User talk:~riley

User talk:~riley/u User:Riley H/c Hello and welcome to my talk page, feel free to ask any questions! Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk

|}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

NAC's are not suitable for MMA event where the MMA fans !voting keep don't directly address policy. Can you please re-open, or if you disagree please expand your close to include what sources your feel are not routine coverage and are from reliable sources. Thanks Mtking ^(edits) 03:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen with the discussion, consensus is clearly stating keep (fans or not; most have good points). "NAC's are not suitable for MMA event where the MMA fans !voting keep don't directly address policy." First, please read Wikipedia:NAC which does not state anything you just mentioned as what a non-admin should and should not close. Several policies are mentioned like WP:MMANOT, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOT DOES (don't know what that one is) and WP:Crystal Ball. I don't know why you are asking me to go through the article and point out the RS's and which aren't, specially since your/the nomination was not stating that the references were not reliable sources. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a policy, WP:EFFECT is a guideline and WP:MMANOT is an essay, None of the Keeps addressed the issue of failing not newspaper by demonstrating it does pass, as is common with MMA events for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156. Mtking ^(edits) 04:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciated the solid judgment on the AfD Riley. MtKing is on some sort of bizarre witch hunt to delete as many MMA related articles as possible with his cookie cutter AfD template and reasoning which has been overruled many times already. Thanks for doing what was right. Hopefully this guy will find something else to do with the several hours per day he wastes on it soon enough.I remember halloween (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant to comment further on this when I was at home but I guess I never pressed save so when I get home later, I will save my response. Thank you for your patience. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that I haven't commented further on this and I am so sorry! Once I finish this essay I am working on, I will immediately reply to your query that I should have replied to nine days ago. Again, so sorry! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 05:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Mtking, thank you for correcting me on the term, yes, not every comment is supported by a policy but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is mentioned and one specific part of it is mentioned; WP:CBALL. Yes, WP:EFFECT is a guideline but it has the importance of a policy as you linked it in your nomination as not meeting ("..no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate why or how this event will have any lasting significance..") but stated otherwise to meet the guideline. Yes, WP:MMANOT is an essay but it is also important because most users who edit in that area treat it like a guideline (if I am correct). I made this good-faith closure based off of judgement of clear consensus and based off these links. As I said above, "consensus is clearly stating keep (fans or not; most have good points)" and to add on to that, if users agreed that the page should have been deleted, comments should have been made stating it does not meet this or that. If you would like the discussion to be re-opened, you're more than welcome to reopen it. I, however, shall not, for reasons stated above. Have a good day. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 04:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC) :) |}

LadyGagaDisco user

Keeps removing the redirect. Can you do something about it please. AARON• ^TALK 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested the deletion of the page ARTPOP (2012 promotional album), previously ARTPOP (Lady GaGa album), previously ARTPOP (2012 album), some competence is requiered to edit articles, which LadyGagaDisco has not proven, especially this and [this.

Newbie or not, he has been warned multiple times and received multiple warns for the same reasons, creation of non-notable musical articles. Also, communication is an important factor. If I recieve a warn I communicate with the person who left it, and he has recievied this links and comments:

• Wikipedia:Starting an article
• Wikipedia:Your first article
• "If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page"

I left a final warning, which he ignored while I wrote this [1]. I'm taking him/her to AIV. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tbhotch, thanks for handling this so quickly. Aaron, thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

:(

IRC Cloud crashed my chrome. I blame you. *shakes fist angrily*

Also, what's with the {{collapse}} talk page? ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahah, sorry. Guess we are even now since my IRCCloud won't connect! *shakes fist angrily* I am just trying the collapsible way of a talk page so I can remind myself which discussions are open, which aren't and which discussions I have not replied too yet. I love how it saves space too (knowing how picky I am ;)! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

Please do away with the collapses

They're difficult on the eyes--but more importantly, they destroy your TOC. Please? —Theopolisme 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just starting to like them.. In my mind, it improves the TOC because I can see what messages have not been responded to. Yes, then you can't link to a section but I will just have to get used to that. Will it help your eyes if I change the color? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, what about section edit links? And how is a new editor/IP supposed to know to edit above the {{cob}}? Just seems like more trouble than it's worth. —Theopolisme 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Added section headers, +section edit links. As picky as I am, I like it :3 -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

Connetquot High School Plot
Connetquot High School Plot hey, I am not opposed to merging if it will help you close the AfD on the above Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Talkback: you've got messages! Hello, ~riley. You have new messages at User:Riley Huntley/new. Message added 12:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Some updates. (linkify) Feel free to kill the text on the right if you don't want it. —Theopolisme 12:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Antiguo Automata Mexicano erase proposal

Antiguo Automata Mexicano erase proposal Greetings, the reason you gave to keep Antiguo Automata Mexicano's article in Wikipedia doesn't explain why it should be ignored my erase proposal. you say there's a couple of magazines that covered, but in Mexico those magazines are completely unknown, if the article should be keep then it shouldn't be listed within Mexican Electronic Music, besides the coverage of the project is made by the artist himself, I hope you know how to speak spanish so you can find that the musician is also a journalist, and the alleged coverage is only from personal blogs so it fills the requirement to be erased for being intrascendental (Wikipedia guidelines A7), I apreciate your atention to keep this place free of spam and autopromotion, you can serch to find THe URB nor Pitchfork Magazines aren't distributed within Mexico, so those aren't valid references with enough value to consider someone reviewed there as a representative musician in Mexico, if the article shouln't be erased then it should be listed as part of the list of a country where it's known, I apreciate your disposition to find this is obviously autopromotion because to be listed in all the blogs of the musician's friends is not a serious coverage, the article doesn't even exists in spanish or in Wikipedia Mexico as you can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postculture (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Hello, I think you are confusing me with another user, I only relisted the discussion to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Cheers, Riley 21:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind doing me a favor?

Mind doing me a favor? Hey Riley. A while ago I tried to register User:F&A as a doppelgänger, to redirect to my userpage for easier linking (say, when leaving a new user a manual welcom/notification/warning, and linking to my talk page at the end, in case they don't realize they can just click the link in my sig). The filter stopped me because several similar names were taken. I submitted a request, explaining that I just wanted to use it for linking, but got a form letter in response, citing the similar names. Figured I'd drop it, and registered User:FRC&AND (everything shorter also triggered the filter). Theopolisme recently created the F&A userpage and user talk page as redirects to mine (thanks Theo!!), but I've been hesitant to use them as links, lest they be U2 deleted. I remembered that you have the account creator bit, so I figured I'd give it another shot, this time with someone who knows that I understand the username policy. Obviously I'd never edit with it, so I can't see how username similarities would be a problem. Or is it still an issue? Thanks. :) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC) I'll be happy to create it; please make a request at wp:ACC and mention Theopolisme in the comments--I'll get pinged when you do so, and I'll be happy to create it. We just need to do it through ACC so there's a record. —Theopolisme 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Awesome. :) Thanks again, Theo! (Or do you prefer your full username being used? I'm never sure.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Theo's fine! :) However... Bad news: Unfortunately, it looks like the problem wasn't in fact similar names (ACC only, see #83531)--it was a global account with >15 edits, therefore active, with a similar name. As such, I think feel free to WP:IAR and go for linking, regardless of being registered or not. :P —Theopolisme 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for handling this Theo. Sorry for the inconvenience, Franco. -- Cheers, Riley 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Awww. Well, be sure to trout RHaworth for me if he deletes it again, Theo. ;) Hmmm... can you create an editnotice for a redirect? And, if so, would an admin be aware of it before deleting? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Probably better to just make it a soft redirect and include some text noting its purpose. —Theopolisme 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A NAC

Hi Riley Huntley. On 3 December, you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Bal Thackeray. Relistings only fall under WP:NAC when they have had "little or no discussion". There were well more than a dozen comments to that point, and it may well have been possible for a consensus to be determined. I'm not actually saying it was; I can see at a quick glance that the !votes were somewhat evenly split (I'm intentionally not reading in detail in case I opt to close it later), but I've seen similar "counts" closed one way or the other before depending on the quality of the arguments. So, I think it would have been better to leave this close to an admin. Since there's already been quite a number of new comments so far, it makes sense to just keep it relisted, though, so no change on the actual result. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I made the relist in good faith per the policy, WP:RELIST in "attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted." Correct me if I am wrong but the amount of voters is not an issue when there is no clear consensus (as has been done here and here by MBisanz), which from what I have seen looking at the discussion, there is no clear consensus. As you probably know, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." - Sorry for the inconvenience. :) -- Cheers, Riley 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I looked at the AfD...and were I not involved, I'd definitely have closed that case--to me, the result is obvious from the discussion, and I see a consensus. I see one side advancing arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and another side with policy clearly on their side. I wouldn't actually close that AfD, because if I did, some of the editors would say I'm taking sides (because I have a history with most of them), but I think that the discussion could easily have been closed after 7 days with a clear consensus. I do believe you made the close in good faith, but I think that NAC doesn't quite extend as far as a case like this. But maybe my interpretation of NAC is too strict. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, there was no clear consensus of if the article should be deleted completely or be merged into a separate article. Votes don't mean anything in an AfD unless they are supported by policy but there was still 5 delete and 3 merge (excluding the keep votes) before I relisted. I made the relist following policy, not the essay. NAC is a suggestion and does not like many policies; cover all the uncharted seas. -- Cheers, Riley 00:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

Counter-Vandalism

Counter-Vandalism Hi! I saw that you were willing to train users about countering vandalism, and I would really like to learn how. Would you train me? Thanks, Jakob 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Just a suggestion from a (talk page stalker), you might want to work on writing articles first before you start worrying about vandalism. You have only ~40 edits to the article space, with 600+ to the users pace and user talk space. Legoktm (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I did create Snow Treasure...but, I'll take your suggestion. --Jakob 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Hey B. Jakob T., nice article. I would be glad to take you as a student but first I ask that you try and reach approx. 300 article edits first. This way I can analyze what type of contributor you are and see what type of teaching methods I can use to help you become a confident vandalism fighter. Is that workable? -- Cheers, Riley 06:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Sure, I'll let you know when I reach 300. Jakob 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)