Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 21 September 2008

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laurence Baxter. Please feel free to comment. Risker (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge special access scheme

Could you give reasons why you think that Cambridge special access scheme should not be deleted? You have not done so in the edit summary, the article's talk page, or my talk page, after removing my PROD from the article. A.C. Norman (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• An earlier Prod by Betacommand was removed by an IP. Once a Prod has been removed by an editor it shouldn't be re-added. Just procedural that's all, AfD is the way to go now. RMHED (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert David Steele

In looking at my section which you deleted, I came to the conclusion that much of my language violated the NPV rule. I have reworked the section, now named "Misplaced Pages Activism" with an eye towards keeping it neutral. I did keep the factual elements with their accompanying references. I'm a bit confused about why they are "poorly sourced". I am providing links directly back to the pages containing his comments, actions, etc. Could you take a look at the section and tell me what comments are inadequately sourced? Also, should we move this discussion to the Robert David Steele talk page?OSC Flunkee (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages isn't classed as a reliable source, you'd need some reliable secondary sources that cover his Misplaced Pages activism for inclusion to be valid. RMHED (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I get this straight, you're saying that citing the pages with his specific actions aren't reliable? They are primary sources! I would agree that in most cases one would not want to cite Misplaced Pages as an authoritative source within a Misplaced Pages article, but in this specific case, it is his actions on Misplaced Pages which are the subject of the text. So if I go off and create a blog on blog spot and make the same statements without links to the Misplaced Pages page then you'd accept those in this section as secondary sources? I'm failing to see how that is more authoritative. OSC Flunkee (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If his Misplaced Pages activities have not been covered by reliable secondary sources (not blogs), then they aren't notable. Have the news media covered them? If not then why should we, it's just wikipedia navel gazing. RMHED (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Opened this up on the talk page: Talk:Robert_David_Steele#Wikipedia_activism_section Porkrind (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnics Canada

Hello. Could you explain please why you removed the db-spam template from the article? There are no sources cited except the organization's own site; there are no references; there are scads of value-laden terms; and the originator of the article appears to be someone from organization who has no other edits. I hope I don't sound antagonistic; I am more puzzled. Thanks. — scribblingwoman 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you thought it was too sweeping? I went back and added more specific templates. — scribblingwoman 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't so blatant as to justify speedy deletion, listing at AfD would be a better idea. RMHED (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work...

...here. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 01:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Would "standing mute" (not saying a damn thing) be an option for this boy? I would be tempted to give such an answer (I would be silent and accept the consequences of doing so) if it was asked in my RFA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Silence is golden, but then again showers can be too. RMHED (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That RfA question

Well, you sure stirred up the pot. Can you hop back to give some indication that I'm not going to far on a limb defending you? I'm ind of assuming a lot about your motivations for the question and the decision, so if you were doing it for the lulz, I would like to know. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I asked the question to test the candidates ability for lateral thinking. Unfortunately, from their answer they don't appear to have any. RMHED (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jive Aces - AfD

Hi,

I recently proposed The Jive Aces for deletion, but you objected that, given a search on Google News Archive, they might be notable. I've had a look through the articles that come up from a search of "Jive Aces", and I don't think any of them establish notability, so I've put the article onto AfD. The discussion page is: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jive_Aces, in case you'd like to comment.

Darimoma (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank ye

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the category listing on my new Walls of Sand article. I just got back from WikiBreak and I am glad to see you! :-) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, welcome back and great work creating all those articles. RMHED (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to proposed deletion of Juliette Goglia page

While I do agree that the page needs serious editing to get rid of some of the stuff about her siblings and their pets, Juliette Goglia herself is a fine young actress and does meet standards for notability as I see them. Please consider this before deleting this page. Thank you for your time in reading this.

Bloopenguins Bloo (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello there, I can't delete anything, I'm not an admin. I agree with you that she could be notable per Misplaced Pages standards, this is why I removed the Prod to prevent it being deleted. If someone wants it deleted now they would need to take it to AfD for discussion. RMHED (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

As far as I can tell, you are not an admin. So I don't understand why you deleted speedy deletion tags on EDrugSearch.com, Nijmeegs Neutje, and Conservative Technology Forum especailly when the former already had a {{hangon}} tag on it. Bongomatic (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Any editor excepting the article's creator can remove CSD tags. RMHED (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Don't know how I carried that misconception for so long. Bongomatic (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. RMHED (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Michael Vayda

I reinstated the PROD on this page. You removed it because the article survived AfD, but really, what happened there was that the AfD was speedy closed on a procedural issue because it was an improper group AfD. The article was never discussed and I don't think it really has any impact on our PROD procedure. The original PROD was removed because the AfD was started. So I think it's okay to leave it as a PROD for now. If you disagree, please feel free to remove it again. -Chunky Rice (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problemo. RMHED (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks,

...for the speedy intervention the deletion proposal and referencing at Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party. --Soman (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)