Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:41, 4 July 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Misplaced Pages "Editathons", where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

DRV

closing 2nd nom Afds

Thank you for closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Quran and Sunnah (2nd nomination). Just a note on the use of the Template:oldafdfull. The date field is for the filing date of the Afd, rather than the closing date, and the page field is for the name of the Afd, so in this case it would have been:

oldafdfull| date = 10 May 2014 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Quran and Sunnah (2nd nomination)

rather than

oldafdfull| date = 1 June 2014 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Quran and Sunnah

otherwise the discussion click goes to the first afd. Anyway, it's fixed, and I do appreciate your work. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js to manage the close process. To be honest, I've long since forgotten all the details of how the templates work, and just let the automated scripts do what they do. I have noticed that recently, an alert box sometimes pops up asking me to enter a date. It came with no explaination, so I assumed it was just some bug in the scripts which would eventually get resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Incest in popular culture (2nd nomination)

That was an abysmal close. The fact that you thought to include "Really interesting article" and "So many sources on the page" as "significant soundbites" demonstrates just how woefully poor it was. — Scott • talk 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I didn't say they were strong arguments (they're obviously not), just that they're what people were saying. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good close, Roy. Tough one to call and you got it correct. Lugnuts 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call R&B (3rd nomination)

I can't see consensus there at all - one keep, one redirect and one delete; the nomination appears to have been a mistake, as the deleted article was about another, less notable, album with the same name. Peter James (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I treated Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars redirect comment as essentially arguing for deletion. With that (and the original nomination), and the fact that the sole keep argument asserted notability without providing any real evidence, the delete consensus seemed clear. To be honest, I didn't count your comment either way, because it wasn't clear what you were arguing for. In retrospect, there's enough confusion here (both about various peoples' intent and the nomination itself) that I'm no longer convinced my close was correct. So, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to re-close this as NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It does look a bit confusing. For now I think no consensus is probably the right call. AfD nominations are not rationed in case someone wants to get a more definitive ruling . -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging, Looking back I could've atleast provided a better reason to keep but meh it's done, To be honest It's confusing but then again doesn't take a lot to confuse me :P, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

-- 21:22, Wednesday, December 25, 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben

Curious about why you relisted this, since it seems to me that all the opions expressed are to delete apart from one who (imo) does not seem to understand the idea of inherited notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any strong consensus formed yet, so I figured it was worth re-listing. There's no rush. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power

I am taken aback to find Jonathan Power has been deleted. I don't check his entry every day so I didn't know what has been going on until today. But may I say a couple of things and I hope you will reply to me at . I was the one who persuaded Jonathan to have a Wickipedia entry, even though for years he has resisted it. I've had to exert quite a lot of pressure on this busy man to give me references. Maybe I've made the odd mistake but certainly not the ones you mention.

For example, in 1972 he won the Silver medal at the Venice Film Festival. This was reported in the London Times on September 4th 1972. It had been transmitted on BBC TV on April 5th 1972. It was also shown at the London Film Festival that year. In the BBC version which can be obtained from the British Film Institute (the national UK archive) you will see that only Jonathan Power was credited with the making of the film. In the version that went to Venice submitted by the UK government's British Council as the official UK entry in the documentary section Jenny Barraclough was credited as the director and Jonathan Power as the reporter and producer. Ms Barraclough had been brought in at a late stage at Jonathan's request to give some help at the final cut. Because of the way Venice works (unlike the London Film Festival) she was handed the medal which she still has. If you want to talk to her I can give you her email and phone number and she will tell you the above. The London Film Festival clearly credits Jonathan as the author of the film

I can help you with the other points of criticism that you and your colleague have made. I have also asked Jonathan to look up the references for the other articles etc he has written.

I am sure you must have seen from the references I made before that in 99% of the cases (there may have been the odd mistake) his references are correct. It is unlikely that a man of Jonathan's standing, who as you can see from those references has had such a successful career (and is still writing), would want to deceive you in any way.

I look forward to hearing from you and the restoration of his page so that it can appear on Wickipedia again.

Regards, Jenny Eklund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonatpower (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Jonatpower:. In general, all communication about wikipedia should happen in public. This is why I've elided your personal information above and am responding here. The article was deleted using the standard wikipedia process. You can see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power. I think the biggest issue here is that it is against wikipedia policy to use this site for promotional purposes. Please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for our policy on Conflict Of Interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Contemporary Writers of the American West

My comments (with which Clarityfiend basically agreed) explain at length why a category would be equally unfeasible as the list, so please reread and consider striking your aside on that issue from your closing statement. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Strakosha (2nd nomination)

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Strakosha (2nd nomination) you deleted Thomas Strakosha. What's wrong with the media coverage I provided , ,  ? Nfitz (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't evaluate the media coverage; I just closed the AfD and summarized the consensus of the people who did. In this case, consensus was clear. Four out of five people commenting felt the subject did not meet notability guidelines. This one was pretty cut and dry. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication that 3 out of 4 were even aware of GNG evidence I added less than 24 hours before you closed the AFD; though I can't speak for User:Mikemor92 and how closely they examined the references (if they did at all). Either way, surely the AFD shouldn't have been closed without time to examine the new evidence, and perhaps should have been relisted to allow for such examination? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If it were a case of a close decision, I might consider relisting it. But, this failed the first AfD by a landslide, and the second AfD by nearly so. I have no reason to believe the result would be different if people had a few more days to look at it, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your request. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I do believe you have violated the guideline Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. with your persistent reliance on the number of votes, without bothering to evaluate the basis of the arguments. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Metrics-based evidence

There is a source at Columbia Mall that includes an "eight-month-long Missourian review of records", and includes "years" of observations by one of the writers, complete with a map, two charts, and four web pages of text.  For this source, you verify (diff) another editor's post that this source (emphasis added) "talk briefly about traffic around the mall...".  You also add that this source has one of the following problems (it is not clear which problem you associate with this source), (1) "...perfunctory listing in directories, etc", (2)  "mention", (3) "in-passing", (4)  "embedded in an article about something else."  At WP:Articles for deletion/Promenades Drummondville, I showed that editors had been making !votes for delete without an attempt to determine the notability of the topic.  Your subsequent !vote ignores the evidence I provided that "two relevant books" could be found with the minimum WP:BEFORE D1 check.  With this post at that AfD, you defended a position opposed to "metric-based evidence".  Your position is a contrast with the 12 June closing at WP:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination), which states, "...and continuing the...process of trying better codify a metric for academic journals."  See Age of Enlightenment.  Add to this your recent indiscriminate !votes to delete malls.  What is going on?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is going on is I believe none of these malls meet WP:GNG because the sources presented do not establish notability. I put very little weight in local sources, and I do not believe that square footage is a useful metric. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please support our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar

Could you please elaborate on your rationale for closing this the way you did, keeping in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion? Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. The basic issue here was one of notability. While there were a number of sources, there were persuasive arguments that these sources were indiscriminate and did not establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You use that concept from the discussion, "indiscriminate", yet I cannot seem to find any policy that backs it up in this context - only an essay. Could you please explain how the subject did not satisfy the specific criteria laid out at WP:GNG given the WP:RS provided? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I only closed the AfD. It's not my place to defend the arguments made, or to argue any particular point of view. I notice that on your user page, you refer to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. In this case, there was a clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Outcomes

Hi Roy. Just a minor comment – and I don't have time at the moment to do more than mention this, but didn't want you question as to square footage to be buried in the close. I'm not sure if you've spent much time at the school AfDs, but that is perhaps the best analogy. There, there is also discussion in outcomes (which says: "While this essay is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.") – in that case, the common outcome for primary and elementary schools. But that is not used only like a box score, but at AfD to drive a conclusion for a future AfD, absent the school exhibiting notable GNG substantial coverage. See here. It's an apparent consensus practice of the editors. It's certainly not as though Outcomes doesn't exist, and the editors !voting just focus on GNG. There is helpful discussion of square footage and malls here. My guess is that in both instances the consensus practice has often been to add the non-GNG fact (primary school; small mall) as a factor to help drive the conclusions. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The problem is, in most of the mall AfD's I've been participating in, square footage seems to the first and foremost item mentioned. We even see arguments about whether X square feet is over or under the limit. In any case (and I'm willing to admit I'm questioning the status quo here), I see square footage as completely irrelevant to us. Our criteria should be coverage in secondary sources, full stop. If the mall is notable, secondary sources will cover it, and then we can gauge notability by their coverage. Certainly, the size of the mall will be a factor in the sources decision to provide coverage or not, but let them be the judge of that, not us.

I see similar problems in other areas too, not just malls. In sports, for example, we seem to have set up our own standards. A player is notable if they played in sanctioned game in a fully-pro league, etc. I see AfD's where people are arguing about whether such a such player actually played, or if they just dressed but never got on the field, or if the game was a "real" game, etc. I won't even talk about the sillyness I see in Pokemon AfD's :-) We are getting further and further away from the core principle, which is that we rely and depend on secondary sources. It's not our place to be making our own judgement calls about what's notable based on some specific measurement or qualification of our own design.

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I see your point of view. And understand that some editors – though I think they are a minority, and a very small minority in the Outcomes/schools discussions – think as well that it is all about GNG, full stop.

When I first edited at AfDs, and in particular school AfDs, I believe I was of the view that you have. I believed that Outcomes was not anything more than what one (non-consensus !voting) editor asserted at a recent schools AfD – a mere description of the past, without impact on the future. And that GNG was all-important.

But years of experience with Outcomes-influenced AfDs have shown me that there is a consensus of the participating editors in practice that Outcomes is more than that. This consensus is stronger in some areas than others – you'll almost never see a verified high school deleted (even if it fails to meet GNG), and it takes a great deal for a primary school to be kept .... even if the two schools have the same coverage.

I think editors just have sought to streamline the process, and not only engage in GNG weighing, but use primary school vs. high school and very small vs. large as shortcuts. Albeit, shortcuts subject to rebuttal ... rebuttable presumptions. Similar to what happens in many other areas – in sports, for example, which you also allude to, all Olympians and all major league baseball players are deemed notable. Even if they fail to meet GNG. But minor league baseball players, for example, while generally non-notable, can be notable if they have a certain (high) level of substantial coverage.

And yes – I've seen the arguments recently that person x is signed to a team but has not yet played a game, so he is not notable ipso facto. Well, I imagine one has to draw a line somewhere, but it's not clear to me that that is the place, and in any event it is a waste of time, as the person almost always does play a game ... so the benefit of deleting such articles (for a very short time) seems exceedingly small, if indeed it exists at all.

While I shared your view that we should just follow GNG, I recognize that in certain areas such as the ones mentioned above consensus practice (at the very least; sometimes more firmly reflected) is that the Project editors at times seek bright-line rules to streamline the process. In the malls area, I think it is actually helpful – if a mall is very small (500K sq. ft. seems to attract consensus support, though some editors would go higher), I can understand that absent unusual coverage it is relatively insignificant. Can two or three editors, hailing from the same town as the small mall and being a fan of it, influence an AfD, and have it result in a keep? Most certainly. The bright-line cut-off helps limit that eventuality. The same the other way; if a mall is over 1 million K sq. ft. – a number that it seems all would agree is a large mall – I am OK with assuming that it is notable, even if I can't find the GNG sources ... this is most helpful I would think with third-world-country malls. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially related -- since we are talking about mall deletions, there may be something of interest here as to one sysop's view on a recent mall AfD you !voted on. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I saw that thread when it started, but haven't been following it. It reminds me of this wonderful quote: You don't talk to people. You bully them.. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comet (railcar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Contentious Ra Law of One DRV, the right close, and a perfect explanation. WilyD 10:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)

Hi RoySmith. Because you closed Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination)

I thought that deletion request closures were to be policy based. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination) was closed as non consensus. The two opting for delete used policy while the two opting for keep were vague and did not provide any sources to support the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It looked to me like both sides were making reasonable arguments, so NC seemed like the proper course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs

Due to the fact that I wasn't able to response to your vote. Here we go: "The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about.." — I am not arguing for deletion because I believe Georgian royals to non-notable. I created List of Georgian consorts and helped clean up many articles about Georgian kings and queens. My argument is the list of mothers is trivial and not up to Misplaced Pages standard. I am not claiming the mothers are not notable. We don't have any such list anywhere else in Western monarchies. If there was a distinct title documented in sources such as Queens mother or Valide Sultan that would be different, we have had articles like this, but no this is a list of people who didn't have a distinct title. It is just a trivial list.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Where an editor keeps on restoring uncited material, without inline refs as required by wp:burden, including blp info, such as at Cornwall Square, what is the best way of addressing it? The back and forth of quoting wp:burden and deleting it ... is that the only way? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I had a good answer for you. Human behavior modification is a thorny problem, and one which technology fails badly at trying to solve. One possibility is asking for a disinterested party to assist, on WP:RFC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• So you propose WP:BR-RFC (bold, revert, RFC)?  Epeefleche believes in WP:BRT (bold, revert, template the regular's talk page).  Whatever happened to WP:BRD?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is not primarily a WP:BURDEN issue.  Epeefleche is interested in reverse-ripening the article for deletion so that he can get articles deleted that would not otherwise have been deleted.  If he believed in the strength of his own AfD argument that the article was worthless, he would not feel a need to tamper with the evidence.  As for the alleged WP:BURDEN, just within the last two weeks, diff, I documented a case in which Epeefleche removed sourced material from an article he had taken to AfD.  So the mere fact that Epeefleche says that there is a WP:BURDEN issue is not proof that such exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall Square

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

At Cornwall Square, you edited, diff, over an edit comment that said, "talk page is next". 

I stated at 3RR at 2014-07-02T06:35,

"I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit."

The sequence of edits on 2 July 2014 (UTC) is this:

• 2:22, I begin to work on the article, restoring 15% of the material, 300 characters, that Epeefleche had removed in his last two edits.
• 2:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page, when the correct next step was a WP:BRD discussion.
• 2:26, Epeefleche edits the article.
• 2:28 I add the eleven references.
• 2:33-2:37 I detect and repair the edit conflict.
• 2:50, last of my edits in that sequence.
• 2:51, Epeefleche posts a vandalism template to my talk page.  Note specifically that after I added the eleven references to the article, the next template on my talk page was "vandalism".
• 2:53, Epeefleche again edits the article.
• 3:05, I restore Epeefleche's edit of 2:26.
• 4:12, I restore a stable version of the article, that of 2014-06-21T01:24:58‎, and state, "talk page is next", diff.
• 4:18, I start discussion on talk page. Diff for all comments at Talk:Cornwall_Square.
• 4:21, Epeefleche ignores "talk page is next" and starts a discussion on your talk page called "Question".
• 4:22, 4:24, 4:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page.
• 4:44, Epeefleche announces at Talk:Cornwall Square that he and I have had an "at length" discussion.  Analysis shows that this "at length" discussion amounts to two templates posted on my talk page.  Roy, please pay attention to what Epeefleche thinks is "at length" discussion.  Then note the italics added to the word "already". 
• 4:48, Epeefleche posts at WP:3RR.  My statement that neither editor has done any edit warring is sustained by the closing admin.
• 12:04, You edit Cornwall Square, diff, bypassing the talk page.
• 12:08, You reply in the "Question" section on your talk page, about my "behavior modification".
• 12:34, You post at Talk:Cornwall Square in a new section.
• 15:47, Epeefleche posts at Talk:Cornwall Square without replying to either of two specific questions, and he specifically does not discuss the material in the article.  His attitude is uncivil and disrespects WP:CONSENSUS.

Roy, I came to this article to add eleven sources.  Three minutes after I began to work, I was templated on my talk page.  The speed of the response is impressive, but misguided.  The proper response was to go to the talk page as per the "D" in WP:BRD.

These were sources that Epeefleche should have reported as a part of WP:BEFORE D1.  The book is on the first page of 10 hits at Google books, and six of the articles are on the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers.  That leaves 4 more hits I found by looking beyond the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers.

At Talk:Cornwall Square, there were four confounded edits to discuss, which you bypassed when you started to edit.  As part of the process of beginning to add the eleven references, there had been two confounded edits, and I restored 15% of the material Epeefleche had removed, material that lacked consensus for removal.  That means that even though I was agreeing with Epeefleche on 85%, he still demanded my 100% acceptance of his viewpoint without discussion.

If you were going to get involved, why did you ignore the eleven references which I had had to remove so that I could engage in discussion on the talk page of the article?  Are you trying to "win" at AfD?

I'm not sure how it happens, but I think that Epeefleche needs to do the following:  (1) Perform WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion.  As much time as he puts into replying to those he perceives to be opponents, this is not asking a lot.  (2) Stop removing material and references from articles at AfD and articles on which he has posted a notability tag.  (3) Use Template:CN tags.  (4) Stop templating the regulars.  (5) Observe WP:BRD. 

As for yourself, I again request that you support our policies and guidelines, specifically including WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:ATD.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)