Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 15 May 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Misplaced Pages "Editathons", where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deleted article in my userspace

Hey. Can I get that that deleted article Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation on my userspace, so that I can further work on it! Uncletomwood (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Article is now User:Uncletomwood/Making_People_Pay:_The_Economic_Sociology_of_Taxation -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore talk page for Little Kids Rock

Please restore talk page for Little Kids Rock per DRV. Thanks! Valoem 16:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spectronic 20 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Precision, Quantitative analysis, Analog and Bandwidth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla - Article

I saw you have Endorse the article "Ayaan Chawla" https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_11, I want to know exactly what you have done Endorse means: declare one's public approval or support of. So have approved this article? Because I see JohnCD had deleted that article. Kindly reply. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@PradeepChowdhury: It means that the consensus endorsed the earlier deletion of the article, and he was the admin who determined that consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Predeep. It's just as Chris said. The deletion review process is that the merits of the deletion are discussed for a week, and then somebody else (who was not involved previously) comes along and summarizes the debate. That was my role here. My "endorse" statement means, "The consensus of the people who debated this is to endorse the original deletion". -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@RoySmith:, please help, JohnCD, have deleted Ayaan Chawla article, I don't know why but he is going against my article but OK then he have added my account in Sockpuppet investigation I didn't understand, if you even see in recent deletion log (which you have endorsed) even everyone has stated problems and then I have written that I'll recreate this Ayaan Chawla Article. Do reply. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Few more requests

Can you restore the talk page for Alberget 4A per DRV and also both the talk and history for this DRV Ellie Ga. Thanks! Valoem 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Hi there, I am curious why you decided to close this AfD after 3 days with the note "clear consensus". There seems to be a divide among the responses instead of the clear consensus that you closed with. Additionally, AfD should be allowed to run for seven days, Misplaced Pages:NotEarly. Please either re-open the discussion or provide a rationale for your closing decision and decision to close early. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It looks to me like the AfD was started on April 18th, which is 8 days ago, so I think we're fine there. As for the consensus, I see 6 people arguing for keep. I saw three people making cogent arguments to delete (and one inappropriate comment, which I discounted). The three people arguing for deletion did indeed make cogent, policy-based arguments, but were still a numerically small enough minority that I felt declaring a keep consensus was the correct thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct I am not sure why I had the date wrong. AfD isn't about votes, the policy based agreements should carry more weight than "keep votes". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know we're not just counting votes. But, as far as policy-based arguments go, that favored the keep side as well. The overall topic is clearly notable, and this article very well sourced. Yes, several people did make reasonable arguments to delete based on WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK, but those are judgement calls and the weight of the arguments went the other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean

Hello, I understand you dispute my assertion of consensus regarding the article DigitalOcean. Per WP:CON, I don't see where my assertion was misguided. Even the original speedy deleter had indicated I was being overly cautious in resubmitting the article, and then visited it to contribute. Personally, I want to move on and seeing this topic returning to my inbox over and over is having a frustrating chilling effect on me as an editor. Can you specify what you need to see, beyond WP:CON, to accept that consensus has been reached? Kind regards, Niels Olson (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Niels. My only issue was that there was a discussion going on to determine consensus, and generally the right thing to do is to wait for that discussion to be over before declaring how it ended. I understand that at times our process can seem overly-bureaucratic. Sometimes things move slower than I would like myself! Just to make sure you understand where we are in the process, I've moved the discussion of this article to AfD (Articles for Deletion). That's the right forum for people to debate the merits of an article. That discussion (which you are welcome to take part in) will (nominally) run for a week. At the end of that time, some other administrator will come along and summarize the discussion and declare an outcome. If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll be happy to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

DRV

Deletion review for Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

List of auteurs

Hi,

Can you userfy List of auteurs plus the associated talk page? Here are some sources , and . Valoem 21:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. See User:Valoem/List of auteurs -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, do you mind if I restore article as is and take it to AfD instead of DRV. Generally I add citations, however I think this was a clear no consensus or keep. All delete arguments were based on WP:SUBJECTIVE were countered with reliable sources. Auteur is a major part of film analyst since 1954. This list has FA potential. Valoem 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not big on process for process's sake, but what has changed about the article to override the consensus of the last AfD? I see you made a few minor edits, but that doesn't seem it would significantly affect consensus. You suggested you had found some additional sources, and the reason you wanted the article userfied was to add them. It seems to me the right thing to do would be to add those sources before restoring. What do I know? I'm just a guy with a mop :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not get a chance to see what condition the article was in and now see plenty of citations. Based on that, the closed was, in my opinion, clearly to no consensus. The argument was based on the fact that reliable sources are subjective which is not a legal argument on Misplaced Pages as all sources regarding art review may be in someways subjective. Original research can be corrected by RS. Valoem 01:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Curb stomping

Also can you userfy the talk page for Curb stomping to User talk:Valoem/Curb stomping article is ready for restore. Valoem 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem 12:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Jews and Communism. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I _Online 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Jews and Communism. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I _Online 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions for you

I see warnings on this page telling you not to remove templates and comments from Articles from Deletion, specifically the article "Jews and Communism." Why did you try to remove the article from Articles from deletion and take the template off? What comments did you remove and why did you remove them? I looked at the edit history of the page and could not see you trying to remove any comments, did you erase things from the edit history also?Smeat75 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The messages from the bots were on 9 May but when you click on "this edit" it goes to something on 13 March. I don't understand why a bot would send a message nearly two months after the occurrence it refers to. The second AfD for "Jews and Communism" opened on 9 May, the day the bot sent the messages. It is all very odd.Smeat75 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. Possibly the bot is confused? I closed the first AfD, and I vaguely remember that the automated closure script didn't delete the template as it should have, so I had to go back and remove it by hand. Hence my edit comment. I also notice the bot left me two messages about the same edit, which further makes me suspect it may have just been confused. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it because the second AfD discussion was set up before the template was placed on the article, because the article was protected. So the discussion was set up at 21:04 and the bots noticed that you were the last editor to remove the template and sent you messages. Then an administrator added the template at 22:04. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)