Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 11 April 2007

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Image:Flag of Portugal.svg:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

You are by far welcome to re open any rfcn's that I have closed and you feel are innapropriate. The RFCN's that I opened for blocks by betacommand that I generally unblocked for I closed only after 5 or more editors had commented, generally in unanimous support to unblock. I have not closed any that were any questions in deterining what the consensus was. and actually, in said RFCN's, i generally did not even give a !vote, just made an action based on the comments of the community. If there is a particular RFCN that you feel I closed in error, please let me know. Overall if you have an issue with my any of my actions, adminstrative or otherwise, I would appreciated a friendly comment/notice on my userpage. I have no problem addressing any issues. As I have said before, you are welcome to repopen any RFCN's that you feel were innapropriatly closed. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed on your RfAr comments

Nick, could you please modify your comments on the Betacommand RfAr to make it clear that you're referring to Chrislk02 rather than me? (My comments are immediately above yours.) When I first read your comments and saw all the references to "Chris" I initially thought you meant me rather than Chrislk02. I'd appreciate it if you could modify your comments to make it clear throughout that you mean Chrislk02 rather than ChrisO. :-) -- ChrisO 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! -- ChrisO 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place

Dear Nick, I wonder if you can help me to understand the decision you reached re the above? This was a complex discussion, and counting up the votes they seem to me to be roughly 50/50. A further issue is that although there was very little support for retaining the England infobox I'd say virtually every Scottish wikipedian who participated supported keeping the pre-existing Scotland template, and two of the proposers of the UK infobox moved to a position of keeping it until such time as the concerns raised were satisfied. There is probably something very obvious I have overlooked, but I don't understand how such as result = consensus to delete the Infobox Scotland place and would appreciate some guidance. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was originally going to close the discussion as a Keep, but since Scotland, along with (primarily) England, Wales and Northern Ireland form the UK at this time, it seems that a large amount of confusion could result if we have different infoboxes, both from an article writing standpoint, as more so, from a readers standpoint. People looking at London's infobox want to be presented with identical levels of types of information in the Edinburgh infobox, and whilst it's going to be the same at the moment, invariably, someone adds a new feature here or tweaks a feature there, and before long, the infoboxes diverge wildly, with a large number of differences which make it confusing for both readers and writers alike. Even with the best will in the world, people leave the project, new people come in, and even firm decisions by people to try and keep the two templates alike can be overruled by consensus or forgotten about if they leave the project. -- Nick 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the inherent logic behind standardisation, and although temperamentally I am more inclined towards allowing diversity unless it proves itself to be unworkable, what interests me here is more the procedure. (Whilst I find the template result somewhat dispiriting, I am a user of the Island infobox and not really involved in using Infobox Place as such.) I'd therefore like to be clear about the method by which the decision is made. Do I understand correctly that the decision was essentially up to you as a sysop, and someone else might have made quite a different one? Are there guidelines as to which %ages of votes constitute a 'consensus', which %ages result in such a choice etc? I haven't been able to find any relevant policies or guidelines and having seen 'no consensus' results before I honestly didn't think there was any chance of the UK infobox being imposed and I'd like to have a better understanding of the subject for future reference. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, XfD isn't a vote, it's a discussion, so we don't count the number of Keep and Delete comments to find a majority and there's no arbitrary number for a consensus (how many people do you need for a crowd, or a lynch mob). With this TfD, there were indeed a number of Keep comments, but a large number expressed a desire for the template not to be deleted until conversion had taken place or until features had been added to the template. Since these features appear to be underway and since the template will not be deleted until conversion has taken place. I honestly don't recall seeing more than a handful of totally sensible reasons to keep the infobox and even these were overshadowed by the benefits of one infobox and the larger number of more sensible delete comments. -- Nick 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your assistance. Next time I'll concentrate on the arguments and not the votes. I think the UK infobox with its 'Civil parishes' and 'car registration number' fields is completely absurd in the context of rural Scotland at least, but its rather too late for all that. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask for the template to be changed (or do it yourself) so the fields are optional (if they're not already). The benefit of this template is that it can have lots of things that are relevant to some areas and not others, and allows a more appropriate selection of pick and mix fields to use. -- Nick 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: XJ Comments

Hi Nick Thank you for your comments regarding my changes to the XJ site. I'm confused as to why you wish to have a space between "4.2" and "L" when all the badges on the back of the vehicles have no space. Additionally, I find the use of Bhp as being just wrong. I've been an engineer for vehicle consultancies and OEMs for 10 years. It is never known as Bhp but either BHP (using capitals to indicate initials just as in VAT & HGV ) or bhp which seems to be commonly used but isn't strictly correct. May i point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations which back up my comments

Horsepower, I believe, details how we deal with horsepower on Misplaced Pages. hp, being a unit of measurement rather than a abbreviation (though it is) would be remain lower case. If you were talking about horsepower in a context other than a unit of measurement, then HP would be correct. -- Nick 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

page moves

Didn't they undo the move on Rahmonov? And what other pages have I moved recently? I can't remember--sorry for negligence though, and thanks for fixing...K. Lásztocska 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Secret Shows

Just to let you know, I've relisted this as speedy as it has been recreated after you deleted it last week on March 25. Whitstable 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say it was delete the first time without warning. The second time becuase it lacked sources. Now it has sources to confirm its notability and you deleted it anyway. So check before you delete and i would appreciate if you brought it back and didn't delete it becasue it meets the criteria for a good article.Martini833 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK can you tell me exactly why you deleted it and did you know exactly why it was put up for dletion because its sounds like you dontMartini833 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted by myself twice. The first time, it was because there was no notability asserted. You recreated the material and it was taken to Articles for Deletion which was closed by a different administrator (i.e not me) as the consensus said the subject wasn't notable enough for inclusion. You then proceeded to post less than pleasant messages around Misplaced Pages expressing your displeasure that the article was deleted, before recreating the article only a few hours after AfD consensus was for deletion. I deleted the material once again in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy as it still doesn't show sufficient notability and the article wasn't hugely different from the one listed at AfD or the one I previously deleted. WP:CSD shows the criteria for speedy deletion and I would draw your attention to General Criteria, Subsection 4. I expected you would wish to question the deletion, so I suggested deletion review which would give you further opportunity to legitimately recreate the article. I really think I've been extraordinarily patient with you and I really don't appreciate your tone at this point. -- Nick 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • thank you for answering so thouroughly (sp) but now if u check the deletion review (which as of now hasnt been answered after my last commemt) has 2 new sources that prove its notability and this time the discussion was tasteful and civil. I hope tht this meets the criteria. If you go to my talk page you will see the new revised article. It is up to date with new sources and less subjective. I think that if you would find it in your heart to forgive me for all my wrongdoing on wikipedia (ie: strong comments) then i would like it if you put back the article because i have confirmed notability not only for the US but other countries (its in 7 countries now) also i would like to add a section to the article (to further its notability) called myspace secret comedy so that it doesnt just consist of ONE type of secret show. Excuse my spelling or whatever im in a rushh. Thanks

P/s. heres the link Martini833 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I am unable to close the deletion review or to restore the article due to their being a deletion review underway, however I'm sure if you make these points on the deletion review, they will be carefully and thoughtfully taken into consideration when another, impartial administrator closes the deletion review and decides whether or not the article should be recreated. I don't wish to appear to be trying to continually remove your article from Misplaced Pages, nor do I wish to have it appear that I'm pandering to campaigning by another editor, so I have to recuse myself from having any part in the deletion review and leave it in the hands of another administrator or trusted editor. I trust this is satisfactory and in trying to be fair and impartial isn't causing you too much hassle. -- Nick 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect your descision and i don't think your out to get anyone/thing but no one has been answering this deletion review for about 1 day and a half i believe so i think it's pretty much in your hands because you have the expertise or you could alert fellow admins to voice their opinion or something that might be clever and objective.Martini833 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Deletion Review will probably stay open for another couple of days (they should stay open for 5 days) and it's not unusual for there to be a lack of comments for a couple of days during the middle of the review period. If by Thursday (5th April) it still hasn't been closed, you could contact an administrator on IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia) and ask them to close the discussion or if you want, I'll ask someone to close it. -- Nick 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would closing the discussion bring the article backMartini833 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer that, it is purely at the discretion of whoever closes the Deletion Review. It really is outwith my control, but if you make reasoned, rationale arguments showing it satisfies the notability policies, it stands a good chance of being undeleted. -- Nick 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think i have done that so far? Martini833 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. -- Nick 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you i guess this discussion is over. Sorry if i'm annoying you. Also do you think i should add myspace secret stand up to the article. Martini833 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm heading off for the night, but yeah, I'd add the Secret Stand Up to the existing article unless you think you'll be able to prove the notability requirements for a second article and it's not going to be a really short article with very limited context. -- Nick 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

Dear Nick/Archive7,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection from creation?

Hello, Nick. I wanted to thank you for helping to handle the recent Myspace Secret Shows debate, and had a question about it. I see that the article was protected from re-creation, which I support based upon the history of this issue. I added the db-talk template to the talk page of this article, since the main article is now deleted, and no comments on that page contributed to the deletion discussion (everything there had already been said at the AfD). You may want to check the comment on that talk page regarding MySpace Secret Comedy, or keep an eye on the creation of pages like that, since creation of an article on another (different but non-notable) subsection of Myspace would logically fall victim to the same issues that Secret Shows had. (Sorry if that made little sense, I'm a bit tired today). I've not really seen this full process before, and am just trying to get a handle on how things work. Any input you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:LostNav

At this point, there has been tons of discussion on the talk page and even a straw poll. I'd argue that there's consensus, but those in the minority insist there isn't and have reverted with no regard for the opinions of other editors. How would you recommend settling this dispute, since further discussion obviously isn't going to change the situation? --Minderbinder 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with WP:3O but I'm only protecting the template as a precaution to make sure nobody ends up getting into trouble for 3RR. -- Nick 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Will that help since at least six editors have given opinions already? And what if additional opinions come in, and the dissenters still insist there's no consensus and that their edits are justified by being "right"? It seems that without admin intervention, an editor can keep reverting against consensus as long as they don't violate 3RR. --Minderbinder 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd see what some other, more impartial editors say first before worrying about another revert war. What we can look at is keeping the template protected until more comments can be solicited and if there continues to be consensus, especially from the impartial editors, we can look at making the necessary changes with the template still protected until people move on. That way, should we be unable to stop an edit war for whatever reason, the consensus version will usually have the advantage of being on the correct side of the 3RR policy (not that I'm advocating gaming the system, but it happens). I'd be looking to have editors backing off and the template protected again before it gets to the stage where people are worrying about 3RR policy though. -- Nick 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sig

We're allowed colours in signatures. Thanks --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your not allowed a signature of that length or one which is difficult for visually impaired editors to read, so once again, change it. -- Nick 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it after a respectful request. "Change it" is not something I respond to --I'm so special 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better. -- Nick 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Events

I've made a new page that is more detailed and no one has complained about: MySpace Events. I need a little bit of help though i would like to know how to put picture in the templates correctly and how to get some bugs fixed. When you write back I'll be more detailed. Martini833 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) NEVER MIND thnx anywayMartini833 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey Nick, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you're enjoying your admin tools; once again, it was a pleasure to nominate you. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Canvassing for comments about your userpage

Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policy WP:CANVASS and please stop asking people to comment on your userpage leaving messages such as on other users talkpages. I have also removed the poll, Misplaced Pages userspace exists to help users write an encyclopedia, we're not a social networking site. Best Wishes. -- Nick 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• • All reverted,and sorry for any problems Thenthornthing 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick. =] --User:Apda dancerx3

Thanks

Thanks for your recent support in my RfA, which was a success. J Milburn 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I still don't know what you were getting at here - would you care to elaborate? If you have issues with what I've done as admin I want to know them so I can work on resolving them :) Haukur 11:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no issues with your admin work at all, I was simply pointing out that trying to hold everybody to the statement they make during the RfA or RfB process isn't practical because life, like Misplaced Pages, is in a constant state of flux, just because a bureaucrat says he won't promote below 80% doesn't mean he should be held to that if it might not be for the overall benefit to the project (and I'm not entirely talking about Danny here), just as you, me or any other admin shouldn't be held to our various statements about doing adminy stuff a particular way or doing it at all if and/or when there is something else that requires our attention. -- Nick 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - if you get the support of the community promising to do things one way you shouldn't then go and do things in the opposite way without seeking renewed support first. If that's how you want to do things then you should run on a platform of "I'm going to do what I think is best at any given time". That's a perfectly good platform but it's not the one Dan ran on, that's why I'm criticizing him. I'm glad you're satisfied with what I do, though. You seem like you're doing a fine job too. Haukur 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles Frederick Field

On 11 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Frederick Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois

I believe tou are making a mistake by blocking edits to Quebecois just after User:SoulScanner unilateraly reverted to his own partisan version.

First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.

A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.

Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The AfD result was Keep not Redirect or Merge - in this instance, I'm following the consensus on the AfD - I would suggest a fresh AfD in the first instance, then moving to mediation and then arbitration as a last resort. -- Nick 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the admin incorrectly determined that there was consensus. The AFD should have been closed as no consensus. Second, can you add the {{totallydisputed}} tag back to the article. Soulscanner (who has constantly used sockpuppets and anon IPs) consistently removed tags from the article. I asked for semiprotection, but was declined. You can skim through the history if you like. For Gods sake, he has added an ethnic group template to the article, which is about a provincial group like Californian or New Yorker! He's probably laughing it up right now. It is people like this that make a laughing stock out of something potentially useful as Misplaced Pages. Laval 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And needless to say, Quebecois are not an ethnic group. If you read the discussion, you'll find that Soulscanner has been pushing his POV against the consensus by other editors that Quebecois are a provincial/national group, not an ethnic group equivalent to French Canadian. I would ask that you unprotect the article and allow removal of the ethnic group template and the contentious POV material. Laval 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Had the discussion returned the No Consensus you claim it should have, the page would still end up fully protected to prevent merging (which, in this case is just a backdoor deletion). If you want to merge or delete the article, you would need to form a consensus to do this, it cannot be forced through by you, regardless of whether it is correct or not. I believe there is consensus amongst those who participated in the discussion for the page to be retained, as it was at the time of the discussion. You believe there was no consensus to do anything on that page, so you wouldn't have any right to move the page about, make it a redirect or to merge content. I will not be unprotecting the page until you can prove to me you understand why the page was protected in the first place and that you implicitly understand the page should not be turned into a redirect, merged with any other article or altered drastically away from the version presented at the AfD debate and finally, until you implicitly accept the outcome of the deletion discussion precludes you from carrying out anything other than routine editing on the article, spelling, adding citations and such. -- Nick 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)