User talk:DESiegel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Intro

[edit] Procedure

This is my talk page. Please add msgs to the bottom, Please sign all msgs with four tildas (like this ~~~~). I will genreally preserve all comments, positive or negative, and archive them when the page gets too large. But I may choose to delete vandalism or nonsense. Thank you for comunicatiing with me. DES (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

  • Archive 1 My talk page from 10 Feb 2005 thru 6 Sept 2005.
  • Archive 2 My talk page from 6 Sept 2005 thru 19 Dec 2005.
  • Archive 3 My talk page from 20 Dec 2005 thru 10 Feb 2006.
  • Archive 4 My talk page from 21 Feb 2006 thru 21 Apr 2007.
  • Archive 5 My talk page from 22 Apr 2007 thru 31 May 2007.

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tools

My Utility Links
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
List of Stub Types Wikipedia:Stub
Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Footnote3
Wikipedia:Template messages Category:Wikipedians looking for help
{{Speedy-Warn}} {{SD warn-needed}}
Editor's Index to Wikipedia


Contents


[edit] Nathan Hamilton

No problem at all. I'll help you keep an eye on it in the meantime in case any more funny business comes up so it's not one-sided. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at the 3RR noticeboard so hopefully this nonsense will stop sometime soon. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Arky Pluto

Well, when I did undelete it, I got slapped with a trout for wheel warring (which is edit warring, except over admin functions like delete). Wheel warring is not looked on at all kindly, and its a good way to lose your admin status. I didn't want to wheel war, so I backed off and undid my undeletion. I agree that it's kind of odd to have an AfD and a DRv going for the same article at the same time, and frustrating to comment in an AfD when you can't read the article. You could ask User:JzG or User:AlisonW to reinstate the article for the time being, for this reason; since they would only be undoing their own deletions, it would not be wheel warring for them to undelete the article. Herostratus 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Stamp Problems

Hello again. I have a problem with my time stamp on my userpage (18:45, June 8, 2008 (UTC)). At this current time, it will display 00:43 for me when logged in, and 00:49 when I logged out. I just previewed this post and saw that the time was correct when posted. Now, I know that the time stamp does update, but I never payed attention to how often it does. Can you help me out? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ok .. and where can I ask assistance

Yes ... I was uright up against the rule.

I didn't think I was violating 3RR myself, though. I do not want to violate the rules. I was adding content and formating ... if I did, I will accept whatever is decided ...

There is no automatic right to three reverts per day, and edit warring is a bad thing.

I do not want to do that, if I did .... is there a place to get assistance in such circumstances? J. D. Redding 01:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was readding the content and formatting multiple times wiht additional ting ... I do make alot of edits in formation ... I find it hard to use the preview button ...
I will try to remember that that is "reverting" ... but I am glad I was not ove the 3RR limit ...
I was trying to conform to the MoS, which is good ... and yes I understand that MoS is a guideline ... should not be robotiacally enforced .... I'll keep in mind that per-article consensus can soemtiems override it ....
I do try to discus the matter on the other editor's talk page
As to discuss the matter on the article's talk page ask other interested editors to assist, I may not have done that this time .. but will strive to in the future
For help ... request for comment ... that would be the key page I suppose ... thank you ...
[WP:ANI]] I did not think was an option .... I didn't think it was an extreme case ... maybe it was ...
I will look to help desk get eyes on a things ... thank you again ... J. D. Redding 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My page and the changes i have made in any page.

Dear DES, I do know i have repeated the same article twice now and for that i will be incredibaly sorry. But, i would want to leave the page as it gets deleated by it self. I would like to save all the changes i have made in any pages. Can you please tell me the reason why it is deleating by it self and help me to keep the page and any changes in any page i have made.

Thankyou for taking your time reading this and it will be appreaciated if you tell me why its deleating.

Thankyou.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 June 2007

[edit] Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unreferenced

You recently made some changes to {{Unreferenced}} which do not appear to have gone down well and I agree they're unhelpful. Could you please remove the words "although it may be a good idea to ask for specific sources first" from the template and discuss it on the talk page if you want to introduce some text along those lines. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you but one more question!

Hello, it's me again, coolshamas_01. Thankyou for explaining me why it's deleting and what's meant by 'speedy deletion'. Again i'm thankful for that. However i will want to know what does the word, citing, means as it has confused me. Not only me but others too.

Thankyou very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007

[edit] ANOTHER question!

sorry for asking another question again. but what kind of source you mean. Can you please tell me. Thank you very much.. Again!!

THANKS

coolshamas_01 USER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007

[edit] Kornbluth paragraph in Newspeak article

This paragraph is completely irrelevant for the reasons you describe so cogently in the Newspeak discussion section. So, in line with the Wiki encouragement to 'be bold', I've removed it. 88.111.85.129 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provost Sergeant Tim Weston

Hi, you prodded the article Provost Sergeant Tim Weston with the justification: "minor fictional character, stub written in in-universe style, no references or sources cited, see WP:FICT". However, I think he is in fact a real person that was in a reality TV show in the UK called "Bad Lads Army" in which various young social malcontents were sent for 1940's style army training. Whilst the show was popular, this individual doesn't meet notability standards. Consequently, I have re-prodded the article with a 'non-notable individual' justification. Hope this is OK. CIreland 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Guidlines

Hi thanks for pointing that out and apologies for your effort.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopste (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 June 2007

[edit] Request for comments

Hello, DESiegel ... About a month ago, we had contact regarding my drafts for protocols to "slow down" the proposed and speedy deletion processes ... I've been busy with other projects since then, and used the time to let ideas percolate in the back of my mind, but I have recently readdressed the protocols from a fresh point of view, and took the time to learn how to make templates.

Please see User talk:72.75.70.147#Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions and give me your feedback on the templates I have created for boilerplate warnings to be placed on editor's and articles talk pages prior to placing a PROD or CSD on an article. Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Good morning...I was looking at the Administrators Noticeboards, and I wasn't 100% sure on where to post/request this, but I am requesting to have It (film) semi-protected because for the last few days I've been having to revert IP edits that remove valid information from the site. When you look at the history you can see these edits. Unfortunately, I cannot make any reverts for a few hours without breaking WP:3RR so I'm stuck right now. Semi-protecting the page would help keep the maintenace down on the page so I don't have to constantly look over my shoulder waiting for the 3RR monster to get me. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Found out where to request this --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about tag placement, second opinion

Hi, DESiegel, I have had pleasant experiences in the past with you regarding relations with other users, and I was hoping you would be able to give me a little advice for how to better handle a situation. I have had dialogue with User:Ed Fitzgerald in the past about his dislike of templates and their placement on articles. We had a discussion here after he moved the {{plot}} template from the article to the talk page because he believed it "doesn't need to be seen by the general public." Later I noticed that he was moving similar templates to the end of the article. I posted to his talk page explaining their proper location and their general reason for being. He didn't reply to me, however, and I noticed again today that he has continued relocating them. It's not a criminal offense, I understand, but I think he's missing the point. I'm obviously not getting to him, so perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly? I don't want it to descend into WP:LAME, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't irk me. Any advice you could give would be great. Take care, María (críticame) 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAC

I thought the delete votes were more persuasive, but upon re-examination I guess it is too close to call. I changed it to no consensus. — OcatecirT 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2

I reverted the addition of your comment, because you also altered User:Tony Sidaway's comment in the process. Feel free to re-add your comment without the edit to Tony's own post. -- Kesh 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finkelstein DRV

Thanks for calling my attention to this. More to the point, thanks for taking the time to start it. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No speedy deletion for My Turban

Didn't realize that the article had to be explicitly about the band in question to merit a db-band. Sorry about that! --Iknowyourider (t c) 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem it is a rather technical point, and perhaps this rule should be changed. DES (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Smith

Hi there, I understand what you left on my talk page. I am still coming to grips with how strong an assertion fails a WP:CSD#A7, and I'm not suprised to see you dispute it. I will prod it, thanks for the message. In my opinion, also-rans can stay up while they are still-running, but once they become a failed candidate - unless they become independently notable for it, being an also-ran is not anything special. (eg: Santa Clause from the Santa Clause and the Merry Christmas Party, from a few years back here in the Australian Federal Senate. Isn't deed poll a wonderful thing?)Garrie 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments back at my talk page.
Different DOB as stated on each article.Garrie 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Bitch

Sorry, I am a bit new at this, so I guess I kind of messed up. Thanks for the heads up. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edmonton municipal election, 1941

Hello, I got your note with regards to the series of articles I've been putting up on Edmonton elections. First let me say that I recognized when I started these that some people might interpret them as failing WP:N but, since I don't agree, I decided to be bold and create them anyway. If, after reading my arguments, you want to AfD the articles I certainly won't take any offense; I would ask only that you do so promptly so that, if consensus goes against me, I don't waste any more time on the series.

All of that said, I believe that individual municipal elections in Edmonton pass WP:N. I make the following arguments in support of my belief: 1. Any given election in Edmonton receives very significant coverage from a wide variety of media sources in Edmonton in the period leading up to and after the election in question, relatively significant coverage from other Canadian media in the same period, and small but significant coverage from the writings of local historians and political scientists in ensuing years (admittedly few of these latter writings are available online, but I would cite this as one example that is). City Politics, Canada is one example of a book that I happen to own that deals with specific past municipal elections. 2. Edmonton is a municipality of more than one million people. There are many smaller jurisdictions (Guyana and Prince Edward Island to take just a couple of examples) that have pages for their individual elections. While I agree with the authors of WP:AADD that the existence of a given article does not necessarily legitimize the existence of all comparable articles, I think that, in cases like this where no clear notability guideline exists, we need to consider the consequence to other established articles of our decisions. If we determine that Edmonton elections are insufficiently notable, I think it does call into question the justification for individual pages on PEI's elections, for example, and I don't think we should proceed with deleting the Edmonton articles unless we're either prepared to do the same with PEI and Guyana or we can come up with a clear justification for why they should stay when Edmonton shouldn't. 3. You suggest that allowing articles on municipal elections will make Wikipedia "groan under the load". With respect, I don't believe that this is so. As long as articles have distinct names that don't require a lot of new disambiguation pages - an objective that should be easy to achieve - I see no reason why there couldn't be articles on individual elections for all major municipalities.

Again, if you disagree with this I would be more than happy to have an AFD debate, which would allow me to either continue with this project with renewed legitimacy or to stop wasting time on it. But I believe that these articles add to Wikipedia and are entirely in keeping with WP:N. Sarcasticidealist 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I just thought I'd provide you with a few links to other municipal election articles. Again, I'm not claiming that the existence of these articles justifies the existence of the Edmonton ones, but I do want to demonstrate that articles on individual municipal elections are a well-established phenomenom on Wikipedia that have been seemlessly incorporated into their surroundings and that haven't caused Wikipedia to groan under the weight: Toronto, Windsor, assorted Belizean municipalities, etc. Sarcasticidealist 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please don't refrain from AFDing the articles just on the basis that I put work into them. Such thinking is, as I understand it, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (though I certainly take your point about the onerous nature of tagging them all). Second, while I take your point about purely local media being insufficient to pass WP:N (although there are plenty of well-established articles that I'm aware of in other fields that rely exclusively on local media - here's one example that occurred to me completely at random - a city the size of Edmonton gets some amount of attention for its elections nation-wide. Although the media coverage is certainly primarily local, it's not exclusively local. Regarding your suggestion to merge the articles, to be honest I don't fully understand the purpose. I think having more articles for something like this is actually less cluttered than having fewer larger articles, provided that the articles are properly organized, which I think these ones are. I'm certainly open to hearing your justification for why this is not so, and I'd be prepared to do the legwork if the AFD process comes out with a consensus of merge, but the purpose isn't immediately apparent to me. Finally, as for the signature, four tildes is exactly how I sign each post and, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't done anything to my signature to prevent a link to my userpage from coming up. Advice? Sarcasticidealist 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think I fixed the signature issue - thanks for your advice on that. As for the substance of our debate, I do see your point about the notability of "elections in Edmonton" being greater than the notability of any individual election. However, if we're going to have the information on Wikipedia (and I recognize that we're not necessarily in agreement about that - I'm just taking it as a first principle for the purpose of my point), we need to figure out in what form it's going to be most useful to the user (other considerations that might otherwise have to be considered, such as "using up" article names that might be more useful on other subjects, are mercifully absent here, since I can't imagine any other articles being confused with Edmonton municipal election, 1941). Given the sheer volume of information, I would think that most users would prefer to have the information sorted in a rational way (by date) among different articles, instead of having one massive article with all of the information (in which the various sets of election results would also look very similar to one another, thereby possibly breeding confusion as to exactly what section a user was reading at any given time). I would obviously prefer the merger solution to an outright deletion, but it still strikes me as the kind of unhappy compromise that's made solely for the sake of compromise.
I'm (somewhat) new to Wikipedia - is there somewhere we can go to involve other people in this discussion without actually going through the AFD process? Because, while I'm not willing to yield based solely on your say-so, I'd be happy to do so if I see that consensus is against me. Sarcasticidealist 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, *now* I've fixed the signature issue.Sarcasticidealist 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help on this issue. One partial solution that I can propose: since 1968, all municipalities in the province of Alberta have held their elections on the same days. I would be entirely amenable to dealing with elections after that date in larger articles of the format Alberta municipal elections, 1968 which would include all of the 1968 municipal elections in Alberta, since these could be seen as part of a larger (more notable) event in a way that elections prior to 1968 couldn't be. Of course, that doesn't help us for any of the articles that exist now, but hopefully it gives us some consensus moving forward.Sarcasticidealist 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: script bug report

Fixed, thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of Template:Infobox Football All-Ireland 2

I did not place the tag on either template. Please look again carefully.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edmonton Election RFC

Thanks for that. I've added my statement. I'll leave the articles be for a few days while we see if some consensus develops. Thanks for your reasonable approach to this whole issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: I know of a couple of other editors who'd likely be interested in this AFC. The thing is, being municipal politics nerds like myself, they'd be likely to take my side. I know the consensus process isn't a vote, but would it be acceptable to direct their attention to the AFC, or not? I wouldn't want to be seen as trying to stack the deck in my favour.Sarcasticidealist 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They are existing Wikipedia editors who have worked on articles on municipal politics. So while they certainly have a "legitimate interest" in this discussion, they also have a predisposition to believe in the notability of a broader range of municipal politics articles than does the Wikipedia population at large. I'll try to think of a few more neutral places to post this.Sarcasticidealist 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page redirects

Hi, i see you've pointed some of the orphaned talk pages i recently proposed for speedy deletion to their corresponding disambiguation pages' talk pages; is this really a good idea? There are no existing links that would benefit from such a redirect, and i can't think of a reason why someone wanting to comment on the redirect would want to end up on the DP's talk page instead. --Piet Delport 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(replied to at User talk:Piet Delport#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)

[edit] User:Chainsofhell

I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Do you normally run an effectiveness test on the spam pages you come across to see if they qualify?

Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as their extensive contribution history shows. Mmmmmmmm -- no. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of your removal of the tag. The tag was put back 20 minutes later by Calton and I agreed it was blatant spam. A user creating a userpage only to promote a rock band is advertising. If I had crossed the page on my patrol, I would probably have prodded the page instead of speedy deleting it, because we can't say it was blatant. But in my opinion this is a role account made to circumvent our A7 criteria, this was this user only contribution. -- lucasbfr talk 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

I had much the same viewpoint as you, except that well, I think that any such list is going to have heavy problems reaching the RS/V bar. Have a good one. SirFozzie 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templating the regulars

I do not think that User:Vinko Tsui fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because...Yes it would be better if he actually registered User:Vinko Tsui, and so technically this is a valid speedy

Note the contradiction. Perhaps you ought to read the material you use before "templating the regulars." --Calton | Talk 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do read the templates I use when i use them, and in this case I specifically edited after substing to remove parts that I didn't intened - Hmm, so you specifically intended to say that the page doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria AND that it does fits the speedy deletion criteria? Neat trick there.
if a template msg says what I want to say, i will use it - Which apparently it didn't (see above), or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem pretty slow to understand, I'll make it simple:
  • "Templating the regulars" -- using a template to send a message to a regular and long-time editor -- is insulting.
  • Using a template which you apparently didn't bother reading closely is even more insulting.
  • In your fumbling attempt at customizing the template -- you didn't even get the capitalization right, I'll note -- you said two contradictory things. It's called a "mixed message" -- ask someone about it -- and assuming your recipient needs to be a mind-reader to get your intent is a bad start.
  • Verbose ass-covering -- including the pretentious literary name-dropping -- doesn't impress me, either.
Sufficient? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:I understand that some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.
And yet you do it anyways.
I don't agree.
And if you'd thought about for half a second, you'd realize how immaterial that is. Hint: who is, in fact, the proper authority for what is considered insulting, the deliverer or the recipient? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people consider all sorts of absurd things insulting. As long as I act reasonably I see no obligation to abide by any and every prejudice someone else may have.
Just keep digging there. So considering that "templating the regulars" is insulting is an absurd notion? And no, that's not an attempt at a gotcha, it's the only reasonable interpretation of your statement just above. But the logical steps:
1) Some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.
2) You consider that notion absurd.
3) Despite your clear understanding of #1, you do it anyways.
4) Ergo, insulting some editors is okay, even if you can avoid it.
But since you have been so clear that you dislike templated messages, when i do something that I would normally notify you about via a template, I will simply not notify you
Ah, spite. So very mature. Have you considered, I dunno, writing an actual note, with sentences and everything that actually lay out your actual concerns, that actually attempt to communicate with someone who has enough experience in Wikipedia to not require reminding of very basic policies? Not all that difficult, really, and you don't even have to do any literary name-dropping, just simple declarative sentences. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct, i do consider that notion absurd. Congratulations on understanding something I implied but did not state explicitly.
Ah, escalating from implicitly insulting someone's intelligence to doing so explicitly. It's sounding less and less like it was inadvertent in the first place.
Note that the template in question (which you repeatedly implied or stated that I did not read, although a look at the history would confirm my statement that I actually wrote it)...
So what if you originally created it? For precisions' sake, I'll amend that to "You didn't bother to reread the template before you applied it", or, probably more accurately, "You didn't bother to understand the template before you applied it."
It is true that too many editors use templates blindly.
Good, you're halfway to self-awareness. Small hints: what was the message thread on my Talk page just above your most recent set, and how grounded in actual policy was that one?
I recall one instance where an editor was accused of having been overly harsh in a particular message, and the response was "It's not my fault, I just used the standard template. It's the fault of the person who designed the template.
I recall that case. It was clearly a case of the editor not bothering to read the template before applying it, and going on and on with long defensive postings to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility for the ill feelings his thoughtless actions had caused. I don't think he made any literary allusions, though. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)

It appears that you reverted the clsoe of this. Dis you intend to do that, or was it an edit conflict or what?

"Or what." I was improving my arguments for the projectification of the article (which I thank you for acknowledging), and didn't even get a conflict box. I will request projectification when I can find the time; Fortunately, the closure of this AfD brings the number of my current major conflicts down to two. Unfortunately, one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously. Expect getting bugged about the specifics within two weeks.

I can cry travesty until I'm blue in the face, but there was no actual breach of procedure, so DRV is out. Moving the article to project-space seems like the only option. This is too large a job for a single person, and even if it wasn't, it'd just meet its fourth AfD immediately if it failed to get a communal consensus before reposting. The edit history can be restored with the move, right? It'll be needed.--Kizor 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. "I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear [...]."
This is really an interesting and new experience. So far, whenever I was in the majority group favouring that an article be kept, the closing admin argued that "this is not a vote", i e that keep and delete votes are not counted and weighed against each other. Suddenly, out of the blue, there is not just such a thing as a "clear consensus", but even a "clear numerical consensus".
"If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to WP:DRV."
I'm certainly not going to "go to WP:DRV": The last time I did so was enough experience in that field for me. I have asked at least four times for projectification of that list in the deletion debate, and I'm doing it right now again by dropping you a note. Best wishes, <KF> 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. You have raised so many issues that I don't really know where to start. Well, let's give it a go.
First of all, when you say that "it seems from your note on my talk page that you think my close of this AfD was improper, incorrect, or unjustified" you are mistaken. All I did is report what I experienced in the past. To me, your decision is perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy. If my introductory remark seems to contain implicit criticism, it is because I've just come across yet another official Wikipedia guideline which I believe is too vague and thus open to interpretation of any kind. In other words: I may have implicitly criticized that guideline, but certainly not you or your decision.
It follows (hopefully) from the above that I am certainly not going to "report the matter on WP:ANI or WP:DRV or at WP:RFC" or anywhere else. It seems that the way I see things is in many cases only shared by a handful of others, so I usually keep out of edit wars (see, for example, the debate on spoiler warnings) or other unpleasant things and concentrate on arguing my case and eventually retreating when I realise that it's hopeless.
That was the case with the gory list as well, and if you reread my contributions to the gory deletion debate you will see that I'm saying exactly the same things here again. I'm not personally interested in keeping that list at all although as someone who enjoys watching and reading about films it made fascinating reading for me.
Other contributors may find the list helpful when working on film articles (I've said so before), and they should not be denied the chance to access it. I was not so much arguing (that was Kizor I suppose) to projectify it so that it can be rewritten and re-established as a proper Wikipedia article. (I wouldn't mind though at all if that happened.)
A disturbing phenomenon I have been witnessing for a long time now is that someone picks on one out of what must be thousands of lists that similarly fail all, or most, Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and gets that one list they have picked out (and on) deleted (with a very high success rate, due to the ease with which a "consensus" can be manufactured here at Wikipedia, see above) while all the others remain as they have always been. Strangely, it's even been established as a no-no (WP:WAX, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) to refer to other unsuitable articles for the sake of argument.
If you have a look at the deletion debate again, I hope you'll find that that's what I said there as well. Best wishes, <KF> 05:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your reply. I'm afraid I do not have a plan concerning the page in question because I'm not really interested in the subject matter and wouldn't be able to work on that list myself. Apart from many other things here at Wikipedia, what fascinated me right from the start of the project were collaborative compilations of data which could not be found anywhere else (List of songs phrased as questions, List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses, List of people by name, and all that stuff).
That was back in 2002 or 2003 or so when there simply were no policies against those lists. I considered them an asset. Now they have been identified as "unencyclopaedic" and are being relentlessly persecuted. They may be so if you apply traditional standards, but I originally thought that, using the Internet rather than paper, we might be able to redefine the conception of what an encyclopaedia should or might contain. Well, times have changed, so if people are no longer interested in that sort of thing I just can't pursue the matter further. All the best, <KF> 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return

In this edit while leaving me a msg, you also deleted 90% of my exizxting talk page. I presume that this was not your intent, adn i admit that I am overdue for archiving. But please be more careful to avoid such edits in future. DES (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aigh! I'm sorry! That was my last edit on a late-night spree; my vision was quite literally blurring as my eyes lost focus and through the warm haze of degenerating consciousness I noticed I'd screwed up and was sure that I'd hit Ctrl-Z (undo) enough times to reverse it. Immediately afterwards I collapsed on my bed and fell asleep. Sorry!

they are not among my favorite wikipeide editors. But they do know what they are doing, they are not sutpid (although they can be foolish IMO) and DG in particular has a large positive reputation on wikipeida.

That's why I'm terrified.

I for one don't think thsi AfD was a travesty, even if iMO it wasn't a slam-dunk delete. (...) the numbers rule the day. and the numbers were hugely for deletion.

No, no. I don't fault you for handling that AfD. I can see that there was no other option, even a "relist to generate further discussion" would've caught flak. That was not a problem. What were travesties were
  • the lack of complaints of any kind before a deletion (okay, there was one, but it also complained about listing Jews on a list of human deaths, so...) that could've spurred a cooperative solution,
  • the delete votes demanding to know who could use such an article when there was a detailed explanation of who could right above them,
  • the admittedly impressive piece of rhetoric calling the closing admin to disregard all arguments that the list should be retained because of its usefulness while retaining what they were replies to, arguments that the list should be deleted because of its uselessness,
  • the "Delete - unencyclopedic" votes going unchallenged: I've tried, but can't see it as anything else than "This topic doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because this topic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia",
  • the "nonsense" voter who had, the last time we met, been AfDing and PRODding articles because they contain blasphemous content, also going unchallenged,
  • in particular, my own lackluster and insufficient effort.
I'm not trying to convince you, just showing where I'm coming from. And it's because all of those happened that I'm confident a new version can be hammered out at a wikiproject, which are designed for cooperation, instead of an AfD, which are designed for being at loggerheads. I'll start the process soon now, right once I clear up enough time for it. (I'd tell you my schedule, but once I make them I automatically break them. (seriously. I'm in ADHD testing.))
I hope that information is halpful to you. DES (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is. Thank you for the explanation of the mechanics. As a matter of fact, thank you for remaining polite and respectful to those guilty of having the opposite opinion. Frankly it was a relief to see that such a thing is still possible. Your words are scrambled but your messages compare favorably to those of one-time arbitrators. --Kizor 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nick Hern Books

While there are a large number of Google hits for the publisher, most of them have little to no information about the company. I'm still concerned about 1. notability 2. spam and 3. cut n paste job of the sole sentence contained in the article (I realize of course, this isn't what I tagged it for in the first place). I understand that a speedy deletion tag may not be appropriate, so if I nominate for deletion again, I will be sure to prod or AfD to make sure I'm following proper Wikipedia procedure. Eliz81 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ta!

[1]. Tyrenius 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:Closing

You're welcome - anything that minimises edit conflicts is a good idea in my book. Graham87 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aubrey-Maturin Series

Hello, is there any chance we can get a demerge done for this series so that each book has its own individual article. Please see my comments in the discussion section of the article ref. this matter. At the moment, I feel the whole article is far too unwieldly with just a huge mass of information.

The main article should just contain a broad general overview of the series e.g. O'Brian's humour etc.Ivankinsman 09:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Calaway article - could you please help

We could use your help about the Sara Calaway article.

User:Thedeadmanandphenom created the Sara Calaway article a few days ago. It was quickly tagged by a fellow Wikipedian for speedy delete, and a few of us left messages on the article talkpage as well as the user's talk page about it. Other tags were also added, requesting cleanup and more sources. The user responded to the messages I left him, and I tried to give him constructive comments about how to improve the article. I even made some wordsmithing improvements to the article to show him how to do some things. He responded by adding the hangon tag at the top the article, and also added a comment on the article talk page that no one should be editing his article. A few of us responded to this comment, noting that this is not the way Wikipedia works - no one owns an article. A few hours later, the user had deleted the tags, and was in an edit war with another Wikipedian who kept restoring them. I left another constructive comment and got a response from the user that I thought had resolved things. The user left me a message (question) on my talk page about how to put pictures in an article and I referred him to Wikipedia:Images. That was yesterday (June 23, 2007).

Today (June 24, 2007), I looked at the article and found all tags gone. Also, there is no history of what happened before today. It looks as if the article has been recreated new, as a copy and paste of what the old article looked like. It has my wordsmith edits, for example. At a minimum, there should be a speedy delete tag, a Cleanup tag and a more sources tag.

I think it might be time for an admin to intervene, and I respectfully ask for your assistance. If there is a Wikipedia page that describes the process I should be following in these kinds of situations, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to it for future use. Thanks. Truthanado 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I understand what happened and I think it's good to discuss as AfD. In general, the current article is in better shape than the one that was previously deleted; it is shorter and the info in it is at least debatable as notable and worthy of Wikipedia. I think I will do some research on other WWE articles and specifically how Wikipedia handles wives, and then comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Calaway page. Thanks again. Truthanado 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aubrey-Maturin Series

Hello, I am trying to set up a new page for each one of Patrick O'Brian's novels that don't have one already.

Can you tell me how I can link, for example, the novel HMS Surprise to a new page. I put in HMS Surprise main article (just like the Post Captain above) but it just links back to the same page/info. Not sure how I can change this...Ivankinsman 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Oak Middle School

I just noticed this article was undeleted and noticed the comments on the deleting admin's talk page. I just wanted to drop you a note to mention that I did actually mean db-a1 and not db-a7 because I agree with your position that a school isn't covered by a7. I'm not really sure that the content in the article at present is enough to stand up to a1, but I'm hopeful that your interest in the article foreshadows improvements you hope to make. I have very mixed feelings about the notability of middle and primary schools, but I'm not really in a place right where I'm trying to do more in my patrolling than getting articles without sources marked and kicking the speedy deletion material. Erechtheus 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your restoration of The Lying Game

Hi, I'm unclear about your motive for undeleting this article. Do you believe that there is merit in the argument that it should remain on Wikipedia, or is there another reason? --Tony Sidaway 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have been found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support from DRV. Had I encountered this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where something that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance of it being kept as a valid article is low. But I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed some admins, infer precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the speedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. DES (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've been there. I'm absolutely with you on restoring bad speedies, and looking at your undeletions I think that you usually show excellent judgement in those that you restore. The reason I asked was that I suspected that you might be tending to fetishize the process. Do you honestly think we need to spend days discussing this deletion? --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I very rarely restore, to avoid even the hint of wheel-warring, I usually take to DRV. As to this one, i think the process exists for a reason, and there is no good reason to avoid it here. I think there is a small but non-zero chance this this silly game has actually become popular enough on college campuses (I've seen far sillier things that have) that we should have an article about it as a social phenomenon. I think that it is worth delaying deletion in case anyone finds the references that would demonstrate that. You ask if I think that "we need to spend days discussing this deletion". I don't think that if it were left on AfD, or prod, it would consume much of anyone's time. If it were on prod it would consume a few minutes of an admins time in 5 days, and no one need "discuss" it otherwise unless such person actually becomes untested and chooses to discuss, or unless references are found, in which case it would be worth while. If it were left on AfD I would expect and the maximum probability that two or three people would each spend 30 seconds !voting "delete", and after 5 days an admin would spend perhaps 2 minutes closing, unless someone got interested and actually found something worth noting, and again, in that possible though unlikely case, it would be worth the time spent. I think the total time spent would be less than 5 wikipedean-minutes -- less than you and I alone have already spent on this conversation. I think those 5 minutes would be worth investing against the small but non-zero chance of a real article emerging. Maybe to save time i should just have reverted the improper AfD close that went along with the improper speedy, rather than going to DRV. That is perhaps where I "fetishized process", and now I think if something like this comes along again, that is what I will do.
Also I've become very very frustrated with the admin who deleted this. He has a fast finger on the delete button, i think, and he doesn't seem to communicate much afterwards, either with frustrated newbies or with experienced editors. Please take a look at User talk:Naconkantari and then if you are willing to invest some time, at his logs I see lots of invalid or marginal speedies, and lots of things that probably should be deleted, but clearly aren't speedies. Note also the discussion at WP:AN#24 characters too long for a username? Any suggestions? DES (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
just breaking in, but I haven't undeleted either, being a new admin & a known inclusionist, I wanted some support first. . DGG 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I would probably have tagged this one as prod myself. If an administrator is doing chronically poor calls, please consider RfC. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking about just that. But I would need a second certifier. Interested? DES (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any serious issues with that admins' conduct. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't then obviously you shouldn't be involved with an RfC. I'm curious, did you look at his talk page? He was the deleting admin on The Lying Game, X-sample, Liam Hunt, Kim Amidon, 23andMe, Blessthefall (which he also salted), Didar Singh Bains , Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (which he also salted), Spyware_Terminator (where he failed to link to the prior AfD, thus confusing the situation on DRV significantly), and Velvet D’Amour all of which are now or recently have been on DRV, and in none of which cases has he helpfully communicated with those inquiring about or questioning the deletion. While in the case of Spyware_Terminator the user involved does not seem to respond to polite communication anyway, in several of these cases newbies made polite requests, only to be told "take it to DRV" and nothing more, and in others experienced editors (including but not limited to myself) received no response at all. Do you think there is no problem with any of that? How would you comment in an RfC with evidence to that effect? DES (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Are those all recent deletions? All of them seem at present to be redlinks, except one which is a salted deletion page. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that all have been deleted in the past few days -- all are listed on WP:DRV for 24, 25, or 26 June, with log links in each case. Most if not all seem to have been raised on his talk page since 23 June. I see that there have been apparently similar issues in the past, including one on DRV on 9 June, but I haven't checked into the merits of those as yet. DES (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Note a similar pattern in the deletion of Onesidezero (designer), discussed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9. Interestignly enough, I did some work adding sources to the related article Inkthis DES (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in certifying an RfC with Naconkantari. In addition to his recent speedy deletions, he:

  1. Applies blocks much more severely than guidelines indicate (including incidents where he indefinitely blocked registered user accounts which have made a single harmless test edit - "hello" or similar)
  2. Deleted many user pages of indefinitely blocked sockpuppets in spite of specific instructions to carefully check each page to ensure that they are not socks before deletion
  3. Deleted thousands of fair use images without checking them to see if the deletion was correct. Originally, {{Dated dfu}} stated that a user should add a rationale but leave the template so an admin could review it. The template was changed on June 5, allowing any user who adds a rationale to remove it. Users who had already added rationales had no way of knowing that the criteria had changed. On June 6 Naconkantari deleted all disputed fair use images from May 31 and June 1 without checking to see if a rationale had been added or if the tagging was legitimate in the first place. He did not remove the images from any pages where they appeared; he just left red links. See [User:TomTheHand/Fair use] for a full list of deleted images which Spike Wilbury‎ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and I are attempting to review. There are 3148 of them.

In the above deletion incidents, Naconkantari has undeleted wrongly deleted pages and images on specific request but made no attempt to change his actions or review and fix the mistakes himself. In his replies, he always implied that deleting without review was the correct action and the incorrect deletion was the fault of whoever left the template there. TomTheHand 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edmonton municipal election, 1941

While I think it's safe to say that the RFC didn't get the response that either of us would have liked, the response it did get seems to be in favour of the articles' continued existence. Accordingly, I'd like to start on finishing up the series in the next couple of days. As before, I wouldn't object to an AfD to settle this a little more formally, but that's obviously your call. I want to hank you again for your civility, reasonableness, and help in dealing with this issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the merits of merging. Personally, I think you are not, so I will continue editing as I was before until I see a consensus that I should do otherwise. Perhaps, in time, another user will be bold and go through with that merger, and discussion will produce consensus one way or another. Such is how Wikipedia chugs along, I guess. Sorry to see you get tied up with the sort of nonsense that's been occupying your time. Sometimes even a collection of reasonable people with strong opinions can produce unreasonable conflict. In any event, it has been a pleasure dealing with you. Sarcasticidealist 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks by User:867xx5209

Hello, DESiegel ... my request for intervention at WP:AN/I#User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets regarding the personal attacks against me by 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) on the DRV page for CLSA (and several article discussion pages) is being ignored ... is it because I'm using an IP account? I have also discovered that I cannot post the complaint that I have been documenting about their activities onto the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets project as an IP account. <Sigh!>

I'm asking you, and a few other admins who are familiar with this incident, for any advice/assistance that you can render ... please reply on my current talk page so as not to fragment comments by others ... BTW, my recent inactivity (and possibly slow response) is due to a medical emergency involving a family member. Thnx! —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naconkantari

I have posted at AN/I due to his unwillingness to discuss his actions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will, thank you. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will check to see if I have any additional info and add it. I try to track this sort of think off-wiki.--and by the way, do you know about WikiEn-L? much less restrained discussions there from all sides. My email is enabled.DGG 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) &, for the list, a few good people join in who don't like to talk here. I also like the centralization of discussions. Threads are easier than multiple pages. (and I'm simply used to it because that's the way I do most of my work in the RW) DGG 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added some links to article deletions to the RFC draft. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I am not sure what this Admins problem is, but he has been utterly rude to me in reference to the Gayla Earlene page. I am an entertainment expert and I understand notability. However, he could have went to the talk page and gave me some advice or something instead of just deleting me. I mean I was on my way back to expand the article. I even put and expand tag on it! By the time I got back, it was gone! I recreated it and placed a hangon tag, and it was gone again. I do not know what to do now. CAn you please advise? Junebug52 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

First, you really should have your email enabled so that people whom you've blocked can contact you. Second, regarding the RFC draft, you may want to consider adding specific examples of deletions that have been overturned on DRV or look like they very likely will be overturned. JoshuaZ 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had email to me enabled, I've had it enabled for years, since before i first became an admin. i don't encourage its use much, but i have it. However, when you sent this note, i double checked my preferences. it seems that some time after I registered and provided my email address and activated the 'allow emails from other users" feature, wikimedia added the feature of confirmation of email addresses, and i had never confirmed mine. it seems that if your address is unconfirmed, the email features are now all disabled. Arrgh! They should have notified users who already had email active when this feature was implemented.
Adding soecific examples is next on my list, thanks. DES (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added some examples, please see item 3 in the Deletion section. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. DES (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Science Conference Rankings

Agreed, but I will definitely prod, and if necessary, go to an AfD. No, wait - someone beat me to it on AfD. (Guess how I'm voting?)

By the way, please sign your comments on my user page. As you are an admin, I assume you just slipped up there. It happens. Realkyhick 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamesaving

Can you check if Gamesaving should be deleted or not? I thought it had some potential so I placed a notability tag on it, but right now it just seems to be fodder for IP vandals. -WarthogDemon 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Er, sorry I probably typed my message wrong. I wasn't suggesting that it should be deleted due to vandalism. I was just asking you to check since if it wasn't that good an article to begin with, reverting the vandalism is pretty pointless if it can be deleted. Anyways, thanks again. :) -WarthogDemon 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sin City Irish RFC

Just FYI, I would submit that while teams might not be covered by A7, clubs are. The C in the title stands for club. That was the thought process that led to me using the template. I'm not trying to contest your choice to move to a notability template, but I felt it wise to explain where I was coming from. Erechtheus 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's my understanding that a lot of sports clubs in areas where that nomenclature is more common (like Europe) are indeed clubs. One must join, and several different levels of team are supported. Some clubs would be notable because they're basically professional teams in addition to being clubs, but some aren't. The question in my mind is what is meant in the article we're talking about, and it's not clear. As far as prod goes, it's clear that it would be a controversial deletion due to the use of hangon. I'd think anyone inclined to test the article would want to go to AfD. I currently think most AfDs are best raised after some opportunity for people to flesh out the article, so I probably won't rush with this even if I do choose to pursue it eventually. Erechtheus 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I hear you there. That's why I said I wasn't trying to contest your action. I know not every one of my speedys are perfect, and I try to take the time to talk them out when I'm mistaken. Erechtheus 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naconkantari

Naconkantari appears to have left again, so the RFC may not be necessary. It is unfortunate that his response to constructive criticism is to leave rather than have a discussion. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He has said that before -- i suspect it won't stick this time either. I agree that thsi is an unforunate response. I will polish up the RFC in any case, and have it ready when/if he returns. DES (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He has requested removal of sysop access on Meta. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Really. Can you give me a link there? Would that also remove his sysop acces on other projects, such as this one? DES (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He means, Naconkantari requested that the stewards remove his sysop status on enwiki. Based on the rights logs, Naconkantari has never made such a request before. Dragons flight 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. That is fairly clar cut -- although as I understand it, since this removal was coluntary, he could alwasys ask for the bit back when and if he chooses to do so. I am sorry that he has taken this route -- ithoght that he was a caluabel contribvutor, but oen who was a loot to quick on the fire button, both for deletes and blocks. Still, the vast majority of his deletes were IMO correct or at elast reasonable, even if the percentage of problem cases was rather too high. DES (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Joey Jett

Joey Jett

Hi,

I'm relatively new to this and was trying to begin a page for Joey Jett. Joey is a famous 9 year old skateboarder who is the youngest in the world to perform certain tricks in competition. He has been invited for the past two years to perform at the AST Dew Tours and will turn pro in a year or so. He has skated with pros from around the world like Shaun White, Bucky Lasek, Bob Burnquist.

My original intent was to start a page that I would later edit with more info. The first time I saved it and went back and it had been deleted. So I started it again, and it was deleted and protected. The reason is something about biographical significance.

I'm really not sure what this means or how to get it unprotected to be able to add more info.

Naconkantari was the admin that did the deletes and protection and it appears they are gone.

Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 June 2007

[edit] FYI

You should be aware that your name is being mentioned on ANI in this thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for lettign me know. I have responsed. DES (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About my CSD of Boom

hi -

Message received and understood concerning the CSD of Boom. I myself am a believer in the importance of process.

--Jddphd 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus- deletion of page

You must first forgive me as half of what I read here with all the words like tildes and IP's I feel a bit over my head!

But the reason I am contacting you is to discuss Bellinghaus' page.

I feel that he has not very much relevance in Modern culture (unless you think his acting warrants attention) and his page should be nominated for deletiong due to misleading information, relevance and improper use of links.

HEre are a FEW of the reasons:


1) Mark did not shut down the Queen Mary Marilyn Monroe Exhibit. (check with the Queen Mary to source this one.) Much to the disappointment of Marilyn fans everywhere the MM exhibit was actually EXTENDED and closed at a later date than intended!

2) Although a lawsuit was brought to court against the Queen Mary.. MARK BELLINGHAUS was NOT the Plaintiff! It was in fact Ernest Cunningham and Emily Sadjady. Mark's ONLY connection to this case is a financial one, no where was he listed as a plaintiff, witness or expert.

3) Mark was not even considered as an EXPERT WITNESS in the case. The EXPERT WITNESS to this case was Mr GREGORY SCHRIENER (you are most welcome to check with Mr. Braunstein, Esq who was the plaintiff's lawyer or Mr. Schreiner himself www.MarilynRemembered.org).

4) Mark is currently using his Wiki page to link to sites/ blogs of his own making that are critical of people with AIDS and other personal items. The concern here is that they are filled with slanderous information and if read by anyone (I beg you to take the time to do so) would read as the ramblings of an incoherent, bigoted and racist person.

5) Mark Bellinghaus self proclaims he has the largest most comprehensive collection of personal Marilyn Monroe memorabilia. This at BEST is arguable. In the world of collecting (of which I know quite a bit considering that I have dedicated some 30 years to studying the history of Marilyn Monroe and ahve been used on books and documentaries as a reference of expertise) there are far more comprehensive and larger collections out there than Marks. Again if you would like references I refer you to Greg Schriener the premiere collector of Marilyn Monroe cited in many bios on Marilyn including Donald Spoto and Matthew Smith to name a few. OR Spanish Marilyn Monroe collector Maite whose collection was so large she has now published two books on it. This is a very subjective item and as I said before at best arguable.

6) If Mr. Bellinhaus' Wiki page has ANY relevance at all it only has to do with his acting that took place in Germany. His career in America is limited to a one-lined role in the circa 1980's film "In The Name Of The Rose".

7) The line in his biography about "Questioning" the book by June DiMaggio seems extremely dubious to include on Wiki. While I too question the book, I don't know why this has relevance? I mean... we can all "question" something... but does it warrant space on Wikipedia? I question Ann Coulter's book constantly... should I create a page on myself... I think you see my point.

8) I could go on and on.. and if you wish me to then let me know.. but I think this one line in his bio says it all: "His lengthy, scathing reviews of books he considers inaccurate are regularly received, but not displayed, by Amazon.com." THERE is a REASON for this.. Mark has been removed from EVERY single self respecting site on the internet. He is banned from Yahoo! clubs, Amazon, MarilynMonroe.com, Topix, etc.. and is currently on probation by Ebay.

9) I must also add here that Mark Bellinghaus writes that he is a "He is a guest lecturer on Marilyn Monroe, at the University of Southern California." Per USC Professor Lois Banner, who you may feel free to contact on this, Mark attended ONE day at USC for one of Mrs. Banner's classes and answered questions regarding Marilyn Monroe. A far cry from a "guest lecturer!"

Again... happy to continue to fine tooth comb his PAGES to give you a list of his profiles inaccuracies and exaggerations.

I thank you for your time in reviewing this..

J. Adams 71.160.50.16 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 6/30/2007 71.160.50.16 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

Hi! I don't want to be rude or anything, but your userpage even says it. I'd just like to suggest the Google toolbar, which has a built-in spell checker and many other useful tools. When you click spell check, all errors are highlighted and can easily be fixed. Cheers! Reywas92Talk 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry and Thanks

I am sincerely sorry if I irritated you (which it appears I did by your personal response to me) .. I did not mean to trouble you in the least bit. AS I said before I barely know what I am doing when it comes to posting.. please delete anything I wrote as you clearly told me I wrote in the wrong place. I appreciate you guiding me in the correct direction ( I hope I do it right and not make anyone else mad).

By the way I only wrote once to you regarding this issue so I am sorry if it was once too many for you but please, in the future, I would ask you to go a little kinder on us old folks..we are easily confused by all this new technology and mean no harm- we just need the guidance of those with experience like you.

Again thanks for your help.. and my apologies if I shouldn't be writing here either.. not sure where is the "right' place to go to respond to your message. (I don't even know what those little 4 squiggles next to my name and date mean but you told me to do them so I am)

Thanks J. Adams 71.160.50.16 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

July 1, 2007 71.160.50.16 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overapplying A7

Another example for you to add to your collection :). At Talk:Barnraisers two editors (one an administrator) have argued that Barnraisers (a band article) qualified for A7 even though the article cited a profile of the band in an independent publication. (Of course it's just my opinion that this article is not A7-able; you may disagree. It's also a moot point now as the article is at AFD.) Pan Dan 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Knight

Hi! I noticed that you closed the AfD on Patrick Knight as no consensus. First of all I'm not here to contest your close - looking through it I don't see how it could have been closed as anything else and I'm not in the business of beating dead horses. However, you may have noticed the fierce personal attack he launced at the bottom of the AfD. When Talmage warned him about it he responded very arrogantly and with no remorse whatsoever on his talk page. Could you please have a word with him about civility, ownership of articles and his attempts at wikilawyering because his behaviour on the AfD and our talk pages were a significant reason why the AfD got so heated. He basically started by claiming that the article could not be changed because the Amensty International report that had been copy and pasted into the article was released under a GFDL compatible license (or so I understood him) and therefor no one was allowed to change the article without his approval. That's not how we behave here on Wikipedia and I do believe that given his history of personal attacks and removal of warnings with edit summaries like piss off someone needs to explain to him that civility breeds civility and incivility breeds incivility. Thanks, MartinDK 08:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your response on MartinDK's talk page and I wanted to clarify a few points. I never used the word plagiarized until Jachin started adding edit summaries to the Patrick Knight page such as this: Talmage, I know you're gunning to have this article deleted, but your deletion of segments instead of altering / ammending / changing them is surmounting to vandalism IMHO. I also objected to using Amnesty International as a primary source of information for the article because Amnesty International is in no way neutral in its reporting. This sourced web site was labeled as an "urgent call to action" and like all advocacy groups, AI can be expected to accentuate or even exaggerate facts that support its position while omitting or misrepresenting facts that detract from its position. This isn't criticism of AI per se, but rather criticism of essentially cutting and pasting large chunks of text from an advocacy group website which used terms such as "judicial killings." Furthermore any assertion that my personal POV influenced this AfD nomination is ludicrous. I believe murderers whose crimes were so notorious that they left a lasting impact on society (such as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer) or murders and/or victims who received massive, intensive media coverage (such as Kelsey Smith, Jessie Davis, and Scott Peterson) deserve articles. Patrick Knight was never the subject of intense coverage, but rather widespread news blurbs that rarely delved into anything more than his joke contest (which I believe is evidenced by the external links). I think typically murderers whose cases result in establishing legal precedent ought to generally not have personal articles, but rather articles specifically about their cases (since it is the case that is notable, not the individual). I simply believe Patrick Knight is not notable. I do not accept that his case was significant in any way for the reasons I've previously laid out. I accept that no consensus has been reached, and I'll look back at this page in a month or two. If I still believe notability has not been established, I will nominate the article for deletion again. Unless it is improved, I suspect deletion would be more successful in the future since I think many of the people who stumbled upon the article did so after hearing a news blurb, but in a few weeks nearly everyone will have forgotten Patrick Knight, since he lacks real notability. As a final thought, I think the only thing halfway notable relating to Knight is his joke contest, so if the article were to be retained without much change, it would be better to rename it "Patrick Knight Joke Contest". Talmage 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm only going to add a couple small points. Regarding incivility, I don't think the term plagiarism was inappropriate, nor was it a personal attack. As far as the term propaganda is concerned, the choice of words was deliberate. AI strongly opposes the death penalty. As such they issue these urgent calls for action for a great number of people on death row. Every case in which the defendant does not plead guilty always has at least some issue that can be nitpicked. I believe AI often tends to exaggerate (undue weight) the significance of largely irrelevant aspects of a case in an attempt to prove their point. This is nothing specific to AI, but a common trait of advocacy groups. Exaggerate your strengths, minimize (or omit) your weaknesses. And now for my disclosure, I don't personally have much of an opinion about the death penalty, so I have no POV to push. However after hearing about my supposed POV, being accused of having a sockpuppet, and being insulted multiple times in the edit history and AfD discussion, my tone may have hardened a little, but I never once made any personal attack, nor did I question Jachin's motivations. Talmage 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Diablo Swing Orchestra

Ok thanks. I wasn't sure so I tagged it for someone else to review, rather than possibly making a mistake. ^demon[omg plz] 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs About Mental Illness

Actually, the vote was 5 to 3, if it's strictly numbers that we're going by. Read the debate again. Mandsford 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your expressed opinion was "Take down and Retool" which i can't interpret as a form of keep. Indeed it could have been counted as "userfy and delete" making the numbers 6 to 2. However, as I explained in the close, I went by considerably more than just the numbers. Do you think the close was in error? DES (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As with Mr. Fizyx, who also takes the approach of trying to edit rather than delete, I think the article is worth enhancing. I respect the statement that the attempted editing so far was insufficient, and that this would be moved into a location where editing can be done. Suggestions on making this better would be appreciated. Obviously, most artists will not say "this is about post-traumatic stress disorder"; and you are correct that interpretations, such as "well, she's obviously singing about someone with clinical depression", aren't valid. Sourcing will take more than a few days, obviously, though some of the singers have stated that what their song was about, and I think it can be done. Mandsford 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocker City

Hi DESiegel. The comment you made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Jocker City would appear to be based on a misconception - the "city" in question doesn't exist, so it will be actually be impossible to find sources for it. Now that I have made this clear, I assume you no longer want to send it to articles for deletion, right? Picaroon (Talk) 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's evidence: there are eight Google hits outside of Wikipedia for "Jocker City," and they are all in reference to some Myspace stuff. As far as Wikipedia:Verifiability is concerned, there are zero sources, because none of those pages could possibly be constured as reliable. Furthermore, check the deleted history. Not only is every single creator a sockpuppet of banned users, these sockpuppets can't even agree where the fabled "Jocker City" is supposed to be. Some revisions say the UK, and some say Canada! I think this pretty clearly shows that "Jocker City" does not exist. Picaroon (Talk) 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder epidode)

Is there a way to correctly name the Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder epidode) article? It seems pretty obvious that "epidode" should be "episode". There are a lot of articles that link to it so it may require some careful reword/move and maybe redirecting. Truthanado 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.
Thank you very much. The Resolved checkbox is very distinctive. Truthanado 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion Review

the guy who made that strange NN/BLP deletion has also made single-handed deletion as "OR" [2] , & deleted the admitted nonsensical but long pages He became a admin on or about June 17 & has mostly stuck to images and talk pages and such. DGG (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commetned on his talk page. Interestigly his comments here on a related issue I find myself in pretty close agreement with. It is only when BLP intrudes that he seems to get over-eager. i haven't reviewd any of his image deletions, of course. DES (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I read through your comments on my talk and I think we have differing styles of adminship. I think your comments on my talk page suggest that every deletion must follow either a speedy criteria, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD, but I disagree with that idea. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and no process must be followed in every case. In the relatively few cases where I feel that it is better for the encyclopedia, I am willing to follow WP:IAR, WP:UCS, and WP:SNOW in doing what I believe is the right thing.

Critical Analyse of Islamic Cultural Politics and West was clearly OR, including sentences like 'In my opinion the September 11 events is a product of postmodernism since the distinction between image and reality have been evaporated and everything justified by reference of “power, secularism ”on one side and by “religious absolute” on the other side." When I deleted it, I left a message for the (single) author of that article [3] and he seemed to accept the deletion as he didn't respond, request undeletion, or make any other effort to restore the article. I take that as strong evidence that the author of the article accepted my reasoning, and I hope I can convince you to review the contents and do the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

it is perfectly appropriate yo ask an author to consider whether they would not do better if the requested the deletion of an article. I've already done this twice today. When I do it, I generally also put a prod to start the deletion processing running if they do not. That's all that's necessary.Try it that way. deletion is the last resort DGG (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
and there's something else you might want to consider. I know I would !vote to delete this article if it were in that condition at AfD. But its a value judgement, and I do not trust any one person's judgements in this, but rather the community. Speedy is for the stuff that is indisputable DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you would also vote to delete it, and you feel most other people would as well, then WP:SNOW applies: "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." That includes the deletion process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joy Basu

CBM insists that I can't mention Joy Basu's play unless I give a source. While this is technically within policy, I do not understand the point. There is nothing remotely negative about claiming someone wrote a play that has been performed by a mainstream theater group, and it would be extremely difficult to get sources (I will have to go to physical newspaper archives and hunt for reviews). Why does he insist upon contesting such a non-controversial assertion? This is not covered by BLP. Loom91 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You could ask me about it, rather than asking someone else to interpret my actions. Are you saying that no reference at all exists for the play, not even a published manuscript or published review? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you give an example of how I can cite a program? Thanks. Loom91 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Loom91 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help?

I noticed that you are one of the administrators participating in the discussion section of the speedy deletion page, as well as a 'wiki-janitor', and I was wondering if you could help me, or point me in the right direction -

I need a number of images deleted that I uploaded, which are almost all listed under PD-old. None of them are being used in any articles.

What can I do?

Below is a list of the images.


  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Olga Preobrajenska -1895.JPG
  • Image:Golden Fish -Underwater Scene -2.jpg
  • Image:Caprices of a Butterfly -Victor Aleksandrovich Semenov, Elena Mikhailovna Lukom & Vladimir Ponomarev -1919 -3.JPG
  • Image:Swan Lake -Tamara Karsavina as Odile & Pierre Vladimirov as Siegfried -1913 -1.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire - Enrichetta Grimaldi -Moscow -1901.JPG
  • Image:Little Humpbacked Horse -Tsar Maide Pierina Legnani -1895.jpg
  • Image:Tgfminkus.jpg
  • Image:Anna Pavlova - La Bayadere -1902.jpg
  • Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG
  • Image:Parisian Market or Le Marche des Innocents -Lizetta or Gloriette -Marie Surovshchikova-Petipa -1861.JPG
  • Image:Humpbacked Horse Karsavina.JPG
  • Image:-Bluebird -Pierre Vladimirov -1910.jpg
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -1.jpg
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -3.JPG
  • Image:Harlequinade -Vera Petipa -1905.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire -Pierina Legnani as Medora & Pavel Gerdt as Conrad -1899.JPG
  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire -Medora -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG
  • Image:Pharoah's Daughter -Vera Karalli as Aspicia, Sofia Fedorova as Hita, & Kozlov as Taor -1909.JPG
  • Image:Tgfminkus.jpg
  • Image:Camargo.JPG
  • Image:GoldFish2.jpg
  • Image:GOLDFish1.jpg
  • Image:Mlada -Mathilde Kschessinska -1900.jpg
  • Image:Camargo.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire -Pierina Legnani as Medora & Pavel Gerdt as Conrad -1899.JPG
  • Image:Harlequinade -Vera Petipa -1905.JPG
  • Image:Fairy tale.JPG
  • Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG
  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Widow Simone -Konstantin Varlamov -1895.JPG
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -3.JPG
  • Image:Rtyrte.JPG
  • Image:Bayadere -Bazhok-Golden Idol -Nikolai Zubkovsky -1941.JPG


Thanks alot, Mrlopez2681 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple users

Did you not notice but the user was under the impression his other pages had been deleted -in his message to me he said he had to create another user page as his account was deleted (which it wasn't. Really we should await his return and his own preferences rather than any further action. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mattken's message to me : Oh, and my account got deleted for some reason so I'm mattkenn4, not mattkenn3, mattkenn2, or mattkenn. Can't you wait until Mattken returns -if he still wants all the pages he can then but I only reacted due to this message to me he left ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe he only created the new accounts under the belief that all his previous accounts can been deleted . Its odd isn't it as they clearly all exist!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look do what you want. I never tamper with people users pages - it was a reaction to his four user pages when he has told me in the past he has had trouble with "previous" accounts. - I thought I was doing him a favor. How many users have four legitimate pages different user pages ?? Now I'd rather get on editing more important stuff. We'll have to wait and see what Matt wants Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] my accounts

His most recent message is as follows which is exactly what I knew the response would be but fair enough I shouldn't have been tampering with user pages officially -you know I was trying to make it less confusing for him! -

"I am very confused with my accounts, and am happy that you're trying to help me with them. Here, I'll tell you what is happening. I started my first account, mattkenn, last year. But one day, about four months after I made the account, I went to log-in and it said I had the wrong password, but I didn't. I tried to get on my account a few more times but it wouldn't let me on. So I made mattkenn2, and it did the same thing about two months after it was made. So I made mattkenn3, and it did the same thing in about three months. So that's how I got to mattkenn4, and if I don't figure out what's going on, I'll probably be mattkenn5 in a few months. So if you can tell me what's happening just tell me. Then after I know what's going on and we get it fixed, I can merge them and be just one person, instead of four. Thanks."Mattkenn4 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist talk page

Why did you delete the talk page of Zeitgeist the movie? --Trekerboy

Because the page Zeitgeist the movie had already been deleted, and after a look at it I saw no reason to challenge that deletion. Therefore WP:CSD#G8 (talk pages of nonexistent or deleted pages) applied. If we are not going to have an article Zeitgeist the movie, there is no good reason to have Talk:Zeitgeist the movie. If you think that Zeitgeist the movie was deleted improperly, take it up with the deleting admin, or got to deletion review. i don't think that many will agree with you, but i could be wrong, i have been before. DES (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the explanation. I will take it up with the admin that protected it. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --Trekerboy 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. DES (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] About the accounts

The problem with my accounts is that every month or two, when I try to log-in, it tells me that I have the wrong password, but it's the right one. I log-in every other time and it's good, but every month or two it says i have the wrong password, and I don't! So I try logging-in a few more times and it won't let me in. So I just forget about it and make a new account with a link to my old accounts. So just tell me what you think is happening to my accounts, and then we'll do the part where I pick my account and retire all the others. Post your answer on my talk page so I can get it easier. Thanks.Mattkenn4 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


HIs response to me -I knew this was exactly what the response would be but I shouldn't have really been tampering with users pages -but I really was trying to make it less confusing for him:

"I am very confused with my accounts, and am happy that you're trying to help me with them. Here, I'll tell you what is happening. I started my first account, mattkenn, last year. But one day, about four months after I made the account, I went to log-in and it said I had the wrong password, but I didn't. I tried to get on my account a few more times but it wouldn't let me on. So I made mattkenn2, and it did the same thing about two months after it was made. So I made mattkenn3, and it did the same thing in about three months. So that's how I got to mattkenn4, and if I don't figure out what's going on, I'll probably be mattkenn5 in a few months. So if you can tell me what's happening just tell me. Then after I know what's going on and we get it fixed, I can merge them and be just one person, instead of four. Thanks.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I see it looks like his password appeas to have an expiry date - this can be fixed in my preferences can't it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did log-in to mattkenn3 but i couldn't get in mattkenn2 and mattkenn.Mattkenn4 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thank You

I would just like to thank you for helping me with my accounts. I think That I have everything all figured out now and that I'm so thankful that you were around to help me.Mattkenn3 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I must admit I hadn't heard of password expiration!!! - I was trying to figure out why Matt's password appeared to be malfunctioning!!. If you could correct it like I tried to do earlier this would be very helpful indeed. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we merge them back please? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Matt has confirmed that he wants to keep Mattken 2 and Mattken 3 but delete Mattken and Mattken four see

User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#Confirmation ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So everyone understands what's going on now?Mattkenn3 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UAA

You can edit the blacklist at User:DeadBot/UAABadwords. Feel free to refine it how you want. I am working on things such as whitelists, and flags for ENDOFNAME etc. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is reasonable, and a lot are valid. I am considering regex matching, however Java's regex is non-standard and so it may cause problems. A whitelist suste, and flags will be worked on this afternoon, when I am back home. If necessary, i'll suspend this task, but for now i'll just recommend users prune the blacklist to whatever is necessary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I gave you...

I gave you a barnstar for being so nice to me. Thanks again.Mattkenn3 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Thanks for your reply.

I own prints of a number of these images, but I just found out recently that they are in fact copyrighted images. I went through all the images I have upoladed which are copyrighted and listed them in the message I sent you, and went ahead and took them off of any page they were in.

The gentleman that owns the copyright has informed me that he would like them removed.

--Mrlopez2681 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Tagging of Enlisy==

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Enlisy. I do not think that Enlisy fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This discusses the product fairly factually, it is simpy not blatent spam. I request that you consider not re-tagging Enlisy for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that you replaced this tag in this edit saying "DO NOT.....DO NOT remove tags" but the tag was removed in this edit by an editor who had not previously touched the article, not by the creator. Any good-faith editor other than the creator can, of course, remove speedy tags if the editor judges them unwarrented. DES (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Typically when an editor removes the "Speedy Deletion" tag I will review the article again and either agree with the other editor or place the article in "Afd". Regarding the replacement of the "Speedy Deletion" tag in this instance, I just overlooked that an other editor was involved an assumed it was the original author. And yes I am aware about assumptions! I hang my head in shame. Sorry about that. Have a great dayShoesssS Talk 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for being such a jackass.

You're right, I should've nominated it. I'm sorry for being such a jackass. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. TheBlazikenMaster 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No, this is perfectly good as a userbox, I should've nominated, you didn't do anything wrong, I did, I speedied it, I shouldn't have, sorry for being such a jackass. TheBlazikenMaster 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it wasn't valid. I will be more careful next time. I'm not even gonna nominate it as it seems good as a userbox to me. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:recent talkpage edit

Thank you for telling me about this. I didn't know that editors were allowed to do this without archiving. But I saw it as vandalism as a lot of vandals recently have been doing this. I will be more careful when reverting in future. Angel Of Sadness T/C 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again but I have one question though. What do we do about his current edit to User talk:Ubersmackgames as it's not exactly being used as a talk page. It's the exact same thing on his User page but I feel the one on his talk page is more serious. Angel Of Sadness T/C 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok that sounds fair. Angel Of Sadness T/C

[edit] Deletion of The Honch article

I don't understand why you would justify deletion of "The Honch" entry, although it may seem like a travel guide to you, it was extremely full of information regarding the tradition and history of the famous Yokosuka strip. You have taken a reference guide that I and many of those who serve in the US Armed Forces stationed in Japan could have found useful. Thank you for making a time of war even more inconvienent, and way to thank those who serve your country by deleting an article that was written by those who serve and defend the world's freedom. "The Honch" is not just a glorified "Las Vegas" style strip in Japan, but for many of us who are defending freedom, it's a place to get away from the horrors, and unbearable situations of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.43.11 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 July 2007

I am going to ignore the emotional rhetoric about "time of war". An article allegedly useful to those visiting an area is precisely a travel guide, some include more history than others. This content might well fit into Wikitravel, and I'll be happy to send a copy to anyone who wants to post it there. The historical sections were not supported by sources, and much of the detail was not encyclopedic. If this area is actually famous, a proper article, discussing that history and citing sources, and leaving out the kind of info more appropriate to a travel guide, would be welcome. DES (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Note also that I didn't make the decision, i merely reflected the consensus of those who commented in the AfD discussion. If you really think the discussion was closed improperly, see deletion review. DES (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

The article on the Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online is a descriptive article about a major internet project under the most reputable sponsorship, supported by ref. from RS reviewing sources. (I can easily add a few more). Please restore it. (thought I'd ask you first) DGG (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Could I ask you to please re-write to reduce the "promotioal-flyer" tone of the articel itself? I realy can see why an editor tagged this with db-advert. DES (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
could you please check the current versionDGG (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Could you reconsider your argument here? You are probably mistaken with another discussion. Neither of the AfD's were speedily closed, last time I checked. Sr13 02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ubersmackgames

Thanks for informing me that it was speedy deleted. I missed that in the comment above mine.  hmwith  talk 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Wiles

Hi, You deleted Terry Wiles stating that it is a blatant infringement of the www.terrywiles.20m.com website that I also wrote. I cannot infringe my own copyright surely? Please restore the article. Jack1956 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason given for deletion at prod

Please see the history of Weston Collegiate Institute, the reason given for the prod--and for my removal of it. You might also be interested in my latest comment at Requests for Verification.DGG (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you beat me to it--unless the sports stuff was imaginary, there would have been sources. DGG (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Never guessed it. As a byproduct, one of the alumni was a member of Science Council of Canada, which is a redlink; I find it closed in 1993 which is why we don't have it-- from the Canadian Encyclopedia via Google, and it is obviously worth an article: 30 select members. Once you start editing, there's nowhere to stop... Thus, projects at sourcing & otherwise improving WP have to go slowly, or they miss all this stuff. DGG (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindly reconsider

Thank you for your kind explanation, Mr. Admin. I put up a new speedy request explaining my reason and at the same time invoking Right to vanish. Please reconsider, I don't see anything substantial in my Talk Page that is worth keeping or would be of benefit to anybody except to please the ego trip of harassing admin wannabe User:MSJapan who has a history of being blocked twice for edit warring and who keeps on acting like he owns WP. - Watchtower Sentinel 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

At least three different administrators and one experienced editor who is not an admin and has not been involved with you as far as I know have now told you that policy, including the right to vanish, does not include the deletion of the history of your talk page, although it does include the deletion of your user page and of any sub-pages of your user and user talk pages. User talk pages with significant history are not normally deleted, even when a user leaves the project, particularly when they contain the history of significant accusations of policy violations. . Please drop this unless you want to take the matter to WP:MFD. I would have left this msg on your talk page, but that is now protected with a notice that you have left the project. DES (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.

[edit] These images must be deleted

In order to get these images deleted as soon as possible, I have changed thier licensing tags. I know that images with no fair use rationale get deleted ASAP, so I went ahead and changed the tag.

These images are in fact copyrighted, so they must be deleted. I have removed them from all articles, etc. --Mrlopez2681 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Olga Preobrajenska -1895.JPG
  • Image:Golden Fish -Underwater Scene -2.jpg
  • Image:Caprices of a Butterfly -Victor Aleksandrovich Semenov, Elena Mikhailovna Lukom & Vladimir Ponomarev -1919 -3.JPG
  • Image:Swan Lake -Tamara Karsavina as Odile & Pierre Vladimirov as Siegfried -1913 -1.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire - Enrichetta Grimaldi -Moscow -1901.JPG
  • Image:Little Humpbacked Horse -Tsar Maide Pierina Legnani -1895.jpg
  • Image:Tgfminkus.jpg
  • Image:Anna Pavlova - La Bayadere -1902.jpg
  • Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG
  • Image:Parisian Market or Le Marche des Innocents -Lizetta or Gloriette -Marie Surovshchikova-Petipa -1861.JPG
  • Image:Humpbacked Horse Karsavina.JPG
  • Image:-Bluebird -Pierre Vladimirov -1910.jpg
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -1.jpg
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -3.JPG
  • Image:Harlequinade -Vera Petipa -1905.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire -Pierina Legnani as Medora & Pavel Gerdt as Conrad -1899.JPG
  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG
  • Image:Corsaire -Medora -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG
  • Image:Pharoah's Daughter -Vera Karalli as Aspicia, Sofia Fedorova as Hita, & Kozlov as Taor -1909.JPG
  • Image:Tgfminkus.jpg
  • Image:Camargo.JPG
  • Image:GoldFish2.jpg
  • Image:GOLDFish1.jpg
  • Image:Mlada -Mathilde Kschessinska -1900.jpg
  • Image:Fairy tale.JPG
  • Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG
  • Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Widow Simone -Konstantin Varlamov -1895.JPG
  • Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -3.JPG
  • Image:Rtyrte.JPG
  • Image:Bayadere -Bazhok-Golden Idol -Nikolai Zubkovsky -1941.JPG
Umm, I'm confused. Images published before 1923 can't be copyright protected in the US. What is the basis of saying these are still protected? Dragons flight 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Marie Williams

Personally, I thought that the keep arguments were weak and didn't thoroughly discredit my NOT#NEWS and NOT#MEMORIAL arguments (they were all "She meets WP:V!! Notable!!"), but hey, that's just me. hbdragon88 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recon (haircut)

Thanks for your message. What on earth makes you think I'd re-speedy it because CSD has been declined? I have no history of doing this and have never expressed any intention of doing so. --ROGER TALK 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my standard msg when i remove a speedy and the editor is someone I haven't interacted with personally. I'm sorry if it wasn't appropriate in this case. I drafted it after some unfortunate instances where people did replace the speedy tags. There are so many editors, and it is hard to know in advance what someone would consider appropriate. I thank you for your note. I am responding here in accord with the suggestion on your talk page that you prefer to keep discussions together. DES (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --ROGER TALK 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ED ad DRV

I think that, if I wanted, I could write a sourced article about ED. I think most of its mentions are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howeltead (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 July 2007

Then show me some specific citations of coverage that is both in-depth and by reliable sources. I haven't seen it yet. DES (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Christina Marie Williams

I dont think "historic notability" is a judgment call, especially when the event occurred almost ten years ago. I looked through google news archives and I couldn't even find a story from this millennium. While its a sad story, I dont think there is historic notability to this disappearance. (AFD LINK) Corpx 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that notability in general is a judgment call, if there is any basis, and if WP:V is fulfilled. I also think that I accurately reflected the consensus on that AfD, and that there was not the kind of gross policy violation that would justify a closer in overriding the consensus. If you disagree you are free to take the matter to Deletion Review or to start a new AfD -- i won't be offended in either case. I don't think Wikipedia would crumble without this article, but I see no valid reason not to have it either. I am aware that some disagree on principle in this sort of issue, but I don't believe their views are justified. However i honestly tried to asses the AfD, not to impose my own views. Do you think that I misread the consensus of those who actually commented in the AfD? How so, if so? DES (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should add that I have come to distrust the google news archive as a proof of absence of coverage. It often seems not to include stories by significant news sources that can be found via regular google web searches if the stories are more than a few weeks old. In other cases storiese on the archive sites of significant news sources seem not to be found in regualr google web searches either -- perhaps they have disabled google spidering, as any site can do in the robots.txt file. So while google and google news can be excelant ways to find sources, i don't consider the lack of useful hits on google news persuasive of total absence of coverage. DES (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability is definitely established and its verified, but I didn't think historic notability was established in this case. I'm opposed to this, because this basically gives credence to making an article here every time a kid disappears. Corpx 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can reply here, as I have it on my watchlist

I don't see "historic notability" as a separate category. Soemthing is either notable, or it isn't, whether "historic" or not. WP:N seems to take the same approach: "Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." Inm any case, your current arguments would be better suited to a new AfD. You haven't answered: Do you think that I misread the consensus on the AfD? I do think that thsoe closer's role should be to determine and declare the consensus of the discussion, even if he persoanlly disagrees with it. DES (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you should've over-ridden the consensus. WP:N is a guideline, while WP:NOT is policy, so I think WP:NOT trumps it in case of any gray areas. I'll post at WP:N talk page and see what they think. Corpx 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally override consensus when closing an AfD unless there is a truuly blatent violation of policy. Nore do i think that any closer ought to do so. Since there is no question that an article aboiut this would be appropriate if it is sufficiently notable, whether that bar is met is IMO a judgement call, and exactly the sort of issue on which the closer should never override the AfD consensus. IMO your proper avenue, if you disagree with the keep decision, is a new afd, where you can present your arguments and cite WP:NOT. DES (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visiting Scholar

Just a question: Why would I consider re-tagging the above article when someone has removed the speedy and given their rationale? I'm somewhat insulted by that message {just joking) but I have a thick skin. Happy editing!--Stormbay 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • More seriously; the message is pretty good. You will receive some reaction at times, however, and that goes with the territory. I have been editing a lot lately and must confess that I probably tagged the above knowing that it didn't fit. My goal is to make a small dint in the large volume of non notable articles that seem to be sailing through untouched. I am happy to see editors such as yourself are catching the ones that are not tagged properly. I, in turn, will be more diligent in my choice of tags. --Stormbay 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of reported insurgent fatalitiy figures in Iraq

That should be List of reported insurgent fatalities in Iraq, no?

(Good analysis of the discussion, by the way.)

--ROGER TALK 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It isn't a list of fatalities, it is list of fataliy fougures, or fatality counts if you prefer. A "List of fatalities" would properly be a list of individuals killed, which is precisely what this is not. I did the move s an editorial action, suggested but not mandated by the AfD, and as long as I was goign to do it, i er figured thst we should have as correct a title as possible. DES (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well there's currently a huge typo in it. For the rest, "fatalities" is a noun not an adjective [4]. --ROGER TALK 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about the typo -- oops. As for fatality being a noun, of course it is. Sequences of nouns ar often used as modifiers. Perhaps the classic example is "Dog house" menaing a house belonging to a dog. "Casualty " is a noun also, but "Casualty figures" or "casualty couts" is a comonly used phrase is such circumstances, as as "body count" -- "body" is certianly a nonn in this context. Any further commetns before I fix the typo? DES (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
AKA compound nouns. I think it's clunky, verbose and adds nothing to precision but as my view isn't going to change the outcome one iota, do what you will. --ROGER TALK 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the answer is to recast it to List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, which is even shorter and gets rid of the long string of nouns (which is the root cause of the clunkiness). --ROGER TALK 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Thanks, i'll do it. Note that what you say does have an effect on me. DES (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! --ROGER TALK 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bWitty

Hello, Phil Sandifer, userfy the bwitty article after the discussion in the deletion review. I have two problems that you might be able to help me with: 1. How do I access the article? 2. Can you help me make it better?

You just seem to have lots of good intention in the deletion review. MyWiseData (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I commented (I don't know if you watch my user page)MyWiseData (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hangon on Pi (language)

I must say that deleting a page that has a {{hangon}} tag minutes after the tag was added is rather impolite. --Fasten 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle Mountain (company)

I would like someone to look at this article and give me an opinion on it in terms of whether it is notable and, if so, should some of the content be edited. (In my mind, it leans heavily toward an ad). There is some discussion on the initial editors talk page, as well. Thanks in advance for looking or passing it on to someone who will action it in some way. (perhaps remove the tag). I will watch. --Stormbay 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing is weak, but I thinmk it is notable. The tone needs work. have removed some of the more baltently advertising aspects. DES (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt input. --Stormbay 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of The Tribe of Judah Band

Thank you for your comment. It's your perogative what you do with the article, though I plan to put it up at WP:AfD now. The claims of meeting WP:NOTE are entirely worthless, of course; a Google search for The Tribe of Judah Band gives exactly zero hits, and the page on the "Grammy winning producer" makes no reference to the band. I realize what A7 is about, I realize that 9/10ths of the Speedy noms I see are for A7, and frankly, if we took the unsubstantiated and unsourced claims of every single band or aspiring rapper who created a page about themselves on Wikipedia at face value, WP:AfD would quintuple in size overnight.

In my opinion, this is precisely sort of thing that WP:IAR was created for. An obviously trashcan-bound article that would have taken one Google search, 10 seconds and 2 people to dispose of will now take several days and a dozen people. Don't forget, our mission is to cut the crap and create a world-class Encyclopedia, not act like Public Defenders pursuing some mass-exercise in bureaucratic process. Giving this moribund article it's "day in court" serves only to disrupt the time of legitimate editors that could have otherwise been improving the Project in other ways. That said, it's merely one man's interpretation. I appreciate your dedication and again thank you for taking the time to explain your decision to me on my talk page. Good day. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 06:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack Articles

The main reason I call the Ward Churchill coatrack an attack article is that I have read the user pages of those who attack him. They have an agenda that that is disruptive and unyielding. As I said earlier I don't really care if it is deleted merged or kept. I am just an editor who is having fun . I refuse to edit war but I may wind up taking the matter all the way to arbitration if and when the edit warring starts up again. I appreciate your input but I think that article is an attack article and will be viewed as such by the arbitration committee if it ever gets that far. Brutal reduction is another option but ...... Albion moonlight 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that some, perhaps even most, of the editors who have worked on this article have an agenda that is hostile to Church hill. Similarly, it is often the case that most of those who edit on various controversial articles have a strong PoV. That doesn't make the articles PoV, nor does it make the Churchill article an attack article. Whether an article is PoV is to be judged by its content, regardless of the motives of the editors involved, IMO. Similarly, if an article is in fact well-cited, documenting notable events in an accurate fashion, and if it is as well-balanced as possible given the topic, then it is IMO not an attack article.
You may be right about the ArbCom's take on this -- the current arbcom has made some IMO badly wrong decisions. I hope that you are wrong. If the ArbCom does order this censored, I will have to re-think my participation here. DES (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC

I sincerely hope that it doesn't have to go to arbitration or even mediation for that matter. How do you feel about merging it back into the Ward Churchill article. ? Albion moonlight 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it, I feel there is too much there toi fit well into teh main articel, and trimming down to make it fit would cut out too many significant details. But if the consensus is to do that, so be it. DES (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community → English Wikipedia

Hi. I went to the Wikipedia Community talkpage, and User:Mr.Guru said that posting because I was asked is meatpuppetry. I do not understand how this is meatpuppetry; I thought it was when two wikipedians are friends using the same computer while one edits productively and the other vandalises, and they encourage each other to continue what they are doing. You have said that this was an attempted intimidation, but I still did not post there because nobody else except you and the other user really got into that conversation. I do not fully agree that this is canvassing; if it was, edits like wikiproject spamlist (eg. signpost) would be canvassing. So, since the RfD is now closed, I have almost nowhere else to post this except here. I do indeed support an un-merge, unless the size of the section in the English Wikipedia article is at least 90% as large as the former article. Again, as the disscussion on the talkpage has said, large articles like this one should not be merged. One major problem I've noticed about voting systems on wikipedia like this one is that, while what the majority says affect the outcome and the way they are closed, the suggestions (eg. un-merge, move, remove from several) are rarely taken seriously. The closing of the debate does not usually care about what the editors suggest, or even what they say; it only cares about what most people are leaning towards so they can use that leanage to close the debate and get it over with! I mean, so the closer(s) do not usually have time to read all the comments and suggestions, nor integrate them into the outcome or solution of the debate, but all those editors who have painstakingly posted long comments, possible solutions, and other suggestions, should not merely be ignored!I mean, unless if like 50% of all the voters say something like "un-merge" and do not say so much in the way of 'keep' or 'delete' or 'support' or 'oppose', and do not become accused of sockpuppetry by doing so, it'd be very unlikely that all of those suggestions which took a total of, say, many hours to post, are even going to affect the final decision. As the discussion has commented, DRV is not for un-merging. Well, perhaps this is also a result of this problem, or maybe someone should suggest a merging review or protection review or moving review or sysopping review or blocking review ... ... which could take many days, if anyone reads the proposals. Or, is there somewhere else where editors can settle for consensus for thing like this? It'd be unlikely for a un-merging to be done and be uncontroversial without days of discussions and consensus-settling, and we probably don't even have a proper place to discuss this so that more people could get involved. I'm also surprised that this merging happened so quickly, like in a matter of hours, that most people didn't even have time to react, and if they did react on the RfD, the most obvious place to react, their comments would likely still not be used to decide the final decision. I'm still not yet sure whether or not I'm even allowed to discuss this on the talkpage, even though I have nowhere else that I can discuss this that I'm aware of. Thus, I can not yet seem to be able to help settle for a consensus on this. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Things Going About

The reason User:LessHeard vanU indef blocked User:Iupuicees is because earlier today another user User:Cees iupui was posting copyvios of the same site. As for the Lilly Project itself, I could have sworn I saw the copyvio'd text, but that seems to be non-existent so that's a mistake on my part there. Sorry for that and hope this hasn't created a horrible amount of confusion. -WarthogDemon 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that LessHeard has put a block notice on the other user's page yet didn't block him, but I'm a tad confused on what's going on there. -WarthogDemon 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's quite odd. DES (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The block log says: 16:05, 27 July 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Iupuicees (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Copyright infringement) (Unblock)
User:Cees iupui has a block tag but no entries in the block log. DES (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Plus, LessHeard told me we should just wait and see what happens, yet the next edit he puts the message there. Not sure why he did and it must've slipped my mind about asking him. At any rate, there is of course no harm now in assuming good faith . . . Iupui, looking at the history, made an unblock request which he later removed before it got reviewed. Should it be reverted back to the request, and reviewed by a third admin? -WarthogDemon 05:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. :) -WarthogDemon 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re User:Iupuicees indef block

Thanks for your message at my talkpage. I would be pleased to unblock this user once you have looked over Cees iupui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who seems to have both a similar username, similar subject matters, and similar copyvio issues. If you are happy that Iupuicees and Cees iupui are not the same person, or that they are the same and making the same mistake, then I will unblock. Being Saturday I may not be around too much, so you may wish to unblock then please do. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

er... The usernames are very similar, aren't they? (cough) Good catch, and I've undone the block notice with a message on the page and in the summary. I think that they are the same people (logged off and forgot password?) but if they are making innocent mistakes then it shouldn't matter. If you do decide to unblock we can always ask Iupuicees if they are Cees iupui and if they want the account deleted/merged. LessHeard vanU 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestions. I would comment that I have already removed (per above) the template from Cees iupui, since it was my bad to have placed it there in the first place. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I linked. If the editor takes you up on your offer of mentorship and you want a second opinion on anything, or any other matter, feel free to contact me. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
To give you the heads up DESiegel, the user has replied here User talk:Iupuicees. :) -WarthogDemon 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Things look good. Again, I apologize for the accidental mistag. I always do check each one even if its the same site. I confused myself by going too fast. :p -WarthogDemon 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KBRI

Hi there. You reverted my speedy delete taggings for KBRI and KJRI. I placed them there (although I now thing perhaps a PROD would have been better) because they are Indonesian abbreviations for English words. If these pages stand, logically there should be pages for all languages' words for Embassy and Consulate. I have added these two abbreviations to List of Indonesian acronyms and abbreviations. Would it be rude (to you or the original author) if I tagged them for deletion again? Regards. Davidelit 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I was a bit hasty on the speedy delete tag on Twinkle. Regards. Davidelit 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Now I know. Good work. Davidelit 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List Deletion

Thanks for your comment. I really struggled with the AfD and evidently many others did too because it was one of two left over to be processed. Some of these are very easy, others are tough. Anyway I appreciate your comments and will keep them in mind. JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of tag on Template HRM

I could be wrong, but that isn't a Template: it is an article using the name Template, that is a redirect to something seemingly unrelated. Pharmboy 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

DESiegel, thank you for your helpful edits on the Leo Van Dolson article. They were much appreciated, and I'm happy to see another Wikipedian helping out just to help out. Cheers. Psychophant 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI dispute

Hi DES, I have now outlined my case at WP:COIN for User:MyWiseData having a conflict of interest. TreveXtalk 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .hack//G.U. (video game series)

Resolved.

I see you deleted this redirect; there were a couple of dozen articles linked through it to its target, you may wish to reconsider. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have checked "what links here". I have undeleted. DES (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships Australia

The government of Australia, like that of most countries, funds literally thousands of groups like this one: there is nothing in the article that asserts that this group is unlike those thousands of others. It doesn't claim to be the biggest (we have no idea whether it's just a few people or a cast of thousands), that it helps a few people or thousands, that anyone notable is associated with it, e.g., is some royal personage its patron. Simply put, there's no assertion there. Read it again to see if there's some claim to fame I missed. If you'd like to restore it, please prod it because I think you'll even agree that notability is at least an issue. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no objection to your restoring the article and tagging (even not prod) for notability. I am dubious about 60 years=notable, but many - most - non-profits are A7's (every town's scouting troup, sewing circle, debating society, dog show, legal aid, free clinic, PTA, etc. are non-profits, as area all those nice people at airports telling you about God, politics, or which sights to see). :-) Carlossuarez46 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I try not to be too quick on the finger, but I usually do not delve into the sources to try to find additional facts that aren't asserted in the articles. I commend you for doing so but I don't think it's required. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, that reminds me of a time when I had a hunch that some boxer bio marked for speedy was more than just a run-of-the-mill boxer and found that he actually was on the US olympic team! Carlossuarez46 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hatfield House

What do you think of that one? Carlossuarez46 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur on the basis of the Titanic linkage. Lots of the articles that have hung around in the pool for a while seem too close to call to me, but I don't feel strongly enough to either delete them or remove the speedy tag. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this article, but it is nothing more than spam for a non notable business with spurious claims to notability, backed up by a paid for advert. As for the celebrity regulars, go see if Google has heard of them. Nuttah68 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As you contested and tagged the article I'll give it a few days to see if anyone can improve ir before taking it up the chain. Out of interest, why do you think bars are exempt from A7 non notable businesses? Nuttah68 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, even if I still don't understand your logic. If the bar is notable its not an A7 anyway, if it isn't notable the I don't see how the fact that it is a physical place (as are newspaper stands, wal marts, discount stores, gas stations) changes its notability. Nuttah68 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

There seems to be a typo here. However, I don't want to change anything you have written. Who knows, maybe you know something I don't ;) the_undertow talk 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixed, thanks. DES (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Flyaow

You just delted Flyaow as spam. I don't think this was blatent advertising, in fact I was editing to remove the speedy tag when you delted. Please reconsider this deletion. This looked like a fairly factual description of an arguably notabel web site to me. DES (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:WEB criteria. If you feel it does and can provide some corroboration, let's restore it and update it appropriately. Good articles deserve space on the project, no argument here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Giles peters

You deleted this under WP:CSD#A7. I think there were claims of notability present, such as "the largest diabetic gift service in the U.K.", and "has received mass media coverage for his business". Please consider undelting and, if you still think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, letting it go to AfD. DES (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob, restored and initiated AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Score One for the Little Guy

I still think it merits a speedy, as the assertion of notability is tenuous at best. But I went ahead and put it up for AfD. Realkyhick 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this guy was a repeat offender. The AfD closed quickly with a speedy delete and salt, plus blocking the author. Wow, that was fast. Realkyhick 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Name

Thank you very much for all the details. We can get started one by one.

1) User name: If I choose the user name SeeEarth, would there be any violation? Moreover, can i register it with the same email address that I used for the previous registration? Or Would it conflict?

Thank you once agian.

[edit] New Account

Hi. I have created the account SeeEarth. We can use it to for discussion from now on. I placed the draft of my article on my usertalk on this id. Could you please check it.


Thanks

[edit] Just in case your idea of npov .......

Read this: http://wardchurchill.net/blog/ Also take note that the "American Civil Liberties Union" is backing Churchill Albion moonlight 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escoffee

Mr. Siegel,

You deleted the Escoffee page. However, Escoffee is a legitimate coffee company from Ecuador. You do have pages on other (large) companies. So why not this one. The description was factual, stating when it was founded, what its activities are and so on. I don't understand why this company page was deleted.

Sincerely, Jeromekruft 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's good

Before I wrote my previous message I had just had a look at the Ward Churchill main article for the first time in a week or so. It too is very biased. I decided that since 5 days had gone by, Now might be a good time to get the ball rolling on the issues article. And by that I mean seeing to it that those who believe thy are capable of being neutral are informed of Churchills side of things. If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other then I will have a better idea of how to proceed. Albion moonlight 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THAT IS UNDERSTOOD

If Ward Churchill's blog claims he said this or that it is fair to claim that he did in fact say it. Such evidence can and should be used. Not as facts but as a representations of what he had to say. By quoting or paraphrasing him directly from his website or other sources we can at least make the claim that we made an honest attempt at being neutral . Otherwise we can't. It is really quite that simple. There are editor who have denied him even that much. Albion moonlight 05:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

I'd love for you to take a look at it. I've been working on it for several hours, and while I'm not finished, I'm over halfway there, and would love input. Do you have email enabled? I'd rather not post the link here, if you understand, simply because it is not officially published, and I've seen the havoc caused by the TTR page. :) Ariel♥Gold 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yes I know about that feature, but not everyone does, just to let you know, it is the -2 version, not the original paste of convo from the talk page. I too prefer to do the conversing here when related to Wikipedia, but I just didn't want to get in "trouble" for this essay, ahead of approval/input, hope you understand! And I look forward anxiously to your thoughts and review. Ariel♥Gold 17:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Frequent refreshing advised

[edit] Moonpod DRV

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but is what you're saying in essence that if we cannot tell whether an award is utterly trivial then that uncertainty becomes sufficient assertion of notability to not apply A7? So if an assumption needs to be made, or discretion employed, A7 doesn't apply because the assertion of notability has been made? Carlossuarez46 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the response. I will say that there are a bunch of divergent points of view and thanks for the benefits of yours. For a sanity check, if the notability is "contentious" (as such word is used in WP:BLP) would that sway you? I came across one recently at Afd that I might have been tempted to speedy on notability because if the unsourced contentious stuff were removed there was little left asserting notability. But again, "contentious" (no pun intended) is not a settled concept (is being affiliated with a music group that puts out lyrics that would make a sailor blush contentious? If not for a rap singer would it be contentious as applied to an evangelical pastor?) Carlossuarez46 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. I guess I misphrased it: Assume we have an article with no sources at all, where the sole assertion of notability: "Mr. X performed with band in making their second album." or "Mr. X was a member with group in their second job." Assuming both band and gang are notable, but that the band and album were ones that you wouldn't let grandma hear and the group and job was of the not-quite-legal sort. Reading BLP broadly, either of those unsupported statements is contentious and BLP would say remove them - let's even further assume that after a quick search still no sources can be found (so we've gone an extra step). If the removal of the claim removes the assertion of notability is the article in jeopardy of A7 or should the BLP issue be ignored/deferred and the article prod'ed or afd'ed and let consensus decide whether there is a BLP issue and if so, whether deletion is proper. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP is not so common, but no so rare to not consider it. Since many of the A7 bios are unsourced it does come up a little more often in their case than in editing articles on ancient cities, tribes, and personages (which I do more than occasionally). Carlossuarez46 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting take: granted members of a band known for raunchy lyrics cultivate that image and is not contentious, but until we have a source that says that Joe Blow is indeed a member of that band I don't think we should assume he cultivates that image and that such a claim is indeed contentious as to him until sourced. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tay Zonday

Hey, i was wondering if this page could be unlocked so that I can create an article. I have several sources, its not going to be biographical, but will make references to Tay Zonday as a internet meme and as a songwriter, including links to artciles written about him on the internet. The page will be based upon pages for other memes such as Star Wars Kid and Chuck Norris. --Robnubis 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion note

Hello! Looking over the history of Wikipedia:Template the regulars, I see that all edits other than by its author were (1) typo fixes, (2) adding a merge template, or (3) quickly reverted. The first revision of the page was identical to the version the author requested deletion on (except for one typo fix and one merge template). Hence I've speedied it as author request. Yours, >Radiant< 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Whatever. Just put it back on MFD, then. The page is still a toxic endorsement of incivility and encouragement to escalating behavior, it shouldn't be there. >Radiant< 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Template the regulars

Your DRV comments say that the speedy deletion serves no point because you will simply create a new version of this essay. I agree with that assessment and I did not mean to extent my comments to any future incarnation of the essay. I don't, however, agree that the G7 deletion was unfounded. The vast majority of the essay was written by Giggy at the time of the initial request. I also don't think that the DTTR MfD concluded that there is a consensus to keep both articles, only an MfD on the merits of TTR itself would be helpful in defining consensus. I hope you don't mind this response here instead of the DRV. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi DES...I'm not sure you userfying it was the best idea - since it hadn't really changed since I wrote it, it should probably be in my userspace. But that's your call. In any case, I'd really like to MfD the whole thing - it's doing more damage then good. If G7 doesn't apply, I'd still like to get it deleted some way, so if you don't mind, could I slap an MfD notice on the page? Giggy Talk | Review 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would appreciate if it was sufficiently different to my version - especially since I now disagree with it. Giggy Talk | Review 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the original user is mistaken to withdraw their support for this essay, though I don't know what position is being taken up instead, so I don't know that I disagree with them. But I do feel this essay should exist, if only because DTTR exists, and I do disagree with it, and therefore support a response. I don't know how the DRV will go, but if it closes as keep deleted, let me know where you're working on a new version of it. I'd like to contribute to it. FrozenPurpleCube 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our project

Just thought I'd let you know that Carcharoth has taken a look, and offered impressions on the talk page. I'm still waiting to hear back from DGG if he has a better way to organize the TOC, but I did add the section about children we spoke about, and thought you could take a look at that. Also, since I'm not really up to speed on who would be good "polar opposites" to invite to comment, I thought maybe you could give some names of those who may be on the very ends of the issue, to take a look and voice their opinions. Hope you had a good weekend, DES! Ariel♥Gold 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jody Weiner

Fair enough, but if the author doesn't come up with something more in the next day or two, I'll prod it. Realkyhick 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shamrock (comics) copyvio

We got an OTRS complaint on this one; reviewing the article, and the source, though a lot of it has been moderately adjusted or rewritten, I think we're still clearly in violation. If the Marvel Appendix authors complained with a takedown...

I'm going to delete this under the listed copyvio criteria. If you want to do a complete rewrite of the copyvio sections and restore it with those changes, feel free to do so, but please be careful. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of Hell Date

Thanks for your comments. It would appear that significant content was added to the page after I had tagged it for Speedy Deletion. I certainly do not consider it a candidate for Speedy Deletion now. Karl2620 11:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs from Les Misérables

Hi, you're welcome for the draft I made of Songs from Les Misérables. It took longer than I first expected to prepare it, so I'm glad the work wasn't wasted. I did, of course, intend to influence the outcome of the AfD by preparing something that looked worth keeping.

I've only just realised that you actually moved it from my sandbox. It wasn't the first thing I had drafted in that sandbox, so the article now has a rather strange page history! I don't suppose it happens very often, but you might want to copy & paste if a user does something similar again! Best wishes, Fayenatic london (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know you you could do that! Very neat. No, I don't need my sandbox history back. It's interesting that my "See draft here" link at the AFD still works. Thanks, Fayenatic london (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lilly Arbor Project

i think the article will stand, but it should be possible to find additional sources from area newspapers referring to the project DGG (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] SEE Earth

{{helpme}}

I created user pages for the 7 articles. can u please take a look at them and send me your feedback? Also, i tried to find some sources and links online that relate to the article, but coudnt find much. Is it possible to post the articles as they are now and modify them later on as we get more information?

Thank you ! SeeEarth 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles in question are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=SeeEarth&namespace=2

I glanced at a couple and the thing that stands out to me is the lack of sources--which you mention. You'll need to have some reliable, independent sources to establish notability or the articles are likely to be deleted. You can try using Google News to find some sources, perhaps. Good luck. --Sopoforic 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

{{helpme}} How do i get the coordinates of a wikipedia page article? Thank you SeeEarth 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question may mean either "How do I read coordinates?" or "How do I write them?"
Most articles on major cities have the coordinates listed in small print in the upper right-hand corner and/or in the text of the article. See, for example, London, Ontario.
There are several ways to write coordinates into a Wikipedia article. The source code at London, Ontario is {{Coor title d|42.98714|N|81.246268|W}}. For more information, see Template:Coor title d and other templates in its category. Shalom Hello 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please check my articles? Thank you

SeeEarth 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of River City Jim

You do realize that following your criteria means that articles about half the videos on YouTube will have to be prodded (and a significant number taken to afd) instead of speedily deleted, right? To me, something that only appears on YouTube qualifies as web content. --NeilN 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template question

I was looking to see if someone had created a "I am going to deny your request to speedy delete X" template because it comes up often enough. And I see that you have {{Template:Speedy-Warn}}. I was wondering if you'd mind if I add at the end: "You are, of course, free to add a {{prod}} notice or nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD." Just let me know, since it's basically your template I won't be bold. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inquiring about user's identities

(moving from my talk page to yours since you did not reply)

It is generally considered impolite to request users to expose their real-life identities, or to confirm or deny guesses at such identities. Edits such as this in which you imply that confirmation of identity is required for an edit to stand clearly violate policy. The test of an edit is the contents, not the editor. WP:COI (a guideline, not a policy) exists because many people can not edit on subjects in which they are involved with sufficient neutrality. But if a particular edit is in fact neutral, it stands no matter who made it, and if it in fact fails WP:NPOV it should be removed no matter who made it. Demanding to know an editor's identity as a condition of not reverting an edit is simply unacceptable. Please don't do this again. DES (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... though Sethie is a little confused.
Dseer added a link to author Michel Langford's work. Sethie removed that particular link to author, because Sethie felt did not fit in so well with the article. Dseer put it back in responded and said "You may absolutely not remove that link."
The editor then proposed editing an another article in such a way that Michel Langford's worldview and views would be highly represented on a subject in which ML is not considered an expert or has any notability.
Sethie, based this and a number of clues suspected that Dseer was ML.... he read WP:COI which says you cannot insert a link to your own site without discussing it firt. Sethie at first ask, "Are you Michel Langford?" then changed the question to something only ML would know, to protect Dseer's anonimity....
How could Sethie have procceeded differently in accordance with wikipedia policy? Sethie 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon[omg plz] 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I was a member of the MSU mahjong group way back in 1983. I was wondering if you may have a copy of the old rules laying about in a digital form that I could have.

If so, please drop me an email (martincavell at yahoo dot com).

Thanks for your time! -Ted Greer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.231.2 (talk) 23:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male Porno Articles. I need you help

I wanted to contact you because I remembered how you helped me with kindness against that former admin who was abusing the deletion formula. I think I need your help and support. I got an e mail from an editor asking me to look at the List_of_gay_porn_stars section. These articles are riddled with POV, advertisement and spam. I tried to do a simple prod tag but oh my did I get the thrashing of my life! One told me that I would never succeed in getting the aricles removed under WP:PORNBIO and they were right. All they have to do is supply an award! These subjects are the actual editors of their pages. So, when an editor goes in to try and edit the articles, they jump on them and remove any edits they do not like. The way the WP:PORNBIO is written, all these people have to do is to win an award or be able to write something about themselves in a web page and it can be entered into WP. When you click on the links for these pages, they take you to websites that you either have to agree to enter in on adult content or it takes you to their porno stores. This is a very effective way for them to advertise their webpages and escort services. The only way to get around these people is to put them up for AfD. I need some help here. Do you think you would like to join forces with me to rid WP os some of this crap? Let me know. I certainly could use the support and help. I think we are going to have to approach WP to see if we can rewrite the rules for these porno articles. Junebug52 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review discussion notification of Flyaow - you participated in the discussion regarding this deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flyaow. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 137.82.96.26 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with my username

Hi, back on July 27, 2007, you helped me with my username, planetmikedotcom (which you flagged as a Bad username), so I asked to be moved into the unused PlanetMike username. You approved that, but now the system won't email me a link so I can reset my password. Thanks for any help you can offer. Mike

Do you get the error that you didn't supply an email? If so, there really isn't anything you can do other than make a new account. - Rjd0060 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I gave an email, but I think in the process of usurping the Planetmike user name, the old email wasn't removed and my address put into the PlanetMike username account? Or the email address is too long (it's 40 characters) for the Wikipedia system to handle? Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.90.84 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to know why you deleted the Kenopets article and if it is possible for me to re-write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N3me$i$ (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nn-warn template

Hello again, DESiegel ... I ran across some of your comments while replying to another thread on Template talk:Nn-warn ... I've recently tweaked the template, and wondered if you had any comments on the latest versions of my deletion warning templates ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] db-bio template

Hello again, DESiegel ... the issue of using {{Db-bio}} as a "generic" CSD A7 template has surfaced again (on the Twinkle discussion page), and I have just read the history in the talk:Db-bio threads from 2005 ... now that I see how it is "ingrained in the culture", I think I'd better back off and re-think my position vis-a-vis rocking the boat. <Heavy Sigh!> Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Prod-2

Template:Prod-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Terraxos (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Oldprodfull}}

Hello again, DESiegel ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Combs

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Patrick Combs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Patrick Combs

An editor has nominated Patrick Combs, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Combs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Wells

I added a section to Dawn Wells that reads as follows:

In 1998, fellow Islander Bob Denver was arrested for having a parcel of marijuana delivered to his home. He originally said that the parcel had come from Dawn Wells, but later refused to name her in court, and testified that "some crazy fan must have sent it".[1]
Wells was arrested on October 18, 2007, after a Teton County sheriff's deputy pulled her over after observing her swerve across the fog lines and center lines of State Highway 33 and repeatedly accelerating and slowing down. The officer noted the strong odor of "burning marijuana", and a search of her vehicle produced several partially consumed marijuana cigarettes and several containers of marijuana. Wells was taken into custody after failing a field sobriety test.[2] According to the Associated Press, she was sentenced on February 29, 2008 to five days in jail, fined $410.50, and placed on six months' probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.[3]

The section is properly referenced and relevant. Several people including War, FCYTravis, and Cleo123, do not want this included because it is not seen as "positive". This is a POV view.

I request that you ask these people to cease reverting this section which is relevant and factual. It is based on news accounts and court records. Proxy User (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I posted a notice on the Biography Project's Bulletin Board some time back regarding this user's edits to the Dawn Wells article. [5] Administrator, FCYTravis was kind enough to respond to my posting and has reverted Proxy User's version. Unfortunately, Proxy User just doesn't seem to understand why his revisions violate WP:BLP no matter how many people try to explain it to him. He continues to edit war on the article and has now posted a "warning" on administrstor, FCYTravis' page.[6] If you are familiar with this editor, perhaps you can explain things to him in a way that he'll understand. Cleo123 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked for Mediation, bud Admin FCYTravis, who is a party to the disagreement rejected it. This is improper. A party to the issue should not be able to reject the Mediation request. Proxy User (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for releasing the text of your standard GFDL non-compliance letter into the public domain. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] updating a page on your userspace

I changed the TTR essay on your userspace to restore some info that you added, and that got reverted by an user, see the reversion of your addition, and my addition of the info.

I explain myself, I saw your complain on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Giggy about being reverted, and then I noticed that you had been reverted by the sock of a banned user, and that the information was actually quite good and was according to my experience, so I re-added the information, after making a few changes and discarding a paragraph about strawman arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked again to the history to make sure that I hadn't overlooked something, and I saw that you had already introduced an improved version of the reverted information. I restored it back to the state I found it at. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag templates

Hello again, DESiegel ...

Well, it looks like {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-article}} are being embraced and used, as witness the populating of Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors by Some Other Editors. :-)

BTW, I just activated WP:FLAG-MOVIE, and added Movies as a (Guideline) for the flag templates ... it also made sense to have {{Selected filmography}} populate Category:Flagged articles as well ... do you agree?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)