User talk:Guy1890/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
Wow, Congrats on the Herculean effort you've put forth on the XRCO Award article, well done! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your improvements to the XRCO Award article Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Carmel Moore
Hi, I note that you have contributed to the deletion discussion on the above person's article. You appear to have participated more in these discussions than I have. This makes you a potential source of good advice which I hope you will give if you don't feel that my request is just another form of canvassing. I come to this discussion very much from a UK perspective as that is my country. I believe that without a degree of user vigilance, wikipedia risks becoming more American and less International. To me, the issue of Carmel Moore qualifying under PORNBIO#1 ought not to be questionable. I do not honestly know if those who are questioning it do so because they are pro-American, anti-porn or just don't actually believe that the UKAFTAs are credible. I assume that the decision on this issue will go some way to defining future discussions. If her qualification under PORNBIO#1 is shakey I would feel the urge to beef up her case under PORNBIO#2 by expanding on Hug a Hoodie. However, in doing so I appreciate that this could result in a decision that was less clear cut in relation to PORNBIO#1. So, from a tactical perspective, would you be happier if I left it where I have, thus allowing a decision to be made more on PORNBIO#1? Graemp (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The PORNBIO inclusion standard was recently tightened, and we're basically going through a well-anticipated period of an "excited" deletion orgy (for lack of a better phrase) as a result of it. It doesn't really matter what part of PORNBIO a subject meets when it comes to AfD discussions, although that entire standard is viewed by some to be wholly subordinate to the GNG standard. All one technically has to do is meet one of the criteria in PORNBIO in order to survive at AfD.
- "I do not honestly know if those who are questioning it do so because they are pro-American, anti-porn or just don't actually believe that the UKAFTAs are credible. I assume that the decision on this issue will go some way to defining future discussions." I've yet to see any evidence that the UKAFTAs have been deemed in the past to not be "a well-known and significant (adult) industry award." If there was some evidence from past AfDs, we would have heard about it by now. Most of the characters involved so far in the AfD in question here have a history of voting to delete pornography-related articles almost no matter what the specific issues are for any individual article. I know that you've discussed "Finnegas'" past gamesmanship with the AfD process elsewhere, and I don't have anything else to add to that here. Mr. Wolfowitz is a longstanding, well-known deletionist when it comes to pornography-related content. "Jeffrd10" is apparently just some kid that has admitted in the recent past that he doesn't have network access to at least some pornography-related web content, since he's obviously underage. I don't know that berating him on those issues is constructive though. From what I can tell, while the Hug a Hoodie film was obviously inspired by certain political events in the UK, which I'm not at all intimately familiar with, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone (including me) that a movie that apparently isn't notable enuff to have it's own Wikipedia article meets the "groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" standard in PORNBIO. I haven't made my "Keep" vote in this AfD contingent on that issue at all, since it isn't really necessary. Don't be surprised if the closing administrator ultimately just counts the votes in this AfD, not that that's the way things are actually supposed to work here on Wikipedia...but it does happen sometimes. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)