User talk:142.167.92.127

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.167.92.127.

[edit] War and Peace

Yeah, they aren't notable and there's no real content anyway. I can't see anyone caring about those articles (they haven't been edited since last August), so I've gone ahead and redirected them straight away. Funeral 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You thoughts, part 681

Thunderbolt (Norwegian band). What do you think? It passed an AfD eons ago (supposedly) I think it's due for another. You? Libs 142.167.92.127 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speedy and I don't want to AfD. But I have PROD'd; I see no sources proving any of the claims on the article's talk page. Sorry for brief reply, recently unbanned user User:privatemusings made an error that I gots to fix. ScarianCall me Pat 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Pat is sleep deprived cranky... You could've told me that you PROD'd it first :-D - I've listed it for AfD now btw. I think IP's can !vote on AfD's nowadays... you just gotta note it down... e.g. IP Delete [Reason] etc. Anyhow, I'm here till 3 am GMT if you need me ;-) ScarianCall me Pat 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I saw that. Ha, what a dick. I've warned the IP for test edits. Serious coffee time! ScarianCall me Pat 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, took a while to clear up :-D - I got a checkuser done over IRC and then our friend User:east718 pulled all the blocks. Good job, Libsey. Just another day at the office ;-) ScarianCall me Pat 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week. I can't touch the username as he's been around for a while and he doesn't seem so much like the others. To be honest, Libsey, I think we've lost this AfD :-/ ScarianCall me Pat 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect the IP vote can be struck as a block evasion vote. I suspected that "username" was actually a sock for Uselos. Bit the IP is in Norway. It has a, brief but similar, edit history to "username"... it's what tweaked my suspicion that Username was editing out of the IP range. (and reduced my thoughts that it was a uselos sock.... a meatpuppet maybe still though) 142.167.92.127 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PS also... Usernames vote just added a bunch of spam links to a bunch of retarded fanzines that don't meet WP:RS... so his attempt to support his own vote sprt of backfired. It could still go if editors interested in quality vote. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Beaker

Hi, and thanks for the question - I'm happy to explain my reasoning. The raw "vote" count was actually 8 deletes to 6 keeps, even including the nominator (he "voted" in addition to nominating). One of the deletes, Ghmyrtle, actually switched to keep, though he didn't strike through the original delete comment so it's easy to miss.

More importantly, AfD is a discussion rather than a straightforward vote, so the quality of the arguments is key in a case where the raw count is close. In this case, three of the delete comments occured prior to the sourcing and rewrite by User:Cricket02. Two of those did not comment after the rewrite, so I discounted their initial comments somewhat, as they had commented on a different version of the article. The only one of those three who did comment after the rewrite was User:Enigmaman (the nom), who conceded that the article was "arguably up to standards" after the rewrite. Four delete comments came in after the rewrite, but, of those, two had virtually no content and one switched to keep.

So, the only substantive arguments for deletion, after the rewrite, came from Enigmaman, and he seemed on the fence, and from Richhoncho. In contrast, just about all the keep arguments were substantive and offered reasoning beyond simply linking to a policy. So, my analysis was that the keep side had the stronger arguments and carried the consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)