Misplaced Pages

The one remaining problem is that some people want to merge with an existing guideline (and apparently then sink both, or something). --Kim Bruning 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think this is actually a nomic-style war over the root problem that caused the ATT debacle in the first place.

In other news, lovely weather today, isn't it? :)

--Kim Bruning 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayup, Exactly. This argument is about the nature of consensus, and on how to have a poll. ;-) --Kim Bruning 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your wheelbarrow

Please stop pushing the BLueRibbon issue. I can tell you from experience that the members of the arbitration committee are not shy; if there was any significant dissent to Fred's actions to date we would have heard about it. Removing the complaint is not a statement that the complaint was invalid, however, there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project. Since you acknowledge at least the possibility that consideration of the block might not occur publically, it seems pointless to argue that the meta-discussion over removal of the primary discussion was improper. I suggest you e-mail your concerns to any individual arbitrator or to the arbcom-L mailing list. Please do not continue to pursue this publically. Thank you. Thatcher131 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have brought this up at ANI, AN, RfArb, USER, Village pump, and a few user talk pages, all after being told to do it by e-mail with the arbcom mailing list. You concerns are being addressed by arbcom by e-mail, you can just say what you have to say there. You are not being ignored, arbcom(which represents the foundation office) has decided to do this off wiki, that is their prerogative. If you dispute that, take it to the foundation itself. _InBC 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The crux of this case is whether Misplaced Pages should be used for purposes that may bring it into disrepute. Publicly discussing this case would not be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. We don't want to air the dirty laundry in public. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is nothing like aring dirtly laundry to get it clean, and there is nothing like a perception of total transparancy to improve our reputation, and there is nothing like a percieved coverup (which this is starting to look like, whether it is intended that way or not) to harm our reputation far more that the relevantion that a very few editors claimed to feel sexual attraction towards minors. DES 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Article

I got your message. In your message, you say "Now this may be inaccurate, i don't know,", I disagree with that. A good website or article states references, a bad article usually doesn't list references. A downside of Misplaced Pages is that people can get away with no references. We can assume that it is inaccurate because there is no references because the person didn't want to list references that weren't true (which I believe is a crime to write false references). You can disagree with me but, I don't believe this man is very notable.

Note: Thank you for putting the reference tag on.

Get back to me as soon as you can, if possible, put the speedy tag on.

Thanks! Etten Joe

Follow Up

I put on a {{subst:m1}} on the article because the reference tag says "may be challenged or removed at any time." Also, some people may agree with my opinion and could possibly be deleted.

Thanks!

Nominating for Deleting

I nominated it for deletion, thanks for the help!

gueroloco

Wow. You seriously have nothing better to do. Go ahead and delete the account. I don't care anymore. I just wanted to help out with content and now I understand why there isn't that many correct things on here. You make it too difficult to post anything and you bully the people who are trying to help. Not nice.

Reply

I added the deletion tag. Reply to me as if I nominated it correctly?

Re: CSD AutoReason

I saw them, and I like them. I may incorporate all or part of them in later, I'm just too busy trying to tackle the image backlogs at the moment... ^demon 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Howdy! I had already announced my intention to unblock the user when you posted your response, did you miss it? It was immediately above your message. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

errr

• I really don't see any of the satemes you quote above or on WP:AN/I as a legal threat. To be clear saying "That is lible" or "In posting information X, you are libeling person Y" is not a legal threat unless there is also a statement of some sort "And I will sue you over it" or "and I will urge Y to sue". While I am ready to unblock myself, i would prefer to have you do so, adn i don't want to do so withotu discussing it with you first. As I said on ANI, ther might be grounds for a block for disruptive editing, but not for leagal threats, at elast not based on the quotes and diffs i have seen. Please unblock User:WikiGnosis. DES 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User has been unblocked already, and this is the third message you've posted since I said was going to unblock it, I've even left a message on your user talk. (taps microphone) Is this thing on? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo emil halbheer

I saw the restoration by you and was ok with it. My explanation for the speedy has been posted to WP:DRV. You can always bring this up directly to me in the future if you want. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, perfectly understandable about the DRV. Generally, I am rather conservative when it comes to deleting things under A7 but I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the original editor was trying to say. The meaning of "best painting in province" was rather confusing to me. Many admins are a little to cautious about reverting another admins actions IMO, so I wanted to make it clear that I'm perfectly fine with other admins undoing my actions, as that is something I often do for protected pages. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV about it

Personally, I rather tend to agree with you about overuse and mistaken use of speedy, but I don't think the way to go is to bring every error to DRV. I've speedied a few things in error myself, and perhaps you have also. The way to go is to discuss the use of A7 on the speedy talk page, where it comes up every few days. It's not one case alone that will make establish the need for change. See you there. DGG 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I too have my list. Repeated discussion of the subject with new examples each time can slowly persuade people; I can sense from the comments on the discussion page there (and at the DRV) that the problem is better understood than it was 6 months ago. My Email is enabled, by the way. DGG 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So is mine, but usually only for people who are blocked or some such, i normally prefer to discuss wiki buisness on-wiki. (I'm responding here now that I have read the note on your talk page about watching other people's pages.) DES 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Geuroloco

Sure, no probs. However, since you have already undeleted it, AfD is a better place than DRV. --soum (0_o) 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

QXL

Are you able to undelete QXL? I don't remember what my contribution to the page was exactly, but the company was once the largest auction website in europe and has multiple media references. I'm sure if there are advertisement like issues with the article they can be cleaned up. Timb0h 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that the version you put in my user space is copy pasted from the company website. Some of the stuff I remember putting into the article, which I believe was sourced with links, appears to be gone. It would be good if you could restore the original article with it's history, and then replace the current version with the non-advertisement stripped out version I just created User:Timb0h/QXL. Then I can use the history of the article to restore any relevent details that were taken out, like the legal troubles with allegro Timb0h 12:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that says that I cannot recreate an article that was deleted on the basis that it was an advertisement. Given that the new article does not break any of the rules of wikipedia, I am free to follow your advice, or not, at my own discretion. Unless of course, someone appointed you king of wikipedia in my absence. The whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit, people do not have to 'check with experienced editors' before making contributions. Timb0h 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maine lottery

OK, I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies. The article should not be deleted. However, it does need a lot of work to bring it up to an acceptable Misplaced Pages level. I added the speedy-delete tag after doing a quick check of some state lotteries I know of (ex: New York Lottery) and I did not find a Wiki article on them, so I believed that lottery articles were not generally accepted. I have since done a more thorough search and have found some. I would expect this article to be expanded to have more noteworthy information, like how it works, where does the money go, etc. The Pennsylvania Lottery article is a good example of what this article should contain. Perhaps you could add a lottery-stub tag; I'm not sure how to do that. Truthanado 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New York school stub problems

The {{NewYork-school-stub}} is having problems. Could you please help. Take a look at the bottom of Pittsford Central School District and Penfield High School articles. The stub is not working correctly and is displaying extraneous information for the category, viz. ]. Truthanado 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Truthanado 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notify authors about speedy deletion?

In CSD talk you argued for notifying authors, even in case of blatant vandalism. Should I put the recommended message that comes with {{db-vandalism}} or should it be a {{uw-vandalism*}}? or both? I think that {{db-vandalism}} does not count as "final warning" so the vandal could not be blocked if he persists. Rjgodoy 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Rjgodoy 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article

Hey thanks for helping out. The article's almost done now, but I still have 2 questions that need answered:

What's the main purpose of editing Misplaced Pages instead of leaving it for someone else to fix?

Do you ever believe that Misplaced Pages will ever be considered credible enough to cite in a research paper? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke J-School (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding WP:NPA

In an effort to prevent the NPA talk page from getting too unwieldy (yes, I know, too late), I thought I'd bring my thoughts regarding your most recent response to your talk. I'd like to begin by stating that I understand the point that you (and others) are arguing regarding site-based actions. I do believe it is a valid argument. However, I also believe that it needs to be balanced against another valid argument. I would like to try to work with you to develop an acceptable middle ground.

It is acknowledged at this point that anything resembling the "under any circumstances" text will not achieve consensus. That's fine, it probably shouldn't. But while the concern you have expressed is that even a softly-worded indirect linking clause could be used to support de facto site bans, my concern is that the lack such text weakens NPA's stance regarding indirect links actually used as personal attacks. In a way, we are both arguing based on what can or might happen when people intentionally distort or misinterpret what is written in policy.

Nothing that you, or I, or anyone else authors at NPA is likely to stop those who are removing links to the several sites that are most directly involved with this situation (an action which I remain wholly and steadfastly neutral on, for the record; I have no horse in that race). If they do not cite NPA, it will be CIV or some other WOTTA or even IAR. But an NPA policy that includes some form of prohibition for indirect linking of attacks seems to me to be a better policy -- if we can get it right.

Is there any form of indirect attack linking prohibition that you would not oppose?

Regards, Serpent's Choice 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. in fact, several of the proposals that I have indicated a willingness to support on the NPA talk page include provisions for dealiong with indirect links to attacks. My views on this are fairly simple: any link that is clearly being used as an attack can be dealt with just as any attack. (Note that WP:RPA is controversial.)Any link whose primarly or sole purpose is to publicize personal identifing information about one or more wikipedia editors in ways that are unwelcome to thsoe editors can be removed, just as posting the info on-wiki would be removed. Any provision that allows all links to an entire web site to be removed on sight must provide for community discussion and may only remove links to sites for whcih ther is a clear consensus to do so, muich like a community ban. Failing that, any provision for removing links that go to sites posting private data or other attacks must specify that the validity or propriety of suh links is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the mere fact that elsewhere on the site outing or attacks are visible is not gounds for an automatic link removal. I would be ok if the burden of establishing that a link to such a site had a legitiamte purpose fell on the person addign or defending the link, and that in the absence of reasonable justificatiom fo the link, it coulf be removed. taht is as far as I will go, and i think it is a larger concession than i have seen made by the "nuke 'em all" editors. I hope this is of value to you. DES 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. Let me spend a little time evaluating how best an appropriate compromise stance might be written. Serpent's Choice 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to our exchange

Hi, DES. Thanks for your input. If you wanted to email me, I could reply with a few links you could have a look at so you could judge for yourself whether the particulars in this case are consistent with the relevant policies. --Rrburke 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(DES wrote):

Frankly i'm not really interseted in any such links unless you are askling for my help as an admin in dealign with the matter. Mon concern in our exchange was with teh general principle, not the specific instance. And I almost always prefer to discuss wikipedia matters on-wiki, not by email. DES (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. I made this suggestion merely because you had written, "Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken." And yes, I was asking for your help as an admin, but also for your advice as a more experienced user. This is also why I suggested email: I was trying to be circumspect and not have an allegation of improper behaviour appear together with the editor's username on any Misplaced Pages page until a more experienced user had judged whether the behaviour actually was improper. I wasn't trying to do an end-run around Misplaced Pages; I was just trying to avoid making an inaccurate accusation. It's the same reason I didn't name the editor in any of my posts to the thread. --Rrburke 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a sampling of some diffs where I don't see that the substituted image necessarily improves on its predecessor or enhances the article, and so don't understand the rationale for the substitution:

, , , , , , , ,

Here are a some relevant off-wiki links: ,,

To be fair to the editor, there are also several other instances in which the articles either previously had no image, or else the earlier image was clearly inferior. --Rrburke 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weigh Down tried their first wiki edit today

Copied from the message I left on the talk page for :

The user that deleted the information on the Spirit Watch website - 64.221.243.178 - is an employee of Weigh Down. The evidence of the email addy associated with this ISP can be found at http://osdir.com/ml/mail.spam.spamcop.help/2002-09/msg00654.html can I get an admin to block?

Please advise or pass it on. In a way I must admit I'm flattered they even tried :) Efkeathley 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now here's an interesting policy I didn't tell you about before

Long long ago, you and I clashed over my apparent application of WP:IAR.

What you couldn't know at the time perhaps, is why I was so certain that consensus would support me. After 2 years, I think it's safe enough to undelete and show you this particular page: Misplaced Pages:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007.

I can only hope you'll take your time to re-evaluate some opinions. :-) --Kim Bruning 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (You might be especially pleased that I evidently ignored the wiki:ParkingLotTherapy provision. ;-)

Ah excellent. But now an additional element comes into play. This policy was actually heavily supported, as you can see. So you can't quite claim I was following just the IAR rules. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, seeing your comments, note that CSD does not override all other wikipedia policy. (Despite some CSD regulars pretending otherwise... each subproject has one or two people like that. If their numbers grow too large, the project typically lands on MFD, like happened to Esperanza or AMA ).

So CSD does not override other policy, and this particular policy explicitly authorized me to stomp. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh*, well clearly something was going on, since Angela eventually took over from me (she didn't do that regularly anymore, even back then)... and like the next day, TBSDY approved of my actions as well, in no unclear terms. I guess you just missed it all, somehow. --Kim Bruning 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You mention things starting out with 9 pages, and then you decided to add perhaps 9 more to the list, didn't you? :-) In 20/20 hindsight, I might have blocked for blatant WP:POINT violation (in strictest interpretation of that rule), but I wasn't quite as cynical back then as I am now. ;-)

You mention meatball and wardwiki having no relevance because they happen to not be wikimedia projects. That's quite blatant NIH syndrome, which I don't buy into one bit. Especially since meatball and wardwiki do discuss guidelines and best practices to do with wikis, including input from wikipedia.

As we were working, our ideas on best practice evolved. The best wiki practice at the time discussed deleting pages, and telling people to go to one central location. Later on in the same day, other people remembered this new fangled feature called redirects, which could serve much of the purpose of both, and soon they were using redirects, sending people either to deletion policy, or to DRV. The situation was eventually resolved at the latter location.

To this day, our current best practice for dealing with discussions spinning out of control is to use redirects, links and refactoring to ensure that discussion stays in one location as much as possible.

Now the thing I'm wondering is how you define consensus. It was pretty obvious to me at the time, that if I did this, that any later test or RFC or what have you would state that I had acted correctly. In the end it came out at a DRV, which, following my actions, in fact did state that I had essentially done the right thing.

My question to you is: how did I know the DRV outcome in advance?

--Kim Bruning 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

Arthur Wesley Wheen article

DES, thanks for your help and comments re the above article. I have another question: In the footnotes, there is a reference to the Aus Dict of Bio. Before the author's name, the alphabet (a-w) appears in superscript. Is this code for something, or have I left out some vital bit of information? --Kirst68 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! There is a lot I still have to figure out! thanks for getting back to me.

I disagree very much

I do understand the difference between content and context. It's not that the original articles were short, it's that all of the information provided is meaningless. Those are also not reasonable redirects because the main work of fiction makes no mention of them due to their insignificance within the work of fiction. There's no chance of accidental linking and with no content on the topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages, the redirects don't actually benefit searching. Jay32183 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for dredging back the deleted Vanity gallery. I don't understand how it got deleted, but I'm glad it's back (even if it is, as I had said, only so-so). Artemis-Arethusa 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1240 3WC

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator tha tit had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is stongly encouraged, and this is mentioend in the variosu speedy deelte templates themselves. please consider notifing article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notify authors about speedy deletion? where this issue was discussed. DES 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hang my head in shame...Thanks for the reminder.Shoessss 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I actually intended that message for someone else. Apologies. ^^;;

I'll go post it there now.

Sorry once again for the confusion --Kim Bruning 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He sure will ;-) --Kim Bruning 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Executive Sessions

I think it is very important for people to understand each others' philosophy, especially when they have to work together. I hope you're patient with me ^^;;. You brought up municipal executive sessions in your local area, presumably becuase something that happened there was very important to you. Can you tell me more about what happened? --Kim Bruning 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're a big proponent of openness. Even to the point of being called a gadfly! Excellent. :-)

Though that does now mean that I'm scratching my head over why we're not proving to be allies then.

--Kim Bruning 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so you would like to see more accurate written policy, I would like to see more accurate written policy. Now just to work out how not to work at cross purposes. ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I parse part of what you just said as "Wikis cannot possibly ever work, and we must abolish them". <blink> --Kim Bruning 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If what you are saying is that the success statistics of the "proposed" method are skewed, can you provide more accurate statistics?

--Kim Bruning 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Cutting the filmography from IMDB and pasting it directly into an article, and retaining the formatting that obviously shows it's a cut-and-paste is a copyright violation. There is no clean version to revert to so I deleted again. --Steve _(Stephen) 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never any question of an edit war, and I apologise for missing your subsequent wikification of the article and reference to the legal precedent. I've added some content to the Deletion Review for clarification. --Steve _(Stephen) 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good advice, that I will take to heart thanks. Now, back to the case in hand, I would like to contend that the IMDB list is not a simple statement of facts, but also contains "creative expression", which according to O'Connor is copyrightable as "the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc." --Steve _(Stephen) 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Need your input

An editor who has been potentially stalking my edits for the last one year see others who noticed it has begun to vandalize some pages that I have created of late that I put if up for neutral DYK set of editors to look at. One has been potentially maliciously taggedsee diff here and another article title changed to aversion that has no citationssee diff here, it is all based on a charge that one of the sources that I used British refugee council publication on Sri Lanka fails WP:RS. You have the expertise to intervene and resolve these issues. Can you help please.Taprobanus 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you may This is the location to reply about the RS status of British refugee council publication. Thanks Taprobanus 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is British refugee council's research and publication work information 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is getting really ugly in the article all based on whether Sri Lanka monitor by British refugee council can be used or not see hereI will be out of town for fe days. My research says that it is a Primary source that is based on British refugee council directly interviwing refugee claimants in Sri lanka and Britain and direct input from other NGO's. Given the POV of all concerned including myself the resolution can only come from a neutral Admin like yourself like you did in the Tamilnet article. If you dont want to get involved or need time to research I understand and please let us know know and I or some one else will post it in ANI next.

About the stalking of me by some ditors, now I have enough evidence including other violations such as civility, vandalism, mis use of tags that I will present to ANI whem I come back. That will be a seperate matter altogether. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Template:NewYork-school-stub

I apologize. I was not trying to vandalize that stub. I was just trying to add a school in NY. Again, I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.180.247 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PCE

I have responded to your request for diffs on PCE at WP:AN#User:PCE if you would like to review them. –– Lid 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the DRV wording

The discussion was clsoed early by User:Daniel Bryant

I didn't close it early — the debate had been going for eight days. I relisted it because further information had been brought up, which I felt merited a relisting to get a better picture of consensus.

I actually have no opinion about whether Drini's closing was correct or not, but I redeleted the article because the undelete was so horrifically out-of-process. The reason I had to remove the comments after the closure was that, as per current general practice, the state of the debate at the closure is preserved. I hope you can appreciate this.

Cheers, and thanks for the note, Daniel Bryant 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing Down Significantly.

DES, I will edit down the J.R. and Babe article even further. It's true that I don't feel that it's any longer than some other soap couple articles, but as you know...I am willing to do whatever it takes to save this page.

• My experience in writing this page has made me a much better editor, which I owe in huge part to you. And this page is what I have the most interest in as of now as I continue to grow and expand as a Wikipedian editor.

I'll also love to contribute to other topics I'm interested in, such as sci-fi topics, primetime drama, horror topics, and science (though I've kind of lost my passion for science), in which I am sure to have a whole host of sources available apart from the production company.

Right now, my goal is do as you've suggested and edit down the J.R. and Babe article as much as I can without leaving out huge, important facts within the couple's life. My only hope is that you reconsider deletion of this page after I do so. Thank you for taking the time to assist me as you have. Flyer22 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source tag

Thanks for designing the {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} it looks fab - now I can tag images without p****ng everyone off (well not as much anyway). Can I just make one quibble.... you swapped the normal no source tag for the new tag on Image:Hanshaw.jpg in this case as the actress depicted was only born in 1901, and looks about 20 in the picture so doing the mathematics, this particular image is very likely to not be eligible to use the PD-art tag. The new tag is fab but in cases where someone has PD-arted something either blatentely not old or somewhat dodgy I think the original one should still be used. Do you mind if in this case I switch it back? Madmedea 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Hanshaw.jpg - as there is reasonable concern that this image is not valid for PD-art the standard more strongly worded "no source" tag seems appropriate in this case - as if it cannot be proven to be PD it should be deleted or changed to fair use. Madmedea 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking a little more on this one I think it may be important to make sure that copyright and source information requests/tags are kept separate. I think it would be more useful to have a separate "no sources" tag similar to the current one but without threatening almost immediate deletion, as from the debate last night it is clear that this is not well tolerated by the WP community. Source is about far more than copyright verification - and with many old images it is very obvious that they fit PD-art so needing a source is not related to copyright - it is about verifying if the image is what it is described as. Therefore it might be better if images retained their PD-art tag and could be tagged additionally with a "source needed" tag. Do I make any sense? Madmedea 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert either but I think it would be good to stick to the types of tags which are currently available at the moment - {{no license}} and {{no source}} - which each pointing out a specific problem with an image. Without a license an image needs immediate attention and so a "friendly" version isn't needed - but a "friendly" version of the source tag is needed as people feel that clearly PD images shouldn't be threatened with deletion. It could mention copyright but not be its primary function, just requesting a source indicating that all images on wikipedia should have a source even if they are in the public domain.Madmedea 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: the {{Template:ImageRound-Nosource}} - this doesn't quite make sense with the law as I understand it... the PD-art tag is not applicable to any images of 3d works of art. I didn't think that a 3-dimensional artwork in itself could be subject to copyright per se - but images of it may be. So I can go and take a picture of a greek vase if I have access to it and upload it under PD-self or another license, but if I use a museum's non-free image without their permission then that is a problem. Whereas a 2-d image whose author died 100+ years ago is public domain in the US whatever its source.....So if someone has tagged a 3-d object with the 2-d PD-art tag this should be treated as any other image with disputed copyright status is treated, with the {{PUIdisputed}} tag, I'm not sure we need another one. Sorry to be a pain. Madmedea 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It might be an idea to hold off tagging any images with the new templates until we get a wider consensus.Madmedea 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not familiar with the copyright status of 3-d art generally.... at the moment I don't remember reading anything in the guidance on Misplaced Pages about this - if there is some, can you point me in the right direction - all I know is that the 100 year Corel vs Bridgeman case was about 2-d art and I'm getting confused now about copyright periods for 3-d art in itself along with images of it - when, say in the US, does a 3-d work of art's copyright expire allowing users to take photos of it? I think we just need one new template - as I've just posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags. I've seen you're template used by a couple of other users now and I'm just worried that if I find it confusing, other people will too and a full discussion should take place before it gets used. I do think any other problems with copyright/source can be dealt with using the existing templates. Madmedea 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would be really useful if there was a decent section of the WP copyright pages dealing with 3-d art as it is something I had never really considered before - although most of what I've come across under PD-art is old so at least the copyright of the original artwork doesn't have to be worried about, only the digital image. It's mentioned briefly at Misplaced Pages:Copyright FAQ and I've found is a discussion on .Madmedea 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on article to fit scope of WikiProject: Soap Operas.

I've recently joined WikiProject Soap operas, and have gotten help with the J.R. and Babe article. I'm aiming to have the J.R. and Babe article meet that criteria, and to help improve other soap articles. Flyer22 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn gallery

Just so you know, I only replaced the speedy tag on Unicorn gallery after it had been removed. I thought it was likely that the speedy would be declined later, but I'm not going to make that decision and didn't think the original author should either. --OnoremDil 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note...I have to say that I think the last line of your template is inappropriate. I don't need to be told not to re-tag an article for speedy deletion once the speedy deletion has been declined. Maybe a suggestion to try discussion on the talk page or bringing it to WP:AFD would be better. --OnoremDil 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello DESiegel. I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the removal of spoiler tags by David Gerrard. It is the heighth of foolishness to assume that everyone who comes to wikipedia's pages will have encountered these works before, no matter how long they have been in existance. It is also wrong to ruin the experiencing of these works by newcomers by having let something slip when they come to these pages. I was about to go thru the editors contributions and rvt them to but you have already accomplished this task. I see you posted a note on the users talk page but others have posted agreeing with him. If you don't get the proper response from the help desk please feel free to take your case to the Admin noticeboard also. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My banner O_o

Why'd you delete my new message thingy!?! I liked it up there.. =( Speckledorph 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If whoever gets a new message... On my page there will be two of them stacked up on top of each other. And if they get it anywhere else whoever knows to trust it, right? Oh and lets not forget about the good ol' back button! Or the fact that you can hover your mouse over a link to see it's actual name. Heh, did you actually fall for it? >_> User:Speckledorph/Signature 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I get the gist of it, thanks. And as for the banner I think I'll throw in an orange period so it'll be a little easier to differ, alright? Speckledorph 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Search question

I am having a great deal of trouble trying to understand the never ending links and pages on how to contact an administrator. I have no intent on starting new pages, but once I enter a word and do an internal link to something which to me would be already on wikipedia, but i spell by one letter differently it defaults to a new page ready to be made.

I ahave tried to lookup a word phrase first as per instructions, but it usually will not let me back to where I was. Am I hitting wrong keys? I also DO NOT understand how the sandbox works and have asked friends who are more computer savy and they cannot figure it out.john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Is there something other than what is posted to help explain on another site, or in a word document?

john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upload stuff (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you i will read this info john 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Braveheart

I was actually attempting, at least initially, to correct the inaccuracy in the description from the end of the movie, which was something along the lines of, "They killed the British and won their freedom". I edited to state that the ending is actually ambiguous, and that their fates are unrevealed. I also directly quoted Mel Gibson's voiveover narration, from which two different conclusions about their fate can be drawn. This kept being re-edited back to the initial incorrect description, and, out of frustration, I did continute to correct the page, with a less verbose description than my initial correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.47.152 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

==Spoiler warning: Misplaced Pages contains content==

I am pleased to see the current version of this odious and unencyclopedic template points out that sections headed "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" are extremely likely to contain plot elements, making a {{spoiler}} even more ridiculous - David Gerard 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider not having it used stupidly (sections already marked "Plot summary"? Character articles? Author biographies? Anagram?!) a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. I've added spoiler templates myself in the past, but the present situation is utterly and comprehensively on crack - David Gerard 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey up for new deletion debate

As a commentor in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mangojuice 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Australians associated with European colonisation of Australia

I apologize for tagging this article for speedy delete - but Misplaced Pages doesn't support articles that are merely lists as I had understood it? This list really be a category instead of an article? --Ozgod 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. There are more WP: pages than I can keep track of at time. --Ozgod 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notifications

Per your message, I do try to inform when I tag things for speedy, but sometimes I just forget or in other cases I don't because I believe the editor in question is simply engaging in obviously disruptive behavior and I don't feel like bothering. Since it is optional, I prefer to use judgment calls there, but thanks for the reminder anyway since I do simply forget on occasion. Thanks. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

The first time I nominated one of these for deletion I was told by an admin to Speedy them - so far I've done about 20 or 30 and never had any complaints! Number 57 20:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tagging of Edugeek

Hello. This is a reply to your comment on my talk page. Thank you for alerting me of my mistake. It's just I've done many times in the past and other admins have just deleted the pages. Thanks to you, know I now I have to use {{prod}} instead of requesting it be speedily deleted. Thank you, and please forgive my mistake. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Please consider archiving the page. It took me a long time to leave you this message. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media

Would you be interested in helping rewrite the article? Arielguzman 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I moved the article (I didn't know I could make subpages on my user page). Do you think that rewritting this article (since I did basically steal it from that other website) is something that I could do? Should I work on a new one and present it to you? Arielguzman 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks again for your help and advice. I'll be working on a brand-new article today and tomorrow keeping in mind the points you mentioned. Arielguzman 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of a speedy tag

regarding this edit . The user has a high likelihood of being a sock puppet which caused this, and its basically a copy of the content over at DRV Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_17#PGNx_Media.--Crossmr 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

I am getting too stressed about the flagrant abuses by the camp wanting this deleted. I need to step away for a bit. I think this is best taken to ArbComm, because I expect a wheel war over this if we don't. GRBerry 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You closed the DRV with the note "Having a DRV discussion while an AfD discussion is going on, is fruitless. Wait until that discussion has run its full course, and then after it's been closed, if you still have concerns about process, feel free to start a DRV discussion about it. (And yes, I've read the noticeboard; various talk pages; the previous DRV; and AFDs; and was, AFAIK, uninvolved in any of them; if anyone was/is concerned."

Did I miss something? To the best of my understanding the sendond AfD was clsoed today, and had not been reopened. DRV enties filed today were in response to that closing and were filed while no AFD discussion was open, as an alternative to whewl-warring by undoign the AfD close. Am I incorrect or out of date here? If the DRV is closed, what if anything is curently open? DES 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, I had too many windows open, in reading everything, and in scrolling, I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then. My apologies for the confusion. (To show how this is easy to do, I note that it was reopened before you posted to my talk page : ) - jc37 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that "I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then." That sounds as if the AfD were open, but the AfD appears to remain closed. Do i correctly understand that you have reverted your closure of the DRV discussion? That's what it looks like to me. Thank you fo doing so, this is a very complex situation (made so, IMO by several unwise actions), thanks for trying to help out. DES 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear it for pronouns : ) - Yes, I meant the DRV. Someone else was bold after leaving me a note, and reverted the closure. - jc37 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a hand again...

... at HIPAA Compliance Validation Services? It turns out that LokiThread (talk · contribs) reinserted all of the copyrighted text which he had taken verbatim from two corporate websites, with this non-explanation. I've warned him in no uncertain terms not to reinsert copyrighted material. If he does it again, I may block him myself to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages, but it would be better if an uninvolved admin could look at the situation. Would you mind keeping an eye on it with me? MastCell 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocked now for legal threats (although, indefinite is not infinite - when he stops ranting about taking us to court whilst trying to revoke the GFDL licensing, he can be unblocked). Cheers, Daniel 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in Starship Troopers

Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I just got through reviewing the Starship Troopers page and proposing some remedies for it. If you look on the Talk page, one of them was to bring the article down to a manageable size by splitting off things like the characters. Hence, I created a page, but did not make the actual edits to the ST entry until other editors had a chance to response. Palm_Dogg 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion album tags

Thanks, I got it now. I will edit them. -- Luigi-ish 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek976 As Admin

Can you promote me to being an adminstrator I have done a lot of good deeds on wikipedia plus i had another wikipedia account where i was an adminstrator but my house went on fire and my computer was burnt in the fire along with the page that i kept so i could remeber my username so i had to make a new usernanme so can i please be an adminastrator please please please my username is shrek 976.--Shrek976Sunday May 20 5:17 Pm

Help:Modifying and Creating policy

Kim, Radiant, and Tony are trying to deprecate this guideline again. --Kevin Murray 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template deletion

I understand about not deleting things that are not obselete, but no user on Misplaced Pages is using it. If you don't beleive me, go to the template,edit it, add a nonsence link like ] and then check Special:Whatlinkshere/testingthetemplate and it only comes up with the template which means it is not being used at all.Rugby471 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will redirect it. Before I go, can I just ask you what the meaning of TFD is ? I have seen it used but I want to make sure I know exactly what it means. Thanks anyway. Rugby471 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explainig that. BTW you might want to consider archiving your page right about now, it has more than 67 artciles ! If you don't want to do it, try using Miszabot III I have heard good things about it > Rugby471 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clubsoton

Perhaps I should have rephrased that statement. I meant to say that there was no assertion of notability by the subject, and that it did not meet WP:WEB, so the article would not be kept on Misplaced Pages by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Mr. Geyer, I examined the article and felt that it met A7, which says an article on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites" can be deleted. I know it also says this should be applied if there is no assertion of notability or significance, but I had reason to believe the subject was a hoax. After further research, I found no evidence that this person exists. I know this is doesn't warrant speedy deletion, but given that you are asking me to restore the article, and since I have found no evidence of a legitimate subject, I don't see any point in restoring it. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As to your follow-up on Clubsoton, I have to agree with you. I know people have been using notability guidelines to make a claim for speedy deletion, but in almost every case, this is used as an explanatory method of explaining why the article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages, and why it is deletable under speedy deletion policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Spastic Centre

As for the The Spastic Centre, I see a possible borderline CSD A7 only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register (NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Misplaced Pages. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets WP:CORP because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See . Nishkid64 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Question about CSD for WP:BK

Please see my talk page for my reply to your recent comment on this subject. —68.239.79.82 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. —68.239.79.82 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

re: 1906 film AfD

Thank you for your note and deletion correction. We have some (we believe it's just one, but it could be a small handful) enthusiastic Pixar fans who post every rumor they run across as fact without any supporting documentation, or documentation that's flimsy at best (blogs, mainly), while those of us monitoring those pages keep insisting on proper citations. It's a battle over there on occasion. cheers! SpikeJones 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. We've told them on their talk pages to review WP's style and citation guides. There have been occasional 3-revert violations (no blocking, unfortunately) as they insist on posting and re-posting info without proper credit, etc. There's not much more we can do constructively, so we just turn to trying to rein things in as necessary. (sigh). SpikeJones 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing overly recent to look at now. At the time, sure. Here was what was up at the time: 3RR Report Next time it comes up... and I'm sure it will with this user/s, we'll post it back up there.SpikeJones 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tlmallc

I had been under the impression that purposely blanking your user talk page was frowned upon. Considering the spammy nature of his edits, I thought a more firm warning was necessary. The template I used was a little too firm, I guess. :) DarkAudit 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for taking the time to make a well thought out comment on the Rfc/QZ Deletion dispute. I appreciate your calm detailed description of the situation. Take care, FloNight 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stone band

Stone band was deleted earlier, so i retagged it when it showed up again. Besides, searches on Google and a few other do not turn up much of result. Additionally, I do not really consider a myspace an appropriate claim to notability. Anyway, no issues. There's no need to behave like I was on a mission to specifically get that article deleted. My repeated retagging after the original author removed the speedy tag is because there's a clear procedure when it comes to speedy tags {{hangon}}. If an admin then decides to remove that tag, fine. Andante1980 06:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. You're just contributing your bit to trying to keep this place a good one. Andante1980 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Status.gif

Thanks for notifying me of that. I've removed the image now. It's nice to know that a considerate Wikipedian is looking out for people with disabilities. Happy Editing! Yuanchosaan 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Thanks! But...do you know where I can get another good status image? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks! ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article about the new invention, Quikstix?

I would like to know how the article I wrote had "inappropriate" language as per the guidelines?

It was an encyclopedic article that explained the technical features of a new invention.

In the same way to a much longer article about Coca-cola, or any other product that has been written by a neutral person.

Please explain.

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhando (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot compalints

No problem at all. Since I have being doing a lot of cleanup work lately which involves tagging hundreds of pointless redirects (99% of which were created by a banned user) the bot has indeed caused me some personal inconvenience (for that other %1). I still think the warnings should be toned down but was probably mistaken in bringing it up over at CSD, you guys obviously know more about speedy deletions than me and perhaps I myself underestimated the degree to which it could be useful (still not totally convinced, but no matter). Thank you again for your civility and patience, I wish some other users would act similarly : ). shoeofdeath 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that if the deletions really can be described as "houskeeping", then you can use {{db-g6}}, and no bot notices will be sent, because it doesn't check for that template.

Is that right?! I wish I had known this earlier (it also addresses some of my concerns about notifications over very uncontroversial deletions, although most people don't use templates like g6). I prefer not to use the template because it is not specific enough but in the future I will keep this in mind. Thanks again. shoeofdeath 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was really under the impression that it was impossible to add a custom edit summary to templates. I remember trying awhile ago how to figure this out, to no avail. It's not ((db-g6|reason)), right? How would a custom note be added? shoeofdeath 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, the majority of my speedy deletion work is already finished - if I had thought of creating a new template I would have done so a few weeks ago. I think it would be good if it was possible for people to just add a sentence on to the end of template message, maybe something like ((db-g6|reason)) - this would help even more for ((a7|reason)). Just a thought. Again, thank you! shoeofdeath 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-Correcting Own Articles

WXXS article edited. I did not understand what you meant when you said it was not okay to talk about one's "own" article. Does that mean that the article may be edited by anyone excluding its original creator. Whatever the rules, I decided that I went overboard on the opinionated comments and made my own personal strides to tone the article down. I deleted an entire section, a couple sentences, and words and-or phrases I thought sounded non-neutral.

Oh, I am very new to Misplaced Pages so to me it feels like I am doing things wrong all the time. Than whenever I try to make things right it feels like I am still wrong. But fear not, I am not a hostile editor. More so, I am just a confused editor with close-to-average understanding of writen language. My articles are fairly simple, were not meant to be essays, and based from my special interest so sometimes I will get a little carried away.

One thing I did when I didn't know any better was remove a speedy deletion flag tag from an article that I was the author of and proceeded to edit the article. Than about 30 minutes later I skimmed a passage that said that all people other than the article's author may delete this tag. NOW I think I see what you meant when you wrote, "it is bad form to speak of article". When I first read that comment, it shocked me and I did not understand it right away. I just got embarrassed and felt like I was being "yelled at".

I never really learned how to communicate with other Misplaced Pages users. I am not very computer savvy. I don't even know how to use Instant Messimer (IM). But I did take all your comments in stride and made my own golden rule in my own words: "Avoid using words that sound opinionated." I did away with terms such as "loosely-formatted", "broad-appeal", "extensive", as such because I do feel that those are not the best words to include in a neutral article.

I am actually crossing my fingers that you don't get mad at me and am hoping that by pure chance hopefully I have done something right. I know that's a long shot but hopefully I am on target now. If you are not still mad with me, please me some pointers to follow in the future when writing articles. If you were not "mad", just know that I interpreted anger. Again, a communication break-up. Anyhow, I hope you are satisfied with my changes.

Thank You For Your Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.183.113 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ChocOneill

Hi, I have no idea why the name of my company came up here while doing an internet search, but i was a bit astonished to see two enteries on this site - one for advertising. can you pls explain this to me. i make chocolates, and i understand that this web here is an encyclopedia?

my email is <removed> i am giving it to you as i doubt i will be able to find my way back here again.

Thank you

Jamie

Replied via email DES 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilting @ windmills?

Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on WP:NPP as a stub that I was about to tag for WP:CSD#A7:

• Stitch 'n Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Debbie Stoller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bust (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RS secondary sources.

I mean, I can hear the arguments already:

1. Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
2. Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
3. "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you whether you want to propose deleting these or not. But, it seems to me that if it is indeed true that "Many famous and influential women have appeared on the cover , including Björk, Cher , Sandra Oh, and Gwen Stefani." that alone would make it notable -- sales figures are also relevant. I suspect that additional sources could well be found, and you migh to better to find and insert them than to propose deletion. Stitch 'n Bitch looks sourced enough to prevert deeltion on those grounds as it stands. As for Debbie Stoller I'll bet additional sources could be found, a well-selling author and editor of a significant professional magazine is surely notable. Certianly none of these is a valid A7 -- note that lack of sources is never enough reason for an A7 -- and I think i eould vote "Keep" on each in an AfD. Any statement in an article that, if sourced would show notablility is enough to prevent an A7, whether the sources have been inserted or not. DES 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy was no longer an option for beau coup reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered it on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) —68.239.79.82 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Oldschool Danger Bennett Mallory III

Apologies - was going to flag it with db-nonsense, as checked the links cited none of which transpired to be genuine, then realised from the user talk page of the contributing editor that there had been a previous incarnation. Link is : User_talk:Davidjohnross. Hope this helps. Giles Bennett 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Given the nature of the content, will flag it with {{hoax}} and leave it at that. Giles Bennett 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but I've looked into this a little more, so am not sure about leaving it with {{hoax}}. The template for db-repost states that speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for subsequent re-deletion under the speedy deletion criteria, but doesn't say that they aren't eligible per se. My thinking is that it would lead to a somewhat strange situation where a new post created an article of patent nonsense. If this was subsequently flagged with db-nonsense, and deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, what would be the position if someone then re-created the article with exactly the same content? Your position appears to be that if someone, as I did in this instance, flags it with db-repost, it cannot be speedily deleted, and instead should be left to go through the slower mechanism of, say, hoax or WP:music - that seems silly to me, as it seems to give an extended lifespan to the second incarnation of the same article, even if the first article was patent nonsense...or am I grabbing the wrong end of the stick and shaking firmly? Giles Bennett 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for discussing it with me. Giles Bennett 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel E.C. Dunlop

Thank you for your message on my talk page - I've read patent nonsense in detail, and note with interest that it is considerably less wide-ranging than first thought. I'll take its contents into account when new-page patrolling in the future. Giles Bennett 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

How best should this page be flagged, in your view? Army Church Parade. Thanks Giles Bennett 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this one with {{db}} on the ground that the question could not form a proper part of any article, and if it were edited out nothing would be left. Then i left the creator a note sugfgesting that the reference desk or requested articles would be good places to ask the question. DES 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt McIntyre

Yes, I'll take care of this shortly. CJCurrie 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Vista Governors School

Hello! You closed this AfD and the result was delete. It appears a redirect was created for this page. If you follow the original link Mountain Vista Governors School you can see this. Any way the redirect can be deleted as well? --sumnjim 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

{{db-repost}}

Thanks for the message about the amendments to the template. I do think they clarify things to an extent, but a part of me wonders whether or not there could be further clarification. It's something I'm going to be giving a bit of thought to (as a new pages patroller) over the weekend, so thanks for the heads-up. Giles Bennett 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Hamilton

No problem at all. I'll help you keep an eye on it in the meantime in case any more funny business comes up so it's not one-sided. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at the 3RR noticeboard so hopefully this nonsense will stop sometime soon. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

re Arky Pluto

Well, when I did undelete it, I got slapped with a trout for wheel warring (which is edit warring, except over admin functions like delete). Wheel warring is not looked on at all kindly, and its a good way to lose your admin status. I didn't want to wheel war, so I backed off and undid my undeletion. I agree that it's kind of odd to have an AfD and a DRv going for the same article at the same time, and frustrating to comment in an AfD when you can't read the article. You could ask User:JzG or User:AlisonW to reinstate the article for the time being, for this reason; since they would only be undoing their own deletions, it would not be wheel warring for them to undelete the article. Herostratus 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Stamp Problems

Hello again. I have a problem with my time stamp on my userpage (06:14, 29 December 2024 UTC ). At this current time, it will display 00:43 for me when logged in, and 00:49 when I logged out. I just previewed this post and saw that the time was correct when posted. Now, I know that the time stamp does update, but I never payed attention to how often it does. Can you help me out? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok .. and where can I ask assistance

Yes ... I was uright up against the rule.

I didn't think I was violating 3RR myself, though. I do not want to violate the rules. I was adding content and formating ... if I did, I will accept whatever is decided ...

There is no automatic right to three reverts per day, and edit warring is a bad thing.

I do not want to do that, if I did .... is there a place to get assistance in such circumstances? J. D. Redding 01:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was readding the content and formatting multiple times wiht additional ting ... I do make alot of edits in formation ... I find it hard to use the preview button ...

I will try to remember that that is "reverting" ... but I am glad I was not ove the 3RR limit ...

I was trying to conform to the MoS, which is good ... and yes I understand that MoS is a guideline ... should not be robotiacally enforced .... I'll keep in mind that per-article consensus can soemtiems override it ....

I do try to discus the matter on the other editor's talk page

As to discuss the matter on the article's talk page ask other interested editors to assist, I may not have done that this time .. but will strive to in the future

For help ... request for comment ... that would be the key page I suppose ... thank you ...

] I did not think was an option .... I didn't think it was an extreme case ... maybe it was ...

I will look to help desk get eyes on a things ... thank you again ... J. D. Redding 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My page and the changes i have made in any page.

Dear DES, I do know i have repeated the same article twice now and for that i will be incredibaly sorry. But, i would want to leave the page as it gets deleated by it self. I would like to save all the changes i have made in any pages. Can you please tell me the reason why it is deleating by it self and help me to keep the page and any changes in any page i have made.

Thankyou for taking your time reading this and it will be appreaciated if you tell me why its deleating.

Thankyou.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced

You recently made some changes to {{Unreferenced}} which do not appear to have gone down well and I agree they're unhelpful. Could you please remove the words "although it may be a good idea to ask for specific sources first" from the template and discuss it on the talk page if you want to introduce some text along those lines. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but one more question!

Hello, it's me again, coolshamas_01. Thankyou for explaining me why it's deleting and what's meant by 'speedy deletion'. Again i'm thankful for that. However i will want to know what does the word, citing, means as it has confused me. Not only me but others too.

Thankyou very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER question!

sorry for asking another question again. but what kind of source you mean. Can you please tell me. Thank you very much.. Again!!

THANKS

coolshamas_01 USER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kornbluth paragraph in Newspeak article

This paragraph is completely irrelevant for the reasons you describe so cogently in the Newspeak discussion section. So, in line with the Wiki encouragement to 'be bold', I've removed it. 88.111.85.129 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Provost Sergeant Tim Weston

Hi, you prodded the article Provost Sergeant Tim Weston with the justification: "minor fictional character, stub written in in-universe style, no references or sources cited, see WP:FICT". However, I think he is in fact a real person that was in a reality TV show in the UK called "Bad Lads Army" in which various young social malcontents were sent for 1940's style army training. Whilst the show was popular, this individual doesn't meet notability standards. Consequently, I have re-prodded the article with a 'non-notable individual' justification. Hope this is OK. CIreland 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Guidlines

Hi thanks for pointing that out and apologies for your effort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopste (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hello, DESiegel ... About a month ago, we had contact regarding my drafts for protocols to "slow down" the proposed and speedy deletion processes ... I've been busy with other projects since then, and used the time to let ideas percolate in the back of my mind, but I have recently readdressed the protocols from a fresh point of view, and took the time to learn how to make templates.

Please see User talk:72.75.70.147#Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions and give me your feedback on the templates I have created for boilerplate warnings to be placed on editor's and articles talk pages prior to placing a PROD or CSD on an article. Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Good morning...I was looking at the Administrators Noticeboards, and I wasn't 100% sure on where to post/request this, but I am requesting to have It (film) semi-protected because for the last few days I've been having to revert IP edits that remove valid information from the site. When you look at the history you can see these edits. Unfortunately, I cannot make any reverts for a few hours without breaking WP:3RR so I'm stuck right now. Semi-protecting the page would help keep the maintenace down on the page so I don't have to constantly look over my shoulder waiting for the 3RR monster to get me. --sumnjim 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Found out where to request this --sumnjim 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about tag placement, second opinion

Hi, DESiegel, I have had pleasant experiences in the past with you regarding relations with other users, and I was hoping you would be able to give me a little advice for how to better handle a situation. I have had dialogue with User:Ed Fitzgerald in the past about his dislike of templates and their placement on articles. We had a discussion here after he moved the {{plot}} template from the article to the talk page because he believed it "doesn't need to be seen by the general public." Later I noticed that he was moving similar templates to the end of the article. I posted to his talk page explaining their proper location and their general reason for being. He didn't reply to me, however, and I noticed again today that he has continued relocating them. It's not a criminal offense, I understand, but I think he's missing the point. I'm obviously not getting to him, so perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly? I don't want it to descend into WP:LAME, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't irk me. Any advice you could give would be great. Take care, María (críticame) 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PAC

I thought the delete votes were more persuasive, but upon re-examination I guess it is too close to call. I changed it to no consensus. — Ocatecir 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2

I reverted the addition of your comment, because you also altered User:Tony Sidaway's comment in the process. Feel free to re-add your comment without the edit to Tony's own post. -- Kesh 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein DRV

Thanks for calling my attention to this. More to the point, thanks for taking the time to start it. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No speedy deletion for My Turban

Didn't realize that the article had to be explicitly about the band in question to merit a db-band. Sorry about that! --Iknowyourider (t c) 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem it is a rather technical point, and perhaps this rule should be changed. DES 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil Smith

Hi there, I understand what you left on my talk page. I am still coming to grips with how strong an assertion fails a WP:CSD#A7, and I'm not suprised to see you dispute it. I will prod it, thanks for the message. In my opinion, also-rans can stay up while they are still-running, but once they become a failed candidate - unless they become independently notable for it, being an also-ran is not anything special. (eg: Santa Clause from the Santa Clause and the Merry Christmas Party, from a few years back here in the Australian Federal Senate. Isn't deed poll a wonderful thing?)Garrie 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments back at my talk page.

Different DOB as stated on each article.Garrie 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My Bitch

Sorry, I am a bit new at this, so I guess I kind of messed up. Thanks for the heads up. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1941

Hello, I got your note with regards to the series of articles I've been putting up on Edmonton elections. First let me say that I recognized when I started these that some people might interpret them as failing WP:N but, since I don't agree, I decided to be bold and create them anyway. If, after reading my arguments, you want to AfD the articles I certainly won't take any offense; I would ask only that you do so promptly so that, if consensus goes against me, I don't waste any more time on the series.

All of that said, I believe that individual municipal elections in Edmonton pass WP:N. I make the following arguments in support of my belief: 1. Any given election in Edmonton receives very significant coverage from a wide variety of media sources in Edmonton in the period leading up to and after the election in question, relatively significant coverage from other Canadian media in the same period, and small but significant coverage from the writings of local historians and political scientists in ensuing years (admittedly few of these latter writings are available online, but I would cite this as one example that is). City Politics, Canada is one example of a book that I happen to own that deals with specific past municipal elections. 2. Edmonton is a municipality of more than one million people. There are many smaller jurisdictions (Guyana and Prince Edward Island to take just a couple of examples) that have pages for their individual elections. While I agree with the authors of WP:AADD that the existence of a given article does not necessarily legitimize the existence of all comparable articles, I think that, in cases like this where no clear notability guideline exists, we need to consider the consequence to other established articles of our decisions. If we determine that Edmonton elections are insufficiently notable, I think it does call into question the justification for individual pages on PEI's elections, for example, and I don't think we should proceed with deleting the Edmonton articles unless we're either prepared to do the same with PEI and Guyana or we can come up with a clear justification for why they should stay when Edmonton shouldn't. 3. You suggest that allowing articles on municipal elections will make Misplaced Pages "groan under the load". With respect, I don't believe that this is so. As long as articles have distinct names that don't require a lot of new disambiguation pages - an objective that should be easy to achieve - I see no reason why there couldn't be articles on individual elections for all major municipalities.

Again, if you disagree with this I would be more than happy to have an AFD debate, which would allow me to either continue with this project with renewed legitimacy or to stop wasting time on it. But I believe that these articles add to Misplaced Pages and are entirely in keeping with WP:N. Sarcasticidealist 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I just thought I'd provide you with a few links to other municipal election articles. Again, I'm not claiming that the existence of these articles justifies the existence of the Edmonton ones, but I do want to demonstrate that articles on individual municipal elections are a well-established phenomenom on Misplaced Pages that have been seemlessly incorporated into their surroundings and that haven't caused Misplaced Pages to groan under the weight: Toronto, Windsor, assorted Belizean municipalities, etc. Sarcasticidealist 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please don't refrain from AFDing the articles just on the basis that I put work into them. Such thinking is, as I understand it, contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages (though I certainly take your point about the onerous nature of tagging them all). Second, while I take your point about purely local media being insufficient to pass WP:N (although there are plenty of well-established articles that I'm aware of in other fields that rely exclusively on local media - here's one example that occurred to me completely at random - a city the size of Edmonton gets some amount of attention for its elections nation-wide. Although the media coverage is certainly primarily local, it's not exclusively local. Regarding your suggestion to merge the articles, to be honest I don't fully understand the purpose. I think having more articles for something like this is actually less cluttered than having fewer larger articles, provided that the articles are properly organized, which I think these ones are. I'm certainly open to hearing your justification for why this is not so, and I'd be prepared to do the legwork if the AFD process comes out with a consensus of merge, but the purpose isn't immediately apparent to me. Finally, as for the signature, four tildes is exactly how I sign each post and, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't done anything to my signature to prevent a link to my userpage from coming up. Advice? Sarcasticidealist 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think I fixed the signature issue - thanks for your advice on that. As for the substance of our debate, I do see your point about the notability of "elections in Edmonton" being greater than the notability of any individual election. However, if we're going to have the information on Misplaced Pages (and I recognize that we're not necessarily in agreement about that - I'm just taking it as a first principle for the purpose of my point), we need to figure out in what form it's going to be most useful to the user (other considerations that might otherwise have to be considered, such as "using up" article names that might be more useful on other subjects, are mercifully absent here, since I can't imagine any other articles being confused with Edmonton municipal election, 1941). Given the sheer volume of information, I would think that most users would prefer to have the information sorted in a rational way (by date) among different articles, instead of having one massive article with all of the information (in which the various sets of election results would also look very similar to one another, thereby possibly breeding confusion as to exactly what section a user was reading at any given time). I would obviously prefer the merger solution to an outright deletion, but it still strikes me as the kind of unhappy compromise that's made solely for the sake of compromise.

I'm (somewhat) new to Misplaced Pages - is there somewhere we can go to involve other people in this discussion without actually going through the AFD process? Because, while I'm not willing to yield based solely on your say-so, I'd be happy to do so if I see that consensus is against me. Sarcasticidealist 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, *now* I've fixed the signature issue.Sarcasticidealist 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help on this issue. One partial solution that I can propose: since 1968, all municipalities in the province of Alberta have held their elections on the same days. I would be entirely amenable to dealing with elections after that date in larger articles of the format Alberta municipal elections, 1968 which would include all of the 1968 municipal elections in Alberta, since these could be seen as part of a larger (more notable) event in a way that elections prior to 1968 couldn't be. Of course, that doesn't help us for any of the articles that exist now, but hopefully it gives us some consensus moving forward.Sarcasticidealist 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: script bug report

Fixed, thanks. ^demon 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:Infobox Football All-Ireland 2

I did not place the tag on either template. Please look again carefully.  slυмgυм  20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton Election RFC

Thanks for that. I've added my statement. I'll leave the articles be for a few days while we see if some consensus develops. Thanks for your reasonable approach to this whole issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: I know of a couple of other editors who'd likely be interested in this AFC. The thing is, being municipal politics nerds like myself, they'd be likely to take my side. I know the consensus process isn't a vote, but would it be acceptable to direct their attention to the AFC, or not? I wouldn't want to be seen as trying to stack the deck in my favour.Sarcasticidealist 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They are existing Misplaced Pages editors who have worked on articles on municipal politics. So while they certainly have a "legitimate interest" in this discussion, they also have a predisposition to believe in the notability of a broader range of municipal politics articles than does the Misplaced Pages population at large. I'll try to think of a few more neutral places to post this.Sarcasticidealist 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

Hi, i see you've pointed some of the orphaned talk pages i recently proposed for speedy deletion to their corresponding disambiguation pages' talk pages; is this really a good idea? There are no existing links that would benefit from such a redirect, and i can't think of a reason why someone wanting to comment on the redirect would want to end up on the DP's talk page instead. --Piet Delport 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(replied to at User talk:Piet Delport#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)

User:Chainsofhell

I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Do you normally run an effectiveness test on the spam pages you come across to see if they qualify?

Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as their extensive contribution history shows. Mmmmmmmm -- no. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of your removal of the tag. The tag was put back 20 minutes later by Calton and I agreed it was blatant spam. A user creating a userpage only to promote a rock band is advertising. If I had crossed the page on my patrol, I would probably have prodded the page instead of speedy deleting it, because we can't say it was blatant. But in my opinion this is a role account made to circumvent our A7 criteria, this was this user only contribution. -- lucasbfr 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I had much the same viewpoint as you, except that well, I think that any such list is going to have heavy problems reaching the RS/V bar. Have a good one. SirFozzie 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

I do not think that User:Vinko Tsui fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because...Yes it would be better if he actually registered User:Vinko Tsui, and so technically this is a valid speedy

Note the contradiction. Perhaps you ought to read the material you use before "templating the regulars." --Calton | Talk 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do read the templates I use when i use them, and in this case I specifically edited after substing to remove parts that I didn't intened - Hmm, so you specifically intended to say that the page doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria AND that it does fits the speedy deletion criteria? Neat trick there.

if a template msg says what I want to say, i will use it - Which apparently it didn't (see above), or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem pretty slow to understand, I'll make it simple:

• "Templating the regulars" -- using a template to send a message to a regular and long-time editor -- is insulting.

• Using a template which you apparently didn't bother reading closely is even more insulting.

• In your fumbling attempt at customizing the template -- you didn't even get the capitalization right, I'll note -- you said two contradictory things. It's called a "mixed message" -- ask someone about it -- and assuming your recipient needs to be a mind-reader to get your intent is a bad start.

• Verbose ass-covering -- including the pretentious literary name-dropping -- doesn't impress me, either.

Sufficient? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:I understand that some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.

And yet you do it anyways.

I don't agree.

And if you'd thought about for half a second, you'd realize how immaterial that is. Hint: who is, in fact, the proper authority for what is considered insulting, the deliverer or the recipient? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people consider all sorts of absurd things insulting. As long as I act reasonably I see no obligation to abide by any and every prejudice someone else may have.

Just keep digging there. So considering that "templating the regulars" is insulting is an absurd notion? And no, that's not an attempt at a gotcha, it's the only reasonable interpretation of your statement just above. But the logical steps:

1) Some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.

2) You consider that notion absurd.

3) Despite your clear understanding of #1, you do it anyways.

4) Ergo, insulting some editors is okay, even if you can avoid it.

But since you have been so clear that you dislike templated messages, when i do something that I would normally notify you about via a template, I will simply not notify you

Ah, spite. So very mature. Have you considered, I dunno, writing an actual note, with sentences and everything that actually lay out your actual concerns, that actually attempt to communicate with someone who has enough experience in Misplaced Pages to not require reminding of very basic policies? Not all that difficult, really, and you don't even have to do any literary name-dropping, just simple declarative sentences. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, i do consider that notion absurd. Congratulations on understanding something I implied but did not state explicitly.

Ah, escalating from implicitly insulting someone's intelligence to doing so explicitly. It's sounding less and less like it was inadvertent in the first place.

Note that the template in question (which you repeatedly implied or stated that I did not read, although a look at the history would confirm my statement that I actually wrote it)...

So what if you originally created it? For precisions' sake, I'll amend that to "You didn't bother to reread the template before you applied it", or, probably more accurately, "You didn't bother to understand the template before you applied it."

It is true that too many editors use templates blindly.

Good, you're halfway to self-awareness. Small hints: what was the message thread on my Talk page just above your most recent set, and how grounded in actual policy was that one?

I recall one instance where an editor was accused of having been overly harsh in a particular message, and the response was "It's not my fault, I just used the standard template. It's the fault of the person who designed the template.

I recall that case. It was clearly a case of the editor not bothering to read the template before applying it, and going on and on with long defensive postings to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility for the ill feelings his thoughtless actions had caused. I don't think he made any literary allusions, though. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)

It appears that you reverted the clsoe of this. Dis you intend to do that, or was it an edit conflict or what?

"Or what." I was improving my arguments for the projectification of the article (which I thank you for acknowledging), and didn't even get a conflict box. I will request projectification when I can find the time; Fortunately, the closure of this AfD brings the number of my current major conflicts down to two. Unfortunately, one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously. Expect getting bugged about the specifics within two weeks.

I can cry travesty until I'm blue in the face, but there was no actual breach of procedure, so DRV is out. Moving the article to project-space seems like the only option. This is too large a job for a single person, and even if it wasn't, it'd just meet its fourth AfD immediately if it failed to get a communal consensus before reposting. The edit history can be restored with the move, right? It'll be needed.--Kizor 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. "I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear ."

This is really an interesting and new experience. So far, whenever I was in the majority group favouring that an article be kept, the closing admin argued that "this is not a vote", i e that keep and delete votes are not counted and weighed against each other. Suddenly, out of the blue, there is not just such a thing as a "clear consensus", but even a "clear numerical consensus".

"If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to WP:DRV."

I'm certainly not going to "go to WP:DRV": The last time I did so was enough experience in that field for me. I have asked at least four times for projectification of that list in the deletion debate, and I'm doing it right now again by dropping you a note. Best wishes, <KF> 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. You have raised so many issues that I don't really know where to start. Well, let's give it a go.

First of all, when you say that "it seems from your note on my talk page that you think my close of this AfD was improper, incorrect, or unjustified" you are mistaken. All I did is report what I experienced in the past. To me, your decision is perfectly within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages policy. If my introductory remark seems to contain implicit criticism, it is because I've just come across yet another official Misplaced Pages guideline which I believe is too vague and thus open to interpretation of any kind. In other words: I may have implicitly criticized that guideline, but certainly not you or your decision.

It follows (hopefully) from the above that I am certainly not going to "report the matter on WP:ANI or WP:DRV or at WP:RFC" or anywhere else. It seems that the way I see things is in many cases only shared by a handful of others, so I usually keep out of edit wars (see, for example, the debate on spoiler warnings) or other unpleasant things and concentrate on arguing my case and eventually retreating when I realise that it's hopeless.

That was the case with the gory list as well, and if you reread my contributions to the gory deletion debate you will see that I'm saying exactly the same things here again. I'm not personally interested in keeping that list at all although as someone who enjoys watching and reading about films it made fascinating reading for me.

Other contributors may find the list helpful when working on film articles (I've said so before), and they should not be denied the chance to access it. I was not so much arguing (that was Kizor I suppose) to projectify it so that it can be rewritten and re-established as a proper Misplaced Pages article. (I wouldn't mind though at all if that happened.)

A disturbing phenomenon I have been witnessing for a long time now is that someone picks on one out of what must be thousands of lists that similarly fail all, or most, Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion and gets that one list they have picked out (and on) deleted (with a very high success rate, due to the ease with which a "consensus" can be manufactured here at Misplaced Pages, see above) while all the others remain as they have always been. Strangely, it's even been established as a no-no (WP:WAX, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) to refer to other unsuitable articles for the sake of argument.

If you have a look at the deletion debate again, I hope you'll find that that's what I said there as well. Best wishes, <KF> 05:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. I'm afraid I do not have a plan concerning the page in question because I'm not really interested in the subject matter and wouldn't be able to work on that list myself. Apart from many other things here at Misplaced Pages, what fascinated me right from the start of the project were collaborative compilations of data which could not be found anywhere else (List of songs phrased as questions, List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses, List of people by name, and all that stuff).

That was back in 2002 or 2003 or so when there simply were no policies against those lists. I considered them an asset. Now they have been identified as "unencyclopaedic" and are being relentlessly persecuted. They may be so if you apply traditional standards, but I originally thought that, using the Internet rather than paper, we might be able to redefine the conception of what an encyclopaedia should or might contain. Well, times have changed, so if people are no longer interested in that sort of thing I just can't pursue the matter further. All the best, <KF> 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nick Hern Books

While there are a large number of Google hits for the publisher, most of them have little to no information about the company. I'm still concerned about 1. notability 2. spam and 3. cut n paste job of the sole sentence contained in the article (I realize of course, this isn't what I tagged it for in the first place). I understand that a speedy deletion tag may not be appropriate, so if I nominate for deletion again, I will be sure to prod or AfD to make sure I'm following proper Misplaced Pages procedure. Eliz81 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta!

. Tyrenius 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Closing

You're welcome - anything that minimises edit conflicts is a good idea in my book. Graham87 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin Series

Hello, is there any chance we can get a demerge done for this series so that each book has its own individual article. Please see my comments in the discussion section of the article ref. this matter. At the moment, I feel the whole article is far too unwieldly with just a huge mass of information.

The main article should just contain a broad general overview of the series e.g. O'Brian's humour etc.Ivankinsman 09:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sara Calaway article - could you please help

We could use your help about the Sara Calaway article.

User:Thedeadmanandphenom created the Sara Calaway article a few days ago. It was quickly tagged by a fellow Wikipedian for speedy delete, and a few of us left messages on the article talkpage as well as the user's talk page about it. Other tags were also added, requesting cleanup and more sources. The user responded to the messages I left him, and I tried to give him constructive comments about how to improve the article. I even made some wordsmithing improvements to the article to show him how to do some things. He responded by adding the hangon tag at the top the article, and also added a comment on the article talk page that no one should be editing his article. A few of us responded to this comment, noting that this is not the way Misplaced Pages works - no one owns an article. A few hours later, the user had deleted the tags, and was in an edit war with another Wikipedian who kept restoring them. I left another constructive comment and got a response from the user that I thought had resolved things. The user left me a message (question) on my talk page about how to put pictures in an article and I referred him to Misplaced Pages:Images. That was yesterday (June 23, 2007).

Today (June 24, 2007), I looked at the article and found all tags gone. Also, there is no history of what happened before today. It looks as if the article has been recreated new, as a copy and paste of what the old article looked like. It has my wordsmith edits, for example. At a minimum, there should be a speedy delete tag, a Cleanup tag and a more sources tag.

I think it might be time for an admin to intervene, and I respectfully ask for your assistance. If there is a Misplaced Pages page that describes the process I should be following in these kinds of situations, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to it for future use. Thanks. Truthanado 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I understand what happened and I think it's good to discuss as AfD. In general, the current article is in better shape than the one that was previously deleted; it is shorter and the info in it is at least debatable as notable and worthy of Misplaced Pages. I think I will do some research on other WWE articles and specifically how Misplaced Pages handles wives, and then comment on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sara Calaway page. Thanks again. Truthanado 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin Series

Hello, I am trying to set up a new page for each one of Patrick O'Brian's novels that don't have one already.

Can you tell me how I can link, for example, the novel HMS Surprise to a new page. I put in HMS Surprise main article (just like the Post Captain above) but it just links back to the same page/info. Not sure how I can change this...Ivankinsman 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forest Oak Middle School

I just noticed this article was undeleted and noticed the comments on the deleting admin's talk page. I just wanted to drop you a note to mention that I did actually mean db-a1 and not db-a7 because I agree with your position that a school isn't covered by a7. I'm not really sure that the content in the article at present is enough to stand up to a1, but I'm hopeful that your interest in the article foreshadows improvements you hope to make. I have very mixed feelings about the notability of middle and primary schools, but I'm not really in a place right where I'm trying to do more in my patrolling than getting articles without sources marked and kicking the speedy deletion material. Erechtheus 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your restoration of The Lying Game

Hi, I'm unclear about your motive for undeleting this article. Do you believe that there is merit in the argument that it should remain on Misplaced Pages, or is there another reason? --Tony Sidaway 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have been found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support from DRV. Had I encountered this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where something that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance of it being kept as a valid article is low. But I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed some admins, infer precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the speedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. DES 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been there. I'm absolutely with you on restoring bad speedies, and looking at your undeletions I think that you usually show excellent judgement in those that you restore. The reason I asked was that I suspected that you might be tending to fetishize the process. Do you honestly think we need to spend days discussing this deletion? --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I very rarely restore, to avoid even the hint of wheel-warring, I usually take to DRV. As to this one, i think the process exists for a reason, and there is no good reason to avoid it here. I think there is a small but non-zero chance this this silly game has actually become popular enough on college campuses (I've seen far sillier things that have) that we should have an article about it as a social phenomenon. I think that it is worth delaying deletion in case anyone finds the references that would demonstrate that. You ask if I think that "we need to spend days discussing this deletion". I don't think that if it were left on AfD, or prod, it would consume much of anyone's time. If it were on prod it would consume a few minutes of an admins time in 5 days, and no one need "discuss" it otherwise unless such person actually becomes untested and chooses to discuss, or unless references are found, in which case it would be worth while. If it were left on AfD I would expect and the maximum probability that two or three people would each spend 30 seconds !voting "delete", and after 5 days an admin would spend perhaps 2 minutes closing, unless someone got interested and actually found something worth noting, and again, in that possible though unlikely case, it would be worth the time spent. I think the total time spent would be less than 5 wikipedean-minutes -- less than you and I alone have already spent on this conversation. I think those 5 minutes would be worth investing against the small but non-zero chance of a real article emerging. Maybe to save time i should just have reverted the improper AfD close that went along with the improper speedy, rather than going to DRV. That is perhaps where I "fetishized process", and now I think if something like this comes along again, that is what I will do.

Also I've become very very frustrated with the admin who deleted this. He has a fast finger on the delete button, i think, and he doesn't seem to communicate much afterwards, either with frustrated newbies or with experienced editors. Please take a look at User talk:Naconkantari and then if you are willing to invest some time, at his logs I see lots of invalid or marginal speedies, and lots of things that probably should be deleted, but clearly aren't speedies. Note also the discussion at WP:AN#24 characters too long for a username? Any suggestions? DES 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

just breaking in, but I haven't undeleted either, being a new admin & a known inclusionist, I wanted some support first. . DGG 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I would probably have tagged this one as prod myself. If an administrator is doing chronically poor calls, please consider RfC. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about just that. But I would need a second certifier. Interested? DES 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any serious issues with that admins' conduct. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't then obviously you shouldn't be involved with an RfC. I'm curious, did you look at his talk page? He was the deleting admin on The Lying Game, X-sample, Liam Hunt, Kim Amidon, 23andMe, Blessthefall (which he also salted), Didar Singh Bains , Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (which he also salted), Spyware_Terminator (where he failed to link to the prior AfD, thus confusing the situation on DRV significantly), and Velvet D’Amour all of which are now or recently have been on DRV, and in none of which cases has he helpfully communicated with those inquiring about or questioning the deletion. While in the case of Spyware_Terminator the user involved does not seem to respond to polite communication anyway, in several of these cases newbies made polite requests, only to be told "take it to DRV" and nothing more, and in others experienced editors (including but not limited to myself) received no response at all. Do you think there is no problem with any of that? How would you comment in an RfC with evidence to that effect? DES 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are those all recent deletions? All of them seem at present to be redlinks, except one which is a salted deletion page. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that all have been deleted in the past few days -- all are listed on WP:DRV for 24, 25, or 26 June, with log links in each case. Most if not all seem to have been raised on his talk page since 23 June. I see that there have been apparently similar issues in the past, including one on DRV on 9 June, but I haven't checked into the merits of those as yet. DES 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note a similar pattern in the deletion of Onesidezero (designer), discussed on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9. Interestignly enough, I did some work adding sources to the related article Inkthis DES 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in certifying an RfC with Naconkantari. In addition to his recent speedy deletions, he:

1. Applies blocks much more severely than guidelines indicate (including incidents where he indefinitely blocked registered user accounts which have made a single harmless test edit - "hello" or similar)
2. Deleted many user pages of indefinitely blocked sockpuppets in spite of specific instructions to carefully check each page to ensure that they are not socks before deletion
3. Deleted thousands of fair use images without checking them to see if the deletion was correct. Originally, {{Dated dfu}} stated that a user should add a rationale but leave the template so an admin could review it. The template was changed on June 5, allowing any user who adds a rationale to remove it. Users who had already added rationales had no way of knowing that the criteria had changed. On June 6 Naconkantari deleted all disputed fair use images from May 31 and June 1 without checking to see if a rationale had been added or if the tagging was legitimate in the first place. He did not remove the images from any pages where they appeared; he just left red links. See for a full list of deleted images which Spike Wilbury‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I are attempting to review. There are 3148 of them.

In the above deletion incidents, Naconkantari has undeleted wrongly deleted pages and images on specific request but made no attempt to change his actions or review and fix the mistakes himself. In his replies, he always implied that deleting without review was the correct action and the incorrect deletion was the fault of whoever left the template there. TomTheHand 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1941

While I think it's safe to say that the RFC didn't get the response that either of us would have liked, the response it did get seems to be in favour of the articles' continued existence. Accordingly, I'd like to start on finishing up the series in the next couple of days. As before, I wouldn't object to an AfD to settle this a little more formally, but that's obviously your call. I want to hank you again for your civility, reasonableness, and help in dealing with this issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks by User:867xx5209

Hello, DESiegel ... my request for intervention at WP:AN/I#User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets regarding the personal attacks against me by 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) on the DRV page for CLSA (and several article discussion pages) is being ignored ... is it because I'm using an IP account? I have also discovered that I cannot post the complaint that I have been documenting about their activities onto the Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets project as an IP account. <Sigh!>

I'm asking you, and a few other admins who are familiar with this incident, for any advice/assistance that you can render ... please reply on my current talk page so as not to fragment comments by others ... BTW, my recent inactivity (and possibly slow response) is due to a medical emergency involving a family member. Thnx! —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari

I have posted at AN/I due to his unwillingness to discuss his actions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will, thank you. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will check to see if I have any additional info and add it. I try to track this sort of think off-wiki.--and by the way, do you know about WikiEn-L? much less restrained discussions there from all sides. My email is enabled.DGG 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) &, for the list, a few good people join in who don't like to talk here. I also like the centralization of discussions. Threads are easier than multiple pages. (and I'm simply used to it because that's the way I do most of my work in the RW) DGG 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added some links to article deletions to the RFC draft. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I am not sure what this Admins problem is, but he has been utterly rude to me in reference to the Gayla Earlene page. I am an entertainment expert and I understand notability. However, he could have went to the talk page and gave me some advice or something instead of just deleting me. I mean I was on my way back to expand the article. I even put and expand tag on it! By the time I got back, it was gone! I recreated it and placed a hangon tag, and it was gone again. I do not know what to do now. CAn you please advise? Junebug52 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things

First, you really should have your email enabled so that people whom you've blocked can contact you. Second, regarding the RFC draft, you may want to consider adding specific examples of deletions that have been overturned on DRV or look like they very likely will be overturned. JoshuaZ 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had email to me enabled, I've had it enabled for years, since before i first became an admin. i don't encourage its use much, but i have it. However, when you sent this note, i double checked my preferences. it seems that some time after I registered and provided my email address and activated the 'allow emails from other users" feature, wikimedia added the feature of confirmation of email addresses, and i had never confirmed mine. it seems that if your address is unconfirmed, the email features are now all disabled. Arrgh! They should have notified users who already had email active when this feature was implemented.

Adding soecific examples is next on my list, thanks. DES 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added some examples, please see item 3 in the Deletion section. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DES 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer Science Conference Rankings

Agreed, but I will definitely prod, and if necessary, go to an AfD. No, wait - someone beat me to it on AfD. (Guess how I'm voting?)

By the way, please sign your comments on my user page. As you are an admin, I assume you just slipped up there. It happens. Realkyhick 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamesaving

Can you check if Gamesaving should be deleted or not? I thought it had some potential so I placed a notability tag on it, but right now it just seems to be fodder for IP vandals. -WarthogDemon 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Er, sorry I probably typed my message wrong. I wasn't suggesting that it should be deleted due to vandalism. I was just asking you to check since if it wasn't that good an article to begin with, reverting the vandalism is pretty pointless if it can be deleted. Anyways, thanks again. :) -WarthogDemon 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)