User talk:Jerry/Archive 4

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number One with a Bullet

Hi! You closed the discussion on "Number One With a Bullet" here writing "The result was Delete", but at the time of closing the vote was 5-4 in favor of keeping. Is there an explaination for this? --Bensin (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Determination of rough consensus at AfD is not a vote count. My closing statement was:

The keep !votes were weak. The delete !votes made a valid claim that I described in my closing statement. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I opposed the proposed deletion, I disagree with the claims put forth by those sustaining it. I disagree that their claims were valid, or in any way more valid, than other arguments by other editors. Also the keep votes outnumbered the delete votes and with one exception were not in any way weaker. As for "rough consensus", I don't see how it reasonably can be the opposite of the result of a vote count. I therefore fail to understand how you seem to have interpreted the result in the way you did.

I believe the article has a bright future as the record exemplifies a songwriter's sketch; A significant part of the music art and industry. I therefore ask that you please review the deletion process. --Bensin (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am always happy to review closing decisions that I make. I appreciate you discussing this with me. If you go to the article that you linked in your post above, and click on the link to the project space page, you will find the procedure that administrator's use to determine the outcome of deletion discussions. It specifically says:

Hopefully this sheds some light on how the outcome at AfD can differ from the votecount. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering.

Then I don't see how a closing administrators role is that of determining rough consesus but the role of a jury in court. Anyway, let's look at the argument for deletion:

• "The one source found is not significant coverage"
  • The album is mentioned no less than three times in the NYT article and close to 300 words relate to it. What about the coverage is it that is not significant enough? --Bensin (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

dedent

This is an article about a guy named Mr. Richards (who is not related to this album in any way), and demo tapes, in general. The author has included this album as an exception to what he suggested, that Mr. Richards was unique in that he allows listeners to see the progression of pop hits from the demo stage through the final release. The article goes into much detail about Mr. RIchards, the record industry, and demo tapes. It discusses this album in only two paragraphs:

This is a total of 123 words; (10 are the album title itself,16 are song titles,6 are artist names).

91 words are actual commentary, which consists of:

• album has 10 recordings
• should fascinate people
• includes song-writers versions
• demo's sold to famous artists
• album is rather fancy
• describe fanciness

This does not constitute significant coverage. Significant coverage of an album would certainly go into details such as:

• Why these specific songs were included
• How the songwriter's versions compare to the final releases by the famous artists
• How the album itself was received (eg. sales, airplay)
• Opinions expressed by artists or record company personnel or DJ's, listeners, critics, etc.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Megalithic geometry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Megalithic geometry. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've earned three blue stars on my count page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone named ScienceApologist keeps deleting the article. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN, this user doesn't respect the result of the 2nd AfD, which was keep. Could you do something against this vandalism, please?--Little sawyer (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel sad that you've been insulted so. And I feel a bit sad that my efforts in contributing have now been annihilated. Why don't we keep it as you maintained all along and let people edit it properly?--Little sawyer (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you took it personally, it wasn't personal. There is a wider context tot his article of which you clearly weren't aware. You'd given a decent amount of thought to the rationale, so I didn't try to change your mind, I just thought it was the wrong call in the wider context. I don't think you did anything wrong at all, and it would be good if all closes were as well reasoned since that makes it much easier to discuss the decision if a review should prove necessary. I certainly never doubted your good faith. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I was disappointed about the DRV with no prior discussion, I have no quarrel with you JzG. But I did take some of the remarks made in the DRV personally. Some of the contributors at "DRV#17" made comments about me and my motives, as opposed to the article and the AfD. Those comments can only be interpreted one way; as a personal attack against me that demonstrates no respect for me as a wikipedian, administrator, or a person with feelings. For one to suggest that I use deception for self-serving reasons really gave me pause to consider: Do I really need this wikipedia bullshit? I am still pondering that question. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just here to remark on the DRV: some of what was said was perhaps a little harsher than it should have been. As I said in my !vote, I think your rationale was well-argued, its just that in pseudihistory and fringe topics, we need to raise the bar to maintain encyclopaedicity. (Guy's "wider context" above.) Please don't let it get you down. If it helps, you might want to drop by WP:FT/N sometime and look at the sort of thing we sometimes have to deal with; it might give you an additional perspective the next time you come across a problem like this. Cheers! --Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments here, which I interpret as an attempt to make me feel better and help me understand the valid reason for the DRV and that the result is probably a better one. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, who had deleted 'Megalithic geometry' several times before it was decided to delete it, has deleted the article 'Megalithic yard,' which is even more notable as a subject. This person has already been blocked for vandalism. His attitude is not acceptable. He should be blocked in my opinion. The article 'Megalithic yard' is ancient work and represents the work of many contributors. --Little sawyer (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure of glossary AfD as "delete"

I've noticed the recent closure of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination). I saw your talk page message earlier in the week about being on the road and wanted to give you time to get back as a courtesy instead of going straight to WP:DRV.

I don't understand how your policy assessment to delete could be based on the notion that "the [AfD] discussion sufficiently demonstrated that the collection of terms in this glossary have no notability outside the book."

Not only was the AfD not about notability but of the more than 2 year history of the article before that AfD there was never any notability concern that had even been expressed, including not a single mention of notability concern during the prior AfD where 14 editors participated and the article was voted to be kept by a wide margin (in fact, two of them in voting keep mentioned it was notable enough). In this recent AfD you closed, a single editor (Gandalf61) voted as keep specifically based on his or her view that it was notable, and a single editor (Dlabot) voted as delete specifically based on their view that it was not notable. A few editors, both for and against the article, talked briefly about whether it was important or not in their view (Mangojuice providing a link to a secondary source to support his view of notability).

How is that a "sufficiently demonstrated" discussion about notability?

If that had been actually voiced as a desired improvement to the article and was a shortcoming with which other editors had concern, it is demonstrable that the terminology and complexity of the mythology in the book is notable in and of itself according to independent secondary sources. In fact it's one of the primary features that has made The Urantia Book itself notable and drawn attention. Here are but some sources:

• Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner - he's the most significant published critic and an excellent source, and is clear that the in-depth language is one of the more notable aspects of the book: "staggering complexity" of gods and their classifications; "bristles with bizarre proper names"; "dazzling hierarchy of divinities"; "complex mythology".
• Godtalk: Travels in Spiritual America by Brad Gooch: "One problem in understanding the book comes with its dizzying roll call of otherworldly officials, go-betweens, functionaries, angels, near deities, spirits, bodies, planets, galaxies, stars, transport vehicles, and communication devices somehow linking together various worlds separated by time, space, and moral distance in an updated version of the medieval "chain of being." To complicate matters, this cast of characters and locales are often given neologisms for their names and titles, the terms derived from a strange etymology that results in a kind of Indo-European newspeak: "Caligastia," "Urantia," "Nebadon," "Orvonton," "Morontia." .... The effect is of an exotic linguistic tissue laid over a nuts-and-bolts grid."
• Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult by Mather, George A. and Nichols, Larry A. -- they considered the terminology notable enough to include almost a dozen definitions of Urantia related items in their dictionary, and described the meaning of more terms in their longer entry on the book.

I don't understand how an article that has had zero requests for notability clarification in its history or talk page, has never been tagged to have notability better demonstrated because of a perception by other editors of it not having been adequately shown, and which was not even cited by two AfD nominators as specifically failing WP:N -- rather, it was from their belief of it not meeting WP:NOT -- can go from no discussion about notability to article deletion for that cited reason.

Would I expect you or anyone else unfamiliar with the topic to know about the secondary sources or to go try to investigate whether they are really out there? Of course not. But they should be requested. It's not right to presume that there aren't sources to support WP:N and delete an article for this when there's been not a bit of WP:GOODFAITH effort to so much as ask from other editors what are the sources that have led to a conclusion that it is notable enough topic that a whole article was written.

And facts about me: In late 2005 I noticed 2 editors overhauling the main Urantia article to strip out criticism and push believer-centric language, I ended up in a sustained edit war with them over several months consisting of hundreds of edits, I wrote virtually the entire criticisms section of the article to counter their claims. I noticed repeatedly this language would be subverted or even eliminated wholesale and so I made a habit of checking in on the article once or twice a month out of curiousity to see how it evolved.

For 99% of my time on the articles I've been rightly perceived as a non-Urantia person insisting on WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, as someone who has come to have read many sources on the topic in the course of seeking to attain WP:V and WP:NPOV. I patiently do not WP:BITE the newbie believers and skeptics who both come by, and always have been open to discussion on talk pages. I may not be a wide ranging editor on wikipedia but I'm an honest and open one, basing my edits on sources and wikipedia policy.

In just the past week a single abrasive and non-civil user, User:ScienceApologist, who has even been blocked for his behavior toward other editors, has decided based on seeing where I've edited that this must mean I'm not only a prosylite but incredibly that I'm actually a part of a Urantia organization called Urantia Foundation. Absolutely and most emphatically false. (From my research in having read their online annual report, I know they have, like, 5 or 6 people on staff; yeah, out of a planet with 6.2 billion people, I'm one of those 5 or 6 people, right.) I ask that you honestly consider the real policy arguments about the article instead of the ad hominems of an editor who has taken to lazy and highly uncivil assumptions. Wazronk (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but my attention span and patience is pretty low at the moment, for reasons entirely unrelated to this article or your comments. What you have written above is a lot of information for me to digest all at once right now. Could you maybe make a nutshell summary for me? IE: "I want X because of Y and Z." That would help a lot. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, realized it was getting longish. It isn't a hugely time-urgent issue, please feel free to come back to it later when you have more of a chance.

Basically, I would like you to take a second look at your closure decision to delete and reconsider based on

a) the reasons you cited for closure (notability) not actually matching the debate ("debate itself intepreted incorrectly by the closer"),

b) secondary sources being readily available to support notability which you thought wasn't adequate ("new information" - and asking for sources to support notability would have cleared this up that, yeah, there are such sources, an assumption made that they don't exist wasn't accurate),

c) my viewpoint has consistently always been based on assessment of policy and review of published sources, though the range of my edits have been limited; you closed with a comment indicating that my views were ignored in favor of ad hominems, I ask that you do please follow the notion of "Focus on the subject matter, not the person", and most especially please do not give the inordinate weight you gave to the ad hominems.

Thanks for your time. Wazronk (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the closure is right. Given the very small size of the movement and the small size of the published literature on it, proportional coverage of this exceedingly fringe topic is one article. That's really the basis for this and the the deletions on it.DGG (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that argument quantified beyond the WP:WEASEL subjective statement of what is a "small" topic in your opinion? For contrast, consider the Raelian topic. Search on google for the term "Raelian" and there are 184,000 hits. Search on books.google.com and there are 553 books that come up. The Raelian topic has a large in-detail wikipedia series of approximately 20 articles.

Do the same searches for "Urantia" (as much a unique term to that movement as Raelian is to its own) and you get: 511,000 hits on regular google search, 602 books cited from books.google.com. Yet proportionally only one single article is appropriate for it on wikipedia? Why? How have you or Jerry arrived at your views? My point is that there really are more than enough independent sources to justify the article, and this type of thing could have been brought up in an actual discussion about notability. But there was no such discussion. Lacking such a discussion to begin with, the claimed reason for closure doesn't make sense that "discussion sufficiently demonstrated ... no notability outside the book itself". Wazronk (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquets

Hi Jerry, I notice you've tagged the list of sobriquets as unreferenced. (Personally I would like such redundant lists were banned.) At present the level of verifiability that I've "demanded" is that the sobriquet given is linked to either a WP article stating the sobriquet or a WP:RS showing the sobriquet in use. Not sure how this stacks up against WP policy. Awaiting your response on the [Sobriquet talk page]. SmithBlue (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable, but many of the items in the current list do not comply with your requirements, so cleanup and enforcement is probably needed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Children of Men/Temp

Hi Jerry. On 14:42, 27 December 2007, you deleted Talk:Children of Men/Temp with CSD G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted article. I'm curious why this was done. The article was not orphaned, as it was repeatedly linked through the extensive talk archives, and it was neither an orphan of a non-existent or deleted article. I'm working on this material and I would appreciate it if you restore both the page and the full history. Thanks for your time. —Viriditas | Talk 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one of several hundred that I deleted that day as part of an orphan page cleanup effort. This particular one was an error, because the procedure I used looked for the redlink status of the associated mainspace page, and I was erroneously looking for the subpage format target (~/temp). I have restored the page and its history as you requested. Sorry for the goof. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt restore. You are clearly deserving of the mop. Thank you again. —Viriditas | Talk 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Waterwindsail

Can you please review this sandbox article and let me know your thoughts on notability at this time ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waterwindsail/Sandbox thank you --Waterwindsail (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article, as written, is a curriculum vitae. It is not written as an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you should have a look at Bernard Williams, as an example of a featured article on a similar subject. You may even want to consult one of the people on the Wikiproject Psychology, who would probably have subject area specific understanding that might be helpful. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

If an article has any considers it important to have any category at WP:CHIBOTCATS in the article we tag it for our project. That includes many people who graduated from local high schools and colleges. If this assignment offends one way to address it is to remove the category from the article permanently and then remove the tag from the article talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way offended; I just was uninformed of the goals of the wikiproject. Thanks for the reply. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Number One with a Bullet

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Number One with a Bullet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bensin (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated barnstar

		The Deletion Review Barnstar
		Just a bit of recognition for all the difficult discussions that you skillfully close on WP:DRV--particularly the second AnonymousDemotivator DRV, which I meant to compliment you on much earlier. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw... <blush> thanks, shucks. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

can-we-link-it

Hi Jerry, and yes, can-we-link-it still exists, I just managed to accidentally stuff-it-up over the weekend. On Friday afternoon, I unplugged the network switch for the box it's hosted on, when measuring power usage. I reconnected it, and it should have resumed working, but for some strange reason it didn't - but of course, bad me for not checking it was working. So I have turned it off and turned it on again on this Monday morning, and now it seems to be working once more. Don't you just love computer hardware?! My apologies for the unplanned interruption to services. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you, Nickj!!! Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerry, I gave it a simple test and found it to be very slow loading the preview page, but it did load. I suspect it's because the connection it's on has been throttled (I usually try and use up all my quota on the last day of the ISP's billing period, which is today). The new period should tick over in roughly between 9 and 18 hours time from now - so give it a go then, and if it's still slow or just not working, then give me a holler. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael McKay (astronaut)

You closed the AfD for Michael McKay (astronaut) as delete. I agree that being a member of the astronaut program but never flying is not enough to make him notable. What I should have been more explicit about in the AfD is that I think his subsequent career as a company executive who rescued a company that had gone through the Canadian equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is sufficiently documented to demonstrate notability. I added a newspaper article about the company as a reference to the article just before I added my comments to the AfD.

Could you please take another look at the deleted article?

Another editor has tried to recreate the article more than once. I added a {{csd-g4}} tag on the most recent recreation, so it's gone now. --Eastmain (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

The version that I deleted is temporarily at User:Eastmain/temp. It does not contain the content you describe. I suggest you recreate the article at User:Eastmain/Michael McKay (astronaut) and have it reviewed (by me, another admin, or at WP:DELREV) for possible cross-namespace moving on top of the deleted page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Orange box removed

I've removed the orange box from your talkpage header - on some Mediawiki skins (the classic one, notably) the box, by forcibly appearing at the bottom of the page, makes it impossible to view the GFDL notice for the page, which is a GFDL violation. If you want to re-code it so that it does not hover over the bottom, feel free, but as it stands it violates the GFDL. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

It are is fix0red. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about a sockpuppet accusation

Hi, after reverting a piece of vandalism by a IP user, I inspected his contribution history and after coming across this nomination, which although I have nominated, I have just just discovered that User:Beethoven05 is accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer of User:Moosato Cowabata and another user, when I don't know both of them at all. As I am very angry with this, what can I do about this. Willirennen (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would do nothing. It is up to the accuser to prove his case, and if you have done nothing wrong, then there should be no reason to be concerned. Ultimately, a checkuser request will likely determine whether the accounts have been edited from the same or closely-related IP addresses. But again, this is not up to you (as the accused party) to arrange, it is up to the accuser. Ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

User blocked as sockpuppet after checkuser confirmed extensive sock farm. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy

Dear Jerry,

Hello, my name is Marcia and I will make this as short and to the point as possible, as I 'm sure you are busy.

I am respectfully asking for a copy of a deleted article as per Temporary review #3.^[1]

Article name: Justin Kreutzmann

Deletion log: DELETION LOG * 18:50, 12 October 2006 Crzrussian (Talk | contribs) deleted "Justin Kreutzmann" ? (there was considerable edit history and discussion on talk, but untimately everyone agrees with prod, I think. If anyone disagrees, let me know, and we'll have an AfD) * 11:23, 24 June 2006 Quarl (Talk | contribs) deleted "Justin Kreutzmann" ? (Author requested, apparently. content was: '{{db-bio}}All articles written about yourself, your friends, your company, their business partners or products, or as part of a marketing or promotio...') * 07:10, 13 December 2005 Harro5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Justin Kreutzmann" ? (CSD A7.)

Please note:

• I will not, as this time, try to recreate this article as he is not notable enough (yet).
• I am considering adding information from his article to his father's article ( who IS most definitely notable) under Personal life section.
• I searched in archives for the deletion discussion on this article starting from Oct.1, 2006 up to Oot.13, 2006 but found nothing. The most recent deletion edit summary refers to one, I think...
• I would like the copy also for family history work project I'm trying to write as time permits.
• The admin Crzrussian's page is locked/blocked, which brings me here.
• And lastly, I assume you have access to m y account for the email address.

Looking forward to hearing from you either ya or nay on this request.

Thankyou in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

footnotes

Resolved.

I userfied it with its talk page including all history to: User:Marcia Wright/Justin Kreutzmann. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Marcia Wright (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

orphan tag

I just removed an orphan tag from Talk:April Bowlby. Talk pages don't need orphan tags. I am curious why you moved the tag there. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No pages need orphan tags. There is an easy to use tool on the toolserver for people to find orphan articles. I move junk from article pages to the talk page because it doesn't belong on the article page and I don't care what is on the talk page. A talk page can have 17 orphan tags, and it's really okay. See User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. Your username seems familiar to me... have we had this conversation before? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I remember now. You're the guy who initiated DRV #3 without prior discussion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, you can simply remove the orphan tag instead of moving it to the talk page. Just mention in the summary that you've removed the orphan tag. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, I removed the tag, although the article WAS still an orphan. By moving the tag to the talk page, the article still shows up on maintenance lists, which was apparently the intention of the person who put it there. I saw moving the tag as a compromise between my hatred for such tags and the other editor's desire to put the article in the maintenance category. A better solution would be to modify the orphan template to only categorize the article, with no banner at the top of the page; but I suspect people will whine and moan and cry and complain if I suggest that, so why bother? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I encourage you to suggest it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, suggesting that change is not a good idea. People will not like it; they are addicted to multiple maintenance templates. In fact they prefer the self-referential templates over actual encyclopedic content. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Even better than a cookie, IMO

Even better. More refreshing. Less crumby. Everything looks preeety after a few of these. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

I got over it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhinav Education Society's College of Pharmacy ( B.Pharm.)A/P Narhe, Pune 411041

Responded on my talk page. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, just noticed you're an admin anyway - in that case, feel free to userfy yourself if you'd prefer. Neıl ☎ 09:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Neil's rationale misses the point that the delete !votes were before I fixed the spam and article title and, therefore, should have been devalued. Consequently, I would support you at a DRV. However, there is another way. I have userfied the page at User:TerriersFan/College of Pharmacy (Pune) and added two more sources. If you agree that there is sufficient added for this not to be a G4 we can simply move it back to main space. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, perhaps ask Neil and see if he agrees, to be sure there are no misgivings. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

TerriersFan (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

User:Minsi/Camp Minsi

I noticed that you userfied this article after (several) DRVs initiated by User:Minsi. That user has now been indef blocked as a sock puppet, so there's really no point to having this article in Userspace now. Think you can delete it outright, or should I bother with a CSD tag? -- Kesh (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Thank you for taking care of that! -- Kesh (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Greg Benson

Can you userfy this?

He's had some recent press that should establish notability (an interview with him published in a print newspaper, an interview with Adam Arkin in which he discusses Benson extensively) and I'd like to see if the article can be brought up to the standard now. Lawikitejana (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I've added this page to my watchlist, but if you do reply, a one-line note on my Talk page would be appreciated -- I watch around 1500 pages.)

Resolved.

Userfied to User:Lawikitejana/Greg Benson. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DGF

I agree with what I think your intentions are, but the section (that somebody has subsequently removed) reads very negatively, and seems to describe wikipedia's editing community as a contentions bunch of people who argue and infight continuously. I think the spirit of the guideline was to illustrate that wikipedia could be the exact opposite. Perhaps try to simply insert a short passage similar to what GTBacchus said. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"We do not have any guideline that says people must be notable for more than one reason"

It might be a bit late to point this out, but I disagree with you quite strongly on your AfD comment, especially because you are an admin and yet say we have no guidelines to deal with a minimum of notability. WP:BLP1E and NOTNEWS specifically cover this: "Just because someone is in the news does not make them notable," which is part of BLP policy.

Also, "'Are the news stories about her or her accident' seems asinine." No, it isn't. It's called non-trivial third-party coverage, and it is a fundamental part of ascertaining notability through reliable and independent sources. See WP:RS.

More correctly, notability must be sufficiently long-term - this is why bit-part actors in one movie and extras in films don't get articles, why we require professional playing time for athlete articles, and why we don't have articles based on how or why somebody died - these are all flash-in-the-pan notability. Kristi got a week of coverage on the news for a one-time accident. The accident is what got the policy changes, not the efforts of the person. If it mattered who did it as opposed to simply having occurred, everyone in that squad should have a bio article as being party to the incident, and they don't. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's think about this for a bit... there is no guideline that says a notable person can not be the subject of a wikipedia article unless they are separately notable for two different and unrelated things. Find me a diff to argue that and I will humbly concede.

To separate the actions of a person from the person when determining notability is quite silly. A man built the largest castle in the world. "Are the news articles about HIM or about his castle-building?" would sound asinine, no?

And the arguments made clearly indicate that over a year later, there are still news stories coming out about her and her accident, and that there are major policy changes made in the sport because of it. You refute that with relagating a years worth of coverage as a flash in the pan one-event news flash?

Nonsense! Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Janesko

Hi Jerry. Sometime ago, maybe one or more year, I saw an Jennifer Janesko article in en:wiki. As I can remember it was not a bad article. Now the only reference I could find was that Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 23/Articles. It seems to me that it was a copywrite problem that count for the deletion. Was a copyvio problem or the deletion was decided after an AfD discussion? Thanks Caiaffa (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the [log], User:Centrx deleted Jennifer Janesko at 09:02 27 January 2007 (UTC) under WP:CSD#G12. Apparently it was a copyright violation of http://www.janesko.com/bio.htm. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Techno Union

Jerry, I apologize; I was not aware of your preferences on deletion reviews, and I unfortunately forgot to leave you this notice that I had opened the review until now. I assure you that I did not do this on purpose; however, the DRV is already open, and it's already gotten quite a bit of feedback. I would really appreciate your input, though. Thanks. GlassCobra 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion has been added to the review. Although... probably not what you were looking for. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed a merger of the articles for the three middle schools of the Palo Alto Unified School District into the main article for the district. Discussion is here. I'm notifying everyone who was involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Einstein Academy

Jerry, I'm not really sure why you're asking me to restore this article. I'm not the one who actually deleted it; I only put put the tag on it for deletion. Are you contesting it's deletion because you believe it's notable? If so, go ahead and restore it, but if it gets restored as is, I'll just submit it to AFD. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see I made an error... I will ask the deleting admin to restore it. I do not know if it is notable or not, but I think most high schools get improved at AfD, and can normally be shown to be notable. I think AFD is a better way to handle this particular article than prod. Thanks for the reply. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Please restore The Einstein Academy as a contested WP:Prod

All done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Hi, Jerry. Just a passing observation from DRV, really. I've noticed from time to time that your comments sound really pretty angry, usually when someone has skipped out your talk page and gone to DRV. I'm not sure how much of that is genuine fury (because you really do sound really angry) and how much is an attempt to sway the debate via a strongly-worded appeal effectively about the process. But in any case, because they are so loudly phrased, I don't think it's actually doing you any favours, nor having much impact on the considerations. The process is not an attack on you or your judgement - it's just a disagreement. And really, if someone doesn't bother to let you know, does it really matter all that much? After all, the purpose of asking people to go to talk pages is to avoid the occasional escalations of drama that DRV can bring about, but your responses at DRV can sometimes turn the temperature up quite a few notches on the spot. It seems a bit of a steep price to pay for an apology. Thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to consider toning it down. Splash - tk 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (PS. Standard response is now to reply with a request for diffs. I thought I'd leave them out as I'm sure you know the sorta stuff I'm on about).

Without even looking, and as a regular Afd closer, I support Jerry. The DRV instructions are explicit. They say explcitly, talk to the closer first, prior to DRV. DRV, in and of itself, is high drama, regardless of the topic, and regardless of the perceived slight by what is (usually) an angry SPA. I support Jerry's insistance that DRV is a last resort, and I will say adamantly that he has every right to be perceived as "angry" in his responses to DRV's that are opened without even an attempt at discussion prior. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say "without even looking", you should probably keep quiet until you have looked. I would also thoroughly refute your suggestion that people at DRV are "(usually) an angry SPA" I, on the other hand, have looked. However, I am not interested in discussing the semantics of DRV with you, Keeper, as I am here to drop Jerry a note about something I believe he could improve upon. I think that this, as the most recent example, is beneath the kind of quality of response that Jerry quite regularly delivers when he's being more constructive. Such rhetoric does not usefully achieve anything other than to amplify drama, and I am certain that it is entirely avoidable. Splash - tk 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When I say "Without even looking", I mean that this is a rather tired argument. The DRV instructions, for those that even bother to read them, says, explicitly, that an attempt, in some form or another, should be made. When an attempt is not made, can you blame a closer for being even a little irate about it? I read your link, and find it a perfectly acceptable response when a closer isn't even notified that the close he/she made is contested. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not an argument. It is a request, one admin to another, to ask Jerry if he can look at the nature of his responses, at times, in relation to one particular forum. I'm not actually even talking to you Keeper76, but since you asked, yes, I do wholly blame the editor who made the edit for the contents of the edit. Exactly as when I give an irate response, the fault is entirely mine. Now clearly, I've built up this impression over time that there is, in one focussed area, something I reckon Jerry knows is up and could stop, and this is not merely based on the one edit. Equally obviously, I've weighed up the possible causes and concluded that, even though he is right to want to be spoken to first, he could take an improved approach to those cases where that does not happen. So I'm still going to ask Jerry if he thinks he can't take a look at that approach; and on his talk page, too, where he likes these things to be. So I'll wait to hear from Jerry, now. Splash - tk 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks splash, for your candid and obviously well-intentioned remarks. I should point out, however, that my apparent pedantic rage is actually on purpose, and is an effort to affect change. My intention is to bring to focus the issue of frivolous and undiscussed DRV's until they become taboo. I don't mind being that one guy who does it differently and eventually makes a change happen. That's sort of my own particular idiom, as it were. I hope you would agree that a one-on-one discussion with the closing admin to gently ask him/her to review the closing and at least make an attempt to resolve these situations amicably would be in the better interest of the project. So I am steering things in that direction, in my own way. Cheers, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also thanks Keeper for speaking up in my defense. I appreciate someone being at my back. Oh, and I owe you a beer.... how about an IPA? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

→Yes, I agree that one-2-one discussion prior to a DRV is good, indeed, I wrote the original instructions on DRV which say as much. I would say in general it is also worth leaving a note on the DRV when someone skips that stage out. However, the kind of person in general who skips the stage out is that who doesn't read the instructions in the first place often because it's their first and only time visiting DRV. Yelling at them about it doesn't make any difference because they often don't come back. It also gives the impression of an admin who is likely to shout at people — which will certainly decrease the likelihood of people braving the fire of talking with you in the first place. Also, most people round here (on a regular basis) are reasonably intelligent, and quickly de-tune that kind of excess anger, meaning its impact is vastly reduced. In fact, that's the main reason I thought I'd write to you, as I know for sure you could be more persuasive if you took a different approach to the issue (not to mention that a lower-key approach gives a more professional aura for Wikipedia generally). It's up to you to view the broader perspective ultimately, but I hope that, next time someone seeks a review of one of your deletions, you consider that yelling at them is probably not the best available approach. Splash - tk 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) (PS. Your commented instructions about where to reply fall outside the region that turns up on editing the section).

Splash, I've replied to your post on my talk page. My apologies to Splash and to Jerry if I typed where I was not welcome. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Jerry, I would love an IPA. That would taste good right now. Room temperature please. Oh, wait, it's 9:30 am. And I'm at work. Dam. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tote Tassie

Hey, I was wondering if something could be done about, User talk:Jerry/For others/Tote Tasmania, which is in your userspace, but it linking up to Template:WP Australia. Thanks. Five Years 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BethClaytonPSQ.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:BethClaytonPSQ.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected your error. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)