User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 10

Welcome to my talk page. Use it to leave me messages. Please observe the following rules:

• Please use a new section when starting new topics.
  
• I will either respond on your talk page or respond here and ping you. If you have a box like this on your talk page I will read it and follow any instructions in it.
  

Are you here because:

• Your page was deleted as a copyright violation? Please read this, which may answer your question, before you leave a comment here.
  
• Your page was deleted for some other reason? if you're not familiar with Wikipedia's deletion process have a look here to find out why it was deleted. If you do decide to leave a comment here please include the title of the deleted page so I know which one you're talking about.
  
• I gave you a warning for something you didn't do? If you are not logged in, your IP address might be dynamically allocated and I left the warning for someone else using your IP address but you got the warning instead. You can see all the edits your IP address has made to Wikipedia here.
  

RE: Conduct of WLRoss

It appears that in the past, you have had some experiences with User:WLRoss (also known as "Wayne") on the 9/11 terrorist attack articles. I have started a Request for Comment on the conduct of WLRoss here and I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if you can contribute anything regarding your experiences. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Thank you for your reply on my question on page about DRV of List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav. Will you please be so kind to inform me if there is a wikipedia policy which says that bibliography articles on wikipedia should be "either lists of books written by famous authors (Charles Dickens bibliography) or lists of books about major topics"?

Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I respect your administrator status and more important I respect the number of edits you had and many years of wiki experience. That is the reason why I approached to you with my question. I know that page about DRV would be more appropriate place for this discussion, but I would like if you can help me accept the consensus that was basis for deletion of the article, before I take any further action in DRV process.

The first step in accepting the consensus is identifying one. That is why I asked you a simple question "Why was this article deleted?"

Your answer was because there was consensus about it

I asked you please take in consideration that "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority."

You answered "this AfD exhibited it"

I asked you two questions:1) what policy this consensus was grounded in and 2) what arguments were brought to explain why that policy was violated

You said: Consensus was grounded in many policies like WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT.

My opinion:

• WP:POVFORK: Nobody mentioned WP:POVFORK during the discussion in AfD process, so it could not be the reason for deleting the article. POVFORK exists if "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." Deleted article was bibliography, not another version of the biography article Vojsava Kastrioti, so I don't see how can a bibliography list be a POVFORK of biography article, especially taking in consideration that I created two bibliography lists which support both POVs.
• WP:NOT: This policy does not even mention bibliographies, so this article being a bibliography could not be the reason for deleting it. As you said yourself, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) covers lists of works by an individual. There are only two users that mentioned "bibliography is not article" as reason for deletion. Since that reason is not grounded in wikipedia policy, it can not be part of consensus that was basis for deletion of the article.

I am really more than willing to say, ok, there was consensus based on arguments grounded in wikipeda policies and that consensus was reason for deletion of the article. Till now, I haven't seen such consensus. If you did, please help me identify it.

English is not my native language, so maybe I am missing some point because of that. Therefore please have patience if I failed to understand some arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPs.

Re [1]: BLPs include "information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so the BLP template is valid for this page, and gets more attention than "unreferenced" templates. -- Jeandré, 2011-04-25t22:04z