Contents

User talk:Lightburst/Archive 12-15-19

Thank you for your help. Can you please add a few words of support to the replies I've included to the naysayers? Thanks. Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Neutrality_check. jps (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you
	Thank you for the kind words. I can't believe they deleted the page, despite 19 votes (out of 54) to keep it. That is not a consensus. And the reason? There is a supposed consensus that a list of scientists, that are not climate scientists, is not appropriate? That is absurd. What do we do, and how do we fix this? Kolg8 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is very difficult. The nominator canvassed a bunch of editors over to delete that article but he will not face sanctions. The involved editors have attacked the article rescue project where I posted that article, and then made multiple attempts to have the article rescue project eliminated. One is still going. It is a terrible shame. You can file a deletion review. Or try to recreate it addressing the concerns of the Delete votes. A copy exists on a wiki mirror site. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially an accusation that I was lying about not seeing previous deletion discussions. That's not correct. I just missed the prior discussions. I'm not really sure what I would gain by pretending to not see prior deletion discussions anyway. I would appreciate it if you would strike through that comment.

I've tried to make it clear that I'm open to working with you on this stuff. If that's not coming through, let me be more explicit: I want to work with you here, I don't want to destroy ARS or make you grovel. I want to contribute to the project. I think some of my suggestions might reduce the drama without changing the way ARS operates. You're treating everyone like the enemy, and it will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy if you do it long enough. Nblund ^talk 21:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey we think alike - I already publicly apologized because of the different title. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nblund: I hope you understand, administrators, and editors turn up every few months to place restrictions on the group. And about twice a year or more someone tries to shut the project down. I pointed out of the weekly estimated 500-800 articles that get nominated for deletion, we might pick 1-3. And sometimes the members have no interest in an article and it sinks into oblivion. All we keep doing is plugging away trying to make a difference. I will tell you how I became involved. I started an article called Jean Mill. It was immediately tagged with an AfD. I was new and could not make the correct arguments or support the article with correct references- check out the nominator ridiculing me with Wiki-acronyms. I learned a lot...anyway ARS picked up the article and helped me save it. From then on, I participated on the project. We have had some successes, and many more failures. There are about three or four editors who detest the project, and they follow whatever we post only to !vote delete on the AfD. you can probably understand why there are so few participants now. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Great work saving Billy Moore (musician, born 1931) from being TNTed! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, this is to notify you that an article you supported for deletion in a recent deletion review, Kartikeya Sharma, has been restored to mainspace with new information and sources. You may wish to examine the new version to see if you have any remaining concerns regarding notability. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hug^syrup 11:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Hey just a heads up. If you are looking to find the birthday all I could find was some non-RS saying it was July 28, 1991.[1][2] Neither reliable but at least consistent, a better source would need to be found to be useable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I updated the article. Will continue to look for better sources! Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightburst. You've uploaded this file under both a non-free license and a PD-FLGOV license which is going to create a license conflict and lead to the file getting tagged with {{wrong license}} by a bot. If the file is within the public domain, then there's no need for a non-free license or a non-free use rationale. You can use Template:Information instead to provide information about the image and the file should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. At the same time, if the file is not PD, then it needs to be licensed as non-free and PD-FLGOV cannot be used; in such a case I suggest using {{Non-free biog pic}} for the license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale. If you're not sure whether the file is non-free or PD, you might want to ask at WP:MCQ or even c:COM:VPC to see what some others think. Moreover, the People magazine article you're giving as the source for the image isn't really the original source of the image and it's unlikely that Splash News Online is as the original source as well; so, it would be better to use a source which actually credits the "Pinellas County Jail" as the source of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Thanks much for the message. I will see if I can navigate this advice. If You have a fast way to help me update the information to what you feel is appropriate - that may be the most expedient. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.