Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nandesuka (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 25 August 2006 (→Inflammatory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your only warning

Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? - brenneman 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on that: I not only consider your use of the word "trolling" in that context to be terribly incivil, I find the heading to this section to be preposterous, vergin on slapstick. - brenneman 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Slapstick? No, it is only this week's episode of the 'Tony and Aaron Show'. --Doc 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only asked him to stop. Let's hope he gets the message. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop what? And if you're going to "only ask" things in such a rude manner, please do save yourself the time. - brenneman

Stop what, exactly? I feel that this warning is unjustified. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Removal. Tony and Sam were arguing over statements on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. Aaron edited Sam's words, trying to calm the situation with a bit of humor. Sam appreciated the humor, but preferred to keep his own words. Tony was not amused at all. Or, I suppose he could be taking dry humor to a new height ... but I suspect he is serious.AnonEMouse 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen those edits. They were fairly justifiable in the situation. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If he told the guy about it, how can it possible be seen as disruptive? And leaving two-word trolling warnings that vague is unproductive. I swear, it seems like some people would rather just shut people up than work towards productivity. Karwynn (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images, your opinion?

• Misplaced Pages:Fair use

I recall you being at least some what interested in fair use violations and as such I would like your opinion on the images on New anti-Semitism. Going down the article we have...

• Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg Photograph of a placard at an antiwar rally, under a creative commons license. However, it is obviously a commons:Derivative work, zombietime does not claim to be the artist, ergo no permission from the original author and thus we can only use it as fair use. (This image alone generated quite a bit of vitriol on the talk page, so I loathe getting into this.)
• Image:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg Photo of nazi symbols graffitied on some french cemetary. Fails 1 (anyone could take a photo of such, or make one as this /specific/ incident is not important), 8 (who can't figure out what a swastica on a tombstone looks like?) and the litmus test of the fair use policy.
• Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg Book cover of an anti-Semitic book (well, I'm assuming, I cannot read it). If the book was discussed it might be fair use, but it is just thrown in there haphazardly without "critical commentary". Does not contribute much to the article (8).
• Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg A Nazi propoganda image. It has a spurious PD-because tag (see WP:PD#World_War_II_images). Anyone can draw a representation of this, the specific one does not matter, etc so fair use is a no go (imo).
• Image:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg another book cover, mostly the same issues as the other one, but at least this theme of the octopus is discussed briefly.
• Image:DavidDukeonSyrianTV.jpg TV screenshot that really doesn't add anything to the article. There is no real reason to illustrate this particular segment, or is it illustrating David Duke? Is the http://www.memritv.org/View.asp?P1=941 link not linking to copyright infringment?
• Image:Manchestergraffiti.jpg More graffiti. Same as the other one.
• Image:Tariq Ali.jpg From commons, looks fine
• Image:NewASMagenDavidswastika.jpg 1, 8 -- simple design, anyone can create a free alternative. The specific image is not that important, just about any would do.
• Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg same as the graffiti
• Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg Kind of specifically discussed by the text

Most of these also fail point 10 on specififying the copyright holders per 10 and the barest of fair use rationales when needed. FWIW, I think somone needs to go through all of SlimVirgin's uploads in particular. Many copy/paste fair use rationales and some things that are just plain wrong. Image:Hitlerwithdeer.GIF, Image:Hitlerdog.GIF (dubious PDs, no information given); Image:Judeasamaria.jpg, Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif maps are 99% of the time not fair use, it is even listed as a counterexample!; Image:PAMegrahihostage.jpg doesn't seem to be valid PD; Image:Weisbaden-Duggan.gif a map, labeled PD... that even has "© 2001 Microsoft Corportaion Alle Rechte vorbehalten" (all rights reserved) on it, huh?; many without any source data Image:PrimoLevi.gif, Image:DavidIckeprotest.gif, Image:Greer4.jpg; etc, but there are a decent number to go through. Kotepho 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was intending to do a flying visit here, so I haven't given this full attention yet. However, on the bulleted points I cannot find any fault with your logic. Only a few of these could ever be fair use. (I haven't looked at the article yet.) On Slim, I love her like a brother from another mother, so the thought of getting into a copyright stoush with her? Feh. But I am nothing if not dogged, so I'll look it over in the near future. If my heart breaks and my children become orphans, on your head be it. - brenneman

Plz answer

Please answer this before doing something rash, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea and would like a little discussion first. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I try never to do anything "rash." ^_^ As you had not responded last time I looked, I was going to ping you before I did anything anyway, but thanks for the note. - brenneman 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

will you block this guy?

• User:58.106.215.32

i left a message on the admin intervention noticeboard but nobody is doing anything and he will not stop. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 06:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking now. - brenneman 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty four hours. - brenneman 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Wikipediarules2221 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...

Regarding this block: Isn't 24 hours way too harsh? His edits weren't outright vandalism, going by his user talk. If you just want to get his notice, a 6- or 12-hour block would have done the trick, considering he just started editing without long pauses 2 hours ago. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user and hope he'll take your warning into consideration when he next edits. Kimchi.sg 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit

As requested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Research Survey Request

Thanks

Thanks for your note.In fact if you had noticed,you would have discovered that I had to change my user ID primarily as I had been blocked innocently for vandalism on Rajput page which I had never visited.Once dab was able to sort it out,I reverted back to my original page.Could I have all the messages back please.(Vr 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

WP:GUS, the vengeance!

Misplaced Pages:German de-adminship solution. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Och aye, love the "Snakes On A Plane" style section title! I've replied on the talk page there, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
brenneman 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is done. Oi vey, so much for my career as a quasi-pseudo-informal mediator. Note to self: Next time don't choose people whose time-zone means they can fight while you sleep. ^_^ While I'm closing this sectino, I'm still happy to re-open if anyone wants to talk about it more. - brenneman 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfD's

Initial discussion

I'm here. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think a good place to start is to list (as I've done below) all the recent closes. Then we can have a look at all of them, and discuss any that appear to be problems to anyone. Sound ok? - brenneman 02:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little room to disagree here :) You've already made a recent list. Are you proposing that I add to the list by listing all my closes? That could get pretty long and I already have a slow browser. Anyway you could archive your talk page? SynergeticMaggot 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How recent? I just noticed you meant recent. SynergeticMaggot

I'm happy to work just from this shorter list as a "sample", and if there are any that are believed to be problematic than those can be added. And yes, I'll archive, but I always hate to do so with active items... it's like admitting defeat. - brenneman 02:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could sort the below into "early closed" and "not so much" and perhaps note how early the early ones were, that would be a good start. - brenneman 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed a list on his talk page. He's done some fine, he's got 9 over the last 3 days that were blatantly early (I have some minor tolerance for ones done on the 5th day, mostly because there can be timestamp issues). I've made it clear which ones I have an issue with, and the response was hostility. I have three options: 1) try to correct his behavior, 2) bring every early close to DRV, or 3) Escalate it to the point where he'll be involuntarily forced to curb his actions. I don't want 3, and the community doesn't want 2. Sadly, 1 has been met with hostility. I'm not going to ignore it, so either the behavior must change or you'll have to be the one to be willing to mentor him on how to consistently do it right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Think of this as option 1.5. I don't have any reason to consider either one or the other of you as anything but reasonable, I'd like to think that I'm impartial to a fault. I do understand that you've made the same points on SM's talk, and that it wasn't going well. Here we can have a second go at talking, even if it means saying some of the same things again. But to begin with at least, it would be best if we:

• Left all the previous discussion behind,
• Limited ourselves to factual statements, and
• All agreed that some good will come of this.

What that really means is that SM has agreed to PIQM (pseudo-informal-quasi-mediation,) I'm here, we're just waiting to see if you'll come to the party. It hinges on this: Do you trust me?

brenneman 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You know I trust you more than probably anyone else here, so I'm up for a shot at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm finished with the reorganizing task you've left me. I'd just like a ruling as to which ones I've done wrong, if any, so I can correct this mistake for further closes. SynergeticMaggot 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Second phase discussion

Redacted from here in this edit. All information should be folded into section above. - brenneman 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so on most of these I assume I'm going to have to wait until he objects before I make a comment. I dont want to needlessly clutter anything. I might as well start with his section, which were his original objection diffs. SynergeticMaggot 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working my way through these, giving as much my opinion on the quality of the debate as anything. I'm leaving aside for now the question of how valid an early close is. That being said, am I reading these date stamps wrong or were several of these closed early and not noted as such in the closing edit summaries? I'm feeling a bit thick right at this second. - brenneman 07:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check the log for August 16th, for some reason, all of those are in there. And those are the ones I closed today. Link: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 16. SynergeticMaggot 07:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So something happened, not sure what. All I can say is that I closed them from the last log on the main AfD page. Right after a fresh log is added (a new AfD day), I go to the last log and close all that I see can be. If someone got the timestamps wrong, or placed them there by accident is beyond my scope. That would require some digging I suppose. SynergeticMaggot 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron. I didnt realize we were going to be anal about the timestamps. If this is the case, then every single AfD I've closed has been early. I dont go by the 120 minute rule for closing obvious keeps per consensus, let alone speedy's. So can we leave jokes about smoking crack behind, and become productive? I'm willing to overlook your sarcasm to put this to bed. SynergeticMaggot 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't even easily find the ones I as protesting anymore, but this is the kind of flippancy about the timing that I worry about. "I don't go by the 120 minute rule" is not something I entirely understand, but there's a reason we run AfDs for 5 days, period. This one just popped up on my watchlist, and I'm surprised Zoe wasn't peeved about it, honestly. AfD closing shouldn't be about "going to the last log and closing all that can see," and there really should be some more care taken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again... steady on boys. I wanted to establish the facts first, and try not to pass judgement on them until we'd gotten everything that there was no debate over on the table. This doesn't appear to be working, so I'll try to think of something else. - brenneman 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I apologise for my apparent flippancy, with regard to the "smoking crack" comment. I had noticed that SynergeticMaggot had said that notes were made in the edit summaries when he closed ealrly, and thought it possible I was misunderstanding. However, now is hardly the time for anything other than careful language, and that was an error on my part. - brenneman 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you're looking for here. I was unaware that the facts needed further clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some aren't: How often, how early, pattern of behavior vs. one-off etc. - brenneman 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let's get down to the bottom of it, then. How do you suggest we move forward? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really just like a little time to look over the contended closes, and to get a better picture of SynergeticMaggot's closing practices. Both of you seem ready to go at it hammer-and-tongs, however. There are a couple of things that bear mentioning for everyone involved:

• Having someone put the microscope to your actions is never fun, but being defensive about them never helps. We're all human, we're all doing the best we can, and we all are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia.
• It's easy to read the wrong thing into someone's bare text when you're on the defensive. That means both only reading what the person actually types and being careful what you type. I've put my foot into it with the second already.
• This should be just a couple of mates having a chat. It's not the Spanish Inquisition, and nothing binding is going to come of this. And it's probably going to take a while.
• I should have said this at the start: I'm slow. If that's a problem for anyone, no harm no foul if they want ot try and find someone else.

So, I'll keep doing my thing here, but maybe both of you should think about other stuff for a little while. Avoid each other, avoid closing AfDs, take this page off your watch list. I'll get back to you pretty soon.

brenneman 12:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly fine by me. Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all worried about the microscope. I've been through one RfA and it toughened me up very nicely. Since we are admitting mistakes, I should admit one of my own. I sometimes if not always, fail to give actual reasons for my closes, and sometimes close as speedy keep on accident. The former is going to be adjusted (no more unreasoned common sense keeps for me) and the latter fixed. I'm also looking into changing something on speedy keep soon so keep tabs I suppose. SynergeticMaggot 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to see this work. I really do. But what am I supposed to make of any good faith efforts to resolve it when this endorsement occurs. It tells me that I'm the only one actually interested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. No-one wanted this deleted, not even bdj. The result is obvious and no-one is contesting it. A whole thread kept going by one man's wonk-fest. Not a good example. If you call Tony out on that closure, you will look extemely foolish. --Doc 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've about had it with Bdjeffs attack on the issues. If this persists, I will break ties to this conversation. I feel I'm being fair in taking the time to go over all of my closes, as I dont have to. I'm still willing to take advice from experienced admins, as I can learn from my mistakes...when pointed out. Hint, hint. SynergeticMaggot 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your record speaks otherwise. I'll see if Aaron thinks it's even worth it at this point, because I'm not convinced I should use any more good will on this one. This doesn't help either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Leave the bickering behind and focus on the reasons why you are disputing the AfD examples given. This is not the place for why Tony closed a DRV, or blah blah blah. Get on with it. SynergeticMaggot 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The diff you provided was my comment..not his. That comment was for Cyde, he created a redirect to snow to screw with you. Still. Lets get back to progress. SynergeticMaggot 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you even want progress? I don't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put effort and work into the AfD examples below. For what? Either state your case with the examples in the proper format or get over it. SynergeticMaggot 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what for. Judging by your actions this afternoon, I'm not sure what for. This morning, I thought we were making progress. At the moment, I no longer buy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Aaron: I'm taking your page off of my watchlist. This doesnt reflect upon you and I thank you for taking the time to help out. If you disagree with any of the closes, please address them to me on my talk page. As I've said before, I can benefit from the advice and trust your decisions and judgment. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but don't blame me for this. It's your conduct, not mine. Sorry, Aaron. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Early closes (from Administrator's Noticeboard)

21 Aug

• 01:13, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts 2 (→Chuck Norris Facts - Closed as keep)
  • Listed as contended by DBJ? Not listed as such
  • Opened 23:56, 17 August 2006
  • Entire closing comments were "The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • brenneman 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - This was a woeful debate, mostly filled with people either trying to be funny or whom have quite small contribution histories. Was closed quite early, but I'll save discussion of that for now.
• 01:11, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Closed as keep)
  • Opened 18:12, 17 August 2006
  • Entire closing comments were "The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • brenneman 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Again, unless I'm swizzling the date-times, this was closed early. I'll call this kind of very brief closing comments a "Bare close" for brevity from now on.
• 01:07, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Medrash Shmuel yeshiva (→Medrash Shmuel yeshiva - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 19:50, 16 August 2006, bare close.
  • brenneman 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - This debate was a total mess, including people who seem to beleive that it's policy to keep all schools. Should have been left to an adminstrator.
• 01:05, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Afghan Times Closed as keep)
  • Opend 19:33, 16 August 2006, bare close.
  • brenneman 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Ok, am I smoking crack when I think that this had only had its five days at 19:33 on the 21st? That aside, unanimous debate on article with sources.
• 00:59, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fox affiliate switches of 1994 (→Fox affiliate switches of 1994 - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 19:19, 16 August 2006, bare close
  • brenneman 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Concerns about verifiability were raised in the nomination and never adressed.
• 00:55, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PBM (band) (→PBM band) - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 18:36, 16 August 2006, bare close
• 00:52, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Never Stop Doing What You Love Closed as keep)
  • Opened 15:04, 16 August 2006, bare close
• 00:43, 21 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Jacob (→Michael Jacob - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 02:30, 16 August 2006, bare close

20 Aug

• 00:57, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nick Hogan (→Nick Hogan - Closing as keep)
  • Opened 03:30, 14 August 2006, bare close
• 00:54, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Holleyman (→Robert Holleyman - Closing as keep)
  • Opened 19:00, 15 August 2006, bare close
• 00:51, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Age of Ruin (→Age of Ruin - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 01:05, 9 August 2006, bare close
  • brenneman 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - I'm only going to note from here closes that were not smack on five days (not looking at hours) and that had something other than a bare close.
• 00:46, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sue Schilling (→Sue Schilling - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Even the nomination was contentious here.
• 00:44, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/King Kaufman (→King Kaufman - Closed as keep)
• 00:39, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Le Tigre Clothing (→Le Tigre Clothing - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - I'd avoid striking out a whole comment and settle for striking out the "vote." But it's not a vote.
• 00:37, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James A Reed (→James A Reed - Closed as keep after 5 days, and nom withdrew) top)
• 00:34, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eat a Bowl of Tea (→Eat a Bowl of Tea - Closed as keep)
• 00:32, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fetch (game) (→Fetch game) - Closed as keep)
• 00:29, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Casamassina (→Matt Casamassina - Closed as keep)
• 00:25, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Shepard (→Chelsea Shepard - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - The debate was not exactly scintillating here. I'll create a "closing bad debates" section somewhere lower.
• 00:22, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nancy Weber (→Nancy Weber - Closed as keep)
• 00:19, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Balloon (Music Group) (→Balloon Music Group) - Closed as keep)
• 00:16, 20 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones Closed as keep)
  • brenneman 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Again, this debate was riddled with misconceptions.

19 Aug

• 19:29, Aug 19, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario (→Boston, Ontario - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • Contended close
  • BDJ - closed speedily even though it met none of the criteria. SM also reversed Samir's reopening after I noted the issues with the close.
  • SM - The recent close by CharWeb was done right in my eyes, and I thanked her for it. You (DBJ) requested that it be reopened for delete discussion and didnt bother to vote. Time waster.
    • Minor clarification. Boston, Ontario was closed 3 times. First by Samir, second by me, and third by CharWeb. BDjeff, you said that the second close was done wrong, and I just need clarification as to which close. Mine ( closed as uneeded reopen) , or CharWeb's which was subject to a second close due to the relist? Either way its a keeper. SynergeticMaggot 03:52, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
      • All three were incorrect, to be specific. Samir's was closed out of process, which is why he gladly reopened it. Yours was out of process, as it not only reversed the reopening, but closed it early without cause. The third was closed incorrectly as it was reopened as a fresh AfD following the listing at DRV, and was never up long enough to get the hearing it was supposed to get, and especially never given the opportunity for those with problems at the original AfD. So my original "second" was Char's, but upon clarification, the AfD has yet to be closed properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
        • SM Samirs thoughts were that of my own. It needed a fresh AfD, as the old reason was no longer valid. SynergeticMaggot 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• 00:22, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Druthers (→Druthers - Closed as keep)
• 00:14, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asma Kəsmə (→Asma Kəsmə - Closed, nom withdrew)
• 00:09, 19 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Brazil (→Gay rights in Brazil - Closed as keep)

18 Aug

• 21:48, 18 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gene Levitt (→Gene Levitt - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • SM - edit conflict, closed by someone else, removed my tags to give credit to other closer
• 21:36, 18 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach (→Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach - Closed as delete)
  • deleted - closed early?
• 21:32, 18 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William I Orr (→William I Orr - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • nom withdraw - closed early?

17 Aug

• 06:15, 17 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli (→Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli - Closed, nom withdrew)
• 05:55, 17 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PAJAM (→PAJAM - Closing, nom withdrew)
  • Contended close
• 06:27, 17 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics (→List of basic management topics - Closed, but not as speedy)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:20, 17 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Michael High School (→St. Michael High School - Closing early)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:09, 17 Aug Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grynner Closed, bad faith nom)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:00, Aug 17, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Invisible Pink Unicorn (→Invisible Pink Unicorn - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • Closed within 1 day with summary "closed early" and explanation "no need to drag this on."
  • BDW - Interestingly, not only did it not meet speedy keep guidelines, but you yourself, Aaron, had expressed issue with the sourcing.

Gap - Aug 16 to Aug 14

• The list is both to get a feeling for how SM closes and to examine contended closes. No point dragging every single close in, this is probably enough to do both. - brenneman 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 13

• 22:28, Aug 13, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Píča (→P%C3%AD%C4%8Da - Closed, result was keep) -
  • Contended close
  • Closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - Closed from 4th log day, I concider this only one day early, no real reason to delete, consensus to keep.
• 22:21, Aug 13, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bran Flakes (→The Bran Flakes - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • Closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - Same as the AfD above. Consensus to keep.
• 21:50, Aug 13, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FeedBurner (→FeedBurner - Closing early, result was keep)
  • Contended close
  • Closed nearly 1 day early.
  • SM - me being BOLD. No real reason to delete and per the consensus.
• 21:39, Aug 13, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (→List of fax software - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • closed ?? early,
  • BDW - perhaps jumped the gun in the pile of five I originally questioned.
  • SM - Same as Bran Flakes and Pica AfD. Consensus to keep after 4 days.
• 21:27, Aug 13, 2006 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pindown (→Pindown - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - same as all the others. Consensus to keep after 4 days.

Advice

Thank you for the advice. I will learn from all of this and move forward. Altough, if you allow me to nickpick for a split second...in conflict resolution, I actually did breing this up to two admins before bringing it to ANI. Both said they would have closed as keep. I used ANI as a means to contact a wider audience, in an attempt to intervene (which is the purpose of ANI). It semi-worked (no reflection on your methods). I gave Bdjeff a number of opportunities to work forward. Hes ignored that and every other warning to stop (trolling now). I'll drop by when I feel its right, and thanks for the offer. SynergeticMaggot 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that, it's not a nitpick. I'm always happy to be corrected! - brenneman 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I failed to mention that I had asked about such matter on IRC, not officially on a Wikipage. SynergeticMaggot 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll threatens to violate "use common names"

This "binding" poll is using majority voting to establish naming conventions that, as of now, fly in the face of established conventions. Using "Michigan M-1" for a highway named M-1 violates both our naming conventions and common sense. Of course you my disagree, in which case you should "vote" too. Because all that matters is a numerical majority. --SPUI (T - C) 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Shortcut

I just copied a the vandalproof thing like WP:VPRF, so that has to be deleted too if WP:WKV is. I think WP: namespace can be redirected anywhere, because you could just redirect it to Misplaced Pages:Wikivoter and redirect that to userspace which would cause double redirects just for the purpose of not redirecting WP: to userspace. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I might have created WP:VPRF but I copied WP:VandalProof. I Really don't think it should be deleted so if you really wanted it deleted you could take it to rfd and see what many people think. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also WP:VF and many, many more. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And WP:SNIPE. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory

Assuming you're serious (and honestly it is always hard to tell) the particular thing that would strike me as inflammatory was something I'd already quoted: ""if you disagree with me, I'll block you, and I have friends who will make sure you stay blocked." Of course Kelly never said or implied any such thing. Indeed the imputation, by a certain LtPowers , was in itself either absurd or inflammatory in itself, depending on how seriously one takes LtPowers' words. I happen to think it's absurd --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that "if you disagree with me, I'll block you" is an accurate summary? - brenneman 22:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do stop being such a silly sausage, Tony. Nandesuka 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Hezbollah article

There is a debate about the structure . Please read all of this part and tell us your idea in each case.--Sa.vakilian 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Australian administrators
• Administrators open to recall
• Wikipedians using WikiDiscussion Manager