User talk:Kershner/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Man Law listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Man Law , has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Law . Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

RE: R.L. Stine

Thanks for your note. As far as I could see the articles didn't meet either the "no content" or "no context" criteria for speedy deletion. They did contain some content (albeit not very much) and there was enough context to enable further expansion. As for the fact that similar articles were deleted by another admin, I can only say that it comes down to a admin's individual interpretaion of the criteria and the specific article. My interpretation was that the articles I untagged didn't clearly match the criteria (if there is doubt in the mind of the reviewing admin, they must err on the side of not deleting). Cheers TigerShark 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Robo-Logan

Yes, having re-read the content, I think you are right that this is a speedy. I see that it has already been deleted by another admin. Thanks TigerShark 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Kershner,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

Prodego talk 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer

On June 17, you marked this article for speedy deletion because you alleged it was about a "club." In fact, the subject of the article is a sourcebook for a campaign setting. I've since fleshed out the article to help clarify things.--Robbstrd 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The original description was sufficiently vague that that was in fact how I read it.  :) Your new version certainly meets the standards required for inclusion. Kershner 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nav Boxes

Why are you removing my nav boxes? They are exactly the same as the ones used for parishes of Penwith and Restormel. Do you intend to remove these as well. I would like you to stop removing them. Talskiddy 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The intent of a nav box is to allow a user to jump to pages of similar interest. Your nav box is large and unweildy and has been inserted as the only content on dozens of pages. Create all of the articles, then make a small nav box (as here Truro) and it won't get deleted. If a nav box is larger than the content of the article, the nav box doesn't belong. Kershner 19:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oreo (fish)

Sorry about that :} GrahamBould 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I just wish I knew something about the Oreo (fish) so that I could write the article there. Right now I have that as a redirect to the family, but it would be better if there was a real article rather than a redirect. Kershner 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

HD123 vandalism heads-up

FYI, He vandalized my user page a few minutes ago. After reverting the vandalism, I turned him in for an Administrator intervention against vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. This guy is out of control and I'm fairly sure that he's a sockpuppet for HilaryDuff123. Kershner 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well_Well4

I don't know how to leave messages, but you are unbelieveble! Deleting my article when it clearly said "Unless you can improve, don't remove." I have a copy of this article on my computer and will keep posting it, I don't go to school. - Well_Well4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Well_well4 (talk • contribs) 03:09, June 19, 2006

The Magic Cottage

Ok, delete it then.

db-bio

Why on earth have you tagged a userpage for speedy delete? Namely this one: User:OnyxSATVIL. Viridae 12:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - the page had been moved. Viridae 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Ok, are you manually logging in from inside VandalProof? Under option 2 of the "Your login request failed" message, select "logging into Wikipedia", and enter your username and password. If you have done this, make sure you have cookies enabled in IE, then try again. Prodego talk 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawtons

Please examine deletion policy. CSD-A7 applies only to articles which have been deleted through a consensus process, not articles which have been unilaterally deleted via PROD or speedily. Your invocation of A7 was thus inappropriate with regards to that article, and it has been restored. Please use the articles for deletion process if you wish to delete articles which are in dispute. FCYTravis 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that FCYTravis was wrong to overrule us, and furthermore, it's very damaging to wikipedia to see administrators warring like this. Kershner, I've written a comment at [[1]]. If Travis wants to escalate this, we'll have to get an adjudication. - Richardcavell 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Escalate to what? It's not like this is some sort of egregious issue - just a mistake, it's been corrected and that's the end as far as I'm concerned. FCYTravis 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Waging no battle

I'm not waging any battle; I've looked at many bios that I decline to vote on, and many of those have a delete consensus already. However, I think the delete guidelines allow enough judgement that I am consistent with them. snug 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • My issue, and clearly that of many of my peers, is that you arbitrarily refuse to support the policies contained in WP:BIO despite the fact that they were agreed upon through a democratic process involving consensus and super-majority. By voting in clear contradiction to agreed upon standards (rather than only voting Keep on the close cases as regards WP:BIO) you are attempting to thwart the consensus on a case-by-case basis. My recommendation to you is in three parts:
    1. Find articles clearly worthy of deletion and vote Delete. This will establish that you have standards and that not everything meets them.
    2. Do not vote Keep on articles with a clear consensus to Delete, instead reserve your votes for places where your opinion can potentially affect the outcome. This will establish that you pick your battles and avoid the appearance that you are an extreme inclusionist.
    3. Clearly articulate your objection to deletion of an article. Something like: "Clearly verifiable with multiple sources, not original research, readily expandable to meet some of the requirements of WP:BIO." This would prevent others from attacking your arguments as irrelevant (like the many attacks on your use of Wikipedia is not paper).
If you do all of these things, I highly doubt that you would receive so much attention and you would be vastly more effective at accomplishing your end goal of lowering the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Kershner 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would reformat Mattvhm's comments so that they look like replies, but I wouldn't remove them. I'm a bit despondent about how this has turned out - I'm of a mind to refer it for review. - Richardcavell 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning deletions on my talk page... I think I just removed some copyright stuff, and nothing else. At least that was my intention... not much time right now... snug 01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AllHipHop

Hello Kershner. I'm afraid nn websites are not covered under CSD, so I changed to the {{prod}} template. Only people and groups of people who do not claim notability can be speedy deleted in this way for nn.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the help. I'll do the same in the future. Kershner 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thought I'd bring this to your attention aswell: Allhiphop.com -- whoda 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

signature

Hi Kershner, you can copy my monobook.js. That adds a lot of stuff though, so if you only want the signatures you can pick and choose from usermain.js. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 07:45Z

My Plea

Hello there!

I feel that I need to make something clear. Those of you who moderate (or whatever the more appropriate term might be) seem to be under the impression that I am trying to force my "P.O.V." about Jewell Marceau (and others) upon the readers of Wikipedia. This is definitely NOT the case! What IS true is that Jewell is unsure how to go about making changes to her profile herself and has asked for my help. She was extremely distressed to find that the year of her birth, her hometown, and her birth name had been posted here and she asked me if I could please try to fix what she considered to be a major problem. She understands that her recent legal issues have indeed already caused her legal name to be made available to the public (should they go looking for it), but her feeling is that the average Internet surfer would be far less likely to stumble across an article about her court case than they would by deliberately looking her up on Wikipedia.

We in the adult industry certainly understand that "civilians" have very little knowledge of how frightening it can be to become "famous" simply for performing in adult movies. We deal with stalkers, cyberstalkers and...erm...overly-ardent fans on a daily basis. Whenever our legal names and/or hometowns are published somewhere, people with less-than-kind intentions practically jump to find our families and share whatever they (think they) know about us. I know so many women and men who have suffered greatly because of this and have also experienced it myself. (Yes, right. We made the choice to join this industry and we should be prepared for the consequences. Of course it's more complicated than that.)

Many adult models really dislike Wikipedia because literally anyone with a grudge, a bad attitude, or just a cruel streak can come on here and say anything they want. I cannot even begin to tell you how many blatant -- even ridiculous inaccuracies I have found in the pages of Wikipedia...but I have only made changes when the involved party has asked for my help. One model/producer (who is quite computer-literate and did not ask for my help) was shocked to see that whoever had set up "her" Wiki page had done so with an utterly laughable amount of error in both grammar and spelling. Models I know usually try to divert attention away from "their" Wikipedia profiles because they never know what will show up on there next.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say and I'm sorry to have droned on so long. Please know that I definitely DO NOT want to get into any kind of a battle with ANYONE over information posted here. Wikipedia has such great potential as a source of useful and entertaining information. I just want to help/protect my friends whenever I can.

Most Sincerely, Darla Crane