Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Kurt, thanks for explaining your side of the situation to me on IRC yesterday. I apologize if I come off as overly abrubt. I'm writing here to encourage you to take part on the RFC talk page. My goal in participating there is not to find some sort of sanctions against you. They aren't warranted. But I do want to find some outcome that will resolve this situation so that there isn't a long string of RFCs about it, so that it doesn't reappear on ANI every couple weeks.

I think it is very unfortunate that your comment about two admins being "poor administrators" was construed as a personal attack. I introduced a view in the RFC that it isn't, which has quite a bit of support. Legitimate criticism, as Friday points out, is not in itself a personal attack, and your comment did not have any personal nature to it.

The main area in which we disagreed yesterday, I think, is related to this comment you made on your first RFC, and expressed to me again yesterday: "Just because doing something makes someone angry is not a reason to stop, if that person's anger is completely unreasonable". There are many situations where that comment isn't right. For example, if a person's girlfriend asks "does this make me look fat?", and the guy truthfully says "like a cow!", he can't plead that she is upset unreasonably. Similarly, your continued statements at RFA are provoking responses that are predictable before you make them. Is there any compromise that you can make with the people who are getting upset? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very brief proposed compromise on the RfC page located under the heading "Creative suggestions for what to do with the dead horse" if you're interested...Epthorn (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and my notice of that is not an endorsement of it. Still, if you have any suggestions for how to move on that you are not tired of explaining again and again, I'm sure people would like to hear it instead of dealing with these RfCs every time they pop up.Epthorn (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Kmweber, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. I have mixed feelings about your RFA tendencies, but ultimately I respect your right to opine. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Hello Kurt. You don't know me from Adam, but I thought I would express my thoughts somewhere you would see them. It appears that both sides' minds are made up and it is now Yankees vs. Red Sox, so it is pointless joining in at this point for me as I feel like the Devil Rays (or whatever they're called now). However, your !votes do not seem offensive, so I wanted you to know that I will support your right to opine at the RfA's. The old adage goes: I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my Wiki-death your right to say it (just for the record, I do have qualms about your stance, but that is moot). Remember to keep it clean, as every word you type now seems to be pounced upon. Regards.--12 Noon 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 17 • December 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Rains in Washington State cause massive road closures In 2008, all roads will lead to Chicago! Louisiana and Tennessee projects started; Louisiana demoted	State and national updates Leaderboard California New York New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of having balls EJF (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)-- posted on the RfA for jj137 Avruch^Talk 02:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you took pictures in Posey County before. I am doing an article on New Harmony's Atheneum and would appreciate, if possible, if you could take a picture or two of it whenever it's convenient. If it won't be possible, that's cool; I just thought I'd ask as I'm from Jeffersonville-a bit too far to do such a thing. ;-) --Bedford (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when I took my photograph of the western end of SR 66 in New Harmony I had actually parked in the Atheneum parking lot...and I can't believe I didn't take a picture of the Atheneum while I was there. Stupid, stupid, stupid me! Oh, well...with the weather and sun like it is I probably won't be able to get a decent picture for another month or so (not that I take particularly good pictures in the first place), so we'll see when I get a chance. Thanks for the suggestion! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, there is a picture already for it. However, its at a weird angle. If it takes you months, that's OK, but eventually we'll want something better.--Bedford (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Why do you care?, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why do you care? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Why do you care? during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

... at this. Nuff said. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well it's been deleted. If you didn't catch it before it went, it was basically pablothegreat creating an RfA page and attaching your sig to it, creating the appearance that you nominated yourself for it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please check this page and reconsider you vote?

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Sorry for my previous rudeness. I will try harder to refrain from a rude comment like that. Dreamafter ⇔ 19:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GO COLTS! I'm a Browns fan and the Colts better win S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It was big news when Dungy announced it. Sucks for us; not much we can do. But still, it's Go Colts! for now. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features B-class audit shows stunning results	State and national updates Leaderboard California Illinois New York New Jersey Oklahoma Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —^Mitch32^contribs 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors Coming and going	Features Interstate 355 becomes USRD's newest Featured Article Commons refuses to delete superseded shields Michigan project breaks the 4.000 barrier USRD relative WW comes close to surpassing Wikipedia relative WW The newest neologism issue January 26 Meetup	State and national updates Leaderboard California Michigan New Jersey New York Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You opposed a rfb candidate right below me. You're a colts fan and i'm a Pat's fan. I feel like I need to take a shower. :)--Cube lurker (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you choked again :D Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that, after five years on the Project, I've suddenly woken up with the unquenchable thirst to force my viewpoint down the throats of anyone who disagrees with me? I understand your desire for a quick, easy template to apply to all RfA's, but don't I merit the least bit of closer evaluation? Would a "power-hungry" admin recuse himself from all but a thinly-specified set of duties and apply with the most liberal set of AOR requirements I've ever seen? I politely urge you to please reconsider your !vote after more closely examining my application.

On a slightly-different note, I surmise that you must have a hard time voting in governmental elections. As far as I am aware, Ron Paul nominated himself in 1988, and nominated himself as a Republican candidate for the primary for 2008. With the explicit caveat that you may refuse to answer on any grounds you wish, I'm curious how you handle real-life politics in light of your policy for RfA? Jouster  (whisper) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, unless made tongue-in-cheek, were obvious vandalism and disruption of the talk page. Pats1 ^T/C 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are not allowed to do that, you would have to put on the top: Charles Godrey re-directs here to see the American football player see Charles Godfrey (American football) ,I had the same situation with Jackie Harris re-directing to Rosanne and I tried to do this but a user said I couldnt so I made it Jackie Harris (American football)--Yankees10 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly misunderstand the whole point of sysop status. There is no 'power hunger', as such, there is simply a want to serve the community. Spamming more or less the whole self-noms RfA list purely on the basis that you think it is 'prima facie evidence of power hunger' is completely nonsensical, because if this was true then the self-nomination system wouldn't exist. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to any RFA you may want to read WP:SELFNOM. While you have a right to oppose for any reason you like, opposing for that reason alone is probably not a good idea Alexfusco⁵ 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it lots of times already, and I've never bought into it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with selfnoms? Alexfusco⁵ 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look through my talk page archives, please. This has been discussed a LOT over the last several months. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there is very strong consensus that your oppositions based solely on the status of a nomination as a self-nom, while not overtly blockable, are meritless, destructive, and hurtful. I ask again that you stop posting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please stop harassing me. Goodbye. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Can you at least supply a reason other than 'its a selfnom' when you are opposing Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "Self-nom" pretty much sums it up. Are you suggesting I lie? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No but selfnoms are allowed in the RFA process and I understand that you selfnomed yourself. So are you saying that you were power hungry in that RFA? How would you have liked it if users opposed only because it was a self nom Alexfusco⁵ 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was power hungry at the time. Would I have liked it then if people had opposed me for that reason? Probably not. Would they have been right to do so nonetheless? Of course, as I now realize. Peoples' minds change over time. Get used to it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, when he says that this has been discussed to death - believe him, it has. There is simply no point in taking it further - the disruption caused by arguing with him far outweighs any disruption caused by his vote. Avruch ^T 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that -- I know of no horse so dead, or so often beaten. --TheOtherBob 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt is entitled to his opinion, and discussion seems pointless. Let be. Dlohcierekim 05:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would not normally comment on matters such as this, I feel compelled to throw my weight (for what it's worth) behind the concerns expressed above. It very much appears that you are simply blanket-opposing all RfAs, simply because the name listed under the nomination statement is not that after "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/...". To demonstrate my argument against your oppositions, a hypothetical for you: if an editor self-nominates, and you offer up a "self nom. = power hunger" opposition; proceeding forward, a member of the Community decides to place a nomination statement on the RfA, effectively cancelling its self-nomination status. Does anything change?

That's a rhetorical question—the answer is no, it does not. As a summary, I feel strongly against your oppositions of self-nomination RfAs: there are a hundred and one more constructive activities you could take part in. Whilst I respect your opinion and, whilst I mightn't agree with it, I value your right to say it—I still feel it to be incorrect. And, judging from the numerous replies to your contributions of this nature, as well as the discussion above, so do a lot of others. AGK (contact) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree completely with Kurt's position, I see his point, and I value it (however JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country" is something I go along with). Why some users persist in considering it disrupting? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - okay! I did however fix that pro bowl thing - why do people list out all the years incorrectly?71.56.118.64 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:American-chronicle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recenly perusing the UAA board when I came across Shenoa & Company as a flag for attention. The nominator had written that the name was advertising, and you wrote, "You know this how?". If you had done either a quick google search for the name, or had checked out the user's contributions, you would have seen that it was indeed a promotional username. This was blatantly obvious with the creation of the article Shenoa & Company by said user. Next time please do not be so quick to dismiss and be snarky. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look here and here to see the thoughts left by other editors on your rather harsh way of voting on RfAs. You're comments would be valued. Thankyou, Lradrama 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerning your view that self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", are you opposing because you feel that these editors will abuse the power once they have it, or, that these editors may not abuse the power but are simply hungry for it. If it is the former, I would invite you to make an objective study of administrators' behaviour following successful RfAs (comparing self-noms with fellow-editor-noms) and see if, indeed, there is a pattern of power abuses. If it is the later, I would appreciate knowing more about the origin of your opposition. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a prod template from Gibson Southern Marching Titans stating in your edit summary "de-prod; deletionism at its worst strikes again". This is not a reasoning, and I am not a deletionist, Gibson Southern High School itself barely meets notability. In all of the three deletion requests I have commented in, I voted keep. I do not believe a High School marching band is in any way encylopedic. See WP:NOT, it qualifies under at least two of the rules. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem, as I see it. You think "notability" (which is, quite frankly, purely arbitrary) is important. I'll let you on a little secret: it's not. All that matters is verifiable existence. As for "What Wikipedia is Not", well, I totally don't buy into that at all. An encyclopedia is, by definition, an attempt to collect knowledge. Adding information furthers that purpose. I fail to see how the project is helped by removing or not adding verifiably true information.

Ultimately, I'm afraid your mindset is symptomatic of a disease that permeates a great many of the newer generation of Wikipedia editors. They can cite policy word-for-word left and right, but they don't actually "get" Wikipedia. We're here to collect and present information. We're not bound by the same constraints as other encyclopedias. Everything we do must be focused towards that end, and not towards satisfying some arcane and purely arbitrary bureaucracy. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, we should not have an article about every little thing, which includes High School Marching Bands. Maybe it could be merged, but it is very unencylopedic. WP:NOT is an official policy, not a guidline or an essay. To keep this encyclopedia running, we need rules. We are not working to collect every piece of insignificant and unimportant information. I strongly do not believe, along with most other Wikipedians, that everything that has a website should have a article about it, which is what you are saying ("Verafiable exsistance"). Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"At the same time, we should not have an article about every little thing,"

Why not? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe it could be merged, but it is very unencylopedic"

What's "unencyclopedic" about it? Frankly, can you even put any substance behind the word "unencyclopedic"?

"WP:NOT is an official policy, not a guidline or an essay."

OK, here's the crux of your problem--you think policy is normative or imperative. It's not. Frankly, I can understand why would you think otherwise--because generally, that is indeed what is meant by "policy". But since day one, the idea behind "policy" on Wikipedia has been that we are not obligated to follow it. The idea behind "policy" on Wikipedia is that it simply describes what has often happened in the past, with the understanding that we are not bound by it in future decisions at all. The choice of the word "policy" to describe these was perhaps unfortunate, and it has led to this bit of confusion in many users, including yourself and (when I was first starting out) myself as well, so I certainly sympathize with you. But please understand: we are not a tool for bureaucrats to exercise their fetishes. We are here to produce a compendium of all human knowledge. Our only obligation is to make decisions that further that end. Beyond that, we are bound by no "rules", no "policies", nothing at all but our own individual judgment, in each situation, taken separately. Removing information absolutely works against the goal of compiling all human knowledge.

"To keep this encyclopedia running, we need rules."

See above.

"We are not working to collect every piece of insignificant and unimportant information."

What makes information "insignificant" and "unimportant"? Frankly, why should that even be a relevant criterion anyway? Why are we obligated to only focus on areas that certain people--however numerous they may be--find worthwhile? Ultimately, how does having an article on a high school marching band work against the goal of compiling all of human knowledge, and how does removing that article further that goal? These are the only relevant issues. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is not to compile every little piece of human knowledge. Anyway, I give up. Looking at your talk page, you seem to know everything there is about Wikipedia, and you are always right. I would love to take a stand for actually having some sort of order on Wikipedia. Looking at your talk page, if someone irritates you, you would probably just block them. So, I GIVE UP. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Our goal is not to compile every little piece of human knowledge."

I reject that statement. The goal of an encyclopedia is to do just that.

"I would love to take a stand for actually having some sort of order on Wikipedia."

The problem comes when that order comes in the way of getting the job done. If it makes it more chaotic, so be it. If you want bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, the Democrats are right across the hall. They love that kind of stuff :D

"Looking at your talk page, if someone irritates you, you would probably just block them."

How? I'm not an admin. Furthermore, I wouldn't anyway; doing so is just patently absurd. Incidentally, you don't irritate me; you're just wrong (as you undoubtedly believe I am), and if I didn't think highly of your abilities and intellectual honesty I wouldn't bother arguing with you, as it would be a waste of time--I'd just ignore you altogether.

Ultimately, I'm rather dismayed that you're taking what should be an honest disagreement over the proper role of the project so personally. Yes, I believe you are misguided, and I'm pointing out as much, but that's hardly meant as a personal criticism, and I would have hoped you would have seen it that way. I can respect someone who disagrees with me and engages in polite, intense discussion. Neither I nor almost anyone else can respect someone who just gives up in the face of honest criticism of one's actions and ideas. I had hoped you were better than that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I overreacted, I was just gradually getting irritated with all of Wikipedia. I thought you were an admin beacuse of all of your contributions to RFAs. Sorry, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't sweat it...it happens. It's like I tell my band kids--all getting upset means is that you care. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a comment in reply to your oppose at the above Request for Adminship, your response to which I would be interested in. If you could find the time to pop by, that'd be great. AGK (contact) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see above. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would call your comments on the AfD uncalled for and misguided, insofar as someone's review of a book that includes silly sexual puns qualifies as "hard work". Doing research on a book about vaginal fisting does not constitute a valid use of my own time, nor do I see it as something that would "expand my horizons". Please take more care to veil your insults more thoroughly next time. JuJube (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think I was insulting you. If you're not interested in rewriting the article, fine--but I still fail to see how you could support deletion when you yourself said that it was a perfectly legitimate subject for an article, and the only problem was with HOW it was written. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kmweber. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not posting this to your Talk page when I first posted to ANI, I was heading out the door and it hit me as I was getting nto the car that I hadn't notified you. Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear Kmweber : many thanks to start the support debate for my article moscow , you have rightly stated that im a new article writer and an inexperienced member , i pledge to improve my work .

moreover i wish to request you to kindly guide me to get a copy of my other article TF Quasar International that was deleted instantly after an notice was sent to my talk page , i was not even given some time to edit or reverse my article , had i been warned or asked i sure would have done the needful . and i assure you that if the copy is given i would carefully edit it or reverse it according to encyclopedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and contact one of the people there. Good luck! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurt. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your talk page for articles in need of rescue, please note that there is a project and category for this already. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I also recommend skimming the daily AFD log towards the end of the day and looking for anything that catches your eye. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with your stance on self-noms for admin status. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of their premises is that there is such a thing as a non-encyclopedic topic, when in fact there isn't. Everything is appropriate for coverage. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage. I think this can be an effective concept for getting the word out about AFDs that need attention, without actually canvassing. You can change that subpage (e.g. to notify the community of new AFDs), and everywhere it's transcluded will reflect that change, so it can be advertised all over Wikipedia. Awesome! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not transcluding, but I am following what you put on your list, through Mbstpo's transclusion. I'm not willing to intervene in all AfDs, based on the ancient principle of "How important is it?" However, I may comment in most. You should eliminate closed AfDs from your list, promptly, or authorize others to do so (do so specifically, not as a general permission to the whole community, I'd recommend), and I'd suggest that where there is a reasonable hope that deletion would be reversed, going to Deletion Review and list the review on your AfD page. Please don't do that for every deletion, I'll stop watching. Do it, though, in particular, where there were substantial and substantive keep votes from others, not merely the generic ones of your good self and Mbstpo. It looks to me like we are now seeing some closings from deletionist administrators, and, quite properly, they should expect review when they ignore substantial community opinion. Deletion should be by "consensus," Keep should actually be the presumption, requiring consensus to overturn, unless policy is clear. Which it practically never is with notability.

By the way, you may wish to watch User:Abd/Notices. This will usually not be about specific AfDs or MfDs, except occasionally, but more about overall policy and events worthy of notice, in my opinion. Such as attempts or threats to block users who assert their rights within policy, or proposed changes to policy that either threaten the legitimate freedom of Wikipedia editors, on the one hand, or that, on the other hand, improve and better guarantee these freedoms and apply them to the welfare of the project.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a part of WikiProject Indianapolis? Basketball110 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Schroeder on IRC? Lara❤Love 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...why the hell is everyone asking about this all of the sudden? I'm confused... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]