User talk:Erpert/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mind if you cool your Delete button a bit?

Hmm.. at a prefunctionary glance at your contributions it seems you havent added much content beyond AfD tags
and such related discussions.
Mind if you cool your Delete button for few fortnights?
Excessive AfD is as community damaging as vandalism and revert wars are.
Kind regards --Zarutian (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? I'm not acting in bad faith or anything. I have a busy life, so sometimes AfDs are all I have time to do. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Recommend you re-read this section. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Still not bad faith. Now, please leave me alone. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Buckeye Barbeque Qlub

  • Erpert, why is there a link to my twitter account being the reason for the information about the Buckeye Barbeque Qlub being taken down?
I did not provide any bias opinions about the student organization.
Feel free to fill me in. I was trying to make this page to create an informational page about the organization.
Benjamindwallace (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Your Twitter account states that you are president of the club, and Wikipedia discourages editors to write about articles in which they are personally involved. Please read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate"

Hello, Recently, you listed the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate" for deletion. You said that the school she works at was "baulkham", however, it is "baulkham hills high school". A Google search for the school returned 18,800 results, and a search for "dr jeanne bathgate" returned 291,000 results. If possible, could you please reconsider your deletion listing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAHSsucks (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Billie Jean black sequin jacket article by DinhoGauch10

Hello,

I understand what you mean, and I apologize very much, but I am not a fan writing the article. I am merely familiar on the subject. I went through and made more accurate sources, but none of my sources go to a main page, except to show the newspaper and story.

I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean by zero notability. We are talking about a superstar whose career began with the song Billie Jean, his black sequin jacket and white single decorated glove. Those are iconic, significant and culturally important, says our government. The album Thriller is considered culturally revolutionizing, and that is mainly because of Billie Jean and his attire during his Motown 25 appearance. Michael has always been a fashion icon, and now for the This is it, he was making a fashion comeback. Since Motown 25 he has always worn his black sequin jacket, white glove and moonwalked for the song Billie Jean. Those are all significant. There is a Billie Jean page, a Motown 25 page, and a moonwalk page. How can there not be a Billie Jean black sequin jacket page?

The video I use in the article is in the wiki commons, and used on the Moonwalk wiki page. I use it, because it is currently the only FREE picture/video showing Michael Jackson in his black sequin jacket. As for the other picture, it looks better than no picture, and I do mention it is not the Billie Jean jacket, so I really do not understand what you are referring to there as well.

The article is not bias by any means, and is absolutely significant, as it is the jacket he wore for every performance of his biggest song Billie Jean. I feel that I have done a very good job establishing the facts of the jackets significance.

I have filled the article with nothing but absolute truth, backed up by news articles, actual quotes, and newspaper sources. I have altered some sources to make it much more accurate and blog free, I do apologize very much for the use of the blogs and have removed them entirely!

It is my goal to get the article approved with wiki guidelines. I hope I have made the appropriate alterations.

Thank You for your time.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|DinhoGauch10 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by DinhoGauch10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Pete Kettlewell"

You have flagged the article on Peter Kettlewell for deletion. You say he is non-notable and you say that Google does not turn anything up on him. You mentioned his credit on imdb, however, Mr. Kettlewell was not the man in question, as he has never worked on the show "Titans". Either this is another Peter Kettlewell in question or the imdb page is wrong. In fact, this Wikipedia page is just part of the process I have undergone to make the Holmes Group more widely-known. (An imdb page is in the works.) One look at the article I have written will show that he is not non-notable, in fact, he has had one of the most successful television careers in Canada. You may or may not be aware of this, but it is a difficult thing to do. As a producer for the highest rated program in the history of HGTV and as a Vice President for a company that makes millions every year, he is more than notable in the television and business fields in Canada. The reason for the lack of information about him is only due to work/ business items that outweighed the appropriate time to publish the article. Also, you said he was only nominated for a Gemini once, when he has won before. [1]

For these reasons, your lack of information on the subject makes you incapable of deeming this article non-notable. Please remove your deletion warning immediately. If you have any suggestions to making the article more Wikipedia friendly, I am completely open.

—Preceding 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)|unsigned]] comment added by SpencerJamesK (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I think maybe you should read WP:CIVIL and WP:DR because this isn't the best way to talk to people on Wikipedia. Anyway, I read the link you posted, and although it appears that he did indeed win, I still don't know if he's 100% notable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I was hoping we could have a discussion about the validity of this article's existence, but you have responded with no legitimate arguments. So I will just have to make my arguments better. Despite what you, again, "believe", I simply ask if you consider Mike Holmes is non-notable. If you think Holmes is notable, look at the facts: Peter Kettlewell has been an active part of the show since the very first season. Also, Kettlewell was written up in Report on Small Business Magazine which is included with The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper. [2] As you stated referring to ANYBIO, he should be included seeing as he is a winner of the only TV Award for Canadian television and it is one of the biggest awards in Canada. (Think the Emmys). I'm sure you would consider an Emmy award winner a valid entry for Wikipedia, would you not? Also, as I have said before, his profiles on imdb and a variety of other websites are in the process. If you want to talk like adults, lets talk like adults. Also, take a look at his TV page, and you tell me what's non-notable about these credits: [3] To avoid further confusion, I will now be chaning the article's title to "Pete Kettlewell" as a search for Pete instead of Peter comes up with more results. Also, see Holmes on Homes and Holmes Inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerJamesK (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "His Holiness Ramesh Baba ji"

Ramesh Babaji meets the criterion of "Creative professionals." He has extensively spoken on the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavatam [4] and Bhagavad Gita[5]. He is considered a renunciant because he has made available all his wisdom to those having interest at no cost [6]. Not many people in the world would have the courage to do that. He has single handedly inspired an effort to protect more than 10,000 stay cows from slaughter. He is inspiring a devotional movement among thousands and thousands of villagers of Brij Dham and now all around the world. He is also inspiring protection of thousands of acres of land from illegal mining.

These are among many reason why he should be considered a "creative professional" working towards the cause of protecting highly neglected environment in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination for the deletion of the article "Harihar ji Maharaj"

I am surprised that you have recommended this article for deletion. While other articles on much lesser known and prominent personalities exist. Guru Harihar ji Maharaj is treeted with great respect among his followers as the founder of Geeta Ashrams across the world, and Geeta Dham in India. A long list of names of world wide Geeta Ashrams is given at the end of the article. In addition, a long history of Harihar ji Maharaj's associations with leading political figures of Indian freedom movement is also given. The list of trustees of Geeta Dham is also provided as a reference to the article. If you visit many of the sites that are linked to the article, you will find the picture of Hariharji Maharaj as the leading figure for the particular Geeta Ashram, accepted even more than eight years after his death. The fact that an individual is being treated with respect more than eight years after his death is a testimonial to the respect he commands world wide.

It is because of establishing Geeta Dham, and sacrificing his life to preserve the spiritual philosophy of Bhagavad Gita [7] Harihar ji Maharaj should be considered a creative professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeta.mandir (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • For the first article, the first link you posted doesn't mention his name at all, the second link is to Wikipedia itself, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and the third link is just a trivial mention of him followed by some video files. (The second article has the same Wikipedia backlink problem.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Member

Hello,

I apologize for not using the sandbox mode, actually I thought that I was. I was just familiarizing myself with the process.

I have used Wikipedia for years and I would really like to become involved with the community. Thank you for the suggested reading I will be sure to make that my next priority.

If you have any other suggestions I would love to hear them. I want to help in any way that is needed. Safe guarding knowledge is a civic duty that has been an integral part of civilization from the very first written word. In fact it could be argued that it is one of the driving forces in it's development.

Thank you for your insight and suggestions. I look forward to "speaking" with you in the future.

Jason Breithaupt JTs Services (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Reubedan

Hello Erpert, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Reubedan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I couldn't really tell if it was vandalism, but it was definitely nonsense to me. But thanks. :) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Edgecombe

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist.

I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. He will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down. All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't propose this deletion; I simply agree with it. And why are you posting this on everyone's talk page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I was advised that you proposed this deletion.
    • Your suggestion that two of the products mentioned were hoaxes will come as a surprise to both E-on and RWE together with other power generators who have purchased hundreds of thousands of tonnes over the last 5 years. If you want to act as the worlds policeman then I suggest you get your facts right. If this is the standard of information from Wikipedia then effectively all information published must be considered suspect and at the mercy of self appointed ill informed amateurs who want to pontificate on subjects they know nothing about.Geekiep (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, you were advised wrong. And I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Regardless of how well you know Mr. Edgecombe, all information on here has to be verifiable. (Personal attacks won't get you anywhere either.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I was advised by one of Wikipedias other self appointed monitors that you proposed the deletion. I think I am begining to understand exactly how Wikipedia works. It seems to exist as a vehicle to massage the egos of various non entities with little regard for what is useful, interesting or of note. Get yourself some sort of entry on Google and whatever dross you come up with is considered gospel. So called verifiable information seems to rely entirely on Google. In the case of Edgecombe and many like him, such detailed information is either classified or subject to commercial secrecy agreements. But, hey ho if all you want to read about is fiddle players and the like then Wikipedia is your goal. Do what you wish, I'm sure Chris will be quite happy to be rid of the lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
          • "Self-appointed monitors"? What does that even mean? You seem to have no regard for WP:CIVIL oe WP:NPA, and your previous comment also proves to me that you think WP:USEFUL is enough to keep an article om Wikipedia. But I'm tired of your complaints, so stay off my talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Self appointed monitors" - now take a wild guess what this means. Just for your edification I would suggest "self appointed" means someone who takes it on themselves to act in a capacity not asked for by others. "monitors" means a person who edits information by their own rules. I would suggest that you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I have made no personal attacks on you. You may well identify yourself from certain general comments made, but that would be your interpretation. WP:USEFUL is very much a matter of opinion - I don't find you useful but I'm sure someone, somewhere must find you useful.Geekiep (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that you can't stand up for yourself and justify your libellous allegations that Edgecombe and I are perpetrators of some strange hoax and are liars WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If your only action is to threaten to run to teacher and have me banned then you don't deserve to remain in any position of authority. The only thing you base your scandalous allegations on is a lack of a Google entry, which any industrial chemist worth his salt will avoid like the plague. I have been reading up on your record and find that scurrilous accusations without any form of real research or justification is your style. You, sir, are a disgrace.Geekiep (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg D. Barnes

  • Here's Insult #2. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
    • That's not an insult. I said the COMMENT was ignorant. Not "Sugar Bear is ignorant."--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Why are y'all debating this on my talk page? (BTW, Greg, that's still an insult.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Well I intend not to mess up your page, but Mr. Sugar Bear keeps tattling on me! Have a good day!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
          • How is calling someone's comment "ignorant" considered a personal attack? Just curious.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
            • If you call the comment ignorant, it might not be. If you call him ignorant, it is. I was under the impression that you called the contributor ignorant. If you didn't, I apologize. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
              • No, no, no, no, I never called HIM ignorant, It was simply directly to his comments concerning me being another user (over and over again).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Skylar Thomson article

I'm sorry there were no direct copyrights for the picture, I've put them with 'Sources' now. It was a little difficult because Skylar sent me the picture herself. So I guess the picture belongs to the one who took it and to Skylar as it belongs to her photo shoot. (Names of all the persons are on the page now.)

About the google results; maybe you should check out this website as well : www.crossoverentertainment.com

Looking forward to any other things I should add to the page so it won't be deleted.

kind regards Equestrian jumper (talk)

Thanks for Damage move

  • Hi Erpert. I'd like to thank you for moving/renaming the Damage (2001 novel) page to its current space. I guided another user to create it with the incorrect name Damage (young adult novel). Thanks again for your help. It does not go unappreciated. Roseclearfield (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

  • Referencing me to the activism page doesn't sway me. The article is largely unsourced and unsupported and frankly, lacks depth. If we look at the dictionary definition of activism it says "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause." The Theron article shows that she once told a TV celebrity show that she and longtime boyfriend Stuart Townsend would not wed until gay marriage is legal in the U.S. That doesn't reflect an active involvement in that topic. A statement in an interview does not impart active involvement in working for a cause. In comparison, when you compare it to the actual Activist section of her article, she has actively been involved in women's rights organizations and marched for abortion rights, animal rights and involvement in PETA, and various involvement in organizations regarding South Africa. That qualifies as actively supporting those causes, vs. a statement in an interview. That is why I don't feel she should be categorized as active in LBGT rights. It's true that there is no wide definition of what that means, but I somehow feel that saying something in an interview isn't the same as actively involving oneself in what is basically a political/rights movement. The article just doesn't support that inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • This is exactly what I'm talking about. You somehow don't feel that saying something in an interview...etc. If there is no consensus either way, any person can very well challenge your opinion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, looking at your talk page, it appears that you have a history of edit-warring and were even blocked for it. You might want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, I started a thread on Talk:Charlize Theron about this. And for the rest of your comment, comment on contributions, not on the contributor. I made no comments on my perception of you, and you are in no position to draw assumptions based on discussion on my talk page, thank you very much. I was not blocked for edit warring, I was blocked for correcting an error supported by references that was done by another editor with whom an "interaction ban" was in place, and all editors involved in that discussion agreed that the actual edit I made was correct. Shortly after that, the other editor was banned for a year for personal attacks, which was part and parcel of why I had issues with that other editor. In fact, I have never been blocked for edit-warring. You don't know what you're talking about. You might want to read WP:CIVIL. Then go elsewhere than the Wikipedia article and investigate what actual activists do, rather than try to connect a statement on a celebrity news show to actual activism. They are nowhere in the same universe. I have challenged your perception of what makes someone an activist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I apologize for the misunderstanding of the block as well as not seeing the thread you started. But answer me this: how am I being uncivil? Because I disagree with you? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
          • No, my comment was because you assumed I was a prolific edit-warrior and had been blocked for that. I make thousands of good edits on Wikipedia and have completed a featured article, a featured list and four good articles. I'm not a hack. Basically, it was about commenting on me, and not the issue. Thank you for apologizing. That is a rarity around here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
            • She's also been blocked for sock puppetry.—Chowbok ☠ 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting de facto lies, Chowbok. I do deny it and submitted proof that I am not the same person. In fact, the lie comes from your assertion that the sock also denied it. She posted a mea culpa on her talk page and admitted to the actions. Your bad habit of stalking my edits and posting things such as this is actually actionable as far as spreading personal attacks and the wikistalking. That you tried to assert that various editors in good standing are also socks of mine simply shows your bad faith bias. Please stop stalking me and trying to smear me at every turn. You are garnering no fans by doing this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Do me a favor. If you two are planning to continue this argument, please do not do it on my talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't continuing an argument, however when someone follows me from page to page to post attacks about me and perpetuate falsehoods, I feel it necessary to respond. Did you notify the attacking editor here as well, or just me? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Didn't you notice where I said "you two"? Please stop. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

otheruses3 ==> otheruses

Please do not use {{otheruses3}}. It redirects to {{otheruses}}.174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Dane

I wanted to say that I am sorry for second-guessing you and declining the speedy deletion tag you placed on the above-captioned article. I have to say that the article that you saw that I assessed was very borderline, and I might have tagged it myself. I was sufficiently curious to do a little research, make some edits and add a couple of citations; I believe it now does meet notability standards. If you feel strongly about this, I'm certainly at your service; if you cared to contribute to the article, it could certainly use some work to balance the self-promotional aspect. By the way, if you wanted to take the article to an articles for deletion process, I would not be upset in the slightest; I am still thinking that this individual is more notorious than notable and it may well be that getting the community to contribute to an AfD would be a very useful idea. I will look forward to any comments you care to make. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Emily Wright

Hello Erpert,

Emily Wright is one of the first women engineers to break out in this male driven industry. She has engineered seven #1 records (possibly more, still looking into it) in the past 2 years. More than any other women has ever had in the business. Personally I think that is quite notable!.

I pressed publish by mistake before I got to the references for her engineering work. All 3 of the references listed in her background are noting her previous career. But there are at least 10-15 wikipedia articles where she is credited as a recording engineer and many google reference.

I think it is an incredibly common name therefore her credits do not jump to the top.

Please reconsider your call for deletion.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin12345678 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GOST 7396

GOST 7396 descript some types of plugs and sockets: from A to G, and Type I. They have only one special type of plug: type C1 in GOST 7396 therms. It is ungrounded plug with round base, that named in article "AC power plugs and sockets" as a "soviet plug". That have not a grounded plug with 4mm pins. See source. And in russian wikipedia this article was deleted.

At end: excuse me for my english :)Tucvbif (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

but maybe just I must to nominate this article for deletion.Tucvbif (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination to delete Jeniva

Information should be gathered before the band has an article. Please read WP:BAND. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Enough information has now been provided on the page. If there is anything else needed on the page, tell me and I can add it. Two members from the band Jeniva are currently in a famous Japanese band, Matenrou Opera, that has just signed with a major music label (King Records (Japan)). The Jeniva page is needed to provide further information on Matenrou Opera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzi123 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination to delete Arnie Bong Fernandez Arquiza

As of the moment, I don't find your nomination substantial. In the Philippines, Bong Arquiza is indeed famous. The reference books stated in his page can be found in the national library of our country. You may visit it for purposes of verification. And in line with his notability, you may google his name and you'll see the number of search results you will find. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.114.232 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arquiza

I've restored your nomination to its original wording following vandalism by 112.202.114.232. I've also posted a warning to SpAs and IP users. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

MK5384

Whilst you're more than welcome at my talk page, WP:DTTR. Conversations will be answered. Further templates will be summarily removed without being read. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The "made-up" tag you put on Tharks

I was wondering what you believe might be made up in this article. The Tharks are mentioned in Burroughs' Mars novels as you can see in the product description here on Amazon.com and in the cast list of Princess of Mars at IMDb. I know some of what's described in the article sounds way out there, but that's exactly what the Mars stories are like. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your "madeup" tag, because the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels do exist (and a film is in preparation) and do feature Tharks. The article has problems, but it isn't a hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Toledo High School (Washington)

  • have u ever been to toledo high school in washington its a total joke and everything i wrote about it is 100% true so please let me post what i had to say about it thank you for taking the time to read this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjathy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I haven't, but Wikipedia is not a place where you can write articles about your personal opinions, especially defamatory ones. Please read WP:NOTBLOG and especially WP:ATTACK. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Land

In addressing the nominator's good faith concerns, the article has now been edited, cleaned up, and sourced, and contains no original research. I believe this Walt Disney produced classic short from early animation history now meets WP:NF and merits an article on Wikipedia. I invite you to revisit Music Land and offer suggestions toward further improvement. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citra-Solv, LLC

  • I perfectly understand the copyright infringement questioning, but I created that page on http://www.alice.com/products/1263272 for the company. When I wrote the newspaper article, they asked me to give that website the rights and I allowed it. These were originally my words.Mtsnow123 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you have to be able to prove it. Please read WP:PERMISSIONS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I am just going to rewrite the article right now because my editor is on vacation and I can not receive the proper documentation. Please do not speedy delete right now. Give me 30 minutes. Thank You! Mtsnow123 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Nevermind, someone already deleted. Thank you anyway for letting me know about the copyright infringement. Mtsnow123 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Can I delete the copyright infringement post on my talk page now since the page has already been deleted? Mtsnow123 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
            • You don't need permission to delete things on your talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monty Munford

Your nomination was a good one... catching obvious COI of a meager little stub. However, my own research finds that although Monty seems rather too proud of his brief acting career, he has greater WP:GNG notability for other hings. I will be giving the article a major face-lift later today to change its focus and improve its sourcing. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Inre THIS. We do what we can :). Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your help in showing me what criteria are flagging this for speedy deletion

I'm new to wikipedia and trying to follow all the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HARD EVENTS (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Girish komaragunta

  • Can the speedy deletion tag be removed from the page? I was advised by an admin on a previous page like this page created by a different editor that rather than tagging it for speedy deletion, to move it to the creators user page, which I have done now. Tomdresser27 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Never thought of that. But you don't need my permission to do that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I just thought it was better to check, I'm still new to editing wikipedia and everything, so I check things before I do them if I'm not sure, I don't want to get into trouble for doing any rule breaks. I'll remember that for next time :) Tomdresser27 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Math

Hey, this is the user, kfdwiki. I heard of the deletion of my page, Rainbow Math, and I don't understand why this isn't notable. I made sure it was notable and honest, and I deleted the "non-notable" Podcast section (I understand that.) What I don't understand is why this page is going under? Maybe the page could use some freshening up, but that's what we are all here for. If there is a reason for deletion that I haven't been informed about, I would like to know. ~ kfdwiki ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfdwiki (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
How is this not notable? I made sure it was. It's as serious as I can get. Kfdwiki (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)kfdwiki

David Mccaskill Elliott

I'm also researching an AfD on David Mccaskill Elliott
He goes by Dave. Search for Dave on Google and you'll find hits.--mboverload@ 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Peeping Tom

Greetings Erpert - am slightly surprised at the speed with which deleted Peeping Tom (theatre company). The AfD had been up for less than 24hrs and, apart from my two comments, there were no deletes (or keeps, for that matter) but that doesn't mean consensus was reached. Appropriate non-admin closures is clear on the cases it covers and you seem to have been a bit eager to close this one. As you can see from my contribs., I'm all for speedy deleting, but this was a borderline case and deserved closer attention. Looking forward to your feedback, cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

About Rivulets

That's fine. I probably shouldn't have added it after you already PRODded it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vril (2010 Film)

A "POV film" is one that handles the entire action from the perspective of the actor or actors. We will never see an overall wide shot unless the wide is itself a perspective of one of the actors. Think Blair Witch Project... a perfect example. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Show

I added new references. The album is on amazon and billboard, and this band is very important. they just recently played the O2 Arena, also played by Kelly Clarkson and Hole. They have also been mentioned in publications such as Jersey Beat and Village Voice. Although they are still an indie band, they have many radio stations internationally that have the Show in consistant rotation. The album has sold over 30,000 copies, and still is selling consistently. The Show are going to be huge pretty soon, so their wiki has to come now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CjsRoxMySox (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen James Ocha

  • Thank you for closing this. Someday, you can become a sysop and mop up even more messes. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Esther

Aunt Esther is awesome, that's what she had to do with the discussion. :) Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Cat meat

Thanks. I read it and commented. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, sorry to open a can of worms. For the record, I like the redirects, hate the hatnotes. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the AFD close, on article, Oksana Grigorieva. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please see WP:ANI, regarding above diff to Cat meat. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased

  • Hello! an editor is trying to remove the afd notice from the Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased article. I had to revert his edits several times, can you please help me with this? Thank U! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 19:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't delete anything! Stop trying to make this world Boring Town or Dullsville! (djtechno95 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtechno95 (talk • contribs)
      • Knock it off or I'm reporting you, djtechno95. And take time to actually read some of the guidelines on here. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I've gone ahead and reported to AIV. He keeps removing other people's comments on talk pages, and warnings placed on his talk page. --Fbifriday (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hey, Erpert, just a quick procedural note. You recently performed several speedy non-admin closures at AfD. Here's one to help you remember. I don't have a problem with the closures, but this was an inappropriate NAC because speedy keep didn't apply to these cases, and they were closed too early. Please review Wikipedia:Speedy keep if you need to.

If the nominator does not understand deletion process, you should assume good faith, contact the nominator to make the error known to them and ask if they will withdraw the nomination, allowing a speedy keep. This is better than assuming they don't know what they're doing and closing the discussion. SwarmTalk 21:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I did contact the nominator. (I even said that's what I was going to do in that AfD's closing comments.) And that was another editor suggesting the nominator didn't know whats/he was doing, not me. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand; the point is simply that the speedy keep was incorrect.
    • If the nominator didn't understand the process, you may be able to get them to withdraw the nomination, allowing a speedy keep. In other words, you can speedy keep based on the withdrawal, not based on the fact that you don't think they understand deletion process. I'm leaving this message just in case you're not entirely familiar with what the exact speedy delete guidelines are. Regards, SwarmTalk 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The nominator doesn't have to withdraw it in order for a speedy keep; check out #2 in this section, which was met. Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
        • FWIW now, it Speedy #2 did not apply, I think you may have misinterpreted it... SwarmTalk 06:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Why are you revisiting this? This was a month ago. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm simply responding, as I'm seeing complaints on your talk page regarding your deletion-related actions from here all the way up to a few days ago. This obviously isn't an isolated incident. By "I think you may have misinterpreted it", I meant, "You misinterpreted it". NACs should be 100 percent uncontroversial, so please be sure that any early closures are. Thank you. SwarmTalk 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

UNITED KINGDOM RADIO

  • the station talks about the most fascinating of topics. the united kingdom has no station like it and the name is unique to a station. all topics are useful and has listeners all around the globe who also finds it interesting. most topics are talked about as if the presenters are encyclopaedia so i think it is totally relevant for the station to be on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.64.249 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: AFD Nomination

Sorry, I misread the page history and mistook the change for vandalism. My bad. C1k3 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Torres effect

Hello Erpert, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Torres effect, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —fetch·comms 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Patent nonsense is "sihfah asfsihs hgif ahsgs vfshaqgi" or "mango blue television scream tennis sailboat", so if it's comprehensible English, it's cannot be tagged as such. —fetch·comms 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scouthut Cricket

  • I can understand your reasoning for wanting to delete this article but scouthut cricket has been a tradition on the Isle of Wight for a long time and it would be nice to find an article about it.

Thanks Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobjackman (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor (singer)

  • Hi Erpert. As much as I appreciate your idea in closing this, I felt I needed to revert your close to this discussion. At AfD, the longstanding practice is that someone who has not participated in the discussion must close it. Thanks for understanding... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I just read WP:NOTEARLY. It would be nice if that aspect was included in WP:SPEEDYKEEP too, though. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What sometimes happens is that the nominator, and anyone who has recommended "delete", will return to the discussion after sources have been added, and change their recommendation to "keep". In a situation like that, when there are no remaining "delete"s, then WP:SPEEDYKEEP applies. Sometimes they'll come back and say, "I've seen the added sources and they don't convince me." When the "delete" !voters are silent, we don't really know if they've seen the sources and are happy with the article staying or not. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Visual Analytics for Enterprise Business Intelligence

  • Why remove the db-spam tag? It's pretty clearly just trying to promote something and a speedy can handle it without the tediousness of an AFD. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If you read it, it really seems to be more of an essay, and unfortunately there isn't a speedy criterion for essays. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I did read it. Once you get past the marketing-babble, it's promoting a "graphical representation of data and information." 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Our objective was not to be "spammy" but to educate on the use of visual analytics in the business intelligence space. Would appreciate comments on how to re-write the article. New to this and looking for input. (OcuCue (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
And WP:COI. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure

I don't do a lot of AfD, although I used to. It's just that the timing was really suspect. That article was nominated by a user with no prior edits soon after I'd blocked an abusive sockpuppet who'd vandalized that same page and who'd named himself after it. No shortage of weirdos on the interwebs. So, invoking WP:IGNORE as an excuse, I closed the discussion.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Ontario universities by average entering grade

Hello,

Thank you for bringing it this to my attention. It was my mistake for posting this article twice. You're free to delete the article List of Ontario Universities by Average Entrance Grade, but please leave on the List of Ontario universities by average entering grade article. The reason why there is not sufficient explanatory text is that I was not done writing the article.

Thank you, Rob

Rob_g81 (talk) 3:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania

  • Why did you close the debate so early ? there were two delete votes ! Nefesf9 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was a little confused by Active Banana's comments. The way s/he was talking made it hard to tell which side s/he was on. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • can you open the discussion again ? Nefesf9 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Have Secrets But Nobody Cares

  • Hi Erpert. I know it's going to sound like I'm a bit nitpicky, but this is another one that does not actually meet the criteria of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. The better way to have gone here, would be to go to User:Koavf's talk page and ask him if he would consider withdrawing the nomination. If he withdraws it, then the discussion would qualify for a "speedy keep". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it does. We should agree to disagree on this. Have a good day. :) Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing AfDs

  • What was that[8][9] all about?? Both AfDs are still open, but you collapsed their entire contents, starting with the nomination and ending with the last !vote. Courtesy blanking is sometimes done after an AfD has been closed, but collapsing an entire AfD while it is still in progress is inappropriate. I reverted both of those edits. Nsk92 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I collapsed them because they were too long. Collapsing and closing are not the same thing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, nowhere on WP:AFD does it say you cannot do that to an open discussion, I've seen users to that on WP:ANI all the time. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Collapsing is basically done in one of the following two cases: 1) if a particular thread is already closed (e.g. at WP:DRV they do that with all closed cases) or, more frequently, 2) to collapse a potion of a particular thread that gets too far off topic. In an open AfD it is sometimes appropriate to collapse a portion of the AfD if that portion got too far off topic (particularly, say, in the direction of incivility). However, collapsing an entire open AfD is never appropriate and defeats the purpose of collapsing, which is to remove from immediate view some off-topic portion. If the AfD is still open, users still need to comment and/or !vote in it; if the entire AfD is collapsed, they would have to open the collapse box and view the entire thing anyway. If you don't trust my explanation, you can inquire at WT:AFD and/or at WP:AN, but I assure you that I am correct. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Are you? Didn't I just point out to you that nowhere in WP:AFD does it say you can't do that? And people can still edit something that's collapsed. I do see where you're coming from; I just don't agree. And don't say you're correct when you don't have the guidelines to back your statements up. The guidelines you cited don't even mention those things. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Look, if you don't believe me, ask at WT:AFD. The guidelines do not and cannot mention every conceivable situation. That is what common sense and common practice are for. By the way, what I told you about collapsing applies not only to AFDs but to all kinds of discussions, including talk pages, RfAs, discussions at AN/I, etc. You simply misinterpreted what you saw when you said that " I've seen users to that on WP:ANI all the time". I suggest that you conduct the following experiment. Look at a bunch of AN/I archives and see examples of where something was collapsed. You'll find that it is only done to collapse portions of some threads in cases these portions get too far off topic or too heated (and, in rare cases, to collapse an entire thread after it has been closed). Collapsing is not done simply because a particular thread has gotten too long. In those cases people introduce a section header called "arbitrary section break" or something similar. Collapsing is done to hide from immediate view less relevant material.Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Ever heard of WP:AGF? Now, go away. Erpert (let's talk about it) 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
              • AGF is what you should apply to my comments; I am not trying to badger you, I am trying to help you. I'll respect your wishes and will not make any further posts to this thread, but I do recommend that you at least post a question about collapsing at one of the pages that I mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth W Brown

  • Hi. Just wondering what factors you used in determining this article should not be speedily deleted? What credible assertion of notability has been made? What verifiability exists? Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have found that speedy deletion requests for people with questionable notability are denied if some notability is asserted, whether credible or not. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Turns out the article was speedily deleted anyway. Always pays to try CSD in a situation like this. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deviant Sound Records

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Restoration has now been requested at WP:REFUND#Deviant Sound Records, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have undeleted it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeping Pace with Multiple Miracles

  • This Is The Only Good Page That I Have Done And I Dont Want It To Be Deleted
ElvisPresley1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElvisPresley1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination to delete Alexander (Alec) Hill

  • As all Parachurch leaders were invited to post their information on Wikipedia, I followed the format for Jerry White (Navigators) that was already posted. Not sure what I need to do differently? Thanks. DaisyMae2005 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm really confused. This is my first time trying to post something and I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyMae2005 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

INPORTANT

You Know What I Dont Have To Listen To You I Worked Hard And My Creative Skills Are GOOD !

ElvisPresley1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElvisPresley1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Now, go away. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD close on Runaway (Cabot novel)

Hegedus

  • Thanks for fixing this up for me - I hadn't come across that kind of situation before and wasn't sure whether as straight speedy was allowed. Frickeg (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts about my article HomeFinder Channel 100 - Major ReWrite

Please see my major re-write of article at HomeFinder Channel 100 and let me know if changes eliminate objections?

Thanks for your help.

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of List of windows protocol handlers

  • I saw you cleared this article, and I understand your point. But try to look for information about the about protocol handler, or about the dvd or tv one. That's why I thought a simple page giving that information would be of some kind of value. It may act as a redirect to the relevant page, and maybe provide some background information about what these protocol handlers are used for. --Gzorg (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If you think the article should stay, you should look for information. Right now, it doesn't appear notable on it's on, so I am going to revert the redirect. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Hello Erpert. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding John Wadsworth (songwriter), that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 18:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I understand that, but that's a suggestion, not a guideline. I can't possibly be the only editor that does this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank Novosel

I appreciate your closing of the Frank Novosel AfD. It should be noted however that I did not nominate it for deletion because I no longer like the article - I do like it, don't get me wrong. I nominated it because I felt it did not meet the notability guidelines set forth by those at Wikipedia.Alex (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT?

Please, do not suggest WP:POINT. I know full well what it is and I am not nominating anything because I am trying to make a point. I am nominating things as an attempt to clean up the trivial articles on Wikipedia that have historically been deleted en masse in the past. Those who should be looking up WP:POINT are the ones who vote "keep" just to make the point that they don't want me doing the AfDs. Yes, I created the articles, but that was before I was fully aware of what might or might not be considered notable on Wikipedia. Hence, I have nominated these for deletion to save -random editor- the time of doing himself.Alex (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz, The Great and Powerful

We have only three sourced sentences to consider, so how about a merge to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Film adaptations? --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Childnet

  • In what way do you think it fails the non-notable criteria for organizations? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't appear blatant. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, it wasn't speedied as spam, it was done so as a non-notable organization. Nothing need be "blatant" about that criteria. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure

  • Your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro) was inappropriate. Please review WP:NAC before performing non-admin closures on any other AfD's. I'm not going to revert your close or take it to DRV because it's clear it was going to close as keep anyway, but WP:NAC clearly states that non-admin closures are appropriate for "Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants." WP:SK only applies when the nominator withdraws his nomination, and WP:SNOW is not a policy. In the future, please wait the full listing period before closing AfD's. Thanks. SnottyWong squeal 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You seem to be only saying that because no one agreed with you. And you said yourself that the problem wasn't notability, so why bring it to AfD in the first place? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Notability is not the only problem for which an article can be brought to AfD, although it certainly is the most common one. The two articles are content forks. The main article contains more information about the two rail lines than the spinoff articles themselves do. This is redundant and unnecessary. And, the reason I contacted you is not because no one agreed with me. I'm simply warning you that early non-admin closures of AfD's (especially when the nomination hasn't been withdrawn) can be extremely disruptive. Also, FYI: when you close AfD's, the {{Afdtop}} and {{Afdbottom}} templates should be substituted. SnottyWong chat 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, it can be extremely disruptive...when no one agrees with the nominator! (Sorry, if you say that isn't the reason you contact me, I don't see it.) Here's some FYI for you: nominator withdrawal is not the only criterion in which NAC can be applied, as stated in WP:SK#Applicability. Now, go away. Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Snottywong, you left out the part of WP:NAC that states non-admin closures are appropriate for "Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline." You also left out the part of WP:SK which states "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for speedy keep, but its use is sometimes discouraged." Harassing a closer because they didn't agree with your selective parts of WP:NAC is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for backing me up, Oakshade, but I'm ready to move on from this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also commented at the above AN discussion, but you need to know that I reinstated the discussion because the closing rationale was inappropriate. The AfD discussion in question does not meet any of the five criteria allowed by speedy keep. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I also commented there, as someone who has previously reverted two of your closures. I also found it troubling that you used the closure as an opportunity to warn another user about making personal attacks. That's not the place to do it. Given the concerns at the AN discussion and on your talk page, I would request that you not perform any non-admin closures for the next couple of months, and in that time observe how others handle them. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erpert/Archive_1&oldid=1141769529"