User talk:W.marsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:W.marsh/Archive9. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

---

Click here to leave me a message

Archives: July 2005 to March 2006 / March 2006 / April to May 2006 / May to June 2006 / June to July 2006 / July to August 2006 / August to September 2006 / October to November 2006

I am an administrator on Wikipedia. In addition to this talk page and e-mail. you can sometimes reach me on Freenode in #wikipedia as wmarsh.

---

---

Contents 1 username 2 Andreas Evagelopoulos 3 Baseball 4 Yeouinaru Station on deletion review 5 AfD Nomination being used in a personal dispute 6 Relisting AfD 7 Deleted Article: Albert R. Jonsen 8 Anna Marek 9 Do you seriously want me gone that badly? 10 List of famous tall/short people AfDs 11 October man sequence 12 Just a heads up on Wet noodle award 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst

[edit] username

I got my username changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs).

[edit] Andreas Evagelopoulos

Dear Sir

There is a link under MY name. If it is supposed to ad an information, then for what this information should be? For planet Mars?! The source for the informations I posted is www.chihuahua.gr

Thank you

---

[edit] Baseball

Hello, thanks for your message. I considered the debate's closure carefully, and I see no need to think again. "Baseball editors" do not own the baseball articles and categories, and categories are not provided as a way for "baseball editors" to create lists. The lists of players picked would be better in articles about each game, or about the series as a whole. Take it to deletion review if you want. As for the duplicate categories, I take exception to your statement that it is "screwing up" articles: duplicate categories are not a problem, so the robot has improved these articles by reducing the category clutter. If you can demonstrate to me that duplicate categories are a major problem then I will stop my bot and let another one implement the changes. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry it came across as snooty. Perhaps "screwing up" is polite in American usage? I'm really sorry if you were offended. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this communication with people you don't know and can't see is sometimes fraught, isn't it? I really didn't mean to come across as grumpy, but I can quite see, reading through again what I wrote, why you thought I was. I must have messed up, because civility is my watchword on Wikipedia. Sorry again.

You mentioned WP:AWB. Perhaps you could find someone with AWB (I haven't got dot net 2.0 or I'd do it myself) willing to run through the articles in the top category to remove any duplicate categories when my robot has finished? --RobertG ♬ talk 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeouinaru Station on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yeouinaru Station. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ... Hi. I put this up for review due to the number of keep vs. delete votes and the issue of precendent and inherent notability. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks! --Oakshade 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination being used in a personal dispute

An antagonist (Descendall) has nominated the article Dan James Pantone about a notable scientist for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. His only reason for doing so is a personal dispute. Essentially, Descendall is using this AfD nomination to anonymously defame this scientist and the indigenous rights organization he co-founded. The scientist is clearly notable using the "Professor Test." Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Dan James Pantone during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matses (talk • contribs).

[edit] Relisting AfD

RE: Will do. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Article: Albert R. Jonsen

My article on Albert R. Jonsen was deleted because it was copied from a website, cpmc.og/ethics... I work for that hospital, the wensite you refer to, and I also wrote the content that appears on the site. It is MY work and in MY own words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcgaugj (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I'd need the exact name of the article... there's not been an article at Albert R. Jonsen. Anyway you'd need to release the text under the GFDL, see Wikipedia:Copyright, and an original article for Wikipedia with encyclopedic tone and formatting is vastly preferred to a text dump. --W.marsh 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Marek

Can you please explain why this article gets deleted when the Keeps outweighted the Deletes? MadMaxDog 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Because AfD is not a vote? Reliable sources were called for and not provided... everything was sourced to her official webpage. See WP:V and WP:NOR. --W.marsh 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So in the end you decided. How nice. Then again there is the little thing saying "after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." Note the word consensus? We had none, we had keeps slightly outweighing the deletes. And that was with 15+ participants, which is reasonably large for an AfD discussion, especially for an article which certainly wasn't linked to or in any current news.

• • In the end, why did we have the discussion, when you simply were going to overrule it on points? MadMaxDog 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I closed based on what happened in the discussion. Had the relevent issues been addressed, I wouldn't have deleted it. --W.marsh 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you seriously want me gone that badly?

Seriously, do you really want me gone that badly? You know how I fought for that GNAA article. Your off-hand comment, the threat of a speedy close, and the way that others have been downright horrible about the whole thing indicates to me that you want me gone. After I had gotten married and settled, I was going to finish off the Patriot Act articles and numerous other articles that needed to either polish or substantial work. However, it seems that you and many others don't want me around any more. If that's the case, please say so and I'll gladly leave you all in peace. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to see the GNAA thing as a win/lose situation for yourself... i.e. if it stays around, you win. But that's not really how it is, the more you defend it the worse you look, Wikipedia has changed and realized the article is unimportant, unverifiable junk and mainly here because a bunch of people got trolled in the earlier days. If you just let it go, people will respect you much more than if you keep arguing something the community has long lost its patience with. I'm just explaining how I see it, sorry if that's offensive but I think it's correct and I don't mean to offend. I hope you come back, but I think part of that might be accepting that things have changed somewhat and that no one thinks badly of you because the GNAA article was deleted. I was recently thinking about getting Windows 95 to featured article status (for historical value) and using Windows XP as a guide, which of course you nominated, so the idea that I personally don't appreciate your work (and thus want you around) is wrong. --W.marsh 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of winning or losing. There were a number of AFDs where it was decided by a considerable number of editors that the article should be kept. It was then nominated again and then deleted after 2 days. AFD policy and practice, unless it has changed, has been to only speedy close AFDs that are not contested or that are not controversial, so that those in the community who oppose the deletion (such as myself) would get a chance to oppose it. I find it most unfair and unreasonable that this was done by an administrator. As for people respecting me: to be honest, this doesn't really matter that much to me. If people wish to disrespect me, this will most likely cause me to leave, but only because it means that they don't think my contributions are worthwhile. I am more concerned about procedural unfairness and less about personal dislike and disrespect of my person. I might note that I have no personal animosity towards you, in fact if anything I have more than a good deal of respect for yourself and I would not have posted a message on your talk page if this were not the case. Your expertise in matters relating to Microsoft is par excellence, and I would be very happy to see Windows 95 on FAC, then FA! I'm probably going to stick around Wikipedia, but for the time being keep a low profile. I would very much like to get the USA PATRIOT Act article up to scratch, then work towards getting other articles fixed. I haven't done much admin-ing or authoring lately because, as you are probably aware, I just got married and this has taken up all my time. I'll most likely get back to things after I get back from Europe in February... hopefully I'll be able to get more articles up to FA status then! However, I still feel disheartened by the deletion of the GNAA article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You were equating me wanting GNAA to stay deleted deleted with me wanting you to leave Wikipedia... my point is that whether you realize it or not, you were taking this personally, and I don't think the community at all sees the deletion as something that reflects badly on you. Also I point out that it was speedy closed as a keep many times (including ones where I made a serious argument for deletion and was ignored) to the one time it was speedy closed as a delete, so getting all bent out of shape over early closes of a controversial AfD is a nearly a year overdue in this case. Anyway, you're one of the more accomplished FA writers from what I can tell and I just have one to my credit so far, so again I respect what you've done and hope you stick around. Wikibreaks and periods of having a "low profile" are very healthy in the long-term. --W.marsh 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous tall/short people AfDs

Hi, I saw you closed these two AfDs. Can I ask why they were closed as "no consensus" when the votes for "keep" clearly outnumbered the others? Cheers, HamishMacBeth 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's really not a huge difference. A delete is a strong consensus to delete, usually 66% or better, not just a simple majority... so I see a keep basically the same way, my rule of thumb is two thirds of the comments should be in favor of keeping the article before there's a clear keep consensus. I also felt there were some policy issues at play here, and there were also many "list of" articles nominated forming a larger discussion, some of which were much more sharply divided. I guess it was pretty close in this specific AfD and if the article is nominated again free to mention the ammount of support for keeping, but ultimately it's more of a semantic difference than one that will really help the article stay around or not. --W.marsh 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October man sequence

Hi there, saw you closed up the vfd for October man sequence. So thought I'd ask you if you may please put a copy of the page onto my userspace? Thought I'd like to take a second look at the page for anything that maybe could be useful and merged into another better article which already exists. Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads up on Wet noodle award

I've effectively deleted that VP comments section, including your comments, as I'm going to act gracefully and db-author the template. The heat I feel when others waste my time wasn't ready for publication, and it's my bad for using prematurely. Apologies. // FrankB 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

re your Tfd comment: Dude, how much explanation could possibly be needed when I add {{wikify}} to an article with no formatting or {{linkless}} to an article with no incoming links? It would be the same explanation every time. Templates explain what they mean on the template. If the application of that meaning to an article is unclear and unexplained, remove the template. But in my experience usually when a template is added in good faith it's pretty obvious why it was added. --W.marsh 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is so far off base from the problems I discern I don't know where to start. Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't do any removal, nor reverts(!), unless I can understand why something was so smelly that someone trashed the project and shamed us all in front of the world--they must have a good reason. So I look. No talk annotation. OK, who applied when. Is the merge been on a long time... only 15 months (the record holder--and no clear edit summary either). Well, Guess this turkey wasn't monitoring the situation. I can delete it now, as no one commented this whole time. Ditto Clean ditto copyedit etcetera. A whole bunch of such.

The Link templates you suggest I haven't ever seen, save the wikify one time.

In sum, I treat such edit decisions the way I expect mine to be treated. Sincerely, with a great deal of gravitas. If my languge seems offensive to you, at least it's honest. And having been in the USNR for thirty years and in many a factory office, I wouldn't be offended by it in any particular way. But that was a draft. The mistake was using it today prior to giving it a good hard look myself again. Temptation goeth before a fall, not just pride. I'd welcome some help in evolving it for the purpose envisioned. Have at it. I copied the talk comments down from tfd to the talk page before userfying it with a move as well. The resultant redirects have been 'disarmed' and db-authored. I respect everyone's time too much to let that go on. It wasn't the proper forum. Thanks for the time. // FrankB 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed the link, those pages were actually deleted for a bit, I used the wrong slash. The ongoing discussion has picked up steam, and I'm going to be xposting some of the emails on same in a moment. Your input would be welcome. // FrankB 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusBurst

Hi. I'm a bit dissapointed in the level of discourse that occured in this debate, and suprised at your comment-free close. There appeared to be quite a bit of pure "it's notable because I say so" voting. (Not !voting, but voting since they didn't provide an argument that could be responded to.) Could you have another look at this discussion?

152.91.9.144 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to be a reasonable ammount of reliable information on this topic... I'm not really into over-riding consensus just because I subjectively don't think something is noteable. But for verifiability issues I will. At any rate, you can renominate it for AfD if you want. --W.marsh 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable enough position, and I must say I have seen quite a few closes on your part that I thought very good. On this occasion however the consensus was mostly illusionary:

I'll cross-post this to deletion review. I hope you don't mind if I don't provide a link to the day's log, I'm sure you can find it if you want to comment. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

152.91.9.144 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)