Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChaChaFut (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 30 November 2006 (→More on Category:DOB missing: good point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purged into page history as of 22:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Purged onto page history as of 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please accept this barnstar. I'm impressed that you never seem reluctant to handle the tough, convoluted VfD closing decisions that lots of people shy away from. Joyous 03:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

For your list of surprising VfDs

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade then DRV then Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade (second nomination) is about a nice progression from "non-notable" to "decent article" as I have seen. --- Charles Stewart 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your voting for cross-namespace redirects

Could I perhaps convince you to write a short essay and link to it when calling for a keep for cross namespace redirects? Considering individual discussions and not your history on RfD in general, which is what some who view the RfDs may do, your comments do not hold much water without further explaination and I don't want to repeatedly ask you to explain yourself anymore than you want to reply when I do it. The essay might for instance explain why cross-namespace redirects are a justified violation of WP:SELF and in what instances this applies to.

Also, I can't help but wonder whether you're coming from a minority in that policy doesn't seem to directly agree with your voting rationale at alltimes. You may wish to spark some debate on whether the WP:SELF policy needs to be revised if you feel that there is consensus for your interpretation of guideline precedence. Of course, I say policy—but it is a style guide.

As someone who frequently opposes your sentiments on RfD, I really think you should write the essay and link it when voting "keep despite CNR" as a way of solidifying your arguement. This would be of benefit to the RfD process. On the other hand, my encouragement for you to test the reform waters for the self-ref guideline is just that: encouragement. I do not mean to insist you do this to justify or prove your opinion on the guidelines. Anyways, let me finish by saying that I appreciate your differing views on RfD; I do not mean to chastise you or anything like that. I know that sometimes it is easy to misinterpret someone's intent when conversing through text alone. Feel free to ask me a question if I don't make any sense. Thanks! BigNate37_(T) 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion. I'm taking several days to think about the best way to do that. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Annual Percentage Rate

I figured I'd bring this here to avoid cluttering up the main talk page. Interest in the US is not capitalized in ANY bank, because it's a very grey line in terms of legality. Most credit card companies capitalize monthly (both rates and fees) but the monthly minimum payment structure of the loan essentially wipes out this capitalization effect (some CC companies, in calculating APR, assume that there will be a 10 day capitalization effect caused by the lag time in payments... This is NOT universal). I am not an expert on the UK regulatory or banking rules so I won't pretend to understand the nuanced differences. But I can say with a pretty fair degree of certainty that 99.9% of consumer loans (the only field for which APR has any regulatory or legal meaning) in the US show differences in APR vs. Note Rate only because of fees and costs. Sorry about the interspersing of comments... it made more sense that way (i thought) but I understand your point... --Laxrulz777 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not

Do you really think that a plot summary is not essential for an article on a work of fiction? And do you really think that an article that is just a plot summary should be deleted, rather than improved (in that case, what about something like Monkey Shines (film) ? The bulk of the content is a plot summary, the rest is just standard introductory and contextual fluff)? --SB | T 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyond question, I disagree. In fact, in some cases an "article" that contains nothing more than plot summary may even be speedy-deletable as a copyright violation. Could it be improved? Perhaps. But only be adding enough context that the plot summary again falls under the fair use criterion. And for a short article, that can mean slashing the plot summary down to a single sentence. (Bear in mind that a short article is all that some books deserve. This rule applies to more than just the works of Shakespeare.)

And, yes, I think that there are some excellent articles about works of fiction which do not have plot summaries at all. If I want to know the plot of a book, I'll read it. I don't need or want it spoon-fed to me. The only reason I would look up a work of fiction in an encyclopedia is to understand all the things that I couldn't understand from reading or watching it - the context, historical effects, connections with other works, etc. Rossami (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you never edit articles related to fiction.--SB | T 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, allow me to share in that sentiment. Luckily for both of us, the power of a wiki is the community interaction which leads to consensus. I find little to no value in a plot summary. You apparently find little to no value in anything but the plot summary. The right answer is, as always, somewhere in the middle and the collaborative editing process is amazingly effective at getting us there. In the meantime, the copyright violation problem is law - not subject to community-based decision-making. Articles which exist solely as plot summaries can not be permitted to exist. Rossami (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I never once said that there should not be anything other than a plot summary, I only said that plot summaries are an essential part of the whole article. Please do not put words in my mouth.--SB | T 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Hi Rossami, I see that you redeleted this page. For the record, did you check the deletion log? Xoloz restored the page for ArbCom evidence purposes on August 27, and I just want to have it cleared that this reason is no longer in effect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I missed that. My apologies. Should I undelete? Is the investigation still on-going? Rossami (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the history for E.D. is still needed, but this arbitration case (I think that is the relevant one) is still ongoing and in the evidence/workshop phase. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you may want to undelete it until the arbcom is finished.--MONGO 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Apologies. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudonymous editing

copied from an email received offline

Hi,

I'm not quite sure how this works, but your wrote in my deletion review, "you say that your name and address are available, but your contributions to Misplaced Pages are pseudonymous."

Does this mean I hadn't registered? I did so last night, and not under a pseudonym as most people have. I always use my real name in signatures.

And I don't know how to post to your talk page because there appears to be no "post" link.

Thanks, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz bathory@bathory.org bathory@maltedmedia.com

Thanks for your message but I think perhaps my meaning was still unclear. Whether you register or not doesn't really matter since anyone can register under any name. I could go online and register a Misplaced Pages account as George W. Bush (at least, if it's not already taken). Misplaced Pages has no means to authenticate your identity independently. All that we know - all that we can know - is what you choose to claim about yourself.

That's what I meant by pseudonymously - any registration, even if you say that it's your real name, is technically a pseudonym. It is not independently verified against some external identity database. And for the most part, that works out very well on Misplaced Pages. We want users and editors to establish themselves through their actions and to demonstrate their expertise through their edits, not by making claims to outside credentials.

By the way, anyone could also register as Dennis Bathory-Kitzs. That trivial misspelling would be easily overlooked by readers but would still be accepted by the system. Such a person could sign their name the same way you do, attempt to mimic your pattern of speech (well, writing really) and make subtle edits just to discredit you. That, in fact, is a real problem for established editors of Misplaced Pages. When we find usernames that are suspiciously similar to established users, we look very carefully for signs of vandalism or deceit. Users who appear to have done something like that on purpose are generally banned from Misplaced Pages. But those are all manual checks. There is no system that can automatically detect or prevent it.

Likewise, no one can inherently trust the email address. The way internet domains are set up, anyone could register bathory.org and create any email name they wanted. Like Misplaced Pages accounts, emails and internet domains are unverified against any external identity authority. And that's before you consider the problems of email spoofing and forgery - both of which are far easier and common today than any of us would like to admit.

Most people are honest. But there are enough dishonest people out there that we have to build our systems and our procedures in such a way that it doesn't matter whether they are telling the truth about their identity or not. That's why Misplaced Pages has a policy against original research (which we mean as "a contribution or assertion based on personal experience") and why we never rely solely on self-published materials and why we bias our policy so strongly in favor of reliable sources such as websites owned by and operated by large, well-known organizations - organizations with both a vested interest in and the resources to find and stop spoofing.

Sorry to bore you with all this but my non-Misplaced Pages profession is information security. The inherent problems of identity management and authentication occupy much of my waking hours. How can a bank know that you're really you? And how far can that trust be extended? Under what conditions can an assertion be treated as reliable? How do we balance that against the need to make systems and computers easy and accessible. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers short of establishing a national identity database - something which would be in great tension with my role as a privacy advocate.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for your message.

To post to my Talk page, just go to the page and edit it like you would edit any page on Misplaced Pages. The most common technique is to use the little plus sign next to the "edit this page" tab at the top. That will automatically create a new section and give you a line to create a section header without having to know the wiki-markup symbols. You should also get in the habit of signing your posts on Talk pages. You can do that easily by ending your comment with four tildes (~~~~). When you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace the tildes with your username and the date-timestamp.

Again, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Rossami (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert D. Arnott

Hi. Thanks for looking into the deletion of Robert D. Arnott. Alabamaboy insinuates in his response that is was possible for me to just recreate the page. Is that correct? I am a newbie here, and quite frankly, am having a bit of trouble becoming familiar with the protocol. I've tried to take the time to follow all the links and pages on deletion issues, but I still feel I don't have a handle on how exactly things work here. Can one just bring a page back after deletion, or is there a procedure to follow? And is there anything to prevent the page from being deleted again? If the page is brought back, is there someone who can review it to say what should be changed or what is not appropriate - kind of give it a stamp of approval?

Also, in general, is there some central help contact other than the help page to post to? Are there people that can be contacted directly for help, or is everything done via posts/edit to (discussion) pages.

Thanks for your time.

64.60.149.98 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. First, let me encourage you to log in. You can create an account for free in just a few minutes. Then you can sign your posts and, more importantly, others will be able to leave you messages on your own Talk page. Questions and answers on user talk pages are some of the fastest ways to get advice. There's also a standard Welcome template with some helpful policy pages. I'll drop it on your page as soon as you tell me what name you've chosen.

In the meantime, consider surfing through the Community Portal pages. (It's linked in the navigation block at left.) For an overview of the deletion process, I recommend Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. On the question of undeletion, yes there is a process. I recommend that you allow the deletion review discussion to continue for a bit longer. If the consensus stays where it is, a disinterested administrator will volunteer to close the discussion and carry out the community's decision. If/when the administer undeletes the page, it will restore the original version. This is better than just re-creating the page since it will re-establish the contribution history. (Preserving the history of contributions is a requirement of GFDL.)

There is nothing to prevent the page from being nominated for deletion again. But that's true of every page we have. They are all subject to community scrutiny and review. On the other hand, precedent matters so it's unlikely that the page would be speedy-deleted again. No, there is no review authority. We all volunteer as our interest and expertise guides us. There are several relevant rules for biographies, though. I recommend starting with WP:BIO. If your draft clearly meets those guidelines, it should be okay.

The Village Pump is another good place to ask general questions. Or you can leave a message on the talk page of any administrator. But remember than none of us are paid so it might be a few days before we can get back to Misplaced Pages. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding how it works

(I didn't realize my off-line email would be posted, but since it was and there was a response, here is my comment also sent off-line. It might have some value to writers confused with Misplaced Pages's approach, as I was -- and still am.)

At 01:16 PM 9/7/06 -0700, you wrote:

> Sorry to bore you with all this but my non-Misplaced Pages profession is information security.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your great response. As one who's been in the tech field for close to 30 years -- oh, but you know that now :) -- I do share some of your concerns. However, a phone call, post card, and many other means of verification are also available to those doing research or making decisions at Misplaced Pages.

The strange nature of Misplaced Pages's 'laid back' approach to research is new to me, I suppose. I've written a great deal (no, not on Misplaced Pages!), and throughout the years, source verification has been very important to my credibility. Everybody falls in the trap now & then, as the biography guy did with a false letter (memory fails, but it was a recent scandal). But I think we're all pretty good at using cues & clues.

We all really do depend on research clues, no? Not face-on physical reality. Sure, I could be an imposter via IP or via address or credit card or passport. On the other hand, the 'web' of information about someone like me should be sufficient for anyone putting in some research time beyond hunting for 'hits'. I knew nothing about how Misplaced Pages folks worked until this strange experience over the past few days, but it is unlike the research I'm familiar with, where facts are verified until a satisfactory point of validation is reached. (Of course, I'm paid to write, meaning I don't have a choice of merely eliminating what it isn't convenient to research, as apparently user "Zoe" does.)

I think that's what bothered me most. My name turns up (and I got an email from Javier Ruiz, where this apparently started) as erased (sorry for the tormeted grammar there) because none of the research clues have been followed. If my resume is unreliable by default, why not follow its links? They take the reader to outside sources. Those sources individually might be questionable (perhaps a hijacked domain for the day), but in toto they provide a good body of information, enough of which can be validated to subsequently validate me. Not to mention that a phone call or email to known composer authorities (such as the editor of New Music Box, New Music Connoisseur, etc.) would have done that. Library research would have turned up my books and papers, and there were even those Amazon references. And who in the new nonpop field could possibly have missed Kalvos & Damian, all 538 shows of it? We got an ASCAP Deems Taylor Award at Lincoln Center for it.

Frankly, I should have been able to remain entirely anonymous and watch this discussion take place until somebody actually did the research.

And I was certainly offended by the guy who said he'd been director of bigger organizations than the one I lead -- heck, the Vermont Alliance of Independent Country Stores is the largest retail 'chain' (even if it's not really a chain) in Vermont. To dismiss it is flat-out ignorance combined with geographical bigotry -- and clearly another piece of research not done because *why* was it worthy of the New York Times? A 5-minute feature on NBC Nightly News? A 5-minute feature on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight? All of these were available at the VAICS site itself, or by calling the Times, NBC or CNN's Bill Tucker. Those would have been the proper questions to ask, don't you think?

Admittedly, my case is likely a bit unusual, because I have had separate stature in several fields, all chosen carefully to be *outside* academia, which I loathe. So you won't find me peer reviewed as Misplaced Pages prefers (anymore, I suppose, than you'll find a TV program, though Misplaced Pages is filled with them, computer games, and tens of thousands of commercial products).

It's also fascinating to watch Misplaced Pages, itself arising from the online world, be quite biased and even hostile against the online world, where I've made my home in one form or another since 1981. My musical scores, for example, largely do not exist in printed editions (unless my distributor gets and order, and on-off prints and binds copies for sale). But no old-line publisher would work that way, so I began my own company (Westleaf Edition) and now publish the work of four composers ... all entirely virtual. One of my books (The Middle-Aged Hiker) is only online. These kinds of sources will only increase, and paper sources decrease. How will that affect Misplaced Pages verification & notability policies? Will it keep seeking a diminishing stream of sources, or will it revise its guidelines?

Yes, I see that Misplaced Pages is actively competing with Britannica for credibility, but its bias against primary sources that are online seems to me to be more an inability to come to grips with how to treat online sources rather than its claimed one of verification. After I read the verification guidelines a little while ago, in fact, I realized how Misplaced Pages was caught between two worlds, able to devote swaths of drives space to individual episodes of Star Trek, but unable to find much to say about contemporary composers, so many of whom have moved wholesale online.

Again, thanks for your response and your welcome to Misplaced Pages. I don't really have any reason to contribute -- the registration was only because I thought it was needed to make credible comments.

Best to you,

Dennis

If it was not your intention to make that message public, I apologize. I inferred from your message that you sent it via Wiki-mail only because you were unfamiliar with the mechanics of editing user Talk pages. I hope that I did not misunderstand your intent. Rossami (talk)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_September_8#Microshit_.E2.86.92_Microsoft

When you write "this was obviously intended as an attack", could you clarify what you mean, as I certainly, as I've noted here, didn't mean it as an attack; it's common slang! Nfitz 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

re: blocking of IP 199.43.172.254

Actually, I'm in college now, and as such no longer edit from a school in the DPCDSB. Still, I'm sure there's more than a few kids who edit from school. I just wish the anon-only feature had been around when I was there. :)--§hanel 15:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You combined IZAK's complaints about 'informing creators is being ignored' and I thank you. He's upset because two categories he created were renamed by consensus on CfD. Unfortunately, figuring out who created a category isn't too easy, since there's usually collaborative starts, and figuring out 'who' is the creator and who is the assistant is tough. Because he missed the notifications and the category was renamed, he's rather upset. You can read more at my talk page, since he seems to have decided 'my house' is the greatest place to do this thing. My talk page should be jummpin', i'll be putting out chips and soda.ThuranX 21:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting history

User:David Gerard/Process essay presents a version of history that doesn't match my recollection, and isn't consistent with what I remember the arguments for having a single AFD page (which were, to my recollection, utility in getting the work done and ensuring that all discussions received community attention and didn't get overlooked) were. Does it match your recollection? Uncle G 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Content Review Request

Thank you for granting my Content Review. I'll copy it out, and erase it once I have it replaced in a different wiki than Misplaced Pages.--GoodAaron 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review

The Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels and other related LTA pages were intended for a private installation of MediaWiki that I've got running. That's it in a nutshell! --Gold-Horn 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The wiki can't be accessed by the vandal, it's only on 127.0.0.1 - so WP:DENY isn't violated. --Gold-Horn 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gold-Horn

Just a heads-up.

Gold-Horn isn't a sockpuppet of anyone, he's his own person. he's just been using public terminals that's all! and he's here to help the encyclopedia.

Joanne @ 69.50.208.4 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting same user posted similar on my talk page, just they were calling themself becky then. That IP is an open proxy accesible through a web proxy service, verfied by me this morning. --pgk 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity

I've seen far too many times when "taking time for discussion" or "doing an RfC" becomes an excuse for leaving the content as is because noone responds to the discussion or the RfC. I have no intention of having that happen on an article which is so obviously in error. If you want me to wait indefinitely, the best way is to revert the content to the way it was before the reversions and wait for comment. That's what I tried to do, but you wouldn't have any of it. -Psychohistorian 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the distinction I'm making? All I'm saying is that the idea of 'irreducible complexity' - that complex systems are irreducible - is well known by people who study systems and that it is different from 'irreducible complexity' as used by the ID crowd which states that complex systems can't evolve from simpler systems. What exactly do you want me to reference - that complex systems have emergent properties? -Psychohistorian 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that I understand your line of reasoning, I believe you are missing something. The disputed content is, "rreducible complexity refers to the concept that complex systems have properties which do not exist in the individual constituent parts, but arise from the relationships between those parts. It is the existence of these properties which distinguishes complex systems from simple systems." Following your line of reasoning, such as I understand it, I don't need to provide a source for the term "irreducible complexity" prioer to Behe. I need to provide a source for the concept of "irreducible complexity" - that is, that complex systems are irreducible - prior to Behe. That's easy to do. -Psychohistorian 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of common wasps and bees

I've reverted your changes to this article, and created a compromise result. I agree with the removal of colour - done. Please see my edit change comment, as the expression 'gentle' for any of these nest protecting species must be qualified. For example, there are people who die of multiple hornet stings (not from allergic reactions). Simply listing gentle is irresponsible for a insect that swarms armed with the highest toxicity per sting, and per volume! Widefox 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Misplaced Pages:How_to_edit_a_page

IP user 88.151.184.13 had the page covered in ads. I reverted it. Hope that's ok. I'm too inexperienced to know correct procedure...block ip or whatever, but i assume u know this (?)Seasalt 12:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Found Ducati_Singles vandalised with nonsense comment by IP 210.1.220.128. Do i need bother reporting these anywhere or just delete or revert as found?Seasalt 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

Thank you for providing an instance where it wasn't obvious. I was getting annoyed with the various instruction creep-esque non-reasons which other people were giving for its inclusion. -- Steel 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Schmidt Sting Pain Index

I hope you don't find me rude for adding back your deletion of the AHB. Just like my efforts to give the hornet a better name using the facts, I think some reality check is important for the AHB. Additionally, I'm trying to build up that page, and it did take me a while to get the number from the literature (see discussion page) which is a more self-centred answer! regards Widefox 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of common wasps and bees

I do not understand your edits to this page. There is discussion on the talk page to justify the things you have removed. Unfortunately, this meant that I was forced to revert you deletions. The article is not only for differences, and I have actually called for input on differences in hive defence (also see talk page). I believe that the ground nesting insects do not defend as vigorously, but as said, I'm looking for input there. Also, due to the extra column created by hornet, I've tried to keep the table as narrow as possible to support as many users as possible. In my browser, it helps a lot if the row titles use small words. You used "Behaviour", which is even worse than the original (US) "Behavior". My wording is horrible too, but the most succinct. You do realize that a number of people each year die from hive defense (often Asian or tropical hornet species)?, so a simple listing as gentle is more than absurd, it is negligent! Anyhow, the talk page is the right place for this, so please let's move the discussion there, as I do not wish to have an edit war. Widefox 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, and the table width optimisation is not for my benefit, but I have to be particularly sensitive about this, as hinted at by my username! Widefox 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Where on the policy/guideline page does it say that contested speedies must go to AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Deletion processes describes AFD as the process which is "Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases." (emphasis added) If a speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith by someone experienced enough to understand the deletion criteria, it is by definition controversial.
2. Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions reads "If there is a dispute over whether the page should be deleted, consider first listing it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion]]." The word "consider" was used in this clause in order to ensure that admins have the discretion to ignore bad-faith challenges to the speedy-deletion.
3. The last bullet of Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions#Advice for administrators reads "Don't worry too much — new pages patrol is unpleasant, and people will make mistakes. Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion patrol goes through the deletion logs to catch stuff that shouldn't have been speedied, without rancor or excessive red tape." That team has traditionaly just quietly fixed inappropriate speedy-deletions by undeleting and, if the discovering admin deems it appropriate, listing to one of the discussion-based deletion processes.
4. Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Deletion process reads "Articles which do not meet the narrow criteria for speedy deletion and whose deletion is (or might be) contested are discussed by the community through the AFD process."
5. The third paragraph of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does , discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under deletion policy." This was explicitly added during the userbox debates in May but was only a reminder of our long-established precedent.
6. Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy allows for the undeletion of "Deletion 'out of process'". That page goes on to say that "If the page was obviously deleted 'out of process' (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. If deletion policy dictates that the undeleted page is an AfD candidate, please list it there."

I hope those answer your question. A speedy-deletion which has been contested in good faith (sometimes a difficult value judgment) must be reversed and discussed on AFD or one of the other discussion-based deletion pages. This is a policy which dates back to the creation of the speedy-deletion process. Rossami (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

gun politics

weird, looks like my attempt to rv via popups ended up reverting a revert, or something. thanks for fixing it. Gzuckier 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

blocking 209.221.90.23

this computer is a public computer (high school computer), so you might just as well make it indefinite block; theres no way of tracking down them anyways Nicholas.tan 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Treasure Box

Restored in place but without the text which was an apparent copyvio. It needs some serious expansion, though. And it's been too long since I read the book to attempt it, I'm afraid. Rossami (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Um... actually, it was only the short thing at the top which was a quote from the book cover. The whole plot I provided on my own. -Patstuart 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Grabbed the wrong version from history. Is it fixed now? Rossami (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is! I know the English might not be very good (my writing skills are certainly not perfect), but I appreciate that much. Thanks again. -Patstuart 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Beekeeping

Hi, I've noticed that you've been involved with editing articles realted to beekeeping on wikipedia, and was wondering if you would be interested in joining WikiProject Beekeeping. It's a new initiative, but my hope is that it will grow over the coming weeks and months. Thanks, Martinp23 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - thanks for replying. Feel free to list yourself on the central page - there's no minimum activity level at all! I expect things to be fairly slow to start with, but I'm really desperately trying to drum up support! Thanks again for your reply, Template:Emot Martinp23 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox on DRV

Why did you delete the substituted Nazi userbox that was placed there as an example of what they were voting to undelete? —Centrx→talk • 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship article

I was surprised when you reverted my edit to the discussion page of Censorship. I don't think I fully understand why you reverted, but rest assured I made it in good faith. I wasn't trying to write an inflammatory message or anything. Any rules or conventions that I may have broken was unintentional. Any suggestions for avoiding the mistake I probably made? Justinmeister 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I new it must just have been a misunderstanding. Justinmeister 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Content Review - Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Online, etc.

In addition to Playboy Cyber Club I would definitely also like to see Playboy Online.

I think some of the other articles that were deleted could be manageable merged into the two above, which possibly should be merged together. However, for my edification I would also like to see

• Playboy Cyber Girl
• Cyber Girl of the Week
• Cyber Girl of the Month
• Cyber Girl of the Year
• Coed of the Week
• Playboy Employee of the Month

Given what I have seen from the first page you reactivated, I believe that due to the sociopolitical perceptions of supporting these pages the debate may have had a selection bias. I think there was a moral steamroller involved in this debate. Thus, I would like to continue my research on this issue before considering proper action. I appreciate your efforts and assistance. TonyTheTiger 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the page history and believe what I am looking at is a reincarnation. Is there a final version of the first incarnation of this page. TonyTheTiger 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have created three business nav boxes. Each is a major entity with many significant back pages for many of its main business lines Wrigley, Federated, Anheuser-Busch plus a template for Trump. The solution that I believe may be more correct than deleting Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Girl, Cyber Girl of the Week, Cyber Girl of the Month, Cyber Girl of the Year, Coed of the Week, Playboy Employee of the Month as all being too trivial might be to say the Playboy Online business line should have an article accomodating all of its various related topics. The Cruft discussion which was the predominant discussion suggests that only a few obscure people in the world view Playboy Online, which is not true. What is true however, is that if you phrase the discussion of Playboy in a certain way you can certainly make people supportive of it hesitant to speak up for fear of being viewed as socially depraved, immoral, amoral, and possibly heretical, if not downright looney. TonyTheTiger 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of the remaining requests? TonyTheTiger 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I had thought you were going to let me know when the other pages were added so I was waiting for a message. I appreciate your diligence. Some of the pages seem to have been the subject of multiple deletion procedures because you note that Note: This is the more complete version as of 22 Oct 05. A smaller version was recreated and speedy-deleted in July 06 Are there multiple AfD discussion threads? TonyTheTiger 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am familiar with the following discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club TonyTheTiger 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC) P.P.S. I have found Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_22#Playboy_Cyber_Girl. I am wondering if any of the related pages have prior AfD discussions. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am notifying you along with the original admins. ==Playboy Online/Playboy Cyber Club on deletion review== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Playboy Online/Playboy Cyber Club. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. go here Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Playboy_Online.2FPlayboy_Cyber_Club TonyTheTiger 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

I am sorry. I am aware you did not close the discussion. I just was copying you in on what I was sending to the original admins. I used the template instead of jest telling you what I was doing. Thanks for your help with the info gathering. TonyTheTiger 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Date of birth missing

Howdy! Sorry, I didn't know there was a big discussion going on about this. It was just "low hanging fruit" for me. Thanks for letting me know. Schmiteye 23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh since I am usually poking around in the cats anyway, do you think I should remove s? I have replaced a few that were misused with s. Schmiteye 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chai Hui-Chen

Hello, I am writing to you about your deletion nomination for the article on General Chai Hui-chen. Doesn't she meet the criteria of notability because of her becoming the first combat-status general of Taiwan? Isn't that a milestone in Taiwanese military history, and therefore notable? Asarelah 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi there

There are five or six that I made up that I use to get users attention as well as our standard ones. I've listed them below. In addition I also use a script that adds the page I just reverted into the title as well as the date.

1. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Blanking}}
2. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Warning}}
3. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Vandalism}}
4. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Final}}
5. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Blocked}}
6. {{subst:User:Glen S/Templates/Indefblocked}}

Fingers x'ed you're not asking to tell me off! :) Hope this helps!  Glen  06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome advice, thank you. Will make changes, and use them now as the exception rather than the rule. Thanks!  Glen  06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK

Ok, I will try not to strike at nameless people who attack me. Next time, I will just ignore them. My apologizes. —SolelyFacts

Misplaced Pages talk:Discuss, don't vote

I've cited a comment from you in a related discussion on WT:NOT, as I believe the context is similar; please let me know if you disagree. I thought you might also be interested in the debate on this talk page. Yours, (Radiant) 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Koos Formsma and Mindaye Gishu

I removed your nominations for deletion on these pages as there is no reason to delete these articles. Both individuals to definately meet WP:BIO. If you don't agree, please explain why you think they don't. SportsAddicted | discuss 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Date of birth missing

Thank you for the notice about the policy. I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction, however. I added the category to Bob Cole (announcer) and I see that other hockey announcers have dates of birth like Mike Emrick and Sam Rosen (sportscaster). Jim Hughson does not have a date of birth, but is in the category. Are these other articles incorrect in having the birth dates/category, or is there a distinction between the individuals? Thanks. Khatru2 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't you replacing the date of birth category with year of birth, since the latter is considered acceptable? - Dudesleeper 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the ten edits of yours I just checked, not once did you exchange the categories as mentioned above. It's not a case of my being bold, it's more a case of my tidying up after your blitzing through articles, apparently without much regard. - Dudesleeper 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be because the majority of them don't need it. If you think you could do better, help clean up the category yourself. Then you won't have to worry about disagreeing with my editorial decisions about whether or not the year even matters. Rossami (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WHEEL

Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors has put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean Brennan

I noticed that you redirected Sean Brennan, and I do not disagree with that assessment. Two things are of concern:

1. you might need to make some changes on Talk:Sean Brennan, and
2. you might need to watch the page to make sure that it isn't reverted. Sincerely, --Oden 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth missing

Hey, I got a message from you that tells me no longer to add the date of birth missing to biographies of living people which are no or semi public figures. Why do you think these people are no public figures? In my opinion they are public figures and the information might be added in the future. If the person wants to keep this information about him/her a secret it will probably never appear as it is not known. I don't see your point. Knurftendans 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwiking milf

>I would encourage you to instead expand the Wiktionary entry, wikt:MILF. If you need the text temporarily restored in order >to tranwiki the content, please contact me directly and we'll find a way to move the content without infringing on the AFD >decision. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Is there any way to access the text of the entry, as it no longer appears to have an edit history. I'm very new and haven't worked out how to view a deleted page.

Reillyd 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Help again :)

I've done as you suggested, and created a user page on wiktionary. If you could copy it over, that would be great. Can I also add that I really appreciate the help.... was kind of getting the impression everyone on wiki was a little hostile, it's great to see there are people out there who are friendly and helpful too!

Reillyd 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NUKE

Hi.

You claim that WP:NUKE was offensive, thus the reason for deleting it. But is there proof? Did it offend a lot of people? I didn't see people claiming offense from it while I was still using it on WT:N... 70.101.147.74 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hi, I've responded to your opposition !vote at the above page, and thought I should draw your attention to it. Thanks! Daveydweeb (/_review!) 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NUKE

Hey, I am looking for your permission to recreate WP:NUKE as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy in order to properly list it on redirects for discussion per my discussion with 70.101.147.74 (talk · contribs) at ]. BigNate37_(T) 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The shortcut's now listed at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_November_27#WP:NUKE_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. BigNate37_(T) 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Date of birth missing

Hello, you recently messaged me with the following information:

I appreciate the enlightment. I had no idea about these policies, and although I guarantee you that my edit was in good faith, I will try to be more careful and make sure that my future edits adhere to the Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks. ChaChaFut 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More on Category:DOB missing

Rossami said: Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

Hello there. Are you suggesting we do not include the birthdates of these figures? So which birthdates are you suggesting we do and don't have to include? Or are you suggesting that we don't add the Date of birth missing tags? I merely assume that I try on every biographical article I make to include his or her birthdate wherever possible, and label the others, but is this no longer accepted? Please show me an example of an article where I have done this incorrectly. Bobo. 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point... Rossami, how does one know in which articles the DOB is being withheld and which ones are just incomplete by lacking it? Is there a tag or something so one can tell who is a non-public or semi-public figure and who is a public one? --ChaChaFut 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)