| Revision as of 18:45, 18 October 2006 editRedvers (talk | contribs)29,889 edits →Too Cool: Disappointed.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:21, 20 October 2006 edit undoMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits archiving old discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| # | # | ||
| # | # | ||
| # | |||
| # | # | ||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks! | Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks! | ||
| == arbitration == | |||
| Two users who are suspiciously singling me and my pages out, claim that by posting any links to commercial sources we are violating Misplaced Pages policies. This has the interesting altrusitic aim that anything outside wiki must be bad. While I agree random links and blatent advertising are wrong, links are intended to show people where to find more information, not to assume WIKIPEDIA has an infinite amount of space for all information, which is edited forever. Please take a look at ]] 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == <nowiki>{{</nowiki>prod}} and <nowiki>{{</nowiki>AfD}} == | |||
| Thank you for informing of the policies regarding prod tags and AfD procedure. I've been replacing them because editors arbitarily remove them without discussion, and I had thought the proper procedure was to invoke discussion before allowing the tag to be delted. Thanks again. - ] 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == <nowiki>{{speedy}} or {{db|reason}} tags </nowiki>== | |||
| Would you say, then, that ]' first speedy sould have been CSD A3, <nowiki>{{db-nocontent}}</nowiki> ("''no content other than external links of whatever kind...''")? I really do disagree with obvious advertising not being able to be speedied. Every second they're listed, they run the chance of being mirrored, and/or used for advertising or promotion of legitimacy for commercial endeavors who think having an article gives them a momentary notability boost. - ] 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| OK. I would (and will) argue aginst this, but if there has been previous discussion, I should read it first. ;-) Can you help me find the discussion? Where is "meta or media"? We don't put any ''other'' image categories directly into CSD, why this one? But in any case, thanks for letting me know. ] 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't been able to find any discussion on suddenly doubling CSD's size with ''non-urgent'' images linked from the page... There were three pages linked there, and none of them seemed to discuss the insertion of the material into CSD. What am I missing? ] 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey -- can you point me to where the debate about this template was taking place? Was it on mediawiki? I remember seeing it at one point and you were involved. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It was primarily at ], although it came up on ] at some stage also. ] (]) 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As for {{tl|no license}}, it's divided by date, and I at least, do use a semi-bot to go through the categories after the five days and get rid of stuff. I don't object to deleting these images before 5 days, I just object to broadening CSD with things that are more chronic (and repetitive) than the normal CSD-worthy articles that are in there ususally. Maybe we could make (yet) another category, and put them there... in any case, a WP:AN post seems useful. Feel free to copy whatever of this seems good. ] 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == This is where Misplaced Pages is fun and not completely frustrating. == | |||
| Since you seem interested in keeping ], I just wanted to inform you that it's up for ] yet again. ] 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: CSD == | |||
| Thanks for the reminder! At the time I initially tagged it, the article did not state the significance of the artist. The author kept removing the speedy tag and must have added more content simultaneously, which I should have paid more attention to. Thanks! -- ] 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] history undelete == | |||
| I left a message on ] talk page about this: I have a hard time believing that ] is not a massive copyvio. Since you cast the sole overturn vote, you might want to chime in if it is worth keeping. ~ ] 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thankyou == | |||
| Thanyou for your help. Peace be with you--] 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Werrington Lakes == | |||
| <s>Since you think that the {{tl|prod}} on ] was vandalism, perhaps you would care to tell us a bit more about these lakes. Like giving us a ] or indeed any external link. I expect you are going to tell us that the ] has been renamed Werrington Creek. -- ] 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| I better come clean: see . The original author gave absolutely no context but from whatlinkshere and the content, it was obvious that the article was about NSW. Out of mischief, I added a link to the Peterborough, Werrington. Elonka then came along and blindly "improved" it, blithely ignoring the fact that there is no railway station and no Werrington Creek. Continuing the mischief, as an anon, I added the prod. No comment on your removing the prod and leaving inaccurate text in place. After adding a second anon to the article and the comment above, I decided I had better check and found to my horror that lake/s of this name exist in ! -- ] 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My block. == | |||
| I've been unblocked. Thanks for your help anyway. Norman. | |||
| --] 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for unblocking my account. --] | |||
| == 38acres == | |||
| Has toured entire midwest (IL, IN, WI, MI, IA, MN) and has done as much, if not more, as other acts listed on your web site such as Insyderz, W's, etc. I dont get the purpose of the site and how to function. I am not "marketing" the band just describing who they are. Their upcoming album is being mixxed by 8 time Grammy winner, Paul Salvo, at SalvoMixx in Nashville. Not sure what your "guidelines" are and how to meet them? | |||
| == Radwell International Deletion Review == | |||
| Thank you for offering to help me open the deletion review process. I have been very careful not to be "spammy". I continue adding material to this article and to others where I feel I can provide value. Greg. | |||
| ==Scientific notability guideline== | |||
| Hey, I noticed that we have notability guidelines on everything from ] to ], but none on scientific concepts, theories, and terms. I started putting some intitial ideas together at ] and am looking for contributions and feedback now. If this essay can gather some steam we could move it into the WP space and make it an active proposal. There are lots of particulars in debates about scientific topics such as peer-review, citations, impact factor, etc., that editors should be made aware of before they offer an opinion based on the "Google test", and I think it would be a good way to collect all of this in one spot. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers, ] 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)''' | |||
| *I appreciate the effort, but I think it might be damaging to Misplaced Pages, actually. Notability (otherwise known as "importance") is something that should REALLY only be applied to types of topics that have an endless quantity of subjects within them. It makes sense for people, since we can't cover everyone. It makes sense for companies, so that we can filter out promotional articles. It makes sense for bands, since again, self-promotion is a problem, and there's no need to have articles on bands that aren't established. I don't think it makes sense at all for ], since ] is the true test there, and "notability" adds nothing. I think it's even worse for scientific concepts and theories: see , in which an obscure scientific topic is held out as an example of why we *shouldn't* require notability for everything. The only real reason to have a notability guide for science is if we're bowing to the fact that "notability" and "includability" are the same thing and apply across the board. ] is not an official guideline, and in fact has been rejected several times; it's an essay. Notability is something that screws up deletion big time: I saw someone PROD a Celtic deity once, saying it was "not notable" -- since when do Gods have to be notable? ] and ] tell us everything we need to know about the inclusion of most articles; we only need notability when we need to interpret "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and I don't see how someone can claim that covering too many scientific theories makes Misplaced Pages indiscriminate. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh, when I say "damaging," what I mean is that having such a guideline perpetuates the notability misconception. I would support having ] say simply "Notability does not apply to science. The criteria for inclusion are ] and ]." :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Fair enough. It's not a view I share since I believe "notability" is a corollary of ''] indiscriminate information'', but I accept your view. I'm not a big fan of the notability guidelines myself, but I've seen science AfD's gone horribly wrong because editors thought Google search (or even Google scholar search) were indicative of a subject's importance. ~ ] 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***That would be wrong. ] is a criterion as well. ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **]. The reason that notability is not such a concern in the field of science is in fact that notability's primary purpose is to make sure that Misplaced Pages does not turn into a directory, in accordance with what Misplaced Pages is not. There are directories in the fields of people, businesses, products, services, and web sites. There are no such equivalent ''science directories'' for an encyclopaedia to avoid being. Sciences don't have dates of birth, addresses, sale prices, or telephone numbers. ☺ ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing references == | |||
| When you merged ] to ], why did you remove all of the references? References are ''good'' things. References are what enable readers of ] to know that the paragraph on orgling therein, which they may not have even heard of before, is actually correct and not some fabrication. If you are going to talk about verifiability, as you do above, then ''please help to ensure that articles are verifiable''. Removing references is the ''opposite'' of doing that, and actually makes the encyclopaedia ''worse'', not better. ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:Speedy of 38 Acres== | |||
| Ok, sorry about that - I'd seen bands of very similar importance speedied before. Also, I have seen many, many AfD nominations that were tagged for speedy half-way through the discuaion, and ended as "the result was '''speedy Delete''', so I had no idea that neither of these was an apropriate procedure since they were being used by experienced editors, and because no-one seemed to be complaining. ] 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "not even all the admins understand it" - I feel better for that! :) Kudos for you for informing people! - ] 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == alright == | |||
| thanks for informing me. my bad. cya around and happy editing! <font style="background:orange">]]]</font><sup><font style="background:red">]</font></sup> 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Nutjobs and specials == | |||
| ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Mangojuice''' for commonsense; and for being open to review but being right and thus not needing it; and for being good for Misplaced Pages in every edit.]] | |||
| Heh heh! You gave him enough rope. And he then handed the rope to me and asked me to beat him with it. I declined and showed him the door. | |||
| Everyone was happy with the result. Well, maybe he wasn't. But the rest of us can live with it :o) | |||
| Oh, and have one of these. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) <br clear="all"> | |||
| == Hunter91 and co. == | |||
| I suspect actual sockpuppetry. Review ] for yourself and notice the distinct pattern of coordinated vandalism to articles such as ] and userpages such as ] and ]. The "meatpuppetry" voting for Hunter91 was just the last straw that linked them altogether. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Polls: == | |||
| Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Misplaced Pages & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... {{Smiley}} -- ] 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == futureobservatory (David Mercer) copyright == | |||
| I have left an email for your 'permissions' which simply explains: "As a best-selling author, over several decades and several dozen books, many of my submissions come from my books; especially from "A Dance Through the Fires of Time", "IBM: How the World's Most Successful Coropration is Managed", "Marketing" and "Future Revolutions". However, I hold the copyright for all of these - and assign any relevant aspects of this to Misplaced Pages." | |||
| Dr David Mercer | |||
| == A thumbs up... == | |||
| ...to your AfD closure for 65 episode policy. While I did think it should be kept, that was possibly the most perfect closing explanation I've seen at AfD in a while. Since I'm perfectly willing to go after people for poor closes, it seems only fair to give kudos to the good ones, so *thumbsup*. --] <small>]</small> 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Siberian == | |||
| Look, Mangojuice, before you are going to make a huge mistake by deleting this article, let me show you my analysis of the vote thus far. I sent this earlier to ]. | |||
| First of all, let me say that I completely agree that it this AfD was a hell of a mess. Yet, your answer don't convince me at all. You say that you discounted "pretty much anyone who didn't bother to make an argument". Look, I want to keep this whole discussion as civilised as possible, but in this case I really think you made a wrong decision. Indeed, it was a hell of a mess and sorting out the votes and arguments wasn't an easy task. I don't even expect you, as a admin, to read every single sentence that was written. So I took the liberty of doing it for you. It took me quite a few hours, but I think it was worth the effort. Here is the result. Let's first count the votes. | |||
| If we merely look at the votes for '''keep''' (including strong keep, mild keep etc.) and the votes for '''delete''', we get: '''31 keep''', '''32 delete''', '''2 abstain'''. That is, completely disregarding any arguments used or any number of edits made. | |||
| Of course, we don't want to include the votes of those who merely joined in order to vote here. If we discount anonymous voters and people who made no edits before this AfD was started, we discard: | |||
| * 11 for keep: ], ] (Rutopist), Roman Baiduk, ], ], ], 1 Anonymous, ], ], ], ], and | |||
| * 2 for delete: ], ]. | |||
| Which still gives us the result of '''20 keep, 30 delete'''. This would still classify as '''no consensus''', methinks. | |||
| If we discount the votes not only of those who had no edits, but also of those who had few edits (less than 50), we additionally discard: | |||
| * 6 for keep: ], ], ], ], ] (]), ] (]), and | |||
| * 5 for delete: ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
| Thus, we end up with the following list of people who had a lot of edits before this AfD started: | |||
| * 14 for keep: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and | |||
| * 25 for delete: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and | |||
| * 2 abstained: ], ]. | |||
| In other words, among the people with 50+ edits the final result would be '''14 keep, 25 delete'''. Although a clear majority of the voters voted for deletion, this is by no means what one would call "rough consensus". Please note that none of these 14 keep voters can be counted as "part of Zolotaryev's flashmob". | |||
| But you are right, it's the arguments that should decide. So let's evaluate them a little. | |||
| * in favour of "keep": | |||
| ** Several people pointed out that the language got "serious media coverage" (]) or that it "look like a sufficiently notable ] in that it has generated substantial press attention (]). | |||
| ** "Article (...) seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article ''about'' OR" (]). | |||
| ** "request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately." (]). The Siberian test wiki has over 1,500 articles. | |||
| ** "This is as valid as ] and ]. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (], who also added that the language is very complete). | |||
| ** Several of the "keep" voters agreed that the article should be reclassified, either as a dialect or as a conlang. Some of them also made suggestions for improvement. | |||
| * in favour of "delete": | |||
| ** "Original research, not outside the internet" (]). | |||
| ** "A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years" (]). | |||
| ** "shameless self-promotion" (]). | |||
| ** Several people argued that the language is not real, fake. For example: "There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people" (]). | |||
| Let me just point out that the argument that the language is artificial should not be a reason in itself to delete it. There are over 200 articles about constructed languages in Misplaced Pages.en, a lot of them are far lesser-known than Siberian. If the article contains factual inaccuracies, that should be solved by improving it, not by deleting it. | |||
| Let's also have a look at a few non-arguments used in the discussion. Disregarding comments of the type ''"Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture"'' or ''"The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics"'', we still have: | |||
| * in favour of "keep": | |||
| ** "This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too" (]). Sure. My shoes exist as well. | |||
| ** "This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it" (]). That's autoreferencing. | |||
| * in favour of "delete": | |||
| ** "it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience" (]). It is explicitly stated that Misplaced Pages is a world-encompassing project, so wp.en is not exclusively targeting the Anglosaxon world. | |||
| ** "This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since" (]). This is not true. The original article was a stub with a merely a link to a LifeJournal. This was a decent article with plenty of references to the language itself and its press coverage. | |||
| ** "the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails ]" (]). Not true, most of those links are actually references. As somebody pointed out, that was merely a formatting problem. | |||
| ** "nonnotable conlang without ] code" (]). This wikipedia features at least 200 conlangs without an ISO 630 code (very few actually have one). Several of them have passed AfD's with a broad consensus for "keep" nonetheless. | |||
| ** "with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified" (]). There is no policy that says references must be in English, just that they are in English ''whenever possible''. | |||
| ** "A set of words is not a language" (]). Perhaps the most ridicilous argument used in the whole AfD. Apart from the fact that it is not true, it wouldn't apply to Siberian even if it were. | |||
| ** "Was deleted in russian wikipedia too" (]). Yes. So? | |||
| I did another count: how many people used reasonable arguments in their vote (not counting the "per" votes and the most obvious nonsense, but counting opinions I disagree with)? My conclusion: '''16 keep''', '''14 delete'''. | |||
| Last but not least, I would like to note that during the AfD several improvements have been made to the article. I can't check it anymore, but ] renamed the article, and ] modified it to make it acceptable also to many of the delete voters. Unfortunately, both efforts have gone virtually unnoticed, but in fact they invalidate several of the previously made delete votes. Also, someone made the suggestion to substitute the article with a translation of the Dutch version (written by me), which many considered adequate and NPOV. The thought hadn't occurred to me, and unfortunately I hadn't seen that part. | |||
| Let's not even discuss the vote-stacking here. As you know, Andy Volokhov approached everybody who previously voted "delete", and calls to come here and vote for deletion were placed both in the Russian wikipedia and on the Russian messageboard here. But in all honesty, I suspect other people might have been doing something similar to gather keep voters, although I haven't seen it. | |||
| Yet, Man in Black, I don't really know how you got the idea that hardly anybody bothered to make an argument. In fact, I believe the "keep" arguments in general are much stronger than the "delete" arguments (mostly the usual non-notable/vanity kind of stuff). I guess the whole point of all this is the following: no matter how you count the votes, and no matter which arguments you decide to discount, the conclusion would always be: '''no consensus'''. I'm not going to attack you, nor am I questioning your good faith. But I really believe you should revisit your decision, in either of two ways: | |||
| * you restore the article and reopen the discussion, to see what new opinions can be gathered; | |||
| * you restore the article and close the discussion, with "no consensus" as its conclusion. | |||
| I really don't want to turn this into a personal attack on you. I don't want to make this incident more important than it is. And frankly, I don't want to start a Deletion Review either, because that would mean starting over the whole discussion all over again, which I believe nobody is waiting for. | |||
| That was what I sent to A Man In Black. Since he reopened the vote, one additional delete vote and one additional keep vote have been issued. So believe me, there is really no other conclusion possible than "no consensus". | |||
| Best regards, —] ] 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Thanks for your comments. However, although I basically didn't count votes (it was clear this debate attracted so much attention on BOTH sides that numbers would mean very little), I did examine all the arguments. I think the best thing from AMIB's talk page that backs up my decision (btw, I didn't read that until after my explanation & decision) was when he said that the sources detail the movement/project, but nothing seems to talk about the language at all. As I pointed out, a "no consensus" would be, pure and simple, BAD for Misplaced Pages. In big debates like this, we need a decision, so we can move on. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::Well, that is precisely the problem. These sources actually dó discuss the language. I don't know why some of them have been removed. As one of wikipedia's self-proclaimed experts on constructed languages I can only say: if this language doesn't meet the notability requirement, then no more than ca. 20 of the current 250 or so do. —] ] 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is to say, I fully understand your reasoning, but I disagree with it for two reasons: | |||
| ::* you say "no consensus" is not a decision. I don't agree with that. It ís a decision. Once an article is AfD'ed, it can go two ways: it is deleted when there is rough consensus for deletion, it stays when there isn't. | |||
| ::* you introduce several new arguments for deletion, which haven't been discussed at all. Instead of introducing them now, you should have introduced them in the discussion itself, so that we can talk about it. | |||
| ::For the record, I agree that the article in its current state is not a great example of NPOV. However, there are other ways of fixing that than deleting it. | |||
| ::Regards, —] ] 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A cappella redirects == | |||
| Please check for double redirects while you're redirecting articles on collegiate a cappella groups to ]. Thanks. --] 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD of ]== | |||
| I question your closure of ] as delete. Discouting IP's and sockpuppets, there were 3 votes to delete and 2 to keep. That looks like no consensus to me. After being "relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached" there were 2 (valid votes) for keep and 2 for delete. I don't know how you could make the determination that consensus was reached after that and close it as delete (only 6 hours after being relisted). Furthermore, while Misplaced Pages is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best. "If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it". - If an article could be improved, then vote keep and rewrite, not delete. "Notability not shown" - If it passes ] (which it does) it doesn't need to be notable to have an article (even though I feel the company is notable). I would suggest undeleting and re-opening (and re-listing) the AfD to truly get a better consensus. ] 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :AfD is not a vote, but a debate. One side '''can''' win out even with equal, or even minority, representation if that argument is sufficently persuasive or otherwise weighted. Sorry to butt in, the sig intrigued me and I clicked the talk button. It may be an unwelcome intrusion, and for that I apologize. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you missed my comments noting that very point. ''"While Misplaced Pages is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best."'' Thanks for backing up my statement though. ] 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Free Range Studios on deletion review== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ] 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == help with Eric Lerner page == | |||
| Can you help out on my page again? I feel that the protected version is now extremely unbalanced and , in contradicting that I was a Visiting Astronomer at ESO, libelous. | |||
| == Request for Review of AfD == | |||
| Hello. Could you please take another look at the ]? While your decision to keep two of the articles was correct in terms of consensus, it seemed there was clear consensus to delete the third, ]. You may not have looked closely at the comments, but most people that voted "keep" also agreed that this one out-of-place month should go. It can always be put through AfD again, but I think it's kind of unnecessary given the sentiment expressed on the aforementioned page. Thanks. - ] 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for reconsidering this closure. ] 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A poem == | |||
| I have left you a personal poem on your user page. There is no need to pay me for this service. ] 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siberian language (2 nomination) == | |||
| Wow, I have to say: Great close and excellent closing statement. I've seen this one bouncing around the AfD lists, and I was scared to wade into it. Tough call, but the right call, and your closing arguments were extremely compelling. --- ] (]) 04:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Magojuice. This is the comment I left in response to ] about this: | |||
| :In response to your query, I did take a look at the votes in the AfD. However, I speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags. In its current form, the article was a vanity page created by the subject that did very little to establish the notability of the subject. However, since there was almost nothing in the article anyway, it should be a trivial matter to recreate it with content that conforms to the Misplaced Pages manual of style and other relevant guidelines. | |||
| :If you would like, I can look at the deleted content and reproduce it here for you, if you intend to recreate a suitable article and need any lost information. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| Ryan | |||
| == ] player AFDs == | |||
| These are good faith nominations. I am satisfied that there is consensus not to include non-notable collecitble card players. If we are to delete an article about a CCG player on the basis that it fails the criteria of ], then M:TG players should not be given special consideration. The articles I'm nominating do not include sources and do not substantiate notability beyond the realm of M:TG. Note that I am not going to nominate ] because it does meet the criteria of ] and ]. -- ] (] • ]) 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please re-open the closed nominations. This deserves discussion as to whether or not ccg players are notable. -- ] (] • ]) 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| Hey, I just wanted to drop you a quick note. Kudos for admitting your perception of bad faith—too many people confuse "assume good faith" with "don't admit you assumed bad faith" which are two different things. For that, I appluad your honesty and also your moderation in requesting another administrator to become involved rather than exacerbating things through a potential conflict of interest. Of course, when you do the noble thing the outcome isn't always as you like and it seems your slant may not be that of other admins viewing the issue, so I just wanted to reaffirm your actions in what I saw at ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for clarification on AfD closing== | |||
| Hi, MJ. I was wondering if you could clarify your closing decision on ]/] so I can understand how ] should be interpreted. In this case, how can we tell that it meets or doesn't meet ] if no references or citations are provided? I assume that this information is (potentially) verifiable based on the comments of the other editors, so I really don't have a problem with the decision. Thanks! -] 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work! -] 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank You == | |||
| I would like to thank you for removing the autoblock. I am also trying to find the username change page. Can you help? Oh and the IP being blocked may be a future problem due to the fact this is a school IP. My username is FallenBoy897. | |||
| == Wicked595 - thanks == | |||
| I got all my stuff sorted out and my new username setup. Thanks for your help. | |||
| == Jordan Waring == | |||
| Hello. | |||
| I see that you recently deleted the "autobiography" tag on ]'s article. A number of people, including me, have tried to help Mr. Waring with citation format and internet searches, etc., and I did not vote to '''delete''' his autobiography in the recent AfD, but I was wrong. Waring continually comments on his own article (and was the main commenter on the AfD), and he argues with anyone who tries to improve it. The "substantive" material on the article was added by Waring (from his publisher's liner notes, mostly), or from Amazon.com., and much of it is not verifiable from reliable sources. Anyone who has received reivews on their work will, of course, cite only the favorable ones. Now he has threatened another editor on the talk page of the article, and he continues to remove the "autobiography" tag, even though Mr. Shepherd explained why it is necessary (see the talk page). Can you help? -- ] 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your message. I am going to back out of this dispute. Waring only contributes to his own article, his father's (who appears not to be notable), and his grandfather's, and I think if you investigate the edit history on the article, only Waring has added substantive info to the article -- the other editors have merely copy-edited and checked what can be checked on *biased* sources, such as Amazon.com that are trying to sell Waring's album. The fact is, that he reverts any edit that he doesn't like and today threatened another editor. But, it's not worth my losing sleep over it, I guess. Best wishes, -- ] 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re: Sig== | |||
| Hi. I got the sig from ]? Can I have several colors in my sig? <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="darkyellow">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> <font color="oceanblue">]</font><font color="aqua">]</font> 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Oh, thanks! I was unsure at the time on whether to give ] a speedy delete or an afd.--] 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == GreekEconomist == | |||
| Fair enough. I wasn't completely convinced myself, but since I had been fooled by a previous Cretanpride sockpuppet (subsequently confirmed by Mackensen), I didn't trust my judgment. (I put the tags on GreekEconomist's page because I figured he had the right to know what was going on, and for administrative purposes.) I don't have any problem with the unblock. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Mangojuice--before you felt that ] contributions were different enough from ] that they might be different people. Would you mind looking at and , and the activity of ]? To me, these look like sockpuppets, but I'm hardly a disinterested party. Thanks. ] (]) 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you do look at my edit you will see that I merely suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Apro made a post and I responded. I did not support Cretanpride's argument. If you are thinking its suspicious because I have an interest in Alexander the Great, then you have forgotten that I originally named myself after him. Akhilleus seems paranoid and combative of anything I do. '''I didn't even support anything Cretanpride has argued for.''' All I did was respond to a post and then make a suggestion. ] 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh and regarding my edit to Akhilleus, please see what I just posted on his talk page, unless he deleted it. Thanks. ] 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello again. Please disregard my request, as another admin looked into this. ] (]) 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == re: CGS == | |||
| Hello again! I thank you for your comments and i hope i have extended | |||
| the wikipedia community the respect they deserve when it comes to content | |||
| on their sites. CommuniGate Systems is the creator of a very widely used | |||
| email/voip communications client, used by companies such as T-Mobile, British | |||
| Airways, to your every day small to medium business. I have tried my hardest | |||
| to not make this a commercial page, and have only included information that | |||
| can be found in press releases by our company, articles by independent technical | |||
| magazines, such as (von magazine, eweek magazine, linux server, mac world, etc). | |||
| I appreciate your assistence when it comes to developing a page, and i believe | |||
| i have re-submitted the graphics in a professional manner ( i will do much | |||
| more editing hopefully in the upcoming days ). I appreciate all concerns you have | |||
| for the content that is displayed on this page, and i would love to hear any more | |||
| comments you might have, in how i can improve this page, or if i have done anything | |||
| that is contradictory to the rules of wikipedia, please advise me if you can. I understand | |||
| that it is my job as a contributor to acknowledge and understand these rules and regulations | |||
| before any content is submitted, but after comparing to similar minded, corporate pages, | |||
| i am simply trying to follow the templates they have set forth, to have an acceptable page, | |||
| while sticking to the written rules... | |||
| Cheers, | |||
| == Eric Lerner unprotection == | |||
| How long is long enough? It's been three days since anyone has even discussed this page. What if people just lose interest in this so-fascinating subject? Or, just as likely, what if no concensus is ever reached? Surely it would be better to arbitrate disputes than just to leave it in the state that it is in. Compare it in this state with almost any other entry on a controversial scientist. It is way outside any other norms. | |||
| == Restoration of Become.com Entry == | |||
| Dear Sir of Madam, | |||
| Please restore the Misplaced Pages entry for Become.com. This site meets the inclusion criteria | |||
| specified at: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WEB specifically, we have received numerous media | |||
| awards and wide ranging coverage. Examples: | |||
| * PCMag: Top 101 Websites Fall 2005 | |||
| * BusinessWeek: Best of the Web 2005 (nominated 2006...awards yet TBA) | |||
| * Forbes: Best of the Web | |||
| We have also had articles written about us in numerous publications, including: | |||
| * Wall Street Journal | |||
| * CBS MarketWatch | |||
| * MIT Technology Review | |||
| Just to name a few..full listings are available at: http://www.become.com/press_center.html | |||
| If you have any questions, or if I can supply additional data, please contact me at jglick at become.com. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| Jon | |||
| : I'm not sure what article you're referring to. ] has never existed. If you want a deleted article restored, or to allow recreation of one, you should list your request at ] but be sure to include what the title of the article was, or no one will be able to restore it in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for the unblock== | |||
| Thanks for taking the measure necessary for the unblock. I appreciate it. ] 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving the now deleted Auctioning4u entry to WP Corp == | |||
| Can you let me know how I can move the deleted enty (i.e. copy and paste it) to WP Corp. I cannot find the article anymore. Also, while not wanting to reopen the discussion I am curious why the decision has been different than for the ISold It articl? | |||
| Thanks | |||
| ] 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Len Tower again == | |||
| The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of ] has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at ]. Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - ] (] • ]) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've now expanded the stub a bit from the cited sources. I don't have the technical competence, nor the patience, to wade through the thousands of list mailings and usenet postings to see exactly what his programming contributions to the FSF, GNU, and modern Linux distributions are. I know from what I did find that he was one of the core programmers for the GNU project for a long time. Could you reevaluate whether this is keep worthy. I'm asking you in particular as I found your argument for deletion to be strongest last time around. ] 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RE ] == | |||
| I get what you're saying, but I thought it could possibly qualify as a small group. Digging into their website a bit more they seem to have a lot of job positions (I was envisaging a small office of maybe half a dozen people) so you're right, they probably don't qualify. The main problem is now if its doesn't get speedied it gets Prodded. The trouble with PROD is that the article creator can remove it without censure which means an article which is most likely going to get deleted then has to go through the tiresome and bureaucratic AFD procedure, stay on the site for 5 days and consume lots of people's time and effort. So I do tend to "stretch" speedy a little on occasion if I feel the article in question has no real notability, and leave it up to the admins discretion to see if I've overstepped the mark. ] 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please. Really, I need help! == | |||
| Hey again. Fortunatly, I was able to figure out how to perfect my sig. I still need help with my user page. Please help! It's been several weeks now! --]] 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mythic Russia == | |||
| You kindly closed ] some hours ago but the article is yet to be deleted. Sorry if you have this in hand but it might just have been forgotten :-) ] 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Why do you want to delete the article I began, "The Daily Aztec" from Misplaced Pages? Is it unacceptible to post articles piecemeal - must the article be completed before it can be posted? I had planned on adding additional information in installments. If it is simply because the article is in regrard to a student newspaper, please consider that other such articles exist, for example UCLA's "Daily Bruin." | |||
| Please advise. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| ] 05:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RFCU on Zephram Stark == | |||
| Might I suggest some evidence to add to the page requesting checkuser? Given the latest activity, would be best to provide some evidence for the tie and abuse. UninvitedCompany has been declining several based upon the fact that no evidence of abuse has been presented, so I can only image that since nothing other than being a possible sockpuppet of a stark has been stated, it'll get declined. ] 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- ] 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Len Tower article, sources == | |||
| Greetings. I read your comment on the second AfD for ] expressing a potential interest for the article, should there be sources showing notability. I have found and cited some sources which I believe you might find relevant; they are cited in the second AfD, in ] by myself. ] 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == This Catastrophe == | |||
| Why does this article keep coming up for deletion? We do have an album out and a record deal with Flat 42 records, but because wikipedia has never heard of it, it needs to be deleted? the article was created to spread information about an up and coming band, but that cannot be done because one album is not recognised by some code thing i dont even understand? Im not trying to be funny here or anything, but i dont think the articlee needs to be deleted. But if our discography is the only problem, ill delete that bit. please dont delete our article :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :Sorry dude, i understand now. Thing is, seeing as the band have an album and gig regularly, making quite a name for themselves on the underground scene, i thought that they deserved a place on wikipedia just as much as say, metallica or any other band. I wasn't trying to promote anything, jusst to provide information on a subject that interests me and wasn't covered by wikipedia. Please don't delete :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::I mean, it says youre not a paper encyclopedia so there isnt any limit on what you can cover, so i don't understand why everything cant have an article. I was trying to remain neutral and just provide info, not say "This Catastrophe are awesome- see them now! or anything. I genuinely didnt realise small bands werent allowed to have wiki features :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :::ok, but at the end of the debate what happens? if there are more positive then negative comments, it stays? or what? sorry, im new to this place | |||
| <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| == Ok! Still need help though. == | |||
| Thanks. I've already read over those things. :-) | |||
| I kinda wanted for my user page to look like Butchanan Hermit's old User page. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ABuchanan-Hermit&diff=61625289&oldid=61504127 | |||
| That's ''WAY'' too much code for me to adjust though... :-S --]] 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks in advance. I'll ask you Q's if I need certain help. | |||
| In the meantime, I'll ask Butchanan Hermit if he's willing to let me have his old Userpage code. :-) --]] 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've asked him if I could, now to wait and see. --]] 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do you know of anywhere I can find a picture of a ]? With a white background? I was going to put it in my signature, you know, for that personal touch. :-) | |||
| (PS, it'll be small) --]] 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ok. No picture then. --]] 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry I keep asking questions... but do you know where I can find a reference chart of all internet colors? I want to change the colors on my page. :-) --]] 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I just checked the deletion page for the episode and it was said that the result was delete. However, I counted and I got 7-5 in favour of keep. I was told that it was majority rules in deletion votes and I was curious as to why the page was deleted. -- ] 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times on deletion review== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
| ==Cassieiswatching== | |||
| Hi. What percentage of keep/delete votes did you come up with when deciding ] should be deleted? I haven't counted them myself, but it looks fairly balanced between the two. ] 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have just look at the case Scorpion pointed to and I am now alarmed. That was a majority keep vote, and you deleted it? ] 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The notability issue was for the voters to decide, not you. In my opinion 14-19 is a "keep" outcome; it's significantly less than the generally accepted two-thirds minimum. ] 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't realize you were including three IP votes, which makes the issue less clear. I still don't like the decision (or the reasons you are using, concentrating on the article and not the vote), but in that case I suppose it's not necessarily procedurally wrong. ] 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It used to be the case that a 65-75% range was necessary for deletion, to ensure extra weight for keep votes and err on the side of caution, but obviously some admins are slipping towards using simple majorities. ] 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Eric Lerner == | |||
| It has now been two weeks since my Eric Lerner page has been protected and over a week since discussion of it has ceased. Can you now please unprotect it? Thanks, Eric | |||
| *I'm having problems with ] over edits on Eric's article page. After extensive discussion on the introduction, JBKramer is ignoring the agreed introduction, and making edits that discredit the subject, which appears contrary to policy. Please see the section "" | |||
| ::Thanks for your note. I don't want to start an edit war. ] tells us the sensitivities, and Wiki policy on the matter. I've highlighted the points to the other editor who has effectively ignored them. What more can I do? Have I read policy incorrectly, is policy incorrect, or what? --] 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you feel that I have misunderstood policy? --] 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, sources are not necessarily unambiguous fact, but recall that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth".] And ] tells us to (a) Assume good faith (b) that we can us the subject as a source (b) And as I have shown, there are third party sources too? --] 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Andrew Nellis article == | |||
| The Andrew Nellis was unfairly deleted according to the rules of Misplaced Pages. The rules require consensus. There was a majority but no consensus. What gives? This page should be put back up immediately.--] 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, thank you very much for the kind welcome, however I still would like to express my disapproval of you deletion of the Andrew Nellis article. I read your reply that you based the deletion on a 6-3 count after discounting "few edit" persons, (I don't know if I think that this practice is entirely fair, but I will defer to your administrator judgment). However if you could please explain how "count" as you calculated meets the requirements of consensus I would appreciate it. I think that over 30% dissent is significant enough to show there has NOT been a consensus. ] 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This page has been restored by the users who voted to keep it, in total contravention of the majority opinion. I'm not sure I know how to revert the talk page back to the deletion log, but I suppose just clearing out the article will do for now. ] 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As someone who edited the Andrew Nellis article, I was quite surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I somehow missed the entire debate. What reasons were given for deletion? Is that archived somewhere? Who was the admin that deleted it? --] 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Having now read the exchange that resulted in deletion, I agree that the article for Andrew Nellis was extremely flippant. And that was probably in part because it was created by people who know him. (If it were a vanity page, would we have mentioned how fat he used to be?) | |||
| However, I think it's safe to say that Andrew is a "landmark" in Ottawa. He has organized several serious protests (including one that shut down the Ottawa police station) and is an outspoken activist and artist. I vow, here and now, that if the article is retored, I will gut it, rid it of the fluff, and make it more serious, to meet the high standards of a Misplaced Pages encyclopedia entry. --] 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your detailed explanation of the your deletion process, you have reinstilled me with some of the "ideals" that WP stands for. I also am now going to be able to participate in AfD debates much more effectively by looking at the point by point arguments and addressing all that need to be addressed, furthermore I think you alluded to an excellent point which I had previously been having difficulty with, which is the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy of deletion reasons. Thank you again for your excellent adminstrator attention. ] 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == You get a... == | |||
| ] | |||
| --]] 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nude woman pic== | |||
| I noticed you were concerned about this. I think it should be deleted, until proof is provided. While it is online, anyone can use it in any way they want. ] 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with your observation about PGUK. I will leave the present case to your judgement. It might be an idea to put a note on the image page that it should not be used till clearance is given. I am still a little concerned that anyone can download it and potentially circulate it all round the web, even though we're not sure about its origin. ] 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is minimal. I'm just very cautious. ] 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Old images == | |||
| Yes you may delete those images. ] 07:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ip block== | |||
| Thank you for your help resetting the block on my Ip. I can now edit fine on my account. Thanks! ] 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey -- just to let you know, this user is requesting unblocking. I assume the edit was in response to that user's edit on ], but personally, I don't see the edit in question as disruptive, just improperly performed: (added "<nowiki>]</nowiki>" when should have added "<nowiki><nowiki>]</nowi</nowiki>ki>".) Is there another reason I'm missing? ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :; subtle vandalism is still vandalism. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Merging with ] == | |||
| The AfD on ] has been closed with a consensus to merge. I merged in some very basic details of the game into Cliff's article, but feel free to merge more if you can find a way to do it well. You volunteered to help, so I thought I'd encourage that. I do think it's probably a good idea to merge ] there as well, but that's just my opinion. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Tx for the note. In the context of a mini-bio, that probably is all that's worth mentioning. Kinda sad to see that article go from two pages to one sentence, but if I can think of a way to add more in there I will (might expand it to ''two'' sentences! :-) And about ], that game is part of ]'s release history, so it gets an article by that merit. DtD is a better game than Dragon's Plight anyway, so nothing was lost. Again, thanks for the update.--] 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Andrew Nellis article == | |||
| Sorry, but you are abusing the condition of your admin status and the Andrew Nellis article has been recreated in accordance with conditions with Misplaced Pages rules. There was a 7-7 vote on the article being deleted and there was never any consenus to delete this article. There has been a proper ] post made on September 30th 2006. I have also contacted Misplaced Pages concerning this matter as I feel it is insulting for one admin to delete articles based soley on what he feels are "real" users on Misplaced Pages. The user asking for deletion claimed the article was a vanity page. In fact, there is ample evidence from the early history of the ] page that it was created by the same people who eventually asked for its deletion. At first the article made light of Nellis' weight, health problems and political ambitions. This was changed and so-called vanity portions of the article were removed. When the article took the shape of an actual Misplaced Pages article, the users on ] IRC, primarily those from the #Atheism and #memes channels called for its deletion as it no longer mocked Nellis' weight and other health problems. I am going to recreate this article as long as there is no consensus and as long as wikipedia admins wrongfully delete the article.--] 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Counting all votes, including obvious SPAs and meat puppets, at the time I submitted my vote to delete this vanity page, the count was nine to delete and seven to keep. Of course, ], who I assume can view much more information about our accounts and editing practices than we can (such as IP addresses and the like) almost certainly has a better idea of which votes are legitimate and which aren't. ] 01:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Something shiny... == | |||
| ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Mangojuice''' for reasonableness coupled with quick thinking... if only I could manage it too!]]<br clear="all"> | |||
| Meh. I should have seen that option. Bah. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why the hell was I blocked? == | |||
| Hi, why the hell did you block me from editing on 28th Sept? | |||
| == Copyvio CSD == | |||
| Note that the commercial-content-owner provision was changed; now all that is necessary is a clear notice of an incompatible copyright. —]→] • 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why I don't use test4 == | |||
| Re: your recent non-action on {{ipvandal|209.16.74.251}}. This is why I normally don't use test4. This guy has been getting more and more postal and has now started systematically to vandalize various pages. His vandalism after a test4, and your deciding to let it go will have an escalating effect. ''You'' will not have to deal with him, but the editors who work on the ] page certainly will. I do not want an answer from you as I'm sure you are busy with other administrative tasks. I did want to you to know of the negative fallout when you encourage blatant vandalism. It will be a long time before I use test4 again, and is why I have given up on vandalism patrol in general. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not all vandalism is done by kiddies spending a few hours vandalizing Misplaced Pages until they are blocked. The user's IP is probably not dynamic. There are no obvious edits by anyone other than the vandal over a period of 2-1/2 months. I understand backlog. All I said was there are two very clear messages that were given today: The last warning is meaningless; and, for editors, there is little use in going to the trouble of giving warnings. The second was received loud and clear. If we are lucky, he will already have given up with the mistaken impression that he is blocked. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Life is ironic. The real target of this vandal's ire is Fire and Mello and their claim to have discovered RNAi. Today's Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology went to Fire and Mello for that discovery (totally ignoring the plant work that preceeded that, but that's another story). With luck he will have given up now. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A question == | |||
| Hi Mangojuice, you blocked this {{user|AshyLarryMarcySon}} account yesterday for 24 hours, and another one appeared today, {{vandal|SonofAshyLarryMarcySon}}. What do you think about extending the block on the first to indefinite? Should we wait until after the 24 hours are up and see how they edit? ]+] 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|db-corp}} == | |||
| Time to undelete! :) Cheers. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Gang Tian== | |||
| Hi Mangojuice, sorry for potentially causing confusion with the order of the reversion. I added your pov tag, hopefully that was the only thing that had changed. | |||
| The reversion I was re-reverting seems like a kneejerk reaction from 130.158.83.81. For example, they didn't even bother to keep the improved wikilinks I'd added, to ] and ]. Add to that that their reversion is poorly written and unsupported by evidence in a number of places.... | |||
| If that user continues to revert, I'm afraid I don't have time to enter an edit war. Hopefully other people will notice and try to maintain some kind of quality. The whole thing could be a lot better, but I settled for trying to make it better than awful! All the best, --] 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing again== | |||
| Able to edit again :) Will tell you if Forest returns under more socks....<font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Aquafish == | |||
| It's actually quite obvious that Aquafish is ForestH2 (see his edits on ], just 12 minutes after creating his account, where he outs his own sockpuppets). Would you please reconsider your unblock? ] (]) 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This is standard ForestH2 behavior to claim it's his brother, that he's unrelated, whatever. Similar name- compound word (something that ] of his sockpuppets share). He also on another clear sockpuppet that he was now able to create a new account. He makes ] on ], having had no prior contact with Kpjas (yet his sockpuppets have dealt extensively with Kpjas) I would urge you again to please reconsider- ForestH2 and his sockpuppets have been a nuisance for myself and others, and in my opinion, ] has a limit- that's way too many incidents to be a coincidence. ] (]) 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would ask you to reconsider as well - He had several socks which he was using to set-up and manipulate a wikiproject, and was also was using socks to try and gain an admin position and also to vote on other RFA. That's pretty fundamentally "bent" behaviour - what you have actually just done is told him that's ok and if he tries again, well he can just pretend to be the uncle or the family dog next time. --] 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Questions, thanks== | |||
| Thanks for the welcome :) I have a few questions, now 3RR? What's this? What is a monobook.js? Also please explain all the featured/good/and peer review articles. Thanks. <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, thanks. And how can I block vandalism users? There doesn't seem to be a button...Do you need some sort of status or something? About the 3RR, can you self-revert yourself more than 3 times? Why is the You have new messages (last change) bar coming up? I've already checked my talkpage.....Hopefully I am not asking to many questions. Wishes, <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for the support on the Stress article. I'm still a bit of a newbie and have now learned how to add a signature to my statements. ] 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == CrzRussian DRV == | |||
| I think this comment: ''it's just leaving some people the opportunity to further disrupt things. Several people voted "strong oppose" below: what's to stop them from recalling you immediately when this ends?'' is just a tad bit outside of ]. Thank you. ~ ] 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Delete redirects?== | |||
| Is it O.K to delete redirects? <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RFD Nominations == | |||
| You listed quite a few redirects at ] earlier today. However, you have not added the {{tl|rfd}} tag to any of these. Could you please complete your nominations? Thanks. --] 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == An unblock request for you == | |||
| ]. Thanks, <b>]</b> 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : And my apologies to you for not replying immediately; I had to attend to something before I was able to post this to your talk page. ] (]) 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're absolutely right on that. His problems are that in the face of any conflict, he switches accounts, and that he has a tendency to stalk certain areas. I'd be quite happy to let him continue editing in good faith with the assurance that he'd stick to one account, that he'd give the names of every account he's ever used, and that he'd preclude himself from ever seeking adminship. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the block. ] (]) 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re. ] == | |||
| Thanks for the tip. I'm only just becoming familiar with the new (and very welcome) changes to ], and I wasn't aware that A7 had been expanded to include corporations and websites. Very glad to see that it does. But it was my honest opinion of the original article that it was intended to be promotional. The original author (]) edited the article after I tagged it to be less blatantly spamalicious... I probably should've changed the tag at that time. ] 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Beefeaters == | |||
| No, please restore it and prod it. I debated about that for a while, too, but then chalked that line up to self-promotion. (The bit about how the band apologizes for its hiatus made me question the veracity of the claim.) But it is an assertion of notability, and should probably be prodded. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 0.999... == | |||
| So, 0.999... has been featured already, but I'll still try to clean up some of the prose, such as the leads for the second and third proof sections. Please drop by the talk page if you have any more advice! ] 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:LIVING == | |||
| I am fully aware of WP:LIVING, thanks. I believe you should review ], specifically the genesis of the policy regarding "Physics Cranks." ] 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Lerner's theories about the plasma focus are unpublished. ] 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You are aware, I assume, that Mr. Lerner is soliciting donations from the public to his not-tax-exempt Focus Fusion Society, right? ] 15:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh no, he's not doing the soliciting here. He, and the pseudoscientific supporting duped handful, and their conciously-uninformed enabelers, are pumping up his bio here and doing the solicting there. You wrote "Lerner's theories are real and have received significant coverage." Cuerden wrote "Frankly, the more I investigate you, the more it appears you're being appallingly badly treated," to Lerner. Frankly, we should delete the page about a non-notable author and be done with it. If that cannot happen, the page must refelect verifiable information - such information cannot consist soley of positive statements about a non-mainstream, non-credentialed "scientist" (scare quotes intentional). ] 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re-creation of Andrew Nellis article == | |||
| You were the admin that deleted an article on Andrew Nellis a couple of weeks ago ]. You may remember becuase the author then re-created it twice and you had to SALT it. You may want to know that the author has re-created almost the exact same artice as ]. Thank you for your time. ] 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your four "Things to remember" ... I've stolen them outright for my user page (giving you credit, of course!) and added several more of my own. I've also signed your deletion pledge; it makes sense. Thanks again for all you do! ] 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Tim Kirkman == | |||
| And the bar for inclusion sinks another notch. Sigh. I don't blame you, concensus clearly was to keep it, though not for reasons I consider valid: "I've never heard of him, or his films, but that doesn't mean he's not notable"; has had a film at Sundance film festival; "I am quite sure the people that have enjoyed his work find him quite notable". Perhaps it's time to change policy: Misplaced Pages is a collector of random facts. Don't mind me. Regards, ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Apparently you deleted this page after I put the hangon notice on it while I was editing it. I've recreated it. It should no longer meet the A7 criteria. However, I think we need the original contributor's history to remain for GDFL purposes. Could you take a look and restore the history if necessary? Thanks. ~ ] <small>(] / ])</small> 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability (acad) == | |||
| I realize that WP:PROF is referred to a lot - however, this shortcut used to point to existing guideline ] for more than a year until it was changed to point to this proposal (and indeed, the "average professor test" has been a longstanding part of WP:BIO). It is likely that most people who use that shortcut are unaware of the change. Judged by the talk page, there appears to be no consensus for the current wording of the page, and debate has died out for the moment. I think the best way to go from here would be to add a paragraph to ] on academics, since several of the criteria are identical to those listed there; after all, a biography on an academic person is still a biography, so people could be expected to find it there. Yours, ] 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I haven't seen edits before and after me within a minute - by my count the last edit to ] was on September 19, and the last edit to the talk page on September 29 with only five edits total in September. Yes, it's been a long time since PROF pointed the other way, but people weren't notified of the change, and people using a shortcut tend to not read where it goes since they assume they already know what it says (which, incidentally, is why it's generally not such a good idea to change shortcuts around). | |||
| *It's quite possible that the end of a debate means consensual approval, but in this case there appears to be little assent and more tangential other proposals such as Reflux's point system and Zweifel's other system (neither of which got much response). Of course, I would have no objection to reopening the debate if you want to advertise it some more - but it would be easier to take some commonsensical parts and add them to WP:BIO. ] 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Upon further reflection I've undone my edit and dropped a note on the village pump. I wasn't involved in the discussion so I'll leave it to those that were as to whether this is accepted or need further rewording. Yours, ] 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD: Japanese Mythology == | |||
| Can't you see how inconsistent you're being? The debate on ] was not about the notability of a website. As a vital point in Japanese folklore, it was really about the "notability" of Japanese folklore. Sine Japanese folklore lost, I think it's obvious that the only consistent thing to do is delete all the Japanese folklore articles. Shikino 14:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I responded to the post you recently made on ], in response to the above message. Shikino 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Statement== | |||
| Just a note that your might be better placed on the --] 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Can you please step in and delete this nonsense? The article's author keeps removing the speedy delete tag, despite having been warned about such behavior. Thanks. ---] 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your quick action on this matter. ---] 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thank you for doing that.--] 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Invest Sign on deletion review== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
| I would like to ask you for your opinion about Invest Sign software in ] page. Thanks :) | |||
| ==Invest Sign on deletion review== | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
| == necklace image == | |||
| hello, we've seen your message on our page... | |||
| we confirm the licence as declared in the image's detail page. | |||
| regards, --] 23:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| p.s. for any further questions, keep on writing on our talk page | |||
| == Editor Review == | |||
| Hey, I've recently put myself up for the ] process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --] 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Okay. == | |||
| But it's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of correction. I did not state what he said I stated. I have to disagree if I know for a fact that it is wrong, and I was simply correcting him, as I did not make the statement he said I made. - ] ] 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reply regarding article wagging == | |||
| As a reply to what was obviously a "cut and pasted" warning message aimed at myself and at ALLTP, I am rebuttaling the accusations you've placed against me. | |||
| Never once to the best of my knowledge did I violate Misplaced Pages's policies. The main article itself was never reverted, and the '''only''' talk page reversions that I enacted were to erase a single comment where the statement was made that "there's as much truth in me wanting that to happen as is there truth in you wanting to kill all of the Jews". That comment is a baseless irrelevant personal attack which had no bearing on the discussion at hand, which is why I reverted it. You will notice that LEGITIMATE, non-inflammatory, non-personal attack comments that were made on the page were untouched by me. In fact, in the one instance where I accidentally removed a legitimate comment, I immediately re-inserted LTTP's statement. | |||
| Continuing, the argument didn't "die down", I ended it- I admitted that I was at fault regarding the discussion; I had previously viewed a talk page conversation that stated LTTP was planning on moving the article "to the main LTTP page"; when I saw the text, it was on the ALTTP/FS Talk, but I had not seen that it had ORIGINALLY been placed on the Four Swords page, and when FS had been moved to ALTTP/FS, the talk moved along with it. In fact, the entire argument stemmed from that base misunderstanding regarding the editor's motivations, which is why I apologized promptly to ]. | |||
| Furthermore, your claim of violations regarding ] are unfounded, despite what at the end became a very terse difference of opinions. While yes, the Jewish thing went against the policy, the rest of the entire argument was still civil: it was a difference of opinions regarding the article itself and the any attacks centered directly on the validity of the arguments posed during that argument, not on the person himself doing the argument. | |||
| Quite honestly, stepping in to wag a finger and yell at two editors for percieved violations days after the respective arguments have already been settled civilly strikes me as a phenominal waste of time. There are hundreds of legitimate violators that strike Misplaced Pages at any given moment, changing article text to phallic references and sneakily changing numbers around, thinking they'll never get caught. By focusing your attention on a dispute gone cold, you're spending less time on more legitimate tasks that could be accomplished. You know, ] and some of its associated pages have started filling up with a phenominal amount of unneeded referenced to ingame text, why don't you examine those? ] 06:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'll be honest- my long and rambling reply to you was basically just that- a long and rambling reply designed to express my opinions and thoughts about the situation at hand. Given that I think I've said all that I could say in defense of myself and in defense of LTTP, I would actually like to get the whole ugly mess behind me. I wasn't actually being sarcastic about Chrono Trigger, by the way- those articles could really use some work, but I'm trying to do more research for the ] article I created. Hope I didn't spoil your day. Cheers. ] 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| Hello, Mangojuice. What is your doctorate in? If you don't mind me asking. Just curious. ] 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RussArt.com == | |||
| The article RussArt.com has been just deleted inspite of the fact that I left {{tl|hangon}} tag in the discussion of this page. | |||
| I think you were one the lastest person dealing with that. | |||
| I do not see any difference between RussArt.com and for instance. | |||
| There is also ] as well. | |||
| --] 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Many thanks for honorring my {{tl|hangon}} request. I just hope we are not like in ] here, so there is no "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER." rule applied.<br> | |||
| See again ] and alike.<br> | |||
| cheers, | |||
| <br> | |||
| --] 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == SRsLyT3hB4nz0r name suggestion == | |||
| You suggested SrSlytehbanz0r. But I think this name is too plain looking. The Sr makes it look like an abbreviation for "Senor" and then Sly makes the name look like "Senor Sly" and that's not what I was exactly aiming for. | |||
| A few suggestions: | |||
| SRsLyTehB4nz0r | |||
| SRsLyT3hBanz0r | |||
| SRsLytehB4nz0r | |||
| I would like to keep the SRsLy and the z0r the way it is, if that's okay. | |||
| ] 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The block controversy about User:68.189.255.6 == | |||
| I have an idea on how to handle that block. Why don't we get a promise from *the guest* to never do this ever again? We will watch your contributions to make sure. If *the guest* does this again, the block goes into effect for two months. The minimum length of time would be two or three weeks. ] 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I forgot to rewrite the text - I'm sorry! ] 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I was talking about ] ] 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] FAC== | |||
| Hi, I think I've sorted the images out on the above article which was what was preventing it from recieving your support. The trial image has been removed and images of Senna and Barrichello added. Let me know if you think this is sufficent to satisfy the criteria - ]. Thanks, ] 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Do you find it credible that Ozura is the bona fide publisher of the listed games? A moment's Googling turns up http://www.quicklybored.com/?p=235, for instance. ] 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism of ] by User ]== | |||
| The user ] is reverted <b>sourced edits</b> of ambedkaritebuddhist. I request to block him. | |||
| He is reverting article using popups without discussion and the SOURCED information is also discarded by him. | |||
| Please look into this matter. | |||
| ] 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===] is not ready to discuss=== | |||
| The user ] has reverted his own talk page using pop-ups where I put Warning. This shows the user is not ready for any discussions and misguiding wikiusers by reverting his own talk page without any discussion. | |||
| I request administrators to take <b>very strict action against ]</b>. He is not following any directives nor ready for debate or discussions. Not even ready to debate. Reverting using pop ups. Within few hours he has reverted 4 times. His own talk page and not ready to discuss anything. Can you block him now? ] 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA thanks == | |||
| {| style="background-color: skyblue; border: 2px solid black;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | Hi, {{BASEPAGENAME}}! Thank you for supporting me in my ], which '''succeeded''' with a final tally of '''75/0/1'''! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Feel free to send me a ] if you need any assistance. :) | |||
| |} --''']]]''' 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == S-Man == | |||
| could you please unblock my friend ]. Thanks. ] 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Spam tag== | |||
| Regarding . I had several firefox windows open, and one probably got mixed up. Sorry about that. --] 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is creating problems on ] and again on ] articles == | |||
| You were involved previously in a dispute involving Sarner on the ] page and he banned for a brief period to time. | |||
| He is now beginning again to be disruptive on both pages. He continually reverts the articles from the consensus views to his and ignores repeated requests by me, and other editors, to consider using Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes such as dialogue, polls, or mediation. He clearly will only accept his view, despite being the only voice there. His reverts are disruptive and irritating. Furthermore, the dispute is the same one he was banned for previously. | |||
| On the ] he is doing the same thing, but there he has a clear vested interest. He wants all references to ] removed from the article...but he is the Executive Director of that group and the author of one of the books cited on the ] page as a reference (which is fine, because the reference provides data that meets the Misplaced Pages ] standard). | |||
| If you could intervene...or tell me what would be the most appropriate steps for me to follow at this point, I'd really appreciate it. | |||
| <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Too Cool == | |||
| I find this action disruptive and unnacceptable. You failed to discuss the block with me beforehand, which is standard practice and common courtesy. If you had bothered to show me any respect in this case by further inquiring about my reasoning, you would see that the block is not for sock evasion. This editor has a consistent editing pattern that flaunts our policies and procedures. He had been facing increasingly escalating blocks for incivility, personal attacks, OR/NPOV editing, and outright copyright violation under his old account, and had he continued he would have been permabanned anyway: umpteen warnings and several blocks have been useless to dissuade him, and he ''will'' continue his disruptive behavior otherwise. Jumping accounts to try to hide from administrative attention is not carte blanche for continuing the same activities that caused him to be blocked repeatedly and justifiably in the past. I have reversed your reversal. If you have an issue with that, take it to AN for, oh, I don't know, discussion maybe? --] - '']'' - ] 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Whilst I think Jeffrey is perhaps a little to heavy in his tone here, I would like to express some limited agreement. The block was clearly justified by WP:SOCK and by later actions of the user (blocks apply to ''people'', not just accounts). The unblocking - of an obvious sockpuppet, giving the user a degree of legitimitacy in using two accounts and block-avoiding in future - seems to me to be in poor judgment, or at least has missed out on the obvious potential for future abuse. This was an account blocked by one editor and the block ''confirmed'' by another (me). It hardly seems you had consensus for this. I'm not angry or anything, but I'm a bit disappointed. Thanks. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == vandalism == | == vandalism == | ||
Revision as of 04:21, 20 October 2006
Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Leave a new message. Archives |
|---|
Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks!
vandalism
User talk:Zhanghai He's at it again.Seasalt 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)