Misplaced Pages

User:Kirbytime is requesting pictures of rape, child porn and sex

Like you, I find it alarming to see User:Kirbytime repeatedly requesting pictures of child porn for example like his recent request here which he tried to bring back in after you took it out rightfully. There are tonnes of other requests and interestingly he wanted to know the name of a child model in a sexually controversial image here. AND he's also a member of "Pedophilia Article Watch Project". That would be ok, if he wasnt going around Misplaced Pages requesting sexually pictures of child and rape. Whats going on? I wonder if there's any Misplaced Pages policy to deal with this. Is there anything that can be done to put a stop to him? I think an administrator has to come up and recognize the disturbing nature of this editing activity. I think we could make a collection of all his disturbing edits (there are many) and report them in the appropriate manner. Edit: Oh I see, I did not realize that you're an administrator. Well my whole message takes a different meaning now. I only hope that this user can be blocked and that there's some way to deal with his requests for child porn pictures and other stuff. He is definitely trying to test the limits of WP policy, that is for sure. --Matt57 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad someone noticed. I'll let you know if I notice any more abuse, trolling or disturbing editing activity from him. --Matt57 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More talking behind my back. Could you stop it? Stop the defamation.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then stop requesting child porn. The Behnam 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jürgen Barth

Hi Herostratus, i'm german too ;-)

However, this redirect is useless since it redirects to his father Edgar Barth. Both are racedrivers, but have nothing in common. Please delete Jürgen Barth. -- Stahlkocher 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shure ;-) Thx for your assistance! -- Stahlkocher 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arabella Kennedy (2nd nomination)

Dear Editor, just for your information, redirects do already support redirecting directly to section headers. Test it for yourself using the redirect you created yourself: Arabella Kennedy. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I was just about to tell him that. You got to it first, Reinoutr! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD closing

Hello. It's been a long time since I have posted to you, but I just wanted to say that I noticed the closing that you did on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 26#Category:Diabetics. Note that I am not posting to say thanks for making a decision that my comment agreed with, but rather to say that I liked the way in which you explained your rationale. I think that if more admins did that on difficult cases we would have fewer people bothering them on their talk pages and bringing things to DRV. Good job! --After Midnight 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yin Yang Yo episodes

What about redirecting them to List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes like some suggested in the AFD? At the moment, they won't help anyone since all they say is that "this was the --th episode of Yin Yang Yo". TJ Spyke 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't editors still be able to expand them if they were redirects? All they would have to do is click on the page and start editing it. TJ Spyke 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD Debate - Edeskonline

Regarding your comments: "So... one legitimate link, its legitimacy low because it is online. Because of the very low publishing cost, online magazines are often closer to being blogs than they are to being real print magazines, although that's not necessarily true of maxine.com."

I would like to clarify that maxzine.co.in (it is not maxine.com) is not only an online magazine but actually a print magazine. This can be confirmed by visiting their website and viewing the about us page. The website is just an online version of their print magazine. The magazine is managed by a good reputable team and sponsored by NIIT which is one of the top IT companies in India. Hence the argument of low legitimacy is incorrect.

Please reconsider your decision. Dhshah 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Edeskonline. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dhshah 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to and promoting attack sites

Hello, per Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Types_of_harassment/posting of personal information, links to Misplaced Pages Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

You don't seem to have been informed, but one of your deletion closures is up for review here --pgk 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Purple Pussy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Malkinann 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kirpatrick still and again

WiZarOfWor Misplaced Pages remove your privilèges but you are still an active constructive element removing the right to put false or negative facts. JeanClauDuc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Disagree with removing famous smokers from list

I'm editing only a year but I can't see any justification for your deletes of dozens of famous smokers from List of Famous Smokers. You claimed it was because they were not famous enough or (something like) smoking was not enough of their image. But looking down the list of the dozens who you deleted, almost all of them seemed to be in neither of those categories. You wanted the whole article deleted and perhaps you are getting your revenge at your failure to achieve that. Or do you have a better explanation? I would've just reverted your deletions, but it's now 10 days since your deletions and I don't know how to revert them without also reverting the dozen good revisions that were made since then. Will you tell me how to do that--or do I have to ask someone else? One of the smokers deleted, at least, was added back, presumably by someone who didn't know the person was already put in and deleted. People are naturally going to do that, because they are famous and everyone knows they smoke, so your goal is going to be thwarted one way or the other, eh? Sorry if I'm way off-base, but I'm sincerely telling you what I think. Korky Day 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You answered on my page, thanks! Was I supposed to answer you there, too? Anyway, I did and I don't know if you'll automatically see it or if I'm supposed to tell you here. Korky Day 15:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In a minute I'll add more for you about this on my talk page. Korky Day 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article Dennis

Hello,

I was reverting the article Dennis from a vandal. He made changes to it, but the article wasn't exactly rubbish beforehand. There was a stub before it and I was wondering why you deleted it.

Cheers,

5aret 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Florida Tech Housing

Herostratus, I was kind of counting on you to pull the plug on the awful stuff in the FIT article on housing. Another editor wants to "merge it back" into the main article. In the meantime (because I was lazy) I put another bunch of uh stuff in the bottom of the article and commented it out. I thought it might be useful later for reference. Like a closet. Anyway, some editor uncommented it! I think it was that junkpile that made you think that someone had actually done some work on the housing article, which they hadn't. Please, please, kill the housing article before it swallows up the main one!  :) Student7 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Child rights

Hi Herostratus. Since you've edited/talked a lot on the children's rights movement article, I wanted to let you know that I am going to write a separate article about Children's rights that reflects a more international consensus and diverges from content regarding the different forms of "movement" surrounding the issues. I've opened this up to discussion on the talk page there; it would be good to know if you have any opinions about that. - Freechild 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

re Zeotrope Theatre

Herostratus: I'm sorry I don't know HTML very well so this might mess up your page. Nonetheless, I wanted to talk to you about an article I have posted several times that you have removed. It is an extremely important part of my historic town's history, and I can unbiasedly say is far more relevant than thousands or articles that are on wikipedia right now. I posted about it biasedly once, and it was removed. I then reposted it with an unbiased description, but it was again removed (the reason given was repost, but it was not a repost). It is very important to me to get this article posted. Can you please find a way to contact me (site won't let me e-mail you). I'd like to figure out what I need to do to get my article posted. I understand your job is difficult, but this article is legitimate. Thank you for your time and please get back to me.

EDIT 1: - The name of the article is "Zeotrope Theatre". Is it possible for me to respond message you in the manner that you messaged me?

EDIT 2: Small world that the editor lives in Franklin. I'm assuming that you can't tell me his/her identity.. but anyway, I feel like the fact that the individual lives in that town clouds his/her ability to judge the the importance of the theater beyond the immediate local area. I don't want to use the fact that there are thousands of far more localized articles on wiki as an argument to allow this one. However, as an expert on the history of the theater, would you allow me some time to rewrite an article for it, focusing on how it is culturally and historically significant beyond the local area, and then reconsider it for posting? Lastly, this is unrelated but where do you make the cutoff for "local"? For example, a landmark that is only important "locally" to a larger city would obviously be allowed. Franklin is a city of 33,000.

re Ziggy Nisczcot

The surname was spelled incorrectly - subsequently set up a new page with the correctname: Ziggy Niszczot. Not sure how to delete the blanked page. Sattlersjaw 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for deleting and for the tip on the Move tab - I'll use it next time if there is a need to do so.

Sattlersjaw 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vel non

We had much much debate over sales numbers and ultimately concluded that it couldn't work because what the threshold would be was necessarily arbitrary. It was also impossible to agree on even a range for the threshold. It actually caused more controversy than any of the other criteria I initially drafted. By the way, you'll have to excuse my use of vel non but, you know, sic transit gloria mundi:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Abusive editor XavierVE

Over the last several weeks, this editor has repeatedly engaged in personally attacking and insulting me in Talk:Perverted-Justice. I believe his behavior is uncivil and unbecoming a wiki editor. Rather than respond to him in the topic talk page, I politely took my complaint to his talk page. His response has been to brush me off and ignore my concerns, blanking the talk page. It does seem that this editor has a past of abusive behavior towards other editors. I've tried talking to him, I've tried waiting it out. I have never made any comment directed towards him in any manner. As my edit history shows, I have only strictly commented on content, and never on the editor.

I have documented his behavior towards me on this archived talk page: ]. I appreciate your help, but if you can't, can you offer me some advice on how to proceed. Thanks, Vagr4nt 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Jack Haskins AfD

I take issue with your conclusion that no consensus was found with the AfD for Billy Jack Haskins. Most people who replied thought he should be deleted, with only a few dissenters. Also, the article is without sources, and as it says on every edit page, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Nothing in the article is verifiable and thus should be deleted on that alone.--Thomas.macmillan 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Biting the newbies.

Yeah, I know. It was obviously good faith, but that's the least aggressive TW message I got. I wish I knew how/if I could add template the the warning generator. Some good faith edits deserve more... mellow notices.  :-) Coren 19:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I can edit messages output by TW a posteriori, but it's work I wasn't doing to date. But you're right, in cases of obvious newbie and good faith I really should take the time to soften the tag. The default doesn't have very sharp teeth, but I agree it should be softer. Coren 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Jessica93

Hi Herostratus. I noticed you blocked User:Jessica93 a while back. The message you posted on the user page was subsequently blanked by User:USANational, who I suspect of being a sockpuppet of User:Belginusanl. Would you care to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Belginusanl and offer your opinion? Kind regards, Gobeirne 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Wyke (electronic sports player)

I've checked the references given. They're all bogus. Nothing that could be associated with this person. One is just a game instruction manual. I think a Speedy may be appropriate. DarkAudit 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

help!

I made an article for wax orchard only to have it removed even though i have permission from the origin www.waxorchard.com. how can i get back all of the content that i had put in the article originally. i spent many hours on it, is there a way to get it back? thanks!

wax orchard

in your last comment on my talk page you said that you had temporarily restored the "wax orchard" article. I still dont see it and can't find it. Does it take a while to be restored? I will copy the content as soon as I see the article restored and let you know when I have done so. thanks!

Maritime Christian College

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Maritime Christian College, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GreenJoe 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PIE

Hi, I'd just like to enquire about why you deleted the Paedophile Information Exchange article? Was there a proper discussion before this article was deleted?

I ask this because the article appeared to be well written, in no way spammish, and related to an obscure yet important period of history. In light of this, why not leave the article on the main wiki index, as opposed to hiding this information away on the same website whilst creating dead links in the process? Are personal projects and minute historical details not part of the beauty of wiki? --Jim Burton 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile activism / History of

Hi again. I contact you, since you're and admin I see around on the concerned pages quite a lot. What seems to be happening is that the 'experienced' user SqueakBox is spontaneously and repeatedly merging the activism and history articles, with no discussion, despite my reverts and calls for such a discussion or vote. He only listed the articles for merging a matter of hours before merging them, and recieved no support for his proposals. Yes, we can put up with his pov edits, but this I see as uncivil, especially since he is claiming that the merger is just part of his larger scheme to get these articles deleted. --Jim Burton 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edits? SqueakBox 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the International Boylove Day article

You deleted the IBLD article with the reason that it is an "unnotable day observed by a fringe handful".

There had already been a proposal for merger with pedophile activism, but no conclusion to merge it had been reached. There was a discussion about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pedophile_activism#Proposal_for_Merger_with_IBLD_Article

I don't think that you should have deleted this article without prior discussion. Or was there a discussion that I have missed?

As I said in the merger discussion, it is the special observance of a larger minority group, has caused a reaction and in comparison with other days that have an article at Misplaced Pages it should be notable enough. So I don't think it should be deleted and at least there should be a discussion about it and not just a deletion because of the opinion of a single person. So could you restore the article?--Greeny6000 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, please restore both articles and go through the proper process. What discussion we have had on this article seems to suggest keep, not even afd. You treated it as a speedy with no backing. --Jim Burton 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reported trolling behavior from Kirbytime

You had warned Kirbytime that if he trolled again, he would be blocked. He's still doing it and I reported it here. Though he didnt request Child Porn this time but he did indulge in general trolling. When will this user be stopped ultimately? I believe this and his general edit-warring activity is enough trolling coming from a single user to justify a longer block. Not to mention he denies the holocuast by saying "its alleged to have happened". --Matt57 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template

The template I use is

{{subst:User:Utcursch/wel}} Sincerely, ~~~~

--Kkrouni 10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Man in a skirt

I've unblocked User:Man in a skirt, blocked by you. I'm supposed to consult with you before doing so, but skipped this because (i) you seemed hesitant about the blocking yourself, (ii) this really seems a generic sort of name to me, (iii) another admin had said he was inclined to unblock, (iv) there was no allegation of vandalism etc by the user, (v) I suddenly felt like breaking a rule er, sorry, no, scrub that! I only noticed that I was supposed to consult with you after I'd announced on the man's user page that I was unblocking him. Well, since I've broken a rule, you can now block me..... Happy editing! -- Hoary 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Misplaced Pages's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Vandalism information|prefix=User:Herostratus/}}

Hi there. As you can see on my userpage, I use the above wdefcon template to monitor vandalism levels. Since the rename, the "change" link does not work, as it tries to change the former template page (now protected). I've tried fixing it, but I can't seem to find the right page. Would you be able to fix this please? :)

Chrisch 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User ban request

I would like Ultra megatron banned for personal attack for the reason indicated here. You might not agree with me, but if you don't do not yell at me! Please? --Defender 911 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not good with it? Thats ok! Still, what's your opinion? --Defender 911 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Defender 911 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording

To be honest, I am thinking the wording of this template might be a bit harsh. It is supposed to just state the policy (the user re created the same article) without any good or bad faith assessment. But thanks for letting me know, I think I'll stop using it altogether. I just didn't want to repeat the exact same message. -- lucasbfr 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Jeffrey Adams (mathematician)

You deleted Jeffrey Adams (mathematician) without giving any reason. Since it was tagged with the db-bio template, I suppose you deleted it under CSD A7. However, the page stated that Adams "led the project that calculated the characters of the representations of E₈". That may or may not be enough to establish notability, but it does assert notability and thus is does not fall under CSD A7. Furthermore, you wrote on User talk:R.e.b. that Adams "appears not to pass the WP:PROF test, at least as the article is presently formed." That's not a reason for speedy deletion. I thus undeleted the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked by this deletion. The article clearly and explicitly asserts a reason to consider Adams notable. The E8 project was all over the major news headlines two or three months ago. If you disagree with this claim to notability, nominate it on AfD and state your reasons. A decent respect for your fellow Wikipedians requires that. Michael Hardy 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with Attachment Therapy

There is an extensive and ongoing dispute on the talk page for this article. One editor seems to feel very strongly about his POV and a number of others disagree. I think a cool head would be beneficial here (I know it would help me too). If you would look in here and comment or make a suggestion, that would be great. DPeterson 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over. I just finished what was probably the hardest semester of my life and have had almost no time for Misplaced Pages. I got A, A, B. Getting C's is seriously frowned on in grad school and can get you kicked, so I'm still happily C free. But enough of my personal ramblings. Now I all of a sudden have nothing to do, so maybe I'll be able to give it some attention. I've missed you guys. --DanielCD 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on DanielCD's page as well, but could use your suggestions too. This dispute is really raging and getting worse and could use a cool head and administrative action. I filed a request, but don't know if this was the right step or place. Your advice and intervetion could only be helpful. ] Thanks. RalphLender 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly to my talk page...On that page I left the following comment:

::Complicating the dialogue is that some members of the Advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy, have taken a pretty fringe stance on this issue and may have recruited a number of editors to become involved in the dispute on this page. You will note a large number of editors who recently created accounts and who only (or nearly exclusivley) edit this article. Your involvement would be a great help. I see that the group I just described has no interest in mediation and am not sure where that leaves us. Your comments and advice will be greatly appreciated.

I deleted a number of comments from FatherTree because I've found him to be disruptive and he has harrassed me and made personal attacks. DPeterson 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal to file RfCs and the like without giving any of the accused parties notice and therefore an opportumity to defend themselves? Even HeadleyDown used to tell people he'd gone to ANI. Fainites 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If the rfc has been filed that IS your opportunity to defend yourself, SqueakBox 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive Crackdown on Pedophiles on Jimbo's Talk Page

Thanks for being a voice of reason against pedophile hysteria on Jimbo's talk page. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Unfortunately, somebody hid the rest of that conversation so I can't see what the consensus was.

Creationlaw 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doonys and related hoax articles

I note that you are banning editors for attempting to correct the egregious fraud known as Doonys because the various sock/meat-puppets who created it are complaining. I appreciate that there are policies and procedures for page deletions, but the whole Doonys thing is completely outrageous. Suppose I created an article stating that Walter J. Spaghettimonster was the 42nd President of the USA. If someone immediately removed the contents and flagged the article as a hoax, would I be entitled to scream "vandalism"? Surely I would be the vandal for creating the preposterous item in the first place. PS4FA 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I am not understanding things correctly, please refer to User talk:71.134.52.20 PS4FA 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see I was mistaken and confused bans and blocks. Anyway, as far as can be told by people who know far more about anime than I ever will, Doonys (and other purported anime like Mafia 3000 that I think have suffered speedy deletion) appears at best to be a concept developed by a fancircle calling itself RDS, and therefore fails on Notability. At worst, it's just a hoax plain and simple. PS4FA 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Your last comment to Tony Sidaway at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Awards was pretty uncivil. I would expect better from someone who is an admin and has a clear understanding WP:CIVIL in the future please refrain from calling people asses, it contributes nothing to any discussion and is a pointless personal attack. IvoShandor 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

Rizzo on the Radio

You forgot to add the AfD to the log. Took care of that for you. :) DarkAudit 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and racism allegations deletion

You said you kept this article because you disagree with the deletion arguements. I think it is pretty clear that the Afd resulted in either no consensus, or a merge/redircet. Can you please explain how you got to "keep" as the result?--Sefringle 05:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zionism and racism allegations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sefringle 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rotary Club of Adelaide EDGE

I'm am unsure why I cannot create an article about the Rotary Club of Adelaide EDGE. We are part of Rotary International in which there is an extensive article. I am one of the founding members, a current board member and I also designed the club logo (incorporating the Rotary wheel with permission from Rotary International) My reason for posting this on Wiki is to create awareness that there are younger people in this world trying to put something back into our local and international community.

I understand your point to a certain degree. The reason I though wiki would be somewhere to place an article was, when searching wiki for "Adelaide EDGE" I discovered an entry for the EDGE church Edge Church. Surely if one church congregation can have a listing then so can The Rotary club of Adelaide EDGE. We have had one newspaper article written about our club see here: http://www.rotaryadelaideedge.org/EDGE%20Photo's.htm Hopefully you will reconsider. Thanks

Adelaide EDGE

Thanks for allowing it (albiet only temporarily) I have now tried to find the page and cannot. If I could view it I would look over it and make suggested alterations. I will also get a better copy of the newspaper article. (The Adelaide Advertiser, Tues 21 Feb 2006)

I wrote the text for the web page myself, it is in my own words, how can it be a copyright violation?

Thank you for your help and patience. I will re-write about the club and try to make it as objective as possible. Hopefully the re-write will be able to stay up.

Kay Körner

Herostratus, I saw you removed the speedy deletion tag from Kay Körner and turned it into a prod. Not surprisingly, User:Kay Körner has removed the prod tag. Do I now have to drag this through AFD? I guess I'm a little confused, did I inappropriately list this for speedy deletion? Is an autobiography page where someone claims, as a teenager, to have been a member of a club team that won a local club championship 8-years-ago considered an "assertion of notability"? I should also point out that the links provided in no way support the claims. You may respond to my question here. --JayHenry 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Starred

Thanks so much for the acknowledgement. Though I've never listed myself as a member, I think I've been one of the more active participants in the project. I'm glad to be making a positive difference. Cheers, ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeaboy2

Thank you for picking up, from where I ran out of warnings. I can revert vandalism, warn, but not yet block the vandalists. gidonb 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds silly...

...but maybe you change your defcon template to include the sig of whoever changes it. --Smokizzy 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's just that most of the other defcon templates have the sig. Thanks. --Smokizzy 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are 3 examples. , (scroll to the bottom), .

BTW, I won't be able to respond until Saturday night, EDT. --Smokizzy 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thick skin

That's for sure. Thanks for the thought, now on my user page, SqueakBox 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Hunter

"Keep. Watch."? Umm. That's a head scratcher there. Does that mean I can write a similar article on my $50USD Casio and have it kept? :) DarkAudit 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You were on SA

lol. - !Malomeat 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambeezy files

The Irish Famine (book)

Hello Herostratus, you recently closed the discussion on the The Irish Famine (book), which I proposed for deletion. Your decision was No Consensus to Delete. I have a number of concerns in relation to this, and I would very much like you, if you could, return again to this matter. My primary reasons for proposing this article were outlined in my proposal, i.e. Misplaced Pages: Notability (books). As such, at no time during the course of the discussion was this addressed; in addition, the articles creator at no time during the course of the discussion lent any support to the article. The articles creator though, did quite clearly state the non-notability of the article here, says that the book in itself is not notable, "Far from it". Of those who did contribute and in particular opted for the option of Keep, User:Ten Pound Hammer, changed their option to delete, when it was pointed out the article creators opinion on the book, User:FlamingSpear did not raise the Notability of the book at all, and did not reply to my comment on this. User:Paxse on the other hand, used two links to highlight the notability of the book, which having read the links, make no mention of the book at all. Which I think is quite in appropriate! It therefore boils down to commercial book review sites, which in themselves do not establish notability. It hence has not been “the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself”. I would be of the opinion that the consensus reached was clearly one of delete, and would very much appreciate it if you would return to your decision, or possibly outline the reasoning used in the determination reached. Thanking you in advance, kind Regards --Domer48 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reasoned reply, I will consider your advice and will in all probability follow it i.e re- nomination. The slightly weak delete you mention became quite unambiguous when the misleading links were followed up, and I would have considered the non-engagement of the articles author as very significant in any discission reached. I will leave it for the time being and will return to it later in the week. I will let you know first before I decide on my course of action. Thank you again, kind Regards --Domer48 19:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Herostratus, I was looking over and reviewing the advice you proffered, and noticed the following while reviewing the WP: DRV. I would like to draw your attention to points 2 & 3, having addressed point one I believe already between us. As for point 2, while I do not consider that you interpreted the information incorrectly, you based you decision on the incorrect information provided. In addition, the editor who was originally leaning towards Delete, became quite definite when like you, they became aware of the misleading information provided. It is still my contention that the book dose not meet the criteria as outlined here , re notability. I consider this criteria would also address User: Flamingspear’s contribution, Point 5, re the notability of the Author. This would leave User: Kernel Saunters, which point 1, of the notability criteria addresses. I would very much welcome your opinions and views on this, and would request that you revise your earlier decision. Thanking you in advance, Kind Regards--Domer48 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fat cats

I hope your cats don't surf the Internet - they'd be terribly embarrassed. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Frank Farina

Hello. I noticed you recently deleted Frank Farina, presumably as a WP:CSD#A7. However, this was simply vandalism of an established article. Farina is a notable soccer manager and there was an appropriate version a few edits back. I have restored that version of the article. Just thought I would let you know for future reference. Rockpocket 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I have done it myself in the past. Rockpocket 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Famine (book)

Hello Herostratus, I was looking over and reviewing the advice you proffered, and noticed the following while reviewing the WP: DRV. I would like to draw your attention to points 2 & 3, having addressed point one I believe already between us. As for point 2, while I do not consider that you interpreted the information incorrectly, you based you decision on the incorrect information provided. In addition, the editor who was originally leaning towards Delete, became quite definite when like you, they became aware of the misleading information provided. It is still my contention that the book dose not meet the criteria as outlined here , re notability. I consider this criteria would also address User: Flamingspear’s contribution, Point 5, re the notability of the Author. This would leave User: Kernel Saunters, which point 1, of the notability criteria addresses. I would very much welcome your opinions and views on this, and would request that you revise your earlier decision. Thanking you in advance, Kind Regards--Domer48 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you Herostratus, I will do that in the future. Ali _(c) 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajima's D Introduction

Thanks for the suggestion, I wrote an introduction for Tajima's D, please let me know if you find it readable Jlrflores 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star

My first ever! -Jmh123 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: what the heck

That DRV didn't need to run the full 5 days. There was no legitimate argument to counter the issue of copyvio. ^demon 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're willing to leave Misplaced Pages over BJAODN, so much the better. They're here for the wrong reasons then. ^demon 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Chip Ingram speedy nom

I could've sworn I posted a G11 spam speedy, not an A7. Why do so many CSD's for other reasons keep getting tossed back as 'notable'? Since when does notability trump abuse? The article is not an encyclopedia article, it is promo copy. It should be treated as such. DarkAudit 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Is there any reason not to undelte this, with all the significant content hidden in the history, and hte actual articel stubbed (as it was in the last revision before you re-deleted) while the AfD is pending? It is very hard for there to be a useful AfD discussion when people cannot see the article. DES 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I have made the same request of User:AlisonW in these edits. if you agree with this request, could you consider joining it on her talk page? DES 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Hello - please can you restore Archimedes Plutonium. The AfD has not reached consensus nor been formally closed, and it is very difficult to assess the notability of a deleted article. Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - thanks for the quick reply. If it's not your doing then that's fair enough :) I'll ask the others what's going on --h2g2bob (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Haml. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hampton 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio on Justin Berry and an urgent BLP issue at Timothy Ryan Richards

1. The Justin Berry copyvio text was added by JustinBerry, Berry himself, and was brought to Berry's attention in his talk page. I've resisted deleting it out of respect for Berry & concern over how the deletion would be perceived. Instead, I put some orange pylons around it & left it as is. The current talk page discussion is moving toward restoring the article as it was before Phil Sandifer "nuked" it, which will take care of the copyvio right there.
2. On the Timothy Ryan Richards article, I sympathize with your concerns vis a vis notability. Leaving that aside, this revision is an unsourced negative screed about Justin Berry, just short of a complete hatchet job. It commits all the classic libels: accusing Berry of criminal & moral wrongdoing and claiming victims waiting in the wings. If you could nuke that revision, it'd be a good idea. I already reverted it. If you reply on my talk page, I'll continue the conversation there. If you reply here, I'll continue it here. --Ssbohio 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re #1, right, I personally don't get too upset if the copyrighted text is posted by the original author of the material. However he should realize that by posting it here he is automatically releasing it under the GDFL. If the article was to stay in that version he would have to get a WP:OTRS ticket. I doubt it will stay in that version, but I don't know the article well enough to change it.

Re #2, only the few admins with Oversight privilege can remove selected edits from the history. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight for the procedure. Herostratus 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, belay that. I was able to delete it; not having oversight I can't erase all trace of it, but only admins will be able to view it, which I guess is good enough. Herostratus 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Right, per Misplaced Pages:Oversight oversight is generally only used when the person has complained or something... never mind, consider it done. Herostratus 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Will Beback restored the article back the way it was before the "nuking," so the copyvio is gone.
2. Perfect... It looks confusing with my revert still there, but the version with the strong anti-Berry language has been done away with. While I hope the AfD closes a keep, I thank you for your help. --Ssbohio 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Ryan Richards AfD

I'm concerned about the implications of your speculation about why the article exists in the first place. On Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 4#Prosecution of Richards, the decision (mostly between me & Will Beback) was to spinoff the Tim Richards content to shorten up tohe main article. The intent wasn't to proselytize on behalf or Richards but to decrease the weight given him in the Justin Berry article. I hope this allays your concern over the creation of the article. --Ssbohio 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article Nudity and children

I noticed you just deleted the article I was collaborating on Nudity and children. I would like to have a chance to contest your opinion properly. Why did you not nominate this for deletion? I can't say that I appreciate your use of WP:IAR to move around establishing a consenus. Please provide me with the wiki markup for the page so I can save it. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon image

That's absolutely overly-sensitive. Why not delete all the Wikipe-tan images, especially this one? Seems to me much more risqué. Do you dare not call that cheesecake? She may not even be wearing anything under that beach towel! --Merovingian (T, C, E) 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, child status is relative. The character in the image I referenced could be any age, and from all sorts of anime/manga/H-games it is well known that characters can be and regularly are portrayed as being any age, regardless of appearance/development (or lack of the latter). Second, this would not be the first time an image was used against Misplaced Pages; I'm sure you've seen that (possibly faked, I don't know) picture of Jimbo on a boat with a couple of babes hanging off his arms? And, of course, there are many other pictures on Misplaced Pages I would rather not have people know exist, simply because they are of an inappropriate nature. However, what you are proposing is nothing short of censorship. There is no guarantee that one image of a fictional character will portray all Wikipedians as dirty pedophiles. We have much worse things to worry about. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can actually understand your opposition to the picture, and you are no doubt not the only one who holds that view. There is a deletion debate on Commons. There is, as I believe has been pointed out, already an image of Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit; you may say that its nature is more innocent, but I doubt it would make much difference to a lolicon. I just want Kohikki's hard work to be respected, regardless of its nature. (Being inept at any kind of visual art, I tend to take this side.) --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, if you think the image of Wikipe-tan in general could be infringing on the trademark of the Foundation, you are welcome to email the Foundation and ask for clarification. User:Zscout370 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We may be able to ascertain some good tips on how to use (or not use) trademarked Foundation elements in the future. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can give you the first tip for free: no Foundation emblems on kiddie cheesecake pictures. I don't need the Foundation to tell me that one... Herostratus 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And which policy would that "tip" be supported by, exactly? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --tjstrf talk 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

please demonstrait that the foundation has trademarked puzzel pices with letters on them.Geni 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sara Dylan

Hi Hero, will you please take a look at the latest addditons to this article, as I've had two IP's inserting an assumpton from Clintin Heylin, contradicting a sourced statement from Jakob Dylan. I've reverted the latest one twice, and it's now back in. I'll be greatful for any help you can give! Hope your'e well, Lion King 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heylin has written a Dylan biog, (one revised version of same) he considers himself to be an expert on the meaning of Dylan's songs, although he has never spoken to Dylan or any member of the Dylan, Lownds, Zimmerman or Rutman families unlike Howard Sounes, who was told by Jakob Dylan that the songs on Blood On The Tracks, "were his parents talking" Cheers, Lion King 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Famine (book)

Hello Herostratus, just letting you know that I have decided to re enter the Book under AFD. Thanks for all your advice in the past, and hopefully it will generate a bit more intrest than the last time. Kind Regards --Domer48 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again Herostratus, I have been trying to do this AfD, and can not bring up a new discussion page. Could you have a look at it for us, sorry for the trouble. Regards --Domer48 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

Hello Herostratus, thanks for the help there, if you would not mind could you check it over and let me know if I have it all done right. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Really appreciate that, I was starting to panic a bit. Regards --Domer48 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: You are the subject of an AN/I post

I was really hoping to avoid this, but now that you've started acting on your threat of disruption, to a wider forum we go. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus

Thank you.
That is all. Bladestorm 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts