Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 22 June 2007

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

Re: American English vs Americanism

So are you editing sophomore out of every English Misplaced Pages article, or just singling out the Maroon 5 article? Regardless, thanks for bringing this to my attention. From now on, when I review articles of British topics for GA, I'll be sure to insist that any British terms that don't register as acceptable in my browser-based spell checker be changed to a mutually common word to save readers the time of utilizing the wikification feature. Regards, LaraLove 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I stand by my point, but I understand yours to. I'll leave it alone. --LaraLove 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Want some help with that? If you want, I can change "sophomore" to "second album" for most articles on hip-hop/rap albums. Just saying this because I noticed your edit here. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Any that you wish to do would be great - it's a bit of a mammoth task for just one person! Thanks. violet/riga (t) 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Please do not restore articles deleted by other administrators under this policy without first consulting them.

I want you now to redelete those articles until Doc has had a chance to reply. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the reason - he has deleted articles that are fully referenced and should not have been removed in the first place. If he can give a reason for each one being deleted under policy then I will accept their removal, but he cannot arbitrarily go around deleting other people's work claiming "WP:NOT". BLP can apply in some cases but none of these articles are defamatory in any way and they are properly referenced. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc has been going through and removing articles on children that are excessively focused on salacious and sensationalistic detail. These articles are a serious privacy violation, and there is excellent ethical reason to remove them. Please undo your removals. If you want to talk more about specifics, please pop onto #wikipedia-en-admins. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't use IRC so I am unable to discuss it there. Doc has been removing articles that are not "salacious and sensationalistic" in all cases - I cannot see how they can be removed when they are fully referenced. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They can be removed because they obviously don't belong on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously? I'm sorry but you cannot simply decide that an article such as the referenced Abhilasha Jeyarajah does not belong despite having been here for well over two years. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there are serious privacy concerns. If you have specifics, please - grab an IRC client and log in. This is an important issue, and undeletion without discussion is very harmful. Phil Sandifer 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no privacy concerns on referenced articles that are in no way defamatory to their subject and that do not detail personal information not available in those references. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are other sites on the Internet violating people's privacy doesn't mean we should. Google any of those people and Misplaced Pages is the first or second hit you get on them. We have to be VERY careful about the way we present these subjects, and in these cases the articles were not presenting them in a humane way. This is a BLP concern, and a valid one. Phil Sandifer 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with BLP and feel that it does not apply in these cases. The matter should be discussed without unilateral deletion. violet/riga (t) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to unilaterally revert another administrator is not acceptable. Doc was (and is) online and able to discuss the deletion with you. You should have discussed the articles with himbefore taking action. And if you still found his reasons unsatisfactory, the deletions could have been taken to deletion review - there was absolutely no need for you to revert him so casually. WjBscribe 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the articles should have been taken to AFD and never unilaterally deleted. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to reverse a deletion without consultation is unacceptable, to do so when the administrator responsible is online is wholly unacceptable. I must insist you revert your misguided administrative actions straight away. Nick 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The decision to delete articles without any consultation is wrong and an insult to those that worked hard to create them. Now the articles (note: not all of them) have been restored communication and discussion can take place. violet/riga (t) 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to reverse an administrator without discussion. That is wheel warring. And in BLP cases the default is to delete, not restore - eventualism is not an acceptable route for BLP concerns. Finally, there was consultaiton - extensive consultation in the admin channel on IRC, which exists specifically to talk about sensitve BLP issues without compounding privacy violations. Phil Sandifer 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC is not a mandatory part of the Misplaced Pages process and these are not sensitive BLP issues. We are talking about articles that have existed in the present form for years not hours or days. violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion should have taken place before you acted, as you well know. There are serious concerns regarding these articles and you were clearly not aware of these. That is why it is wholly unacceptable to revert when articles have been removed due to BLP concerns. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Public discussions should have taken place before the articles were deleted. violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it would be more constructive all round if people calmed down a little and worried more about the proper route to take from here onward, rather than insisting on self-reversions and secret IRC discussions? The issue should be "what should we do with this article", not "so-and-so did this! outrageous!" "but you did this first!" "but you did this! I won't discuss it until you revert yourself!". That's petty and childish and not getting anyone anywhere. --YFB ¿ 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP has to be dealt with accordingly, as in this case. For some totally unaware user to come along and blissfully wheel war is totally unworkable. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view it is totally unworkable for someone to blissfully delete articles that have existed for several years without any form of discussion. violet/riga (t) 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Misplaced Pages:Wheel war I have not gone against the policy. It clearly states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it" - I have not repeated my action, having only done it once. violet/riga (t) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem quite appropriate (if unconstructive) that an out of process deletion be reveresed by an out of process restoration. If the article had been taken through the proper channels in the first place (why the hell do the people continually crying BLP insist on sidestepping these) the discussion would have occured, as it should. We would then not have once again angered the community (yes unilateral deletion piss me off as well) and once again started an uproar. Going around deleting articles in this way when you know what the response is going to be is both point-y and disruptive. Viridae 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-process deletions can be undone without discussion, if an admin so chooses. The recent deletions done by Phil and Doc are out of line, and seem to be based more on personal ethical beliefs than our policies. "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify unilateral actions and ignoring of past consensus and AFD discussions. Prolog 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As this seems to have gone quiet for a while I'll finally take the chance to get to bed, having stayed up until nearly 3am to discuss the matter (yet I get accused of not discussing it). I'll be back in the morning to read any further comments, and trust that there won't be any wheel wars (i.e. re-deletions) overnight. violet/riga (t) 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)#

Prologue is wrong. I've already demonstrated that. Arbcom have already made that clear. I am willing to review my deletions and if I'm incorrect I will reverse myself. I have done that before. If there is still disagreement we go to DRV. Undeleted BLP deletions is unacceptable. Undeleting without discussion when the admin is on-line is discourteous. I ask once more for you to reverse yourself - and then list the articles you wish me to review on my talk page. If you will not do so, I fear will arbitration be the end result, and wheel-warriors (for that is what arbcom has repeatedly called it) will likely be sanctioned. I am not infallible, I always review on request, and am willing to admit and reverse my mistakes, If I'm not, then DRV will be open to you. Once again, I ask nicely for you to comply.--Doc 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your attitude in the past to BLP (once again, this is not a clear BLP violation) I find it unlikely that you would reverse yourself. Continually calling other people wheel warriors is very unhelpfull, and continually threatening someone with arbcom is also unhelpfull. As you well know, this is unlikely to have been taken up by arbcom on its own (possibly as part of the full BLP issue) for a start because it is a reliatively minor reversal and secondly because there has been no recourse to any other dispute resolution. If you wish to make an issue of it, why not take your own advice, don't redelete the articles and instead attempt to gain some consensus in an RfC. Viridae 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the undeletion of an invalid delete is not wheel-warring as per the policy as it stands now. Deleting people's work without any comment is discourteous. Threatening people with arbitration when you have not tried to discuss the matter is discourteous. Discussing things off-wiki is discourteous. I suggest we talk about this matter and try to find a resolution. violet/riga (t) 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles when one does not like the subject matter is not only discourteous but desysop-worthy. These articles did not meet any CSD criterion (including G10), Misplaced Pages is not censored and you deleted them with summaries such as "eak, no WP:BLP", "per WP:BLP", "WP:BLP not this". Was it not obvious that this would cause drama? Not to mention that you deleted five articles in eight minutes, which is not really a sign of respect towards other users, their work and opinions. I do not think you are in any position to blame others for not discussing before acting. Prolog 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, if I had the time I would be starting an RfC. But unfortunately I am flitting between a computer and the lab. I have been meaning to get around to an RfC on Docs actions int his whole BLP thing for a few days - i think this just adds to the pile. Viridae 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bring it on. I like RfCs. I invariably find they backfire on those that file them though.--Doc 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to clear up a matter on which I can speak with some authority. The most important definition of wheel-warring came out of the Pedophile userbox wheel war case, which Doc has already mentioned. If you look at the proposed decision page, you'll note that the Arbitration Committee explicitly rejected the idea that wheel-warring involved multiple reversals in favor of a wheel-war being one in which an administrative action is reverted without discussion. Repeatedly undoing deletions, where the deleting administrator had asserted WP:BLP concerns, without prior discussion, strikes me as reckless. As an aside, there's a reason BLP discussions occur in IRC: IRC doesn't appear in Google cache, therefore existing in perpetuity on the Internet (probably the first hit). Think about that. Consider the implications. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The IRC matter is true, but as at least one of these was not a clear and obvious violation of BLP (especially since the deleting admin himself has thus far not provided references to which part of the policy it happens to violate) there is no harm in these things going to afd. Viridae 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Repeatedly undoing deletions..." - yeah, repeatedly doing it would be bad. Doing it once of a few articles is different. BLP is not an excuse for deleting any article you think happens to violate the policy. It's lucky that I happened to log on and notice this otherwise several valid articles (imo) would have been removed with very little evidence that it ever existed. That is very bad. violet/riga (t) 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-waring - arbcom clarification

For your information . By the way, since you obviously simply misunderstood the policy here, there's no hard feelings. It is easy to lose sight of these things.--Doc 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be commenting there. violet/riga (t) 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. We interpreted policy differently. But, the difference is important. There seemed little point is us squabbling over it, so I asked for arbcom to clarify, since there is obviously some room for doubt. I deliberately proceeded by 'request for clarification', so as not to ask arbcom to sanction anyone. We just both need to know what the ground rules really are.--Doc 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I have proposed that you be added to the arbitration case for Badlydrawnjeff, as your reversals of deletions are a related issue to that case. The proposal is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop if you wish to comment on it. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pasilalinic-sympathetic compass, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Hemingway

On 2 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gregory Hemingway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DYKs

Any idea how many you have? If you have enough, you may have a place on the list. Please get back to me. Anonymous Dissident 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, umm lots! A look at my archives should get most of the ones I've done. BRB! violet/riga (t) 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Going through my talk archives I can spot 50 that I created (a nice number - maybe I should stop there!). I think there will be a couple more than that, including those that appeared on DYK without notification (back in the day when it wasn't so common!). violet/riga (t) 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you take a look at the list, you will see that you fit in at about the tenth spot. Feel free to add your name in the correct spot. As you can see, many of the higher contributors do not know *exactly* how many they have, so a nice c.(number of articles) or approx.(number of articles) should be fine. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Thank you for your over-50 DYK contributions. Keep up the excellent work! Anonymous Dissident 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is common in practice now, since the birth of the list, to grant users appropriate awards for their number of DYKs. Thanks for your hard work, Anonymous Dissident 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - a very lovely medal! Much appreciated. violet/riga (t) 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case

I want you to know that I strongly support you in this. I think it's totally unacceptable that some admins are unilaterally deleting sourced, verifiable, non-libellous articles in some sort of moral crusade to censor Misplaced Pages, based on an overzealous interpretation of BLP; you were quite right to undo the deletions in question, and should be commended. Walton 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Walton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for that. I don't like disputes but at least it's helping everyone to discuss the matter and will (hopefully) lead to a positive outcome. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys

why couldn't you have left my arctic monkeys contribution? it makes sense, it has a high possiblitly.

It's a very common snowclone and not really likely to have been influenced from that film. It constitutes original research and was not referenced. violet/riga (t) 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

question?

With regards to the DRV of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu which you instigated, it appears that the same admin who deleted the article also closed the deletion review discussion. I don't know about the official appropriateness of that, nor do I know where to find the policies regarding such. But I thought that it might interest you, as it struck me as a conflict of interest. — pd_THOR | 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not the most appropriate of things to do but if the consensus is clear and the process has run its course then I don't think it's too bad. Thanks for pointing it out. violet/riga (t) 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

London 2012 logo

why did you remove the b3ta imagery? i can understand the Lisa simpson comment going, but i think at least some of the images should be left back in. Cm619 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

B3ta parody a lot of things and this is nothing new or unusual. Linking to them does not really benefit the article or our coverage of the 2012 Games. violet/riga (t) 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated

I've jotted down some thoughts at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd appreciate your feedback. JoshuaZ 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unusually-shaped vegetable

On 8 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unusually-shaped vegetable, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bartonella rochalimae removal

The item is listed at Current Events. See Portal:Current events/2007 June 7. Also, it is of international significance, or interest. The new bacterium belongs to a genus of bacteria that is known to affect hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Also, the news was published in a reputable journal (New England Journal of Medicine), and news reports of the new bacteria have been published in other countries (Australia and Qatar) for example. I ask that you reconsider your previous decision to remove the item from ITN. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed the entry in CE - sorry about that. Still, I can't see that it's of significance or importance news-wise given the lack of coverage it is receiving. violet/riga (t) 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Science has always been given second-rate status to politics or sports. When someone dies from this, I can guarantee there's going to be a throng of news reports filed. Anyway, the findings were published only yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is why it hasn't been covered extensively. Anyway, see , and . There's a few dozen articles on the subject already, covered in different newspapers across the globe. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Two of those show only 1 result each, and the other shows only a couple of unique stories. Since most major news organisations have ignored the story I don't feel that we should carry it on our "In the news" section. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The two that show only one link are the ones that are shown when you search "Bartonella rochalimae" in Google News. Below the one news item, there is a link entitled "all 38 news articles »" that goes to all the news stories. Also, in regards to "major news organisations", I don't think that's a good indicator for ITN notability. There have been many occasions when science-related articles put on ITN are not covered by major news groups. Also, what do you consider "major news organisations"? If you look at the big list of news items, you'll see a bunch from world-famous news companies. I see the San Francisco Chronicle, China Daily, Agence France-Presse (which is an equivalent to the Associated Press), New York Post, and the Daily Chronicle. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the news stories on Google News, but if you look at them you'll notice that there are only about 5 unique stories syndicated across these sites. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with it being there? Some people like to read about things like that in an encyclopedia! :-P Cbrown1023 talk 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but we have rules to follow for the ITN page. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like good news (well not good news, but newsworthy news) to me. Nishkid is right that science is usually undercovered.--ragesoss 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes science is often overlooked and undercovered, but this story, to me, is not a news story of international interest or importance. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the support of two others I am not averse to the story being replaced, but I do believe that it doesn't meet our requirements for ITN. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Worm charming

On 11 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Worm charming, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Hi. I assume you have read the linked guideline regarding relevant material. I have reverted your post as I do not believe the trivial fact you are discussing is worthy of inclusion, either in the article or its associated talk page.

In short, you revert the edit to the talk page, but be bold enough to try adding it to the main article as well, if you really believe it is that relevant. I have given an opinion about the validity of the info, and I do not editwar. Thanks. Ref (do) 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Our perceptions of trivia, without the benefit of a Misplaced Pages guideline to measure against, are clearly miles apart. In the scheme of things, given all that Uriah has achieved, including his personal struggle for professional acceptance, given the racial tendencies of some within football, I see your fact as a pebble in a pond. Excuse my bluntness on this. I am under the impression that article talk pages are there for discussion as to what might be suitable for adding to the main article, and indeed for what might need removing. Our article talk pages would be pretty congested if editors popped up willy nilly adding snippets like the one under discussion right now. If it really is a serious contender for inclusion, then of course it's relevant. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intentions.

The only test I can suggest is as stated above, to add your info to the article. The reference supplied looks fair, as long as it doesn't belong to 2003, like some of the other points mentioned in the webpage. Consensus will win out anyway, either for or against.

Please note that I am not arguing about your experience and knowledge, as an admin, of Misplaced Pages guidelines. As I have said, I do not editwar, as my edits are always meant in good faith. You have obviously reverted, and I am saying that the matter is closed from hereon in. If my edit to the talk page was meant as wilful vandalism, I could understand being blocked (I do enough vandal-reverting to know this). I am not trying to talk myself into a block. I would merely wish that you take what I have said at face value. Thanks for your posts to my talk page. Ref (do) 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Horace Liveright

On 19 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horace Liveright, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help

I'd be glad if you could see my talk page:-topics entitled(Fluence,Victoria). Also on my previous archive some user called The Mekon's called me a cunt and stuff like that and now it's bcome everyday business. I need you to do something about this if you can, please. You can check my history if you like, I haven't started any sort of argument with any of this people. ThanksVictoria Eleanor 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No need of help now, it's all under controlVictoria Eleanor 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Just a word of support. No-one seems to be listening to you, and this proposal is ridiculously heavy-handed. Please don't let all of this uncalled for opprobrium upset you too much. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's amazing how some people want to simply ignore the fact that I'm trying to help sort the matter out and improve BLP so that we don't have such problems. I now regret coming back from my wiki-break. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I went away completely for a week to recharge, started contributing very slowly, and then got sucked into this morasse. Just look at my contributions. It is so frustrating to be wasting time on this sort of nonsense when there are articles to be written. So much for redoubling my efforts to sticking to writing articles and avoiding wikipolitics...

As Ghirlandajo wisely said to me: Travaillons sans raisonner; c'est le seul moyen de rendre la vie supportable. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I saw your comments on the case talk page and want to reply. Primarily, ArbCom takes cases to deal with disruptive conduct. Along the way we sometimes need to clarify policy. In the BDJ case, ArbCom needs to make a ruling that will help the community work more collabertively on BLP issues.

While you intend to help, IMO, your participation in the case has inflammed the situation. Your ongoing attempts to discussion the issue are not bringing the result you want. I think you need to take a different approach. Maybe take a break from this issue for awhile. Then come back and privately ask someone that is experienced with BLP to explain their understanding of the policy. That approach will help you understand the policy and not draw the spotlight on you as is happening now. FloNight 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You talk as if I don't understand the policy. Well perhaps that's true, but that's because of the way it is written as evidenced by numerous disputes and disagreements about it. Right now you are disagreeing with another arbitrator about one aspect of the policy that really should've been sorted well before now. You can talk about the ethics of BLP but the policy as Tony is calling it is not what it says. The fact that I am fully supportive of the need to remove dodgy content seems to be lost on you. I do hope you've gone through the history of the BLP page and seen the disputes there. If Tony were to put in everything that he is saying the BLP covers he would be immediately reverted by several people. Simply put, I'm being taken to task for following the policy as it stands (stood) rather than what some users think it should be. This is totally different. It's not even the difference between letter and spirit, it's more.

I'm not sure what you think "the result want" is. I want for us to sort out the mess that BLP is currently in and make it more explicit. And no, that would not involve dumbing it down, quite the contrary. violet/riga (t) 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated several times, you drew attention to yourself and got the strongly worded sanction largely because of your statements and conduct after you undeleted the articles. I assumed good faith...that you undeleted because you wanted to help the project. People make mistakes. That can not be helped. But you do not seem to grasp the fact that undeleting was inappropriate. Discussion was needed before the articles were restored. If you had acknowledged that and moved on then we would not be here now. But you lost my confidence when you said that WP:BRD was approprite. In cases where BLP is given for a reason BRD should never be done. That you do not yet understand this idea means that you do not understand the BLP policy. FloNight 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)