| Revision as of 22:52, 21 June 2007 editPi Delport (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,053 editsm →Talk page redirects: point to reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:47, 21 June 2007 edit undoKizor (talk | contribs)Administrators13,646 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| I left a comment directed at you there on the pedophilia section. It may come off as harsh: that was not the intent, my apologies if it did. ] ] ] 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | I left a comment directed at you there on the pedophilia section. It may come off as harsh: that was not the intent, my apologies if it did. ] ] ] 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Hopefully my comments did not come off as offensive or overly harsh. My point was that irregardless of whether BC was correct in action or not, you seemed a little too passionate about the subject to be unblocking. Someone else should be doing it. Just my opinion, it makes no difference. Fred Bauder is taking action on it for ArbCom now so the substantive matter of the pedophilia is at least going through review. ] ] ] 13:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | Hopefully my comments did not come off as offensive or overly harsh. My point was that irregardless of whether BC was correct in action or not, you seemed a little too passionate about the subject to be unblocking. Someone else should be doing it. Just my opinion, it makes no difference. Fred Bauder is taking action on it for ArbCom now so the substantive matter of the pedophilia is at least going through review. ] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jest | ||
| == ] == | |||
| If the lack of any editor willing to unblock is taken as evidence of community support, I'll unblock right now, and go to ArbCom if the block is reimposed. The discussion at ANI had been going nowhere, with people throwing the same opnions back and forth at each other. DES (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please direct all such concerns regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee. ] 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It appears that you reverted the clsoe of this. Dis you intend to do that, or was it an edit conflict or what? | |||
| I will not disscuss this sort of wiki buisness on a mailing list, or anywhere off-wiki. i will be filiong a formal RfArb, on the proper page, since you wish this dealt with by the ArbCom. ] ] | |||
| :"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.<br><br>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.--] 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi DES. If it comes to an RfArb, I'll endorse it. --] <small>(])</small> 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Any request for arbitration you file will be deleted and you will be directed to communicate with the arbitration committee by email. ] 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TerriersFan == | |||
| Hi, with reference to ] I have now answered Q.10 and please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. ] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {Block of ] and subsequent events} == | |||
| Please present evidence and statements regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org | |||
| == Re: Block of Blue Ribbon == | |||
| Yes, I'll endorse. But I'm affraid the RFC will just be deleted again. However, since Fred promised to forward the complaint the the committee, I'm already in the process of writing a lengthy email to arbcom-l with my statement. It seems ArbCom will not tolerate any on-wiki discussion, which is the core of my complaint. --] <small>(])</small> 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Will you mediate ]? == | |||
| Since you'd like to keep, I take it you won't mind <s>hanging out in the war zone<s> helping these fine editors collaborate on consensus? O:-) . Good luck! --] 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ''<small>(Full disclosure: Note that should you fail, probably the only resort left is the arbitration committee, who may well also reject)</small>'' | |||
| : The one remaining problem is that some people want to merge with an existing guideline (and apparently then sink both, or something). --] 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh, I think this is actually a nomic-style war over the root problem that caused the ATT debacle in the first place. | |||
| :: In other news, lovely weather today, isn't it? :) | |||
| :: --] 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ayup, Exactly. This argument is about the nature of consensus, and on how to have a poll. ;-) --] 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your wheelbarrow == | |||
| Please stop pushing the BLueRibbon issue. I can tell you from experience that the members of the arbitration committee are not shy; if there was any significant dissent to Fred's actions to date we would have heard about it. Removing the complaint is not a statement that the complaint was invalid, however, there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project. Since you acknowledge at least the possibility that consideration of the block might not occur publically, it seems pointless to argue that the meta-discussion over removal of the primary discussion was improper. I suggest you e-mail your concerns to any individual arbitrator or to the arbcom-L mailing list. Please do not continue to pursue this publically. Thank you. ] 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You have brought this up at ANI, AN, RfArb, USER, Village pump, and a few user talk pages, all after being told to do it by e-mail with the arbcom mailing list. You concerns are being addressed by arbcom by e-mail, you can just say what you have to say there. You are not being ignored, arbcom(which represents the foundation office) has decided to do this off wiki, that is their prerogative. If you dispute that, take it to the foundation itself. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The crux of this case is whether Misplaced Pages should be used for purposes that may bring it into disrepute. Publicly discussing this case would not be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. We don't want to air the dirty laundry in public. --] 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think there is nothing like aring dirtly laundry to get it clean, and there is nothing like a perception of total transparancy to improve our reputation, and there is nothing like a percieved coverup (which this is starting to look like, whether it is intended that way or not) to harm our reputation far more that the relevantion that a very few editors claimed to feel sexual attraction towards minors. ] ] 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleting Article == | |||
| I got your message. In your message, you say '''"Now this may be inaccurate, i don't know,"''', I disagree with that. A good website or article states references, a bad article usually doesn't list references. A downside of Misplaced Pages is that people can get away with no references. We can assume that it is inaccurate because there is no references because the person didn't want to list references that weren't true (which I believe is a crime to write false references). You can disagree with me but, I don't believe this man is very notable. | |||
| Note: Thank you for putting the reference tag on. | |||
| Get back to me as soon as you can, if possible, put the speedy tag on. | |||
| Thanks! ] | |||
| == Follow Up == | |||
| I put on a {{subst:m1}} on the article because the reference tag says "may be challenged or removed at any time." Also, some people may agree with my opinion and could possibly be deleted. | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| == Nominating for Deleting == | |||
| I nominated it for deletion, thanks for the help! | |||
| == gueroloco == | |||
| Wow. You seriously have nothing better to do. Go ahead and delete the account. I don't care anymore. I just wanted to help out with content and now I understand why there isn't that many correct things on here. You make it too difficult to post anything and you bully the people who are trying to help. Not nice. | |||
| == Reply == | |||
| I added the deletion tag. Reply to me as if I nominated it correctly? | |||
| == Re: CSD AutoReason == | |||
| I saw them, and I like them. I may incorporate all or part of them in later, I'm just too busy trying to tackle the image backlogs at the moment... <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| == Unblock == | |||
| Howdy! I had already announced my intention to unblock the user when you posted your response, did you miss it? It was immediately above your message. - ]</small> (]) 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Followup: has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of ], a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - ]</small> (]) 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == errr == | |||
| *I really don't see any of the satemes you quote above or on ] as a legal threat. To be clear saying "That is lible" or "In posting information X, you are libeling person Y" is not a legal threat unless there is also a statement of some sort "And I will sue you over it" or "and I will urge Y to sue". While I am ready to unblock myself, i would prefer to have you do so, adn i don't want to do so withotu discussing it with you first. As I said on ANI, ther might be grounds for a block for disruptive editing, but not for leagal threats, at elast not based on the quotes and diffs i have seen. Please unblock ]. ] ] 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **User has been unblocked already, and this is the third message you've posted since I said was going to unblock it, I've even left a message on your user talk. (taps microphone) Is this thing on? - ]</small> (]) 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I saw the restoration by you and was ok with it. My explanation for the speedy has been posted to ]. You can always bring this up directly to me in the future if you want. --] (]) 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, perfectly understandable about the DRV. Generally, I am rather conservative when it comes to deleting things under A7 but I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the original editor was trying to say. The meaning of "best painting in province" was rather confusing to me. Many admins are a little to cautious about reverting another admins actions IMO, so I wanted to make it clear that I'm perfectly fine with other admins undoing my actions, as that is something I often do for protected pages. --] (]) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===DRV about it=== | |||
| Personally, I rather tend to agree with you about overuse and mistaken use of speedy, but I don't think the way to go is to bring every error to DRV. I've speedied a few things in error myself, and perhaps you have also. The way to go is to discuss the use of A7 on the speedy talk page, where it comes up every few days. It's not one case alone that will make establish the need for change. See you there. ''']''' 02:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I too have my list. Repeated discussion of the subject with new examples each time can slowly persuade people; I can sense from the comments on the discussion page there (and at the DRV) that the problem is better understood than it was 6 months ago. My Email is enabled, by the way. ''']''' 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So is mine, but usually only for people who are blocked or some such, i normally prefer to discuss wiki buisness on-wiki. (I'm responding here now that I have read the note on your talk page about watching other people's pages.) ] ] 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Geuroloco == | |||
| Sure, no probs. However, since you have already undeleted it, AfD is a better place than DRV. --<span style="background-color: #Fda;">'']'' ]</span> 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Are you able to undelete ]? I don't remember what my contribution to the page was exactly, but the company was once the largest auction website in europe and has multiple media references. I'm sure if there are advertisement like issues with the article they can be cleaned up. ] 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It does appear that the version you put in my user space is copy pasted from the company website. Some of the stuff I remember putting into the article, which I believe was sourced with links, appears to be gone. It would be good if you could restore the original article with it's history, and then replace the current version with the non-advertisement stripped out version I just created ]. Then I can use the history of the article to restore any relevent details that were taken out, like the legal troubles with allegro ] 12:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is no rule that says that I cannot recreate an article that was deleted on the basis that it was an advertisement. Given that the new article does not break any of the rules of wikipedia, I am free to follow your advice, or not, at my own discretion. Unless of course, someone appointed you king of wikipedia in my absence. The whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit, people do not have to 'check with experienced editors' before making contributions. ] 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Maine lottery== | |||
| OK, I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies. The article should not be deleted. However, it does need a lot of work to bring it up to an acceptable Misplaced Pages level. I added the speedy-delete tag after doing a quick check of some state lotteries I know of (ex: New York Lottery) and I did not find a Wiki article on them, so I believed that lottery articles were not generally accepted. I have since done a more thorough search and have found some. I would expect this article to be expanded to have more noteworthy information, like how it works, where does the money go, etc. The ] article is a good example of what this article should contain. Perhaps you could add a ''lottery-stub'' tag; I'm not sure how to do that. ] 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New York school stub problems == | |||
| The <nowiki>{{NewYork-school-stub}}</nowiki> is having problems. Could you please help. Take a look at the bottom of ] and ] articles. The stub is not working correctly and is displaying extraneous information for the category, viz. '''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''. ] 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the quick fix. ] 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Notify authors about speedy deletion? == | |||
| In ] you argued for notifying authors, even in case of blatant vandalism. Should I put the recommended message that comes with {{tl|db-vandalism}} or should it be a <nowiki>{{uw-vandalism*}}</nowiki>? or both? I think that {{tl|db-vandalism}} does not count as "final warning" so the vandal could not be blocked if he persists. ] 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your response. ] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Article == | |||
| Hey thanks for helping out. The article's almost done now, but I still have 2 questions that need answered: | |||
| What's the main purpose of editing Misplaced Pages instead of leaving it for someone else to fix? | |||
| Do you ever believe that Misplaced Pages will ever be considered credible enough to cite in a research paper? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == Regarding WP:NPA == | |||
| In an effort to prevent the NPA talk page from getting too unwieldy (yes, I know, too late), I thought I'd bring my thoughts regarding your most recent response to your talk. I'd like to begin by stating that I understand the point that you (and others) are arguing regarding site-based actions. I do believe it is a ''valid'' argument. However, I also believe that it needs to be balanced against another valid argument. I would like to try to work with you to develop an acceptable middle ground. | |||
| It is acknowledged at this point that anything resembling the "under any circumstances" text will not achieve consensus. That's fine, it ]. But while the concern you have expressed is that even a softly-worded indirect linking clause could be used to support ''de facto'' site bans, my concern is that the lack such text weakens NPA's stance regarding indirect links actually used as personal attacks. In a way, we are both arguing based on what can or might happen when people intentionally distort or misinterpret what is written in policy. | |||
| Nothing that you, or I, or anyone else authors at NPA is likely to stop those who are removing links to the several sites that are most directly involved with this situation (an action which I remain wholly and steadfastly neutral on, for the record; I have no horse in that race). If they do not cite NPA, it will be ] or some other ] or even IAR. But an NPA policy that includes ''some'' form of prohibition for indirect linking of attacks seems to me to be a better policy -- if we can get it right. | |||
| Is there any form of indirect attack linking prohibition that you would not oppose? | |||
| Regards, ] 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes there is. in fact, several of the proposals that I have indicated a willingness to support on the NPA talk page include provisions for dealiong with indirect links to attacks. My views on this are fairly simple: any link that is clearly being used as an attack can be dealt with just as any attack. (Note that ] is controversial.)Any link whose primarly or sole purpose is to publicize personal identifing information about one or more wikipedia editors in ways that are unwelcome to thsoe editors can be removed, just as posting the info on-wiki would be removed. Any provision that allows '''all''' links to an entire web site to be removed on sight must provide for community discussion and may only remove links to sites for whcih ther is a clear consensus to do so, muich like a community ban. Failing that, any provision for removing links that go to sites posting private data or other attacks must specify that the validity or propriety of suh links is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the mere fact that elsewhere on the site outing or attacks are visible is not gounds for an '''automatic''' link removal. I would be ok if the burden of establishing that a link to such a site had a legitiamte purpose fell on the person addign or defending the link, and that in the absence of reasonable justificatiom fo the link, it coulf be removed. taht is as far as I will go, and i think it is a larger concession than i have seen made by the "nuke 'em all" editors. I hope this is of value to you. ] ] 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very much so. Let me spend a little time evaluating how best an appropriate compromise stance might be written. ] 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Further to our exchange == | |||
| Hi, DES. Thanks for your input. If you wanted to ], I could reply with a few links you could have a look at so you could judge for yourself whether the particulars in this case are consistent with the relevant policies. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''(DES wrote):'' | |||
| :Frankly i'm not really interseted in any such links unless you are askling for my help as an admin in dealign with the matter. Mon concern in our exchange was with teh general principle, not the specific instance. And I almost always prefer to discuss wikipedia matters on-wiki, not by email. DES (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, again. I made this suggestion merely because you had written, ''"Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken."'' And yes, I was asking for your help as an admin, but also for your advice as a more experienced user. This is also why I suggested email: I was trying to be circumspect and not have an allegation of improper behaviour appear together with the editor's username on any Misplaced Pages page until a more experienced user had judged whether the behaviour ''actually was'' improper. I wasn't trying to do an end-run around Misplaced Pages; I was just trying to avoid making an inaccurate accusation. It's the same reason I didn't name the editor in any of my posts to the thread. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a sampling of some diffs where I don't see that the substituted image necessarily improves on its predecessor or enhances the article, and so don't understand the rationale for the substitution: | |||
| :::, , , , , , , , | |||
| :::Here are a some relevant off-wiki links: ,, | |||
| :::To be fair to the editor, there are also several other instances in which the articles either previously had no image, or else the earlier image was clearly inferior. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Weigh Down tried their first wiki edit today== | |||
| Copied from the message I left on the talk page for : | |||
| The user that deleted the information on the Spirit Watch website - 64.221.243.178 - is an employee of Weigh Down. The evidence of the email addy associated with this ISP can be found at http://osdir.com/ml/mail.spam.spamcop.help/2002-09/msg00654.html can I get an admin to block? | |||
| Please advise or pass it on. In a way I must admit I'm flattered they even tried :) | |||
| ] 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Now here's an interesting policy I didn't tell you about before == | |||
| Long long ago, you and I clashed over my apparent application of ]. | |||
| What you couldn't know at the time perhaps, is why I was so certain that consensus would support me. After 2 years, I think it's safe enough to undelete and show you this particular page: ]. | |||
| I can only hope you'll take your time to re-evaluate some opinions. :-) --] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) <small>''(You might be especially pleased that I evidently ] the ] provision. ;-) ''</small> | |||
| : Ah excellent. But now an additional element comes into play. This policy was actually heavily supported, as you can see. So you can't quite claim I was following just the IAR rules. O:-) --] 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Ah, seeing your comments, note that CSD does not override all other wikipedia policy. (Despite some CSD regulars pretending otherwise... each subproject has one or two people like that. If their numbers grow too large, the project typically lands on MFD, like happened to Esperanza or AMA ). | |||
| : So CSD does not override other policy, and this particular policy explicitly authorized me to stomp. :-) --] 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: *Sigh*, well clearly something was going on, since Angela eventually took over from me (she didn't do that regularly anymore, even back then)... and like the next day, TBSDY approved of my actions as well, in no unclear terms. I guess you just missed it all, somehow. --] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You mention things starting out with 9 pages, and then you decided to add perhaps 9 more to the list, didn't you? :-) In 20/20 hindsight, I might have blocked for blatant ] violation (in strictest interpretation of that rule), but I wasn't quite as cynical back then as I am now. ;-) | |||
| ::: You mention meatball and wardwiki having no relevance because they happen to not be wikimedia projects. That's quite blatant ], which I don't buy into one bit. Especially since meatball and wardwiki do discuss guidelines and best practices to do with wikis, including input from wikipedia. | |||
| ::: As we were working, our ideas on best practice evolved. The best wiki practice at the time discussed deleting pages, and telling people to go to one central location. Later on in the same day, other people remembered this new fangled feature called redirects, which could serve much of the purpose of both, and soon they were using redirects, sending people either to deletion policy, or to DRV. The situation was eventually resolved at the latter location. | |||
| ::: To this day, our current best practice for dealing with discussions spinning out of control is to use redirects, links and refactoring to ensure that discussion stays in one location as much as possible. | |||
| ::: Now the thing I'm wondering is how you define consensus. It was pretty obvious to me at the time, that if I did this, that any later test or RFC or what have you would state that I had acted correctly. In the end it came out at a DRV, which, following my actions, in fact did state that I had essentially done the right thing. | |||
| ::: My question to you is: how did I know the DRV outcome in advance? | |||
| ::: --] 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. ] complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the ''']'''. — <small>]] • 2007-05-05 18:34Z</small> | |||
| == Arthur Wesley Wheen article == | |||
| DES, thanks for your help and comments re the above article. I have another question: In the footnotes, there is a reference to the Aus Dict of Bio. Before the author's name, the alphabet (a-w) appears in superscript. Is this code for something, or have I left out some vital bit of information? --] 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| D'oh! There is a lot I still have to figure out! thanks for getting back to me. | |||
| == I disagree very much == | |||
| I do understand the difference between content and context. It's not that the original articles were short, it's that all of the information provided is meaningless. Those are also not reasonable redirects because the main work of fiction makes no mention of them due to their insignificance within the work of fiction. There's no chance of accidental linking and with no content on the topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages, the redirects don't actually benefit searching. ] 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank You== | |||
| Thank you for dredging back the deleted ]. I don't understand how it got deleted, but I'm glad it's back (even if it is, as I had said, only so-so). ] 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator tha tit had been so tagged. While such notification is not mandatory, it is stongly encouraged, and this is mentioend in the variosu speedy deelte templates themselves. please consider notifing article creators of speedy delete tags in future. See ] where this issue was discussed. ] ] 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hang my head in shame...Thanks for the reminder.] 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Apologies == | |||
| I actually intended that message for someone else. Apologies. ^^;; | |||
| I'll go post it there now. | |||
| Sorry once again for the confusion --] 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : He sure will ;-) --] 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Executive Sessions == | |||
| I think it is very important for people to understand each others' philosophy, especially when they have to work together. I hope you're patient with me ^^;;. You brought up municipal executive sessions in your local area, presumably becuase something that happened there was very important to you. Can you tell me more about what happened? | |||
| --] 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : So you're a big proponent of openness. Even to the point of being called a gadfly! Excellent. :-) | |||
| : Though that does now mean that I'm scratching my head over why we're not proving to be allies then. | |||
| : --] 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Alright, so you would like to see more accurate written policy, I would like to see more accurate written policy. Now just to work out how not to work at cross purposes. ;-) --] 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Hmmm, I parse part of what you just said as "Wikis cannot possibly ever work, and we must abolish them". <blink> --] 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : If what you are saying is that the success statistics of the "''proposed''" method are skewed, can you provide more accurate statistics? | |||
| : --] 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyright violations== | |||
| Cutting the filmography from IMDB and pasting it directly into an article, and retaining the formatting that obviously shows it's a cut-and-paste is a copyright violation. There is no clean version to revert to so I deleted again. --]] 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There was never any question of an edit war, and I apologise for missing your subsequent wikification of the article and reference to the legal precedent. I've added some content to the Deletion Review for clarification. --]] 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that's good advice, that I will take to heart thanks. Now, back to the case in hand, I would like to contend that the IMDB list is not a simple statement of facts, but also contains "creative expression", which according to O'Connor is copyrightable as "the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc." --]] 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Need your input== | |||
| An editor who has been potentially ] my edits for the last one year has begun to vandalize some pages that I have created of late that I put if up for neutral DYK set of editors to look at. One has been potentially maliciously tagged and another article title changed to aversion that has no citations, it is all based on a charge that one of the sources that I used fails ]. You have the expertise to intervene and resolve these issues. Can you help please.] 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you may to reply about the RS status of British refugee council publication. Thanks ] 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is British refugee council's research and publication work information 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is getting really ugly in the article all based on whether Sri Lanka monitor by British refugee council can be used or not I will be out of town for fe days. My research says that it is a ] that is based on British refugee council directly interviwing refugee claimants in Sri lanka and Britain and direct input from other NGO's. Given the POV of all concerned including myself the resolution can only come from a neutral Admin like yourself like you did in the ] article. If you dont want to get involved or need time to research I understand and please let us know know and I or some one else will post it in ANI next. | |||
| ::::About the stalking of me by some ditors, now I have enough evidence including other violations such as civility, vandalism, mis use of tags that I will present to ANI whem I come back. That will be a seperate matter altogether. Thanks <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I apologize. I was not trying to vandalize that stub. I was just trying to add a school in NY. | |||
| Again, I am sorry. {{unsigned2|14:57, 11 May 2007| 69.141.180.247|-5}} | |||
| == PCE == | |||
| I have responded to your request for diffs on PCE at ] if you would like to review them. –– ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem with the DRV wording == | |||
| :''The discussion was clsoed early by User:Daniel Bryant'' | |||
| I didn't close it ''early'' — the debate had been going for eight days. I relisted it because further information had been brought up, which I felt merited a relisting to get a better picture of consensus. | |||
| I actually have no opinion about whether Drini's closing was correct or not, but I redeleted the article because the undelete was so horrifically out-of-process. The reason I had to remove the comments after the closure was that, as per current general practice, the state of the debate ''at the closure'' is preserved. I hope you can appreciate this. | |||
| Cheers, and thanks for the note, ''']''' 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing Down Significantly. == | |||
| DES, I will edit down the J.R. and Babe article even further. It's true that I don't feel that it's any longer than some other soap couple articles, but as you know...I am willing to do whatever it takes to save this page. | |||
| * My experience in writing this page has made me a much better editor, which I owe in huge part to you. And this page is what I have the most interest in as of now as I continue to grow and expand as a Wikipedian editor. | |||
| I'll also love to contribute to other topics I'm interested in, such as sci-fi topics, primetime drama, horror topics, and science (though I've kind of lost my passion for science), in which I am sure to have a whole host of sources available apart from the production company. | |||
| Right now, my goal is do as you've suggested and edit down the J.R. and Babe article as much as I can without leaving out huge, important facts within the couple's life. My only hope is that you reconsider deletion of this page after I do so. Thank you for taking the time to assist me as you have. ] 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Source tag== | |||
| Thanks for designing the <nowiki>{{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} </nowiki> it looks fab - now I can tag images without p****ng everyone off (well not as much anyway). Can I just make one quibble.... you swapped the normal no source tag for the new tag on ] in this case as the actress depicted was only born in 1901, and looks about 20 in the picture so doing the mathematics, this particular image is very likely to not be eligible to use the PD-art tag. The new tag is fab but in cases where someone has PD-arted something either blatentely not old or somewhat dodgy I think the original one should still be used. Do you mind if in this case I switch it back? ] 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re: ] - as there is reasonable concern that this image is not valid for PD-art the standard more strongly worded "no source" tag seems appropriate in this case - as if it cannot be proven to be PD it should be deleted or changed to fair use. ] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thinking a little more on this one I think it may be important to make sure that copyright and source information requests/tags are kept separate. I think it would be more useful to have a separate "no sources" tag similar to the current one but without threatening almost immediate deletion, as from the debate last night it is clear that this is not well tolerated by the WP community. Source is about far more than copyright verification - and with many old images it is very obvious that they fit PD-art so ''needing a source is not related to copyright'' - it is about verifying if the image is what it is described as. Therefore it might be better if images retained their PD-art tag and could be tagged additionally with a "source needed" tag. Do I make any sense? ] 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm no expert either but I think it would be good to stick to the ''types'' of tags which are currently available at the moment - <nowiki>{{no license}} and {{no source}}</nowiki> - which each pointing out a specific problem with an image. Without a license an image needs immediate attention and so a "friendly" version isn't needed - but a "friendly" version of the source tag is needed as people feel that clearly PD images shouldn't be threatened with deletion. It could mention copyright but not be its primary function, just requesting a source indicating that all images on wikipedia should have a source even if they are in the public domain.] 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Re: the {{]}} - this doesn't quite make sense with the law as I understand it... the PD-art tag is not applicable to '''any''' ''images'' of 3d works of art. I didn't think that a 3-dimensional artwork in itself could be subject to copyright per se - but ''images'' of it may be. So I can go and take a picture of a greek vase if I have access to it and upload it under PD-self or another license, but if I use a museum's non-free image without their permission then that is a problem. Whereas a 2-d image whose author died 100+ years ago is public domain in the US whatever its source.....So if someone has tagged a 3-d object with the 2-d PD-art tag this should be treated as any other image with disputed copyright status is treated, with the <nowiki>{{PUIdisputed}}</nowiki> tag, I'm not sure we need another one. Sorry to be a pain. ] 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''P.S.''' It might be an idea to hold off tagging any images with the new templates until we get a wider consensus.] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, I'm not familiar with the copyright status of 3-d art generally.... at the moment I don't remember reading anything in the guidance on Misplaced Pages about this - if there is some, can you point me in the right direction - all I know is that the 100 year Corel vs Bridgeman case was about 2-d art and I'm getting confused now about copyright periods for 3-d art in itself along with images of it - when, say in the US, does a 3-d work of art's copyright expire allowing users to take photos of it? I think we just need one new template - as I've just posted at ]. I've seen you're template used by a couple of other users now and I'm just worried that if I find it confusing, other people will too and a full discussion should take place before it gets used. I do think any other problems with copyright/source can be dealt with using the existing templates. ] 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the info. It would be really useful if there was a decent section of the WP copyright pages dealing with 3-d art as it is something I had never really considered before - although most of what I've come across under PD-art is old so at least the copyright of the original artwork doesn't have to be worried about, only the digital image. It's mentioned briefly at ] and I've found is a discussion on .] 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Working on article to fit scope of WikiProject: Soap Operas. == | |||
| I've recently joined , and have gotten help with the J.R. and Babe article. I'm aiming to have the J.R. and Babe article meet that criteria, and to help improve other soap articles. ] 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unicorn gallery== | |||
| Just so you know, I only ''replaced'' the speedy tag on ] after it had been removed. I thought it was likely that the speedy would be declined later, but I'm not going to make that decision and didn't think the original author should either. --]] 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As a side note...I have to say that I think the last line of your template is inappropriate. I don't need to be told not to re-tag an article for speedy deletion once the speedy deletion has been declined. Maybe a suggestion to try discussion on the talk page or bringing it to ] would be better. --]] 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Hello DESiegel. I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the removal of spoiler tags by David Gerrard. It is the heighth of foolishness to assume that everyone who comes to wikipedia's pages will have encountered these works before, no matter how long they have been in existance. It is also wrong to ruin the experiencing of these works by newcomers by having let something slip when they come to these pages. I was about to go thru the editors contributions and rvt them to but you have already accomplished this task. I see you posted a note on the users talk page but others have posted agreeing with him. If you don't get the proper response from the help desk please feel free to take your case to the Admin noticeboard also. Thanks again and cheers. ] | ] 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My banner O_o == | |||
| Why'd you delete my new message thingy!?! I liked it up there.. =( ] 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If whoever gets a new message... On my page there will be two of them stacked up on top of each other. And if they get it anywhere else whoever knows to trust it, right? Oh and lets not forget about the good ol' back button! Or the fact that you can hover your mouse over a ] to see it's actual name. Heh, did you actually fall for it? >_> {{User:Speckledorph/Signature}} 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I think I get the gist of it, thanks. And as for the banner I think I'll throw in an orange period so it'll be a little easier to differ, alright? ] 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Search question== | |||
| I am having a great deal of trouble trying to understand the never ending links and pages on how to contact an administrator. I have no intent on starting new pages, but once I enter a word and do an internal link to something which to me would be already on wikipedia, but i spell by one letter differently it defaults to a new page ready to be made. | |||
| I ahave tried to lookup a word phrase first as per instructions, but it usually will not let me back to where I was. Am I hitting wrong keys? I also DO NOT understand how the sandbox works and have asked friends who are more computer savy and they cannot figure it out.john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Is there something other than what is posted to help explain on another site, or in a word document? | |||
| john 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) {{unsigned2|16:21, 15 May 2007| Upload stuff|-5}} | |||
| thank you i will read this info john 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re: Braveheart == | |||
| I was actually attempting, at least initially, to correct the inaccuracy in the description from the end of the movie, which was something along the lines of, "They killed the British and won their freedom". I edited to state that the ending is actually ambiguous, and that their fates are unrevealed. I also directly quoted Mel Gibson's voiveover narration, from which two different conclusions about their fate can be drawn. This kept being re-edited back to the initial incorrect description, and, out of frustration, I did continute to correct the page, with a less verbose description than my initial correction. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == ==Spoiler warning: Misplaced Pages contains content== == | |||
| I am pleased to see the current version of this odious and unencyclopedic template points out that sections headed "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" are extremely likely to contain plot elements, making a {{tl|spoiler}} even more ridiculous - ] 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd consider not having it used stupidly (sections already marked "Plot summary"? Character articles? Author biographies? ]?!) a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. I've added spoiler templates myself in the past, but the present situation is utterly and comprehensively on crack - ] 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey up for new deletion debate == | |||
| As a commentor in the ] debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at ] because of significant changes in the article during the debate. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I apologize for tagging this article for speedy delete - but Misplaced Pages doesn't support articles that are merely lists as I had understood it? This list really be a category instead of an article? --] 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for clearing that up. There are more WP: pages than I can keep track of at time. --] 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Speedy deletion notifications== | |||
| Per your message, I do try to inform when I tag things for speedy, but sometimes I just forget or in other cases I don't because I believe the editor in question is simply engaging in obviously disruptive behavior and I don't feel like bothering. Since it is optional, I prefer to use judgment calls there, but thanks for the reminder anyway since I do simply forget on occasion. Thanks. -''']''' (], ]) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Speedy deletions== | |||
| The first time I nominated one of these for deletion I was told by an admin to Speedy them - so far I've done about 20 or 30 and never had any complaints! ] ]] 20:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply to Tagging of ]== | |||
| Hello. This is a reply to your comment on my ]. Thank you for alerting me of my mistake. It's just I've done many times in the past and other admins have just deleted the pages. Thanks to you, know I now I have to use <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> instead of requesting it be speedily deleted. Thank you, and please forgive my mistake. Yours truly, ]<sup>] • ] • ] ] </sup> 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *P.S. Please consider archiving the page. It took me a long time to leave you this message. Thank you. Yours truly, ]<sup>] • ] • ] ] </sup> 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == PGNx Media == | |||
| Would you be interested in helping rewrite the article? ] 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks for your response. I moved the article (I didn't know I could make subpages on my user page). Do you think that rewritting this article (since I did basically steal it from that other website) is something that I could do? Should I work on a new one and present it to you? ] 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks again for your help and advice. I'll be working on a brand-new article today and tomorrow keeping in mind the points you mentioned. ] 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding your removal of a speedy tag == | |||
| regarding this edit . The user has a high likelihood of being a sock puppet which caused this, and its basically a copy of the content over at DRV ].--] 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I am getting too stressed about the flagrant abuses by the camp wanting this deleted. I need to step away for a bit. I think this is best taken to ArbComm, because I expect a wheel war over this if we don't. ] 17:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Qian Zhijun == | |||
| You closed the DRV with the note "Having a DRV discussion ''while'' an AfD discussion is going on, is fruitless. Wait until that discussion has run its full course, and ''then'' after it's been closed, if you still have concerns about '''''process''''', feel free to start a DRV discussion about it. (And yes, I've read the noticeboard; various talk pages; the previous DRV; and AFDs; and was, AFAIK, uninvolved in any of them; if anyone was/is concerned." | |||
| Did I miss something? To the best of my understanding the sendond AfD was clsoed today, and had not been reopened. DRV enties filed today were in response to that closing and were filed while no AFD discussion was open, as an alternative to whewl-warring by undoign the AfD close. Am I incorrect or out of date here? If the DRV is closed, what if anything is curently open? ] ] 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I've noted elsewhere, I had too many windows open, in reading everything, and in scrolling, I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then. My apologies for the confusion. (To show how this is easy to do, I note that it was reopened before you posted to my talk page : ) - ] 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You say that "I missed that the AfD was closed. It's been reopened since then." That sounds as if the AfD were open, but the AfD appears to remain closed. Do i correctly understand that you have reverted your closure of the DRV discussion? That's what it looks like to me. Thank you fo doing so, this is a very complex situation (made so, IMO by several unwise actions), thanks for trying to help out. ] ] 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's hear it for pronouns : ) - Yes, I meant the DRV. Someone else was ] after leaving me a note, and reverted the closure. - ] 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you give me a hand again... == | |||
| ... at ]? It turns out that {{user|LokiThread}} reinserted all of the copyrighted text which he had taken verbatim from two corporate websites, with . I've warned him in no uncertain terms not to reinsert copyrighted material. If he does it again, I may block him myself to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages, but it would be better if an uninvolved admin could look at the situation. Would you mind keeping an eye on it with me? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Indefinite blocked now for legal threats (although, indefinite is not ''infinite'' - when he stops ranting about taking us to court whilst trying to revoke the GFDL licensing, he can be unblocked). Cheers, ''']''' 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I just got through reviewing the ] page and proposing some remedies for it. If you look on the Talk page, one of them was to bring the article down to a manageable size by splitting off things like the characters. Hence, I created a page, but did not make the actual edits to the ST entry until other editors had a chance to response. ] 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom == | |||
| The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ], and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --] <small>]</small> 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]. --] <small>]</small> 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy deletion album tags == | |||
| Thanks, I got it now. I will edit them. -- ] 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Shrek976 As Admin== | |||
| Can you promote me to being an adminstrator I have done a lot of good deeds on wikipedia plus i had another wikipedia account where i was an adminstrator but my house went on fire and my computer was burnt in the fire along with the page that i kept so i could remeber my username so i had to make a new usernanme so can i please be an adminastrator please please please my username is shrek 976.--]Sunday May 20 5:17 Pm | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Kim, Radiant, and Tony are trying to deprecate this guideline again. --] 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template deletion == | |||
| I understand about not deleting things that are not obselete, but no user on Misplaced Pages is using it. If you don't beleive me, go to the template,edit it, add a nonsence link like <nowiki>]</nowiki> and then check ] and it only comes up with the template which means it is not being used at all.] 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, I will redirect it. Before I go, can I just ask you what the meaning of TFD is ? I have seen it used but I want to make sure I know exactly what it means. Thanks anyway. ] 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for explainig that. BTW you might want to consider archiving your page right about now, it has more than 67 artciles ! If '''you''' don't want to do it, try using ] I have heard good things about it <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> > ] <sup>]</sup></span> 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Clubsoton == | |||
| Perhaps I should have rephrased that statement. I meant to say that there was no assertion of notability by the subject, and that it did not meet ], so the article would not be kept on Misplaced Pages by any means. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In regards to ], I examined the article and felt that it met A7, which says an article on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites" can be deleted. I know it also says this should be applied if there is no assertion of notability or significance, but I had reason to believe the subject was a hoax. After further research, I found no evidence that this person exists. I know this is doesn't warrant speedy deletion, but given that you are asking me to restore the article, and since I have found no evidence of a legitimate subject, I don't see any point in restoring it. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As to your follow-up on Clubsoton, I have to agree with you. I know people have been using notability guidelines to make a claim for speedy deletion, but in almost every case, this is used as an explanatory method of explaining why the article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages, and why it is deletable under speedy deletion policy. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Spastic Centre== | |||
| As for the ], I see a possible borderline ] only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register (NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Misplaced Pages. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets ] because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See . <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Question about CSD for WP:BK == | |||
| Please see ] for my reply to your recent comment on this subject. —] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ditto. —] 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re: 1906 film AfD == | |||
| Thank you for your note and deletion correction. We have some (we believe it's just one, but it could be a small handful) enthusiastic Pixar fans who post every rumor they run across as fact without any supporting documentation, or documentation that's flimsy at best (blogs, mainly), while those of us monitoring those pages keep insisting on proper citations. It's a battle over there on occasion. cheers! ] 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I know. We've told them on their talk pages to review WP's style and citation guides. There have been occasional 3-revert violations (no blocking, unfortunately) as they insist on posting and re-posting info without proper credit, etc. There's not much more we can do constructively, so we just turn to trying to rein things in as necessary. (sigh). ] 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing overly recent to look at now. At the time, sure. Here was what was up at the time: ] Next time it comes up... and I'm sure it will with this user/s, we'll post it back up there.] 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk:Tlmallc == | |||
| I had been under the impression that purposely blanking your user talk page was frowned upon. Considering the spammy nature of his edits, I thought a more firm warning was necessary. The template I used was a little ''too'' firm, I guess. :) ] 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your comment== | |||
| Thank you for taking the time to make a on the Rfc/QZ Deletion dispute. I appreciate your calm detailed description of the situation. Take care, ] 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Stone band == | |||
| Stone band was deleted earlier, so i retagged it when it showed up again. Besides, searches on Google and a few other do not turn up much of result. Additionally, I do not really consider a myspace an appropriate claim to notability. Anyway, no issues. There's no need to behave like I was on a mission to specifically get that article deleted. My repeated retagging after the original author removed the speedy tag is because there's a clear procedure when it comes to speedy tags <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki>. If an admin then decides to remove that tag, fine. ] 06:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No offense taken. You're just contributing your bit to trying to keep this place a good one. ] 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: ] == | |||
| Thanks for notifying me of that. I've removed the image now. It's nice to know that a considerate Wikipedian is looking out for people with disabilities. Happy Editing! <span style="font-family:Mistral">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree! Thanks! But...do you know where I can get another good status image? ---Signed By:]<span style="color:#FF0000;">fan71</span> <small>(] — ] — ])</small> 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point. Thanks! ---Signed By:]<span style="color:#FF0000;">fan71</span> <small>(] — ] — ])</small> 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why did you delete my article about the new invention, Quikstix? == | |||
| I would like to know how the article I wrote had "inappropriate" language as per the guidelines? | |||
| It was an encyclopedic article that explained the technical features of a new invention. | |||
| In the same way to a much longer article about Coca-cola, or any other product that has been written by a neutral person. | |||
| Please explain. | |||
| Jason | |||
| {{unsigned2|04:49, 24 May 2007 |Jhando|-5}} | |||
| == Re: Bot compalints == | |||
| No problem at all. Since I have being doing a lot of cleanup work lately which involves tagging hundreds of pointless redirects (99% of which were created by a banned user) the bot has indeed caused me some personal inconvenience (for that other %1). I still think the warnings should be toned down but was probably mistaken in bringing it up over at CSD, you guys obviously know more about speedy deletions than me and perhaps I myself underestimated the degree to which it could be useful (still not totally convinced, but no matter). Thank you again for your civility and patience, I wish some other users would act similarly : ). ] 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''Note that if the deletions really can be described as "houskeeping", then you can use {{tl|db-g6}}, and no bot notices will be sent, because it doesn't check for that template.'' | |||
| Is that right?! I wish I had known this earlier (it also addresses some of my concerns about notifications over very uncontroversial deletions, although most people don't use templates like g6). I prefer not to use the template because it is not specific enough but in the future I will keep this in mind. Thanks again. ] 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, I was really under the impression that it was impossible to add a custom edit summary to templates. I remember trying awhile ago how to figure this out, to no avail. It's not ((db-g6|reason)), right? How would a custom note be added? ] 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ah, well, the majority of my speedy deletion work is already finished - if I had thought of creating a new template I would have done so a few weeks ago. I think it would be good if it was possible for people to just add a sentence on to the end of template message, maybe something like ((db-g6|reason)) - this would help even more for ((a7|reason)). Just a thought. Again, thank you! ] 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Self-Correcting Own Articles == | |||
| WXXS article edited. I did not understand what you meant when you said it was not okay to talk about one's "own" article. Does that mean that the article may be edited by anyone excluding its original creator. Whatever the rules, I decided that I went overboard on the opinionated comments and made my own personal strides to tone the article down. I deleted an entire section, a couple sentences, and words and-or phrases I thought sounded non-neutral. | |||
| Oh, I am very new to Misplaced Pages so to me it feels like I am doing things wrong all the time. Than whenever I try to make things right it feels like I am still wrong. But fear not, I am not a hostile editor. More so, I am just a confused editor with close-to-average understanding of writen language. My articles are fairly simple, were not meant to be essays, and based from my special interest so sometimes I will get a little carried away. | |||
| One thing I did when I didn't know any better was remove a speedy deletion flag tag from an article that I was the author of and proceeded to edit the article. Than about 30 minutes later I skimmed a passage that said that all people '''other than''' the article's author may delete this tag. NOW I think I see what you meant when you wrote, "it is bad form to speak of article". When I first read that comment, it shocked me and I did not understand it right away. I just got embarrassed and felt like I was being "yelled at". | |||
| I never really learned how to communicate with other Misplaced Pages users. I am not very computer savvy. I don't even know how to use Instant Messimer (IM). But I did take all your comments in stride and made my own golden rule in my own words: "Avoid using words that sound opinionated." I did away with terms such as "loosely-formatted", "broad-appeal", "extensive", as such because I do feel that those are not the best words to include in a ''neutral'' article. | |||
| I am actually crossing my fingers that you don't get mad at me and am hoping that by pure chance hopefully I have done something right. I know that's a long shot but hopefully I am on target now. If you are not still mad with me, please me some pointers to follow in the future when writing articles. If you were not "mad", just know that I interpreted anger. Again, a communication break-up. Anyhow, I hope you are satisfied with my changes. | |||
| Thank You For Your Time. | |||
| {{Unsigned2|19:40, 25 May 2007| 24.218.183.113|-5}} | |||
| == ChocOneill == | |||
| Hi, I have no idea why the name of my company came up here while doing an internet search, but i was a bit astonished to see two enteries on this site - one for advertising. can you pls explain this to me. i make chocolates, and i understand that this web here is an encyclopedia? | |||
| my email is <removed> i am giving it to you as i doubt i will be able to find my way back here again. | |||
| Thank you | |||
| Jamie | |||
| :Replied via email ] ] 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Tilting @ windmills? == | |||
| Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on ] as a stub that I was about to tag for ]: | |||
| * {{la|Stitch 'n Bitch}} | |||
| * {{la|Debbie Stoller}} | |||
| * {{la|Bust (magazine)}} | |||
| Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two. | |||
| As you know, I've got a "thang" about ], especially when I see ''absolutely no ] whatsoever'', just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my '']'' in the ] arising from ] (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are ''legacy'' articles, created before we became quite so '']'' about ], ''i.e.'', requiring multiple ] ]s. | |||
| I mean, I can hear the arguments already: | |||
| # ''Bust (magazine)'' has been published since 1993, so it is '''notable''', regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources | |||
| # Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also '''notable''', regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources | |||
| # "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also '''notable''', regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources | |||
| So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —] 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It is up to you whether you want to propose deleting these or not. But, it seems to me that if it is indeed true that "Many famous and influential women have appeared on the cover , including Björk, Cher , Sandra Oh, and Gwen Stefani." that alone would make it notable -- sales figures are also relevant. I suspect that additional sources could well be found, and you migh to better to find and insert them than to propose deletion. ] looks sourced enough to prevert deeltion on those grounds as it stands. As for ] I'll bet additional sources could be found, a well-selling author and editor of a significant professional magazine is surely notable. Certianly '''none''' of these is a valid A7 -- note that lack of sources is never enough reason for an A7 -- and I think i eould vote "Keep" on each in an AfD. Any statement in an article that, ''if sourced'' would show notablility is enough to prevent an A7, whether the sources have been inserted or not. ] ] 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Speedy was no longer an option for ''beau coup'' reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered it on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) —] 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mitchell Oldschool Danger Bennett Mallory III == | |||
| Apologies - was going to flag it with db-nonsense, as checked the links cited none of which transpired to be genuine, then realised from the user talk page of the contributing editor that there had been a previous incarnation. Link is : ]. Hope this helps. ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your message. Given the nature of the content, will flag it with <nowiki>{{hoax}}</nowiki> and leave it at that. ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Apologies, but I've looked into this a little more, so am not sure about leaving it with <nowiki>{{hoax}}</nowiki>. The template for db-repost states that speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for subsequent re-deletion under the speedy deletion criteria, but doesn't say that they aren't eligible per se. My thinking is that it would lead to a somewhat strange situation where a new post created an article of patent nonsense. If this was subsequently flagged with db-nonsense, and deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, what would be the position if someone then re-created the article with exactly the same content? Your position appears to be that if someone, as I did in this instance, flags it with db-repost, it cannot be speedily deleted, and instead should be left to go through the slower mechanism of, say, hoax or WP:music - that seems silly to me, as it seems to give an extended lifespan to the second incarnation of the same article, even if the first article was patent nonsense...or am I grabbing the wrong end of the stick and shaking firmly? ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough - thanks for discussing it with me. ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, | |||
| ]<sup>(])</sup> 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you for your message on my talk page - I've read ] in detail, and note with interest that it is considerably less wide-ranging than first thought. I'll take its contents into account when new-page patrolling in the future. ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| How best should this page be flagged, in your view? ]. Thanks ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I tagged this one with {{tl|db|empty}} on the ground that the question could not form a proper part of any article, and if it were edited out nothing would be left. Then i left the creator a note sugfgesting that the ] or ] would be good places to ask the question. ] ] 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wyatt McIntyre == | |||
| Yes, I'll take care of this shortly. ] 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mountain Vista Governors School == | |||
| Hello! | |||
| You closed this AfD and the result was delete. It appears a redirect was created for this page. If you follow the original link ] you can see this. Any way the redirect can be deleted as well? --] <sup>]·]</sup> 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| == {{tl|db-repost}} == | |||
| Thanks for the message about the amendments to the template. I do think they clarify things to an extent, but a part of me wonders whether or not there could be further clarification. It's something I'm going to be giving a bit of thought to (as a new pages patroller) over the weekend, so thanks for the heads-up. ] <sup>(], ]</sup> 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| 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. -''']''' (]) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've reported him at the 3RR noticeboard so hopefully this nonsense will stop sometime soon. -''']''' (]) 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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 ] or ] 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. ] 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Time Stamp Problems == | |||
| Hello again. I have a problem with my time stamp on my userpage ({{time}}). 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:]<span style="color:#FF0000;">fan71</span> <small>(] — ] — ])</small> 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==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? ] 01:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :I was '''re'''adding 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 ... ] ... that would be the key page I suppose ... thank you ... | |||
| : ] I did not think was an option .... I didn't think it was an extreme case ... maybe it was ... | |||
| : I will look to ] get eyes on a things ... ''thank you again'' ... ] 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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.{{unsigned2|16:31, 4 June 2007| Coolshamas 01|-5}} | |||
| == Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg == | |||
| As so ordered by DRV, ] is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at ]. Regards, <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Unreferenced == | |||
| You recently made some changes to {{tl|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. ] (]) 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==COI Templates.== | |||
| Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the ] 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? --] 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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! {{unsigned2|10:33, 8 June 2007 |Coolshamas 01 |-5}} | |||
| == 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 {{unsigned2|10:33, 8 June 2007 |Coolshamas 01|-5}} | |||
| ==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. ] 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Provost Sergeant Tim Weston == | |||
| Hi, you prodded the article ] with the justification: "minor fictional character, stub written in in-universe style, no references or sources cited, see ]". 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. ] 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Article Guidlines == | |||
| Hi thanks for pointing that out and apologies for your effort.{{unsigned2|11:06, 11 June 2007 |Dopste |-5}} | |||
| == Request for comments == | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... 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 ] 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! —{{User|72.75.70.147}} 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help? == | |||
| <s>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 ] 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 ] 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. --] <sup>]·]</sup> 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :Found out where to request this --] <sup>]·]</sup> 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==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 ] in the past about his dislike of templates and their placement on articles. We had a discussion after he moved the <nowiki>{{plot}}</nowiki> 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 . I posted to his talk page 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 ], but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't irk me. Any advice you could give would be great. Take care, <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— ]</font>]</span> 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comment on ] == | |||
| I reverted the addition of your comment, because you also altered ]'s comment in the process. Feel free to re-add your comment without the edit to Tony's own post. -- ] 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Finkelstein DRV == | |||
| Thanks for calling my attention to this. More to the point, thanks for taking the time to start it. ]<small> ] ]</small> 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == No speedy deletion for ] == | |||
| Didn't realize that the article had to be explicitly ''about'' the band in question to merit a db-band. Sorry about that! --] <small>(] ])</small> 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem it is a rather technical point, and perhaps this rule should be changed. ] ] 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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 ], 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?)]]] 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your comments back at my talk page. | |||
| :::Different DOB as stated on each article.]]] 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Sorry, I am a bit new at this, so I guess I kind of messed up. Thanks for the heads up. --- ] 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 ] but, since I don't agree, I decided to ] 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 ]. 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 as one example that is). 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 ( and to take just a couple of examples) that have pages for their individual elections. While I agree with the authors of ] 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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages and are entirely in keeping with ]. 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 Misplaced Pages that have been seemlessly incorporated into their surroundings and that haven't caused Misplaced Pages to groan under the weight: , , , 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 Misplaced Pages (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 ] (although there are plenty of well-established articles that I'm aware of in other fields that rely exclusively on local media - ]'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 Misplaced Pages (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 ]). 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 Misplaced Pages - 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.] 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 ] 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.] 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: script bug report == | |||
| Fixed, thanks. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| == CSD AutoReason == | |||
| I was informed earlier today about . 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, <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| == Tagging of Template:Infobox Football All-Ireland 2 == | |||
| I did not place the tag on either template. Please look again carefully. <font face="verdana">]<small> ]]]</small></font> 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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.] 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.] 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are existing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages population at large. I'll try to think of a few more neutral places to post this.] 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. --] 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : <small>(replied to at ] --])</small> | |||
| ==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 ] shows. Mmmmmmmm -- no. --] | ] 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. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==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. ] 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==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." --] | ] 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:47, 21 June 2007
Intro
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.
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello DESiegel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Tools
Special watches
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 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
A note about User:205.210.232.62
When I make an edit without having been logged in (often because my log-in cookie has expired and I was not aware of it) I often seem to be editing from the IP 205.210.232.62. Most if not all of the edits from this IP seem to be mine. However, I am not sure that all such edits are mine, or that they always will be, and i am sure that all edits I have made not-logged-in are not credited to this IP. If you see an edit on the above IP, please feel free to ask if it is in fact my edit. DES 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Block of User:BlueRibbon
I left a comment directed at you there on the pedophilia section. It may come off as harsh: that was not the intent, my apologies if it did. ⇒ SWATJester 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully my comments did not come off as offensive or overly harsh. My point was that irregardless of whether BC was correct in action or not, you seemed a little too passionate about the subject to be unblocking. Someone else should be doing it. Just my opinion, it makes no difference. Fred Bauder is taking action on it for ArbCom now so the substantive matter of the pedophilia is at least going through review. ⇒ [[User_talk:Swatjester|SWATJest
Misplaced Pages: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)