Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:05, 1 June 2009

Template:Werdnabot

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6, /Archive 7, /Archive 8, /Archive 9

Re:Austria–Germany relations

I requested deletion because I was going to move Austro-German relations to that title. I figured it was uncontroversial so I tagged it for G6. The move is part of an ongoing project to create consistency within the titles of the bilateral relations articles. Tavix |  Talk  00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hayward Davenport

Hi Ryan, would you mind if I restored the article Hayward Davenport? His work was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1894 - this seems quite notable to me. I found a source which looks to confirm this, too. Best, – Toon 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, it's my first day at my new job, so to speak. – Toon 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Campus studios

Out of curiosity, how does this article assert significance? The one reference is to their own website and all of their claims so far are pending on "what-ifs" that may or may not happen in future. I guess I'm just a little confused. If you could clear this up at all, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! --13 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Antczako

Hello, I am an editor of the Marlena and Andrzej Antczak article and I do not see why the findings of so many artifacts and the work of almost 30 years on islands in Venezuela is not notable. I am their son and I am proud to write about them and then many administrator come and tell me this is not notable and then delete my investigations that I had been making for and hour and a half. Also, as to what you had said about creating two articles, that is what I had in mind at the beginning but then I realized that they have both worked on the same thing and have done the same thing, so there would be no point in creating two articles that are the same, just to get them deleted again because they are not "notable" by other administrators, and also to just have the names different. Thank you that at least you didn't say that the article isn't "notable". Please Respond, and could you please restore the page. Thank you, Antczako

TienPhongBank

Hi, I believe TienPhongBank, which is a subsidiary of FPT Group, was deleted recently, overriding a hangon message and without concomitant discussion. The article was written from a website and tagged for speedy deletion due to possible copyvio, I then added the hangon tag and completely rewrote the article. I added a message to the edit summary "unable to reach main company website, will return to finish referencing the article soon". I also left documentation of my work on the talk page of the article. Upon return the article was gone. Is it possible to undelete the article and list at WP:DELT for a proper discussion? Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue with the article. Bank is owned by software company FPT Group and puzzlingly the bank's website seems to take a while to download to the browser. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

connect support services

Hi

So how is my page different to this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/Email_Systems_Ltd - At least mine had relevance to three other long standing articles

eh

You may wish to comment at User talk:Xenocidic#deletion of page Offley Place. P.S. your edit notice is a little big, no? I guess one can't miss it when it takes up half the page ;> –xeno (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Too true, my friend, too true. =] –xeno (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster

We never resolved our dispute of last year, and both left it on hold. I was kind enough to leave the POV dispute tag up, since I felt it would be inappropriate to alter the page without resolving the dispute, but that goes both ways. If I can't remove the POV tag that I feel he lacks any justification for, then Dyna should refrain from adding new tags without establishing any justification for them... especially when Dyna's last action was to concede they couldn't support them at the time. I am not inviting you to arbitrate our dispute at this time, we should find someone else, but if you're planning to watch over it and make contributions then a freeze while things get resolved has to cut both ways, not in favour of one person.JJJ999 (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Silverthorn Networks article

What is wrong with the "Silverthorn Networks" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicrazier2011 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

The Earwig 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Burlodge

Have another look at this one; you deleted after I declined the db-spam. Seems more appropriate for AfD than speedy since it's been around for over a year and edited by Fabrictramp, Angel caboodle and Leolaursen. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Superfamily (molecular biology)

I would like to protest deletion of Superfamily (molecular biology) and request the page be restored, or at the least that the content be restored to my userspace.

The list of examples of superfamilies in molecular biology is significant content that took some time to research.

The page should exist to parallel the other pages listed in the disambiguation page Superfamily.

I do not feel qualified to write a prose explanation of "Superfamily (molecular biology)" and would defer to a molecular biologist on this. Therefore I haven't added other content to the page. --JWB (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

studio limited editions

Hi there,

You recently deleted a posting on a title studio limited editions. This was a brand name of a a company that went into liquidation in July 2008. The company does not exist anymore.

You cited advertising as a reason for deleting the article. there are many many many thousands of UK customers that bought the product and are interested in what happened to the brand.

It was very much like a record label.

Please reconsider or comment further.

Roger Tasker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.184.4 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bestcalls PROD

Hi Ryan, I'm working to improve the Smashwords article. One of the criticisms against my first drafts was that the company lacked notoriety. One of the more notable aspects to me was that the company was founded by the same person who founded BestCalls so I linked to the Misplaced Pages entry for it using the ] tags. And then days later, after having apparently been there for years I assume heavily vetted, argued and approved, the article disappeared. Another editor mentioned you had labeled Bestcalls with a PROD? I think there's no doubt by any notoriety measure that Bestcalls fit the bill, and without its article and the vast collection of references it contained, it makes it more difficult for me to explain the interesting connection between the two companies, which IMHO and the opinion of mainstream journalists I reference in the smashwords article, is notable. If in some way my insufficient attempt at my first article failed, it would be sad if somehow I caused the bestcalls entry to disappear as well. thanks. Feedmelit (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: message to batvette on Farenheit 9/11 discrepencies

You're right of course, that was a mistake on my part but if you look at the way the article page is set up it looks a bit like a talk page- I had clicked a link from (IIRC) the talk page on f 9/11 and thought I was on the discrepency talk page.Batvette (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection level on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hey, you indefinitely semi-protected this article because: "I really don't see why IPs should have any need to edit this page; everything they've done recently has been vandalism". Though most of the anonymous edits in the history are vandalism, I'm not seeing any evidence of a serious vandalism problem in this article. It has been reverted 3 times since April 20th, which is practically a snail's pace. I know that high-profile targets of regular vandalism have been subjected to indefinite semi-protection before, but this doesn't seem like a paradigm case to me. I'm inclined to unprotect the article. Can you rethink your position? --Ryan Delaney 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mention at my talk page wizard, I don't object to anyone unprotecting a page I protected if they think it's justified. I do think my protection was reasonable, but won't stand in your way if you don't agree. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudy Boesch

FYI, I believe you meant {{refimproveBLP}} and not {{unreferencedBLP}}. No big deal, but I went ahead and corrected it. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD discussion now underway

Hey, for your information, there is ongoing discussion of CSD reform at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Fundamentals. --Ryan Delaney 01:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the notice Ryan!

I have been away for the weekend which led me to being less active with this matter as a could (and wanted) to be. I am currently busy reading trough what has already been said (Or technically, written) and once i did that, i will join the discussion

Kind regards, Excirial 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan., please take this to the VP, for broader community consensus. The proper course would be not for you or I to make changes piecemeal in the hope of getting a preferred version, but first get broad agreement on how much discretion an admin should have, and then work out a proposed version to express it. And then implement the changes. Teh wrording of the page should not be tinkered with in this manner.You are pushing the changes much too hard and fast on the basis of very limited participation. DGG (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD RFC

Hey, I was making some changes to the lead, and I guess you got there first, but I submitted them anyway (which reverted you). I'm not sure what the procedure for RFC is, and whether the proposer has free reign in the lead, but removing the neutral 'describe or specify' to say 'describe', and so on, and using words like 'strict and literal' rather than 'clear and concise' for the opposing side seems to make the lead a bit less than neutral.   M  05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AGF please. It's not an edit war, I just didn't want to lose my changes due to your revert (which was the first revert). A friendly revert should be taken as a suggestion, and may be reverted without me being upset.

The lead in an RFC does not present the situation from the point of view of the proposer. It must be neutral. Since there is a question of whether the policy describes or specifies, stating that it does in fact describe is not neutral. Further, the best source for the objections section are the same people who made the objections. The tactical information objection is mine, and your use of 'proscriptive' very much butchers its meaning. Prescriptive and proscriptive have very different meanings.   M  06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

" should be interpreted to have an "original intent" to authorize administrators to delete without discussion." - I don't think this is so much interpretation, as historical fact: "whether the policy was intended to authorize".   M  06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my drafting changes to my own section. Please repair this. Perhaps we should avoid commenting and supporting until after the RFC has begun.   M  06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this. Please actually read the entire diff when reverting! :)   M  06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The "original intent" is very much important, because that's what we presume has the widespread consensus. If the consensus was that the page is for specifying, or permitting, or describing, or whatever, then that affects whether your proposal is to 'reinstate', or to change. But yes, this can probably be taken out.   M  06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"To avoid this in the future, it's better to make bold changes with more edits so they can be individually reverted."

My changes were not intermingled, and were about 5 hours apart from what you reverted, and had an intermediary edit by another editor - which I think you reverted as well.  M  06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DGG has not yet been informed, and is certainly involved in this RFC. I don't think this should be published until they have been given a chance to give their statement.   M  06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:WereSpielChequers's comment, as you stated, seems to be entirely irrelevant to the RFC, except for the very first paragraph. They have also not participated at all in the preceding discussion. Perhaps they are confused about what the RFC is about. I don't think that statement belongs there - perhaps you could notify them of the intent of the RFC, and ask them to either severely modify or remove the statement?   M  06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be posted asap.   M  17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just commented there what I think should be done: that we add the statement from arb com, attributed to them, plus miscellaneous good technical changes, and leave it at that. I would not try to tamper with it. M, its not as precise as if you & i were writing it, but I think they knew what they were doing when they worded it & I would leave its interpretation for more specific discussions over particular cases, not interpret it further in the policy page. Just what version do you propose as the final one. I'll look here. DGG (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of The Red Peacock

Hey, Ryan. You blocked The Red Peacock (talk · contribs) for one month and he is requesting an unblock. He does seem to have a point in the request. He left a message on the talk page, waited over a week with no response, then made the edit. A month seems a bit excessive in this situation, but I'd appreciate any insight you can provide on his talk page. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that The Red Peacock should be unblocked, but that the duration be reduced a bit. 2 weeks rather than a month? Either way... --auburnpilot talk 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oscar by the sea and Lake Silver

I don't know why the articles of Oscar by the Sea and Lake Silver. They are the famous buildings in Hong Kong, and I have enough passengers and photos to show their existances. (If you don't trust me, you can access their official websites and even go to Hong Kong to have a look!) There are many private housing estate in Hong Kong mentioned in English Misplaced Pages. Their Chinese version can be preserved, but why its English version cannot tolerate these two little articles!! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your action, please!!

Please stop your action, please!! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) You cannot delete the articles just because you don't know about them! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation in talk page of Ocean Shores

Please see my explanation in talk page of Ocean Shores (Hong Kong) before you raise deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused about your proposed deletion actions

I am very confused about the deletion actions suggested by you and other Misplaced Pages masters. Some suggested speedy deletion and you sugguest cancellation or proposed deletions. Could I have any explanations on why the articles should be preserved on talk pages? Ricky@36 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation of the proposed deletion articles

Please see the talk page for my explanation of the proposed deletion articles on why it is worth preserving them. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My DB nominations

I've noticed that you've reverted a lot of my DB nominations. Some i think we're a bit pointless despite that thanks for letting me see where my mistakes are.
I've renominated FC Steaua Bucureşti season 2009–10 since no new content has been added since you declined my db. NPervez (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallace Fowlie

Hi there; I note that you disagree with my speedy deletion of this article. I will, of course, not revert your decision. But I do not agree with you; I feel that the article, as presented, clearly qualifies for WP:CSD. But, what the h**l, a little variation in opinion makes wikipedia what it is today, does it not?--Anthony.bradbury 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

As someone who always strives to write in a gender-neutral manner I'd like to offer a hint after noticing this. Pluralising, e.g. "it would obligate all administrators to be ready to explain their deletions", can often lead to much more fluent language than clumsy "his or her" constructions. Of course it's a trivial matter when it comes to discussions, but you might want to bear that in mind when writing article content.

On rereading what I just wrote I see that it comes across as a bit patronising - please accept that it isn't meant that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

hi

ha. i was just editing redirect pages and saw your name here. interesting. - Cammy 207.237.41.202 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

editing wikipedia according to the rules is soooo confusinggggg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#May_25 Roastporkbun (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought "Jewry" was an actual, non-racist term. 207.237.41.202 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion templates

Hi, I noticed you removed a couple of speedy deletion templates I added to articles, not because you disagreed that the article met the deletion critera, but because the article had "only just been created".

If you check out the new pages patrol, you will see that it is common practice on Misplaced Pages to review new pages and tag for deletion any that do not meet critera for inclusion.

There is no requirement to leave an article hanging around on the off-chance that the creator will come back and revise it to meet the inclusion critera. Mainspace is not intended as a place to work on articles that do not meet the inclusion criterea. You can always move the article to the user's namespace if you wish, but removing db templates is unhelpful as it doesn't inform the author that their article is not up to standard. Also it means that unsuitable articles get left in mainspace possibly for some considerable time, as reviewing newly created pages is the easiest way to identify them. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Editing my userpage

My reply can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:NCAASoftballSeason

The articles I created (and update) are the only ones that use it, and I will switch them to the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdmuch (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Several hongkong residential articles

Why are those not deleted. It seems you removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a normal deletion tag and then the creator of the article even removed those tag.

This seems less than proper wikipedia procedure. Residential buildings without any notable characteristic should not be present on wikipedia. This is not a house selling site. hAl (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

wasn't me who did it. I was the one who cleaned it up! --69.3.84.101 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I have been trying to talk to that user but to no avail. He seems unable, incapable or unwilling to have a discussion. I have reported that user to the noticeboard btw.--23prootie (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Could you still have that page protected. I'm kinda tired trying to deal with it.--23prootie (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

I have just posted a request at RFPP for an article to be full protected. As you seem to be the one doing the protections most recently I wanted to clarify my reasoning. Both editors involved seem to be editing in good faith, IMO. They are however edit warring. I don't particularly want either editor blocked, as I said before, they seem to be editing in good faith. That is why I requested a page protection instead, to force the editors to talk it out on the discussion page and reach consensus. However, I am not an admin, and you are, so I won't question whatever decision you (or someone else if they beat you there) eventually make.Drew Smith What I've done