Misplaced Pages

Diana DeCilio deletion

I have just noticed that you deleted the entry on Diana DeCilio on August 23. Please give a reason for its deletion. There were numerous external sources cited, and she is one of the most notable editors working in US Television today, with a number of new film and television credits since the creation of that article. Please consider re-instating it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs)

Breach of Rules on British Isles

Hi Black Kite, oh holidays are just too short! User:MidnightBlueMan breached the agreed rule here where he undid an edit dating back to last July, without references. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that this edit was carried out by HighKing while not logged on. I don't blame him for not logging on - I often forget myself, but his action was the first to breach "the rules" and I was merely restoring the stable version of the article, albeit a version that was superseded last July. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have been stable, but it also appears to be wrong. Replied on your talk. Black Kite 13:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Claiming you are restoring to a "stable" version of the article is just the current excuse to attempt to circumvent the rules. I'm not 100% sure that I made that edit, but I think I did - even so, it was made because the original text is unreferenced. Black Kite has made it very clear that all edits involving removal or insertion of "British Isles" must be backed up with references - a rule that you and others see fit to ignore. I see you've restored your text in an attempt to edit war also. I'll simply await Black Kite's return here and hope he decides to uphold the rules that some of us are trying hard to work within - this is not the first time you've attempted to circumvent the rules, and I believe a short block may not be in order - not up to me though, it's up to BK. The correct thing to do would have been to take it to the SE page, where we discuss this stuff. --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having now gone back over MBM's recent edits, it appears he has made more than one edit in breach of the rules. Tap (valve) and Full breakfast have also been edited in breach of the rules. What are you going to do? --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of these were recently changed from British Isles. See Tap (valve) and Full breakfast. I have never inserted the term. I only restore it after zealots have removed it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but the rules were made patently clear, and your continued breaches of the rules and sticking the proverbial two fingers up at those who are trying to work within the rules cannot be allowed to continue to go unnoticed and without sanction. The disruptive manner you clearly prefer to engage in serves no purpose than to be disruptive for the sake of it. These rules were clearly and patiently explained, yet you continue to breach the rules. You are aware of the Specific Examples page, and you've brought some items there yourself for discussion, so you really have no grounds for arguing that you didn't know or weren't aware. Finally, you continue to attack the editor (me) and not the edits or content. It was also made very clear that engaging in the old habits of previous behaviour would not be tolerated, but you continue to do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll need to fully agree to use the Specific Examples page before ya'll add/remove BI from any articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

BK, you mentioned a short while ago that a Request for Arbitration could be considered in regard to the continuing attempts to remove British Isles from Misplaced Pages by some editors. Can you further advise on this? Would you be able to commence proceedings, or is it up to others to do so? If the latter, have you a model that can be used? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BK, I'm still wondering why this editor is still able to edit.... --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could find the time to take a look at the various debates here and comment. At the moment attempts to get some balance into this debate just meet with intransigence. --Snowded 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

What is the reasoning behind a 31-hour block as opposed to a 24-hour block? Do you know?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So a 31-hour block is just a polite way of issuing a 2-day block? :) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Response re Verbal

I received your note on my talk page. The following diff is what I believe to constitute canvasing. Canvasing is defined as sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Such canvasing is inappropriate where the content is biased or partisan. The referenced diff is both biased and partisan. Verbal initially attempted to justify his action by saying he was simply participating in an open discussion. However, the discussion had been closed (or inactive) for 16 days before Verbal added the referenced diff. This strikes me as inappropriate canvasing that warrants the inclusion of the “not a ballot” template on the discussion. I also note that in this diff, Verbal conceded that: "Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing." Also, in this diff, Verbal has asked a "keep" voter how he/she had become aware of the debate and raised his own concerns about canvasing, apparently by the "Keep" side. By all accounts, I think the inclusion of the "not a ballot" template is prudent to ensure the integrity of the debate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Siling labuyo---your reasoning please?

Hello I just wanted to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that merging was the consensus? You stated "I have closed it as merge to Thai pepper so that further discussion can take place as to whether these actually are the same thing. If it can be proved that they're not, then no merge need take place." I have already cited a source listing siling labuyo as capsicum chinense. For comparison the tabasco pepper and Thai pepper are commonly seen as capsicum frutescens. Logically if siling labuyo which I've cited as capsicum chinense should be merged into Thai pepper, tabasco which no one seems to be debating as a capsicum frutescens should be as well. In any event shouldn't the critical piece of evidence cited to resolve this dispute be one affirming and proving the relationship and not one disproving it? Would you accept that siling labuyo and Thai pepper are different if no one steps forward to show that they are the same? I don't see anyone who has. I don't see anyone so far producing the citation showing that siling labuyo=Thai pepper. How long a time period would be a reasonable amount of time for someone to produce such a source before it would be all right for me to consider the merger as not continuing and the merge notice respectfully removed? Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about the matter a little more Black Kite and think I should take an even stronger stand. The consensus was that verifiability is what is important. JL 09 has done nothing but make assertions unsupported by verifiable sources. The entries on the Misplaced Pages articles he cites on "Thai pepper" and "capsicum frutescens" are almost entirely without sources and specifically without sources regarding this issue. Despite 7 days for a discussion and debate on this point JL 09's assertion remains unsupported by any reliable source. A merger notice only serves to perpetuate the claimed but still unsupported link between siling labuyo and Thai pepper. Since you were the one to close the AfD I request that you reverse the notices for merger until such time evidence can be presented to support JL 09's claim. 1 edit to add hyperlinks. Lambanog (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation.

Your experience and work here is greatly appreciated, and I just wanted to thank you for your quality contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A redirect for deletion

Hi - I ran across a redirect added by Tyciol that needs to be deleted. Since you did some work regarding his many redirects, I thought you might want to handle this one. The redirect is at Frits - it's a Dutch first name that he redirected it to a page for a person who happens to have that first name. There are many people with that first name, so the redirect makes no sense. Do you want to delete it, or would you prefer that I put a PROD tag on the redirect page? Thanks --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel

Hi -- re your close of this AfD, I'd just like to make sure you're aware of the hundreds of news hits this guy now has. It doesn't come up under Yaakov Teitel -- but if you search under Jack Teitel you get loads . I can see deleting under NOTNEWS etc. But sooner or later (and probably sooner) we're going to end up with an article on this guy, given the extensive coverage. And BLP1E won't be a problem, given the many different actions he is getting coverage for. Anyway, the name issue is my only real point here, and perhaps you're already aware of it. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the article had already been brought to AN/I, I've discussed your close there -- it will need to go to deletion review if you do not revert and let it go the full time. If it weren't BLP, I;d have simply reverted the close as an obviouscase where speedy delete is not appropriate. What criterion do you claim it met? I see on talk:Nomoskedasticity's page you claim it's NOT NBREWS, but where is that stated as cause for a speedy? DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for re-opening. i don;t know whether it will be kept--I find our practices on subjects of this sort utterly erratic--but at least it will be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DrV

Hi Black Kite, Ignoring how I feel about that close, I think you broke the page. The DrV is so long and it had been moved out of the main DrV page because of that. You might want to fix it or ask someone else to. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I moved your closing rationale to the subpage and re-transcluded it. The trick is to wrap both {{subst:drt}} (this includes the closing rationale) and {{subst:drb}} in <onlyinclude> tags so that they transclude, but not the discussion. :) Tim Song (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

On the Shankbone DRV. I wouldn't have closed it as you had (:D), but that is as concise and considered a close as I have seen in quite a while. Here's hoping you survive the inevitable request for head-on-pole,  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, well done. There's a number of ways the closing admin could have gone about framing the DRV close (as was the case for the AfD) but your route was clearly a legitimate one (hopefully many of those who disagree with your decision will acknowledge that). Thanks for stepping up to the plate in a difficult situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good work. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good enough. You closed it the same way I would have, although with a significantly different rationale and comments. Your ninja-ing of the close did save me at least a half-hour of my life tonight, so thanks for that. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Since I'm now being hassled for closing it early (UTC/UTC+1, meh), if you'd like to close it instead... Black Kite 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Uh, no, you're fine. I hope you didn't take my comment as hassling you. It was just a bit of a joke because I was fully intending to close that, but I was also serious that I appreciated not having to close it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Heh, no, don't worry :) Black Kite 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• A sound close. Good work. AGK 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• A reasonable close which I strongly disagree with (if that makes any sense at all). Good job. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good job, indeed. It's nice to see all sides lining up to say that :) But yeah, you have nerves of steel, sir. Well done!! - Alison 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Solomon Barnstar
		For fair and reasoned decision making. Two examples from today: Closure of the contentious David Shankbone DRV. BLP closure of Yaakov Teitel AFD, and more importantly reopening of the debate with a minimum of fuss, in light of good-faith objections. May your tribe increase! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It needed to end. Kudos for stepping up. It's not worth further discussion...it needed to end. Whether this will be the end is another story :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• While I can't say I agree with your close, I find it hard to find fault with your logic. I applaud you for sticking your neck out like that. I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to be happy with it, but in the end, your close does make sense. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for stepping up and taking on the task of closing. Your rationale is excellent. I can't find fault with any of your answers, and without reading through the entire DRV and AfD again can't even say that I would have answer any of them differently, though I was leaning in a different direction when I reviewed it last night. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm sorry that I can't join in unreserved praise. I find your point #3 to be incorrect: defaulting to delete for BPLs when there is no consensus is indicated only when the subject has requested deletion (and the change proposed by Lar to the contrary at WT:DEL will manifestly not be adopted at this stage). But I won't push it any further in regard to Shankbone, he's not worth it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I am afraid that my view is the same as Nomoskedasticity, and that the point in question #3 is quite critical. I am also very concerned that an example of such a "backdoor deletion" process being endorsed by a minority (not a majority, let alone a consensus), and then sticking, will only encourage more administrators to close AFDs in accordance with their own whims, instead of according to community consensus. Isolated, the David Shankbone article itself is not a big loss (I didn't participate in the AFD, and hold no strong opinion on whether he is notable or not), but the repurcussions this may have on who gets to decide the outcome of deletion discussions worry me a great deal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The original closer did make a rationale for deleting despite the slight consensus against that. It was reasonable rationale. Was it a correct rationale? That's debatable. But in the end DRV can only posit on whether the close was in line with policy. It was - and so it had to stick. As I said in my close, there's absolutely no way that any of this should be taken as any precedent whatsoever. Black Kite 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So much for closure. The sticking point is #3 for quite a few of us, it seems. You're right that it isn't a precedent but Sjakkalle uses the right words: encourage, endorse and repurcussions. I'd add example. Lar and Lara and others have been talking about previous examples and how practice can be another route that policy can catch up with later. It concerns me that Jake Wartenberg tried to change policy before his close, and Lar has been trying to change the policy -- indicating that they disagree (or disagreed) with your interpretation of WP:DEL language as it stands. Because it's so hard to get a consensus to make a major change around here, the anger on both sides will just grow, although I did see some encouraging signs on Jake Wartenberg's talk page (and some discouraging ones on Lar's talk page). JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Bien raisonné, bien fait! Eusebeus (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unfounded accusations"

"making completely unfounded accusations such as the meat-puppetry one against Akhilleus above is really not a good idea at all".

I have already put forth evidence at ArbCom of a long history of Akhilleus operating in a tag team inappropriately:

Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, Talk:Persian Empire, etc. You can find plenty more with this tool by searching Moreschi and Akhilleus, Folantin and Akhilleus, Dbachmann and Akhilleus and Antandrus and Akhilleus. The same pattern happens at each page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, see , , etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, we have an encyclopedia to write, yes? Would you consider calling a halt to the drama you are spreading far and wide today, and do something useful instead? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on 7 different pages during this. Perhaps everyone else should stop bothering me so I can finish? No one else can show the dedication that I have shown to creating content, and these actions are merely intended to harass and drive me away. Hence why people like yourself keep this up after a year without having any basis for it and causing it on multiple pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, if I need to provide diffs of the same arguments over and over in every post, people will just accuse me of trolling and unnecessarily having multiple paragraphs before making the same arguments. Akhilleus was at the Rfar, he knows the evidence against him. He knows what he does and everyone else does too. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)