This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 13 August 2013 (→Disruptive commandeering of an existing shortcut: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:46, 13 August 2013 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (→Disruptive commandeering of an existing shortcut: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is a subpage of Erpert's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For writing our article on Martie Duncan :) Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
- Wow, my very first first barnstar. Thanks! :) Erpert 23:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
New Slaves Redirect
I noticed you undid the redirect on New Slaves. The reason i redirected the page is because the song has not been released yet or released as a single or charted therefore does not meet song guidelines at the moment, but it can as soon as it is actually released. So that's why i think a redirect will suffice for now instead of taking it to afd. Koala15 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TLC (group) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- in for the season finale of ''R U The Girl'' on September 20, 2005, with 20-year-old Tiffany Baker]] as the winner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20050922upn03|title=O'
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Ryan Keely
The article Ryan Keely has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- fails PORNBIO, all noms scene-related, negligible reliably sourced bio content
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Qatari
- These people are notable on their own. I'm in the process of expanding their pages. They each run major organizations in Qatari society and are very well known independently in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheyhey222333 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to indeed expand the articles, more power to you, but as I stated on your talk page, a message board generally isn't a reliable source. Erpert 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Elexis Monroe
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Elexis Monroe, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Elexis_Monroe.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)Template:Z119 MadmanBot (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Was a misunderstanding; already TCO. (Why am I responding to a bot?) Erpert 06:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your comment on the talk page. I'm afraid you can't reverse the results of AfD discussions simply because you don't agree with the outcome. When the community makes a decision through a process like that it is supposed to have some sticking power. If you disagree with the way the debate was closed then you can talk to the deleting administrator or go to deletion review. If you can improve the page to address the concerns raised in the AfD then you can write a new improved version at the title. The one thing you can't do is recreate the page with the same material (or essentially the same material) as the version which we decided to delete, which is why we have G4. Hut 8.5 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that isn't even why I re-created it. The fact that it became clearer that delete !votes were based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and not policy resulted in the reinstatement of Capri Anderson. Additionally, Dana Vespoli was deleted and re-created, and another user tried to use G4 but it was declined because it wasn't essentially the same article (and this wasn't either; for instance, the original article didn't have a "health issues" section). In addition, I tried contacting the deleting admin but s/he is on vacation. I'm not sure why you don't agree with my explanation on the talk page, but I will take it to DRV next if I have to. If you still don't want to reinstate it, would you please at least userfy it for me? (Also, I would like to know which user requested G4 in the first place so I can ask him/her why s/he didn't notify me of it.) Erpert 18:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter whether the delete !votes in the AfD were correct or not, and I don't have much of an opinion on the subject. The fact is that the debate was closed as delete. We have ways of challenging AfD closures, and recreating the content isn't one of them. Apart from adding the statement that the subject has a daughter, changing the image and some minor formatting changes the only difference between this article and the AfDed version was the addition of the "Health issues" section, most of which should have been removed on BLP grounds alone. Nobody tagged the page for speedy deletion, I came across it while reviewing lists of pages tagged by MadmanBot. Given that a number of BLP issues with this content were raised prior to deletion I am somewhat uncomfortable about userfying it, though I don't mind if you take it to DRV. Hut 8.5 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Apart from..." and "the only difference"? Those are contradictions. Anyway, I already explained that I didn't simply re-create the content, not to mention that I gave you two examples of re-created content (thus slightly disproving what you stated above). In addition, how is reliably sourced information a BLP issue? For instance, although she has stated to be attracted to both men and women, per WP:V we couldn't say she identifies as bisexual unless she explicitly said she was. And I would feel better bringing it to DRV if it were userfied first because then I think I'd be able to more accurately argue my position by showing an example of the article. (BTW, what was stopping you from notifying me about the deletion?) Erpert 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- G4 doesn't require that the two pages be byte-for-byte identical. The wording is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Adding the sentence "Monroe also has a daughter", formatting some award nominations into a table and changing the image in an infobox are not remotely significant changes. In your "Health issues" section you included an allegation that the subject was fraudulently using donations, sourced only to some blog. That is not BLP compliant by any stretch of the imagination. It is reasonably common practice at DRV to temporarily restore the article history on request so that non-admin editors can review it, as long as there are no serious problems that would prevent this such as BLP issues or copyright violations. (If there were then it wouldn't be possible for me to userfy it either.) It is expected that if you have a particular interest in some page then you will add it to your watchlist, as evidently you did here. Hut 8.5 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I notice that you didn't explain why I was given no notification of the deletion. Anyway, I could see a BLP issue with a blog if that blog were proven to be an unreliable source (all blogs aren't, but most seem to be). Even if it were nothing but suspected BLP violations in the text (for example), the article could still be reduced to a stub with an infobox, an intro and the "awards and nominations" section. But I'm going to indeed take this to DRV. Erpert 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not the blog is reliable is irrelevant here. You cannot use self-published sources for statements about living people, and this blog is clearly self-published. Adding this particular allegation, with that source, was therefore a BLP violation. My point is that the only significant "improvement" made to the article over the AfDed version was in large part a BLP violation that shouldn't have been there anyway. Hut 8.5 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I notice that you didn't explain why I was given no notification of the deletion. Anyway, I could see a BLP issue with a blog if that blog were proven to be an unreliable source (all blogs aren't, but most seem to be). Even if it were nothing but suspected BLP violations in the text (for example), the article could still be reduced to a stub with an infobox, an intro and the "awards and nominations" section. But I'm going to indeed take this to DRV. Erpert 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- G4 doesn't require that the two pages be byte-for-byte identical. The wording is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Adding the sentence "Monroe also has a daughter", formatting some award nominations into a table and changing the image in an infobox are not remotely significant changes. In your "Health issues" section you included an allegation that the subject was fraudulently using donations, sourced only to some blog. That is not BLP compliant by any stretch of the imagination. It is reasonably common practice at DRV to temporarily restore the article history on request so that non-admin editors can review it, as long as there are no serious problems that would prevent this such as BLP issues or copyright violations. (If there were then it wouldn't be possible for me to userfy it either.) It is expected that if you have a particular interest in some page then you will add it to your watchlist, as evidently you did here. Hut 8.5 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Apart from..." and "the only difference"? Those are contradictions. Anyway, I already explained that I didn't simply re-create the content, not to mention that I gave you two examples of re-created content (thus slightly disproving what you stated above). In addition, how is reliably sourced information a BLP issue? For instance, although she has stated to be attracted to both men and women, per WP:V we couldn't say she identifies as bisexual unless she explicitly said she was. And I would feel better bringing it to DRV if it were userfied first because then I think I'd be able to more accurately argue my position by showing an example of the article. (BTW, what was stopping you from notifying me about the deletion?) Erpert 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter whether the delete !votes in the AfD were correct or not, and I don't have much of an opinion on the subject. The fact is that the debate was closed as delete. We have ways of challenging AfD closures, and recreating the content isn't one of them. Apart from adding the statement that the subject has a daughter, changing the image and some minor formatting changes the only difference between this article and the AfDed version was the addition of the "Health issues" section, most of which should have been removed on BLP grounds alone. Nobody tagged the page for speedy deletion, I came across it while reviewing lists of pages tagged by MadmanBot. Given that a number of BLP issues with this content were raised prior to deletion I am somewhat uncomfortable about userfying it, though I don't mind if you take it to DRV. Hut 8.5 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that isn't even why I re-created it. The fact that it became clearer that delete !votes were based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and not policy resulted in the reinstatement of Capri Anderson. Additionally, Dana Vespoli was deleted and re-created, and another user tried to use G4 but it was declined because it wasn't essentially the same article (and this wasn't either; for instance, the original article didn't have a "health issues" section). In addition, I tried contacting the deleting admin but s/he is on vacation. I'm not sure why you don't agree with my explanation on the talk page, but I will take it to DRV next if I have to. If you still don't want to reinstate it, would you please at least userfy it for me? (Also, I would like to know which user requested G4 in the first place so I can ask him/her why s/he didn't notify me of it.) Erpert 18:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your comment on the talk page. I'm afraid you can't reverse the results of AfD discussions simply because you don't agree with the outcome. When the community makes a decision through a process like that it is supposed to have some sticking power. If you disagree with the way the debate was closed then you can talk to the deleting administrator or go to deletion review. If you can improve the page to address the concerns raised in the AfD then you can write a new improved version at the title. The one thing you can't do is recreate the page with the same material (or essentially the same material) as the version which we decided to delete, which is why we have G4. Hut 8.5 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Aiden Starr & Maddy O'Reilly
- Where exactly does it say that award nominations have to be in different years in order to pass WP:PORNBIO. I've read WP:PORNBIO many times and I don't see it written anywhere. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You know what? The multiple year criterion used to be there but I never realized that it was removed. I'll move both articles back to mainspace. Erpert 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive commandeering of an existing shortcut
You don't need a guideline to cover obviously disruptive actions which distort the meanings of posts by other users. And, in light of your repeated displays of gratuitous incivility, you are unwelcome on my talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)