Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 13 June 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Respond

I did, but unfortuneately its blocked indefinitely. I tried to fight it, but they told me to open a new account.

John Redding22

Hi Ryan, I noticed that you had removed vandalism at the VCY America page - however John Redding22 posted the entire edit which includes the personal attack on his user page. What is the recommended procedure (if any) for dealing with this? Does personal attacks apply to user pages? Badgercheesehead (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I really couldn't tell you as it is not in the mainspace. Still, it is entirely inappropriate and I think your best choice would be to bring it to an administrator and they could advise you. Here is a list of administrators. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Youth Energy Summit! etc

Hi. Just got round to checking Youth Energy Summit! and your copy edits of 39th Army (Soviet Union) - sorry I've been rather busy, but better late than never :-) The YES article has already had the lists removed by someone else, as you suggested, and the copy edit job looks pretty good! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi. This line in the archiving bot,

| archive             = User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d

needs to match this page's name:

| archive             = User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive %(counter)d

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Also, this {{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot III |age=2 |units=weeks }} will give you this archive box →
, without having to manually add links to future archive pages.

—WWoods (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Allen Morris (historian)

Hi Ryan. Thanks for the message. There is sourcing on the page, but the thing has gone unimproved in a long time, and I'm not currently active with the Project. One source only verifies the position. The other has gone dead. There are G-hits, some are behind pay walls.

To look at your rationale, you write, "Unsourced BLP I think" If there is uncertainty, not a candidate for PROD. "the article gives very little information about the person." The solution for that is expansion, not deletion. "It does not establish notability." A state historian is probably notable. (When in doubt, AFD.) "I gain no knowledge by reading the article so it is not beneficial to the Encyclopedia." The solution for that is expansion.

Have you actually gone out and tried to source the thing, or have you tagged it based on a gut feeling? I would recommend an attempt to find sourcing and expand it, but I've not the time. If you've made an attempt and not been able to fix the thing, no objection to deletion. The Project is now in your hands. The best person to ask for advice when I was active was User:DGG. Is he still around? I trust you; act as you think best. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If the thing gets deleted please remove the link from User:Dlohcierekim/create. PMR

No prob. Doubt if it would be any great loss if it does get deleted. <sigh /> Dlohcierekim 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

From the information in your first message, I did decide that it was a copout to PROD it. I usually research an article before I consider deleting it. I have just been very busy recently and decided I didn't want to put forth the effort. I might get around to expanding it, but if I don't is there some area having to do with Articles for Expansion? I might bring it to WP:FLA Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"If you have a 24 hour block that wasn't made in complete error, take a break." (just read you user page. If the orange bar is from you, I've not seen that message)

Yoicks! Smells like cool down blockism. <grin /> Sound advice though. Just beware when your RFA rolls around. Dlohcierekim 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is it that would look bad about that in an RFA? Thanks for the advice. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DOn't know what current sentiment is, but back when I was active "cool down" blocks were viewed as putting out a fire with gasoline. So whatever the current consensus is is what you want to be able to explain as your standpoint at RFA and to anyone seeking advice. If "cool down" blocks are seen as inflammatory, someone might oppose because they interpret your statement as endorsing cool down blocks. (RFA is a quirky place, and oppose rationales are now such that mine would fail in the current environment.) Always glad to be helpful. However, I'm no longer active, and only came because the system notified me I had a message. Cheers, and if you enjoy editing even half as much as I did, you're in for the time of your life! Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

deletions

I removed your deletion tags from several articles. Isocentric technique does not sound like nonsense to me,though I am not an expert, and First-order control & Higher-order control seem to need expansion & referencing, or merging into something more general, but not deletion.

Additionally, I see some deletion tags of yours have been removed by others: with respect to Three for a pig , there is no speedy criterion for "This article is just a manual for how to play the game" . Nor was Cedar Glen, California (weather) an instance of "no context"--though I am not sure it is an appropriate article & I want to see how similar material is handled--I think it probably needs merging.

Perhaps you might want to re-read WP:Deletion policy before nominating additional articles for deletion. It's important not to unnecessarily discourage new editors, and any article capable of improvement should be improved, not deleted. Not that I want to discourage deletion tagging: there's an abundance of garbage, new and old, that does need deletion to find and tag. As an admin , I delete about a dozen a day. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your statements strongly. In regards to the articles First-order control and Higher-order control I would point you to Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. In addition, the quality of those articles is terribly unworthy of being on Misplaced Pages. Isocentric technique does not explain its purpose at all. The article is poorly written to the point of being unreadable. Three for a pig is an instance where I tagged due to WP:NOTHOW, upon further review, it doesn't seem to completely fall under that category. I replied on the talk page that it should probably be merged with Car game. Cedar Glen, California (weather) is a completely unnecessary article. Aren't there templates for that? I used Twinkle to tag it and used the best category I saw. The fact that you replaced virtually every article I tagged makes it appear to me as if you are Wikihounding and I don't appreciate it. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, DGG simply is one of the editors who handles a lot of articles tagged with CSDs (no wikihounding). On that note, here's a tip. CSD's must always be narrowly applied. AfD and PROD are the avenues to take if any article "kinda fits" or "pretty much fits" (etc) a CSD. So... don't take it personally. It takes a while to dig though the CSD rationale and truly master them all for the narrow fit required. Simple tip: if you aren't sure it fits 100%, don't CSD; instead, if you think it's appropriate, AfD or PROD, if you aren't sure about those (or think it should be CSD tagged but aren't 100% sure), then simply leave it for another editor. I skip any I'm not sure of or that I'm not versed enough on the subject (or cant learn enough via Google Searches) to adequately categorize.

DGG has a great tip above too... dont scare away the newcomers. If I fear something is going to be deleted but might end up a worthwhile article, I try to help the newcomer by userfying the article for them, or dropping an underconstruction tag on it. One can always go back later and AfD/PROD/CSD if it seems all they are doing is creating useless stubs that fit CSD criteria. Hope that helps, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Rob very accurately said, when I delete an article I normally look at other contributions by the same editor to see if there are additional similar articles that should be deleted but have been overlooked, & if there a major problem that needs a formal warning or even a block. Similarly when I come across a nomination for deletion I think thoroughly unwarranted, I look at recent deletion nomination by the same editor, in order to tell whether it's just an isolated error or might indicate a systematic problem. My goal is assisting editors, not just dealing with individual articles.

I think you are confusing the meaning of original research, and unreferenced. That it has no references does not mean it is the original research of the editor. If it seems straightforward explanation, there is no reason to think it OR, unless we can find no references after a search. As for speedy as nonsense, it's very hazardous to conclude this unless you know the field--I had some unfortunate experiences deleting things I did not understand as nonsense when I was a new administrator. And poor writing is not nonsense, or even cause for deletion at all.

I agree with you about Cedar Glen not being a valid separate article, but it would be a merge or redirect. As it was in fact merged, and then reverted back to a separate article, I am discussing it with the editor concerned, & unless one of us convinces the other, it will need a community discussion to reach consensus. Prod is not for disputed merges. I follow up things like this by discussion, because no admin can use admin powers to decide on article content or format.

And btw, although Deletion policy and CSD has been my main activity for several years, every few months I re-read the policy and guideline pages about it to make sure I am not drifting from the standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As you have asked me on my Talk page, here's a few thoughts...

• CSD:G1 is commonly misunderstood, and is not for things which are factually incorrect - it's for "incoherent text or gibberish", like "Wheeeeeeee" or "Wurble flumple twing". Basically, if something is in coherent English, it's not a G1, even if it should turn out to be blatantly false.
• Isocentric technique. Not G1, as I suggest, and wouldn't be even if it was blatantly false (that would be a G3, hoax, but it would have to be blatant - AfD is the venue for something you don't understand but which you suspect might be false). The article is poorly written, but I can actually understand what it's about - it is trying to describe a genuine Radiation therapy technique. It may be too poor quality to keep in its current state, so taking it to AfD is probably fair - a discussion there should help decide whether it's worth keeping.
• Three for a pig. There is no valid CSD category for this one (WP:NOTHOWTO is not a valid CSD category), and we really do need to stick quite rigidly to the categories for CSD - CSD is only for a narrow range of situations, and the categories have been carefully developed over time. PROD nomination, as done, seems like the way to go with this one.
• Cedar Glen, California (weather). Definitely not an A1, as the context is clear - it's about the weather in Cedar Glen, California. I'm not sure what's best for it - improve it, merge it, redirect it - but I don't really have time to go into it in any depth right now.
• First-order control and Higher-order control. We can clearly say they're unsourced, but I wouldn't feel confident to label them as OR - I'd need to do some investigation. I don't really have the time now, but the two terms do seem to be genuine engineering terms, and my instinct is that seeing as they are so short, they probably need expanding and sourcing more than anything.

So, on those articles, I must agree with the reverting of your tagging. But please don't take it personally. There is an awful lot to learn about deletion policies and CSD tagging, and there's certainly nobody hounding you here - there is a CSD category that admins patrol, so if one person rejects a number of your tags, it almost certainly just means they're doing a pass through that list (In fact, I recently went through it and rejected about 15 tags from the same editor, but I didn't get accused of hounding ;-). Anyway, try to see it as part of the learning experience, and get as much benefit as you can from this feedback from experienced editors. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I have gotten from everyone. I think I have become more prone to deletions since I had an article of my own deleted, but in the future I should probably stick to tagging articles for AFD or doing more research first. I am also sorry for accusing DGG of hounding, when I opened my watchlist and it appeared to be that he had changed every single edit I made, leading me to believe that. Again, thanks for the advice and the long responses. One final question, is there a system where if an article is not improved, or beginning to be improved by a certain date, it should be deleted? I think this, or something similar should happen to the two control theory articles. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There sure are...

• AfD: AfD Log
• PROD: PROD Categories for Deletion
• CSDs: Don't worry about those (unless one day you become an admin). Just keep track of the ones you submit. I bookmark all of mine until they are deleted or the delete tag is removed. I do this for a few reasons:

1. I can see if I screwed up and shouldn't have CSD'd something (so far so good)
2. I can see if my deletion rationale was correct (some fit a couple... and a couple times I've tagged with a less appropriate choice) - becomes a learning experience for me.

Hope that helps. Feel free to drop by any of our talk pages if you have any more questions. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 15:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle, there are new options to get it to log your CSD and PROD nominations for you, which will create sub-pages from your user page - eg my CSD log is at User:Boing! said Zebedee/TW CSD (you can choose the name of the log page yourself). Have a look at WP:TW and the new preferences page linked from there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Participation There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog. Progress report During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started. Coodinator election The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters (talk), Diannaa , Tea with toast (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), and Torchiest (talk).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Finished Replying!

On my talk page, you'll find the answer to your question. Wekn reven i susej eht 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I placed it in the archive you helped me start!Wekn reven i susej eht 08:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Two requests from you for comments

1. I have replied to your query at User talk:JamesBWatson#Template:In use.
2. Seeing your query there has reminded me that I said I would reply to another query you gave me several days ago, but I haven't done so. Sorry about that. I will really try to reply within 24 hours, and if I don't then please prompt me. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much user information

Hi Ryan!

I would suggest deleting as much information about yourself, particularly about your partner, to avoid real-world harassment of you or her. You might also open a new account, without a real-world user name. Ask an administrator for help.

Good luck at university. Study statistics! ;)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Many Wikipedians do use their real names and post real-life information about themselves without problems, but sometimes someone who doesn't like something you have done can use real-life information against you. There have been times when this has been really unpleasant. It is particularly a risk to editors involved in anti-vandalism work, and even more so if you ever become an administrator (which I hope you will, because I think you will make a good one some day, though I don't think you are anywhere near ready yet). I would suggest a change of user name. The trouble with just opening a new account is that it might be seen as sockpuppetry, but if you do wish to do that perhaps you could email me about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is just stubbornness or stupidity, but for personal reasons, I am not willing to edit under anything other than my real life name. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's either stubbornness or stupidity. When I registered my account I was warned not to use my real name, but later I frequently used to consider changing my user name to match my real name, as I am not really happy about hiding my real identity behind a pseudonym. I now think that on balance the disadvantage of doing so outweighs the advantage, but if you feel otherwise then that is fine. What I really do regret is choosing a username which looks like a real name, because it encourages people to believe my name is "James Watson" when in fact it is nothing of the sort, whereas if my username were something like "King of the sun" then I would not be fooling anyone. The main thing is that you know that there could be concerns about using your real name, and have made an informed decision to stick with it. Having said that, I am not sure about the wisdom of posting personal information about someone other than yourself. You may like to reconsider that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did remove some of the other information, do you believe I should have previous revisions deleted? Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there's well over 90% probability that it doesn't matter in the least. The vast majority of people who edit under their real names and post personal information suffer no harm, as far as I know. However, it just could cause problems some day, and if you have removed it from the page then I don't see any particular advantage in keeping it in the history, so revision deletion might not be a bad idea. If you want it, let me know and I'll do it for you, but not for a few hours, because this is where I have to leave. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to say thanks for what you said at that RfA. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:In use

Despite my misgivings about this template, I would never have contemplated nominating it for deletion, because I would never have thought there was any chance of getting it deleted. However, you were bolder than me, and although it is clearly not going to be deleted, it seems that the discussion you initiated is likely to produce a useful improvement in the situation. Congratulations. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair

I've left a comment at User talk:JamesBWatson#Page Protection Request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/.cbp

Hi. I noted that you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/.cbp as a redirect because the page was merged. I'm not contesting this (well maybe just a slight protest). I am a little uncomfortable with the concept of redirecting if the reasoning is because somebody (in this case the article creator), merged the content while the AFD was in progress; in this case the article creator couldn't even be bothered to participate in the AFD. I've seen this happen before as a tactic to pre-empt the AFD by merging and claiming licensing terms require the article be kept as a redirect for attribution history. The AFD itself did not have a strong consensus for a merge. I'm not asking for this to be overturned, but I would like your thoughts on this. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Whpq was "not asking for this to be overturned", but I'm afraid I have overturned it. This was not a case for a non-admin closure. It does not come anywhere close to falling under any of the criteria listed at Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. "Because the page was merged" is not a justification, as the editor had no right to merge and remove the content from the article while discussion was under way to decide whether that should be done. Non-admin closure is appropriate only in very limited circumstances, where the situation is totally clear cut, and normally AfDs should be closed by administrators. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it appeared to me that I was allowed to close the AFD due to bullet point 1 under appropriate closures. It specifically pointed out redirect or merge. Since the page was merged to List of file formats, it was apparent that there was no need for the article. In addition, there were zero editors who believed the page should be kept. I did not believe there would any controversy in my decision. My decision was accompanied by a belief that a merge needed to be accompanied with a redirect. This came from reading WP:MERGE#Performing the merger. While I respect your editing James, I am actually going to disagree with your solution per the essay merge and delete. Could you help me understand why this should have been deleted? Is it because there was very little actual content that was kept? Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I checked and the discussion had been in place for 7 days before I closed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 applies to clear keep outcomes. This AFD did not have a clear keep outcome. Although AFD is not a vote, the majority of the !votes were for deletion, and they in fact supported their delete opinions with a rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me WP:MERGE#Performing the merger. It appears that a redirect is necessary when the information is merged. In addition, when a page is turned into a redirect, its content is deleted on that page, so I assumed a redirect would not conflict with either !vote. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the merge was done out of process bypassing any discussion that was already in progress at the AFD. It is unclear that the material merged is sufficiently creative that it would be copyrightable, so attribution history might not be relevant. If it is relevant, then perhaps a revision deletion is needed. I will leave it to James to comment more on policy as I am not an admin. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that I probably should not have closed the discussion. I did probably 30 minutes of research and found nothing that I believed showed me that I couldn't. I will refrain from closing discussions in the future. At least until I am 100% clear on policy. Having said that, I still agree with my own decision. I certainly don't think it was a clear case for delete because 40% of the users wanted a merge/redirect. I believe it was a clear case for a merge/redirect because a redirect, in my view, still removes the content from the specific page. Finally, I do not believe there is any harm in a redirect from .cbp to an article containing file names which use .cbp. I hope my statements aren't taken as arguing, I would just like to clearly define my thought process, reasonings, and beliefs for any interested person. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah, mea culpa I totally read some of the arguments on that page wrong. It certainly was a controversial close. I read many of the statements to be that it should not be redirected to a disambiguation page. I was fairly tired and must have been a little caught up in the idea of closing an AFD myself. I can't believe I missed that, and on further review, based on the discussion on the page it seems that a redirect was an incorrect close. I apologize for my mistake. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of writing a very long answer to your query above instead of a brief summary of the main points. The result was a mammoth edit conflict, in which not just one edit but a whole conversation had happened by the time I clicked on "Save page", and some of what I wrote is now redundant. However, since I've gone to the trouble of writing it I may as well post it here.

You are right about the first bullet point at Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. The first sentence refers to "Clear keep outcomes" (the word "keep" is emphasised), and I forgot that it later goes on to say that it also applies to Redirect and Merge. If I had remembered I would not have used such strong language as "does not come anywhere close to falling under any of the criteria". Nevertheless, I still think your closure was a mistake, because (1) there was not a clear and unambiguous consensus for merging, and (2) the reason you gave, namely that someone had gone ahead with the merge anyway without waiting for the AfD to conclude, is not the way to decide the outcome of an AfD. As I have already said, non-admin closure is appropriate only in the most clear cut cases, and for both those reasons this one was not totally clear cut. As for your other points, I did consider the points raised in merge and delete, but I could not see any material which required any copyright attribution, for two reasons: (1) the only content copied into List of file formats was some web links, to which I don't think a Misplaced Pages editor holds copyright, and (2) the editor who copied them to List of file formats was the same editor who had originally put them in .cbp, so the edit history of List of file formats gives exactly the same attribution as would be given by the other article's history. (Also, the editor did not provide an edit summary saying that material was being merged, so the other article's edit history would not have served as attribution even if other editors' material had been involved.) "Performing the merger" is only relevant if the AfD has resulted in a consensus to merge, not if there has been no such consensus but the author of the article has unilaterally decided to edit another article, using the same or similar content to that he/she had put in the article being discussed. It seems to me that the AfD discussion was close to the borderline between "delete" and "no consensus", but I can see no way of reading it as a consensus to merge. If there had been significant content that was in danger of being lost I would have considered relisting it to give a chance for a more definite consensus to emerge, but since no content was going to be lost it did not seem worthwhile wasting people's time on another week's discussion, so I made a judgement as to consensus, and that judgement was that there was a consensus to delete. Apart from the borderline majority (3:2), which by itself there would not have been very persuasive, there is the fact that the only reasons given for doing anything else were to do with keeping the information about the file extension, and that was going to be kept at List of file formats anyway, whether .cbp was deleted or not. That meant that the reasons given did not have any bearing at all on the question of whether to delete or to keep and redirect. Those reasons therefore had little if any weight in assessing the consensus on that question (which was the only question to be considered), and if those reasons were discounted then there was a clear consensus to delete. I suppose someone may search for ".cbp", even though it is not a common or prominent file extension, so if you want to recreate .cbp as a redirect to List of file formats feel free to go ahead. Finally, yes, the AfD had indeed been open for a full 7 days, and I guessed you had checked that, but thanks for confirming it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You should have used the in use template :p Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick note

I see you have found some meta sections of the encyclopedia that interest you. Just wanted to say that even through in this instance I did not agree for deletion, I think you did a good job of explaining your rational, was open to discussion with other views which you might not have been aware of, and most importantly (IMO) showed the attribute of taking those views into consideration, and coming to a compromise on how best to address the issue for both sides of the discussion. These are things that separate a good editor with that of a great collaborator. If you are ever interested in taking a peak over at wp:DYK sometime, there are a number of things that can be done that allow you to collaborate with a wide variety of editors from many different facets of the site and can always need help. It really helped me when I started with learning many of the policies, views, and other inter-working of this place. No pressure thru :) Again was good seeing your name across my watchlist again. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

lol. ummm yeah. thanks, was working on a user page redesign and guess I have the template rather than brackets stuck in my head still. Calmer Waters 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

At first glance I was like "what did I do that someone thought they had to paste the entire DYK page to my talk page?" Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. My knowledge of DYK is limited to the fact that I know users nominate articles by creating a hook. If the article meets the criteria for DYK it is discussed. It can either be approved or denied and the hook is modified. From there it somehow gets placed into queues. Later, it moves to the main page. I know I can get more information by reading the page in a more in depth way, but I would like to first ask, what can I do? When I check DYK, it seems like there are thousands of things going on at once, and I get fairly lost. At present, I am working on an article which I would like to see at DYK at some point in the future. Other than that I don't know how I can contribute to that section. Any advice? Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much it in a nut shell. Its really the interactions and thought processes that take place within those steps that are the key to DYK. In submitting an article, it allows you to present your article to the community for review and later the Main page of the site. Reviewing a submission, you assess its notability, verify that the sources are reliable secondary sources, well written, neutral, and accurate. This opens up copy-editting the article, researching the sources, adding or removing sources, learning how different articles belonging to other project have their own MOS of what constitutes a higher-level reliable source (ie. Mathamatical and medicine related articles), etc. You also learn things from other editors in which, you may not have other wise interacted with, because of the particular niche they may edit in. This is how I learned about the dermatology task force, Afd, featured pictures, etc.

There is also occasional conflict resolution that comes into play, as with the new page patrol, some editors will from time to time get heated about their article and/or nomination when there is an apparent problem. This is where those who have a firm gasp of article content policies is valuable (just as with Afds or CSDs).

Then there is the semi-administrative queue preparations, where you reevaluate approved hooks, copy edit hooks, balance the queues between what subjects, countries represented, and quirkiness that will be displayed on the main page. With diligent work one earns the trust of fellow editors and administrators by showing their knowledge of the core policies and their judgment, as you essentially are performing an admins' task. Calmer Waters 04:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anger

You say you are "going to step away rather than further any issues". I am sure that is wise. I have my own opinions about the issues involved in the arguments that have taken place, but I will not go into them here, because they have nothing to do with my role in acting as a mentor for you. The good thing is that you have realised that stepping away is the right thing to do. However, you did so only after you had got in a little too deep, including making one edit 3 times in well under an hour. I used to feel very frustrated at one time when changes that I was convinced were right were being prevented. However, I eventually came to realise that, among the 3 million plus articles in English Misplaced Pages, there must be countless places where I potentially could make an improvement, and 99.9% of them I will never do, because I have a finite amount of time. This being so, if a particular one gets missed, so what? There are many more being missed too, and one more is not a big deal. I can achieve more by walking away from it and doing useful stuff elsewhere than by spending a lot of time on that one. I won't say that that means that I am not disappointed when I feel a particular thing has gone the wrong way, but being disappointed is not the same as being frustrated and angry. The ability to know when to walk away from problems is, I believe, vital to any regular Misplaced Pages editor who wants to stay sane, and I am glad you managed to do it this time. If you can do the same next time too then that will be good. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed

I will do as you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Respond

I talked to User:Kansen on accident, I read the wrong date. Anyway, what was he doing in WIKIPEDIA? Honestly...people these days (not you). Also, can you try to answer my question here? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)