User talk:Mike V

Archives

Welcome to my Talk Page!

You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. I'll try to reply on your page, and I would hope that you reply on my page. That way no one has to keep checking his or her watchlist. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Happy Mike V's Day!

Mike V has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Mike V's Day!
For your excellent administrative work,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Mike V!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. :) --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is Icestorm815

Forgot to sign and add proper edit summary Icestorm815 • Talk 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin

Whoops. My total misapprehension there. It was nominated, and I noticed it had previously been deleted under the exact same criteria. I figured some card had recreated it. Evidently I figured wrong! - Vianello (Talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks likewise for bringing it to my attention. I've fixed it back up to the pre-CSD-nomination version. - Vianello (Talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures

Just a note to let you know that when closing AFDs, the {{subst:at}} goes at the very top of the page, above the section header. (This is different from most other deletion venues, for no good reason, but placing it below the header confuses the bot that maintains WP:OLD.) Stifle (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald

If you don't think there's a consensus to delete here, fair enough. I may even agree. However, dismissing the earlier delete vote because they were "looking at a different article" is simply wrong. I've been watching the changes and my view remains unchanged. Several of the early deletion votes have re-itterated their delete since the rewrite. And, in any case, the objection was more fundamental. It had to do with the nature of the sources not the way the article was written. As I say, I am not saying this should be closed as delete, it is really no consensus to delete, but I think your close looked more like a vote than a close.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first want to assure you that I spend a decent amount of time looking over the whole discussion a good 15 minutes at least, so the decision was never based on a tally of any kind and the opinions of others were not discounted. Also, I did take into account the users that did reiterate their concern after the first rewrite as well. There was a second major rewrite that was performed by FT2 to drastically reduce the POV tone and improve the article overall. [1] This was the overall revision that I felt alleviated the previous concerns. After looking over the phrasing of my closure I do agree that it could be improved and I'll be willing to change the wording to accurately reflect what I meant to say. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do you honestly think that those of us that gave our opinions to delete did not keep it on our watchlist and know about the re-writes and the reasons given in the later keep comments? Did you want us to repeat ourselves over and over again every time that some voted keep? I did not think the last re-write was significant and that was the reason that I did not make further comments. My concern was adequate sourcing that focused on her, instead of taking information from biographies of Bush. The lack of personal information about "her" in "her" article makes it clear that the information did not come from writings that primarily focused on her. The material used mostly was written in the context of her relationship with Bush, giving them and our article undue weight problems. I think the Afd was not conclusive to be keep and I'm disappointed that it closed as a "keep". FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC); exp[reply]

I'm sorry that you are dissappointed with the way I closed the discussion. I'm always willing to discuss concerns about my actions. While I'm certain that you didn't intend it, you're questions seem a little snide and they come off with a bit of a negative tone. Let's both try and keep things calm so we can work this out. :) I'll try and give it a shot and explain my thought process with the closure. I think it's fair to say that this article had about three major "versions" (I guess for a lack of a better term), the original version that was nominated, the revision after the article rescue squad, and the revision made by FT2. Editors expressed concerns about the original version, then it was changed. Some users responded and said they still had concerns about the second version. Finally, FT2 made a new revision in which sources were changed and a better tone was instituted. However, for about five days after the revision no editor expressed concern over it. I understand that you may feel it's repetitive to added your views over and over to the discussion, but unless concerns were expressed about the new version it's quite difficult to discern whether or not any editor had outstanding issues with the new version and the adjustment of sources. Please know that I sincerely mean it when I say I wish to continue this discussion and to try and achieve a better solution. If you still hold some concerns about the result, know that I would be more than willing to remove the closure and to relist it for further discussion. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ongoing concern is with the edit history. The history has the previous versions of the article in it which are not consistent with WP:BLP. Considering the nature of the histories, I think much of the history should be erased i.e. everything before the article was stubbed at 2009-04-20:21:44. Martin451 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll check it out. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the edits from before 2009-04-20:21:50. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL failure (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#History of Jennifer Fitzgerald). Restored, until a better way of doing this is conceived. (I wonder if pasting the history onto the talk page would be sufficient?) –xeno ^talk 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for File:7 Sqn RAF Chinook (1991).jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:7 Sqn RAF Chinook (1991).jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]