User talk:The Enchantress Of Florence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Endicott Studio

Well, you're partly correct. I deleted Endicott Studio, but it was a merely a redirect to The Endicott Studio Journal of Mythic Arts, which was also deleted today and is probably the real article you are looking for. I won't restore the article for you, however, I can cut and paste the text on your talk page (or I can create a subpage from your user page for you and paste it there). Quite honestly, as it stands, I can see why it was deleted. It doesn't really assert notability, and has absolutely no verifiable sources. You are more than welcome to recreate it yourself, however, it'll need to be improved, or it's very likely to be deleted again. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the only edit done today was the addition of the speedy delete tag. That last edits were done in December. Jauerbackdude?/dude. —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
...and it looks almost exactly like the Google cache that you linked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] O'Neill's of Puerto Rico / O'Neill's of the Fews

I've undeleted the article per your request since there were approximately 14 hours of time between the deletions/restoration by User:JIP that the prod could have been contested. I've tagged the article with {{oldprod}} to avoid further confusion by other admins, please do not remove this tag. Regards – Zedla (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring the state of pages that refer to Gary Lynch

Thank you for these edits ([1] and [2])... It was good you restored the links, since the Gary Lynch article has been restored after other editors gave it the referencing it needed. However I would like to point out that your use of the term "inappropriate" in the edit summaries was not correct. It is long standing policy that the closing admin for a deleted article should remove redlinks from articles that reference the deleted article, so the edits were appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to infer that since you don't cite or quote the "policy" here, that it's no more valid than the nonexisitent "policy" provisions you cited in deleting the article to begin with. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qworty

Thank you for bringing Qworty's abusive behavior to the attention of the BLP Noticeboard. 72.241.103.218 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Prod removals

Please don't remove prods unless you actually believe the article should be kept. The comment you made here makes it sound like you removed this due to some disagreement with another editor. We should never allow personal disputes between editors to interfere with doing what is best for the actual content of the encyclopedia. Our articles are way more important than some dispute between editors. Friday (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and please do not post inaccurate descriptions of Wikipedia policy on my talk page, or anywhere else. The Wikipedia policy on proposed deletions states quite clearly that prod removal is appropriate if users "do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion." I note with great disgust the enthusiasm so many meanspirited Wikipedia administrators show in supporting the "rights" of a vile, dishonest troll with a long and undisputed track record of abusing the living and mocking the dead, and whose edits provide a road map for identifying misinformed and often malicious deletion proposals, intended mainly to demean the subjects of the articles. Perhaps you can provide a rational explanation as to why comments like those here [3] and here [4] and here [5] have not been met with anything like the flurry of (feigned, I suspect) outrage that my accurate (and quite understated) description of the malignant Qworty has been, and why those comments have not provoked any response from. But I do not believe you can. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We've never interacted before, as far as I know, but could I suggest you look at this from my point of view? I PRODded an article (Judith Blake); someone you have a problem with supported that PROD; you deleted the PROD with an edit summary which appeared to call me "unreliable" (I since see that you have pointed out the careful use of "proponent", ie supporter, rather than "proposer", but that's a rather subtle distinction). Did you look at the article first? The article has now gone to AfD. WP:AGFing, I asked you for an explanation: you deleted my input to your talk page, labelling it "hypocrisy". This looks like WP:POINT - deleting reasonable PRODs to make the point that you disagree with someone who has supported them. PamD (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The standard term Wikipedia uses for someone who initiates a deletion process is "nominator." The verb "nominate" is used in the policies. I took pains to use a conspicuously different term. The proponent who I applied the term "unreliable" to is well-documented as a malicious troll whose principal Wikipedian interest is abusing innocent editors and third parties. As for your uncivil insinuation in the comment "Did you look at the article first," I did, I noticed that the deletion discussion you cited as a basis for your prod was heavily contested, and indicates the need for case-by-case analysis. (Note, similarly, my comments here [6] on another nomination). I found the troll's footprints a useful guide to identifying inappropriate deletion proposals, and I find it quite disturbing that so many users believed that have their own feathers ruffled by misreading the careful distinction I drew justifies supporting, explicitly or implicitly, a user whose behavior is undeniably disgusting and inappropriate. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Although you used "proponent" as a "conspicuously different term" from "nominator", it is clear that many Wikipedians did not find the difference conspicuous (see the very start of the ANI thread: "reliability of the prodder", implying that the writer understood you to be calling the prodder, not the prod2-er, unreliable). "Proponent" = supporter or advocate, according to Wiktionary. At http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proponent the first definition is "1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.". Not necessarily a seconder rather than a proposer. Another time, please use a less ambiguous edit summary such as "unreliable PROD supporter", to avoid people feeling insulted. Your reply above still does not explain your deletion, labelled "hypocrisy", of my civil requests for explanation. PamD (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Enchantress, I don't think I mentioned policy anywhere above.
And that is, of course, a fatal problem for your commentary -- you simply made up your own rule, rather than applying the Wikipedia policy I quoted and followed. That doesn't appear "collaborative" to me.
And, I don't know which editor you're talking about, but I don't generally go around supporting trolls.
Well, quite a few people have given the name, I've mentioned it here, and I've provided a solid set of relevant diffs in quite a few places, including your own talk page. It's just as fair, probably much more so, to infer from your silence on the relevant issues that you approve of that sort of behavior as it is to draw the inferences you did from my comments.
I came here, not to beat you over the head with policy or defend some troll, but rather to explain why I think some of your editing has been harmful. The point I was trying to make was that you should remove prods only when you believe the article should not be deleted.
That's not what the actual Wikipedia policy says. I quoted it, you should look at it. It should be pretty clear to an unbiased eye that I didn't breach it.
What you've done now a few times looks more like you're doing it to goad some other editor you don't like. As PamD rightly points out above, we call this disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it's rather frowned upon.
Now that would be true only if I'd breached the applicable policy. If you had actually looked at the followup deletion-related discussions, you'd see that in virtually every case, it's clear that my prod removal as appropriate -- there's substantial, good-faith controversy on the deletions, which is actually more than prod deletion calls for. If you'd actually checked out the earlier incidents I cited, and the well-documented history of abuse by the editor I'm supposedly "goading," you'd realize how misguided your efforts are.
Wikipedia requires that you can collaborate peaceably with other editors. So far you've been missing the mark on that pretty frequently. Friday (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in "collaborating peacefully" with a notorious troll who makes vile, insulting comments about innocent third parties and whose principal interest in Wikipedia appears to be to use it as a soapbox for abuse, and to recruit like-minded "editors" to do the same. My husband was hounded off this project (as I told him he would be) for dealling civilly with abusers like the one involved here (and was gratuitously described as "deceptive" for his pains, which seems to have aroused very little sense of impropriety in these quarters.) If you're going to get up on your horse to lecture me about civility, you owe it to yourself to understand why comments like those I cited on your talk page don't bother you. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)