Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 27 January 2009

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • autoblocks)

Archives Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16

What?!?

Excuse me for asking, but why did you close that AfD? a) it had only run for just under three days - way too early to close, and it definitely didn't qualify for WP:SNOW, b) you didn't even close it properly - you removed the AfD notice and placed an oldafd template on the List of teen dramas article, but what about both List of teen films and List of teen magazines, which were included in this nomination? Please, if you are going to non-admin close some AfDs, make sure you do it carefully, slowly and properly, only when they qualify for WP:SNOW or only when they've run at least five days. _TalkIslander 00:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, you're closing a huge number of AfDs, many of which I instantly agree are keep, but some (like this) I have to stop and think about, which indicates that they're not suitable for non-admin closure. D'you think you could hold back a bit, and perhaps be a tad more careful about what you're closing? _TalkIslander 00:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of teen dramas was closed incorrectly. However, despite the fact that I am "closing a huge number of AfDs", this represents the first time that an AFD closure I have performed has been overturned in several months. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brain Slaves, for instance, is an obvious keep, once we consider that AFD closure involves a more substantive analysis than simple vote counting: the references for Brain Slaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had improved significantly during the course of the AFD discussion, such that all of the most recent comments favored retention of the article, and that one editor changed his position from delete to keep on the strength of the recent sourcing. Thus, there was essentially no continued dispute over the disposition of the article. A reasoned analysis of AFD discussions prevents the inappropriate retention of articles through vote counting as well: for instance, if an AFD contained 2 comments by established users favoring deletion, and 30 comments favoring retention written by new accounts whose sole contributions were to the AFD in question, closure as "keep" would probably not be appropriate. Likewise, if an article were comprised entirely of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons, a "keep" closure would impermissible irrespective of the number of editors favoring it. We might be tempted to say that an AFD discussion suitable for non-administrative closure is one in which retention of the article in question is justified solely on the basis of numerical considerations -- however, no such discussions actually exist. John254 03:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

What NONSENSE did I add to Road of Germany?--68.79.117.121 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This. John254 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bola tangkas

The keep decision for a wikibreaked editor is unfortunate in that:

• (1) Due to wikibreak I have been unable to be involved - I would strongly object to such an article

being kept on the basis that not one indonesian speaking/reading editor has reviewed the issue

• (2) 'Keeping' an article by keep arguments rather than serious doubts about WP:RS

suggests a serious flaw in the process

• (3) I believe that it should not remain with its indonesian title
• (4) If one admin sees that there is question as to the interpretation of a foreign language

source - I do not see why the other editors who say keep really have any idea about the issue

Please support a review. I will be prepared to come out of wikibreak to press for title change and a strong argument for Afd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bola_tangkas SatuSuro 11:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A discussion such as this clearly does not support the deletion of the article, as articles may be retained even when sufficient sources to establish their notability have not been provided, where it is reasonably believed that such sources exist. Furthermore, after the discussion was open for nine days with no support for deletion by anyone other than the nominator, there was no apparent reason to continue it. Nonetheless, based on your comments, I am reopening and relisting the AFD discussion. John254 14:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From what you have written I understand you did not have any reason to do so to - so thanks for that - have a happy and safe new year and hope you dont get too many idiots like self coming off wikibreak to be a nuisance - cheers SatuSuro 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BC userpage

I think that this edit is a little premature while the discussion is ongoing, and may serve as a distraction during the discussion. If consensus forms that BC remains indef blocked then perhaps then may be the time to template the page, but I suggest not before. I would be grateful if you were to revert your edit at this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I Do Sincerly Apologize, but please bear in mind...

...that it was user tiger trek who initiated the profanity use on my talk page.

However , I don't wish to engage in any personnel attacks or insult exchanges,

but given the heated and extraordinary circumstances of the debate , (which in my opinion is more than just

a debate but a real matter of life and death.)

It seemed that the situation got briefly out of hand.

Nonetheless , your notice was well received and i hope i see you around again :)

RegardsCowmadness (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

I've reverted your blanking of betacommand's userpage and the addition of the indef block template for the moment, as it to betacommand will only appear as a slap on the face. Lets not do that while there is still ongoing discussion going on at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. If he is still indef'd in a week, after all this settles down, then feel free to apply it. Thanks —— nixeagle 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Images and protection

Good eye. Keep on that thread, if you could? There's a bot pending approval as well that would handle the local uploads, that we need to get through. It's silly to leave anything on the Main Page to chance and someone happening to catch it. rootology (C)(T) 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Adult-Child sex

Assuming this Google Scholar search is accurate, the term was used as early as 1937, but you don't see significant numbers of hits until the 1980s. The uses before 1979 are from books and not verifiable from the search results. After almost 30 years, it's hardly a neologism. I'm not saying the term isn't used more by people with one POV over another, only 1) that it is used enough that it's forced absence from Misplaced Pages makes a statement, a statement which is inherently at least a somewhat pro-censorship POV, and 2) it's not a neologism. I'm recommending a locked DAB page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/André Dallaire

Hello. Thanks for taking on the closing of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/André Dallaire. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate your rationales in your closes, especially if you are not an administrator. Would you mind editing the closing to include the rationale now? It would aid in understanding the future of the article, the future nomination of similar articles, and whether the nomination was in bad faith and if that's the sole reason for the keep. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I made no judgment on the question of whether the nomination was in good faith. The closure is justified by the following factors:

(1) All established users apart from the nominator participating in the discussion supported the retention of the article, at least in some form. I considered "move" comments to favor retention of the article insofar as moving the page would not involve any deletion. The "keep" closure only disposes of the question of whether the article should be deleted entirely; editors supporting renaming are free to propose a move on the talk page and at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.

(2) The sources provided in André_Dallaire#References indicated that André Dallaire has received sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline.

(3) WP:BLP1E, which the nominator cited as grounds for deletion, is inherently quite subjective in its application. Since no other established users participating in the discussion believed that it supported complete removal of the article, it would have been inappropriate to delete the article on such grounds.

(4) The article contained no extreme policy violations that would compel its deletion in a manner decidedly against consensus, such as clear copyright violations, or being comprised entirely of unsourced controversial information concerning living persons. John254 02:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very thorough and helpful. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saw you make three separate moves in a short period of time, on Uthman, Dallaire and Atta - and wanted to thank you for patrolling the project and keeping it a sane place where level heads prevail. Sherurcij 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest to you

You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of AfD

I noticed you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 without giving any reasons. There were 2 people who supported deletion and 5 who wanted to keep it. The concerns of us who wanted the article to be deleted were not addressed at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The closure is justified by the following factors:

(1) No policy-based grounds for deletion were provided. Therefore, though it may well have been the case that "The concerns of us who wanted the article to be deleted were not addressed at all", editors favoring the retention of the article may have believed that there were no arguments worth the effort of refuting.

(2) The number of established users favoring retention of the article far exceeded the number favoring deletion. John254 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that it was better to give the reasons for an AfD in plain language rather than linking to policy pages. I'm sorry that I didn't express it better but this article violates the policy against indiscriminate collections of information. It is also unfair to living people especially President Obama. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the case is obvious, the bare, unelaborated claim that the article violates the biographies of living persons policy does not establish that any policy violation is actually present. Furthermore, not raising your WP:BLP and Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information claims during the AFD discussion itself renders it difficult to determine what the outcome of the discussion would have been had the claims been properly presented. Nonetheless, since biographies of living persons policy is extremely important, if you still believe that the article violates the policy, and are prepared to explain how the policy is violated in some more substantial way than "It is also unfair to living people especially President Obama", you are welcome to renominate the article for deletion on those grounds. Note, however, that an attempt to use putative WP:BLP concerns as a surrogate for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion nomination will probably result in the article being speedily kept. John254 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article has any BLP problems, strictly speaking. I do think it is somewhat unfair, as I mentioned in the AfD discussion. Somebody else will probably nominate it again. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for Geoffrey Eggleston

Hi John254

I don't understand why you closed the AfD discussion on Geoffrey Eggleston after 3.5 days given that the only opinions voiced were two "weak keeps". Can you enlighten me please? Rgds

Bongomatic 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both editors weighing in favor of the retention of the article found sources that might establish Geoffrey Eggleston's notability per the general notability guideline. More research and editing is clearly needed here, a process which would be impeded if there were a deletion notice sitting on the article for several weeks due to sparse interest in the AFD discussion, since there is a limit to how much time editors are willing to invest in work which might shortly be destroyed via deletion. A possible merger was also mentioned in the discussion; however, this would not have required deletion of the article (and, indeed, would preclude it, due to GFDL concerns). John254 01:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of opinions that can be offered that suggest avenues that could be impeded with an AfD tag sitting on the article. However, I don't see how that changes the AfD policy. Two "week keeps" do not a snowball make. While I don't think there's anything close to a certainty that the outcome would have been different, I don't see any support for not following the deletion policy based on such speculations. Why don't you revert your changes so we don't need to have a deletion review? Bongomatic 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will reopen the discussion, and leave it open for the full five days. If the there are no further contributions to the AFD discussion in the next two days, however, I intend it to re-close it in the same manner -- the encyclopedia will not benefit from repeated relisting of the discussion for weeks on end. John254 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

April Griffin AfD

Hi,

I was originally going to write this comment in the April Griffin AfD as a part of my !vote but decided that would be overfilling the AfD with offtopic discussion.

I understand your view of AfDs, and certainly respect more inclusionist views (I am somewhat troubled by my own tendency towards deletionism but I've found things that go to AfD in good faith tend to have something wrong with them) but I was a little confused by your description of the deletion process. My understanding of deletion policy was that, "content which is obviously non-notable, according to the general consensus of editors" should be either be WP:PRODed and removed from wikipedia after five days or is applicable to WP:CSD. WP:AFD should thus be used where inclusion is not clear cut and no obvious consensus exists.

My experience of AfD is actually that administrator determined deletion is quite uncommon and only takes place when the arguements are either clearly skewed or another reason (WP:COPYVIO for example) exists. When neither of the latter is true, discussion tends to (and probably should) continue in WP:DRV. I've seen few cases of off-the-wall deletions by admins - but maybe I've just been lucky (or I'm too much of a deletionist/not enough of a cynic). Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are only applied to articles which meet the enumerated criteria for speedy deletion, or are within the class of articles to which a criterion is intended to be applied -- e.g., though CSD A7 does not specifically include animals, an article about someone's pet hamster that did not assert notability could be correctly deleted through the criterion. I am also of the opinion that the criteria for speedy deletion should be construed narrowly, particularly with regard to CSD A7's application to organizations and web content. In any event, it's clear that "content which is obviously non-notable, according to the general consensus of editors" may not plausibly meet any CSD. Proposed deletions are of limited utility in dealing with this situation, since a single editor, even the article's author, can stop them simply by removing the deletion notice. Thus, even when an AFD discussion is likely to result in a clear consensus for deletion, it may still be necessary to submit an article to AFD. Let's consider, now, the situation in which an administrator closes an AFD discussion in which there is no clear consensus. An administrator is effectively given a free hand to close such discussions however he wants, simply by deeming the arguments in favor of the tenor of his closure to be stronger than those against. Thus, we can have AFD closures such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), as a result of which the article was destroyed, despite massive coverage of Daniel Brandt in third-party reliable sources clearly satisfying the general notability guideline, for no better reason than "Daniel Brandt hates this article." John254 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is an extreme example of course but I see your point (and I suspect I share your opinion on that particular AfD). Are you a proponent of votes rather than !votes? What about a policy whereby non-consensus (or even unclear consensus) AfD rulings can only result in anything but keep if the decision is backed by two independent administrators? Or one by which such rulings are automatically subject to review? Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The principle that "AFD is not a vote" is designed to prevent the process from being disrupted by large numbers of newly registered users, canvassing, or frivolous participation -- e.g., "Keep per WP:ILIKEIT". It is not intended to give administrators a free hand to delete articles against the reasonable, considered opinions of a substantial portion of the editors participating in an AFD discussion (except in the case of articles comprised entirely of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons, blatant copyright violations, etc), since deletion without or against consensus is effectively to elevate the value of the closing administrator's judgment above the collective judgment of every other editor, including other administrators, participating in the AFD discussion. The only thing worse than "vote counting" is a vote of one. John254 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to speak to you privately

I tried sending you an email, but it bounced :( If you have a new address, could you send it to me? Thanks. :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sent (assuming that your e-mail address is unchanged). I hope that I can help you. John254 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) BTW, I like your cool mass rollback script. It's really going to put the kibosh on vandalbots if we can revert them at 100 edits/minute :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I love your AFD closure script, it's so fast, and here that's a good thing :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An award for you

• I find you deserving of the award Order of the Upholder of Wiki: presented to you based on your admirable efforts to assume good faith on the part of others. Keepscases

Edits to Omar Khayyám

To keep this information on the page, you must format it based on wikipedia's

GLaDOS (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I believe I have very strong evidence linking you to abusive sockpuppetry - I've started a discussion at AN/I. krimpet✽ 09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

In light of the strong and substantial evidence presented here, I have blocked your account indefinitely. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)