Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

See the same user who has been vandalising Ari Shaffirs page has also been vandalising the Dave Bishop page - thanks for also sending them a warning

Hey buddy, how is it going? I haven't seen you in over 5 years. I kinda miss ya man. Well kinda... its about a 70/25/5% split. 70% misses you, 25% resents you, and 5% dosen't remeber you at all. Anyway, have you been busy with the job? What the hell did you do anyway? Last I remember you debating on taking the job as atheletic supporter. How's the wife and fam? Good I'm sure. Anyway I digress, My reason for writing is that i have a favot to ask. Please unblock the user wingwingwing. He is one my dearest friends. I think the issue there was that his kids were messin' around. He is articulate and well-read. He has much to contribute, give him another chance. As a close freind, I emplore you. Thanking you in advance.

                                                                                   Your pal,
                                                                                   B. James Hutchings

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enrique_Máximo_García. In this lengthy discussion, I see absolutely nothing that establishes his notability. This feels more like an inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, rather than a discussion demonstrating anything remarkable about the subject. Thanks. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've had another look. My thoughts now are the same. I can see arguments on both sides. There were references brought forth from reliable sources to show that the man has been considered of note. The article meets our base policy of being verifiable. The subject of the article existed, and can be shown to have existed. Beyond that we have our notability requirement. Notability is a community requirement, and the assessment of criteria for notability is ongoing. The guidelines mentioned in the discussion are suggestions and advice collected from previous discussions to help people in current and future discussions. They are not rules, but the advice they contain can be very useful. It was brought up in discussion that the subject met criteria 7 of Wikipedia:Prof - "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - and this was evidenced by the Spanish newspaper articles. The articles are non-trivial articles. That the articles demonstrated "substantial impact" was disputed by others in the discussion - but unfortunately these people did not go on to explain why they felt the articles did not demonstrate "substantial impact". Given that the reasons put forward by those arguing for keep were explained and supported by Wikipedia guidelines and external sources, and that doing a tally count showed 6 !votes for delete and 7 !votes for keep, I could not see a consensus for deleting the article. However, I took on board the arguments from those who felt that the article did not clearly demonstrate the subjects notability and made a suggestion in my closing comments that the article needs developing. As you are clearly not happy with this decision I suggest you take the case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'd be grateful if you dropped me a note if you do open a review. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I responded on your talk page. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated!

It's been over six months since you edited. Dude, we need thinkers around here. I sure hope you haven't given up on the project, you're a positive contributer. Unschool 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]