User talk:MastCell - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durin (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 1 November 2007 (→RfAr: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:26, 1 November 2007 by Durin (talk | contribs) (→RfAr: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

If you're here to leave a message about an article I've deleted, please check the deletion summary. If it contains the words "Expired PROD", then the article was deleted via the proposed deletion process. This means that another user (not me) tagged the article for deletion. If there was no objection within a 5-day period, then I deleted the article as a housekeeping task. I did not nominate the article for deletion, and it was not deleted unilaterally. If you think the deletion was mistaken and the article meets the notability criteria, then please leave me a note and I'll restore the article for a formal discussion at articles for deletion.

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted reSIProcate page

I suppose this probably isn't the best of timing, but I'll leave a note anyhow. I would like to have the page for the reSIProcate project restored. (Of course, I am willing to address the concerns that initially led to its deletion, and have a good-faith case for the project's notability.)

--Docfaraday 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

I have just recreated Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi. This should never have been speedied, which you did. This man is a serious political figure in Pakistan's history. The backlinks alone should have told you that. A7 is not to be used that way, and your use of it casts some doubt in my mind as to your competence. Charles Matthews 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: did you look at the article that I deleted? You are an admin, so please take a look at the deleted revisions. Here was the article's entire content when I speedied it:

Chaudhury was a good man from Gujrat Pakistan having distinguished son Shujat. Shujat having God gifted qualities espacially in speaking. No one can imagin what he is speaking, people only relize about his lips.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not intimately familiar with Pakistani history and did not immediately recognize the name. You will perhaps agree that the content of the article above which I deleted indeed made no claim to notability, and thus fulfilled A7. I'm not sure what "backlinks" you are referring to. I do welcome a more detailed explanation of why you feel that the above text constitutes a valid Misplaced Pages article, a description of what harm was done by my deletion of such content, and perhaps further elaboration of your doubts regarding my competence. MastCell 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason that I quit patrolling newpages. It's bad enough catching harassment from people who have their nonsense pages deleted, but to get spat on by other admins for not having the clairvoyant power to see that an article that plainly "does not assert notability" is in fact notable is beyond the pale. Nobody should feign surprise if as a result Misplaced Pages turns into a glorified MySpace. Raymond Arritt 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that's leading me to reconsider why I spend my time here. Trolls and vandals are no big deal, but when a basic exercise of one's administrative duties leads to this sort of condescending pushback from a senior admin and sitting Arbitrator, being an admin goes from merely thankless to actively unpleasant. I used to wonder why once-productive and invaluable admins get fed up, turn surly, or just disappear. I don't wonder so much anymore. MastCell 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

SHS Article

Please do remove my comments from the SHS talk page again, as I was not in violation of these guidelines: You may feel that what I contributed did not add to the article (I'm just guessing because you didn't include much in your edit summary). However, I disagree; pointing others to a reliable publication which includes some very good information is fully relevant.

Thank you Thedukeofno 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post violated the basis of the talk page guidelines, which is that article talk pages are to be used to coordinate improvement of the article, not as a discussion forum. The article talk page is not a soapbox; your post attempts to employ it as one. If you want to discuss specifically how and whether the source you mention should be incorporated into the article, then please feel free. But there is already way too much misuse of that talk page for argumentation and general debate as opposed to its intended purposes. MastCell 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Overdue award

I know that ousting of Naacats was a community decision, but it was your meticulous notification that got the ball rolling fer sure. I thought of giving this right after the ban was realized, but then forgot about it. Better late than never, though!

Peter 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! MastCell 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence

You cannot believe what User:B is writing. If you're not watching this situation, your assistance would be helpful. OrangeMarlin 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really want to get involved there, but I'll take a look. MastCell 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chan Sau Chung Article

Hello MastCell I have been previously working on an the Chan Sau Chung article with MArcane and recently added some more information. It has since been tagged by Mista-X as being almost like a Resume etc and while there may be great value in what he says, he does not appear willing to assist or even discuss anything on the Talk pages. This is not a complaint against Mista-X I am just seeking assistance in cleaning the article up. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated as I am still trying to get accustomed to the wiki rules. If you wish you may take a look at his talk page to see what I wrote. By the way, why are some editors so offensive? One gets the distinct impression that this wiki is their own personal 'playground' and that they are bending over backwards and doing the rest of us a very big favour by allowing us to contribute. I am sure this is not how it was meant to be. - Debon 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. MastCell 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanx MastCell you've been very helpful. Actually for quite a while I thought that the person in question was himself an administrator based on the tone of some of his comments and his general demeaner on the wikipedia. Tnax again. - Debon 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wessely issues / AN/I

Hey, someone had to, and you've taken enough crap over it already. Neil ☎ 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Plastic pressure pipe

Hi why did you revert my edit on plastic pressure pipe? PVC alone is incorrect. I simply changed it to the correct acronym PVCu. --Arsenalrchamps 07:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I also changed them to be consistent, which they are not now. --Arsenalrchamps 07:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this block

I believe that User:Imbrella is a sockpuppet of User:Yqbd or User:Raspor (although I'm convinced they're one in the same). Imbrella's first edits were on my user page with a trollish comment on October 7 2007. Yqbd's last edits were on October 6 (although he had been blocked on August 12). Yqbd edited in a similar manner and on similar articles. Since Imbrella is indefinitely blocked, it's not worth the trouble of a sockpuppetry charge, but just in case you need the data. OrangeMarlin 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that once it becomes obvious an editor's here solely to abuse article talk pages we should be a little quicker on the draw. It was obvious with Imbrella practically from the first edit you mention that they weren't here to build the encyclopedia, but it fell off my radar until recently. Anyhow, wouldn't surprise me if they were the same - Imbrella had a very socky odor - but probably moot, as you mentioned. MastCell 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Socky odor." You owe me a new keyboard, as I snorted Diet Pepsi all over it. And it was one of those nice Bluetooth Apple keyboards. OrangeMarlin 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe him, MastCell. Diet Pepsi is no problem. Especially not with Apple keyboards (ask John Sculley). Avb 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated - thanks, that takes care of things. WLU 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Michels for ABC

I have the PDF of the Michels study, would you like me to e-mail you a copy? I am planning on creating a sub-section for it soon... undecided if it would go above or below Melbye. - Roy Boy 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I have online access to Arch Int Med through my employer so it's not necessary. I'll take a look but I'm sure you'll work it in appropriately. MastCell 04:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgiy Starostin

Hi Mastcell -- long time no see -- I remember your perceptive observations at a recent RfC regarding, I think, Barrett v. Rosenthal and related pseudoscience things.

I noticed that you were the admin who deleted Georgiy Starostin. I recently re-created it, adding sources that I think addressed the central issue, WP:PROF (cf. the earlier deletion discussion). Would you mind having a look at the article and see if you agree?

The sources that I found show that the subject is collaborating on a major project at the Santa Fe Institute, and there is a USA Today article where he is interviewed about the same. Nonetheless, one editor there (User:Mdd) seems to disagree still, I suspect because he may not be quite clear on English WP policy. More at Talk:Georgiy Starostin.

Thank you! Jim Butler 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems to have all calmed down, and at the moment there is general agreement on notability; but of course please feel free to have a look. cheers, Jim Butler 04:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine... it was a bit borderline to start with (WP:PROF is among our more nebulous notability guidelines), but the AfD looked like a delete without prejudice to recreation. Since it looks like there are more and better sources now, it should be fine. If anyone feels particularly strongly that it's still not notable, I suppose it could go to WP:DRV, but I don't think that's necessary. Good luck. MastCell 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review my blocks on a sockpuppet issue

Can you please review Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Second pair of eyes please..., Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie, and my blocks. It was obvious to me that everyone mentioned at WP:AN who admitted to being a sock puppet/puppeteer needed a block, but I'm uncertain what to do about the L-m possibile relationship and whether the block on the puppeteer I gave was correct. Since you closed the SSP case, I think you would be a good admin to review. Thanks. GRBerry 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:AN. MastCell 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi GTO

I just wanted to let you know that we are experiencing the same issues with the anon changing the pic order now that the protection you applied has expired. I was hoping that you could reapply the protection or give us some advice as to how we should handle this situation. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like extending the semi-protection is the way to go here. I've re-semi'd it for another month. Thanks for keeping an eye on it - if the problems recur again and 1 month is not long enough to discourage this particular vandal, then we can work from there. MastCell 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appriciate it. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC endorsement

I would ask you to reconsider your endorsement against me. Whig 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the volume and unanimity of feedback you've received from the community at the RfC, I would ask you to reconsider your overall approach here. MastCell 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scunny Bunny

Hi, I can't see the Articles for deletion discussion regarding this deletion. Could you point me in the direction of it? Da-rb 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, rather than through AfD. Another editor tagged the article for proposed deletion; there were no objections in a 5-day period, so I deleted the article as a housekeeping task. If you feel the article was in fact notable and inappropriately deleted, then I can restore it and send it to a formal AfD. Just let me know. MastCell 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Llap Gogh

Would you mind restoring this article and sending it through a formal deletion? I completely disagree on its real world notability. Monty Python has tens of millions of fans throughout the world, and this is one of their more famous non-television sketches (for lack of a better term). Stephen Aquila 14:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore it at your request, though given the absence of sources vouching for the notability of this particular Monty Python-associated phrase, I'm going to go ahead and send it to AfD. MastCell 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I've made no more than bald assertions at this stage, after all. I'll start researching for the AfD process immediately. Stephen Aquila 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - Decyfer Down

Hi. Dumb question for you. I made an edit to a page on a Christian Rock band, and then next day you deleted them as non-notable.

Now, I'm not a christian rock music fan, or even a christian, but I looked up their article because - get this - I was researching how a radio station in another state boosted their signal and it interfered with another station in our town. The FM radio ID tag showed "decyfer" on the broadcast tag. While looking up trying to figure out where the station came from, i used that bit of info to verify that it was a christian rock station, as I found the article for Decyfer Down.

I then edited their page (not logged in) to remove a point they had on about "HEY DOODS OUR NEXT ALBUM COMES OUT ETC ETC", and put a notice for the author to put that on their own web page.

So, while I certainly am not their target audience or fans of their wikipedia edits, I would say if they're played on national FM commercial radio, have several albums, got a Sony contract it appears, etc., they're at least notable. There's enough artists who have wikipedia articles just for existing. Why bother to delete them?

Hell, I'm the last to defend a christian rock band, but if ever inane mediocre author and artist gets a wikipedia page and people don't delete em, why did you instantly remove these guys, without even a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniwha (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my feelings about Christian rock - I don't really have any one way or the other. The article was tagged by another editor for speedy deletion as it failed to assert notability according to the criteria found at WP:BAND. I looked again at the deleted article and don't see where it asserts notability. If there's independent coverage indicating that the band is in rotation on a national radio station or has toured nationally, then that would be enough to recreate the article, but as it stood it was basically a promotional page with no assertion nor evidence of notability and no sourcing outside the band's official and MySpace pages. MastCell 06:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't give a dang about Christian rock either, but doesn't "broadcast on national station, has a Sony contract, #1 single in its market" count as notable? Here's a link to a thing on 'em from a Christan Radio webpage: http://www.ccmmagazine.com/news/headlines/11553549/archive5/

Even better, this link shows they had at least one #1 single on the Christian rock radio charts, and toured nationally: http://www.cmcentral.com/news/5896.html

Like I said, I'm not even a fan of them, but having fought for notability fights on bands I *like*, I feel I should argue this one as well. Taniwha 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. I restored the article: Decyfer Down, and reworked the article to remove the cruft and include the two references you've found, which establish the group's notability satisfactorily. Nice finds. MastCell 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. I just felt they have just as much right to an article as anybody else with national radio play and a major label contract. I had to fight hard to get So (band) kept, so I try to be aware of band notability anymore.Taniwha 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Still Observing

How is the work on the statin article coming?Wiseoldowl 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For administrative bravery

File:Haig-award.png		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar & the General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor
		These barnstars are presented to MastCell for courage and clear thinking in the face of obstinacy. -- Fyslee / talk 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Prostatitis page, consensus stacking

Hi MastCell! I see you have taken an interest in the controversy surrounding the Prostatitis page, which is very apt since modern theories of the etiology of prostatitis posit mast cells as one of the key components! The user called Reasonablelogicalman, an ex-MD who owns the website prostatitis.org, has long opposed all discussion of non-infectious etiologies and is intent on removing any link to any website that discusses modern research that debunks the old theories of hidden, fastidious infection. He also opposes any link that in any way detracts from his huge network of websites, all of which serve to promote himself and his self-published books. If you are interested, I'll send you more details via email. Skopp 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:204.58.248.32

Hi MastCell. I've stumbled upon this user: 204.58.248.32 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who despite a string of warnings (including a "final warning") continues to insert blantant, unencyclopedic POV content in articles. See for example, these lovely edits: , , . Maybe time for a block? Yilloslime (t) 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP appears to be static, at least for the last month or so, based on the contrib pattern. I've blocked it for 31 hours for disruption and POV-pushing following a final warning; if problems persist after the block expires, then a longer block would probably be appropriate. MastCell 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP is registered to the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company. MastCell 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Not sure what, if anything, to make of the Chicago B&I Co connection. BTW, is there board analogous to WP:AIV where I can take this sort of thing in the future, as opposed to bothering individual admins like yourself? Yilloslime (t) 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the event of persistent abusive editing, the matter could be discussed with the sysadmin at CB&I, but that's not indicated at this point. Unfortunately, there's no board for disruptive editing, even textbook cases like this one. It would probably be rejected as too complex or not textbook vandalism at WP:AIV. The fastest approach is to ask an admin directly, or mention it at WP:AN/I. MastCell 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Corrections (film)

Hello! I noticed that after an expired period of proposed deletion, this article (on a planned but as yet unmade film) was deleted. I understand why the movie doesn't deserve a separate article. However, in a similar past case (about the in-production-hell The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (film)), rather than deleting the film article completely, I redirected it to the page about the original novel, and incorporated the information about potential film versions into that page. I'd like to do the same with the Corrections film page...is there any way to retrieve that data? Thanks, Hobbesy3 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article as a redirect to The Corrections. The page history is now accessible, so you can go to the old revisions and pull out whatever info and sources you'd like to merge into the article about the book. How does that work for you? MastCell 05:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks. -Hobbesy3 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z is back again

Hi MastCell
After quite some time away indef blocked vandal user:Gon4z has returned. First as User:82.35.33.72 and than he changed from the IP to User:GB-UK-BI. All our favorite Gon4z vandalisms are there again: deleting things from Serbian military articles, inserting Albanian nationalist bogus claims into all kinds of articles: example 1, example 2, example 3. Than there is the blanking of his talkpage again (like this) plus his trying to blank the block notice from user:Gon4zs site (here) and him trying to delete the list of Gon4z socks (here). Plus edit warring, insulting users (mostly me), uploading of images without license, or uploading images and claiming to be the copyright holder, or uploading images that have just been deleted as copyvio... not to forget his his love for sources that talk about all kind of things but not the things he claims they talk about, preferably in a language other than English and all the other Gon4z behavior... Any further discussion is a waste of time; please just block him. --noclador 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. MastCell 05:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, --noclador 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please block the other sock of Gon4z: User:82.35.33.72 he is constantly removing the Gon4z sock notice you left there. --noclador 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. MastCell 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BMW 8 series

Sorry to bother you again, but I am having an issue similar to the one we were having on the Mitsubishi GTO page. An anon user is repeatedly adding a complete trivial pop culture appereance and is refusing to discuss the changes. I was hoping that we could get the page semi protected for a bit. It would be great if you could take care of it, but if you would like I could go through the formal process. Let me know what works for you. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm online at the moment so I can take care of it, no problem. I've semi-protected it for 2 weeks. If the problem recurs after the semi-protection expires, you can let me know or go to WP:RFPP if I'm not around. MastCell 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I really appriciate it. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre

This is bizarre. At AN/I, everyone seemed to agree that an admin throwing a tantrum and running amok with the delete button was a serious problem. At RFAr, everyone seems to think it's no problem at all. I wonder if the folks commenting at RFAr read the thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_deletes_own_images_in_anger. This just seems.. inexplicable to me. Friday (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

Calling for Moriori to be desysopped is premature. The dispute resolution processes should be at least tried. He's not run off half cocked and deleted the main page or anything like that. Understand, there's NO way ArbCom can respond fast enough to desysop him to prevent damage to the project. When such a situation occurs, the stewards step in. ArbCom always agrees with the decision, but it's the stewards that prevent mass damage to the project, not ArbCom. Observe; it's been five hours since you submitted the RfAr. No ArbCom member has even commented yet. Moriori could have caused a lot of damage already. RfAr isn't the right venue, nor are the stewards. The situation's being handled; his deletions have been undone , and mainspace changes are undone. Further, he's being talked to about the situation, even if he's not responded yet. All the best, --Durin 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)