Revision as of 05:14, 22 August 2008

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Home

About

Talk

Logs

Index

Tests

E-mail

Archives

User talk:Jerry/Archive 1:Through January 2007 User talk:Jerry/Archive 2:Through December 15, 2007 User talk:Jerry/Archive 3:Through March 30 2008 User talk:Jerry/Archive 4:Through August 15 2008ive User talk:Jerry/Archive 5:Through 29 December 2008 User talk:Jerry/Archive 6:Through 20 February 2013 User talk:Jerry/Archive 7:Current Archive

Welcome to my talk page

You are also invited to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Occasionally I repost emails that I receive to this talk page, however I remove sensitive material and personally-identifying information, such as email address, first.

I frequently collapse sections once I think the conversation is done. The section will appear as a purple bar with a summary and a link that says "show". If you are leaving me a follow-on comment for such a collapsed section, please add the new comments below the collapsed section, NOT in it. If you add comments inside a collapsed section, I may never see them.

Jerry's 10 talk page rules

1. Please no foul language, threats or namecalling. See: Be civil.
2. If there is any possibility (at all) that I meant well, assume that is the case, until proven or admitted otherwise. I will do the same. See:Assume good faith
3. Please append your wikisignature to all comments. See:Signing your posts
4. Please do not add any contentious material about me or any other living person.See: WP:BLP. and No libel or slander
5. Stop means stop. If we are in a heated argument, and I ask you to stop sending me messages on this page, then simply stop. If you think my conduct requires a review: See: Administrator's noticeboard, or Requests for comment
6. Do not leave messages containing any personally-identifying information about children, including yourself.See: protecting childen's privacy and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
7. If you are here because a template showed up on your article or talk page, and you want to know why; 99% of the time, the information you seek is located right on the template itself. Please have the courtesy to read it first, then come here to complain or ask additional questions. Also try: The helpdesk
8. If I deleted an article/ image, etc, and you want to know why, please look at the log for the page... I usually leave a detailed explanation including a code like "CSD#G12, COPYVIO, Content was..." If you go to the deletion policy, you will likely find your answer faster than sending me a message. See: WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:IFD, WP:SFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:UCFD, and WP:DELREV
9. If you do decide to ask me why your article, image, etc. got deleted, please tell me which one you are talking about. I delete many things a day, most days, and it can be very difficult for me to figure out which one you're talking about. This is particularly impossible if you are not logged-in, and your current IP Address is different than what it was when you created the article, uploaded the image, etc. See: Why create an account?
10. If you are here to complain about another editor, for whatever reason, please consider using one of the forums to alert all administrators of the problem. This will get you faster service, from among dozens of patrolling admins. See: the Administrator's noticeboard, Administrator's intervention against vandalism, or Usernames requiring administrator attention

Notice regarding deletion reviews

This user is an active closing administrator at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you are considering initiating a formal review of a recent closing, it is requested that you attempt to have a discussion with me first, as suggested by the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Please give me at least one day to respond, and keep in mind that we may be in different time zones. If you have a valid reason that my determination of consensus may be flawed, I do appreciate the opportunity to consider it and revert my own closing or explain to you my difference of opinion without the wikidrama that is often created at DRV. If you are here to drop me a template notice of a DRV that you have already initiated, but we have not discussed it yet, please consider closing that delrev and talking with me first. Just add the comment "please close this discussion until I have a chance to discuss this with the closing administrator per WP:DRV" to the discussion, and an administrator will surely close it shortly (as long as other editors have not significantly participated yet). Thank-you for your consideration.

New discussions

Matt Bissonette

2 comments and 1 abstain is hardly a complete discussion of Matt Bissonette. I'd like to see it relisted.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

After also considering the comments on the article talk page, I think that the AfD did capture the consensus, and that relisting would not be appropriate. You may consider WP:DELREV for a wider review. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Angeli (Skopje)

Hi! Imho, the discussion about the article's delition had had no satisfying result. I can just repeat: A club is already notable when it just got promoted from the country's lowest tier of basketball leagues to the second lowest? Wow, that's fast! There was no indication that user matt91486 was aware of that, and user t-rex did not have any additional argument. I have apparently been the only one doing some research and could at least prove that this club does exist, which even hasn't been clear when the other users posted. The squad listed in the article still seems to be some kind of youth team, but I'm the only one bothered about that. So, to sum it up, a discussion in which no participant showed any knowledge about the discussion's subject cannot have a 'result' and therefore should be relisted. Best regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should watch the article for a while, and if you still think it is not appropriate in say 3 months, you can nom inate it again. I do not think that relisting the current discussion will make any difference at this time, based on the lack of support the discussion received, indication a general lack of interest by the community in considering this article right now. Give it time to develop, and then reconsider. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So this article is innocent until proven guilty? ;) Well, I don't know much about Macedonian basketball, but quite something about European basketball in general. This club's article certainly wouldn't have been kept if it was a, say, German team. It isn't, though, and I'm not desperate to have this article deleted, but it's a little bit frustrating to see it being kept just because of the lack of support the discussion received, and it would surprise me if that situation changed within a few months. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD Sambalpuri Region

Dear Jerry, you have arrived at the conclusion to ‘keep’ the article Sambalpuri Region after considering the debate. However, you have also pointed out that there were several rational suggestions for possible merge or modification actions, and in that regard you've mentioned that the issue should continue to be discussed and pursued outside of AfD. But the problem lies there only! This user was an avid editor of the article, having a deep interest. However, all the modifications/alterations were undone, and horrid p.o.v as well as copyvio material was placed on the article time and again. You may go through and analyse the AfD as well as the discussion page to see the number of sock-puppets/SPAs which were created to vote to ‘keep’. The problem with the article is that it is not allowed to be rationalized at all by an interested group. You may consider merging it with Sambalpur district, whch is the actual consensus as I read the AfD debate, discounting the sock-puppets/SPAs. As I know, wikiP consensus binds an administrator.
All said and done; you may review your decision and reconsider to budge...I hope I’ve told you enough which way and why. ;-} Cheers.
-- soft dynamite (talk) (Contributions) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the article has several issues that should be addressed, this AfD did not receive even one single supporting comment for deletion. There were several editors who opined that merging or editing the article was an important next step, but this is not the function of AfD. This should be persued by interested editors by simple bold editing. If there are problematic editors who prevent this collaboration from achieving the consensus outcome, then the problematic editors may be dealt with through any of the available dispute resolution venues. AfD does not solve editor conflicts over content and style. Had there been at least some support for deletion, then after discounting the SPA's, it may have been possible to determine a delete outcome, but as it went, it was not. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about List of Ace Combat characters AFD

Hi, I'd like to ask you about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Ace Combat characters, which you recently closed. The main rationale for deletion was a lack of notability. Other delete comments agreed with this. There were two keep statements that were not of the "keep per " format, those from The_ed17 (talk) and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk). The_ed17's statement is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and an assertion of popularity, which Misplaced Pages:Notability notes is not equivalent to notability. This doesn't refute the nominator's statement. Le Grand Roi's statement does, but with a vague copy-and-paste statement he uses very frequently. I was hoping you could expand a little on how you arrived at no consensus. Thanks, Pagrashtak 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerry had the right close. While I would have preferred an outright keep due to the obvious notability of the articles in question and the copy and paste deletion "votes" made by the same handful of editors across multiple AfDs, a "no consensus" was the correct read of the discussions in hand. Bravo to Jerry! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are not Jerry, and can't explain his line of thought to me. I fail to understand why you criticize copy and paste deletion comments when you copy and paste your keep statement. Pagrashtak 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I do that because of the same half dozen odd accounts I see in practically every AfD that does that for deletion argument and then I elaborate on my points by attempting to engage those editors in discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I must admit that my decision of this AfD was influenced by the 5 other AfD's for this series in the mass nomination effort by the same editor. The other ones are more clear-cut to me, and taken as a stand-alone closing, I might be inclined to agree that there seemed to be a consensus toward delete here. I was bothered by the nominator's efforts to delete anything to do with this game series, and freely admitting that statements made in the nom. statement were not accurate, but could be. I felt the entire delete effort was an attempt at force majeure deletionism, and felt inclined to therefore invalidate it. I would be willing to relist it and convert my closing to a comment, and let an uninvolved administrator handle the closing, if you think that course of action would be appropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative would be to start a talk page discussion regarding the proposed merge mentioned in the AfDs? Why not see if that goes somewhere first? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to hear that you were swayed by the circumstances of the nomination and not solely the strength of the arguments, especially since it sounds like it may have changed the outcome. In the future, if you are closing an XFD and circumstances beyond the discussion influence you, I would request that you make a note of such in your closing statement. The discussion is preserved so that we have a record of how we arrived at a decision. If the discussion does not contain the full story, we need to know that. Since this was Judgesurreal777's nomination, I will ask him if he would rather continue with the AFD or try a merge instead. Pagrashtak 15:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support moving to Deletion review, as Jerry has basically said he decided the issue based on dislike for me/deletionism and not on policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerry has said he is willing to relist, converting his close into a comment. I think we're resolving this here and don't need to go through the DRV process. Pagrashtak 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, can we try for a merge discussion? I recommend and am willing to work on making the article on the nations of Ace Combat divided into subsections that cover the characters and militaries in a concise, yet comprehensive and organized manner. We really should exhaust efforts to do what we can with the content before going with deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute! What I said has apparently been taken out of context. I feel it necessary to re-explain. I closed several AfD's in the same evening. They were all listed on the same AfD logpage, which was overdue for closure. I did not pick these AfD's to close for any reason other than they were all still open, and among the oldest of the overdue. I read all of the related AfD's and studied them before closing any of them. This process involves reading the comments left, and reviewing the articles themselves, and the respective article talk pages. I determined (correctly, I think) that three of them were to be closed as no consensus. I also determined that one was to be closed as delete. On this one, I felt at the time that it was also a no-consensus, but a day later when you asked to to look at it again, I realize that it looked different to me, and that I may have gotten it wrong in this one case. Considering many of the respondents in these AfD's made remarkably similar comments in several of them, I would think that this would be somewhat easy to understand. At no time did I consciously make a decision based on anything other than the discussions, and certainly never made a decision based on a dislike for the nominator or the circumstances of the nomination. I did not get a chance to close the one that was to be deleted, because it was already closed as such by another admin by the time I got to it. I do not think that I failed to follow policy, I just think that now looking back at the discussion, that I may have made an error in closing; perhaps intending my closing to occur to a different one, and then not noticing that I had made the mix-up. I think if an admin admits such a mistake, that the community should embrace that honesty, and not start swimming in circles like sharks on the scent of blood. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, I apologize. I took your statement to mean that, had this been the only nomination from Judgesurreal, you might have closed as delete. However, since he nominated several related articles, you closed as keep to "invalidate" the delete effort. Please don't feel that I'm after blood, I'm not. I'm not filing a notice at AN/I or anything, I was just surprised by the close as no consensus with no further explanation and wanted to hear more behind it. So, are you saying that you closed this AFD as keep, but was mixed up and looking at the wrong article when doing so? Pagrashtak 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of a merge, perhaps we should at least userfy the following to see if there is any worthwhile mergeable information: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Organizations of Ace Combat and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat? I would think something like the superweapons one might have information relevant to the militaries information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will userfy them to your user space at:

• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Superweapons of Ace Combat
• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Organizations of Ace Combat

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah shtak, I can see where you would be concerned if you thought I meant that. I did not. I really don't know what happened. All I can say is a day later when you asked me to re-review the AfD, my view of concensus in the discussion does not seem to match how I closed it. So I must have made some error or had clouded judgment or something. I would like to relist it and put this behind me. What do you think? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken so long to respond, but I really wasn't sure what to say, except I will assume good faith that Jerry didn't really mean what I thought he said. I still think the articles on the fictional world of Ace combat should be consolidated/deleted down to maybe one article if that can be sustained. Hope all are well, Judge Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

opstechnology article

Hi, my article was deleted for opstechnology. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of it. Could I get a copy of it to rewrite it? grasshopa —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I userfied it to: User:Grasshopa/Opstechnology. Please do not use it to recreate the article without addressing the WP:CSD#G11 concerns. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"65% of those who responded here were in support of endorsing the previous closure. 35% wanted to overturn and delete"

I'm hoping this comment doesn't mean you just counted noses and stopped at that? - brenneman 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing. Dybryd (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is irrelevant because the people who wanted to overturn and delete had no valid arguments in the DRV debate anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know that I did not just count !votes. This issue needs to be put to rest now, please let it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but don't hold your breath :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pirani Ameena Begum

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pirani Ameena Begum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Crusio (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa) endorsed deletion questions

Two (really three) questions:

1) Does your endorsing mean that Wiki policy allows any administrator to speedy delete something without ever giving any warning and when there's a review, these facts and any potential for improvement is ignored and the deletion review is really whether the deleted version of an article warranted deletion? And people were clearly divided as to whether the deletion should stand or not, I thought that when there is no concensus, policy dictates that the article should remain.

2) Is it possible to get the last versions of the article (and the Citywide article) since I don't want to restart from scratch?--D'Iberville (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I am happy to respond to your questions, and welcome any further dialog you wish to have on the subject.

1. There is no requirement for an administrator to give any warning prior to deleting an article under the speedy deletion guidelines. Typically, another editor tags an article, and then some brief period of time goes by before an administrator reviews the page and decides whether to delete it or not. Some administrators (myself included) generally do not delete articles that are not already tagged, except in limited circumstances. But this is by no means a requirement.
2. Deletion review discussions about XfD's generally focus on the XfD process, itself, and not usually on the deleted target. There are exceptions when significant additional information is available that was not presented during the XfD. Deletion reviews of speedy deletions, on the other hand, usually place much more emphasis on the deleted target, as there is little process data to review. Generally, if it is determined that the article does need to be deleted, we do not undelete it and force it to go through an XfD, as we seek to be as anti-bureaucratic as we can.
3. I am always willing to userfy deleted articles as long as they are not copyright violations, blatant spam, or violations of the privacy of living persons. I just request that the userfied content not be reposted by copy-and-paste (which would fail to maintain GFDL sourcing attribution), and that the article not be moved back to mainspace without consensus that the original concerns have been addressed.

• User:D'Iberville/Citywide Church
• User:D'Iberville/Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa)

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks the explanations and for the userification(?) of the pages. So if I understand correctly, I can edit it on my own page and once it demonstrates significance, post it back in the mainspace? Oh, and the reason for deletion is "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.", but even if I were to clearly line out its importance/significance to the point where any AfD would have a quick consensus of keep, is there anything stopping an admin from speedy deleting the page again with "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc."?

I would say that situations like this one where an administrator can freely delete an article without them (or anyone else) having noted any problems or giving the chance to improve it (especially knowing that any review will focus only on the quality of the article when it was deleted and not what it could be) seem to be plain wrong and go against the very spirit of Misplaced Pages and it definitely sours the experience for any new or casual user of Misplaced Pages. Is there an element in this situation that perhaps I'm missing or failing to appreciate or am I wrong in any other way in believing this and if not, is there a particular place here where I can voice this lacuna in the hopes of improving the policy?--D'Iberville (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is a topic in wikipedia that always involves editors in conflict. It is unfortunate that newer editors first learn about our deletion policies often only after something thay have worked on becomes destroyed. I am sorry if that was your experience. It is part of the wikipedia culture, though, for better or worse.

The best way to ensure the article can not be speedy-deleted would be to post another deletion review requesting a review of the userfied version and endorsement of its move to mainspace. Then if this indeed occurs, an entry should be made on the article talk page referencing the discussion. Most admins would review the talk page and the page move log before deleting, so it should not happen, but if an admin were to subsequently delete it, civilly pointing out that talk page information would undoubtedly result in its speedy undeletion and apology.

I hope this is helpful. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:PompeiiStreet.jpg

Image:PompeiiStreet.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:PompeiiStreet.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. I have deleted the image from EN. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aivars (name) + 9

You have just relisted this group of 10 articles for the third time, even though they were first listed on 18th July and have generated more than enough discussion for it to be clear what the issues are, and it is a total waste of time to send them round for yet another cycle. If the call is is still unclear after so much time, then why is that not simply "no consensus"? Do you wish to discuss here? HeartofaDog (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the irritation, but on reflection I still don't actually see what the problem is now. It's clear that these are "given name" articles, ie, a form of dab, and the nn argument is a red herring - they don't need to be notable, just plural - and in any case they all have sources, and a reason why they're notable. They probably need cleaning up, but that's a long way from deletion. I'm not sure what more there is that can be done - any suggestions? HeartofaDog (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I plainly explained in my edit summary on the AfD, "relisting because discussion is still evolving toward consensus (even though some people may start to cry)". This means that I felt that the discussion was providing some benefit to the collaborative nature of consensus-building, and that it would be prudent, therefore, to extend the discussion time frame. There is no urgency to close an AfD, and I was not relisting it to be disruptive, pointy, or silly. As for suggestions, just watch the discussion and see where it goes. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An admin being "disruptive, pointy or silly"? surely not.HeartofaDog (talk)

Thank You

I worked hard on a bunch of entries for a bunch of minor league ball players. It was a little disheartening to see them just deleted one day.

Thanks... --Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the system works. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All-Stars

Jeff Manship and Danny Valencia were also all stars in 2008.

...Just thought I would throw that out there...--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're asking for, if anything. For both of these people, there are no matching pages found in the deletion archive. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

General

Jerry, I know a little about you. You seem to be someone I would like to ask a few questions. There are a few snafus I am trying to work out. Flyinghigher9 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem. You can ask here, or if you prefer, my email address is jerry@lavoie.com. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jack Wilshire

I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

Sorry Jerry, I came across some old taggings of yours in image deletion cases (Image:BrianUNM.JPG) and then checked a bit in your upload log. I find a few problematic cases there. Please check:

• Image:Julien Cardy.jpg
• Image:Barney Clark.jpg
• Image:PatriciaRacette.png
• Image:JJFinley cropped.png

Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to review these images, based on a bad faith comment you left on an image description page. I feel you are baiting me into an argument and I will not have it. Please see your talk page for more details. Somebody else will undoubtedly sort out these images when the end of the review period comes due. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no matter what others said, you should never have "closed" an issue that involved your own upload (you could have helped out closing others if there was such a backlog and you wanted to make yourself useful); and especially it really doesn't look good that you put the authoritative {{rk}} on it, when there really was no review process whatsoever other than your own.

I have no problem if you don't want to look at the images again - they are all speedy deletion candidates in the absence of further input, I can handle that alright. Just thought I'd give you the usual heads-up.

And, by the way, I have honestly no recollection that we had any such issue before. It may well be the case, but I honestly can't remember ever having interacted with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Madhukar (author)

I just realized, I probably should have involved you in this discussion since you closed the original AFD for which Accounting4Taste G4'd the recreation. Anyhow, User:Syb has improved the article to the point where A4T & I feel that it addresses the reasons for the original deletion as such I moved the userfy'd article back into the mainspace and restored the revisions for GFDL attribution and noted the same on the article's talk page. I hope I haven't done anything too off-base here. Please let me know if I have. –xeno (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thank-you for the notification. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Howard Perdew

I did not see that relist when I read over the article. My mistake, I certainly would not have closed it had I noticed it. I'll restore the AfD. Wizardman 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NimbleX deleted?

Did you watch Afd debate of NimbleX? All contributors except nominator voted for keep and you decided to delete the page. The nominator's claim was about notability, although contributors mentioned several independent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaribi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say "all contributors except nominator", you mean "both contributors", one being an IP that has only ever made one edit, that being the !vote in the AfD. The IP made essentially the exact argument as the other (yourself), and that argument was countered by a valid counter-argument that the sources mentioned were self-referential, self-published, personal blogs and the like. This left the only valid argument being the nominator's. Therefore I determined that there had been adequate review and discussion to find a consensus for delete. If you disagree, feel free to file a deletion review. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For some sources like this one on "start Linux page" www.linux.org the nominator did not say anything. But may be it is best to wait for few days and rewrite the article with a lot of positive and negative references. Google returns 400,000 pages on this topic, about 500 of them are dissimilar, including some articles from computer magazines. Still I can not find scientific article, however.Megaribi (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend writing a userfied version of the article in your userspace at User:Megaribi/NimbleX. Then once you feel it meets the requirements for inclusion, you can seek a review for it to be moved to mainspace. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Is there any reason why the above image cannot be unprotected? It has been fully protected since March. KnightLago (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else already unprotected it. Thanks anyway. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for consulting me on my protection of this image. I agree that the big hoopla on this image has passed, and that protection is no longer warranted. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour

I am extremely kind and patient with people who make a genuine effort of understanding our policies and acting on them. I am somewhat less patient with people who simply want to dodge and circumvent the policies in order to push as many pretty images into their favourite articles as they can. I am not patient at all with people who lie and cheat about their images. And I'm growing more and more impatient with people who hypocritically turn up at my talk page to badger me. Just go and do something else. I am not interested in discussing my behaviour with you in particular. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)