User talk:GRBerry/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by Werdabot, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Voting

I am user GRBerry on Commons. GRBerry 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bay Ridge Christian College

The revisions since you began creating this article afresh have been userfied at User:Absolon/Bay Ridge Christian College. If you can't find independent and reliable published sources in a reasonable amount of time, please tag it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (with {{db-repost}}) or WP:CSD#U1 (with {{db-userreq}}). GRBerry 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


AKN

i left a comment on for your endorsement here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_30#Alpha_Kappa_Nu FrozenApe 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aloka

Thanks for the heads up. --BozMo talk 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy

Yeah, the present version is more politically correct and less likely to offend anyone. Protect the innocent, protect the guilty. The curious reader can look at the historical pre-sanitized version as I did, or can Google for more info. But the older one was titillating, and if it included the picture and letters it would doubtless have been even more so. Best wishes. Edison 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Wesker

Hi there, just dropping a positive word of encouragement. And that I found how you restored and then deleted that page rather funny! But still, was a good way to handle it. Plus I'm impressed with the detail and extent to which you replied to Marion Mayger on their talk page. Am pleased to see you around as an admin! Keep it up. Mathmo Talk 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marsden

Hi GRB, I'm concerned about your decision in the Marsden deletion review. Most of the people who commented endorsed the deletion. There was no consensus to relist it, yet that's what you've done. In so doing, you've effectively changed the proportion of users needed to have it kept deleted i.e. you've undermined the deletion review process. My apologies if I have that wrong: I don't get involved in deletion issues much, so maybe this is the normal process, but it seems a little odd. Any clarification would be appreciated.

By the way, I deleted the new title, thinking that one of the sockpuppets had turned up to create it before the deletion review was over. It was only after I'd done it that I saw you'd closed it and redirected the title. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the old problems with DRV was that it was just a vote, from the days when AfD was still VfD. This got changed late last year. So DRV is now a consensus area, not a vote area. If you look at the timestamp on my struck out notes about closing in progress versus the timestamp on the final close, you can see I spent a lot of time determining the consensus here. (Yeah, I did spend some time talking with my wife, but 90% of that interval was spent on this close.)
The standards (documented at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy) are fairly simple. 1) If there is consensus to keep it deleted, it stays deleted. 2) If there is consensus to undelete without listing at XfD, it is just undeleted. 3) If there is no consensus, it goes to XfD. Normally it would go exactly as it was immediately prior to deletion.
About two or three hours into deciding how to close the DRV it was clear that there was no consensus on the main issue of whether or not to endorse the deletion. So the article was going to be undeleted a second time and listed at AFD a second time. But something didn't feel right about that answer, and I found that I couldn't swallow just doing that. So I thought about it some more, and analyzed from a different angle, looking for any consensus on minor issues and any ways off the wheel.
That is when I realized that there was a very weak consensus that the article shouldn't be at the old title. While Thatcher131's proposal to just have the content be in the History of SFU article did not obtain consensus support (5 of 42 is anything but consensus, and that is all I found who clearly would support that outcome), some of those who thought the content should be restored did agree that the old title was not the right place for the content. That enabled me to find consensus for moving it to a better title.
I tried to make clear that my particular choice of new title was editorial, rather than part of the close. It has been moved once since, and I agree that the new title is even better than the one I chose.
The discussion also revealed that the encyclopedic notability of the controversy is not because it is an incident in RM's life, it is because it an incident in SFU's history, and may (this was demonstrably expected, but not demonstrably proven, see the new page's talk) have had a wider influence on other Universities policies and procedures for handling harassment claims. So I also editorially whacked back the article trying to get it refocused on those issues. That hatchet job was and is improvable, as I've already commented in the new AFD. I don't claim that this had demonstrated consensus support, and do say that the hatchet job was an editorial action instead of an administrative job. (Of course the ArbComm remedy encouraging admins to delete says that any editor can stub, and admins are also editors, so whacking biographical detail is supported by the ArbComm remedy.)
I wielded the hatchet in an attempt to prevent this from going around the wheel a third time. (I do mean that in the sense which "wheel" is used in Wikipedia:Wheel war, although as of my close no single admin had acted twice so we didn't yet have a war.) Guy had speedy deleted with an eye on the unclosed ArbComm case, it was brought to deletion review, overturned, sent to AFD (with a pointer at the case), the ArbComm case closed, and the AFD closed as keep. Then at the suggestion of a user (unfortunately later proven to be a sockpuppet of a user banned by the ArbComm case) you looked at the ArbComm case and speedy deleted it, starting the second trip around the wheel. Consensus to keep deleted was not mustered at deletion review, so it has gone back to AFD. Thus far the AFD is a unanimous keep, which if it stays that way through the close will result in two complete spins of the wheel.
I wish the discussion had endorsed DGG's suggestion for an RFC on how to handle this, but nobody seconded it. I believe that the lack of consensus at deletion review exists because there are two groups of editors approaching the question from two independent frames. One group believes this is an incident in RM's life, and thus that having an article on it constitutes undue weight given the low level of biographical sources available about her. One group believes that this incident is clearly notable in its own right without regard to any later notability of RM, and should be covered by us regardless of how the page started. Some went so far as to say that if we only have one article, it should not be the biographical entry on RM. I believe that a RFC, which has no deadline, or ordinary conversation on the article's talk page, is more likely to produce a reconciliation of these views and a true overall consensus, than either DRV or AFD is, because the latter pair are decision processes with deadlines.
Normally, in the case of an article with a prior keep AFD that is later speedily deleted, the discussion at DRV depends on whether or not to relist the article at AFD, with overturning the speedy deletion a foregone conclusion. The normal exception to that standard outcome is when policy has clearly changed subsequently. In my eyes, reading the timestamps on the proposed decision page of the ArbComm case, it was clear during the original AFD that the ArbComm remedy was going to exist as it does now. The case was mentioned in the AFD, and the case closed before the AFD, so we really can't say the remedy from the case is a policy change since the AFD (and ArbComm would probably disagree if we said that they had set "policy" in its usual meaning.) This situation did influence the outcome; since it is mentioned in some of the opinions it presumably influenced them, and it definitely influenced the close.
I think we need to look for creative ways to get off the wheel. I couldn't accept myself the standard no consensus close action of relisting without changing the article because doing that would just be spinning the wheel another third of the cycle, but could close as I did because I think it may be a path off the wheel. An obvious pair of other ways to get off the wheel is if the new AFD finds a consensus to delete or merge the content. Given time and people who are looking for new options, we should eventually find a way off the wheel that we can all live with. GRBerry 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your long explanation, GRB. When you say deletion review got changed late last year, was it changed with full consensus? The change looks to me as though it's going to cause things to go bouncing back and forth between review and AfD. The bottom line for me is that there was no consensus to undelete, and yet you did. You then proceeded to edit the article. I completely accept that you acted in good faith, but can you see why it looks problematic? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It has consensus primarily by lots of people not disagreeing, rather than by discussion. At the time the change was made, the regular closer of deletion reviews didn't even bother to comment in the discussion. It wasn't a major topic of conversation, so I've reconstructed the history from what I can find in the obvious talk pages. I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#Fundamental change was the discussion that kicked off changing the documentation, and the immediately followin section is semi-related. The discussion was advertised at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, see this diff for evidence thereof. The instructions for deletion review were changed at that time, and nobody objected. Here is the diff wherein Kim Bruning changed the deletion review mechanics instructions. That change was left untouched, that page wasn't edited at all for more than three weeks thereafter, and using consensus has not been challenged previously to the best of my knowledge. That we were working by consensus was noted (by me) on the talk page in mid October, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#SMFR. The undeletion policy was updated to state that consensus was used on November 3rd, a month and a half after nobody objected at deletion review; here is the diff. That pending change had been mentioned on the undeletion policy's talk page about a week earlier, see Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus.
We certainly haven't seen a lot of pages bouncing back and forth between AFD and DRV yet. To the extent statistics are available, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#December 2006 Deletion Statistics. A finding was that as of mid-late January, well after any immediate AFD would have closed, only about 20% of December's overturns were redlinks or protected deleted pages. (Though I did caveat that I didn't test for redirects, which would show as blue links.) I think a lot of the reason for the lack of bouncing is the bias of the deletion review regulars - most of us have a bias is to endorse the last community decision, so if there has been a prior AFD, the bias is for however that AFD was closed. (Even badlydrawnjeff, whose bias is always to include, is more likely to skip opining when there is a delete AFD close than when something is speedy deleted, so while he can't be said to have a bias to endorse deletion closures, he effectively biases the group towards endorsing them by his choice of when to opine.) This is also evidenced by the fact that only about 1/3 of non-prod cases brought to deletion review get undeleted by deletion review (undeletion by the deleting admin is excluded from that fraction.)
There is a better case could be made that I should have let the discussion run for 10 days, as we haven't yet updated the Undeletion Policy to reflect current deletion review practice. On the other hand, would there have been consensus after five more days, or just more pile on opinions? See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Removing mainpage clutter, where as part of a format switch I objected to cutting the standard practice down to five days, and was convinced/reminded that we'd actually been closing faster for a good while. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else choose to implement my suggestion to update the undeletion policy to reflect current practice. Also see this discussion which happened while I was closing. trialsanderrors is now the standard/default DRV closer, so he knows current practice as well as anyone.
As to not having a consensus to undelete, I quote the undeletion policy "If there is no consensus, it should be relisted on the relevant deletion process." With no consensus either way, undeleting and sending to AFD is the proper action under that policy. The extra steps of renaming and cutting back the content were the unusual steps here. GRBerry 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the renaming and cutting back the content were imaginative, and I favor imaginative approaches, so you have my support there; thank you for thinking of it. It's the change to deletion review that I find odd. With AfD, there has to be a consensus to delete, but the whole point of deletion review was that the balance was different and there had to be a consensus to undelete. That two-fold approach kept things in check, so that they didn't go back and forth too much. I'll look more carefully later at the sequence of events you describe above. Thank you for supplying such clear and complete explanations. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry, I completely agree with SlimVirgin's first sentence. Those were excellent decisions. Your very hard work (I did notice how much time you spent on it, and was wondering if you were regretting signing up for it) and attention to detail have been spectacular. Kla'quot 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if DRV changed to consensus it was done without consulting either Xoloz or me, and we've done upwards of 95% of the closures at DRV for the last half year. As far as I'm concerned, deletion review is still the forum to gain cloture, i.e. to establish whether the need to discussion is exhausted. The "passed-down" procedure is that of qualified vote count, which works under the assumption that DRV is mostly a forum where policy is interpreted and not applied as at the XFD forums, and different interpretations are normally considered equally valid unless there is clear counterevidence of misapplication of policy or the comment is a simple AfD redux (or the voter doesn't have suffrage). I usually do it in a two-step procedure, by throwing out clearly unqualified opinions before counting and going through a more detailed analysis only if the result is close to a borderline between different decisions. In general, XFD discussions are chaired by the closer while in DRV discussion the closer acts mostly as a secretary. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aniger pda.jpg

Nothing important just homework, but in any case I`m using already for that another one from Doctor Fungus so It`s just to see my pic back--ometzit<col> 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2

Hey, I left one for you to close since I was involved in the discussion. Shouldn't be too hard to make the call... Take care, trialsanderrors 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I opined also. So, next admin along. Actually, passed the buck to Radiant!. GRBerry 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't see that. Radiant! it is then. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed the deletion review. I have restored the content! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Good article DRV

I'm not trying to revise policy at all, I merely noticed the template had been deleted and found that the discussion was old and perhaps the issue should be revisited. I was in no way involved in the original debate(s) and had not even heard of the template until today when I visited it out of curiosity. If this template is a violation of self-reference policy what is the rationale for keeping Template:Featured article? Noclip 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

History

Published since 1983, this 16-page newsletter publishes 1,000+ property caretaking opportunities each year, in all 50 states and foreign countries. The rent-free listings range from simple house sitting assignments to full time property caretaking positions, with salaries and benefits in addition to the free housing provided. The publication is available in print, or Online. Publisher: Gary C. Dunn, Editor: Thea K. Dunn, Ph.D.

Circulation

As of 2007, worldwide readership is more than 30,000.

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, thank you for your helpful suggestions. Here are just a few of the reviews about The Caretaker Gazette, and if you can tell me what I should do next to improve the definition for The Caretaker Gazette and get its definition back on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your help and advice:

The Caretaker Gazette. - periodical reviews Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1994 by Daniel Meyerowitz http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n84/ai_15958214

NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923808

TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090926,00.html

The Wall Street Journal http://startup.wsj.com/columnists/casestudy/20041110-casestudy.html

Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/careers/2005/08/22/caretaker-homes-employment-cx_el_0822caretaker.html

AARP Magazine http://www.aarpmagazine.org/travel/freeloaders.html

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6b037166-8b9c-11db-a61f-0000779e2340.html

Grand Times http://www.grandtimes.com/Living_the_Good_Life.html

GRBerry, thanks in advance for steering me in the right direction for a Wikipedia re-listing. Take care, Gary C. Dunn, Publisher THE CARETAKER GAZETTE PO Box 4005 Bergheim, TX 78004 USA (830) 755-2300 caretaker@caretaker.org www.caretaker.org Celebrating The Gazette's 25th Year of Publication! Garycdunn 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Which one did you have in mind? It seems it's already been done. >Radiant< 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Review

If you have time, would you critique me. Review is in the sig. Thank you in advance, Navou banter / review me 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Close the DRV

I'll edit the DRV, too, but sure, we can close it. Do I think it should be deleted? Oh, probably, but I'm probably wrong, and all I really wanted was that it get deliberation. The problem is that the article, as it is currently written, is heavy on "it was a joke and now the plot is" and not on what the heck kind of importance it has. I couldn't see any claims for notability in it at all. Then again, I'm more musical than graphical. Utgard Loki 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov's RfA

You could enter a co-nom with your own words. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV vs. AfD

I left a comment on that. While I wouldn't request a DRV on a declined speedy, and would instead AfD the article (if the declining admin didn't, which seems to be pretty normal practice), this is more to request a review of unilateral "speedy undeletions" of articles for which deletion had already been done. That seems to be a very different scenario to me, and one that probably should be subject to some sort of review in and of itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young DRV

Multiple sources now provided in DRV, please have another look. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Sarah Hanson-Young. All at the bottom, at and underneath my !vote. — coelacan talk — 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agent M DRV

I assumed things were pretty quick given the speed of the reversal of the Logan Whitehurst page a few days back. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerise (talk • contribs).

That was with consent of deleting admin, which is a reason to close early. Here they have clearly opposed overturning. GRBerry 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate DRV

Thanks I had not picked up, the editor requesting DRV hadn't notified the closing admin so ... I now have :-) --Golden Wattle talk 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Stamp

Thanks. I am still new at actually modifying information around here. Not really sure how to go about making a case for the undeletion of the Dennis Stamp article, and after I put that info together, wasn't sure how to draw people's attention to it after they had already voted for the deletion to stand. Jamestrepanier 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Review of user Sixty Six's blocking

Good to see someone else out there has taken note of how a certain group of admins has really botched this one. Here's hoping that either JS or another admin who knows the difference between right and wrong will fix this problem and restore Sixty Six's access ASAP. 24.242.148.169 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Now that - is a good point. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

following up

Coming here to follow up your comments in todays poll about admins, I was pleasantly surprised to notice the note on your todo page. So I ask you for help in the areas where you think I have most to learn--or what sort of thing I do ineffectively--or with the wrong style--or should stay clear of. (I have some preliminary ideas where I think I sometimes go wrong: I will sometimes deliberately ask naive questions, or try to find a clever wording, or make a slight outré comment or a large edit to get the discussion going--perhaps some of this is not always appreciated?). Comment, preferably strong comment, welcome here, or my p, or email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).

Well, remembering to sign on tlak pages wouldn't hurt! GRBerry 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BattleMaster deletion review

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen the second AfD. SnurksTC 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BattleMaster DRV

Thank you, I changed my vote. Wooyi 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hi There, I have opened this RFC about a possible admin-abuse of power or negligence case. I noticed you were marginally invloved in some articles with his and thought I'd inform you. Thanks.Captain Barrett 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Starslip Crisis AfD/DRV

I am afraid I don't fully understand some of your comments on this DRV close. I think the view of the person requesting the review was that the AfD should have closed as Keep rather than Merge. I'm not quite sure how your close addresses this position. Could you kindly clarify? Newyorkbrad 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried here. A merge close is a form of a keep close already. Roughly, merge close = keep close + editorial merge, with additional weight for any later editorial discussion about whether to undo the merge. GRBerry 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The additional rationale is appreciated. Of course it raises further issues, because you indicate that this outcome leaves the article open to re-creation, and if and when someone does re-create we are going to hear that they have re-created content in violation of an AfD result.... I'll wait and see. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Two quick questions re: the noob

  • What is an appropriate period of time to wait before I can request an admin to remove the creation protection on the noob and re-instate the dramatically improved copy of The noob? Particularly in the light that the major reason to delete it was that the WCCA itself was "not notable" and this has since been overturned with the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards being relisted.
  • Might I have you expand on your reasoning for endorsing the deletion, when the discussion in my mind was clearly moving to no consensus? I cannot fathom that a 40kb discussion of keep vs delete means that consensus endorsed the deletion, and I would value your input to understand what happened.

I would appreciate any of your time spent on helping me with these two questions. Timmccloud 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll tackle the second bullet first. I didn't opine in or close the deletion review, so I can't expand on my reasoning for closing as endorse deletion. But I can look at the review with fresh eyes, and offer a few thoughts:
  1. IP editors are essentially always ignored in the counts (to the extent DRV is a vote count), though if they have novel and relevant arguments we do listen to those arguments. Because DRV is closer to a vote than AFD is, we have to be extra suspicious of IP editors, as there is no way to tell if they are the same editor as signed in editors without going fishing at checkuser, which declines fishing expedition requests. So while in an AFD such users may be ignored, in a DRV they should be ignored. All the IP editors were on the overturn side.
  2. Single purpose accounts are treated like IP users for identical reasons, so users like User:Livinginabox (and possibly others) would be disregarded for the same reason. (When I'm closing a DRV and suspect vote-stacking to be occurring, I'll evaluate every participant that I don't already know on this test - just look at their contribs. I don't know if this was a factor actually applied or to whom, but I think it should have been and at least that one user should have been disqualified.)
  3. I usually will ignore bare votes. In this case there was one endorse I'd have ignored.
  4. I may ignore opinions that are solely AFD round 2 arguments, as opposed to deletion review arguments. In this DRV, only the IP editors (disregarded for other reasons above) offered opinions consisting only of AFD round 2 arguments, so this point wouldn't have mattered.
  5. The final clincher for me - no consensus at deletion review defaults to endorsing an AFD close (or listing at AFD a speedy deletion). I'd have written a different closure summary had I closed this, probably "no consensus to overturn; the AFD close stands" or something like that, but it would depend on exactly who I determined to be a single purpose account. (The prior regular closer prefers a wording that doesn't use "consensus", instead using "majority of qualified opinions" or something similar.
That done, moving on to your first point. Whether the WCCA is notable or not is not particularly relevant - the awards as a group can be notable without any particular award being noted to make the recipient notable, or the award could be non-notable yet a particular award in a particular year was noted for some reason, conferring notability on the recipient of that particular award. An award can be sufficiently well-known to be notable enough to support an article on the award without being well-known enough to create notability for award winners.
Notability comes from independent and reliable published sources with non-trivial content about the article's topic, not from a connection to something else notable. Such sources are the basic building blocks of an article. My advice is to try following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, forgetting all the old article text, and writing an article using only facts that you can cite to the independent and reliable sources. (That doesn't look to be the the article in your userspace right now.)
Once you have what you think is a better article that solves the problems leading to deletion (here, sources, sources, sources), talk it over with Nearly Headless Nick - if he blesses it, and notes that on the new articles talk page, you should be safe from WP:CSD#G4. If he isn't interested, talk it over with me and I'll give you my two cents on what I think should be done. After such an article is reviewed, then expand with the content from reliable published sources that are not independent (such as the webcomic's website, author, publishers, etc...). Bringing it back to deletion review right away, without new sources, is going to be fruitless.
Finally, you may have some interest in the draft essay at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide that I've been working up with a little help from others. GRBerry 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I certainly want to thank you for the thoroughness of your reply and the effort you put into it. Your observations are very fair. The only one item I take a little issue with, is that discounting the opinion of people who take the time and effort to enter the waters of Wikipedia for the very first time because something compels them to comment, seems to be getting a little close to biting the noobs, but that's entirely my opinion, and I can see the reasoning behind it (and I apologize for the pun, couldn't help myself :). As for getting a fair shake from the deleting administrator, well that's just unfortunate, as I have stretched my assumption of good faith as far as I can with NHN. Because of my opinions on the matter, and the current RfC that NHN has open, I sincerely doubt that I would ever get him to agree to unprotect the article. That makes me pretty sad - this whole issue has really made me question if I can in good faith to continue to give my time and effort here, because I think this AfD / DRV / RfC has left me pretty dissapointed in the neutrality and professionalism of the entire process. This was the second AfD for the noob, both were nominated by NetOracle, an admitted opponent of webcomics, and I thought that first one was rough, little did I know. But I again want to thank you for your time and effort. Timmccloud 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take a look at any new version of the article you create. I have concerns about how the notability guidelines are being applied to webcomics and, while I am not under any circumstances going to "wheel war" with my fellow administrators, I'd be glad to look at a new article a few weeks from now with an open mind. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Newyorkbrad so much. At this point, I won't be putting User:Timmccloud/The_noob up for inclusion any time soon, until I can provide almost unassailable proof of notability - I don't have it in me for another contested AfD on the same topic, not for a while. Timmccloud 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind, I'm copying this section to Talk:The_noob, as after reviewing it, it has a lot of good information that I think should be added to that discussion. Thank you GRBerry, and Newyorkbrad!! Timmccloud 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt AFD

I was thinking the other way - close the DRV with a note that it's been sent to AFD. – Chacor 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has done that now. Sigh. That would be a reasonable DRV close if the article existed, but we have a redlink article. The solution to that is straightforward enough - restore only the last revision and protect it. I'll propose this at AN/IGRBerry 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your very reasonable demeanor there. It's alwasy refreshing to see cool-headed comments come up in something like that, especially when I'm not feeling so chill myself. William Pietri 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that sentiment, especially because I felt like I blew my top in one of my AN/I comments. As I am currently the default closer for deletion review, I'm trying very hard to stay neutral on the deletion. My AN/I comments have shown some frustration with the wheel-war like actions (Delete-Undelete-D-U-... and Close-Open-C-O-...), but hopefully people still perceive me as neutral enough on the merits that I can close the discussion after it has run. If not, let me know and I'll go form an opinion on the merits and issue that. GRBerry 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Looking over the evidence, you acted very admirably, and did exactly what I would have done. Doc has problems with restraining himself under frustration (as he has admitted.) It appears that he now agrees the thing can stay at DRV, which is what should happen. Although I can understand the impulse to speedy close and relist as a clear abuse of IAR, that would be disrespectful to Yanksox, who (we hope) put thought into this. Personally, I see nothing that demands you recuse yourself from closure -- I would sometimes bristle the feathers of "rougists" over precedure only, and still close a DRV, and I did so with a clear conscience. That said, if you would rather express an opinion, I'll be happy to close the thing on Feb. 28.

Trialsanderrors dropped off after only three months, eh? I lasted six before I went nuts! :) Poor GR! I'll pop in tomorrow and try some closings to make sure I know all the new templates, in anticipation of doing back-up duty for you. Feel free to take tomorrow off DRV! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Cyber Nations Deletion Review

The consensus of those who are proponents of deleting it is to rewrite it (In your words, "So there actually is a consensus that it is probably possible to write an article that would pass muster, but the ones visible in the history and userspace are not that article."), but it was protected after it was speedy-deleted. It is thus a catch-22. The article cannot be rewritten without being undeleted and it cannot be undeleted without being rewritten. If it were to go up to DrV again with a rewritten article, the consensus would probably be to delete using this as a precedent. As it does qualify for having an article, it would be easier to organize it being rewritten if it actually had an article to rewrite in the first place.

In the case of Jennifer Government: NationStates, it was allowed to keep its article but it contains no sources off of the official NS wiki, website, and forums. Why was this article in a very similar condition allowed to remain undeleted to be rewritten while CN remains deleted? While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument, this shows a clear double-standard as a CN article rewritten to be in similar format to the NationStates article was speedy-deleted while NS never was deleted. I think pointing out double-standards is a fair argument.

As for being labelled as a single-purpose account there, I do not appreciate that and point out WP:AGF. I recently restarted because my old account was only used once. I had edits on my IP extending back a while, but I knew that IPs would be taken with even less credibility. Just because I decided to take up the cause of CyberNations' article on a new account does not mean that I am a single purpose account. - Pious7 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Way beyond milk and cookies now

I think we all owe you a nice dinner out for you and your wife. Thanks for being one of the people with their head still screwed on straight. Only four more days of this, I hope. Kla'quot 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MY HUSBAND, THE PIG at DRV

Hi,

I hesitate to crimp your personal style, but when a request is as confused as this one (referring to article not at AfD, inspired by a template used in that article which is at TfD), I would usually just blank it from the record, with a note the newbie explaining things. We don't need to preserve well-intentioned near-nonsense. Ultimately, it only confounds other readers who examine the log later (it did exactly that to me! :)

You were right: the new templates are very easy. I was also impressed by the mathematical algorithm that automatically moves the daily log through its active cycle. That sort of numerical cleverness might have occurred to me about 500 years from now, if I pondered it constantly! Best wishes, Xoloz 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment

Yeah, you put it in the right place. Thanks. Khoikhoi 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt DRV

A question has come up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt that it might be worth addressing before the DRV runs its course. If those reviewing the discussion at close judge that there is "no concensus", what would that default to? An endorsement of the deletion or a lack thereof? Struck me as something that might be worth resolving in the abstract first... WjBscribe 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed at MfD

There are two somewhat lengthy discussions (User:Walter Humala and User:Jefferson Anderson) ready to close. I've been handling the bulk of the MfD stuff lately, but I've participated in both these discussions, so I wondered if you would mind closing them. (I asked Radiant! a while back, but since they're still open thought I'd shop around for another admin.) Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did one, the right answer was clear enough. Since that is the first MfD I've closed, and I'm anything but a regular at MfD, I'll leave the other for someone with MfD experience to handle. GRBerry 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I did have to make a minor fix to the formatting of the closed discussion. :-) I also sent you an email earlier today regarding the DRV. —Doug Bell talk 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi GR, thanks for pointing that out to me. I can't even remember why I created it. I've deleted it now. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker Gazette

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved from my userpage) I had to undo your edit to deletion review. You forgot to say which page you wanted undeleted, and the error was malforming the entire page. I find too many deleted pages related to "Caretaker Gazette" to know which you want undeleted. (Hint, the one with the best article in accordance with the core content policies for a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability is the one most likely to be restored.) Please try relisting, or drop me a note on my talk page with a link in that format and I'll recreate your nomination. GRBerry 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, I am soooooooo frustrated with this whole Wikipedia thing. I don't even know if this is the right place to contact you. I don't understand most of the Wiki terminology or why some of the Wikipedia people want to delete my definition. None of this makes any sense - and I had given up on Wikipedia until I just went in to Wikipedia - for what I thought would be my last visit to Wikipedia - and your posting was like a ray of light to me. I hope you can help.
All I have tried to do is post this on Wikipedia:

Caretaker Gazette

The Caretaker Gazette is a bi-monthly newsletter published in Bergheim, TX and distributed throughout the United States and foreign countries. It is the only publication in the world that covers the property caretaking field.

External links

Category:Newsletters

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try again --> OK GRBerry, I followed your advice, and placed my revisions on the user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn. Thanks again for your advice. What should I do next? Garycdunn 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been forgotten. --> Thanks GRBerry. I await your advice! Garycdunn 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Dear GRBerry, is there anything wrong with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn/The_Caretaker_Gazette Garycdunn 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd try: Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, if you or someone could tell me what is wrong with this, and then if there is something wrong - delete the definitions of TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS and all the other publication definitions within Wikipedia, then I might understand. You see, I developed my above definition by studying the Wikipedia definitions for TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS and others, and I followed their Wikipedia format. Thanks for any help you might provide. Take care, Gary C. Dunn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garycdunn (talk • contribs).

Dear GRBerry, thank you for your helpful suggestions. Here are just a few of the reviews about The Caretaker Gazette, and if you can tell me what I should do next to improve the definition for The Caretaker Gazette and get its definition back on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your help and advice:

The Caretaker Gazette. - periodical reviews Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1994 by Daniel Meyerowitz http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n84/ai_15958214

NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923808

TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090926,00.html

The Wall Street Journal http://startup.wsj.com/columnists/casestudy/20041110-casestudy.html

Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/careers/2005/08/22/caretaker-homes-employment-cx_el_0822caretaker.html

AARP Magazine http://www.aarpmagazine.org/travel/freeloaders.html

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6b037166-8b9c-11db-a61f-0000779e2340.html

Grand Times http://www.grandtimes.com/Living_the_Good_Life.html

GRBerry, thanks in advance for steering me in the right direction for a Wikipedia re-listing. Take care, Gary C. Dunn, Publisher THE CARETAKER GAZETTE PO Box 4005 Bergheim, TX 78004 USA (830) 755-2300 caretaker@caretaker.org www.caretaker.org Celebrating The Gazette's 25th Year of Publication! Garycdunn 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker Gazette - for the record.

Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Forgotten

You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try again --> OK GRBerry, I followed your advice, and placed my revisions on the user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn. Thanks again for your advice. What should I do next? Garycdunn 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Dear GRBerry, what do you recommend that I do next? Should I have someone else put up a definition for The Caretaker Gazette? Garycdunn 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed speculation about why the Caretaker Gazette was nominated for deletion. I am the person who nominated it. I leave notability judgements to others, I have no interest in that issue.

My overriding concern with this piece is the apparent use of wikipedia for self-promotion. The OR aspect of the article made the decision to put it up for AfD easy. Caretaker Gazette first came to my attention from the Mathematics Education article, where I noticed edit number 104676804.

Since the edit had no content other than to promote Thea Dunn, I reverted the entry, and assuming good faith, left a message explaining that more detail was needed for the entry. To assess the situation, I checked the editors edit history, (it helps to know if this is a first time editor, and other such things), and found that all previous edits had been to the Caretaker Gazette. It was also apparent that Gary Dunn was the same editor as 64.185.177.210, apparently quite properly moving from an ip address to a named account. It also became evident that user Educationalventures has been making exactly the same edits that Gary Dunn had made, across a number of articles, all promoting Thea Dunn. There were no edits for any of the three editors that did not appear to be self-promotion.

I considered that the proper action for me was to put Caretaker Gazette up as an AfD, but just quietly make the appropriate reversions on the other articles. Other editors have made similar reversions.

Seeing that Gary Dunn is now presenting himself as perhaps caught up in rules that he does not fully comprehend, I thought it is appropriate for you to see the results of the background research that I did before the AfD nomination.Trishm 06:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Userfication request

Greetings. It appears that the Sore Thumbs webcomic article's deletion, which you closed, went unnoticed by its author until very recently and Comixpedia has only a fraction of its content. His reaction off-Wiki was, quote, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH." Can I ask you to briefly recreate this article in my user space so that I can migrate it over to Comixpedia and make the guy feel a bit better? --Kizor 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kizor/Sore Thumbs

as requested. GRBerry 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert of the license either, but I'm told that a copypaste of the history was perfectly sufficient. The move has been made, feel free to nuke the subpage. Thank you. --Kizor 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Thanks for letting me know, I just started talking to her a few hours ago by email. I can sure see what's got them so upset! A lot of these need to be stubbed or deleted and just started over. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's as much my fault as anyone's. I usually start out with someone requesting advocacy by asking them for a basic overview of the situation before going and looking at it for myself, and had just taken a look over a couple. I will make sure next time to go through more thoroughly and faster... Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt DRV close

Just wanted to let you know that I am willing to close (or help close) the DRV. I feel like I am pretty apolitical on the wiki and I don't really have any strong feelings about Daniel Brandt or the Arbcom case, but I have been following both closely. IronGargoyle 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(Repost from my talk page to keep this discussion in one place)
As far as I'm concerned, the more help the better. My only concern with adding admins to the closing is the additional logistic issues created. —Doug Bell talk 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Church

Just for the record, I did discuss it in a section for that purpose, further up on the page. Also, I'm male :) Cheers, >Radiant< 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

For the record, I am disheartened by Doc's departure. I didn't want to run him off, even though he appears to have wanted to run me off. All I wanted - and all I want - is that WP:BLP be enforced as written, not as he (or any other individual admin) wanted to see it - and if the way it should be enforced is different from what's written, to have the written policy changed to match the practice.

I'm not going to post this to Doc's talk page, since I almost certainly am at least part of the reason he left. He wrote me off as a troll a few days ago. Any suggestions as to where I might say something along these lines? -- Jay Maynard 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons? Doc's self opened RFC is another possibility, but I doubt many people are paying attention to it. GRBerry 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/b/User_talk%7EGRBerry_Archive_5_fb35.html"