Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 28 August 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents I occasionally do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning.

If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

422nd Military Police Company

Could you find sources for this article? I tried looking for some and couldn't find any, even the article creator couldn't find any, and gave me a link with images of the police company. That is why I placed it for proposed deletion. Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1 minute with Google News yields a hit. May not be a notable organization, but I'd prefer AfD to make that call, since it clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It fails WP:ORG, that is an acceptable proposed deletion.....Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I'm not an expert on the notability of military units, but I know we have a bunch of articles on such units. I won't vote to keep it in an AfD, I just didn't believe it appropriate to delete via PROD, when we have a very large MILHIST Wikiproject that might be a better judge of its notability. If the AfD comes up "no consensus" due to a resounding lack of interest, come back here and I'll delete it. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, including yours, I put up a new section, Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Added something that I hope contributes to the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Jclemens

Hello Jclemens, always good to see you around, I respect your hard work and dedication.

Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:

• Misplaced Pages:ARSM#All_Members

Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it! Ikip (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I have a philosophical difference of opinion on ARS "membership"--I prefer to view ARS as something that every Wikipedian can and should participate in, much like 3O. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being one of the few administrators that actually follows the proposed deletion guidelines and makes an independent judgment on the article before deleting it, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you for taking the extra time to examine what you are deleting. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. According to Popups, you are at exactly 20000 edits all time, as of this post. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks, I'm not perfect, but you calling me on goofs motivates me to be careful! Yeah, I'm WAY over 20k edits counting deleted things... Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

Man, that was painful to split. On the other hand, do you think the child article would pass GA? If so, could you do a quick review if/when the parent article is passed? JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will. Go ahead and nominate it right away, and I'll handle it next. Sorry for the pain, but you're likely going to get 2 GA's out of it--without "gaming" the system in any way. Find another 1-2 relevant articles to promote to GA, and you should have a Good Topic, too! Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You got it. My mission is to get Trans-Alaska Pipeline System up to FA, so any comments in that direction would be helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been expanded. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page(s) for the Sandal page

Hi Jclemens, the Sandal (footwear) page was moved to Sandal, but Talk:Sandal (footwear) was left behind, while the Talk:Sandal was left as a redirect to Talk:Sandal (disambiguation). obviously, a mess. I removed the redirect from Talk: Sandal, and all that's left is a message from the RMbot. Do you think you could switch Talk:Sandal (footwear) to Talk:Sandal?
— Ω (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that--I swear I told it to move talk pages, too.... at any rate, done now. Feel free to drop me another note if there's anything else wrong. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It probably wasn't your fault, since the REDIRECT text was not the only text on the page. Anyway, it's all sorted out now, so no big deal.
— Ω (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow

You're fast. Thanks. I found a reasonable place for the information MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

University High School of Science and Engineering

Common Outcomes says that schools are normally found to be notable - this does not make them immune to other guidelines and policies or protect them from being deleted if, say, they're a seething mass of spam. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Feel free to stubbify the article in the process of taking the spam out. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mangroomer

Hi, I'm wondering why you declined the G11 speedy on this? G11 reads "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" and I believe this article squarely fit the bill. Removing the promotional material would leave a stub without any assertion of notability, which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Is there something I'm missing here? ThemFromSpace 06:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It asserts multiple reliable sources, and it doesn't tell you where to go out and buy one. To some extent, any description of a product includes its features, the problems it is designed to solve, etc. Would an encyclopedia never cover such a product? I don't see it, hence declining G11. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I still disagree with you on the reading of the guideline, but I understand your position. I prodded the article, lets see how that goes. ThemFromSpace 06:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm not going to contest the prod, I just didn't think it was sufficiently unambiguous for speedy. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

KGB (USSR) page

Hello again Jclemens, I've got one other issue to bring to your attention. There's not really any great urgency to this, but the consensus at Talk:KGB (USSR)#Requested move seems to be overwhelmingly clear that the page moves made which created the current problem were tendentious, and that the page needs to be returned to KGB. When you get a moment, could you straighten that out? Thanks!
— Ω (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

The Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

Thanks! I can never figure out which to use, affect or effect. Ikip (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's 4, 2 nouns and 2 verbs:

• To affect something is to influence it ("The bloodstain affected her reaction to the tapestry")
• To have an effect on something is to change it (note: passive voice) ("special effects")
• To effect something is to accomplish a change. ("He effected his escape by means of the rope ladder...")
• An affect is a displayed emotional response ("flat affect")

What's most confusing is that if you change from a verb to a noun, you often have to change from a to e or vice versa. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I re added the speedy deletion template at Pangu_utility because the person who removed it is the same person as the creator of the article. --Rockstone (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ibuypower

Why was the page deleted? I felt like the last iteration I created made it neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it existed solely to promote sales, as a textbook G11? The fact that it had been deleted multiple times before for similar reasons factored into my decision. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing the page so that it offers a more neutral view, yet it gets speedily deleted. Is there any way I can show you the draft so that you cuold point out the issues with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You can try constructing it in userspace (e.g., User:Lolpeacehomie/Sandbox), but you don't answer the fundamental objection--that your attempt to create a page is a WP:COI designed to drive sales. If there was no COI, would such an article be created? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't velocity micro's wikipedia page be more of a COI? i've seen their page and they list all of their awards claiming that their systems are high end. I would agree that some of the content is designed to drive sales but i've changd it significantly. I am trying to model it after alienware's wiki as I believe they offer a good neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolpeacehomie (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Push Play

Earlier today, you speedily deleted Push Play per CSD:A7. Since then, someone recreated it...there are a couple of sources, but nothing particularly reliable. This band will probably be notable at some point, but I don't think they are yet, so you might want to take another look and speedily delete again if you're around. MirrorLockup (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I love the diagram at the top of your user page. MirrorLockup (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I AfD'ed it so we'll have some finality one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An AFD is the right thing to do, thank you JClemens! Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear Jclemens, thank you for your effort on Misplaced Pages.

Earlier, the page for Aston Lloyd was deleted. It was not created to drive sales and may I ask if you have any insight as in what should be avoided in the text for our page to continue to exist on Misplaced Pages? We tried to follow what Obelisk International has done. Many thanks for your response in advance. --Fredagordon (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, here's how I handle speedy deletions in ~98% of cases, including this one:

• Some other editor flags an article as a candidate for speedy deletion
• I evaluate that article against the specific criteria. If it does, it is deleted. If it does not, I remove the deletion tag. In rare cases, the listed reason does not apply, but another deletion reason clearly applies--in those cases, I may delete an article for a different reason than was originally specified.

But what I don't do is go looking for existing articles that are promotional, ads, hoaxes, non-notable bands, etc. That's a different function, and one that I don't do anymore. Thus, I'm neither going to keep your article because other stuff exists , nor go looking for similar articles that meet similar criteria for deletion.

What I CAN do is move copies of deleted articles into userspace, where they can be modified and improved, and give some advice on what it would take to modify the article such that it would not meet that deletion criteria in the future. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks we will modify it. --Fredagordon (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exinda Deletion and Unprotection Request

Dear Jclemens,

Early the page for exinda -- http://en.wikipedia.org/Exinda -- was speedily deleted even though I had requested time to correct the copyright issues which were flagged by the Misplaced Pages bot and to submit letters of copyright release from Exinda's senior management. Now the page has been protected because it has repeatedly been deleted. My intention is to provide a factual, non-promotional account of a company and I have again revised the proposed page content to ensure this. I must say it is frustrating to have one's listing immediately flagged for deletion literally in the midst of creating it and to have it deleted entirely only one day later. May I request that you unprotect the page so that we can recreate? I'd also welcome any advice on how to ensure that the listing is not reflagged. I am a new Misplaced Pages user/creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hass2009 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's, for completeness' sake, a link to all the previous advice handed out to Exinda: User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 16#Exinda listing. I believe every possible instruction and advice in order to solve the copyright problems has already been furnished, many times. MLauba (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear MLauba (and Jclemens), I have reviewed the instructions at the links below, some of which pertain to a previous entry that I had no involvement in, but just to clarify, Exinda is prepared to provide permission to share the copyrighted material in question, however in the previous two attempts, Misplaced Pages deleted the entry before Exinda could review the entry and provide their emails of consent. How can they send you an email consent (with a link to the Misplaced Pages page and materials) when the page is deleted? I'm sorry, but I'm confused: I assumed I could post the proposed entry, have Exinda review and then consent? I also made changes to paraphrase content in my own words yesterday, and requested a standby or holdon on deletion, but the entry was still deleted... Respectfully, Hass2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

I believe the difficulty stems from the fact that in order to protect Misplaced Pages against possible claims of copyright infringment, we are bound to remove copied content from display upon being made aware of it. As long as your organization's processes (based on previous exchanges I believe you to be an employee of Exinda, if I'm mistaken please accept my apologies) require a review of the material before granting permission, we are in a situation which may be difficult to unlock.

Moving forward, I suggest two possible courses of action: Since the material which was causing issues so far is taken directly from Exinda's corporate website, Exinda can provide permission to use this content per WP:PERMISSION without seeing the wikipedia result. Once this is received by WP:OTRS, the page's last deleted version will be reinstated and freed up for editing.

Alternatively, you could simply rewrite an article from scratch, without copy / pasting from the corporate website, in your user space (for instance at User:Hass2009/Exinda) and then request the Exinda page to be unprotected at Deletion Review.

If you chose to take the latter route, please be aware that copy/pasted material in user space is subject to the same restriction as in article space. The best way would be to simply forget that copy / paste exists in the first place :).

Apologies if this has become a bit of an athletic race for you. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to respond either here or on my talk page. MLauba (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MLauba is correct. Once there is either a Deletion Review decision to allow recreation OR any admin evaluates a userspace article and finds it to be compliant with copyright law, the protection can be removed. No one is trying to make your life difficult, just make sure Misplaced Pages scrupulously respects every copyright holder's right to their own work; respect for copyright law is part of what makes Misplaced Pages possible. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MLauba, that makes the process MUCH more clear! I really appreciate it. All best, User:Hass2009/Exinda —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

I took the liberty to go ahead and create a stub in your user space above to get you started. For discussing the latter, I suggest moving over to my own talk page and letting J. Clemens retain control of his talk page :) MLauba (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dada Gujar

I had created a page on Dada Gujar which was deleted stating G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://revegujars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35 I actually wanted to let you know that the article on the forum is a citation of award received by Dr. Dada Gujar and has no copyrights. I am his grandson and can vouch for the same. Please give this a second look and let me know in case you need any clarifications. Please undo the deletion of the article. (130.245.204.22 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Feel free to recreate it, making clear that the citation material is quoted. While you may think that the award citation has no copyright, under U.S. law even the wording of such an award may be copyrighted. Make sure you quote from it appropriately, with references, while making most of the article unique, and things should be fine. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV

A good number of additional sources are posted over at WP:RSN as background to the Press TV matter. I havent seen you comment there over the past few days and you might want to see some of this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You should have put that in on Taitz' talk page. Full protection is up soon, but it's clear there's plenty of RSing for the theory, appropriately worded and attributed. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

About Entrewebneur

We would like to know why the word was deleted. If we used your criterium "hopeless neologism" as a sole standard for deletion, then most of what appears in the net could be considered a disposable neologism. Words such as Webinar or Misplaced Pages should be put out of comission. It could even be hard to justify the existence of sites like NetLingo. Language communities first use the language for their particular needs and just then they produce a set of rules to explain what that particular use of the language is about. Looking fooward to hearing from you gbsurfever@gmail.com

Re: Orly Taitz

Hello. I notice that you have nominated Orly Taitz as a Good Article. However, looking at the quick-fail criteria, the article does not appear to be stable (due to edit wars) and appears to have a number of other problems. Is there any reason why you think this article should not be failed? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stability is not as bad as the recent full protection would make it out to be. I'd recommend simply leaving it, if that's the only quickfail concern, until it's been sufficiently stable for a while. What other concerns do you have? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the page history the article has never been "stable", including one deletion, one deletion review, and two further AfD's. The talk page shows that since you have nominated the article, there continues to be serious questions about the content, sources and neutrality. Quite frankly, it appears that the article fails at least four of the five quick-fail criteria. Looking at the article, I can't help but notice how attempts to address neutrality have been couched in terms of "media reaction" to Taitz as a person, rather than the analysis and reaction to her ideas, and I find this deliberate skewing of NPOV highly deceptive. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's your right to quick fail it if you want, but I'd rather have a reviewer who's interested in actually helping to develop the article to reach GA--your statement above doesn't seem to express that sort of an approach. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Electoral jew2

WHY IS MY ARTICLE AND ACCOUNT DELETED? WHO ARE YOU?! PLEASE RESPOND!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.205 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done account blocked for vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)