Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callmebc (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 9 April 2007 (→Wacky Killian Wildness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
December 2005 - May 2006 June 2006 - November 2006 December 2006 - CURRENT

Essjay quote

I didn't want to reply to your comment on Essjay's talk page because I felt it deserved to stand by itself unmolested. I just wanted to say that on more than one occassion over the last few days I've thought about that quote of Essjay's and have wished he'd simply followed his own advice. Cheers, —Doug Bell  01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all too true, but it doesn't make the quote any less profound or applicable. ^demon 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, although there is often a contradiction between "better", "happier" and "more firendly". Sometimes, the process of making something better does not make it happier, and vice versa—particularly when considered only in the short term. While the Essjay affair has certainly done nothing to make Misplaced Pages happier or more friendly, at least not today, I do hope it has served to make it better, at least for tomorrow. —Doug Bell  03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MediationBot

I've temporarily unblocked this bot account, as your statement suggests that the project is being adversley affected by this block. We can not have bot's running without accountable operators though. I plan on reblocking this bot in 10 days if an owner is not established as having control of the account. This can be done by having the bot log in and edit it's page to reflect the new operator. (Or the old operator can return). Essjay specificaly stated that his bots "will no longer be running." and "My tools will be taken down shortly" so this unblocking may not start the bot back up. We have been speedily approving activation or trials of bots to replace Essjay's bot at WP:RFBOT, you may request a new bot there. Let me know if you have any other needs. Thank you, — xaosflux 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then I'm reblocking the old account. See my note at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/MediationBot1 though, about gettnig the old name. — xaosflux 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paytakaran

I don't understand why you would want to delete evidence that non-admins need to use for the ArbCom. Why would this charter say this? Do you mind if I recreate it in my userpace at least? Khoikhoi 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cases

Hi ^demon. I was wondering why there haven't been any new cases added for mediation recently. Does it have something to do with the bot, or what? Regards. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ^demon - I just felt I'd better note that the bot has automatically deleted the category you added earlier. I'll change the code of the bot at the weekend (or later) to allow that category to be included. Martinp23 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sulla mediation

Understood about the limitation of the mediation committee's remit. Thanks for the interest. I'm not interested enough in Sulla to research and source corrections myself, I am however interested in NPOV and compromise. Cheers Vincent 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the case. I have a few questions.

• What is the next step?

• Who is the mediator? Are you the mediator or will you find a mediator or must we find a mediator?

• Where and how does the debate happen? On the Rfm page? On the target talk page? On the mediator's talk page? Via email? All of the above?

I am very tempted to revert immediately Sulla16's last edit, but I'll hold off a few days to give the process a chance. Cheers, Vincent 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism Mediation

Hi,

A number of editors were discussing this mediation and its scope on the discussion page, and one editor Timeshifter, wanted to be removed from the mediation list. Before I had a chance to do this, the mediation was closed, even though a number of editors on several sides of the issue wanted to move forward. Simply be de-referencing one page and trimming the list of editors, this mediation could have been very constructive. I realize what you did was technically correct, but now what is the next step for those of us who still wat a mediation? If we trim down the range of pages and issues, can we open up another mediation request? Thanks. --Cberlet 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Inbox Alert

Good evening (GMT time); when you've got a spare minute, would you mind checking your Inbox? Thanks, and hope you're well.

anthonycfc 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Hey. Your bot is subst'ing templates that are actually un-substitutable, e.g. . Matthew 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It certainly shouldn't have been created, I can't see any benefit from it :-\, anyhow, cheers for fixing it :-). Matthew 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining TFD nominations

Do you mind combining your template nominations here? Due to WP:MULTI, it's best to not have discussion about very similar topics in the same place. Gracenotes § 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot error

Demonbot2 was replacing a lot of {{cleanup-date}} tags with {{cleanup|date=}}, which doesn't work. Can this be undone by the bot? Or should we change the cleanup template to take a date= argument (currently, it takes an argument, but it works like {{cleanup|February 2007}})? Mangojuice 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From Ep TFD

• Delete per copyvio, name of template, un-needed server strain, etc. I was bold and went ahead and subst'd all the instances of it. Apparently you can't just substitute the template...reverting my bot's edits... ^demon 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may find the Special:ExpandTemplates interface useful for "substing" templates that get like that. --Random832 13:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Question

Hi! Last month, I attempted to join the committee, but was found not to be experienced enough. Essjay invited me to volunteer for cases "when you (me) see the backlog tag go up." Consequently, I either do not patrol the page enough or you folks are very efficient, because I've never actually seen the flag! :) With this in mind, along with the recent dust-up over Essjay:

1. Can I still volunteer for cases?
2. If so, at what point is it appropriate for me to volunteer?

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. --Silverhand 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:CURRENTHOUR

Yeah, I figured out that {{#time:}} had superseded that type of template, and put a deprecated tag there afterwards. Thanks for linking to the discussion, however. :3 Blast 25.12.24 0058 (UTC)

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla

Might have to halt the progress there. See this. I think that you may want to comment on it. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for WP:PDD

Hey demon, I'm getting kinda impatient with the mediation for Wikiproject Psychedelics. It's been more than a week now, and no moderator has been assigned yet! When can I expect the mediation to get underway? Thanks! Jolb 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I commented on your biases :-D.

PS: good luck in your RFA run. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your My RFM

Thanks for noting that; I wasn't sure of the proper procedure. It's a shame it collapsed, really, but they were not willing to continue. —Xyrael / 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Medcom caseload

Hi ^demon. Ive just about finished most of those mediations, though some might require follow up. Ill take the finished ones off the list. -Stevertigo 08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Henry the Navigator article

I think someone needs to get involved in the nasty arguments, most quite incorrect, of one "Dr. Lisboa" re the article on Prince Henry the Navigator discussion page. His discussion points are almost totally wrong, he refuses to acknowledge the fact, and continues to insult those who correct him. I have not the patience to initiate a formal mediation process. But I will say that with contributors like Dr. Lisboa at work, you will never get a decent article on Prince Henry.

Auto-updating user/admin stats

I took the liberty of modifying your quote from me to incorporate the original's source code, to keep the numbers current, rather than keep them as they were at the moment of copy-and-paste. It's amazing how fast the numbers change, and therefore how fast they'd become outdated if we didn't auto-update. I'm glad you find those stats inspiring; so do I. -- Ben /_HIST 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed case

No I havent. Thats new technology to me. -Stevertigo 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Question on my RFA

That is a very valid question that, to be honest, hadn't crossed my mind before. As I said on the question itself:

I had planned on remaining the chair, regardless of how this RfA turns out. I hadn't seen any potential conflicts of interest in being either chair or admin, so I honestly hadn't thought too heavily on this. I do understand that there are situations in which serving in one capacity would make serving in another a potential issue (serving on ArbCom/MedCom comes immediately to mind). However, as most chairs of the committee have been admins while chair, I don't see any reason why I could not do the same. However, if there is some potential issue that you see with this that I'm overlooking, please bring it to my attention.

Do you see a potential conflict of interest? I'm very curious, as this question now has me thinking about that quite a bit.

Regards ^demon 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine possible conflicts of interest but not any likely one. Your RfA is going to pass by a sizable margin so this is somewhat moot. I could see people going either way on your answer. That is, if you say you'd stay some people might be concerned about conflicts; if you say you're going to step down some people might be concerned about loosing a good chair. I wanted !voters to have as much information as possible.

I do think that there are many new editors who, right or wrong, view admins as moderators. Your admining may put you in the other group, but again this can be fixed with a little awareness on your part that you are doing two jobs. I'm sure you'll be able to balance the two roles. Good luck. -- Selket 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

XfD Barnstar

		The XfD Barnstar
		For your contributions to the TfD process, I award you the XfD barnstar. Keep going this way and good luck for the Rfa! Snowolf CON - 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about your 'bot

BACKGROUND: I proposed Template:Youth Empowerment for deletion, since it was set up to include an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink collection of articles with only a slender thread of connection to the topic. The template's creator refined the template, leading to a decision to retain it. The template itself may have been refined, but it is still displayed on many pages where it looks pretty silly. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Youth_Empowerment&limit=100&from=0.) I removed it from a few articles, but I was thinking that if the person who created the template didn't do that task, it ought to be done by a 'bot. User:John Reaves referred me to you, due to your 'bot.

QUESTION: Can your 'bot that can clean up the irrelevant links to this template, keeping the links in articles that are still included in the template?
--orlady 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the TfD link that you requested over on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_14#Template:Youth_Empowerment

My general notion is, as you inferred, to just make sure the template is only on the pages that are listed in the template, but no others. (I don't think it belongs on a few of the pages -- i.e., those for broader topics -- that are listed in the template, either, but that's a minor issue.) --orlady 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arlen Ness

Hi, my name is Mitch. I have recently started my first wiki article, Arlen Ness, for a school project and I have a question for ^demonBot2. I've been working on this article and it's still marked for clean up. Do you have suggestions to help me clean up my page? It would be much apprieciated, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphoss (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

move user talk?

I noticed a recently registered user, user:Wedudley, has moved his user talk to another page. Is this admissible? In case it helps: The user is editing only William E. Dudley, of which he appears to be the subject. The article is currently on AfD, nominated by me. Couldn't find anything on WP:USER referring to this, but the move (and the new name) seem a bit weird. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I suppose if there's no problem with it policy-wise, I'll just leave it. My primary concern was to save the user further trouble. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

I have some advice for you. Someone who failed a Rfa got many people opposing him because he was answering the oppose votes. I would hate to see you fail your Rfa because you are a fine editor. I suggest that you do not answer but let others defend you. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TVep

ah yes, i will digg up my example. Shouldn't take too long. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Replace TVep with this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate&oldid=117676245 and then you can substitute all the template cases. (I have to admit, it's a pain to figure out :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Beat the 'crat congrats...! The Rambling Man 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmph =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nichalp, couldn't resist!!! The Rambling Man 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Misplaced Pages up to date.

Congrats, consensus has been reached and you've been given an early promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulamations :P Martinp23 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the succesful RfA, Chad. All the best. :-) - Anas 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, congrats. Let me know if you have any questions! Prodego 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Well done. Go grab yer mop and bucket - Alison 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your new and shiny mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hey good luck with your new tools! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pile-on-congrats to you, from your nominator :) —Xyrael / 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Congrats! --James, La gloria è a dio 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats, and well done. Daniel Bryant 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Congrats. You got a nice and efficient mop! -- FayssalF - 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA Thanks

No problem, man. You deserve these tools, and I'm certain that you won't let the community down. Congrats on becoming an admin, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, there aren't many AOR's. Well done. Xiner (talk, email) 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your new Big Red Buttons! I trust you won't explode the Wiki; in fact, I can only envision you making it better. Happy editing. ♠PMC♠ 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Just thought I'd swing by to say congratulations on becoming a sysop! Kntrabssi 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Avi 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems mate, you've worked hard and displayed all the behavior that a good admin should. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"RFA Thanks"

Are you just substituting that message? I've seen it on innumerable talk pages now.  ~Steptrip 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if he was substituting the message. A lot of people do that to save time. // DecaimientoPoético 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure he / she wasn't spamming or anything (like an admin would, but you never know ...).  ~Steptrip 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those 'personalized' responses have been popular forever. Well at least since 15:26, 23 September 2005, when I made my first edit :). Prodego 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! (and I don't mind 'personalised' message :) ) – Riana 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected mediation

I'm the user who chose not to participate in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/List of male performers in gay porn films. The {{RFMF}} tag is still on the Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films page. I don't know what the procedure is in these cases, but I doubt it would be a good thing for me to remove the tag. I think it should be removed; I don't know if that's something you should do. Perhaps something along the lines of the "request for mediation not accepted" message box should be added to the talk page instead. Thanks.—Chidom   03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure if you look around, you'll find that I rarely hesitate to be bold; however, there's enough heated debate on the page without there being added friction because I deleted the tag after having caused the mediation to be rejected.... Maybe I've been unduly influenced by Sarbanes-Oxley?

And my deepest sympathies—if you ever need to talk... um, oh, wait! My unrestrained congratulations on your new status and tools! Have good days.—Chidom   04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

mediation-l

Are you a list administrator (or, incidentally with Essjay retired, do we have a list admin)? If so, can you please swap my subscription to my new email address, per the email I sent to you two days ago. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why to hang on

This is a growing page which will have many users within a few days. Please hold for a week.

Mediation Committee

Hi.

I note you are the current Chairman of the Mediation Committee (my sympathies). I used to be a member of this committee (although I actually did very little work, for a variety of reasons), before joining the AC about 15 months ago. If I were to rejoin the MC, what would be the process? Is it as simple as moving myself from section to section? Perhaps you could give me an introduction into current procedure, since I haven't been involved in a good 18 months...

Many thanks,

Sam Korn 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sam Korn. You are still a member of the committee. You are simply considered an emeritus, or inactive. You can become active again whenever you like. Just move yourself from WP:MC#Mediators_Emeriti to WP:MC#Active_Mediators. Welcome back!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing... Is there any chance you could give me level 5 access to #wikipedia-mediation so I can get into it? Many thanks, Sam Korn 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you register for an account on freenode? See m:IRC instructions#Register_your_nickname_and_identify. Once you've done that, let me know what your freenode username is. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. smoddy, wikipedia/smoddy. Sam Korn 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried typing "/invite smoddy #wikipedia-mediation". Did anything happen? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave him lvl 5 access, he can /join it now. ^demon 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, what's the command for that? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Really quick Q: should anyone ever subst {{RFM-Request}}? - Penwhale | 06:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_Request_for_Mediation:

Add {{RFM-Request|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the talk page of all involved parties.
Add {{RFMF|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the top of the Article's talk page.

Nowhere in there says to subst. - Penwhale | 09:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and change Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_Request_for_Mediation section and asks people to subst it? - Penwhale | 04:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you...

Sign my Autograph book? I think your Signature is awesome! ( you also seem to be quite a good editor!) --ÄtΘmicR€£igione

deleted image help

I am new to editing Misplaced Pages and was trying to update the already exiting page for Larry W. Maysey by adding a photo and info box. I uploaded a picture (Larrymaysey.jpg) and you deleted it on Mar 31st at 20:26 with the comment of (orphaned csd i3). Larry's page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Larry_W._Maysey. The info box I created worked fine but now the picture is missing. :(

Just to let you know, I am the owner of his POW/MIA Remembrance page at http://www.scally.com/mia/maysey.html and have permission from his family to use his photos. How do I go about adding the picture to his Misplaced Pages page?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Mfd's

I would like to start closing uncontroversial Mfd's. Is that okay? Answer on my talk page please. Have a nice week. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. Good. Thanks. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Recentchanges is at MfD. It is hidden on March 25, but it was still nominated on April 1 Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wilma Blasini Perez

I have complete the form for mediation as per your request. --XLR8TION 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My Bad Joke

Is it ok if I move my bad AfD joke to WP:BJAODN? Toonmon2005 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Joke to BJAODN

Would it be ok to temporarily move my bad joke to my userspace until this MfD issue over BJAODN is solved? Toonmon2005 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sense of humour

Woah, way to have fun. -- Js farrar 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD joke

Hey! I noticed that you removed my joke AFD on George W. Bush. Why you said I "improperly" listed the joke? how should I do it properly? Wooyi 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Humorous redirects in project namespace

I noticed that you removed the joke from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, but the linked page (Misplaced Pages:Credit Card Registration) still exists. People tried to speedy it. It is now a redirect to a user subpage, which does not have a humor tag on it. Is this acceptable (as far as I know, Misplaced Pages has no policy on this)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjd (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

You're very welcome!

You're very welcome my friend! That's another one down for now... Happy editing! Lradrama 12:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD FYI

^demon, thanks for all your recent activity. For clarification WP:TfD#Template:Confirmed-nc wasn't a speedy keep, it was a snowball close. The guideline for what constitutes a speedy keep is at Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep and the ... guideline / rejected-historical / non-anthromorphised / no-one-knows-what-to-call-it-or-tag-it-with page that details the snowball clause is at Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause. Regards, Iamunknown 06:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Kwan

Can you explain more clearly why this was closed as "Delete" given that the article in question met WP:ATT and WP:N in general (citations from Taiwan, HK, and mainland newspapers), as well as WP:MUSIC criteria #1 specifically (nationally charted hit --- a song of his was ranked as the #4 duet nationally by the central television station in a country of 1.3 billion people). The Delete votes consisted of two guys who voted before the article was sourced/improved, one guy who didn't bother to conduct a proper search and so mistakenly claimed it only had 670 GHits, and one guy with a novel theory, generally not supported by consensus, about how stuff can be notable in one language wiki and not in another. Thanks, cab 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kelvin Kwan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. cab 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA

With all respect, and I appreciate your taking the time to read the 150+kb of discussion. There should be one opinion closing that discussion, so either his or yours. Also, could you state consensus, instead of your feeling? It just does not read right. I do appreciate your taking time to look into this. With warm regards, Navou / _contribs 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA MfD

Dear ^demon: I do apologise for "stepping on your toes", if you had your eye on that MfD, and I'm also sorry that you don't agree with my decision. It was my view that the discussion itself didn't reach consensus and didn't look like it was going to, so on that basis, it seemed natural that the only sensible MfD outcome would be one of "no consensus" under the circumstances. I would, however, like to respectfully disagree with your closure.

Whilst I can see merit in your MfD closing in terms of the right course of action, I might point out that in fact your closing decision does not seem to be addressing the consensus (or lack of) developed during the discussion and instead reads like your own personal MfD vote on the matter. For example, "I have read all of the arguments here ad nauseum, and I have listened to both rationales since the beginning", "I feel that this group is inherently bad for the community and our efforts would be best served elsewhere", etc. are not summations of consensus developed on that vote, but are instead your own personal decisions upon the specific issue of the subject.

It is my personal view one should not close MfD discussions by basically ignoring the discussion and carrying out what you think is best, as it would otherwise render the whole object of MfD - to gain consensus, or to indicate a lack of it if it is not gained - entirely void, and make the outcome entirely a matter of arbitrary decision on the part of the closing administrator. I hope you can, at least, see my perspective that merely a cursory inspection of the discussion shows there is not a consensus to "Esperanzify" nor delete the page. If this is your personal opinion, you are of course free to advance it; but you should not close an MfD on that basis. Of course, I am not going to fight whatever you wish to do instead, and I will stand clear of the MfD should you wish to carry out your own actions, as I am not in the habit of wheel-warring. Thank you very much for letting me know, and I do hope you don't consider me hopelessly obstinate for disagreeing. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I do admit my closing statement does read like a personal opinion, and I wish I could've phrased it better (I'm not the best with words). The main reason I believed that consensus leaned towards delete was I believe that not only yes/no had to be taken into account, but rather the strength of each side's argument. You were correct in saying that if numbers alone were taken into account (and done by simple majority), the weight of the argument tipped towards deletion. However, as the numbers were too close, consensus could not be reached on numbers alone. Therefore I took the liberty of reading into each side's argument and I believe those advocating deletion presented a stronger case, if you will. ^demon 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear ^demon: Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I can see your point, definitely, and this was exactly the reason why it was closed as "no consensus" - there wasn't really any consensus to either keep or delete. The trouble with assessing this on the basis of the strength of argument expounded by each side is that it is extremely subjective, in that it will be entirely reliant upon one's own views on the subject; the strength of a given argument or proposition is, unfortunately, always in the eye of the beholder. Consensus is not the strength or weakness of comparative arguments; it is to do with what gains a general support in terms of aggregate views held by Wikipedians (a far greater bar than that of simple majority). Misplaced Pages:Consensus sums this up well:

"While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. ... To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus." (emphasis mine)

In other words, what one is testing is whether there is consensus towards a particular point - you don't insert your own reasoning as a "tie-breaker", as it were. If there is no consensus towards any side of the debate (which I think is evident from the discussion) it isn't acceptable to pre-empt this with your own decision making. This is how things on Misplaced Pages have always been run, I believe, and it isn't something one can circumvent merely because of one's own opinion - which was, at least, how it looked, and your assessment above of your view that the deletion advocates presented a stronger case has no relation to consensus. I am not trying to be argumentative nor unpleasant here, but I do feel you may not fully understand the manner in which Misplaced Pages precedent considers consensus to exist. Thanks a lot for listening to my rather long diatribe on the subject! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

closing xfDs

G'day ^demon,

first of all, I'd like to congratulate you on attaining your sysop bit. We always need more admins! I'd like to ask you to be a bit more careful if you intend to close xfDs, however. Closing xfDs takes experience (oh, they always want people with experience!) and care (I should know; I've gotten into trouble myself for comments made when closing).

Your closure from the AMA MfD is a good argument for your preferred outcome, but it's not a good xfD close. While there is an element of subjectivity to any good close, one should never replace "this is how the argument ended up" with "this is what I want to happen". Speaking of gaffes, a big big big no-no is to say "no, no, no" and post an alternative closure on the MfD. If you disagree with how another admin has closed an MfD, feel free to take it up with him as a private Wikipedian, but it's stunningly poor form to stand up and say "I am a big bad admin, and I say this person is wrong!" Just imagine if you had closed the MfD, and Nick had attempted to publicly shame you. It's not called the Golden Rule for nothing. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool bananas. You can't throw a brick on Misplaced Pages without conking someone who's done something silly at one point, so — welcome to the brick-hittees' club! And, again, congratulations. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

Per the TFD debate, would you think it a reasonable solution to redirect this e.g. to {{notability}}? >Radiant< 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Hi, why did you delete {{Infobox North East England place}}, that was a reasonably new and valuable template for WikiProject North East England? Tellyaddict 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I didnt know it had been the result of a TfD debate, I'm not criticising but I thought after deletion you were meant to provide a link in the reason for deletion to the deletion debate if their was one? Tellyaddict 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound rude or uncivil by my comment, I hope you didnt take offence to it .Tellyaddict 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to add the responded template just add {{responded}} and if you did not respond then add {{not responded}}, if you would like me to make any images like that for you or ones similar to on my Userpage just leave me a note, if you want I can have it done by tomorrow. Thanks and no negative feelings, maybe I came over as snappy. Cheers - Tellyaddict 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help..

Dear sysop.

im having a dispute with a user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:El_C

he is reverting my links regarding actual information.

i have tryed to talk to him, but to no effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:El_C#nazarian

please be so kind as to help..

best regards

Neslepaks (ive made an account)

↑or ^

Why do you begin your name with a carat. In BASIC it mean to raise to a power. ↑demon looks better. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Padlock

Well, ehem, being the stickler-ish, grammar freak that I am, I'd like to point out that, in your quote, it should be "we need to lock ourselves up". Unless you meant for it to be "our self". Regards, Squeak

Really? Well, that's quite interesting. Do you happen to know who wrote it? Squeak 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Squeak

Thank you very much! Squeak

Happy editing! Squeak

Strange Subst?

You had your bot subst someone's signature here. Was it supposed to do that? --TeckWiz Contribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

I obviously have an idea what it's getting at but, just out of interest, is there any particular significance to the quote and padlock on your userpage? – Steel 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's me thinking it had some deep philosophical meaning. – Steel 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wacky Killian Wildness

Hi

I'm trying to figure out the best way to deal with an increasingly antagonistic situation developing on the Killian Memos Discussion Page.

Background: I've been contributing there off and on -- mostly off -- since last fall. I had been looking into 70's office technology and have been providing links to info as I uncover it. All of the evidence has been pointing to the memos being created on once common, but now almost completely forgotten about early word processing equipment, which turns out to have been a booming business by the early 70's. Actually this plus some proportionally printed Texas Air National Guard memos from the late 60's pretty much completely undermines the initial contentions driving the forgery charges, including the very first post that started it all.

I've also been culling through the DoD record database on Bush, looking for any interesting matchups between them and the Killian memos. I recently found a killer one: one of the memos that CBS never used was a very short one dated February 2nd, 1972 that mentioned a flight certification concern of Killian. Since I've been finding a 100% correspondence between the DoD records and the memos, I thought to rummage through Bush's messy flight records, enter all the data into a spreadsheet, and then sum and chart out the result. I found a lot of strange activity around the date of the memo, including a sharp rise in training flights (the yellow line) that indeed showed that Bush needed corrective action to meet flight certification.

I initially used this flight certification issue as one example of how ludicrous it is to believe that any forger would have gone to the trouble of analyzing flight records that deeply, surmising that Bush had trouble meeting certification, and then would be confident enought to include this as a passing reference in a very short memo that CBS didn't even bother using. That is until I discovered something even more interesting: CBS had obtained the memos on September 2nd and 5th, 2004, but the flight records were not released by the DoD until a couple of days later on Sept. 7th. Since there were absolutely no other records available that could have been used to recontruct or even deduce the flight certification issue, the memo could not have been forged under any circumstances. Since its print characteristics are the same as all the other memos, that absolves the other memos as well as being forgeries. Ipso Facto.

Because I had previously shared info I had come up with on the Killian Wiki page, I thought to do likewise this time. And that's when things got ugly.

The current problem: I first added a post a couple of week ago to the general discussion, as well to the separate Wiki on authenticity. I fielded the expected objections pretty easily, following Wiki guidlines for reliable sources and all that. One poster, "CWC", started getting hostile when he kept ending up on the wrong side of every discussion, and then he sent an email to my Gmail account with the subject line "Loss of Privacy" -- it was a threat to reveal my true identity with info he gathered from GoDaddy. I responded by pointing out that a person living where he lives and having his profession should try to exercise better judgement. I wasn't going to report him at first, but his factless hostility got annoying, and when he publicly admitted to sending the email but that it wasn't really a "threat," I thought to report him to Misplaced Pages and ask that he get banned from editing. Unfortunately, I apparently missed a step in filling out the form -- it was posted and then lost without any action being taken. "CWC" disappeared for a short while, though, but then came back to cause a lot more trouble, including making redactions all over my posts and getting some other poster named "Alabamaboy" to completely delete my main original post (which had been moved to R.I.P. Rathergate)

Addition to these two jokers, there is yet another troublemaker named Andyvphil who resorted to personal attacks, including creating whole new subsections to attack me, all of course without a shred of evidence, including even a link, to back up anything. All just malicious nonsense.

What I would like: Is some idea what's best to do. I really think "CWC" should be banned from any further Wiki editing, considering both his email threat and his more recent specious redactions. Andyvphil should also be banned since he behaves like the discussion page is a right wing blog site for posting nonsense and attacking people. I'm not so sure about "Alabamaboy" -- his profile seems to indicate that he's a legitimate, serious editor, but his behavior and actions in this Killian matter warrants at least an admonishment. I'm not going to put up with the redactions for very long in any case unless somebody shows me where I'm wrong. I'll put everything back, lock the page, and file complaints against everyone, this time without mistakes.

I tried going through the Misplaced Pages arbitration form thing and things got really messy really quickly. So I thought to get some simple advice first -- simple advice for a simple matter, no?

Thanks for your consideration. Callmebc 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)