Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 29 April 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Please restore Ideal firm size, deleted as a "PROD"

You said you don't want a detailed explanation, so I won't give one, unless you request it. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored, feel free to work on the concerns expressed in the original PROD request. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reinstate the article on Matt's Script Archive

I was disappointed to see that the article on Matt's Script Archive had been deleted. This website was instrumental in helping many people like myself find out how to create interactive web pages using Perl CGI scripts prior to the advent of PHP. It was a hugely popular, and I would argue important, website back in the late '90s. I'd always wondered who Matt Wright was and what made him start up this free resource for budding Web designers like myself, back in the days when most websites consisted of completely static HTML pages. However, it was not until today that I'd got round to looking this up, and Misplaced Pages was my natural first port of call.

I don't have any connection to Matt Wright or his script archive (which I haven't used, or even looked for, in years), and I've never seen the article that you deleted. I just know that this website was hugely influential in the spread of Perl as the server-side language of the Web for a few years prior to PHP and ASP, and long before Ruby. Personally I think this website deserves a page in the history of Web programming - if only to talk about how open to exploit some of those scripts were (including, I remember, early versions of the Matt Wright's widely used FormMail.pl script).

I'd appreciate it if you could consider reinstating this article. Thanks. Itauthor (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Please go ahead and see if you can add references or otherwise improve that article. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Alistair Christie (ITauthor) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itauthor (talk • contribs)

Email sent

I've sent email. Thanks for your post to my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied. Sorry for the delay! Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Phyrexia

Hi. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, community consensus (as expressed by all editors who participated in the discussion except for you and Hobit) was that the article Phyrexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be deleted rather than merged. Nonetheless, after the discussion was closed as "delete" by Wizardman, you restored the article's history with the rationale: "restoring under redirect to expand into merge target". I don't object to the redirect, but the restoration of the article's history is contary to consensus as established in the AfD discussion. As I assume you know, if you disagree with the closing administrator's finding of consensus, you can challenge it at WP:DRV. I would therefore like to ask you to comply with the AfD's consensus outcome and re-delete the article's history. Regards,  Sandstein  06:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to walk you through the process. "New Phyrexia" is a major Magic: the Gathering product offering from Wizards of the Coast. It's launching in a couple of weeks (product release info here. The bare outcome of the AfD would have left Phyrexia a redlink, which is silly, given the relative coverage of other Magic information and the impending product release. No problem, since a merge target was identified in the AfD (and not by me, I might add; my solution favors a wholesale merging of subordinate articles which wasn't taken up by anyone in the AfD)--I'll just create it and have done with it. Only, this version of Plane (Magic: The Gathering), has nothing but a link to the now-deleted article. So what to do? If I just crib the content from the deleted article, that would be a license violation. So, I undeleted the former revisions underneath the redirect, to comply with the licensing, and merged about two sentences from the lead of the now-deleted article into the target: adhering to appropriate licensing has precedence over procedure. I also added a bit of new content on my own, along with two refs: one primary (Wizards') and one secondary (MTV Geek). And, to make sure that what I did wouldn't enable some random drive-by undoing, I semi-protected the redirect for a month.

However, even if the restoration wasn't required by licensing, the AfD concerns you enumerated have all been eliminated: V is met, N is not a factor for content in a larger article (and can probably be met anyways), all the GAMEGUIDE stuff is gone from the merged content, and the material now in the merge target has been sourced. I trust you're happy that the encyclopedia has been appropriately improved in a way that complies with licensing requirements. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for explaining why you undeleted the history out of process, although I in your place would not have done so. I would not have merged the sentence "It is often called the final Hell for artifacts, or simply The Nine Hells", which seems to be the only text you merged. Not only is the sentence still(!) unsourced, but it is also poor encyclopedic writing, since it seems to adopt an in-universe point of view (real people do not "often" call Phyrexia "The Nine Hells", they call it a fictional world) and the cringe-worthy "is often called" calls for a {{by whom}} template. Finally, your merger edit did not include a wikilink to the source article, as it would have been required to for attribution. I have deleted the deficient sentence (supplying the lacking wikilink in the process) and, since attribution is now no longer required, re-deleted the history of the source article per WP:CSD#G4. I suggest that it would be better to re-write any substantial content about Phyrexia from scratch in the "Planes" article, citing sources as one writes, rather than copying unsourced scraps from the deleted article.  Sandstein  08:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's a poor summary for Phyrexia anyhow. Instead, I would say something about it being the mechanized realm created by Yawgmoth, which is a key setting for many MTG expansions including Antiquities and the Invasion block, and several MTG novels (which I've never read), and that it is alluded to in many other sets through the entire Weatherlight series and apparently in the upcoming New Phyrexia set. The old Phyrexia article did a pretty good job laying it out, and was correct as far as I can tell. This is probably the second most important plane in the MTG fantasy universe, and I think it would be much easier to cite the propositions in the old article than rewrite it from scratch. Therefore, would you mind undeleting it and moving it to my userspace, Sandstein? I would bring it up to code, then ask you to restore it to article space (or through DRV if you are unavailable). Cool Hand Luke 13:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that I wasn't done merging that content--that was simply all that I had the time to source and integrate before I left for a brief road trip. Since Cool Hand Luke has offered to continue working on improving the new target, I'll defer to him on fixing up the merged content, since he appears to be more familiar with Magic: the Gathering than I. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency in my edit summary; I should have known that, but didn't. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that you've recently merged Ravnica in essentially the same way, save the AfD, that I merged Phyrexia. Is there a particular problem of Ravnica vs. Phyrexia such that you see a disparity in the outcome as a proper thing? Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; Ravnica had a source (if only primary ones: the novels and the manufacturer's webpage), which made the content minimally verifiable and thus mergeable.  Sandstein  08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I would consider the nominator of a page for deletion as "involved", i.e. having an opinion on it, and hence one shouldn't be performing admin actions (redeleting in this case) with respect to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't considered that making a G4 deletion would be controversial, but I guess you are right that it would have been better from a procedural point of view if I had made a speedy deletion request instead of re-deleting the history myself. Though I suppose the same applies to Jclemens's undeletion and partial merging of the article after he argued at length for that outcome in the AfD.  Sandstein  11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe call it quits, neither of you does anything more with this particular deleted/undeleted/redeleted content (rewrites being a different matter) and both of you being that tad more careful about the appearance of things in the future.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ETA it's very easy to miss that you're involved/out of process when what you want to do seems obvious, I've done it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay - maybe the take-home message is a general one that closing admins should be more specific with review of consensus i.e. is the term a valid search term etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to mandate closing administrators do anything. The reason I didn't bug Wizardman in the first place is that his analysis of the situation, if any, was pretty opaque ("the result was delete"). "Delete" simply means that the article isn't allowed to exist as a standalone article. I think you'd see a lot fewer admins closing AfDs if they were responsible for cleaning up after the implementation, but I'm not sure that's a particularly bad thing: if we're reaching the point where maintenance is more important than content creation, it seems only logical that it should be an increasingly important part of information removal as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw this discussion linked from WT:Articles for deletion#"Involved" status of nominator. This has similarities with Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S., which I listed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21. I have been planning to start a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion regarding what process is appropriate before restoring articles for merging. I think that it doesn't need an RfC for two disputes. Does anyone (particularly Jclemens or Sandstein) have input? Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I catch up, I'll comment there. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I won't. If anyone wants my opinions on the topic, they can come here and participate in this discussion, rather than conducting a discussion on my actions in abstentia and without benefit of any input from me. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, then I'll ask the question here instead: why did you use your administrative tools to obtain a "merge" result for the article when the AFD had a clear consensus for deletion, you had participated in the AFD requesting a merge, and that option was negated by the results of the discussion? Why couldn't you just write the two sentences from scratch, thus obeying procedure and abiding by consensus?—Kww(talk) 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of this question is answered above; to summarize: it was the most straightforward way to balance the concerns endorsed in the AfD with the appropriate provision of encyclopedic content. Deleted content can (and should) be restored whenever the concerns of an AfD have been addressed, as I described above. DRV wasn't appropriate, because I didn't dispute the reasons for not retaining the article as a standalone article. Had I to do it again, I would have userified it first, and then done the histmerge under the redirect once it was clear that everything had been appropriately sourced. As was, you'll note that I semi-protected the redirect, so that no one could anonymously undo the AfD consensus (that the article not be a standalone article) while I built the content in the target article. I suppose I could have DRV'ed the result, but I didn't disagree with the article's ceasing to exist as a separate article, nor with the opinion that it should not be merged until sourced and that much of the content was excessive detail for a fictional topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: when there's no assertion of copyvio, BLP/attack, or promotion (as there wasn't in this case), merging from the deleted revisions limits deleted article repair to only administrators for no good reason. I know plenty of non-administrators who are perfectly capable of picking out tidbits from an article history, sourcing them, and merging those bits appropriately. While I didn't call this to anyone else's attention in this case, it's entirely possible, given the upcoming M:tG release, that non-administrators could have encountered the redirect and desired to help; this is the flip side of the semiprotection that I set. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuzana Light

Hi. I'd like to restore the Zuzana Light entry, in light of the fact that CBSNews.com has named her the #1 fitness trainer on YouTube . Is that okay with you? Sorry, I am still new at this, and don't make many contributions. Thanks. SLOW93 (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)SLOW93

Sure--provided you don't use an unencyclopedic and objectifying voice (e.g., calling her a "hottie"), I have no objection to your recreating the article. You may want to make a draft in your user space first, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

About my request. Clarification or Amendment?

I'd rather not answer more there, I've already said way too much. This is a request to have two bans lifted, as was stated in bold. These bans were not Arbcomm-declared. The Pcarbonn ban was a "community ban" but it was allegedly based on a prior ban that was served out. That was the Cold fusion arbitration, I added this because the way in which the ban arose was very similar, similar behavior (banned user activity confined to suggesting changes or sources in Talk, allegations of "the same POV that got him banned" or the like), the same complainant, previously found to be tendentious and involved as an admin.

The clear and specific request I filed was for the more recent ban, under General Sanctions on Cold fusion to be lifted. The Pcarbonn ban might be considered to be such, it was after the subject case, but it wasn't declared as a GS ban, GS was ignored in the request, as it was in the recent request about me. AN would probably not have been the place to request a GS ban.

I was not requesting modification of any ArbComm decision, which is why Amendment made no sense to me. This was ban appeal, based on General Sanctions, complicated by a judgment of "return to prior behavior," and I wasn't sure where to put it. I was not asking for ArbComm to change any prior decision.

The ban was declared by GWH, as described. He suggested appeal to ArbComm, and pointed to the enforcement GS finding, which pointed to AE. That was the reasonable other choice, but the page description as now live didn't mention the lifting of bans.

Since I believe that my behavior was quite different from prior behavior -- no revert warring at all, nothing even remotely close to it, no anticipated controversial editing of the article, no reverts, etc., no extensive dispute resolution process all over the place -- the issue would be one of clarification, of what behavior I should avoid. I had imagined my behavior to be within what is allowed, particularly for a COI editor, who is expected to have a POV, but who is allowed to suggest or discuss even controversial changes in Talk.

Thanks for your interest. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)