This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CTF83! (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 6 February 2010 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Linda Harasim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:16, 6 February 2010 by CTF83! (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Linda Harasim)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is CTF83!'s talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)
I'd like to get your opinion on this one. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Favor
Another administrator deleted my userpage. They gave a good reason as to why, but I asked if they could restore it for a day or so, so I could copy the information to another wiki host. They agreed on that, but they never did it. So I was wondering if you could go through this accounts records, and restore the information just temporarily? Phrasia (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not an admin, otherwise I'd help you. CTJF83 chat 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I posted on the original admin's page, but I'm afraid that's all I can do. CTJF83 chat 05:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I thought you were. I would totally nominate you. Thanks again. :) Phrasia (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Any time! CTJF83 chat 05:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Done I'm not sure what the problem was the first time, but I've restored the page for a second time as per Phrasia's request above. Phrasia, please let me know when you've made a copy. -- see User:Phrasia. -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Don't believe everything you hear on IRC. This is part, as both Doncram and Orlady will acknowledge, of a painfully tedious argument between a whole raft of editors over merges and splits between localities and historic districts that has rendered the NRHP project toxic. I'm surprised that Orlady got herself drawn into this. However, cries of admin abuse don't help, and this is a garden variety case of two editors being peeved at each other. See Doncram vs. Polaron. The terminology that Doncram favors makes me break out in hives, but I'd prefer to let it stand in favor of the greater good. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, she did break 3RR, and thus should be blocked like any other user who breaks it. Off topic, how do I site when an author has 2 books I'm using. ie, I can't just put their last name and page number like I did with one book Davenport,_Iowa#Notes. CTJF83 chat 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the 3RR issue, but would rather it be reviewed by others. I'm too involved in the main dispute to render judgment, and frankly too irritated at all parties.
- For citing, do you have refTools enabled in your Preferences/Gadgets tab? It gives a "cite" at the end of the editing tools bar above the edit window that opens a menu of options for filling out references. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Elaborating on refs, you'd do two full cites, then for further cites you'd just do something like "Smith, "The Color Blue", p. 40" and "Smith, "Skies and their Hues", p.441." Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I understand how to cite and such, but for example ref 3 at Davenport,_Iowa#Notes says "Svendsen, p. 19". I'm adding a second book by her, how do I clarify in the cite which of the 2 books I'm using? Would it be something like "Svendsen,Davenport A Pictorial History p. 19"?.....Ok, you answered it when I got the ec, thanks. CTJF83 chat 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi there,
I appreciate your help with the 3rr thing. I'm not a fan of noticeboards so I'm not skilled at posting and the template seems hoary to me. That was very nice of you to put it in your sandbox. If I can ever return the favor, although nothing tech related, I'd be happy to help. These are for you: Malke2010 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! In case you didn't know, we have WP:Barnstars you can use to show appreciation for any user you feel deserves it. :) CTJF83 chat 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I 2nd the thank you. Even though I love The Drama, it's not so much fun being a part of it. I'd use a barnstar, but I'm equally wiki-inept. :) Quietmarc (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you both! If either of you need assistance, just ask, and I'll provide if I can. CTJF83 chat 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I 2nd the thank you. Even though I love The Drama, it's not so much fun being a part of it. I'd use a barnstar, but I'm equally wiki-inept. :) Quietmarc (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| is awarded to Ctjf83 For offering help without being asked and going the extra mile to give it. Really appreciate that.Malke2010 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) |
Same Sex Marriage
Hi, thanks for deciding to contribute to this article! There is currently consensus on the talk page. I see you editted the article without discussing on the talk page. If you feel there is something that does not belong please come on in and explain what's wrong. Until then though I'm going to put the article back the way it was with the cited material there.Jstanierm (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so, but you will be reported for 3RR. CTJF83 chat 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment
I have opened a request for comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, the behavior of Polaron and Orlady should also be considered as well. I would encourage you to participate in a civil manner in this discussion, in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution. --Elkman 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what is going on. What exactly do I do at the RfC? Propose restrictions or something of the sort? CTJF83 chat 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think at this point, you can either certify the basis of this dispute, or add an outside view. If you have an outside view on the conflict between Doncram and Orlady, your opinion would be useful at this point. I'm not sure it would be useful yet to propose editing restrictions, since there isn't much discussion yet (and since Doncram hasn't responded). I'm not 100% familiar with the RfC process, either, and I'd rather not be familiar with it at all. I'd rather be figuring out the difference between Italianate architecture and Second Empire architecture as it applies to any individual building, but since the edit wars keep spreading, I unfortunately have to get involved in user conduct. --Elkman 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, I'll comment after work. CTJF83 chat 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think at this point, you can either certify the basis of this dispute, or add an outside view. If you have an outside view on the conflict between Doncram and Orlady, your opinion would be useful at this point. I'm not sure it would be useful yet to propose editing restrictions, since there isn't much discussion yet (and since Doncram hasn't responded). I'm not 100% familiar with the RfC process, either, and I'd rather not be familiar with it at all. I'd rather be figuring out the difference between Italianate architecture and Second Empire architecture as it applies to any individual building, but since the edit wars keep spreading, I unfortunately have to get involved in user conduct. --Elkman 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Peter Griffin
Hey Ctjf83, it's Hunter Kahn. I'm conducting the GAN review for Peter Griffin, and the nominator told me that you had conducted a previous GAN review for it. I believe he indicated it was quick-failed, but I couldn't find a prior GAN review page for it. Can you tell me if one was conducted, because if so, I want to make sure any concerned raised back then were addressed. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't make a GA page (probably should've) but it was still tagged at the top and a lot of tags, so I didn't bother with a GA page. CTJF83 chat 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ctj, --Saint Pedrolas J. 11:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- LOL, a little past christmas! CTJF83 chat 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ctj, --Saint Pedrolas J. 11:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Linda Harasim
The result is fine - the consensus is to keep. However, your rationale "Keep Passes WP:Prof (WP:NACD)" is flawed. Notability guidelines are only guidelines, they describe "what usualy happens on afd" they do not proscribe what must happen. Providing no policy overrides other considerations, an article is kept or deleted on the basis of whether there is a consensus to delete or not. In this case, there was no consensus to delete (indeed possibly a consensus to keep) so the article is kept. However, even if the article does pass some guideline, that's would not override consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- So Just a Keep is sufficient on all AfDs? No reasoning is required? CTJF83 chat 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No reasoning is good. But the reason isn't that it passes a guideline, the reason is that most people want to keep it and have offered perfectly valid reasons to do so. Most people think it is notable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, if you have a few minutes, care to look over my other closes? CTJF83 chat 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No reasoning is good. But the reason isn't that it passes a guideline, the reason is that most people want to keep it and have offered perfectly valid reasons to do so. Most people think it is notable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)