User talk:Perceval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My (Mtz206) RfA 2 Citing Sources 3 Great power peer review 4 Unspecified source for Image:Brzezinski.jpg 5 Addition of Copyvios 6 Your RFM 6.1 Mediation 7 Orphaned fair use image (Image:A.R.E. Weapons promo photo.jpg) 8 SEATO 9 Project 10 Emerging superpower 11 Cafe Press 12 Energy Superpower 12.1 Page edit 12.2 Great Energy power/energy power pages 12.3 "Emerging" vs "potential" energy superpower? 12.4 Claims section? 12.5 Editing Standards 13 Great Powers 14 Talk page 15 geostrat 16 your PROD tag on Manichaean paranoia 17 reply

[edit] My (Mtz206) RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. As an admin, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in the project namespace. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

Thanks for the help with the Culture during the Cold War article. How do I cite sources? This page is so far an amalgamation of bits and pieces from other articles. What do I cite, exactly? I read the citing sources article, but I still feel like I don't know what I need to know. Also, I don't want this to be simply a list of things, but to have some something that takes it up a notch from a list...

I recommend the library. I guarantee that a university library would have a book or two or three on the cultural effects of the Cold War. From those books you can write about the larger themes, rather than just list individual cultural products. Discussion of Cold War culture can then integrate the good list of shows and books and movies you've got already. (P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts using ~~~~). —Perceval 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay...so I did some searching, found some stuff. What I found is right there on the Cold War page. I haven't read any of the sources, though. Does that matter? Would I just put that list of things at the bottom of the culture of the cold war article? Also, would I repeat some of the sources found on other pages? For example, the musical Chess doesn't cite any sources, since it is the source. Is that the same for the songs and movies and such? Lastly, are you a good resource for these questions, or is there somewhere that is a better place for my questions? Thanks for your help! Hires an editor 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an administrator, so I'm as good a source as any. To start learning about citing sources in Wikipedia, I would read WP:CITE. It will explain what to cite, when to cite, and how to cite. To understand why we need to cite and the importance of citing, read Wikipedia:Verifiability. One thing we cannot do is to cite other Wikipedia articles as a source. If you see a cited sentence in another article you can use that sentence and carry over the citation if you like. But it's generally best to paraphrase facts from things that you personally have read, and cite those sources, thereby reducing the room for error.

The most current citing system is called cite.php. You can read about that at Wikipedia:Footnotes and m:Cite/Cite.php. It's fantastic, and does a lot of the work for you. Also, there are readymade citation templates for various types of sources that will automatically format the bibliographic data for you. You can find them at Category:Citation_templates. I've used Template:Cite news and Template:Cite book countless times, but many others exist for virtually any kind of media. Hope this helps! —Perceval 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great power peer review

Could you please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Great power and suggest what we could do to improve that article. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it.—Perceval 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Brzezinski.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brzezinski.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. YellowDot 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Copyvios

It seems that you added a copyright violation here (from Britannica). I'd be interested to hear what happened. Thanks, Alphachimp 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was added over two years ago, within a month or so of my first starting to edit Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, the text didn't come directly from Britannica, but by way of this website, which is the first thing that comes up on a Google search for Hammon. Good catch, thanks.—Perceval 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFM

A non-Mediation Committe member has requested to take your case (I'm assuming as a preliminary step to joining the MedCom). If you could please take a look and either accept or reject this, it'd be great. Thanks in advance, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I appreciate your frustration, but if the means to an end language isn't something you're particularly invested in (and it doesn't appear that you are), then perhaps it would go further to facilitate a solution if we didn't make that a bone of contention. JCO312 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make "means to ends" a sticking point. But I am concerned about not being allowed to use "strategy" in the intro. The means to ends language is a subordinate concern to "strategy", as it's the definition of strategy. As you know, Steve has argued that strategy and its definition belong in the intro because strategy is "political" or a "code word". I don't think it's a supportable idea to remove "strategy" from the definition of geostrategy because Steve views its use as in bad faith.—Perceval 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Percy. I just read up on the mediation page last night. Was taking a break from that for a while - working on other things. I'll chime in shortly. "lede text" - funny, yes. -Ste|vertigo 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:A.R.E. Weapons promo photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:A.R.E. Weapons promo photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEATO

Thanks, I've fixed SEATO2.png.Paj.meister 14:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project

I recently created some pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations for peer review, collaboration and deletion listings, but the article isn't big enough to NEED those pages. I was thinking about an International relations theory WikiProject. You seem to be editing a number of these articles so I wanted your opinion. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you believe great powers should mention the fact that they are great powers in the lead of their country articles? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In general I think Wikiprojects are fine ideas and a good way to focus editors with similar interests on a slice of Wikipedia's content. I'm not sure I would have made it as narrow as "power in international relations" either. I agree that an "international relations theory" would be a better Wikiproject.

My main admonition is this: please please please emphasize cited, academic/reputable sources. People talking about this or that country as a great power or as a superpower is notoriously loose, and very often arouses nationalist fervor (e.g. "why isn't my country on the great power list!?!?!"). Other times it attracts outright original research. A good example of such things include: A) the list of countries purported to be great powers in the great power article, which is subjective at best, and original research more likely, driven by nationalism; and, B) the XYZ as an emerging superpower set or article, which, if not deleted outright for original research, out to be prominently labeled as speculative and predictive of future events.

So, no, I don't believe country articles should assert that they are or are not a great power. There are numerous definitions and standards for what constitutes a great power. Academics and statesmen have no agreed upon definition or criteria. Listing countries on the great power page is almost assuredly original research unless you cite who says they're a great power and when they were a great power and based on what criteria. Waltz counts great powers by "common sense." William R. Thompson counts those states possessing 5% or more of the relevant capabilities (which obviously vary for different periods) within the great power subsystem. Long cycle theorists differentiate between global and regional powers, and set the standard at 10% of naval or land power capabilities (respectively) within the great power subsystem. Moreover, great power is used more generally in colloquial speech or historical writing without any criteria or formal definition. You see the problem--many many definitions, no way to establish any clarity which would prevent Canadian nationalists or South Korean nationalists from claiming that they're a great power too. In some sense or some definitions they are.

I say these things because I've been quite disenchanted recently, being in the thick of a 9+ month long edit dispute with another user on an IR subject, who openly admits to never having read anything about the subject, but who nonetheless feels qualified to rewrite the intro text to redefine the subject matter how they see fit. It's absurd and maddening. So in your endeavor, which I would be happy to support (although real life has been taking up a tremendous amount of my time of late), I hope you really stress the hell out of reputable/academic sources for *absolutely everything*.—Perceval 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging superpower

There's nothing wrong with the article being chopped down and drastic changes being undertaken, I just think the concept is worth staying on Wikipedia as an article. Thus blanking half the page is better than deleting because the other half is worth keeping. Anyway, what's your view on articles like Effects of global warming. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Conceptually it is inherently flawed. You know that the terms "superpower" and "great power" are relative terms, not absolute terms. Polarity in the international system is based on a subjective set of factors said to be relevant, some of those factors can be measured quantitatively while others are subjective, and the system for determining polarity is also subjective as it varies by expert. Having wikipedians assemble a variety of primary source raw data that they select to demonstrate China/India/EU's rise is quite obviously original research, since the set of indicators chosen is the work of wikipedians and the idea that these indicators are the relevant ones in demonstrating a country's rise is also the work of the wikipedians. Moreover, you know quite well that absolute power is not the same as relative power. China/India/EU can rise all they want and that has no direct bearing on how exactly the polarity of the international system will change, if it will at all.

Effects of global warming is not a perfect article, and it's not free from original research. However, it is leagues better than the emerging superpowers series. #1, it is not inherently predicated upon an assumption: the superpowers series assumes that polarity will shift from unipolarity to bipolarity, while it is just as plausible that polarity will shift from unipolarity to multipolarity (in which case there would be no superpowers, but simply a set of great powers). #2, it discusses individual authors' theories one by one and attributes those theories directly in the text. Take a look at the first major section: Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather. Each paragraph begins with the particular theorist/paper/book/etc and discusses their particular contention. The article, for the most part, does not marshal primary source data chosen by wikipedians and assembled by wikipedians as evidence, unlike the superpower articles. #3, the relevant indicators chosen by scientists are scientific, and thus not nearly as arbitrary. Indicators chosen in political science are far more arbitrary, and rely principally upon the author's theoretical school (realism, liberalism, marxism, constructivism). While there is an objective measurement of global temperature and climate change, there is no objective measurement of what constitutes a superpower much less what constitutes state power within the international system.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. The articles, in concept, are inherently flawed. We cannot just keep the namespace and redo the articles without OR, because the very concept of the article is based on a subjective assumption about how the future will turn out.—Perceval 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, anyone is allowed to add anything on these articles as long as they demonstrate power. It's just that I believe that the articles can be salvaged and have developed a better series of headings in my userspace which may set the foundations for such an improvement to the articles. So on that front, we'll agree to disagree, but I do agree that the current article is OR and is too much primary-source based. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

about your rational for deletion. [1] Why don't you put your criticism in thies articles,it seem's to me that their place are there.I mean,peopol that asuem this and that about the future(on the subject) would have less chance to read this critisism if the articles are indeed deleted (i douted that since is the fourth nomination).See it like the article on creationism or flat earth,yes they are very "hum" theories, but they do the job in informing peopol.In that sence even"japan superpower" deservers an article,saying something like you said.Or maybe an article like "Creation-evolution controversy".--87.65.190.31 11:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway you won. 8 keep votes were discounted, making it a resounding delete result. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not over yet: review.—Perceval 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe Press

Not directly. However the foundation is big enough to negotate a pretty good deal with any one of 100 t-shirt makers.Geni 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Superpower

[edit] Page edit

It doesn't matter if the concept is new or in flux. Wikipedia does not aim to write the truth about a topic, it aims to represent all published reputable positions on all sides of an issue without favoring one or the other or presenting something as settled. The article should not be written and then sourced--that's getting the entire concept backwards. It should find its genesis in the sources--build up from that base. As such, most of the article should be fundamentally rewritten, starting from actual sources, rather than the musings of random people who happen to have Wikipedia user accounts.—Perceval 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to make it the musings of "people who happen to have Wikipedia user accounts". I'm just trying to get the page better. I understand your explanation, but there's no need to be so hard-nosed here. Many of the editors who contributed to the page I could not always block (like perhaps someone like you could), and I did stop several from making some particularly dubious contributions (ex. Beagel wanted to put OPEC on the page as a separate energy superpower when the definition was clearly state-based). You should note that I was feverishly trying to at least get the reserves & production numbers sourced on all countries. This is a very new article, and it's hard to get it incredibly polished and up to standards in mere months. I am trying to get everything done by your standards, but I'd appreciate if you would contribute if you're going to critique the work of so many on the page. It smacks of being an back-seat driver who's too afraid to actually do the job themselves. If you can "pull rank", then why do you not contribute? This article has been in dire need of experts like yourself for months! Drakeguy 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I just put in a bit in the "potential energy superpower" section that SHOULD fit your standards. It's got an expert opinion article source from a geophysicist named Dr. Talwani out of Rice University. Also, I added another article by a Ms. Ecochard discussing the difficulties of Canada becoming an energy superpower in oil. I hope that fulfills the "noting" of the speculative nature of either of these countries making "the jump". Also, Gralo sent me a bunch of nicely sourced reasons why Canada will have a difficult time becoming an energy superpower that he should shortly (if he follows my advice) add to the page. Drakeguy 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Energy power/energy power pages

I'm not trying to make things up, just find a way to categorize certain states. Sorry about that anyway though. It just seems to me we have no way to categorize these other states that fall in between a "energy superpower" and a regular energy power. Maybe you could do a google search and find a better term, because these states are left in a vacuum of no way to define their status, and we need to be able to do that on this site. Drakeguy 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and erase the page if you want, but we do need to find where the hell the term is that defines these countries. It's like looking at a black hole in IR terms. Something ought to be out there, but I haven't seen any term that would work. Got any ideas on a term/definition we could source? Drakeguy 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Emerging" vs "potential" energy superpower?

That's the latest thing Gralo and myself have apparently agreed upon. I think it will suffice nicely once we get the expert opinion sources put in. Plus it'll allow us to keep a definition for the states that fall underneath the energy superpower (see Great Energy Power) and also discuss those countries with the potential to make the jump to energy superpower status on the energy superpower page as well. And I just got rid of one of my more angry responses for your editing-sorry about not doing that after reading your reasons the first time. Anyway, someone already has a "potential energy superpower" section up on the page-all we need now is some expert opinion, a few prospective countries, and your assurance that this will pass editorial standards. As they say, "Editors are standing by". Drakeguy 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential is less problematic than emerging, because the former has implications of supported fact, whereas the latter is hypothetical. Any section on potential powers ought to A) stress the hypothetical or speculative nature of section, and B) base everything on the secondary sources saying that a country does or does not have such potential, and refrain from marshaling primary source/raw data on behalf of or against such claims. Above all, Wikipedia must not have its own theory or its own position on these countries and their potential. We must reflect (with attribution) the ideas of others, but that's as far as it goes.—Perceval 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims section?

Perceval, it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to take a look at WHICH state's and their leaders have laid claim to being or becoming energy superpowers. We really ought to include expert opinion on the reasons they believe they will become Energy superpowers versus experts against, or just find expert opinion in general on the claims. Seems to me that otherwise, if someone were to read about the claims of a world leader's country being a superpower, that this site would not be able to discuss that topic (or be used as a reference), which is clearly something this page ought to be able to discuss (and verify the arguments for and against) that leader's comments. I think a new section might be a good idea here, in order to address these concerns. Drakeguy 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Standards

While the editing standards you posted on the energy superpower discussion page seem all well and good, I am very troubled by something you said. Quote, "Wikipedia does not aim to write the truth about a topic, it aims to represent all published reputable positions on all sides of an issue without favoring one or the other or presenting something as settled."

My concern is that A) if there is no reputable source on a country (in terms of experts) available, and all we have is production/reserve numbers, how do we make certain that it's added to the page appropriately? I did some checking of the temporary page, and it confirmed my doubts as to how to proceed. There is not much in the way of any expert opinion on Canada's uranium production on the net, but many creditable sources (not experts though) list it as having the highest production of uranium on earth. How would we possibly present Canada without being accused of perhaps advancing a biased opinion? It just seems a tragedy for the page to only concern oil and gas, whereas Canada is a huge uranium producer and isn't mentioned except as an oil/gas power.

B) If Wikipedia is not out to present the "truth", but merely all published reputable positions "of an issue" without favoring one side, then what are we going to do should somebody from Exxon Mobil come in and quote a "reputable" source they hired to contradict the other scientists quoted on the "global warming" article? We have this issue on the energy superpower page too because I've had a number of editors advancing arguments all over the place about Russian energy policies (and much of them partisan but quoting "reputable sources"). How on earth do editors like Gralo, Xdamr, Beagel and myself make certain that this article doesn't dissolve into a bout of pro and anti-russian "wikilobbying"? Drakeguy 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it will be unlikely that any potentially important country in terms of global energy markets will lack a published opinion. Global energy markets are among the most widely discussed and debated of all subjects in international politics and business. Regarding Canada & uranium, there are sources available, see Google Scholar.

Wikilobbying is certainly a problem. The key is to make sure the sources are attributed in the text, so that the readers knows whose opinion they're receiving. So rather than having a statement like "Russia is the greatest energy power[1]", we should make sure that sentences like that are rewritten to say "Ivan Denisovitch from the All Russian Energy Promotion Institute writes in a 2005 white paper that 'Russia is the greatest energy power.'[1]" Then present other sourced items saying more moderate things: "The BBC reports that Russia's energy production positions it in XYZ way regarding the international market. The DOE says ABC about Russian energy production. Etc." Within the context of multiple sources the extent of the controversy will become clear to the reader, and they can choose on their own which sources they agree with.—Perceval 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Powers

Please can you see the article and talk about Great Powers? The authors of the article want to apply the term to the World of today, apply the term to countries of today (as Britain France Germany)is a very subjective POV, it is very offensive in confront of others countries of the World, expecially former colonies of Africa and Asia! To support their wrong use of the term they continually quote some sources, but their sources are also a POV of a politically oriented group of academics and they also ignored completely others sources that affirmed the contrary of their POV! You have also to consider that the term "Power" referred to a country is very despised and avoided among the academics of Left and in countries as Germany and Italy, where the "Policy of Power" evokes negative periods of their history. The term "Great Powers" is neutral (as Wikipedia required) if apllied only on historical perspective (about history before World War II or maybe the Crisis of Suez 1956) Thank you for your attention! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.57.56 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I wrote on the talk page about the need for a criticisms section to address the many critical views of the term "great power" like you've suggested. I also added a placeholder subsection on the main article page where sourced criticism can be added.—Perceval 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

My mistake. I was in haste in removing it, as I thought that you were re-adding something that the user had previously removed. I'm not accustomed to edit summaries for user talk pages, which somehow led me to think that you had previously added the same section. In any case, though, I've been told by a couple of admins (after trying to keep warnings on editors' talk pages) that they have the right to remove warnings. The removal indicates that the message has been seen, and that the page history can be viewed to determine any issues. I've seen a few legitimate editors remove warnings to their talk pages or just blank their talk page entirely with no interest in keeping the discussion. So while I acknowledge my revert was a misunderstanding, can you tell me what is the proper way to handle issues. Here's a couple of instances where my heads-up messages were reverted -- [2] and [3]. It'd be nice to know if I can, after all, force warnings to be kept on user talk pages of disruptive editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I were to be nominated for bureaucratship, for example, people would want to know what I've been up to and what disputes I've been involved in. They could certainly go through the history of my talk page edit-by-edit to find everything, but it would be much more convenient if all the content was still there. This is why deleting talk page content is counterproductive. People will want to know about that 3RR block on me. Removing it from my talk page makes it look like I'm trying to hide something. In general, there's no reason nor advantage to be gained from removing things from your talk page. Remember, Wikipedia is not made of paper: we have plenty of space, and your talk page can get very very lengthy. The best solution for those wanting to start fresh on their talk page is to simply archive the contents, which is something that I've done for my talk page. The guideline on user pages has a helpful explanation: Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. There it says, 'On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." So while removing comments or blanking one's user talk is allowed, removing content (and specifically warnings) is frowned upon. If you have problem with a user removing warnings, as if to hide evidence or somesuch, first let them know about the above guideline, and second draw the attention of an administrator who can keep an eye on things. Cheers!—Perceval 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] geostrat

A note on my talk page would have been nice - Ive been handling seven mediations of my own. And why would you base an editorial judgement on my inactivity, or appearance thereof? -Stevertigo 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be involved in a mediation one might reasonably expect you to check in on it at least once a week. You were making edits on a variety of pages every day over the past three weeks. There was clearly little restraint on your available time. Essentially, you were ignoring the RfM. Meanwhile, I had one question for you five weeks ago which you have ignored several times now. It's disrespectful. Since you are the one who is demanding changes to the article text, it is incumbent upon you when disagreed with to give some sort of explanation other than flippant one-liners why your changes are necessary. There is no reason why the article should reflect misleading personal opinion while you ignore the RfM (and continue to ignore it even now) for weeks at a time with no notice.—Perceval 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your PROD tag on Manichaean paranoia

hi perceval,

FYI, i just removed the prod tag. not sure if you're watching the article or not, but since you restored the tag after someone else removed it, i thought i'd give you a heads up. here's a cut and paste from my note on the talk page:

AFAIK, nothing in WP:PROD says IP's can't remove the notice. especially in the latest removal, the IP editor added info, and contested it. that is in no way vandalism, which is the only reason to restore a deleted PROD notice. if you think it should go, then it's time for WP:AFD. --barneca

i have no opinion on if it should stay or go, but if you feel strongly, AFD is probably the way to go now. --barneca (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, if you tag something with prod or afd the notice stays until the timeperiod for consideration is up (5 days and 7 days respectively, IIRC). Maybe I'm wrong, but anons removing a prod tag without an edit summary smacks more of trying to protect the page by deleting things rather than a good faith effort to allow process to take its course.—Perceval 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

what you say, i believe, applies to WP:AFD, but not to WP:PROD. i just looked it up to make sure i wasn't mistaken (section 4 of PROD; i still don't know how to link to specific sections of articles). PROD is for uncontested deletions. the IP editor should have used an edit summary, but his previous edit from a minute before was a content change, so i think we have to AGF. --barneca (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the removals of the prod tag were edit summaryless I did not consider them, at the time, to be contesting the prod tag formally, but merely engaging in the kind of process-flouting that anons often do. As such, I'll look into filing it for AfD.—Perceval 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply

An edit that reverts reliable sources and attributed info in vandalism. I reverted the vandalism on spot.Bakaman 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)