User talk:Postdlf/Archive21

Delicious carbuncle

Hi thanks for your various comments in relation to recent AFDs. I have concerns about the interactions between Delicious Carbuncle and myself. In addition to the problem you highlighted, these diffs, while less serious, are also of concern particularly when taken together with everything else. [1], [2]. Both articles also appear to be notable, the notability of the Cheema one being especially obvious, therefore the fact they were nominated following a previous dispute is also worth examining.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from his AFD nom. I've only seen a glimpse of your recent interactions, but you may have an issue for WP:ANI if he keeps it up, particularly given his apparent unwillingness to discuss anything maturely. I'm not going to speculate on whatever grounds he may or may not have for an RFC regarding you, but it's obviously unacceptable for him to basically say he's not going to comment pending the completion of that RFC statement while simultaneously making personal attacks. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The RFC seems extremely petty too and no one agrees with his AFD submissions at all so perhaps I do need to start an ANI though i'd rather not.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've finally started the ANI, your interactions with DC are mentioned in it, hence this notificationWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding.2C_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Delicious_carbuncle.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again but the ANI doesn't appear to be getting any input from anyone with any authority. Another user has strongly supported my position, with major concerns being about the actual RFC but they're not an admin. Are you able to perhaps add your views please and/or is there anything else I should be doing to find a solution? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Authority" is really a matter of persuasion there, and I am no more persuasive for being an admin, nor do I feel like I have any more insight into this. One of the problems with the ANI is that it looks like it's just you and DC sniping at each other. People see a wall of text that's mainly a back-and-forth between two editors and they stay away. At this point, what do you want as a result? I removed the inappropriate comment from the AFD, he has this RFC going regarding you that someone else has certified... I think you're going to have to deal with that there, and the ANI thread might be a wash at this point unless he continues with personal attacks in other forums. postdlf (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand the RFC itself is sort of separate in itself, though I also regard the very many dubious parts of it, appalling "evidence" and the general tone as a very clear continuation of the harassment. As for what I want, well i just want to get back to editing articles free from harassment and be confident that DC is going to cease attempting to delete articles/content simply because I created them, whereas at present they don't' accept or acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever (as was also seen in the interactions with yourself). Speaking in a more general sense, i just wish Wikipedia editors and admins would take a much firmer line on this type of behaviour, it's happen to me on other occasions and I'm sick of it. Anyway thanks for your advice, perhaps the RFC will be the best way of achieving success and drawing attention to what's happened here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hello,User:Ks0stm (talk) blocked my IP adress in september of this year. I'm 14 so as you know I'm in school and just like anywhere else teens will vandalize, does User:Ks0stm (talk)have to remove my block or can just any administrator? Deezy.D. (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Zanran

Hi

I believe you were the editor who decided to delete the Zanran article in April last year. Zanran has had a lot of reviews since then - from economists, search-engine specialists, librarians, etc. It has probably therefore achieved some 'notability'.

I'd now like to write a different article - which I'd be happy to show you if helpful.

cheers

Jon --JonZanran (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced statement?

Hi I saw you moving my comments - They are not really discussion - some of it is a part of my statement in regards to the editor - I would like to replace some of it to my section on the main RFC page - do you have any objection to that? Youreallycan (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's the proper place for it; it just doesn't belong in the section for someone else's statement, nor is there supposed to be any back-and-forth with another editor like that. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General

Hey Postdlf. Since you are someone who has edited a lot of court-related articles, I wondered if you could point me to our guidance on the use of court rulings as sources. In this particular article (not one of mine), the two rulings are used extensively to motivate the description of what they contain, with very few appeals to secondary sources. Is this frowned upon, or is the problem with the article more that the rulings take up a disproportionate amount of it? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing specifically codified, but undoubtedly the ruling itself is the most reliable source for its own content. The difficulty is in making sure that such reliance does not go beyond bare description; interpretation or criticism, if not verifiable or attributable to secondary sources, would lean towards OR. Just glancing through the article, without having read any of the actual opinions, it looks straightforward and intelligently written, and does not raise any red flags to me.

The first footnote also makes clear that the opinion is summarized in multiple secondary sources, so whether the article's description of the opinion is accurate and NPOV can be determined by reviewing those sources as well as the opinion itself. And ultimately that's not an issue unique to primary sources: the same problem we face even when using secondary sources: are we representing the source's text, facts, and conclusions accurately?

There might be a further issue regarding translation: unless you can read the native language, you'll have to make sure you've found a reliable translation (which this appears to be based on, from the CLII). And we also need to consider the legitimacy of the court if you're going to cite its opinion for the facts of the case. If a court is known to be corrupt or incompetent in some way by western standards, then we need to be careful that we are framing its assertions as just that. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds very reasonable (although complex). I'll probably get around to reviewing the article at some point, and I'll make sure to consider all the issues you raise then. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

April Masini Wikipedia Page Deletion

Hello Administrator Postdlf,

The Wikipedia article "April Masini" must be undeleted. It has come to my attention that the page was deleted in error due to lack of research and heresy by user Tokyogirl79. I am contacting you specifically because you are the admin that closed the discussion about April Masini's page deletion.

It is imperative that April Masini's Wikipedia page be made public. April Masini is an accomplished and notable Entertainment Industry Executive Producer in the United States. In addition, Masini is a published author, columnist, and relationship advice expert whose expertise has been featured in ELLE magazine, and Match.com. Her lists of credentials are extensive: http://www.askapril.com/press.html

Throughout her career, Masini has brought various film and television productions to Hawaii and financed them. This is turn brought in revenue for the local economy and created foot traffic to box offices across the globe. Her exceptional character has brought her to the attention of multiple television networks and productions, including The Bill O'Reilly Factor which she was an interviewee. April Masini was also hired by Old Spice to be their Voice of Experience - Dating and Relationship Editor in 2007, and served on their panel with NASCAR Champion Tony Stewart, among other exceptional accolades which can be found on her website www.askapril.com.

The initial deletion request was submitted by user Tokyogirl79. Members within the Wikipedia community that did not extensively research the validity of Masini's career achievements and stature allowed for this deletion to occur.

This is a quote within the Delete Request that acted as the catalyst for the April Masini Wikipedia page removal: Weak delete. There are some articles that brush upon her claims, although many of them vary as far as how certain they are of how involved she really was. Most of them put far more emphasis on her husband being the deciding factor. [90], [91] I also want to note that she seems to be a mostly self-published author. The claims of notability are sort of vague, to be honest and probably could just be added to the Baywatch article. Most of her notability really seems to have stemmed from her being married to Mancini. After her divorce that notability sort of dried up, so I don't know how notable she is as far as she herself goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79 If someone can find information to show that she's notable I'm persuadable, but other than her possible influence over Baywatch I can't see where she's really notable. Just about everything about her on the web is either her website or a promotional blurb.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The language used in this post is clearly subjective, and bears no evidence. There no resources listed that reveal evidence of user Tokyogirl79's claims against April Masini's character and career. A subjective claim such as this one should have been more extensively researched by the Wikipedia community members reviewing the deletion. April Masini's creditably is in her career history; her endorsements speak for themselves: http://www.askapril.com/april-masini-endorsements.html

The April Masini Wikipedia page must be undeleted. The current page entitled "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Masini" must be removed from the Wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmhayes4 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's always a red flag to me when someone is clearly interested in Wikipedia only to make sure that an article about a particular person is created or undeleted, and your comment doesn't show that you have taken the time to read through our policies and procedures and familiarize yourself with the project and its goals overall. That, plus framing your statements as demands, and implying that Wikipedia contributor comments were against her "character and career" because they deny her significance as an article subject, honestly doesn't help your credibility very much.

The way you can get the Masini article undeleted is to show that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, our basic notability requirement, or some of the more specific guidelines at WP:BIO. Post a request at WP:Deletion review clearly pointing out what reliable sources (as that term is used in that link) are significantly about Masini. Don't just post a list of endorsements, or a list of articles for which she's been interviewed as a "relationship expert" (we don't give articles to people just because they do a job, even if that job is on TV)--post citations directly to sources about her (books, articles, etc.) from outside of her personal website. Make it as easy as possible so no one has to hunt through a page of links to figure out what you're talking about. And then the Wikipedia contributors will review that evidence. The burden is on those who want to include the subject to prove that it merits inclusion, not on those reviewing that proof to somehow offer evidence that she's not notable. And the burden is on you to persuade, not to demand, so try a change of tone.

And no, the original deletion discussion will not be deleted regardless of how your deletion review request turns out. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Railway stations in Niger

This article was deleted because there were no stations at the time. However, in 2012, serious proposals have surfaced for new railways to link several countries.

• On 31 November, 2011, a agreement was signed to build a new international railway connecting Ivory Coast, Burkino Faso, Niger and Benin.

The deleted article should therefore be restored. Tabletop (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time to do a quick look?

Hi. I created some articles on SCOTUS cases:

• Hannegan v. Esquire
• Baggett v. Bullitt
• Carroll v. Princess Anne County
• Bond v. Floyd
• Keyishian v. Board of Regents
• Washington v. Lee
• Gregory v. Chicago
• Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
• Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
• Smith v. Goguen
• In re Primus
• Patterson v. Alabama

They are really just stubs, and I'm not proud of them, but it is all I have time for now. Can you glance at them and let me know if you seen any glaring errors vis-a-vis SCOTUS article conventions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done

I just noticed that you'd already updated 2011 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Impressively speedy. :-) I wrote a (very bad) stub for United States v. Jones. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: 'Be careful when "fixing" the formatting in templates'

I was being careful. And I was fixing it, not "fixing" it (with the the scare quotes). And you perfectly well know that I am not the first editor to hit this pothole at high speed, since you took part in a discussion about it in March 2010 on the template's talk page. You did not dispute the arrogant and unhelpful remark "Yes it can be changed to accommodate both. Doing so would be mind-numbingly stupid, though" that was made in reply to a suggestion (by a very experienced editor) that the template be changed to also handle an en dash in that parameter. As far as I know, "Marbury" is the only such article I changed, and I am unlikely to do it again, but those standing close to the pothole would do better to patch it or put an orange traffic cone in front of it than to wait for the next driver to hit it and then tell him to be careful. There is no way an editor can tell just by looking at the parameter in edit mode that "1801-1804" is used for anything behind the scenes. Even the template's instructions fail to mention not to use an en dash, and they point to List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition, which itself (properly) uses en dashes. Please be polite to the next editor who falls victim to this. Chris the speller ^yack 15:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remember that discussion, though I think my comment still applies: "I can't say that a hyphen is 'wrongly used' when it's just entered as part of a template parameter; it doesn't get displayed that way when executed, and it makes sense for template code to be based on simple keyboard strokes." Manual of style changes simply don't apply to text that isn't displayed within an article, so it certainly isn't "fixing it" (I stand by my scare quotes here) when it changes something invisible to make something visible not work. Obviously it was an accident, but I've never thought automated processes excuse quality of output, and whether such a change within a template has affected its functionality is something that should be manually checked. If someone were to upgrade the SCOTUS template to accommodate either a hyphen or n-dash, I certainly wouldn't revert them, but nor would I admonish someone who thinks that MOS editors should watch out for such things instead. MZMcBride can answer for the substance and tone of his own comment on that from that two year old discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on the "SCOTUS" parameter?

Hey. Do you have any thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of places in the United States named after places in England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Willoughby

Williba, Kentucky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Willoughby

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Restaurant Week

Hi. You had deleted the previous version of this article I had created. It was deemed low-key and not of notable value. I have recreated the article with more information, citations and press mentions. Just wanted your feedback on it. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week.Varunr (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sam and Diane nominated for deletion

In the past, I have been a "pain in the butt" to everyone, including you. You gave me advices, and I let you down. I haven't done my best, and I have not been creative in the past. Instead, I've been the "deletion" crusader of any article because I don't believe myself to be talented. Right now, I'm under mentorship, and I have been suggested to discuss before I rush into premature conclusions.

In this case, I have created an article of the fictional couple of Cheers, and my work has been nominated as AFD. I wonder if it violates WP:5P, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N. Also, I wonder if this article is well-sourced without original research and synthesis. Maybe in the future "David and Maddie" article of Moonlighting (TV series) can be created. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now the AFD nom has been withdrawn, I must ask you one thing: why "keep or merge" rather than "keep"? The content may look suitable for other parent pages, yet I fail to understand why "merge". --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Don't delete" was the key point. "...or merge" was leaving open the possibility that the content may belong in other articles rather than in that one, but that's an issue that should be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a long time since the nomination Sam and Diane as AFD. You said "merge or keep", and I say "never merge". This article currently has over 50kb and discusses a notable topic, and I just created its child, "I Do, Adieu" that made very little effect on the parent article. Even when Cheers article will be restructured, that may not deeply affect Sam and Diane. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Postdlf,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

AN comments

I have made subsequent comments at the AN discussion about a topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why I used AFD

There are several reasons why I nominated those articles for deletion as opposed to merging them. One is that there is very little information that is worth merging, and you don't really need them to be redirects. But the main reason is because the process of AFD is a lot more official than just adding a tag and talking about it on the talk page. More people contribute to AFDs than merge proposals. Also AFDs last for a specific amount of time, unlike merge proposals. And AFDs establish clear consensus that is much harder to over throw than just a talk page conversation. JDDJS (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think it's better to try merging (however minimally) through normal editing first. WP:ATD says as much. If you get reverted or it proves contentious, then consider AFD. I just think it gets overused and it's part of a bad trend in Wikipedia culture to favor binding editing determinations and pseudo-legalistic processes rather than achieve it organically through open ended editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Alvin Bernard'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Alvin Bernard', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://dominicanewsonline.com/dno/dlp-announces-new-senators/

• You added this in February 2011.
• I tried to load this link on 26 March, 28 March, 30 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Favor?

Postdlf, would you look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples and see if you have anything to add to the debate? User:George Ho is aiming to get yet another soap opera-related article deleted, and none of the delete arguments in the discussion are making any sense. If you decide to comment and add a delete "vote," I will at least know that yours makes sense. 64.251.22.120 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle

Hi, per the last sentence of your comment here [3] in relation to [4], I would welcome your views on the following:

So far, after indicating I was a "lady" DC has made 2 meaningless edit summaries quoting music lyrics where the only possible intention could be to suggest I'm a woman therefore questioning my gender. He then used further lyrics to suggest I had an axe to grind, something he later expanded on in the discussion, thus proving his edit summaries were intended to have meaning. On both of the first two occasions he was asked to stop but carried on.[5][6][7]. he also make a summary tell me to "get over it" [8] Every single incident is blatantly combined with continuing to following me around Wikipedia, and in each case DC had never edited any of the articles in question ever before until after I had done so. In the interested of fairness and to be sure I've checked back over the last 5 years). I've also come across several other editors sharing similar stories alleging Wikihounding, abuse of edit summaries and issues with AFD.

Many of the incidents occur in the context of an AFD for the Roshonara Choudhry which closed today as "keep" (again a unanimous vote). This now marks the third instance in a row of articles either created by me, or where I'm one of only two major contributors, being nominated for deletion by DC then unanimously rejected, often in the strongest possible terms.[9][10]. Additionally, as you may remember, both of those previous AFDs were linked by DC with his blatant personal attack which you had to remove. The nature of Choudhry's BLP would be fairly consistent with the line of thinking in his previous attack which he refused to retract and still stands by. He did finally strike his very latest attack accusing me of "anti-feminist POV-pushing" but only after I insisted he did so, and I can only see such behaviour going on endlessly. Most of the other editors involved in the failed RFC/U have managed to move on successfully and disengage completely which is something I'd commend them for, but this appears to be the exact opposite and I'd like things to stop. Given your knowledge of the issues and previous concerns I'd appreciate your thought as to what action to take, many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit War concerning Elvis Presley's personal relationships

May I ask you for a third opinion concerning the content of the Personal relationships of Elvis Presley page? ElvisFan1981 claims that the sources I have provided are unreliable. Therefore, this user constantly removes my contributions from that page. To my mind, the sources are reliable according to Wikipedia standards and this seems to be a case of WP:I don't like it. What do you think? See Talk:Personal relationships of Elvis Presley#Suzanne_Finstad.27s_Child_Bride. Onefortyone (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Gold deletion

Please excuse me if this message is not correctly formatted; I'm not an experienced Wikipedia contributor though I am a big enthusiast. My name is Jeff Gold and I believe that you made the decision to eliminate the Wikipedia entry on me. With all due respect, I believe your decision may have been made without all of the facts, and so I thought I'd respectfully let you know a few things that I believe are relevant. Stuartyates seems to have been a driving force in disputing my credentials and I just posted the following to his talk page: "Hello, I am Jeff Gold aka Jeffrey Gold. Forgive me if this isn't a properly formatted contribution, as I am not wiki literate. It seems you led the charge for the deletion of my article, and so I wanted to clarify a few things. First, Jeff and Jeffrey are both me. Second, as with film or record production, art direction can be a collaborative process and there is often more than a single person involved and credited, thus a shared award. However, I was awarded a Grammy of my own. Third, as you probably noticed, the Grammy website does not archive any nominations beyond the past year. As far as I can tell, there are no sites listing past nominees anywhere except for the Wikipedia page for best recording package, which lists all the past nominations for this award, and on which all of my nominations can be found. I am a frequent Wikipedia user, but had never heard of a sock puppet before this controversy arose, and I'm not sure I understand it fully now. But I can assure you that Jeff and Jeffrey are both me, and that all of the information in that article pertains to me. With all due respect, I hope this clarifies everything, and perhaps you'll rethink your objections in light of this new information. I invite you to contact me with any questions.".

I'm very sorry that my initial entry seems to of been tainted by the sock puppet association, but from my reading it seems that I meet the criteria for notability (Grammy winner with 4 nominations, art director of over 50 album covers for Prince, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, REM etc, multi page profiles as a leading expert in books published by major publishers, coverage in Rolling Stone, etc.) and so I'd like to respectfully ask you to reconsider. Yesterday evening a friend of mine reworked many of the citations, and I believe they're much more substantial than they were previously. Certainly someone could add that Jeff and Jeffrey are the same person if that is an issue. Kind thanks for your consideration. Jeff GoldRecordmecca (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Recordmecca

GODDESSY

I've opened a [LTA] and I noticed that you dealt with this editor almost 6 years ago, and thought you might be interested in sharing your thoughts. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD Comment

Hello!
I have replied to you on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sanya episodes. Could you please respond to it? Also, do you deal with TV show articles? Would like to discuss the loose criteria of WP:TVSHOW that i mention in my comment with someone who has good experience in this topic. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Cassini pages?

.... without any form of description as to why you performed this action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.144.123 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you provide a link? Or at least a precise article title? postdlf (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography. Due to the fact of multiple AFD respondents commenting on the nature and language usage of the AFD nominator, could you perhaps add more explanation to your close timing (early before 7 days) and your close rationale (more than just the one word of "Keep"), so readers of the AFD can be absolutely clear as to why it had an early close and that particular outcome?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really think an explanation was needed where the keep !votes are unanimous, numerous, and substantive, but I'll add something concise. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please, best to avoid any question of any other possible outcome from prolonging the discussion, as it was closed early. — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

AFD

I find it disappointing that you, as a sysop, are continuing to re-open ad-hominem statements in the AFD. Dude, let it go, ad hominems have no place anywhere in Wikipedia, period. Comment only on the nomination (actually, show consensus that it should stay or change the consensus on WP:NOTDIR) and avoid bad-faith comments on my nomination of a list for deletion) Currently we already have a policy, already created by consensus, stating that articles cannot be lists of things. This article is just that. So, if you can show reason that the current consensus should be overturned, then the article stays.

That's simply policy at work.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  11:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over the closure of that section at the AfD. I will block you both if necessary. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 13:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing an ANI thread right now about his disruption. Please watch the AFD in the meantime to make sure he does not inappropriately hide others' comments again. postdlf (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've no comment as to whether the hiding was inappropriate at the moment, I need to look at some more history - but I am certainly watching and left him the same warning. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 13:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:KoshVorlon. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for your comment on his talk page. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, all part of the service. I'll have a look at the ANI in a bit - must get on with some more real life stuff for a while. Would be nice to see a pleasant resolution here though Worm^TT≡talk≡ 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ec

Sorry about the ec, I didn't know. Please feel free to add your comment anyway - the more the merrier : ) - jc37 15:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Fair enough, I've gone ahead and added my name as part of the signature (I struck off the "The name of the place" part ). As far as why my signature is not plain , I just don't like plain signatures. I like to dress it up a bit  :) "....We are all Kosh...."-Babylon-5-> 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

Thank you for your support of this article in AFD. Do you think a section based on studies of her personal life would be able to be done? Statυs (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Manual of Style for categories

You may want to comment on it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages (talk)

In case you might be interested in helping out with the page's development.

(I see the above, just adding links : ) - jc37 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Western Tradition

Let's discuss. Talk:Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)