Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:33, 25 September 2006

Archives
Archive 1 (Jan - May 2006) + Xeni Jardin debate & consensus Archive 2 (Jun - Aug 2006) Archive 3 (Sep - )

Thanks Ty!

Will do...KarateLadyKarateLady 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

T, KL has asked a question on my talk page about how to list books that have different editions and, therefore, ISBNs. So you know? I've been looking through the help guides but can't find anything helpful. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Truth revealed

Well, that explains a lot. --Guinnog 00:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That made my day. alphaChimp 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn. I'm talking to myself again. Tyrenius 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, no worries. Misplaced Pages has been incredibly gloomy recently. alphaChimp 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you manage to log out of one account and into another so fast? :) --Guinnog 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I use 4 different browsers. IE, Firefox, Opera, and Thunderbird. It's quite convenient. alphaChimp 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) a.k.a. Tyrenius 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Especially enjoyed the sig. --Guinnog 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone better fess up. Who is the puppetmaster? DVD+ R/W 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Jayjg, who just declined the case. They're all in it together. Makes sense. --Guinnog 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious when it's pointed out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someoneinhiding (talk • contribs) .

You might enjoy the comment at the bottom of this page: . alphaChimp 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From left to right: Crzrussian, Yanksox, Alphachimp, and Tyrenius

Holy Crap, is Tyrenius really Mr. T?!?!! Yanksox 00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very impressed Mr T. Where do you find the time to run so many prolific accounts? Nice dedication! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I pity the foo' who messes with these guys -- Samir धर्म 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw it

Ty, Just found your message about listing books. Thank you. If it helps to make the articles more comprehensive, I will list what I find. KarateLadyKarateLady 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

Actually, I'm doing Good Article reviewing at present (my way of giving back for the GA New Coke got). Funny that you mentioned that one ... I looked it over myself when it was up for GA, and it was actually pretty good, I thought

I'll take a look later. Daniel Case 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Footmen Wars + Footmen Frenzy

Could you just clarify why you declined the speedy deletion of these two articles? Thanks. -- Steel 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The two articles have already been through an AfD each where the result was delete, which only came to light after the current AfDs had started. See Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Footmen_frenzy and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Footman Wars. -- Steel 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly make a fair point with the time difference between the last AfDs and the current one. -- Steel 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams

With respect, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close. First, there was a clear consensus in the AfD against keeping the article. Second, the POV and BIO issues about this article were debated in the AfD, and your close improperly imposes your own view of conclusion about these issues instead of following the consensus. I elaborate on these 2 points:

(1) There was a clear consensus, almost 3 to 1, against keeping the article. My tally is 5 keeps, 13 deletes, and 1 delete or merge. My tally may be different from yours because:

(a) Your close improperly discounts the delete voter who said "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'." This argument should be interpreted as a reductio ad absurdum, i.e. If this civilian victim of the IDF qualifies as notable, then they all would qualify, and that's ridiculous. I think s/he is simply noting that being killed by the IDF does not automatically confer notability. There is no warrant for the literal interpretation of his/her words which you seem to adopt in your close--that the editor actually believes that every civilian victim of the IDF qualifies as notable.

(b) My tally doesn't include User:MrAtos's keep vote as that account is clearly a SPA.

(c) Did you miss the delete vote that is in italics, not bold, near the end of the debate? I nearly did.

(2) I don't want here to re-debate the POV and BIO issues, on which you and I clearly disagree, given what you say in your close. But you must concede that my position is at least arguably tenable, given the number of experienced editors who agreed with my nom. Your close improperly imposes your own view of conclusion about these issues instead of following the consensus. Given the tally of, again, nearly 3 to 1 against keeping the article, the outcome of the debate should be obvious. Pan Dan 19:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page.

You have misunderstood the nature of AfD. It is not a tally of votes. It is an evaluation of a debate, and the strength of argument in that debate. I have therefore taken care to note in my conclusion certain aspects of that debate and how I have evaluated them, in particular the deletes based on a POV fork argument. I see no evidence that this is a POV fork, as there is no view in the other smaller mention to fork from — it is just a synopsis of the facts, while this article is simply a more detailed exposition of those facts. This is a standard format.

I realize that not every AfD is a tally of votes. My point above was that in this AfD, since both sides of this issue are arguable, the tally must be considered. The fact that you are not convinced of my arguments for deletion should not be determinative, and I don't want to re-argue the merits of my arguments here. As I said, many experienced editors agreed with my nom.

"Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable' because there's always a "discussion" has led the user to a conclusion that we cannot therefore have lots of articles to cover all these people. It is equally feasible to advance the argument that in fact we should have lots of articles on all these people, so it does not in itself advance the case for deleting this particular article. Moreover, it does not deal with argument that the death of this civilian stood out from the deaths of others.

You're right that that particular statement does not by itself constitute a reason to delete. Some of the keep arguments weren't so great either.

There has been no attempt either to address the international mentions made by, for example, the BBC, The Guardian, CNN and New York Times.

With respect, I, at least, did address media attention in the AfD, arguing that that attention merited coverage in the main article but not a separate article.

You have made this comment about me: "your close improperly imposes your own view of the these issues instead of following the consensus". This is a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and is also a personal attack on my integrity, unless you have evidence that I have indeed imposed my "own view of these issues". I think this would be very hard to establish, as I don't recall every participating in an article on this topic previously.

With respect, you're being overly sensitive. I did not attack your integrity. I didn't suggest you had a pre-conceived opinion or agenda or anything like that. I did say that the close was improper, but not because of bad faith on your part. I pointed out that your view--perhaps I should have used the words your conclusion--that the BIO and POV issues about this article were such that the article should be kept--is not the consensus view established in the AfD. Addendum. Just to be absolutely clear, let me say explicitly that I believe that your conclusion about the article, and your close of the AfD, were both made in good faith.

I have already pointed out that you have misunderstood the nature of consensus for a start.

Again, as there are experienced editors and good arguments on either side of this debate, and as the AfD was 3 to 1, I think consensus was established here. Pan Dan 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up question. As you noted earlier, I am new to (the procedural part of) Misplaced Pages, so I hope you won't mind engaging me one more time. If what you say about the non-importance of AfD tallies is right, then I am struck by the enormous discretion admins have in closing AfD's--they can, yes, impose their conclusions about whether to delete the article, even contrary to the conclusions of a large majority of editors in the debate. So my question is this. Suppose there is an AfD where there are plausible arguments on both sides but a 3 to 1 tally in favor of delete (I think the Iman AfD is just such a debate, but you would dispute that the delete arguments there are even plausible, I suppose). If the admin closed that hypothetical debate as a keep, would you ask him/her to reconsider? Pan Dan 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Question and request. First, thanks for your last reply. Just 1 last question and 1 last request.

(1) The AfD example you gave doesn't match my hypothetical, b/c the tally in your example was 12-12. Do you happen to know of an example like my above hypothetical, where (a) the tally was lopsided, (b) there were experienced editors on both sides, and (c) the close went against the majority?

(2) Regarding my original comment to you which contained the phrase "you imposed your view..." which you interpreted as an attack on your integrity or an accusation of bad faith: As should now be clear, I intended those words as a factual description of your (right or wrong) close. I did not intend them to imply bad faith or lack of integrity, and I don't believe they do imply it.

Since registering at WP, I myself have been (I believe wrongly) accused of bad faith at least twice, and I pride myself on not once having accused anybody of bad faith despite being tempted sometimes (though in your case, I assure you, bad faith didn't even cross my mind).

Would you be willing to retract your statement that my words constitute "a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and...a personal attack on my integrity"?

Thanks, Pan Dan 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question and request and thanks in general for your time and patience in dealing with me in this back-and-forth. One more thing: in asking for a retraction of your "blatant disregard..." statement I was hoping you would actually strikethrough it so people skimming through my talk page wouldn't think I had accused someone of bad faith. But I won't insist--thanks again for your time and patience. Pan Dan 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unite UST

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton Devonshire vandalism

Thank you for reverting, I was about to when I noticed you had beaten me to it. In addition to vandalism, was that a BLP/LIVING violation as well? · XP · 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional

Apparently, this was done right after the offense you officially warned that user for. It's not my place as not an admin, but perhaps a cooling off is in order as that appears to be back to back vandalism. · XP · 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both these edits occurred before the warning. Tyrenius 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Your comments at would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, bunix 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I don't think it's a personal attack as its not directed to anyone, but an observation in general, but I won't do that again (for what it is worth I cannot see any other logical reason for the vehement nature I've observed from some, but this is where the observation publically ends). Is this a BLP/LIVING vio though? · XP · 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right. The audacity of some of the myriad delete reasons that simply and utterly went against policy of the past few days I suppose had made me a bit twitchy. · XP · 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and I'll try. Just out of curiosity, LIVING/BLP does then extend to cover every level of WP, not just the Main space? I had seen comments here and there indicating some sections were more lax to discuss things, but that seemed a bit mental--if I write something that is libel on a sub-page of a talk page, it's out of the way, but it's still hosted by the WMF and actionable. I believe. · XP · 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew they were cached, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't overstepping bounds later if I called someone on it. · XP · 05:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly silly question

I've noticed many users have transcluded updates on their user and/or talk pages, and I've added the needed tasks one to my own. Is there any prohibition against hosting one that lists suggestions of things to look at, and AfDs related to a given topic on one's own private user space? Not for myself to host, but I was thinking of suggesting something similar to someone. As in User:FooBarMadeUp/UpdatesOnXYZ. · XP · 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind: User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote. You can see it in use on my own talk/user page. Yay/nay? It would be for my own personal use as a reminder after having contributed most certainly, but I want others to be able to let me know, or to transclude it themselves should they so wish... · XP · 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

I see you refactored an comment made by User:Tbeatty on a third party's usertalk, clearly stating here the " If secondary sources quote Jones, then we refer to them. Please do not make defamatory comments about people." So Tbeatty found a secondary source which supports his newer adjusted comment on the matter , albeit it with an argumentative tone, and then you blocked Tbeatty for doing what he had told him to do in the first place. I suppose I fail to see the logic in this, so I wanted to ask you here about it. I do agree with your original refactor of his first comment, of course.--MONGO 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Refactored from MONGO usertalk

Tbeatty's second statement was that Jones had been suspended for misrepresenting his research and the Daily Herald cited to support this. The article states:

School officials suspended Jones over concerns that his paper on the subject has not been published in traditional, peer-reviewed scientific journals

It does not say he misrepresented his research.

The article also says that Jones stated it had been peer-reviewed in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". The university wished it to be reviewed elsewhere. There is no statement of misrepresentation. Indeed the conclusion of the article is:

They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.

This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this.

Therefore Tbeatty's second statement is no more validated than his first.

Bearing in mind the first comment that Tbeatty made, and my response, I would have thought a sensible course would have been to have backed off, rather than made the trollish rephrasing of his initial statement with the words, "not to be confused with lying because lying is ... different", clearly implying that he thinks in this case there is no difference, i.e. essentially restating what he said before.

I hope this explains.

Tyrenius 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly, but he's not in namespace, but in userspace. Don't think for a minute that I don't support WP:LIVING, I see the block, however, as harsh since he certainly didn't try to add that edit to the article itself. Anyway, best.--MONGO 07:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't revert other's blocks... I think I may have once, but that was it. I'll leave him a message as well.--MONGO 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)