Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Thats fine and all. But this was out of process, and you know these get removed. Its not ready yet. ''']'''] 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thats fine and all. But this was out of process, and you know these get removed. Its not ready yet. ''']'''] 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::And by the way, those are not optional questions. ''']'''] 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::And by the way, those are not optional questions. ''']'''] 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Hmm, no harm done. And by the way, the instructions clearly state "Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following <u>optional</u> questions to provide guidance for participants:" so I guess those are optional questions. ] (]) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just get some rest then. Eat some breakfast, drink some coffee (or tea), and come back refreshed. :) Synergy10:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks!
Thank you...
...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traceless Biometrics
Interesting! Just earlier today, I saw you were claiming to be SynergeticMag, and thought of dropping you a reminder later in the day. STOP READING MY MIND! Lucifer (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I obviously made the job of confirming my irc nick a disgraceful one. I suppose the third times a charm adage still rings true. :) Synergy20:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude, don't feel bad. I did the same thing, basically, on here and meta... it was confusing... especially considering it kept logging me out, or I'd log in on another wiki as Lara and SUL would carry it to all wikis, so I'd post it as Jennavecia and save and it'd be as Lara. *facepalm* I don't do well with name changes, haha. ~Jennavecia13:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you re-open them? They were nominated in good faith based on precedent and the usage of words (most of the articles anyway had POV tags). Sceptre15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No Sceptre, not these ones. If you really feel you need to explore that route, I point you to DRV. But I really do wish you would take it a bit more easy, for everyone. Synergy15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, go take a break. It's not as if Synergy is the only one to find these noms inappropriate and pointy. You've been deemed as being disruptive today. Take a break before you find yourself blocked. ~Jennavecia15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One of my principles is that I do not admit to things I haven't done. I admit that using rollback was a mistake, because I did make a mistake. But the AFDs were made in good faith. Nemo tenetur se detegere. Sceptre16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
How about you walk away while he thinks about it? This will give you time to reflect on your actions. I don't speak for everyone, but I do not think anyone wants to see you blocked over this or else someone would have jumped the gun by now. Just log off, walk outside, and enjoy life. Its not worth it. Its one small, inconceivable tool on a wiki. Seriously. Synergy16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, considering your actions over the past few days or so, his removal of your rollback was an appropriate measure. You've been disrupting the project. ~Jennavecia16:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for intervening on those AFDs a couple of days ago, but don't forget to put the results template on the talk page. I can see it was a busy stretch, so I can see how a couple ended being missed. I think I got to them. Also, while this isn't policy, I've seen people complain when we don't do the whole "nonadmin closure" thing. Keep up the good work :) XymmaxSo let it be done17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the mistakes. On NAC: I've found its just more to type. I've closed so many over the last two years that its gotten a bit tedious. Again, thanks for the help, its much appreciated. Synergy17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That was truly one of the more bizarre bits of vandalism I've seen. Guy comes on, screams bloody murder, threatens to call a lawyer...and doesn't have the decency to tell what he was complaining about. I'm glad I happened to catch you as I was just checking to see whether or not my user and talk pages had been deleted per my request since I'd been losing interest in the site for a long time. Looks like the user page was deleted, but the talk page wasn't. I'm happy to have received your message and even more happy to help out. See you 'round the internet. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You should have one of those "This maggot editor has been vandalized X times" boxes. So I can increment them in my free time. Lucifer(Talk)21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Referring to the AFD you closed recently, I noticed that many users have been stating very vocally that villages are inherently notable per some guideline no one has been able to show me. Is this true? And do you happen to know where the guideline is?
Not a problem in the slightest. Its what you would call an unwritten guideline. A general agreement among the editors with a rather large consensus that we should include these as articles on wikipedia. Hundreds of these stubs (geographical locations, not specifically villages only)are created weekly (and possibly daily) by multiple editors. I was baffled when I first figured this out, but I can't be bothered to argue against it (my own opinion; I just choose not to take sides on the issue) since its a real place, and can be sourced. When I closed this particular AfD, I was going on the percieved consensus of this AfD alone (as the participants were most likely going on past AfD's as their reasons for retaining; when I say past AfD's I mean the past consensus to keep). The participants felt that there was enough sources to leave the article in tact. If they didn't, the likely result would have been to merge it to where it belonged (unless of course, it was a hoax and subject to deletion automatically). Notability can be a tricky thing. When they say its inherent, they mean it has a right to exists as a wikipedia article because it can be verified to exists, and thats the only thing that matters. This essay will explain it in greater detail, but will say the same thing I am. And to clear up a matter before you ask: at AfD consensus is determined by the validity and reasoning of the arguments of the participants, even if they go against a guideline. You will find that in some cases, an essay will be invoked and used more often than a guideline. And this is perfectly acceptable. An essay can trump a guideline, a guideline can trump an essay. But neither can trump policy. Only policy can trump policy. I hope this clear things up and...
Thanks for the reply! No worries about the length; I like reading. *grin* Thanks for the clarification. I was confused because I thought that all "inclusion" guidelines would be written down somewhere, like in WP:N or WP:DEL, and that admins weigh AFD participants reasoning in the light of those guidelines. Looks the fact that "deletion process proceeds based on Misplaced Pages community consensus" (WP:AFD) is taken more literally than I thought.
It sounds like quite a few of the processes on Misplaced Pages are something like the legal systems of many countries. There are statutes that are mandatory and then there are precedents people bind processes by. :) -SamuelTan16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Great answer above there, Syn. And this Samuel Tan guy, besides having great taste in usernames, seems like a sharp fellow. Tan ǀ 3917:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies. I work weekends, so most of my responses are limited. We do tend to put more weight on consensus, unless it is painfully obvious that it is a blatant or flagrant policy violation. For instance, our biographical policy will trump consensus if it runs counter to that consensus (and I've seen it done before). But you are right. This should be mentioned in the guideline. I was thinking about making a proposal based on this conversation, but I see someone has already done so (see: NGL). Tan: Thanks. Synergy19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Woah looks like more and more WP:N categories are popping up out of nowhere. I'll link this AFD to the talk page of NGL. And no worries about taking a long time to reply, I'm pretty busy here too :) -SamuelTan04:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Synergy, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular on commenting on my answers to the questions. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Old business marker
It must be six days. I know, I created the original marker and for a long time I was the only one to move it and I provided the parameters to the bot that was attempted. You have to add a day or you mark discussions for closure at the beginning of the fifth day which is wrong. Yes you can advance the marker when the discussion itself passes five full days of discussion - since there's only one discussion, but the one you're arguing with me over hasn't. It can't close until 19:39 13 August 2008 + 5 days which is 19:39 18 August 2008, which isn't for another 14-1/2 hours. They all work this way. Check out the edit history at WP:TFD for example, the bot advances the marker on day 8. Cheers.--Doug.05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats just wonkery, and odd. Admins delete through XfD at their discretion, binded by consensus and common sense. A few hours shaved off is going to do very little. How you see a 14 and a half hour discrepancy is alarming (but I'm taking this as a typo, and I'm assuming you mean 4 and a half hours). If you need numbers to tell you when to delete, then I suppose you should wait until the clock strikes to delete. I'll be commenting over at the template discussion mementarily. Synergy05:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not adding up for you apparently. ;-) Try this. If you nominate an article at 23:59 01 September 2008, five days is 6 September, but one full day is 23:59 02 September, two days: 23:59 03 September, three days: 23:59 04 September, four days: 23:59 05 September, 5 days: 23:59 06 September. If you move the old business marker at the beginning of the day, 0001 06 September, you're a day early (minus two minutes in the example). 19:39 13 August 2008 +5 days is 19:39 18 August 2008. According to my clock, it is currently 0524 18 August 2008, and 19:39 - 05:24 is about 14 hours and 15 minutes. Follow?
Consensus is the rule, but to deny someone five full days of discussion is unfair unless WP:SNOW or a Speedy criterion applies and the moment we start closing discussions early on a regular basis by "shaving off a few hours" we'll be accused of some sort of malfeasance.
I see what you're saying, and I respect your stance with respect to 1RR. When I uncommented the marker, it was not a day early but 15 hours from its expected closure (and I now see what you meant about the 14 and a half hours). By doing this, I am not, nor is the template telling anyone to just delete it without checking a timestamps. It really doesn't matter what time it was nominated or transcluded though, since most MfD's are deleted even before I move the marker (see the other two MfD's from the same day; the first edit before I moved the marker). The marker is there as a suggestion, not a request. Deletion is still at the discretion of the admin, and the admin is always suceptable to outcrys for their deletions, regardless if it was a few minutes or even hours before it was time. We might just have to agree to disagree on this one, and I hope you will understand my reasons for not reverting myself. Synergy05:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly won't demand it, as that would defeat the purpose of 1RR, i.e. keeping things civil. But in the future, please consider that if you move the marker you are telling everyone that discussion is, according to the general interpretation, over. Correct, the tag can't tell an admin whether it's time to close, but the tag does indicate to most people that the discussion is done and it does say that the five day period is done, which is incorrect if you move the tag early. I closed two of the discussions from the 13th earlier today (or actually yesterday UTC), the first was was calling for a speedy close and fullhistory merge which is pretty complicated and I knew if I didn't close it as requested it would probably sit a while or possibly get closed wrong (most admins don't do history merge), there were no opposes and no material was actually being deleted. The second was 8-1/2 hours early and I commented on that in my close. There are a number of regulars at MfD and mostly we know what we're doing and we can tell when we can close a discussion early, but often we get involved in the discussions and then we have to call in people who are used to the way things are done at AfD and that's a whole different world over there. And participants in our discussions often are only here for the first time because their userpage or pet project is up for deletion. They don't know our rules and probably haven't read the instructions or WP:DEL, but they do see that marker. The correct way to move the tag is to move it on or after the beginning of the sixth day so there is no confusion.--Doug.06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I have already suggested we amend the template on the appropriate talk page. The day itself indicates five days have transpired, yet they are all created at different times. For instance: Lets say there are 4 MfD's in one days log. One created at 0:59, another at 5:24, another at 12:43, and the last at 21:67 (all UTC). Now, lets say I check back at the main page for MfD at about 14:00 UTC with three of them ready to go. I shouldn't have to wait until 21:67 to place the marker overtop that days log. Amending the template appears, at least to me, to be the solution to this problem and I am looking forward to it. Synergy06:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand your intended amendment to the text. In the above case, if the remaining discussion was the 21:67 one, then yes you should wait. There is absolutely no relationship between the fact that three out of four discussions have closed and the placement of the old business marker. Discussions close for all sorts of reasons that admins may decide don't require the full five days, one of the most common is that someone else has already deleted the page - certainly the discussion can close in that case, but that should have no affect on other discussions. The safe bet is to always simply wait until the beginning of day six unless you happen to notice that the only discussions still open are past five full days. This is what I always did before the bot came along and when someone else moved it early, I always moved it back. There is no reason to advance the marker early.--Doug.10:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My intended amendment to the text would have reflected your concern (or my assumption/interpretation of your concern). And I said the other three are ready to be closed, not that they had already been closed (a big difference here). I'm aware of these many other conditions, I am a regular closer. Synergy10:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" NAMING FRAUDS stemming from old British Empire and French Press
I noticed you erased or objected to my comments and references from the main Lafayette page, from a well known, key-Lafayette historian, Why? Should this knowledge be hidden? I have over 30 years experience as a Lafayette researcher. It would be very courteous of you to reconsider your edits. Thankyou.
No American Lafayette scholar (who wishes to keep his reputation) would make this "LA FAYETTE" error (or use "Marquis" in present tense or post-1790 usage, since General Lafayette was the principle author of the vote in which the aristocracy was abolished in France and that remains abolished today).
These errors stem from original (British)Encyclopedia Britannica (SEE the perfect paper trail in old editions through current edition available in google-books) and post Restoration French Press in the early 19th century that started that fraud. Misplaced Pages rules are very specific about known sources of fraud especially when they are designed to deceive.
It seems those old British Empire and French editors were quite upset about Lafayette's leadership in the abolishment of the French aristocracy/nobility in 1790 and many paybacks ensued from those aristocrat editors that continue through to this day.
ALSO NOTE:
--From his birth certificate, through all his written letters and his grave stone all contain one word; LAFAYETTE.
--Americans for over 100 years(including many decades after Lafayette's death) knew to ignore the old Ency. Britannica and old British and aristocratic-French Press frauds. Many US towns were named LAFAYETTE (all 1 word) during these years when Americans knew about these British and post-Restoration French frauds on Lafayette's name. SEE E.E.Brandon, General Lafayette, 4 Vols. who documented the American Press and found >90% knew about the fraud and it was nearly wiped out in U.S.
--So called historians that throw those "MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" titles around (in present tense usage and in post 1790 references) is one great way to spot the "not so thorough" phony historians. Calling Lafayette "Marquis" (in post 1790 usage) is like calling a former slave from Georgia, after Lincoln's Abolition of Slavery, still a slave.
SEE also
1)--Gottschalk, Louis, "Lafayette Comes to America, 1935, pp. 153-154, titled, Lafayette, LaFayette, or La Fayette?" (Gottschalk is one of best Lafayette historians in the last 100 years. He also wrote an excellent book titled, "Jean Paul Marat" that is far better than Misplaced Pages's current Marat page in covering Marat's roots and education in Britain.
2)--
As I'm sure the American Lafayette scholars noticed that many of the editors, know little about Lafayette and little about the old Britannica fraud of which there is a perfect paper trail, that has now been exposed.
Their insistence that Lafayette was born in Chavagnac,Cabal??? and demoting his highest achieved military rank, from Lieutenant General of Garde Nationale-3 stars to Major General-2 stars, is typical of these editors low and faulty level of accurate, Lafayette-historical knowledge.(SEE their edits dated 18 August,2008) Notice also the references they present are from either non-referenced sources or from poor, shaky sources that are non-referenced when you dig to their origin. (e.g. The American Friends of Lafayette (web site, that is used as a reference?), recently elected a new President that is correcting many of these obvious "fraud copying" errors from the past.)
Misplaced Pages rules are very clear about use of non-credible and deliberately deceptive sources containing fraud.
--An exact photocopy of Lafayette's authenticated birth certificate can be found in;
Pialoux,Paul; Lafayette, TROIS REVOLUTIONS POUR LA LIBERTE, 1989, Edition Watel, pg. 24.
--"Lafayette" and "duMotier" in one word appear in one word on his baptismal certificate, all his letters, Memoirs and grave stone. His grave stone also contains a "D." (but no "M.") reinforcing the one word non-aristocratic form of "duMotier.
It is now clear, some of the editors are promoting this well known fraud and engaging in a repeated, nearly fascist, vandalism (including erasing key, very high level, historian references like Louis Gottschalk etc.)
You need to ask yourself, are you a proponent of "Misplaced Pages-Britannica" (sic) to continue that same old Encyclopedia Britannica fraud?
Please note, this Misplaced Pages Lafayette page started off as a copy of the complete original 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica's page for Lafayette that continued the same British fraud through every one of those old Britannica editions.
Do we really wish to return to that same old British Empire and aristocratic-French press fraud?
"We bow not the neck,
We bend not the knee,
But our hearts Lafayette,
We surrender to thee."
--This poem appeared repeatedly, in many 19th century American newspapers, showing that their editors knew very well, to ignore those old Britannica and aristocratic-French Press frauds.
Thanks for closing the Cookie 8191 discussion. Remember to indicate "non-admin closure" in some manner when you close a discussion, even for a procedural close.--Doug.21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, no harm done. And by the way, the instructions clearly state "Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:" so I guess those are optional questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
