User talk:Mailer diablo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Leave a Message for mailer_diablo | Archives : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

"Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte." - Martin Niemöller



Elections are Important!

The English Arbitration Committee elections and Foundation Stewards elections are currently ongoing.
If you are eligible to vote, it is imperative that you excercise your right to choose whoever you think is most suitable for the job.


A new beginning.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and civil leaders

MD, I noticed you were the closing admin Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and civil leaders. The page Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations was also included in the same nomination, but I notice it hasn't been deleted. I don't think any of the responders has different responses for the two different pages-- Could ask-- did you intentionally treat the second nominated page differently? or was it just an oversight? --Alecmconroy 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wishing you the best

Thanks for the comments on the ArbCom questions page. In my case, Cyde didn't change my opinion - I felt that abstaining from all voting was the ethical way to go. I don't think the community is going to be lacking because of my missing votes and it avoids any conflict of interest. I also wanted to wish you luck - Terence mentioned the other day that you might be going into service soon. Hope everything goes well! Shell babelfish 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello, just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I've never seen your instructions image on your Talk page before now. Simple, yet with style. I like it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submitting recreation/rebuild effort for comment

Some time ago, you were the closing admin for this AFD for The Blind Pig (fiction). The article was nominated for deletion because it had "[n]o evidence of notability or encyclopedic merit". I do not contest that assertion, having had the article at the time of deletion restored to my userspace here by Rossami.

I've tried to retool this into something that meets guidelines and is properly cited. I am curious, as the original closing admin, what your opinion is of its current sandbox state. Although this certainly wouldn't be "recreation of deleted content" were I to promote it into mainspace at this point, I'd like to avoid doing so against consensus. As an aside, the most commonly occurring title would be Tales From the Blind Pig, as noted in the lede, and so that is where I would promote the article if it earns the right to return to the project.

Thanks for your input! Feel free to respond either here or at my talk, at your option and convenience. Serpent's Choice 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No rush! I know you stay far busier than I do. The article's been gone awhile, and been being rewritten for awhile. I'd rather it patiently wait its turn to see if it deserves a return rather than jump the gun. It'll be there. Serpent's Choice 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil albino on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Evil albino. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs).

[edit] Off Wiki chat

Hello, would you mind signing in for GTalk for a while if you are free. Terence Ong 04:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ATF Hire Group and related pages

Hello! I noticed you were the closing admin for the AfD debate, I just thought I should point out a few more pages that are related to the ATF article (but aren't deleted): Deck Guardrail, Australian Fencing Hire, ATF Edge Protection, Atfhire, ATF Hire, Deckguard, Security fencing, and Derek Rynenberg. Just thought I'd point them out in case you had missed them in the jungle of ATF pages. --Lijnema 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually suspected that would be the case with the Derek Ryenberg article (I actually think I'll leave the other one, it might become something useful). Anyway, thanks for cleaning everything up! --Lijnema 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Same problem here. Forgot to delete the related articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saif Energy Ltd. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of iPhone. 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. schi talk 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you do get the chance....

I'd certainly appreciate a peek at the rewrite/reconstruction of the former The Blind Pig (fiction) article I'm working on in my userspace. I've also been in limited communication with the original AFD nominator, although I'm afraid not with quite the level of cooperation I'd've hoped for. His response to me didn't give me a lot to work with, although I tried to be thorough in my reply. I'm faced with three options at the moment: my first impulse is to be bold and promote to mainspace, but with the objections of the original AFD nominator, I'm afraid that might be viewed as unnecessarily antagonistic. Alternatively, I could take this to DRV since the original died in AFD, but this isn't strictly a recreation of deleted material and I know DRV stays busy as it stands. Or, should you agree substantively with Petaholmes, I'll probably lay it back to rest barring the discovery of further sourcing. Serpent's Choice 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Input was greatly appreciated. I'm working to determine if any of the major print-format fanzines ever published material from the setting, although the process is slow since that's well outside the realm of interlibrary loans! I'll confess that I don't have a good sense of what in this genre meets notability requirements either. I'm neither an expert nor a member of the subculture -- my focus on rewrites has been solely due to the overall low quality of the extant articles and frequency with which they are forced through AFD without an attempt to source. Well ... and all the science in my hobby field changed a year after my newest sources, so all I could write on mycology is wrong articles at the moment. :( Anyway, going to try to track down another firm independant source, then take to DRV. Serpent's Choice 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting League

Hi Malier diablo. I saw your work on MF 2000. I should like to invite you to the League of Copyeditors. Feel free to enlist. Rintrah 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUT:- Leicester University Theatre.

Dear Sir/Madam

I was a member of Leicester University Theatre 2001-2004 and would like to know if the text added can be sent to me. The society was not responsible for the text added to Wikipedia and i was wondering if I could post the article on the society's forum for discussion.

Regards Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.102.109 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Deleted Article/Atlético Chorlton

I noticed you deleted the page on Atlético Chorlton. I'd like to know why you thought to do this? Especially without any warning or message about why it was about to be deleted --Adamwjeffers 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlético Chorlton on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atlético Chorlton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Note

Hi MD. I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Thank you for your concern with my RfA. For what it's worth, my 3RR violation was accidental; I was dealing with a user who was persistently reverting to the same text, and had been blocked before. I lost count over the course of a day and did a fourth reversion in 23:45, instead of proposing an alternate text, as I had intended, or going to AN3 myself. Septentrionalis 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles closing

I read your comments on the closing of this AfD. I actually thought this was a saner approach to a mass AfD than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series, which I recently closed (and which is now currently at deletion review.)

I would be interested on your ideas regarding the best way to do these large XfD nominations. I have to think that having 50 separate AfDs on related articles is worse than having one AfD on 50 articles, but there needs to be a better way to structure these. I would like to try and develope a guideline for how to conduct these as I do think that we need to have some workable process for discussing the removal of classes of articles without having to repeat the discussion for every article in the class. Please reply here as I really hate fragmented conversations. —Doug Bell talk 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There are two main kinds of nominations normally accepted in AfD discussions, either mass (as a whole) or single (only one). The problem comes when editors try to turn one into another (i.e. mass to multiple single AfD), and this is an emerging trend. Usually this is because a topic scope may not been well discussed amongst editors on criteria of inclusion - once this is done (probably in the first "messy" AfD), one expects some follow-up action (merge, cleanup) and subsequent single/mass AfDs of clear-cut unfixable articles, by then a much easier task. I don't recommend judging by word-for-word argument (except non-negotiables WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV), because that opens up an avenue of endless rules lawyering that practically drives people mad. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then I guess it is that first "messy" AfD that I'm thinking needs a better process. The problem I see is that since these large AfDs are so frequently closed as "no consensus" that people on both sides of the argument are now jaded. People arguing to keep figure they just need to make enough noise—with no requirement of making good arguments—and it will be kept by default. People arguing to delete become disallusioned and give up. The rejected AfD is then used to innocculate the articles against deletion for some period of time. All of this points to a broken process.
      In the AfD I closed (mentioned above), I tried to restore some faith in the process by actually sorting through all of the arguments. While I think it was successful in that regard, it was an awful lot of work because of the chaos that ensues on these mass AfDs. I think the discussion needs more structure. Not that I am suggesting anything similar to it, but one example of a structured debate is RfC and even more structure is RfAr. I don't have a specific idea yet, but one is brewing along the lines of having a different structure than simply a nomination and then unstructured discussion for AfDs that address a class of articles. Thoughts? —Doug Bell talk 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is getting interesting. You may wish to read up on a similiar case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. Basically editors come and point out that there is a problem somewhere; it may require total deletion, it may all keepers, or something in between (usually that). Articles don't land on AfDs for no good reason. If you are interested in a prior discussion as a formalised institution, there's a process elsewhere which may be working already...featured article review. That's all I can think of for now. (After all, it's 3am here) ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff Goldstein

I'd like to suggest you take a second look at Jeff Goldstein, which was nominated AfD on Oct 3. The nomination was made in connection with an edit war on Deborah Frisch. The nominator, User:JBKramer, who was involved in the edit war, repeatedly removed a number of references to blogs citing WP:BLP, and did so with a certain amount of incivility. However, the reason for Deb Frisch's notability is largely due to her alleged cyberstalking on that blog - hence the edit war with editors who felt an exception could be made. I happen to believe Protein Wisdom is a notable blog - ranked 61st on the TruthLaidBear ecosystem and I'm worried that Jeff Goldstein simply ended up as collateral damage from the fallout. Ronnotel 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil albino DRV

Would you be ok to recreate the edit history behind the redirect to Albino bias? Looks like the nominator could've asked you directly be instead he preferred to bog down DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if that was out-of-process; I just followed instructions on the deletion review page. Well I also went off a bit about how the AfD didn't seem to me to have consensus, and about how just as I'd un-prod'ed the target article and started working on the merge, the merge-from article vanished while I was in mid !vote, and the same day someone vandalized the parent Albinism article, and... I think I may be breached WP:CIVIL and/or WP:AGF. Wasn't a good day for me or that chunk of articlespace, and I think I took it out on you as the deleting admin. I apologize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic place names in America

there was no consensus created for deletion, and all of the arguments for deletion were refuted. Can you please put the article back thank you and check the talk 81.178.73.30 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/User_talk%7EMailer_diablo_18d4.html"