Ramsquire

AfD nomination of Jay-Z vs. Nas feud

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay-Z vs. Nas feud (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up . . .

and good to hear from you, Ramsquire. I was under the impression that arbitration only handled disputes about content, but if what you're saying is the case, how the hell do you get an impasse like this one resolved? Best Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dunno, Ramsquire. Good faith and . . . ? I'd better hold my tongue. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re

Hey Ramsquire, I was JUST thinking about you like yesterday. Glad to see you're still around and lurking occasionally. I was going to let Badmintonhist figure out that arbcom is not the right solution on his own; given his near-constant accusations and namecalling, I don't think he'd take my suggestions in good faith. To answer his question above, the proper "next step" is a request for comment. Ironically, I have decided to walk away from those sorts of article -- at the risk of WP:TLDR, I might suggest reviewing this discussion. Summary is that Wikipedia is a fundamentally flawed system which rewards editors for argumentum ad infinitum; reasonable editors will eventually walk away ("not worth the fight"), and the notion of "compromise is always good" is incorrect -- purposefully injecting bias, and standing up to disallow injection of bias are not two sides of the same coin. Anyway, I appreciate the note and good looking out. Hopefully we can run across each other on some articles that don't attract flamethrowers.  :) Good hearing from you! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)