Misplaced Pages

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals

I've withdrawn my vote and replaced it with No vote. My original vote was probably misinformed, but I have enough questions about the original VfD and not enough time anymore to really look into it, so I might as well just remove myself from the original VfU. If I happen to scrounge up more time these next few days to look into it, I might just change my vote, but not for now. Thanks for your message! --Deathphoenix 20:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals

You are correct, there are 6 delete votes listed. I think i missed the nominators vote. However I think that User:Stirling Newberry pretty much has to be read as a keep vot, making this 6D to 4K, for what that is worth. You may quote me. DES 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my counting. I've done a more careful recount, and halfway-revised my vote. Given the closeness of the decision to two-thirds coupled with a rewrite, I think it should return to VfD in its present form (which implies an undeletion). -Splash 03:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

you posted a message to me?

24.147.97.230 What do you want? 24.147.97.230 17:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Acne site articles

Sorry about the links, I thought it was allowed. I won't pplace them anymore,

Warm regards,

Michael

We'll surrender if you take Celine Dion back

Thanks for the words of support and the laugh! Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Change to CSD A7

Hi there. I just reverted your addition of the "or group" words to WP:CSD A7. The recent poll was quite specific and the proposal only applied to real people. There were no fewer than 3 bands (which is what I suppose you mean) propsals, each of which failed, unfortunately. Best to take changes to CSDs to the talk page first. -Splash 01:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please visit Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C where a future proposal to deal with non-notable bands is under intermittant discusion. DES 12:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I thought it would clarify but didn't recall that the votes were so seperate and specific. - Tεxτurε 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added my vote to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C - Tεxτurε 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't quite clear. Proposal 3-C was voted down. Additional votes are not being collected at this time. Several people are using the talk page for the old proposal to try to polish a new proposal that might get support in the future. At the moment, what is needed there is discussion, rather than votes -- tell us if our current ideas seem like good ones to you, and if not, what you think might be improved about them. When and if people are ready to propose this formally again, it will probably be moved to a new page with a name not connected to the failed proposal. DES 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Texture, aka TANSTAAFL, thank you for supporting my adminship! Your support meant alot to me, very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry

Hi, im sorry for that. I will never do this again!

Requesting assistance in handling disruptive behavior.

I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.

Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk · contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.

Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.

I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*, especially (212.138.47.13/14/15/16/17/18/21).

• Arakan (talk · contribs)
• Eddiewiki (talk · contribs)
• Yonglee (talk · contribs)
• Bobjack (talk · contribs)
• Antirajib (talk · contribs)

I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 13:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

I think the project would be better served by additional bureaucrats and I'd like to suggest that you'd be perfect for the job. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm honored that you think of me for the position. I'm going to go read up on the guidelines and duties. It doesn't seem like a job that requires too many people. Is there a need for more Bureaucrats? - Tεxτurε 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there is, due to the relatively few who are active in RFA matters. You might want to read the note I left for Michael Snow, who asked me a similar question. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

NSK

Thank you. I was really asking NSK to explain his own behavior, which makes no sense. I assumed that he was violating his own copyright, or gaming a system, or spamming. I will probably sign the RfC in 24 to 48 hours. It is just very strange, even as strange behavior on Misplaced Pages goes. Robert McClenon 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Hello. Your revert deleted my link to User:Neolux, my IDRIVE notice and my POV-check notice. I have now made these edits again, since I see nothing wrong with them (the page is listed at the relevant Misplaced Pages project pages), and it is not required to get support in talk page in order to add IDRIVE and POV-Check notices, but if I am wrong please give me links to Misplaced Pages policy. I won't add the Criticism section again until I get support from other users. Wikinerd 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion and reverts from other users indicate that you do not have support for your changes. This has nothing to do with policy other than that you could garner consensus for your changes if they are opposed. I am acting as a user just as you are. - Tεxτurε 14:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

CoS page may be needing some help over the next few days. Again?

Check out the CoS discussion page for details.

Scott P. 03:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

VfU

I won't be re-deleting any articles which are created after valid deletions any more. Let the people who keep making up the rules as they go along deal with it. Zoe 04:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about dropping out of this myself and just documenting what I can. This is going to have to be sorted out at a higher level I think. - Tεxτurε 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, person I've never talked to.
I'll be brief - Is this true?. Do six undeletes count as WP:3RR violation?
brenneman

Looking back I think it was only 4 undeletes rather than 6. If one admin undeletes and one or more admins redelete then anyone reverting (by deletion or undeletion) within 24 hours is in violation of 3RR. No one ever said it doesn't apply to admins and deletes and undeletes are just another way of editing. - Tεxτurε 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-closing an improperly closed VfD.

Hi. I was mistaken; I think I was thinking of the events surrounding Historical persecution by Jews, when Neutrality re-closed as "delete" an article that Sjakkalle had closed as "keep". Tony commented on that debate, but opposed the "re-close." So my bad. Nandesuka 15:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep. The situation on that occasion was not dissimilar. I opposed the attempt to re-close, I opposed the attempt to petition VFU as unnecessary, and I didn't get involved in the second VfD. I'm of the opinion that VfD's should probably not be reclosed because it brings the entire process into disrepute. An article that really desperately needs to be deleted would match the speedy criteria. An article that is not that drastically bad, but nevertheless is deletable, will probably be deleted sooner or later anyway. --Tony Sidaway 07:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz and 3RR

Please take a look at the recent edits by 195.3.113.139 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.141 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.142 (talk · contribs), 195.3.113.152 (talk · contribs), and 195.3.113.154 (talk · contribs); all of these IP addresses appear to be the same person. How would you suggest handling this situation? Hall Monitor 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I followed your links and I like the approach you took at User talk:195.3.113.139. Since the user's IP rotates and this IP appears to have had the most use by the same user it follows as a good location to discuss the user's actions. I agree that all these IPs are in use by the same user as indicated by identical edits on the same article.

You have set an initial foundation giving notice to the user that his initial edits are being interpreted in good WP:FAITH and informing the user of proper process in an open source editing environment. Should the user continue acting badly, you are now justified in elevating to vandalism warnings for future disruptions. Should it continue after that you are no longer dealing with a difference of opinion, but a vandal, and can act accordingly - no need to wait for three reverts before blocking a returning vandal.

The only variation on this would be if the user chooses to discuss their edits on the talk page. If that occurs you have to return to WP:FAITH and deal with them as a valid user who needs to learn compromise. Multiple reverts in this situation becomes a WP:3RR violation and results in a warning, then a 24 hour block.

That's what I would do. - Tεxτurε 18:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

VFU/VFD debacle

Please see my and Rossami's talk page and give your comment. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Please visit WP:VFU's talk page - I've put up a formalized proposal and would like your opinion. Radiant_>|< 10:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd trouble

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Radiant_>|< 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi constitution

Nice work! –Hajor 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and for the thumbs-up. On reflection, you're probably right about not editing the AP's translation, even though (see the links I added at the bottom of the article) is does appear to be a rush-job and not terribly faithful. Let's hope another, better translation emerges at a later date -- hopefully before Oct 15. Pictures? I'll keep my eyes open. Something PD on some .gov site, perhaps? Cheers, –Hajor 20:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

It's helpful for navigation, and all the LETTER (A,B,C,...) articles have similar links. We do not have 0 (glyph) or 0 (numeral), so the most appropriate place to link it is at 0 (number).

As it is undergoing AfD, it is not currently deleted, so why are you removing the link? You should wait for it to be deleted first. 132.205.3.20 21:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In case no one noticed, 0...9 are not just numbers, or numerals, they're also general use symbols. The pages lack any such knowledge. 132.205.3.20 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What you are trying to add to all of the articles benefits none of them. Someone looking for "G9" is not going to look under 9. - Tεxτurε 21:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Someone looking for G9 might look for 9G. 132.205.3.20 21:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone looking for 9G isn't going to type in "9" - Tεxτurε 21:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then again, someone could be looking for some sort of index. (which is what the list is really, an index). You should look at the A...Z articles, they do have things like this. 132.205.3.20 18:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of contested Zarius' vote

I think you probably shouldn't have done that. There does exist a Zarius and it would be easy enough to ask him if he cast the vote. He's been a member for yonks but seldom seems to log in any more. In any case it's bad form to deliberately tamper with any user's vote--technically it can be a blockable offense if engaged in egregiously. It is fairly common for editors who don't log in to sign themselves in votes with their logged in username. The closing sysop can go through the history examining the provenance of every single vote, have often done so in close or contentious votes. It's regarded as okay to add a note to dodgy votes like this "non-logged in user giving unverified signature" or something like this.

Would you agree to revert your removal and instead add a not to that effect? --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I had hoped he would see my edit summary and log in if it was him. I will instead leave a note directly for Zarius in addition to a note in the VfD asking for the closing admin to confirm a possible vote from Zarius. I will not restore the vote since I find it suspicious. Since when does a user accidentally vote while not logged in but remember to fake a ~~~~? Regardless of my suspicions I should follow up and apologize to Zarius if I am incorrect. - Tεxτurε 14:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, though I'd be happier if you didn't remove votes. If you do it, and everybody knows you and trusts you, then others less scrupulous or simply less experienced could feel that it's okay to remove votes. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I still think it is appropriate to remove a falsified vote but in this case I may have jumped too quickly. Perhaps in the future I will strike or otherwise quaranteen a suspicious vote rather than deleting and only completely remove when I can be certain that it was vandalism/identity theft. - Tεxτurε 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Logged out

FYI, I have on a number of occasions when doing a long edit or retriving links from other pages (or just gettign up for a steach) been auto-logged-out, and only discovered this after clicking save and seeing that my four tildas expanded to an IP instead of my user name. It is easy for this to happen. DES 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd expect that. Would you, while unknowningly logged as an anon, fake a ~~~~ for your logged in account? Twice on the same VfD from different IPs? I think there is a 50% chance I'm wrong but it's just odd. - Tεxτurε 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood the situation. I might, if I realized I was logged out and didn't want to bother to log back in, sign as "-DES". I wouldn't bother to create a link that looked like my noraml sig, no. Of course, some users have dynamic IPs so the different IPs may mean nothing. DES (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The different IP numbers don't mean anything. The faked/manually created sig was the odd thing. - Tεxτurε 16:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD on lists

Well, I wasn't intending on adding comments there. Someone added a new entry, and when I pressed save, the whole transclusion thing blew up in my face, as it is ought to do sometimes. Instead of saving it on the transcluded subpage it got tacked onto the primary page beneath the new entry. You should have noted that I cleaned up my mess before you made your comment. 132.205.3.20 18:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fake vote for Apocolypse Pooh

You were right, that vote wasn't made by me - I've been around for a while, but very on and off over the years. Thanks for the note.

Regards, Zarius 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit war + vandalism = Barbara Schwarz

This article is getting out of hand - and I can't even count the number of violations that have cropped up on the talk page alone. Things have been said about User:Vivaldi and especially User:Tilman that may open WP up to a charge of libel if they are left up, not to mention that the perpetrators seem to be engaged in a one-page smear campaign against Misplaced Pages itself.

We need HELP. 206.114.20.121 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes please help by voting to remove the Barbara Schwarz article. Tilman insists on entering claims which have not been attributed to reliable sources and he has a past history of personally "attacking" Barbara on USENET for the last several years. --AI 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Barbara's personal attacks on USENET against Tilman and Tory Christman and David Touretzky and Barb Graham and Fredric Rice and Dave Rice and Andreas Heldal Lund and Rick Ross don't count against her. But God forbid ANYONE should speak a discouraging word against Barbara, or you'll rip them to shreds. 206.114.20.121 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I see two problems with Barbara. First, she often dumps huge texts, like the one you moved today (thank you). These texts are often irrelevant to the dispute. Second, she doesn't log in, and usually doesn't sign her articles, which makes it confusing. I know that one doesn't have to log in, to encourage new users to contribute. But with Barbara this brings chaos. Tilman 22:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

Also, you should look at Tilman's history. He can also be a problem and has removed comments by others and does not apply NPOV as his edits to this article are mainly to make Barbara look crazy. --AI 02:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not his edits that make her look crazy. 206.114.20.121 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a contributing editor of Misplaced Pages

Hello,

I am a contributing editor of the Misplaced Pages Open Source Project. I am attempting to add one valuable resource under one topic. I am adding a "gambling directory" in a category that does not have one. Misplaced Pages Rules: (OK to add: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Misplaced Pages, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

If it is deemed that the nuetral information that I add is "spam" or "commercial" in nature. Then I will contribute in another way. I will remove blatant commercial links from other categories. Misplaced Pages Rules: 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

For example, the category online casino has a section for Blacklisted Casinos. Having this section that only points to commercial sites, without offering an area for white listed casinos, does not convey a NPOV (rule #3). Another example is the category Bet Exchanges. This category is loaded with mostly commercial links to various Bet Exchanges.

If the one relevent nuetral link that I am trying to add in the category "gambling" is considered spam or commercial in nature. I feel it is my duty to remove other spam or commercial links as a contributing wikipedia editor.

Sincerely,

Trail Guide

Thank you for your note. I have seen your recitation of Misplaced Pages rules embedded in one of your edits. Being bold does not allow you to violate the WP:3RR rule in an attmept to impose the will of one individual (you) over all the others who believe your link (only one website) is an advertisement and does not add to the numerous articles you have added it to. You must gain some kind of consensus instead of trying to overrule the community with your opinion. In addition, do not blank sections without discussion. This is considered vandalism and will get you blocked from editing. Please try to obey all the rules of Wikipeda and not the ones that agree with your action. - Tεxτurε 16:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Practice what you preach

Hello,

The discussion board, for the article "gambling", has not had a post in it since June of 2004 (over one year). Exactly how does this consensus discussion take place?

What do you mean "numerous articles you have added it to"? I am trying to add one relevant nuetral link to one article. It was removed within hours of it's original posting.

Please describe for me why you think my link "Gambling Directory," which leads to an open directory that anyone can post their gambling related site in, is SPAM or commercial in nature, while you allow the various links I mentioned in my last message.

Have you even visited the link I posted? What consensus was taken to remove the link I added? There have been exactly two visitors from wikipedia.org this entire month, one of which was me testing the link. So, what consensus was taken to determine that the link I added should be removed?

Having one visitor from wikipedia.org, but 5 or 6 people making a consensus to remove an edit, is a much more serious violation of the 3RR rule. "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts)is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups."

Here is what I suggest to you. Please try to obey all the rules of Misplaced Pages and not the ones that only agree with your action.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

If your edits are reverted more than a dozen times by many people then it is a sign you should make your case on the talk page. When I say "numerous articles" I am including the articles you edited as an anonymous IP. Please discuss specifics on the talk page of the articles you are interested in. - Tεxτurε 17:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi! Don't take my comment on Talk:Gambling as a criticism, I am happy that you keep removing the spam. But as I read the 3RR, you may only make 3 reversions on a single article per 24h period. It doesn't matter whether you revert one editor or multiple, or whether you revert different parts of the article. Actually, by the other measure User:Trail Guide wouldn't be in serious violation of the 3RR since he has reverted me one time, you 4 times and Ahorsteimer 3 times. Rasmus (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The scope of VfU

Considering the Harry Potter trolling VfU discussion and several recent ones, it's time we revived the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and dealt with the question directly. You were involved in the original discussion and your remarks on this VfU suggested you might nevertheless want to chip in, so I thought I'd let you know. We'd got about as far as simplifying the immediately preceding discussion and then things sort of stalled. Anyway, I've started a new section on that Talk: page. -Splash 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

rfc policy

This text you removed isn't changing policy in anyway, it is reporting what it currently is. How is consensus needed to report the facts of policy? FuelWagon 22:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

TLAs

A proposal has been made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Misplaced Pages namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 00:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent VfU changes

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion#"Purpose of the page" section and the history of Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion. I would appreicviate more people being involved in this matter. DES 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Xixax

Well, we're supposed to be discussing the facts and evidence of the article, not "voting". But yes, pending overwhelming evidence to the contrary, my opinion is currently that the article should be deleted. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

see message ... i'm posting concerning the removal of an external link in Rick Barry section

Credit

Thanks, Texture. I try to be honest mainly for selfish reasons: dishonesty clutters the mind. Marsden 15:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I like that. - Tεxτurε 15:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg enforcement

Texture --

It may well be fruitless to have Jayjg blocked; as you note, there is no lack of people to stand in for him.

However, I think Jayjg and company are doing something very dishonest: they are re-writing history. See this for my comments on that matter. It may be that, within the rules of Misplaced Pages, they cannot be stopped. But this, in my opinion, is not sufficient reason not to try to stop them. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

I will, as you note, probably fail in this. When that happens, I will wash my hands of Misplaced Pages for ever and go on. But I think Misplaced Pages is a good idea, and I would dislike deciding that it is, ultimately, a failed enterprise.

And, getting Jayjg blocked would at least be a small victory, which might keep the spark alive that one day will lead to the right thing finally happening. Jayjg has cast many aspersions at other users, many related to their rule-violation statuses. It would be a nice, if small, splash to leave in the history of Misplaced Pages to note that this is in many respects the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe one day the remote ripples from that splash will meet up with ripples from elsewhere and form a wave.

Plus, he deserves it. He has, in my opinion, violated the terms of the remedies, and I have never seen him hesitate to enforce rule violations on anyone else, and even to make veiled threats related to violation hearings.

Your comments on developing a compromise are spot on, but I've already attempted that.

I assert to you that I am trying to do the right thing; care to lend a hand?

Marsden 16:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do. I haven't formed an opinion on the issue and the discussion is at a very detailed level. I don't exactly understand what the disagreement is about. Are you objecting to a redirect of Occupied Territories (Israeli) to Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories? Your comment worries about not finding "Occupied Territories" in a search of Misplaced Pages but won't that search still find the redirect of that name (even though it points to Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories)? The revert war seems to be on another issue that I can't find a distinction to determine the differences.

Regardless, a revert war gains no sympathy or support and only polarizes people before there is any chance to compromise. This is why I suggested a page protection. That may force all to sit down and find middle ground. - Tεxτurε 16:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Turning Occupied Territories (Israeli) into a redirect removes all the information that previously was in the article. And Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories nowhere mentions that "Occupied Territories" has been broadly used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. And the link to this page at Occupied Territories, which Jayjg has reverted to several times, avoids any mention that "Occupied Territories" has been broadly used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. I think that this alone constitutes, prima facie, a violation of the prohibition from the arbitration. To make the violation even more egregious, he made it repeatedly in a revert war with me, including in one instance violating 3RR temporarily (he reverted his own revert to avoid this).

You are an administrator, Texture: what you can do is block him for 24 hours for violating the remedy of the arbitration. The terms of the remedy serve as his warning. You can at least rule and act on that without digging into very many details.

You may look to this synopsis to get just a rough idea of how much effort, without even getting into all the discussions, I have put into addressing Jayjg's various objections. The only conclusion I can make with regard to his actions is that Jayjg is trying to keep any link from existing that would direct a search on "Occupied Territories" to the information that the term is commonly used to refer to the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War, and that his discussions with me have mostly been in bad faith: he offers as "compromise" that I accept his preferred arrangement of the relevant articles (sometimes offering that the "OT(I)" article be left as is but orphaned) while the matters are "discussed," and yet his "discussions" are generally repeating his positions on facts and terminology ad nauseum, ignoring any and all objections.

Marsden 17:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't plan to enforce the arbitration decision myself since I have been in active discussion with you on this and Jayjg on other matters. I feel that a neutral admin should take any necessary action.

What I would like is a compromise between the conflicting parties. Revert wars don't get anywhere. I am going to revisit Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories since I am surpised that "Occupied Territories" is not referenced. Can you bullet list what wound need to be included if the articles are merged? (The edit history would be merged but I assume you are saying some content would be lost.) - Tεxτurε

To be honest, I don't think anything at the current Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories article warrants saving. It is mostly editorializing, and the direct facts that it does contain are poorly organized, incomplete, and in many instances not relevant. I think that the pre-deletion Occupied Territories (Israeli) article has everything that should be included, and has it in a reasonable format. There is certainly room to expand the "Contentious Term" section, and more on the many, many related disputes, but I think the necessary and sufficient characteristics for a merged article are all there: a simple statement of the meaning of the term; a short history of events affecting the meaning of the term; and then discussion of the context and history of the term and its use. Also, the noun in the title should be "Territories," not "Occupation." The territories, at least, are at some level tangible things; the occupation is in dispute before any facts can even be stated about it. In anticipation of the re-deletion of the "OT(I)" article, here is a link from the history: Revision as of 19:11, 19 September 2005. Marsden 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Stochastic Integral

Texture, I'd like to delay responding to you on the Stochastic Integral article until I find out what action is taken regarding Jayjg. Thanks. Marsden 17:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I need to revert the blanking until then. (Deleted is ok and your article is ok but blank is not.) Let me know what you decide. - Tεxτurε 17:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please delete the article. Thanks. Marsden 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"ArbCom" decision

Texture, here is the message I received from Jayjg regarding this matter:

Aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", the Arbitration Committee ruling also only applied to me for the period of my editing restrictions, which was 0 days. The Committee has clarified this, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. I regret that you have personalized this conflict to me, and that you feel that your role is to recruit allies in an attempt to war with others or punish me in some way, rather than focussing on resolving conflict on the Talk: page. I feel you have rejected my many honest overtures and requests that you try a more collegial path to dispute resolution. Jayjg 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I wash my hands. Marsden 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cutco Article

I know you're busy but I was hoping to get your help. I am dealing with an anon user on the Cutco page who insists on a NPOV tag when no one is stopping him/her from making edits (just as long as they're cited) and no one is discussing anything (there just isn't a problem). I think the user just didn't like my one revert and is retaliating for not getting his/her way the first time around. I've already been accused of being a Cutco salesperson! LOL Could you take a look at the talk page and let me know if I'm the wrong one and how you would handle this situation? Anything you can add to the discussion would also be helpful. I just can't figure out what this person's deal is and I don't think that he/she is using the tag properly and want to take it off. Thanks for your help.Gator1 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You are so the MAN/WOMAN!!! Thanks for the help, it is greatly appreciated. Let ME know if I can ever do anything for YOU. :) Gator1 19:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Check out this nice (unsigned) response from the anon user. Starsts out OK, then gets ugly and very uncivil. I'll warn, but I think a short time out to cool off is appropriate here, but you know better:

Look, I'm sorry I hadn't added any reference material, although later on I did provide a link and the NPOV tag was still disputed. Overall, I feel as if I've been greatly bullied, mocked, and made to look like an idiot.

I'm rather pissed right now. So I'm not going to put it lightly you've destroyed a great deal of confidence I've had in Misplaced Pages. I flat-out hate your guts. You're on my shit list now, bitch. Go to hell.

And you really, really need to stick those knives as far up your ass as physically possible. Remember, it's pointed-end first.

Nice huh?lol Gator1 12:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I requested a block and Shane denied it. You cna see his response. Here's what I said to him on his talk page:

I respect your decision, but he only edits a little bit every day and then comes back every 24 hours, so he'll be back 24 hours from his last edit and make more threats. I will respect your decision, but just wanted you to know that.Gator1 14:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tht's hi spattern, once every 24 hours. So he'll ocme back and do it again. I'm sure of it, because he thinks there's nothing wrong with it. Anyway, just would love to have your opinion on this and am worried about having a vandal coming after me. I don't think I did anything wrong. Do you?Gator1 14:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You aren't doing anything wrong. I am surprised that someone sophisticated enough to understanding POV tags isn't able to detail his objections. All I see are links and no presented recommendations. What I have seen from your edits is an ability to compromise and include some criticism. If he will only tell us what he wants it might be good to add. Hopefully we can convince him to work with us instead of stomping off without a discussion. - Tεxτurε 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to jus ignore him that best I can. I have no desire to pick a fight. I'll report him again if he keeps it up, though. Thanks again, you've been a great help.Gator1 15:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ragdoll

I need your expertise again...sorry :( On the page it seems that someone has deleted the picture that used to be the main pic for the article. I have my suspicions (it happened right when someone wanted to replace it with another) but is there anyway you could take a look at this and maybe figure out what happened to it, who did it and why? I have no clue what to do in this area. It just seems fishy! Thanks!Gator1 20:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. Thanks.Gator1 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon user

The "Aiur" reference is from the old computer game (maybe new) called Starcraft. Played it a lot when I was in college. I actually giggled when I saw it. Sorry about the test4, I just didn't like seeing that happen to you, you're agood apple, and I got carried away. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.Gator1 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Hello Texture, thanks for the message on my talk page. I did not know about John Kerry's Jewish heritage. I definitely think that this information should find its way into the article. However, I still question applyin the Jewish Category tag. While it would be accurate in a sense, it is also misleading in a sense. I would wager that most readers would understand the tag to be referring to a religious affiliation and practice. What about the creation of a "Jewish (Ethnic)" or "Jewish Heritage" category, instead? Johntex\ 21:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That is great - thank you. It will be interesting to see what they say at the Category: Jewish American talk page. I think I will go over there and express my opinion that there should be two categories. Best, Johntex\ 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I received a message from you about "commercial speech" in the bet exhange entry I expanded upon.

Clearly the current 'bet exchange' listing is largely betfair propaganda (about liquidity favoring betfair, etc), and it is simply a necessary factual extension of the current bet exchange entry to discuss the only player in the US bet exchange market with a legal offering (BetBug). Happy to discuss further, but if you're monitoring commercial speech, either delete the betfair entries or allow BetBug if you wish to remain unbiased!!

Removal of Chinese Commentary

I see that you've edited the page on Ward so that the Chinese Wiki contributor's negative comments about the man are no longer there. I think that it should be reverted, simply because he was expressing the prevalent view of Ward in China, and had actually at one point deleted my "western" summary of Ward with his own.

Having both a Western and a Chinese perspective provides insight into how the two cultures separately view the man and his legacy, and if nothing else, forestalls some offended Chinese person from deleting the current summary, which is Western in perspective.

If you don't revert it, I will plan to do so, not because I agree with the Chinese view, but because it is value to see it and understand it, whether it comes from a "citable source" or not.

I'd be happy to include something if there was a factual citation behind it. Can you reference any news articles rather than a vague "view of Ward in China"? Misplaced Pages does not include opinions and must have citations in order to include general views. - Tεxτurε 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Our recent discussion

I'm very glad we were able to remain civil and respectful through the entire discussion, and never considered us to be anything other than friends discussing an issue. As you can tell, I'm very strong in my belief of "assume good faith" and prefer that everyone remains exceptionally courteous at all times. "Courtesy in the face of any insult" is a personal goal, even as I show the malevolents the door.

When people post unsolicited reminders of what not to do, especially where instructions are being followed to the letter, it strikes me as mildly counter to both AGF and courtesy. It is not necessary or desirable to set up any part of Misplaced Pages as a nanny state, so I will sometimes make comments that express that opinion.

Now, for the benefit of any third party readers, Texture did not offend my sense of courtesy, did not violate "assume good faith" nor did he attempt impose a nanny state. We had a discussion of the relative merits of unsolicited reminders of policy, and I wanted to enforce our good relationship with a message here. Unfocused 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel left out... I never had a nanny as a child. (Not even the TV-nanny. The antenna only got three channels.) A very nice note - I look forward to the next discussion. Thanks for the beer! - Tεxτurε 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if the discussion includes me or not. But, Texture, I owe you a thanks for explaining my actions better than I did. -Splash 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Most deeply repressed? "You can't handle the truth". - Jack Nicholson

Gosh. Coulda fooled me. I was glad when there was a cessation of hostilities your conversation stopped. I'm even more glad to hear that I was wrong in assuming you guys were having a heated exchange; seems you were being downwight jovial. :)—encephalon 12:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a shakespearian kinda thing.... - Tεxτurε 14:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

But of course. I can see that.—encephalon 14:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if either of you gets truly pissed in future "discussions", remember, don't let the bastard grind you down. Just take his lunch.—encephalon 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And then take his beer! Unfocused 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mechanics of Deletion Review

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks, and apologies for pinging your talk page again! -Splash 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com

I have to say that I agree with you here. Tony had no business undeleting an article except by VfU. However, I don't currently have the time to enter into a long discussion about this, and would prefer to do no more than register my opposition to completely ignoring policy. I understand that Tony acted in good faith, but don't ] 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am divided on this one. The rule is, and long has been, that a previous deeltion is no bar to the creation of a different article on the asme subject. In the curreht state of things, I don't seem able to see both the previously deleted version and the verion that Tony wrote. He said that this was a completely independant creation, and i have no reason to think he lied. Since other said that it closely echoed the previous version, i presme that he worked from the same online sources as diod those who created the previosu version. In any case, the main reasson for the inital deletion was non-notability, and there seems at best limited reason to belive that this has increased substantiually since the previous deletion debate -- but particuwlrly in the case of soemthing like a web forum, whose notability can increase significantly in a fairly short time, I suppose that an editor must be allowed to repropose an article for discussion in light of alleged increase in notability (or usage and other such factors which go to indicate notability for such a forum) or in the light of allgedly new information abouth the subject generally. I don't approve of thsi action, and it smells of WP:POINT to me, but if Tony honestly thought he had new info on the subject, I don't see that he did anything wrong. DES 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree that it is WP:POINT and don't agree that Tony honestly thought he had new info. What Tony did wrong is once again try to circumvent a VfU in progress. He undeleted his own article (a conflict of interest that should be addressed) while it was being discussed on VfU with overwhelming support to keep deleted. This violates process and consensus. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I quite agree that a unilateral undeltion of a speedy-delted article while on VfU, particularly by the original author of the article is poor practice and a conflict of interest. If not strictly aganst policy, is is very poor form IMO. I was addressign mostly the issues of Tony's creation of a version of the articel, and the 2nd AfD debate. DES 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The second point may be more academic (and I believe not this case). Is a recreation speediable if it is innocently a recreation of deleted content? The answer according to policy is, yes, it is a recreation of content deleted under a valid vote and an innocent source does not change the fact. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, a duplicte or effective duplicate of validly deleted content is speediable, no matter what the creator's intentions. But the creator cannot legitimately be criticised in such a case, merely adviased of the previous deletion, and invited to erite an article that will not have the same reasons for deletion, if this is possible. In the case where an article is deleted for non-notability and there is evidence of increased notability (or evidence of previous notability not considered in the original AfD) I think a new article that includes such evidence but is otherwise identical to the previous articel should not be considered as "substantially similar" and so subject to speedy deletion, becaue it is different on a key issue -- whether the subject is notable or not. Whither this article fit that case might be debated, but soem people so argued at the 2nd AfD, and the increased alexa score does indicate soem degree of increased notability, although whether it is enbough to cross the threshold is another matter DES 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. I think we only differ on intent. I think in light of Tony's other actions (in this case and others) it is clearly WP:POINT but I respect to your view of WP:AGF. - Tεxτurε 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on a brief wiki-break. I think the undeletion was against policy, and am concerned about it, but it appears to be fixed now. Jayjg 15:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

VFU comment on Seduction Comm

Hey there Texture. I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way, which I'm sorry about. Although I think I understand the source of the problem, and I think we're about this || close to agreement, I may be wrong, and I want to listen and try to understand exactly where you believe I may have been mistaken. Thanks! encephalon 20:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I replied to you here but I'll give you the short version here... I didn't say what I thought I said. You're just supposed to... well... kinda know what I mean even though I don't actually explain myself... Got that? No? Well, me neither. Sorry for my confusion. No hard feelings? - 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude. How there possibly be hard feelings—you're too awesome for that. :) I think I understand what the problem might be. You want to protect the integrity of the AfD system from a closer who might exercise too much "discretion", and discount votes that he (alone) considers untenable, right? And perhaps the sound of "lesser weight for earlier votes" seems dangerously close to that, no?

I agree that can be a potential problem. However, when I say that votes may sometimes have to be given less weight, I mean for that bar to be quite high. That is to say, I am most comfortable with this when there is a factual problem at play, not an opinion difference. An example of a factual issue that may lead me to discount all prior keep votes, even from outstanding members of the community, is a copyvio. If I was closing a AfD where Jimbo Wales and Angela and Anthere and UIC had voted keep, but I found that the article was an outright, blatant copyvio, I will not keep it. If an AfD was started on a very good but extremely technical, obscure subject that 95% of the voters said to delete because they thought it was a hoax, and I find out it is real and can be sourced to excellent technical references, I will not delete it (for that reason anyway)—I will either relist or keep, depending on the circumstance and clarity of the situation. (Look at this AfD for an interesting example). But I would not agree with any discretionary decision running counter to the vote that did not have a clear, sensible, well-thought reason—a reason that must be clearly stated at the close (like how Splash does it). Kindest regards encephalon 21:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC) NB. In the pseudowallerian degen AfD, the problem was spotted early so the votes were all "keep", but I'm using it as an example of a situation where, if it wasn't spotted, 95% of the vote could easily have been delete) encephalon 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, y'had me... then y'didn't have me. I can agree to a high bar for weighing votes. To me that would need to be explicitely spelled out. Admins have recently gone rogue and I really feel that admins need to be administrators and not judges.

Your examples didn't have me. If Jimbo Wales and Angela and Anthere and UIC had voted keep and you deleted because it was a copyvio - you violated process. The proper result would have been keep and you tag the article as a copyvio and it goes on copyright problems page. No need to delete out of process when it can be verified on CP. (You might be wrong and all of them might know it is not a copyvio. Admins should not assume we know more.)

On the other, 95% of voters say its a hoax and you are convinced it is not. That sounds like your vote weighs a lot more than the 95%. (Again, you could be wrong.) If you plan to vote during closure you need to extend the voting period, vote yourself, and let another admin close it. (Just because you looked at closing it doesn't mean you have to.) The other option is that you relist it, vote, and let another admin close it. (Same thing.)

You examples don't pan out for me but I think I understand your reasoning. I think the above shows my concerns, however. I really think admins should be administrators and not judges. In this case it means if we feel we disagree with consensus we don't close it ourselves but rather (administratively) pass along our concerns and extend or relist. What'ya think? - Tεxτurε 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I did not say I would delete the copyvio on AfD, Texture. I said I will not keep it. (Yes, that was phrased that way intentionally :)). The regular procedure for copyvios apply. The example was intended to demonstrate an instance when "keep" (ie. as is) votes cannot be accepted with the usual weight they're given if later information turns up that shows they're not tenable.
2. In regards the hoax example, I am not saying my vote counts more than 95% of earlier voters—in the first place I think we should not close an AfD we vote on. I said that if 95% of editors vote to delete an article because they clearly believe it to be a hoax, but after they've voted and just before closure clear evidence turns up that it's real and not a hoax, I would not delete that article if I were a closer. I'd either relist or keep (depending on the circumstances). I'd recuse if there was some conflict of interest involved. (Question: imagine you were going to close that pseudowallerian AfD, imagine that Tony turned up with the evidence much later and was the last person to vote, and imagine there were 10 deletes before him. Would you have deleted the article (assume it was a decent paragraph, but had no listed references)? I most definitely wouldn't, and I think you wouldn't either. That's the point I'm trying to make.)
3. In any instance where this sort of thing happens, a very detailed statement must be made on the AfD, explaining reasons for doing something out of the ordinary. encephalon 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we do agree. (mostly - at least on the imporant details) - Tεxτurε 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Sexy Sluts thank you for your explanation

Thanks Texture,

Is there any way we can post our band without it seeming like "vanity" or "spam"?

-The Sexy Sluts

Not really under currrent guidelines and thinking unless your band grows to the point that an article can be developed independently based on your increased status. However, Misplaced Pages is a consensus driven community. If you want to become involved in the decisions made regarding music and band articles check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music. As mentioned by Friday, you can also include whatever you'd like on your user page. - Tεxτurε 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bands

You mentioned having a band who's not in Misplaced Pages. Mine isn't either (and I'm not suggesting it should be). But, I wonder you'd find User:Friday/Bands#List of Wikipedians... amusing. Friday (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Might get some support. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why was 'opwtn' deleted?

Post was factual and accurate. What reason was there to remove this?

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/OPWTN for information. Recreation of content deleted by vote can be marked as speedy delete and will be deleted. - Tεxτurε 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Your query on my talk page

...I thought it was pretty lame. But it looks like it was resolved correctly, last time i checked. Nandesuka 23:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked for your opinion. I won't bother you again. - Tεxτurε 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

I don't remember why, but I was looking at your userpage. The blue dotted box overlaps the DYK text completely, so that the two sets of text are munged together. I'd {{sofixit}} if my HTML wasn't so very rusty. If it helps, I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 on WinXP Pro. -Splash 19:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Didn't realize it broke. I threw in a {{clear}} and it seems fine now. - Tεxτurε 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Glebova

Inappropriate closure

(copied from Nichalp's talk page)

Do you feel it is appropriate for you to vote then close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara? All but a single anon vote were to delete and you feel that you can vote then close as no consensus? How do you feel you can do this without obvious conflict of interest? - Tεxτurε 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he declared a consensus to keep the article. I'd like to assume that this was a good faith procedural error, but it's difficult to believe that a highly experienced admin (and now bureaucrat) wouldn't know better. —Lifeisunfair 15:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that his was the ONLY keep vote other than a single anonymous entry? His "consensus" was himself. That is inappropriate. - Tεxτurε 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. That closure does need explaining, particularly the choice to go with a keep rather than a no consensus. I guess for now we should wait for Nichalp to reply. I don't generally like admins closing divided debates in which they are clearly partisan. This could almost be a test case for deletion review, which I shall give another push to. However, with the website link removed and all that ghastly original research (it's far more than an overview of a book, which might be ok to an extent) and obvious publicity removed, I'd expect the article to make it alive through another AfD since he is director of a research centre at a Uni and has published a book. Depending on Nichalp's response, I suppose there would be nothing at all wrong with a rapid renomination in this case, given the manner of the closure. -Splash 16:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent catch, Texture. Certainly needs explaining, as Splash suggests. I would like to believe this was a simple error, perhaps caused by working too quickly or having his mind elsewhere and not realizing what he was doing. That's sometimes the explanation for odd closes like this. One another note, this

...deletion review, which I shall give another push to.

sounds like a great idea. I think we should move into the final stages, Splash. encephalon 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFD

Hi Texture: Assume good faith. I was surprised to see the tone of your post on my page, which struck me as rather aggressive. Perhaps you could be a little more polite in the future?

Well, AFD is not my comfort zone, and well, that day I may have had on off day since I had a really busy week. I stand by what I have done, in retrospective, as you rightly pointed out however, it was "conflict of interest" on my part. I apologise for this error.

My actions on that day were as follows. The article was nominated on 28 September. As per the AFD convention, the a desision on deleting or preserving the article usually takes place after five days. I took the decision on 8 October, that's 10 days after it was nominated by you and double the normal process time. Well, IP votes are allowed, there's nothing barring them from voting in the process if made in good faith, and I believe it was made in good faith. I did do a google search on him and it threw up quite a lot of results. 3:2 is not really a decisive vote count after 10 days, so I had to give the article the benefit of the doubt, to clear the backlog.

To conclude this post, there was nothing wrong in my judgement, I stand by what I have done, but me voting, and also concluding the AFD process was perhaps a "conflict of interest", for which I am ready to apologise. You are most welcome to seek another admin's opinion, but I won't follow up on this. Thank you and regards, User:Nichalp/sg 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sad that you did not Assume good faith in my action. I did not change your closing. I did not undo it and extend the voting period. I did not delete the article. I did not renominate the article for deletion. I did not place the decision on VfU (in the spirit of Deletion Review). I did not take any action against you on any of the many wikipedia-space pages where this decision, your action, or the situation in general could be discussed.

What I did do was place a note on your talk page. I found this to be the least agressive, most accomodating, and most appropriate place to voice my concern at your action. I apologize if you didn't like how I worded the note. I cannot find a less offensive or more accomodating place to make my concern known to you. Do you have a suggestion?

Regarding your judgement - I would not have questioned your decision to give weight to the anon had you not voted minutes before closing the AfD. You say that AfD is not your comfort zone. Why, then, did you choose to vote and then close this AfD that was clearly weighted to "delete"? In my opinion, it looks to an observer that you saved a dying article in every way you could. Had you voted and allowed another admin to close with no consensus to delete I would not question it. Had you closed without voting with no consensus to delete I would also have deferred to your discretion. In this case you took it off the block minutes after voting. I took that concern to your talk page and here we are.

One last thing. Please reread my original comment without the tone you believe it has. You have answered my question (at the end of your reply) and I am satisfied in your response that you will consider this possible conflict in the future. - Tεxτurε 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I did assume good faith on your part. I did not criticise your actions in anyway except for the tone on my talk, which could be more diplomatically put. I also thank you for the good actions on your part.

As for the post:Do you feel it is appropriate for you to vote then close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara? All but a single anon vote were to delete and you feel that you can vote then close as no consensus? How do you feel you can do this without obvious conflict of interest? could it not be reworded to Hi, I noticed that you voted to keep the article on Balagangadhara, and closed the nomination almost immediately. Considering that ann anon's vote, and your last minute vote were the only ones to keep, so would it not be a "conflict of interest" if the same person voted and closed it immediately? Awaiting your response. Regards, Texture. In the second reply "ONLY" is in allcaps, 'shouting' in other words. Unfortunately, I won't be a daily contibutor to wp anymore, so there's less of a chance of me erring in the future. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 07:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll keep that in mind and try to phrase things better. - Tεxτurε 14:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No probs, just remember we all make mistakes. Owning up to an error on one's part is a hard thing to do for most people, but that resolves issues much faster and makes friends. :) I realise that I've messed up the grammar above, but I guess you've got the gist of what I had to say. User:Nichalp/sg 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Neleh

Saw your left shoe joke, which has become quite the archetype for the perenial question—what is notability? Ever since I took an interest in behind-the-scenes policy-wonking on WP, and especially since I started thinking about what this Project might achieve, it has seemed to me that the fundamental, fate-settling question before us is: what are we going to let in and what are we going to (try and) keep out? In a world where information is not yet cheap, and there is much garbage among the valuable, the free-for-all approach advocated by many uber-"inclusionists" is unhealthy. At the same time, the way "notability" is used by many folk seems less than thoughtful. Pondering a way out has led me to believe that a robust interpretation of WP:V is the brightest torch we have. The route is clear for articles; the Archilles heel is the idea of a stub. Is it possible to write a Theory of Everything for WP? Yeah. In time. encephalon 20:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I would have voted to keep Neleh but I will probably nominate Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk for deletion. They are the equivalent of throwing trash inside blocks when building a foundation. They don't hurt anything. They might insulate the house if you have enough trash in there (likely not). Mostly they just don't do anything. It'd be worse if you had to see the filler trash when looking for something inside the house. (Something I find cluttering searches in my den.) These could be merged into another article. (Is there one on useless reality show extras?) Oh, and there is a Theory of Everything. Sadly, I still believe in the theory of nothing and its result. - Tεxτurε 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're very, very bad. It's taken me ages to stop laughing, time I could have spent doing other things! That ought to be archived someplace. -Splash 21:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

John Spargo

Hi. I restored John Spargo. I'm curious why you thought it was speedy delete material. --RoySmith 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. The original deleted article had the text "John Spargo was a muckraker." and the recreated version seemed to be making a similar personal attack (WP:CSD A6). Rereading it I can see that it was likely not (at least in its current form.) - Tεxτurε 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

CVU

I noticed you aren't in Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en and wanted to let you now that we'd appreciate you adding yourself! Also, consider using one of the identification templates: {{User:Cool Cat/CVU1-1}} or {{User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1}}

Thanks for your involvement with CVU! -- Essjay · Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yr welcome

Re : Yr msg, no probs. I do actually have an account, but had forgotten to log in!

Regards, Gibraltarian

deleting links

Not really sure why The War in Context was deleted from the Iraq page external links. This is neither a commercial site nor a private site. It's used by lots of journalists covering the war in Iraq - Tony Karon at Time, Christopher Dickey at Newsweek and Hassan Fatah at The New York Times, just to name a few.

The War in Context

Yes, this is my site. It's on a subject that I've been covering in depth for over three years and as well as adding articles I do provide commentary. Do a search on Ask.com with the query - Iraq war - http://web.ask.com/web?q=iraq+war&qsrc=0&o=0 and you'll see that The War in Context comes up as result #4 out of 15,950,000. With the same query run in Google's larger index it comes up 51 out of 120,000,000.

Christopher Dickey, Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek Magazine, writes: "The War in Context tracks breaking news and adds thoughtful perspective," http://christopherdickey.blogspot.com/2005/10/terror-crying-wolf-playing-politics.html while Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME.com, says that my site "provides the best annotated clipping service of the mainstream media for all things war, terror and Mideast related." http://tonykaron.com/2005/08/15/war-in-context/

Misplaced Pages is not for advertising your own web site. If your site gains notability it will be added at an appropariate place in the future by a third party. Adding links to your own site in article is considered a vanity edit and will be removed. - Tεxτurε 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Texture wrote: Misplaced Pages is not for advertising your own web site. If your site gains notability it will be added at an appropariate place in the future by a third party. Adding links to your own site in article is considered a vanity edit and will be removed.

The vanity guidelines describe vanity information as "any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author." The War in Context has extracts from 13,000 articles relating to the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the Middle East conflict and the Bush administration's involvement in these issues. There is virtually nothing on the site about me. The idea that sites will be added "at an appropariate place in the future" sounds good in principle, yet it was not until today that the Misplaced Pages Iraq page had a link added (by me) to Informed Comment http://www.juancole.com . Professor Juan Cole is one of the most widely quoted experts on Iraq in the United States. He has appeared many times on the PBS Newshour and is frequently quoted in all the major newspapers when expert opinion is sought on Iraq. But (until today) anyone trying to better understand what's happening in Iraq would not have been able to find a link to Informed Comment from Misplaced Pages's Iraq page. Misplaced Pages will not develop as a useful repository of expert knowledge if it is overzealously policed.

We are talking about the notability of your website and your reason for adding it to many articles. Not its content. You are advertising your website and it will be removed. - Tεxτurε 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Periodic table of the elements

Dear Texture,

I'm sorry to see that you reverted my addition to the English Misplaced Pages's article "Periodic table of the chemical elements". It wasn't my intention to advert any kind of commercial product: in fact, if you pay close attention to my webpage, it's FREEWARE. In other words, you may distribute it and do whatever you wish with it, so I thought it was worth a link in your page. Therefore, I don't considere that as "advertising a product", but an information source as any other page/link.

Sorry again if I misunderstood Misplaced Pages's policies.

Regards,

Luis

hey texture

i am just posting here to ask premission to use your template for your talk page... i like it lots but i thought i would ask you 1st before i used it just in case you do not want me to use it. Simsy 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?

You write on my RfC: "I have suggested with Tony that he propose new policy changes to CSD to allow the things he wants to delete outside of policy. He has dismissed this idea and prefers to delete because he can and thinks his opinion is sufficient to override policy."

I have no idea what you mean here. Can you recall when you asked me to do this, and in what context? --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)