Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 17 December 2014

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

This is Dusti's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 7 days

NAC of AFDs

I have reversed your closures of the Rod Fontana and Gracie Glam AFDs. Both discussions were closed well short of the standard XFD discussion periods, both were based on good faith deletion rationales which reflect positions held by a nontrivial segment of the commenters in related discussions, particularly in the extensive RFCs regarding PORNBIO, and both were tainted by the quite dubious comments of Rebecca1990, an SPA whose comments in previous AFD discussions have been repeatedly criticized, to the point of being characterized as "bad faith" and "appalling" by two admins in an AFD earlier this year . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already left you a message on your talk page. I just asked that next time, you let me know you disagree with my closure and I'll revert myself :) Cheers! Dusti 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

i made the imprtance

i made the importance for the page this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojirafan91 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Dusti, I hope you are doing well. I happened to notice this and this, and just wanted to mention that aside from being a bad idea generally, it is against the rollback policy to use the rollback tool to edit-war with a good-faith editor – much less on their own talk page. I understand that you are just trying to help (and I agree 100% that that page should be archived) but those reverts were not at all an appropriate use of the rollback tool, and I hope you will not do something like that again. Let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was mere frustration really. Hindsight says it wasn't a huge issue and the extra five seconds to click "undo" instead of "rollback" would have been a little better. It's been a long day, my apologies. Dusti 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dusti. I can relate to the frustration, I am no stranger to long days myself. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

About Vikramjit Singh

Hi Dusti. I've declined the speedy deletion of that article. Though it was difficult to find, there was at least an indication of significance there. I hate to sound like a NPP grump about this ("Seems, madam? Nay, it is.") but do remember it is also for improving new articles as well as identifying which ones should be deleted. Thanks, mate. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

• Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!

• In the media: Misplaced Pages is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess"

• Traffic report: Dead Black Men and Science Fiction

• Featured content: Honour him, love and obey? Good idea with military leaders.

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Rytlock's Critter Rampage Deletion

Hello, wikipedia user. Recently, you added a pro deletion to a deletion nomination for an article Rytlock's Critter Rampage. The article has been greatly improved since then, and I would like you to reconsider your vote. The user who added the deletion tag, has re-added it (with your pro delete vote) even after said article has been improved, and I would like to see if you still agree if the article should be deleted or not. If you do, please let me know what you feel the article is missing so that I will be able to help retain its place here on the wiki -Rob 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ralph LaVenture Cram Aviation Pioneer

Somebody I cannot figure out how to reply to deleted the page, but not for the reasons you stated. Yes, I accidentally submitted when I just meant to preview. So, since I did not know how to move it out of published space, I quickly edited to address your concerns. However, then, as soon as I went back to beef up, expand, etc, this other person deleted it for "unambiguous copyright violation." That's balderdash, as the section (I guess - he did not say) he refers to (a) I cited the source, (b) contains only info readily available in many sources, and so was not even original with that source, and (c) I paraphrased. The photo is public domain. Please give me my code back so that I can finish this article and not have to start over again from scratch. Obviously, this guy, who has contributed little but deleted thousands, jumped the gun. Jpournelle (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dusti isn't able to give it back to you. Only "this guy" can - and won't. (Hi, Dusti.)--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23, on your own talk page, which I figured out how to access after posting here, you've already made it abundantly clear that I am unwelcome in wikispace. Enjoy the electrons. They are all yours now. I shan't be using them again. I have no desire to feed trolls. And you might consider reading Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. I as doing my best, and you treated me like dirt. Jpournelle (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD: GIK Institute Clock Tower

Greetings,
Regarding your closure of the discussion: Are you sure you made the right decision? The source(s) brought upon by TopGun are invalid, and they still fail to establish independent notability for the subject. The article also violates the WP:GEOFEAT criteria, which clearly suggest that a building's mere existence does not automatically make it notable for a Misplaced Pages article, and a trivial mention of the tower in one source won't help. Would you kindly re-read the discussion and revert your closure to give it more time? Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fitzcarmalan - thanks for coming to me. I read the discussion and while I understand that you disagree, there's a clear majority that think the article should be kept. I'll ping a couple of trusted admins (@Anna Frodesiak, Bbb23, and Wifione:) to review the decision and if they feel I made an error I trust their judgement and welcome them to revert me (or endorse the decision). Is that ok with you? Dusti 05:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You three, the discussion is here Dusti 05:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dusti. Generally, if a non-admin closure is challenged, the best thing is to undo it and let an admin handle it, even if you got it right. From looking at the discussion, I would say there's a consensus to keep the article. I don't find what the nominator says above to contradict the consensus. All that said, closing AfD discussions is not something I do, so I wouldn't call myself an administrator expert in the area. You could wait until Anna or Wifione responds. Perhaps they can be more helpful than I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I'm entirely okay reverting myself, I just figured it may be faster and/or easier to ping an admin to go ahead and review it. The three of you seem to be my "go to" sysops. :) Dusti 05:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So wait to see if the other two respond. Waiting a bit won't hurt anything. Very little is as urgent as some people think it is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for considering this. I'm rather disappointed though to see that the number of !votes can affect the outcome of an AfD. Let alone a merge proposal, move discussion, etc. Anyway, I won't object if the two remaining admins endorse the closure. Thanks again. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the number of !votes - rather, it's the overall consensus. Granted, the more people that !vote keep push the consensus towards keep, but the fact is there's a greater consensus that disagrees with you than agrees with you. That, given with the fact that there's not been any discussion on the AfD for four days, shows that the discussion is pretty much done and all that's needed to have been said has pretty much been said :) (FWIW, I am neutral and have no opinion on if the article should stay or go) Dusti 06:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I wouldn't say that everyone disagrees though. Two editors said that it is better off merged per WP:PRESERVE (however, most of the article is uncited). That said, I won't be making any merge proposal either, as there is a noticeable nationalistic takeover of this topic area and (in this particular case) a possible COI that I simply don't have much energy to deal with right now. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't find the closure out of the ordinary, the cumulative sum of arguments and editors seems to rationally match the close summary by Dusti as well, but Fitzcarmalan seems to be going at it as if it was some controversial article... anyway, please clear your concepts about COI - I don't have any kind of COI if it was a point at me. I'm an alumnus not an employee (wouldn't have had it even if I was a student editing independently - let's not apply your logic or people won't be allowed to edit their city or even country articles... COI depends on close association in a way that you can edit on behalf on the subject not on (once upon a time) knowing about the subject in real world) and I graduated so long ago that even the freshers I knew are graduates by now; that said, this article isn't even about the institute. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the AfD. I have four points of consideration. All four should be noted carefully:

1. The Keep statements do not have a policy basis. There is no evidence of GNG provided, either in the article, or in the arguments of the !voters. The Youth Magazine source only refers to the clock tower, without delving into intricacies.
2. Any admin closing the AfD, including me on any normal day, might not question the intent of the Keep !voters and would consider the Keep !votes in good faith and would close the AfD as Keep without prejudice to early re-nomination. More so because it's not a BLP, it's not an attack page, it's not a controversial page, it's simply a geographical icon that's supposedly one of the tallest constructions in the region; and the page is not harming the project currently.
3. Any admin whose close is questioned, may either open the AfD for a few more days for more comments, or simply refuse to change the Keep. In the case of the latter, one should wait for perhaps three months before renominating the article for deletion - three months would be reasonable time for significant coverage from local language newspapers to come up.
4. Irrespective of this, nothing trumps GNG over a longer duration. When an article like this is renominated for deletion with a clear context, reviewers would perhaps take more effort to get reliable sources to satisfy GNG.

Fitzcarmalan, I agree with your views from an administrative closure point of view; but my view here is that rather than changing the Keep close, perhaps we can request Dusti to add the following statement to his close, without prejudice to an early renomination in case significant coverage is not provided in due course. This would help you in renominating the article in the said three months' duration. Other than that, I would not recommend changing the Keep close of Dusti. Now that we've had an AfD, give it some time, as we do in cases where notability is suspected (like Prof) but references are not readily available. This building is supposedly amongst the tallest towers of the region. If that comes up in any reliable source, no admin would be deleting the article anyway in the future. Like I mentioned, let this AfD be right now. Take it up again in a few months time. Wifione 11:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert your NAC porn closures immediately.

Per WP:NAC, such actions should not be taken prior to the end of the standard deletion period, and you acted nearly a day early, vefore I would comment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) HW, can you link to the specific discussions you are talking about please. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not a talk page stalker, you're a Wolfowitz-stalker who's following me around; you just quite abusively removed my speedy tag from an unreferenced article which accused a living person of murder. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jayden Jaymes Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brittney Skye There may be more; Dusti took blitz-action on about 80 AFDs earlier today, as rapidly as six per minute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at those discussions, and neither was premature. They both ran their seven days and closed with unanimous support to keep other than the nominator. Feel free to take the matter to DRV if you disagree with the closes, but coming here and stopping your feet demanding that this experienced editor "Revert NAC porn closures immediately" is entirely inappropriate and indicative of a BATTLEGROUND which suggest that you're NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I did go through and take action on (perhaps 80?) AFD's last night. 99% of those were relists, hence the "as rapidly as six per minute". If you're going to request that I do something, I kindly ask that you come here in a professional manner and politely request whatever action it is that you're asking me to do. Demanding that I "Revert NAC closures immediately" doesn't tell me where you think I did something wrong. I appreciate you eventually telling me which two Jayden and Ms. Skye were closed on their seventh day of discussion. If you look, they were all in consensus for a clear keep - in line with the essay you continue to link me to. Further, even if you did !vote Delete, there's still a clear consensus against you, which is still okay. I'm not going to argue with you, I just wanted you to see the rationale for my decisions and my actions. I will go ahead and revert now and make a statement regarding what's transpired here. Dusti 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  When you say "closed on the seventh day", you're acknowledging your error. Closing on the eighth day means the seven-day period has run; closing on the seventh day means it hasn't. And the error was more like 20 hours, not 20 minutes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't realize this was still going on. HW - discussions are of a seven day length. That doesn't mean that they cannot be closed on the seventh day. If, at the seven day mark, there's a clear majority and holding the discussion open longer will serve no valid purpose, it is acceptable to close it. The discussion had been open for seven literal days. I don't know why you're nit-picking here or why you're attempting to stir controversy over something that was entirely uncontroversial. If you have something constructive that you'd like to share, I ask that you please go ahead and share it. I've done as you asked, and I ask that you now move on. Dusti 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

I think you deserve this because so far as I can tell there isn't any sort of barnstar specifcally appropriate to someone who has the courage to put himself in a position where even the optimun desired outcome is one which many people would not unreasaonably consider something that may be more trouble than it might be worth to them individually. Thank you for having made yourself a candidate, and for the level of interest and dedication to the project that doing so indicates. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)