Razr Nation's archives Current discussion Go to 2016 Go to 2017-19 Go to 2022 Go to 2023

I think you have done a good job on the RFC, but thought I would offer one bit of advice. If you feel you need to change something with the proposals you might want to date the change. It is probably better practice not to make any changes once it is live, but since it is run in your userspace you have a lot more leeway in this regard. An issue could arise if I say !voted on proposal two under its current wording, then when you change it it looks like I am !voting for one I may not have wanted to initially. Dating at least gives some separation between !votes and the different proposals. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well I was unsure about how to do it. If you can help me so that people doesn't get confused it'll be great. I was thinking into adding the worded changes as a new proposal... What do you think? — ΛΧΣ21™ 08:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD: Oh i got your point. I have added a Reworded on ~~~~~ line on each of the reworded proposals to date the changes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 08:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD2 Oh and also, I only made a wording to be clearer (on proposal 2, the essence is the same) and well, on proposal three to make the limit 5 reviews instead of 3. I won't perform any other changes, i guess. — ΛΧΣ21™ 08:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was no big deal, but it just makes everything clearer, which is always good. If the only review older nominations passes I will give you a hand when you run it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! As far as I see, it will. In that case, we should set a goal for each drive (like older two months first, then all nominations allowed). Also, I see that community is willing to have drives each three months, which is surprising. I was about to add another proposal for 6 months but seeing how the current backlog evolves i considered that 3 months was the precise timing. — ΛΧΣ21™ 08:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 116 older than two months currently, with another hundred between one month and two months old. We could setup a page relatively easily that list these article and links to the review page. As they get reviewed the link will turn blue, so it should be easy to maintain. As for the three month drives, it is easy to say that, but only time will tell if the numbers turn up that regularly. AIRcorn (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I guess tah experience may help. In six months and after two drives are held, I may open a mini-RFC to ask community of they want to keep the 3-month period or expand it to 4-to-6 months. I guess it is what might be done In this case. Also, i like a lit your idea about setting up a page listing older nominations. How can we do that? — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am hoping we can just copy past from WP:GANR. AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a table at User:Aircorn/Sandbox. Was a lot more work than I thought. Was thinking you could use it to keep track of the number of reviews conducted by each person as well though. The Red links should turn blue when one is taken, so no need to update it ourselves. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, very amazing indeed. Thanks AIRcorn :) Thanks for all the help. By the way, are you interested in co-ordinating the next drive with Wizardman and me? I think that it would be of great help and benefit if you accept :). — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hahc21, How is everything going? I just wanted to get your opinion on a little issue. As you may have or have not noticed, I've been creating articles for all of Ivy Queen's notable singles. The next one I was going to do was "Sentimientos", when I went to look for a cover art, I found this. It has the cover art, though with flash marks. Do you think I should include it in the infobox or not? Thanks! DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. If a better version is not available you may use that one, but be sure to crop the parts you don't need and leave only the cover itself. I have taken some minutes and done this for you (also edited the pic to look better). If you drop me an e-mail, I can send to you the worked image for you to upload it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And thanks! That is very nice of you! (: I was going to do that, though I wouldn't want to waste the time you took to do that. My email is X. No creepers LOL. DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have sent you the image. I hope you like it :) And don't worry; I am always glad to help ^.^. P.D. I removed the email for security measures :P. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! It looks great!! :) And yes, ahaha, thank you!! :D I don't want any stalkers, Aha. DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Obligatory short definition section. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You NACed a discussion a day early, which had little input from anyone, just 3 people, rather than extending it. Why? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let me take a look. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are doing this in a number of places. Seriously .... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can grant you that one [although it'll be kept], but all the other ones are clear keeps. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in this, [1]. What if someone was to challenge the claims. Say by arguing via WP:NOT#NEWS. It's too late because you've NACed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before closing an AFD, I do a double check of both possible references and policies that should be called [as well as previous AFDs]. That article lived through two previous AFDs where all votes were keep. Also, I double-checked and found impossible to call WP:NOT#NEWS there, as it has gotten coverage enough to debunk such claims. If the article is sure to be kept after 6 days of discussion, such discussion can always be closed, not relisted. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and additionally, as a recommendation: Please ask the closing user before reverting the close and give them time to answer why they closed the discussion and to perform the reversion by themselves. What you did, reverting my close without being an admin [admins have even talked to me first, asking me to revert myself] or asking me to do so, was overly inadecuate. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I double-checked and found impossible":you supervoted by concluding no new arguments could be advanced before closing. Also, it's 7 days not 6 that AfDs are closed. Also, per WP:NAC, articles with little discussion i.e 3 or 4 people, should be relisted or closed as no consensus by non-admins. If you are invoking Speedy, that also has its own host of constraints. Non admins can only close the least contentious land slide like Afds. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I relist an article that has 3 keeps in 6 days and no delete votes? It is wasting people's times leaving a discussion opened that should have been closed. I am not invoking Speedy, as it does not apply here. Also, little discussion means no votes or less than three votes. After a discussion reaches three or more votes, it can be closed [with the corresponding result, delete or keep.]. Also, you say that "Non admins can only close the least contentious land slide like Afds" which is true; now tell me which is the "contentious" part of your nomination? "contentious" means that an AFD has many votes and comments where votes vary from delete to keep and a clear consensus is not at first sight. I don't see any of these in that AFD. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at actual AfDs. Very often situations are completely reversed when there are only a few votes involved. Here's an AfD that if an admin had closed early would have deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natural_breast_enhancement and yet the final result was keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. AFDs that turn from delete to keep are very common when community input is high; the opposite is very rare. If the first 3 votes of an AFD are keep ones, then the possibility that It'll be kept is at >80%, specially after 6 days of discussion. I understand that you, as the nominator, want to have more input for that AFD or want to see how it turns after the whole 7-day period. The only recommendation I can give is to not to go mad if it's kept :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>80% Isn't NAC territory. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions vary, then ;). — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAC: " experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that I meet the "experienced non-admin in good standing" requirement; and also, as you may have seen, discussion is now beyond doubt a clear keep. This only proves that my close was correct, but let's not make drama about it. I apologize for closing it early and you have gotten more feedback than it had before I closed it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't prove the case was correct. A lot of AfD is pot luck and I seemed to have attracted one of your talk page stalkers, and my own personal wikistalker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even in that case, do not underestimate their votes. I have no influence over Status and although we are very good friends and work together a lot, we have different opinions and points of view in many occasions. Anyways, I find that arguing with you about this may have no end; we have different perspectives of that AFD and its possible outcome, which is completely valid. Finally, I hope you have a great time and if you ever need something, you can always drope me a note. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. As I mentioned on the Good Article nominations Talk page, I'm working on some of my first GA articles, starting with CIPR, PRSA (on hold due to stability), Waggener Edstrom (almost done) and maybe Edelman (firm) next.

I would like to work towards getting my COI works up to GA as well; for example, I asked the Public Interest Registry if they would be ok with me continuing to work on it on an informal volunteer basis to bring it up to GA. You'll see on Talk that I have a declared COI.

I was wondering if you had any idea how GA reviewers would react to COI submissions. For example, Code 42 Software got a "B" class rating right out the gates of AfC with a declared COI. It is a small and unimportant article in the scope of things - I actually downgraded it myself to "low" priority. Would editors feel unsavory about me dragging so much resources into relatively unimportant articles if I was nominating some for GA with a COI? Corporate 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing that you should have to know first: The fact that you declare a conflict of interest while writing articles does not mean that you always showcase that COI on what you write. You may want to promote an specific entity and still be able to write a very good article with a neutral point of view. Also, to answer your questions: No. The more sources and resources, the better. If you want, I can take one of your articles for review and give you an example of how this may work and some recommendations about it. Sorry I did not help you at your other nomination; I was busy developing an RFC amd other stuff. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]