Misplaced Pages

Ice-9

Just a note of thanks for finding that brilliant citation tying together scrapie and Ice-9. And here I thought I was making up that connection off the top of my head... Bunchofgrapes 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Time links

Why "rm pointless year links"? I thought ] around year and place of birth were correct (see François Franceschi-Losio)--J heisenberg 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, dates without days are linked also, see Socrates (470–399 BC)--J heisenberg 22:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, your obsession with the "date preference" functionality as a style suggestion is strange, notice that the Manual of Style link posted by the above editor shows very clearly that lonely years generally ARE linked. The date preference functionality is the ability of wikipedia to automatically translate a 7 September and a September 7 to the same page. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be linked. Usrnme h8er 15:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, only half a page above the link you made on my talk page, instructions are given for how a lonely year should be linked... Usrnme h8er 15:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... But it still doesn't make sense to me... So I'm going to continue discussing it until a) it does, or b) I come to the conclusion that I simply don't agree. I hope I don't end up pissing you off, but I prefer this method to edit wars... First of all, can you explain the Manual of Style entry that contradicts you? Second, regardless of date preferences, if I follow the date links in George W. Bush (my favourite sample site because it bugs people... :P) I end up on equally usless sites as if I follow year links on Harry Charles Luke... It doesn't make any sense to me that the GWB dates should be links when the Sir Harry dates are not... Why the application of date references should matter if beyond me, and (normally at least) I don't fancy myself thick... Usrnme h8er 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed speedy tag from Mike Kinkella

You tagged Mike Kinkella as nn-bio, CSD A7. I do no think it fits that criterion. The article made multiple claims of notability, such as MVP, records, etc. There were for Arena Football, which is a minor sport, but I think it needs to go through AfD, maybe, but not speedy. Just wanted to let you know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of VFU

I edited the head of the VFU page so it accurately describes the purpose of VFU per the Undeletion policy. This policy isn't a rule of thumb, we're all expected to follow it. Please revert your removal of the accurate quotations from the undeletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting my revert of your undiscussed changes to a stable process page. The existing text already refers people to the undeltion policy, and reminds people that it is to be followed. Several other respected editors have commented, on the VfU talk page, that your recent changes were a bad idea. If you want the instruction section to be simply a quote from the undeletion policy page, or to incorporate more such quotes, why not discuss the matter on the talk page? I never said that the policy page is simply a rule of thumb, please stop distoring my comments in this way. You have not, as far as I am aware, responded to my statement that continued, long-term practice on a process page is one means of establishing consensus. Do you disagree with this statement? DES 15:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I certainly support your interpretation of the purpose of VfU, the proposal at Udneletion policy seems very similar to that already under discussion at VfU, no? Even if it's different, the two are so closely dependent on one another that keeping it all in one place would seem better. Fragmented discussion is hard to turn to a consensus. -Splash 22:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, hmmmm. Now that I've had an enforced 20 minute cogitation period, I think I see that your wording on undel policy deals with the reasons that the possible new or existing scope of VfU might come into effect, so the two are somewhat decoupled. Not completely, mind. So perhaps we can let them run their own courses and they will be self-integrating. On a different note, I read a pretty clear consensus at VfU-talk (do you agree?) and would like to move forwards. Things seem a little mired; we haven't settled on a mechanics of the thing and we can't make the change until we have. What do you think would stir things up and move them forward? -Splash 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for being slow, the Wiki has been slow and I ran out of time an patience. Anyway, please see User:Splash/Deletion Review. The phrasing could with some cleaning. Proposal 1 is the simple idea, with the margin set high in an attempt to pacify some of the opposition and recognise that most of those who talked numbers talked high numbers. Proposal 2 is Sjakkalle's idea, which might work, and Proposal 3 is Tony's suggestion prior to his 'AfD challenge' proposal. It seems only fair to include it. I dropped my 'purgatory' suggestion and worked the possibility of relisting into the various proposals directly. Note that I haven't bothered to simply import the current majoritarian system direct from VfU, although that was my original intention (in the name of changing as little as possible), since I don't think there would be support for that. Would be nice to present a simple package as in the original proposal, but this might not be sensibly possible. Let me know what you think. I would suggest moving a final version to Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion Review proposal or something and snipping the text from VfU talk to the discussion page of that. I'm out of town until tomorrow night (UK time). -Splash 15:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just got back, and am shattered, but I have read your reply. I should say that the original intent was not to change the operation at all; the majoritarian system works ok as it is. But I can see that it doesn't really work if we can review keep decisions since the deleters of e.g. schools would use their numerical weight on DR instead of AfD (and it would become impossible at some point to filter process-votes from content-votes). Anyway, if it's ok, I'll write a proper response tomorrow. However, one reason the core proposal was easily supported was its transparent simplicity; we should seek to retain that wherever possible: people will yell "creep" if the mechanics run to paragraphs of text. -Splash 21:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

North Carolina Research Campus

• Article Author User:Bradspry. This is not a scheduled or expected future event. This is a real event that happened on September 12, 2005. This is not extrapolation, speculation, and "future history". It is happening now. This is not crystal ball. Come to Kannapolis, North Carolina, and see for yourself.
• Article Author User:Bradspry. I am an employee of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and a citizen of Kannapolis, North Carolina. My university address book entry. I attended the launch event this past Monday September 12, 2005, and was provided a Media Kit. The license I stated was press release photos, which are believed to be fair use under wikipedia. This is an historical event for Kannapolis, the site of the greatest lay-off in North Carolina history, with over 4000 jobs lost in one day. This is documenting history, not an ad.
• Article Author User:Bradspry. Added "Future building" tag to match Freedom Tower legitimacy reasoning.

Brad Spry 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks

I made it 2 weeks as per previous proposals. btw thanks a lot for your help on that proposal, it looks like it will pass as things stand. Martin 22:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

VfU mechanics (aka I'm about to take up a lot of space on your talk page.)

DESiegel,
I'm going to put a lot of material here, hope you don't mind. But as it was your proposal I butchered, I reckon you deserve an explanation of my reasoning. (I also have to admit, calling it "watered down" seemed to me a bit rough. In some areas, my re-write is stronger, e.g. recursion.)

Tedious point-by-point bit

• In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either overturn or endorse the previous deletion decision. Those opting to overturn should also specify whether the page should be relisted, kept, merged, redirected, or deleted. (Note, a "merge" result may mean no more than approperiate merge tags being applied to the article and any sugested merge target, plus a note referencing the DR discusion on the appropriate talk page. After that the merge can be performed via normal editing. No closer is ever required to actually do a merge.)

1. In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either Overturn or Endorse the previous deletion decision. The default action associated with an Overturn vote is to list on XfD. A user who supports an alternative action should thus state Overturn and (action) per Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion.

Commentary - I didn't feel this changed the intent in any way.

Yes this is just a rewording. I felt that the explicit list of possible actions was valuabel, to make is cleare beyond arguement what kinds of results could come out of DR. Your version leaves this to implication, and considering the kind of wikilawyering Tony and some others are doing, I wante to avoid that as much as possible. But I don't have major objections to this change. Making explicit that a bare "overturn" is the same as "overturn and relist" was a good idea, IMO. DES 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• If a majority, but less than a strong consensus, favor overturing the deletion decision, then the article will be relisted (or initallly listed, if it was initally speedy-deleted) for discusion on the proper XfD page, with links to the DR discusion and any previous XfD discusion.
• If there is a clear consensus (say 70% or more) then the decision may be overturned directly, and the consensus result applied. However, the consensus may be to relist, in which case that will be done. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be relisted as above.

3. If there is rough consensus then the decision may be overturned directly, and the consensus result applied. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be listed on XfD as above.

Commentary - Again, I think I'm saying the same thing you are, with the only change being "rough" in place of both "majority" and "clear".

Well, my version made it very explicit that if thre was a majority to overturn, some action would be taken. Your does not, and indeed implies that no action will be taken unless a "rough consensus" to overtun is reached. i consider that a major change of intent, and a major defect in yuour text. That is the major diference as I see it. All else is wording. DES 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone expressing an opnion should also provide reasoning, at least in the form of a shorthand expression. Opnions that rely primarily on the contnet of the item, rather than the process being reviewed, will be ignored. However, a claim that valid resons were simply ignored during the deletion discussion is about process. So is a claim that the deletion policy was ignored or improperly applied durign the deltion process.
• Exception: users stating that they were not aware of the deletion discussion may indicate that they had valid reasons which they would have expressed at that discussion. Such users should normally opt for Overturn and relist so that their reasons can be more fully evaluated in a proper deletion discussion. (obviously users who commented in the previosu deletion discussion cannot honestly claim to have been unaware of that discuussion.

2. The presentation of new information should be prefaced by Overturn. This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Commentary - I think I'm mostly saying the same thing you are, with the proviso that content be ignored removed. Here's where "that train never existed" comes in, and I felt that your version would disallow that argument. Your version also seems to allow an influx of "I would have opted for foo had I seen the first discussion" which should be avoided as DR is not to be XfD all over again.

The key phrase in my version was "rely primarily" on a content-based argument. It was not intended to cut off all references to content. It should probably be reworded, but I think soem form of it is very important. The "missed the debate" provision is because this is specifically given as a reason for undeeltion in the current undeletion policy, and i see the reasons for it. Note that any such claims could only result in a relisting in my draft. DES 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

4. It should also be noted that Deletion Review's mandate of "any deletion debate" extends recursively to Deletion Review itself.

Commentary - I just made this one up. I think it greatly strengthens the entire structure of the proposal.-

I think this is simply an invitation to endless debates, and I think it will do more harm than good. I think it weakens the proposal, rather than strengthening it. DCR debates should be more final than this implies. DES 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What do we actually "not" agree on?

After reading your comments on the talk page (no, not the "watered down" one, the others!) it seems the only part we actually disagree on is where to put the zone of discretion - your "50/75" method or my "rough" one. I'd made some further text-filler here on that, but I liked it so much I've moved it to the main discussion.

I always respect your input, and hope that I haven't stuck it up you with either my dilution of your input or my inundation of you talk page. ^_^
brenneman 00:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply, both on my talk page and above. I hadn't realized that our ideas for how it should work were so far apart! Your points on my page are crisp and clear, and might serve as useful sub-sub-headings on the main talk page to see what directions everyone agrees on. (I've already used them to provoke Tony into coming back to the discussion.) I'm assimilating and considering them now.
brenneman 04:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

I noticed you have been tagging articles for speedy deletion, this surprised me as I assumed you were already an admin, Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? Martin 08:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Part of the reason I thought of nomiating you was after our discussions on speedying blatant copyvio stuff, you were very calm/rational (like an admin should be), I dont think you are controversial, from what I have seen I feel sure you would pass with ease. However it is really up to you, I would feel terribly guilty if I nominated you then it failed due to some "heated" debate you may have had in the past. Martin 15:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/DESiegel - good luck! Martin

Hey David. Sorry, but I've changed my mind and have written a suitably nasty exposé of your irredeemable evil on the RfA. I'm hoping it fails. Regards—encephalonεγκέφαλον 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I am sure you will be doomed for all eternity to fight alone against a WoW wave for such shameless inconstancy, and i love to see people doomed for all eternity. (P.S. Thanks for your very nice comments. ) DES 19:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I couldn't resist.;) Did I have you worried? Heheh. Saw your comments on Martin's. Don't worry dude, I'm sure you'll get through handily.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 20:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I had actually seen yuour commetns on the RfA page before i saw this, but I think I would have spotted the joke anyway. I do have a sense of humor, albiet a low one (A staight line is the shortest distance between two puns) (Incorrigable punster: Do not incorriage.) :) DES 20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're obviously too controversial for adminship. --fvw* 07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Boy Ryan

Why did you revert comments on this? They did express a positive opnion of the article. granted they were unsigned and by an anon, and so might well have been discounted, but why not let thm stay? am i missing soemthing here? DES 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the IP's other edits, it seemed to me it was done purely to be disruptive and contrary to the opinion of the community and not to actually express an opinion. If you feel otherwise feel free to put it back though. --fvw* 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll check out the other edits before taking any other action. I just always wonder when i see a revert on an Afd page, and i'm trying to get extra pointers against the time i may be doing closes. Thanks for the prompt response DES 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya (and the likes)

Since you've made a lot of comments in support of Gadugi's view without actually discussing the merits of them, would you please help out by answering my comments? In the AfD you stated that you couldn't accept that the language info wasn't merged, yet I tried explaining that this info already exists in Cherokee language (where it belongs). Now the AfD is closed and your comment is just sitting there without me being able to respond to it. You also made a post at talk:Cherokee where you claim that the article "about the word" should be kept, despite that this would make the article a dicdef. I would appreciate if you didn't leave obviously non-sensical comments like these hanging. Especially not when Gadugi is acting as if the final word on any Cherokee-related article belongs to those of Cherokee heritage only (in this case Gadugi himself).

Please try to conclude the discussions you engage in before stating exactly what you support or object to.

Peter 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

AOL IP block

I apologize if you've been having troubles due to that block. The user you are referring to is a vandal and needed to be contained, even if that will probably not hold him enough. Judging by the time I'm posting this message, the IP 152.163.100.70 would be unblocked in less than 3 hours, but I will unblock it now for you. I'll just hope we won't have vandalism from that address anymore. By the way, I remember having my email for contact on, but somehow, it's now off. I'll fix that. Thanks for the heads-up.

Needing help again, just ask.--Kaonashi 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lyrics Links Deleted

Hi DES,

You responsed to my dilemna on the HelpDesk page. Extraordinary Machine has deleted many of my links. Is it possible to ask him to put them back? At a minimum, I'd like to get a list of pages that he has removed my link from.

He has also threatened to block my IP. Is there any way to avoid this and still post my links? Note that on the Avril Lavigne page, he deleted my lyrics link and left my Music Videos link.

Again, I am not selling anything and do not have a "commercial site". I would just be repeating me previous arguments if I were to continue.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jkjazz 16:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkjazz

Hi DES. I think he genuinely wants to contribute, he just fell into the linkspam trap at his first attempt. I added a rather long comment to his talk page detailing how I felt it was best for him to proceeded if he wants WP to link to his site. Feel free to check it out and make any corrections/additions you feel necessary. --GraemeL 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

nn-bios

Recently a user posted to the help desk inquirign about what happened to Svitlana Azarova. The logs revealed that you deelted it as an nn-bio (no doubt correctly). This note is to suggest that you consider notifing the creators of articles deleted under A7, as s number of them don't understand what has happened. I have created {{nn-warn}} for this purpose, and i am encouraging others to use it, hoping they will dind it worthwhile. This is, of course, merely a suggestion. DES 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind; I don't expect to use it on all speedied articles but it should come in very useful for good-faith efforts like Svitlana Azarova appeared to be. --fvw* 20:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You're promoted

Hi DESiegel, consensus being reached you will now be a sysop. However we seem to have a bug in the system that is preventing us from promoting you. You'd have to wait till the bug is sorted before we can technically promote you. I'll keep you informed. User:Nichalp/sg 05:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As of this moment the situation isn't resolved. The other b'crats know about this and the developers have been informed. Special:makesysop is used by bureaucrats to create sysops. You too can check if the function is back. If you click on that link now, you'll get an page missing error. If it is up, you'll get a message "don't have permission" or something like that. If you notice that it is up, you can contact any b'crat to upgrade your status.

Pointers... well adminship is no big deal; the first month might be exciting, but you'll grow out of it and you'll wonder how u managed without the deletes and rollbacks. I believe you've read the wikipedia:administrators' reading list so you'll know what I'm talking about. I'd suggest you'd start with something light, which can be rolled back by other admins. Page protections/unprotections, carrying out speedy deletions (ie mostly patent nonsense), tracking and hunting vandalism. Once you get the hang of things & gain confidence, move on to ipblocks and AFD article deletions. The final step is the graduation to the deletion of images & merging of page histories, and as these things cannot be undone, you'll have to be extra careful. I'd also suggest you'd go slow with the blocks, first blocking ips who indulge in petty vandalism before graduating to blocking registered users. I've also noticed that some long time users tend to snap at overenthusiatic newbie admins, so keep that in mind. I personally am not much on the administrative side, preferring to stick to the editing side. But I do carry out my admin tasks if I come across something that needs to be fixed/deleted/merged/protected/blocked. And alway be patient with newbie's queries, since you have the statis of an experienced user. (I'm currently helping out an 83yr old wikipedian to tag and categorise his images :) Doesn't get better than this!). Hope this was something useful to you. User:Nichalp/sg 17:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't you ask a steward to fix it? I'm sure they'd be happy to help considering the circumstances, and it seems kind of cruel to leave DESiegel waiting once he's finally been awarded his shiny rollback button. --fvw* 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the bug is in the system. In the WP hierachy, developers are placed higher than stewards. It goes roughly like this: Jimbo>Boardvote>Developer>Checkuser>Steward>Bureaucrat>Admin>Normal user>Anon user. See also Special:Listusers User:Nichalp/sg 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware of that, I just thought that perhaps Special:Userlevels was still around for the stewards to use. I didn't check or anything, so perhaps it's affected too. --fvw* 18:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Amigo

Thank you for showing me how to mark a stub, and for going right on ahead and doing it for me It's always great when nice and polite people take the time to help those of us that are clueless on certian things so again ty. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:DESiegel/archive2/monobook.js:

// ] - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

DR

I'm sorry about that, I hadn't seen your suggestion on VfU talk until it was too late and I went there to post a message of my own. I hope I didn't mess up. My main concern is taking the discussion to a page on no-ones watchlist. Hopefully the VP will help out there. -Splash 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, more eyes are better. I'm thinking about spamming the talk pages of those involved in the original discussion if they haven't done their duty, one way or another, by the time I wake up. Or we can do it now. I add a note to TfD, CfD, AfD and the VfU main page. It's already at VP/P and RfC. I think that's fair community notice. (PS I made some changes to address your immediate concerns to the proposal; although I'm hopeful people may remember the similar statements previously.)-Splash 01:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Homelander Generation

You tagged Homelander Generation for speedy deletion, but neither "Neologism" nor "Original research" is a reason for speedy deltion under the speedy deletion criteria. I have removed the speedy tag and placed this on WP:AFD. DES 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! You're absolutely right, time to re-review. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for doing RC or new page patrol. By the way, when tagging a non-notable bio with {{nn-bio}} you can now notify the creator with {{nn-warn}}. I think it can be a good educational tool. Also, please take a look at the current proposal to add a CSD for blatent copyvios. It is linked to from WP:CSD. DES 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the tips! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject_WheelOfTime

Would you be interested in joining in a WikiProject_WheelOfTime if such a beast were to arise? You can answer here or on my talk page... of course, if your new duties as an admin conflict/swamp you, I totally understand. nae'blis _(talk) 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Reza Mashayekhi

Thanks for tagging this page, I only saw the nn-bio criteria after placing the AfD, by which point I wasn't sure what the correct action to take was. Again, thank you. Mallocks 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

About the nothanks-sd template

Given that there's a snowball's chance in hell of the CSD proposal failing (unless 20 oppose votes appear out of nowhere in a few hours), I'm going to move your subpage to the template namespace. Any objections? Titoxd 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just moved it myself, you are right. DES 21:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gaaah, I wanted to move it, it would have been my first page move! :P Titoxd 22:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the CSD needs closing now. It's after midnight UTC. Titoxd 00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it's closed now. I congratulate you for your work on that! Now, I've created {{db-copyvio}} to deal with the new CSD. Tell me what you think about it. Titoxd 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

getting commends on SD of NN companies

Hi, and thanks for your advice regarding speedy deletion of non-notable corporate articles. Rather than jump straight to a formal proposal, I've opted to ask for comments at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_new_speedy_delete_criterion_-_non-notable_companies. However, that page says the discussion should be referred somewhere else if it's a policy change, and I'm not sure where that place would be. Can you help? Thanks, SCZenz 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved my request for comments to Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Possible_new_speedy_delete_criterion_-_non-notable_companies. I'm still not sure if it's in the right place, so I could still use some help. -- SCZenz 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!