User talk:Camr

Welcome!

Hello, Camr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Your AfD was malformed and has been reverted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Justicialist Party & semi-protection

Hi, I'm dealing with that issue again here. Perhaps I'll have more luck with that sysop. --Miacek (t) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hello,

There is a answer waiting for you here on Commons

Best regards, Abigor (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not very knowledgeable about the technical side of the project, mainly focusing on editing articles and fighting vandalism. Try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk. Academic Challenger (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERNOM

WP:PERNOM is an essay like I already said. It is not a rule. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the top of the page and read the template that says "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other keeps were about what I posted. Longer or shorter, it is still the same comment. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not? What different meaning is there? Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want them to say when they think that seven reliable sources with significant coverage shows notability (which it does)? It's not like they will search for more sources when they think that WP:N is already met. Every keep is per me (you didn't complain about all of them). Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from admin on my talk page "Also, Joe is correct about the underlying issue here - an essay is just advice, not a rule and saying "per XYZ" most certainly is allowed and sometimes is helpful." If they didn't say anything, there would never be a concensus (which I already said). Forming a consensus isn't pointless. If no one commented, that AFD and many others would be closed as no concensus. So they do need to comment. So your comments are bias (your strong opinions are only shared by a very small miniority or just you). Joe Chill (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias because all of your opinions aren't supported by any policy or guideline (like I said). Also, Wikipedia wouldn't run well with your opinions (per everything that I said) and no one agrees with you (Like I said). You obviously don't understand AFD (coming from someone who has participated in hundreds of AFDs, got barnstars for my AFD work, got many good comments about my AFD work, and knows the notability guidelines by heart). Do you have any idea of how many AFDs would close as no consensus if they went by your opinions? A shit load. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Let me see if I can clear this matter through a little explanation... Basically, we have a couple competing factors here: 1) AfD is not a vote; 2) "Per nom" !votes aren't particularly useful; 3) We need multiple !votes to judge consensus.

All three of these things are true - the difficult part is sorting them out in a coherent way. The first factor - AfD is not a vote - is most certainly true. An admins task is to gauge consensus based on strength of argument, not vote counting. An AfD with >50% "keep" can close as delete, and visa versa. That said, sometimes AfDs will come down to two competing views. If each side is represented by only 1 !vote it is hard to determine what the community as whole believes. Sometimes one argument is obviously stronger - compare "I don't like it" to "there are tons of reliable sources available" - often one argument is not inherently superior to the other. This is where additional input is helpful. If two arguments look equally strong at first glance, but one is supported by 8 users and the other by only 2, chances are the side with 8 supporters has a stronger case (assuming good faith, lack of sock puppetry, and such). So this is where the need for more input arises (point 3).

Ideally, additional !voters will have new points to add. I personally would almost never add my voice to an AfD if I had nothing new to add, and would never say "per X" regardless. However, sometimes the first one or two people have better much covered all the bases. In that case, additional people saying "yeah I agree with that argument" can be helpful to the closing admin, as it shows which argument has been more persuasive.

If we didn't allow people to repeat points/say "per X" we would get into a situation where the first delete opinion perfectly stated that side and the first keep opinion perfectly stated that side, and no one else could comment because both sides had perfect arguments already. A reviewing admin could only legitimately close such an AfD as non consensus, even if it reality 90% of the community agreed with one side or the other. Thus "per X" votes certainly can be useful at times, even though they are weak arguments in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rtitle on house

Can you point me to where it is failing and i will try work out why, i suspect ti to do with the tempalte i have used to trancluded the data to lsit of hosue peisode--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

foudn the fault rtile needs to be added to ever episode liek this |RTitle= even tohugh it blank it causing a fault due to the template--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now, i will add rtitle to the other season ready for conversion to the template--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up!

	Hello Camr. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wernffrwd

Hi! Just to let you know that I have removed the {{db-g1}} template that you added to the above page. Although the article was started quite poorly, the revision at the time of the speedy nomination did not qualify as patent nonsense. If you object to this, perhaps you could take it to AfD. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Martin Hausen (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for commenting on my IPA pronunciation for Néstor Kirchner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Kirchner). Do you disagree with the pronunciation I give? It's meant to represent the most common Argentinean pronunciation of the name (what I hear most often from journalists, tv anchors and politicians), but of course (as with all pronunciations) there are bound to be variants. What pronunciation do you think wikipedia should give? Martin Hausen (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) You say that people pronounce the "s" in "Nestor" as /z/?? I totally disagree. Try it yourself, make alveolar contact while producing the /s/ (and make it voiced at that) and you'll see it's a completely unnatural thing to do for a rioplatense accent. Before consonants, /s/ is realized as [h] almost invariantly. I guess before pauses, in careful speech, /s/ could be realized as [s], so perhaps /"karlos/ could be [ˈkaɾlos] instead of [ˈkaɾloh] as it is now. But then again, the name is pronounced right before the last name, which begins with a consonant sound. As for the "r" in "Kirchner", I myself do not pronounce it, and neither do the native Argentineans in these recordings: http://es.forvo.com/word/n%C3%A9stor_kirchner/. Perhaps we could settle on [ˈki(ɾ)ʃneɾ]. Finally, [ʃ] does not stand for German "ch", but for "sch" (English "sh" in "show"). Martin Hausen (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'll modify the pronunciation to reflect a more careful variant with an alveolar fricative [s] for [ka4los]. However, for the /s/ in "Nestor" I insist that a pronunciation with [s] would sound foreign in Argentina. In phonology we make a clear distinction between written letters and spoken sounds. The underlying form of "Nestor" is /nestoɾ/ but rioplatense Spanish has two allophones (or variants) of /s/: [s] - a voiceless alveolar fricative (your tongue is in contact with the area just behind the upper front teeth - and [h] - no tongue contact, constriction of air flow takes place farther back in the glottal area. In short, you do pronounce *something* but not [s] in Nestor, which is why you perceive the *letter* "s" as being there.[reply]

Socialist tag

I've responded to your comment on the Front for Victory talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD nom of Frisa aerospace

Just FYI, WP:CSD#G1 really does means nonsense. For articles that just have links and/or a rephrasing of the title, WP:CSD#A3 works nicely. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags added with no details

Hi, I note that you added a POV tag to Emmanuel Schools Foundation and to Luis Palau. This template refers to the talk page, but you did not add any suggestions on the talk pages as to how those articles need to be improved. The last comment on the first one was that the article was "Considerably better". Please note your objections on the talk pages, otherwise I propose to remove the tags. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Please comment further at Talk:Emmanuel Schools Foundation#Article Issues. I've just trimmed the article of uncited or non-notable primary source stuff, and added a paragraph about opposition. However, I think the section you tagged should stay roughly as it is. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]