User talk:BalthCat/Archive 4

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

Firstly, it was archived a day after my last comment there. Spartaz appeared to have some sort of crisis or fit, and I made the decision to reply on the archive page where it was in context rather than start a new thread on his talk page. Secondly, if you take as a given that a "good faith" search during AfD proves "unsourceability" it opens up every last article without solid sources to AfD despite assertions of notability in the text which are backed by common sense and reasonable marginal sources. IMDB is not sufficient, fine, but it's more than reasonable to IMPLY sourceability. If people decide to ignore editors and their reasonable assertions in favour of being deletionists, then they run the risk of coming across people like me who are ticked off about it. - BalthCat (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Raghav Sachar - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...it may only be an essay, but it captures in a clear and concise manner the policies of Wikipedia editing in that you may indeed be

(Preamble) When I read the essay I went to check the history and saw to my surprise that it is a rather established essay. However in my editing, including watching some contentious articles, I do not recall seeing it referenced, and have practically certain that I've never seen it used to justify a reversion. (Why I'm not a fan) It may be accepted as useful, but I don't believe it is a

WP:BRD is best used as a personal guideline, rather than one to expect others to adhere to, or to use "against" others. WP:BRD itself appears to agree. (My advice post) When I quickly glanced over BRD again, before commenting on his talk page, I missed the explicit prohibitions against three aspects of his use of BRD, and another which would justifies the other party's second BOLD attempt. If I had remembered them or seen them again, referring to them them might have been a more effective tack for Verbal's talk page. However, my suggestion that he consider himself the active (B/D) editor, not the reactive (R) editor was not to say that he must settle for the BOLD edits going through, but that he focus on the other parts of the essay: diplomacy, patience, discussion. I believe that advice is sound, and the more closely I read BRD, the worse I realise his implementation was. - BalthCat (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. - BalthCat (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page ends with I would like to know if. Could you complete that thought for me? (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For what it's worth, music genre lists do seem especially prone to constant back-and-forthing over whether any particular band fits the genre or not, but unfortunately, there aren't a lot of things that we can do — Wikipedia policy frowns on using page protection for anything short of outright vandalism or persistent

Traditionally, the first line of defense has been to require a source for every entry (even the seemingly uncontroversial ones), which explicitly uses the list's defining label in reference to that entry. However, I've found that doesn't always work as well as intended — at

Editnote banners certainly stop some users, but not all of them; they may cut down somewhat on the volume of the problem, but they don't entirely eliminate it (presumably the phenomenon of banner blindness plays a role.) If you'd like to try that route, User:Mindmatrix created the banner that's present on List of bands from Canada, so he might be a better person to talk to since I don't actually know how to do it.

And lastly, as discouraging as this may be, I've found that very often people simply throw their hands up in the air and take the list to AFD to have it deleted as an unmaintanable article which isn't entirely necessary anyway since the corresponding category serves a similar function. It's not the ideal solution, but it's there as a last resort nonetheless.

Truthfully, I'm still convinced that Wikipedia needs to stop allowing anonymous IP edits — requiring registration to edit would solve a lot of our problems. But unfortunately, given how most people choose to interpret the "anyone can edit" rule, I think I'd die of shock if there were ever actually a consensus to actually do that. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird !

I went to look at a revision to the "Scientific method" and it said to accept the IP's change as "..1..(etc)" but when I clicked to accept, you had already undone it from the ip's bad edit and I accepted his revision which was actually deleting the "..1.."

something not quite right there !

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure? I'll keep an eye out for that sort of "review conflict" and report it if it happens again. - BalthCat (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would you explain to me how the wikiproject lebanon talk page ended up on wikiproject egypts'? please use your sandbox for edit tests.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Penbat#Re:_Sam_Vankin--Penbat (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice,"[1] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[2]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article was deleted based on the weak argument that there are no reliable sources. There are. Adminstrators only google for it; sources can be found through academic news archives. But such is the case for Wikipedia. Just a note.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi This e-mail me wait .. [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.182.40.36 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing for a while, but am now building a new article. The subject is an organization for which I am a board member, hence I want an uninvolved editor or two to review before moving it. If you have time, could you take a look at my sandbox and share your thoughts (perhaps in the talk page there)? I'd appreciate it much. Uberhill 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance with this list as it seems to have become overrun with metal acts and consensus is being ignored. You seem a rather experienced editor and I am requesting that you look at the current debate on the talk page. Thank you. Klarion L-7 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BalthCat. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BalthCat. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast -related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply ]