's solid consensus that the community at large feel more comfortable putting potentially contentious decisions in the hands of trusted editors (as demonstrated by passing RfAs). This is not about me trying to "limit" what you can do, which you seem to imply in your comment; this is about respecting the community and not doing things when the community hasn't granted you the status to take responsibility for those actions. Please note this and reconsider your position and actions. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think passing an RfA is about whether the community trusts you to close no consensus AfD's, primarilly it's about whether the community trusts you with the delete and block buttons. I'm not sure that the community at large is that concerned about non-admins closing AfD's as no consensus. I'm sure they're more concerned that the closer has given the matter some thought and correctly weighed up the discussion. Currently there is no policy or even guideline that prohibits non-admins from closing AfD's as no consensus. I shall in future use my best judgement in this matter and hopefully it won't be a problem. RMHED (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there's a guideline concerned with this issue actually. :) I'm sure no-consensus AFDs are in the "close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions..." category as listed there, which is why you really should wait until you become an admin to close them. :) Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having a very similar conversation with Seresin before he became an admin. I still contend that not all No consensus closes are ambiguous, some are obvious. No consensus isn't synonymous with ambiguity, rather it's more akin to a lack of obvious agreement, This lack of agreement can indeed be obvious. Far more contentious are close call keeps or deletes, those are the ones that usually end up at DRV. An example of an obvious no consensus AfD to me is the Rob Knox one, I followed that one quite closely and it soon became clear that no consensus would be reached. Though before closing it I read through the entire AfD twice, just to make sure I hadn't missed anything. RMHED (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're running around in circles here. In my book, no no-consensus can be obvious. "Lack of agreement can indeed be obvious", correct, but lack of agreement happens in most of our AfDs (we editors disagree all the time :)); it's not the same as lack of consensus. (As I said above, "I really don't think anyone could glance at a debate and say "no-consensus is obvious" right off the bat. If that's the case, I'd unfortunately have to question how much thought they have given to those supposedly "no-consensus" discussions.") Making a no-consensus decision entails a complicated decision-making process because the number is less clear, and closer has to evaluate arguments harder than regular cases, that's why it should fall in to the "controversial cases" category. This I used to assume is obvious, but since you still categorically disagree, I think it'd be best to discuss some changes at Wikipedia:Deletion process and clear things up. :) Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Hi, me again. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions_-_proposed_addition which I think you might be interested in. The guideline if clarified will benefit both of us, (at least save us sometime arguing :)). Your opinion is welcomed. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Qlejjgha DRV

Duly corrected. I'd clicked on a few links and noticed that an uninvolved (at least as far as I know) admin deleted the articles after being in the PROD category for five days. Based on this, I've given an uninvolved administrator full liberty to overturn my decision, but considering there wasn't really consensus either way, I've explained more fully my reason for closing as I did. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you sir, I agree it is a difficult one to close. Ironic really, if the deleting admin had just sent these articles to AfD chances are they'd have been long gone by now. Then again they probably see me as some kind of process obsessed twunt trying to make a point. We're all tainted by our actions for good or ill. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, it's a shame that some were prodded and some were AfD'd; I don't see the logic. They should all have gone to AfD, and I will speak to Dragonfly and RGTraynor about this. I personally think you acted very properly; removing of PROD tags is legitimate, and an immediate sign that the prodder should have left it or taken it to AfD. Deleting it was improper, because they were served by two different deletion methods. In that regard, process is important, and should not have been broken even based on the outcome of the other AfDs. Let me know if you have any further concerns. One of my more difficult closures, and I've tried to get it right as much as I can. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment

[2] 20 minutes before your oppose, I noted that I had made some very poor (and appropriately rejected) deletion noms early on. I'd like to think that my participation in this area (while not frequent) has improved significantly since that time. I'm much more aware now of community norms and expectations - the more I learned about Wikipedia and how it works the more I agree with exercising a great deal more care and consideration around deletions. Some debates I've participated in recently:

Takes you back to the beginning of March. Regards, and thank you for your participation in my RfA, Avruch 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I looked through pretty much your entire contribution history. Your more recent AfD participation hasn't been as alarming but it has been very slim, so hard to tell if your judgement has significantly improved. Also I note you haven't done any recent CSD tagging so again it's hard to tell if you've improved or not. You seem unduly drawn to the more controversial AfD's and deletion reviews. AN and AN/I seem to be your second home, the project talk pages seem to have a magnetic draw for you. This I find worrisome. RMHED (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is it my actual contributions (aside from the early deletion noms) that have been worrisome, or just my presence in areas of contention? Avruch 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, only just noticed your question. To answer, it is the unduly large percentage of your total edits on project talk pages and noticeboards that to me is worrisome. RMHED (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not a valid CSD reason?

I'm intrigued why you said 'not a valid CSD reason' on Dragon Slayers, as 'doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject'- A7- is a valid reason per WP:CSD. If you feel it doesn't apply in this case then that's a different thing, but it is a valid reason. Didn't I word it correctly? Sticky Parkin 01:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like all the CSD criteria A7 is narrowly defined. It applies to real people, but not to fictional characters. You could try a prod or better still an AfD. RMHED (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah ok I get it, thanks. I don't see why A7 doesn't apply to all content, what's included seems quite arbitrary. I suppose stuff like the D.S article should be merged instead though, maybe that's why only the creator of an artwork etc can be speedied, otherwise a non-notable thing could be merged to its 'parent' article. Sticky Parkin 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Band

This was an interesting non admin close, per WP:NAC, as there were some deletes. I've not looked into how notable etc the thing is though, just noticed the close and 'votes'. Sticky Parkin 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long (civil) (friendly) disccusion

Hello, I have noticed your comment about young editors to become admins. I would like to have a gentlemen like conversation about you saying that you cant trust a editor that has a bedtime to become a admin. I would like to have a friendly civil refute about that and argue against that. Lets start like this, why cant you trust a young editor like me to be a admin.Gears Of War 21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As a 12-year old, I was deeply offended by that comment. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And i'm sure that any other young who saw that comment is too.Gears Of War 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment yuo made was (imho) an instance of immaturity that you accused 12-year olds of having. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most societies have age restrictions on many things, driving, voting, purchasing alcohol, etc, etc. Now is this also unacceptable to you?
    Though Wikipedia isn't a society as such, and many young contributors have a great deal to offer. Despite this I just don't believe that someone who isn't considered mature enough to determine their own bedtime should be entrusted with sysop tools. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we are not matured enough: it is that in real life, we have parents who decide when our bedtimes our. Do you want me to walk up to my mom and tell her that some random guy thinks I'm immature because she decides my bedtime? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely my point, your parents obviously do not consider you old enough to decide your own bedtime. Why is this I wonder? Could it be they think you lack the maturity to make a wise decision in this regard? RMHED (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And theres a special reason why those restrictions are there. This is different. Those restrictions are in life and death situations this is a measure of wether or not there edits and actions show that they deserve it(adminship).Gears Of War 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is voting a life or death situation? Adminship isn't about deserving it, it's about whether the community trusts that editor. RMHED (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would having good parents who don't let their child stay up until 4 in the morning be reason not to trust someone? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Young children arent aloud to drive cause they could die. No achohol becuase we could die! What makes you think someone who cant stay up past 10:30 is not a better admin than you. Its like saying a full grown vandalizer is better than a esatblished 12 year old editor?Gears Of War 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if we could hold off any comment till tomorrow, I have to log off for the day, so can we continue this tommorow?Gears Of War 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a snowed one almost 3 months ago. About 400 edits. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but admire User:TenPoundHammer Five failed RfA's and still he goes on undaunted, a true Wikipedian. RMHED (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may be permitted to interject a moment (I was going to leave a separate comment on RHMED's talk page but this proved more interesting). I don't want to impugn anyone's image of themselves here but I think that what some wikipedians may be trying to say is that at age 12 it is certainly possible to have a greater estimation of your own maturity than would be warranted. I remember even at age 18 I fashioned myself as wise and worldly. Now I look back and wonder how that could have even been possible. This is not universal. 200 years ago, 13 year old boys were on the quarterdecks of sailingships commanding men as midshipmen. Edison famously started out very young. Plenty of contributors to math, physics and other hard sciences got their start at an age where I was pre-occupied by Rainbow 6 and Starcraft. I also think that RFA does and should judge an admin by actions, which chould demonstrate revealed maturity, rather than mere age. However, please don't assume that insinuations of immaturity due to your age are based on some incivility or improper bias. Also, the cool thing about being denied adminship on the basis of your age is that it will only get easier to make it through over time. :) Best of luck and sorry for the intrusion. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP holds a grudge against you. I've reverted a couple instances of vandalism on your userpage. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting. I can make a good guess at who that IP really is, that was really mature of them wasn't it. RMHED (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean this?

[15] It is so utterly outrageous that my first reading led me to think it was a joke. I read it again, with your comments further up in mind, and I am almost forced to think you really do believe that this whole shemozzle is the result of a "power-grab" by FT2. Would you like to reassure me? Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel's Heath Primary School

Well, AfD isn't a vote, but I see what you're saying. Those that said to merge for the most part gave no reason as to why they were saying that, and they couldn't seem to decide on what to merge it to, hence why I deleted it. Wizardman 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Law School

Hey. You were the closer on the AfD for this article, so maybe you can give us a hand. After the AfD was closed, a merge proposal was opened at Talk:Griffith Law School#Merge proposal. The majority of the votes on there were to merge the articles, so I went ahead and merged the articles. That has since been reverted, so I was wondering where to go from here. A 3O is out of the question because so many people are involved, and I don't think an RfC would help. So without this turning into an edit war, what's the next step? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't appear to be a clear cut consensus to merge from what I can see. Maybe given more time that consensus will evolve, after all the merge discussion has only been going for 3 days. Nobody said getting a consensus was gonna be easy and sometimes it's nigh on impossible, but stick in there, you never know what perseverance might bring. RMHED (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just had another look at the AfD and the majority were in favour of an outright keep, with the minority wanting a merge. So it could take quite a bit of time and effort for the keeps to be won over to merging. RMHED (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!
Thanks!

Thank you, RMHED, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g4

Hi. So, what's the proper thing to do with Skiing in Lebanon, that is a recreation of Ski Lebanon, that was nominated for deletion for being an advertisement, but end up being speedy-deleted as a copyright violation? --Damiens.rf 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED/Archive_1&oldid=222996213"