User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Faustus37. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Albannach

I have reverted your "no consensus" Afd closure of the article Albannach, because these kind of discussions require the judgement of an administrator. Further, closing the discussion six days early does not give others a chance to opine. Till 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I just took another look at the Afd and was shocked to see that you !voted "keep" before you closed it as no consensus. I had no idea of this when I reverted the close. I will be notifying administration of this. Till 11:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Till 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Faustus, as a fellow inclusionist and ARS supporter, please don't do this. Closing AfD's where you participated is a huge no-no, for reasons quite obvious. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Faustus, I urge you to reread Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. Closing a discussion in which you have expressed an opinion is specifically listed as an example where you should not close. Even when you do not contribute to the discussion, you should only be closing in the case of a clear keep. No reasonable editor can conclude that a discussion with seven delete opinions, including one from an admin, qualifies as a clear keep. I urge you to limit your closures to unanimous situations, and if you wish to venture into items where you think it is clear keep despite the existence of a delete opinion, ask an admin for a second opinion. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This "shocking" matter has been addressed and closed. I'm out of the NAC business. Faustus37 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Ham-handed"

Don't call me "Ham-handed" p b p 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems to be that "well, the decision made 10 months ago was wrong". First, I urge you to actually look at the decision. It was reaffirmed twice. That would indicate a consensus for it. WP:IAR doesn't say you get to ignore consensus because you don't like it. And if ARS only used Rescue-list tags to inform closers (and I have qualms as to whether or not closers are actually informed, i.e. that they act differently when ARS is involved than when they aren't), I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is, like its deleted brethren, it's used to canvass, and generally to add vitriol to AfDs p b p 15:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not calling you ham-handed. I'm calling the deletion proposal ham-handed. Just because something was decided and confirmed doesn't mean it's necessarily right. If that was the case we'd still have Dred Scott to contend with. The template is used quite sparingly when its use is compared to the number of AfDs created. Many ARS regulars (myself included) cast "Delete" votes on a regular basis. As for causing "vitriol," I simply don't see it. Faustus37 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I never had a problem with him personally, but I'm not familiar enough with him or his controversies that I could make a substantive comment one way or the other. I appreciate the heads up though. Faustus37 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up after non-admin closes

Hi. I trust that you'll probably be exercising a little more caution regarding non-admin closures for the foreseeable future. I noticed that Talk:International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) was tidied by others after your close, and I've just done the same with Talk:Fuzzball (sport) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Have you thought about using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, which should handle everything automatically most of the time? -- Trevj (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, no more NACs here. Faustus37 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but perhaps still worth bearing mind if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Faustus37 2 is started and closed successfully at any point in the future. Cheers, and keep up the work elsewhere! -- Trevj (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, probably not. I appear to have become something of a polarizing figure in these parts ... ;-) Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Davroche

That's where I created it - I'll try to move it. I can't move it. How do I move it to my sandbox? What it I want to begin another article in my sandbox? Davroche (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Masonic Knights

I saw your comment at the AFD... I think we may already have an article on what you are talking about... see: Allied Masonic Degrees. The Masonic Knights don't seem to be part of that, however. Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought was to merge to Allied Masonic Degrees until I noticed that as well. They appear to be not within the AMD degree repertoire, which leads me to think a more generalized article title might be in order. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Internet urban legends

Hi Faustus37, I made some comments about a deletion discussion where you suggested a merge. If you're interested it's at Talk:Internet urban legends. --Noiratsi (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

NAC

NAC's have very distinctly worded criteria, such as NAC's Speedy Keep criteria which states, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

William Borah

I've begun the GA Review at William Borah. Drop by and take a look when you get a chance. In the meantime, enjoy the day -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Faustus37: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable holiday season! Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Your GA nomination of Twin Falls, Idaho, is on hold until you correct some issues I found.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the notice. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 02:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)