Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 3 April 2010

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Bikers Bell

(talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) In 2 reliable sources: Gremlin Bell Schmidt, 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guardian Bell searches Schmidt, 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Commercial credit reporting

An article that you have been involved in editing, Commercial credit reporting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commercial credit reporting. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

colonel, without any prejudice to what the community may decide, the move you made to Epistemology of religion is not really appropriate during an AfD where this is one of the questions at issue--I think it would count as a major move. I've reverted it. Please don't take it as a reflection or as the expression of my own opinion--I merely think the move would have just further confused an already confusing discussion. By all means continue to discuss the correct title at the AfD, or, if the article is kept under whatever title, afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of good faith efforts to improve the article seems improper, especially when you have opined for deletion. I do not consider the move a major one as the essential nature of the topic is unchanged. The main point is for us to focus upon the potential of topic rather than the minor details of the term epistemics and the naive status of the original author. Editors in the discussion already seem quite confused as they seem to be judging a book by its cover. Changing the title to conform to the usage of most sources still seems a sensible move and I shall continue to work upon the article with this in mind - see the rewrite of the lead which resulted in an edit conflict. I shall retire for now as it is unsatisfactory working upon an article when edit conflicts result. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: why not simply start the new article at the new title? Much as I've been tempted to do so, I;'ve never radically changed a title in the middle of an AfD unless it was blindingly obvious to everyone, or purely technical . I'm sad to see this quarrel with someone whom I agree so much 99% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That would be a content fork and they are usually deprecated for the good reason that they scatter our efforts rather than concentrating them. And if I were to take ideas from the first article, that might also be plagiarism. If I were to credit the original author as a source, then we have licence issues for which it seems simplest to keep the original edit history. And, most importantly, building upon the work of the original author shows some respect and courtesy for it and him. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader, save the...

Why have you done this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It did not seem to be a constructive edit. And so to bed; more anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now, hope you don't mind. I removed unsourced statements and replaced all the external links with a single link to DMOZ - as is recommended in policy, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what it is you object to! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• My objection was to the suppression of information about the UK body but this will keep. I shall attend to it later in my copious free time ... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, Colonel Warden, there is a request for amendement on an arbitration case that you have expressed interest in at some point. If you are no longer interested, sorry for disturbing you.Likebox (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Spikor

User:Colonel Warden/Spikor. Cheers, Black Kite 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of a book by Rawles

Colonel: You may recall an AfD discussion last year for James Wesley Rawles. (The result was keep.) Well, now a wiki article on one of his books has been AfDed. Your sage comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Survive_the_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It Trasel (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Colonel. Having just come across Loving You Has Made Me Bananas, and then realising that you have been submitting articles since you can't have been more than a subaltern, I was surprised to see you weren't already an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Buzz Cut

Hi. I missed the bit where you explained why you reverted my edits. I thought that I explained fairly well in my edit summary why I had made them. I'm confused as to why you saw fit to undo them. Thanks. danno 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the matter, please start discussion at the article's talk page so that other editors may participate. See WP:CYCLE for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (3rd nomination)

Hi Colonel Warden. I added that one source only after TPH had made the AfD nomination. Paul Erik 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well done. I had a quick look myself and it didn't seem an easy type of source to hunt for. How did you find it? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm having most success with a search strategy of TV "show within a show" but there is a lot of crap to wade through. Searching for "fictional TV show" or for ("TV" or "television") + "metafiction" wasn't getting me very far. Paul Erik 15:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Corruption in Ghana

Removing the tags does not make the issues go away. When you have addressed the concerns - that is rewritten the entire article so that it no longer reads like the dissertation it is, and have put in inline cites, and chased down the sources to establish that this is not original research, then the tags may be removed. SilkTork * 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the matter, please start discussion at the article's talk page so that other editors may participate. See WP:CYCLE for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Watson

You found the draft. Keep on editing it! You can do a good job! Ipromise (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of bow tie wearers

Your interest was expressed a long time ago, but are you still inclined to help getting this list featured? There doesn't seem to be a "good list" option.--~TPW 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the 2nd and 11th incarnations of Dr. Who to the list. Nice addition!

I enjoy the image you added, but I was dismayed to notice that it is a copyrighted image. Although there is justification for using it in the article about that particular Doctor, I don't believe that we can justify using it in List of bow tie wearers. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did not add an image; I added a link to a file which was stored elsewhere by some other editor. Please see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. in which it was ruled that hyperlinks do not infringe copyright. If the image stored in the file currently seems improper, then you should please make representations at that location as I currently have no better image with which to replace it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a compelling argument in light of that court decision, but it's probably a good idea to confirm that the WMF powers-that-be concur with your interpretation of its application to Misplaced Pages. I will look around for an appropriate noticeboard to ask about it. If we continue the discussion, however, I recommend we move it to the article's talk to reduce confusion.--~TPW 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Fair use review doesn't appear to be the appropriate venue to ask about this particular image usage - they only deal with whether the media belong on the site or not. (However, the page notes that "uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Misplaced Pages policy on non-free content.") I asked Daniel Case if he has an opinion, since he's done a considerable amount of image work.--~TPW 12:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The image file needs to have a separate fair-use rationale for each page on which it is used. Use on the page about a TV or cartoon character is typically justified by the need to identify the character visually and the lack of free images. That type of rationale does not apply to this list. I'm going to remove the image. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Case's opinion

The Perfect 10 opinion has no relevance to our fair-use policy, which is considerably more restrictive than US law. At least not without an explicit change reflecting that, and I get the feeling that if we felt thumbnails of an image elsewhere were a permissible use under that policy, we'd have changed it in that direction a long time ago since it's hardly a new case.

Images must have a separate fair-use rationale if they are used in more than one article (And believe me, it's very hard to justify two uses). There are no exceptions.

I think the solution here is for CW to use {{external media}} if he thinks the image of the Eleventh Doctor is relevant to this article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Hi Colonel Warden ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against, and your support is needed. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Aquarium Therapy

I'm curious as to what you thought was wrong with the st. petersburg times reference--I thought it nicely established that the phrase has been in use for a while. Nuujinn (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Colonel Warden, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Colonel Warden. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please check out: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vincent Vega. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. One, Two, Three. Please note that the restoration of this redirect is both per the previous AfD and per consensus at Wikiproject Films. The talk page is this way, so please cease edit warring. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Credo Reference

As you are keen on sourcing, you might find this offer useful. - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Intro and the Outro

Could you explain how my comment was in any way foul-mouthed? Could you explain how the replacement of a removed PROD with an AfD tag is forum shopping? Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternately, you could apologise. I think when a user makes unqualified and unfounded assertions about someone it's not too much to ask for an explanation or a withdrawal. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

technical terms

Hi. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) you used the terms wp:speedy keep and wp:forum shopping, but neither of them are really appropriate there. (It's not really "forum shopping", because prior discussions had been inconclusive. Afd was a valid step (though i agree with the admin that prodding it was not appropriate). "Speedy keep" has particular circumstances for usage, which were not applicable here). Hence you've confused the issue greatly. Please be careful when using technical terms like those, in the future. Thanks. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion or merger, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course"
2. "bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession"

Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the timeline, of when the talkpage sections were created, and when that new article was created, I hope you'll see what I mean. The original discussion of a possible future split was in December, then in mid-February this new article was created, and then in late-March this discussion about whether a split was really wanted. There was disagreement from 3 editors and agreement from 3 editors (One of whom thought we had been talking about merging the episode lists in). Even the Guy M's incorrect prod, had the rationale "Looking for a larger pool of voters." This was simply a next step, in actually getting anyone to talk about it. And nobody is objecting to the consensus that has obviously formed at the afd.

Your use of the wikipedia-equivalent of fighting words was, I feel, unhelpful to the discussion. You were the editor to introduce the idea of "forum shopping" to the discussion, which nobody had previously accused anyone of. (It led to Mr. CC mistakenly accusing me of forum shopping, when I had nothing to do with starting the prod/afd!) In other words, please don't be so quick to reach the conclusion that 'Drama!' is occurring (or to egg it on, by "calling it out"). Sometimes people really are, honest to god, just having a calm discussion. (Hard as that may be to believe around here, some days...!)

I'm not trying to chastise or get in an argument or anything like that at all; I'm just trying to say something along the lines of: "From my perspective, I think you (metaphorically-speaking) threw gasoline on the candle, right over here." in as friendly a way as possible, in the hope that "other people's perspectives are sometimes useful" kind of thing. mumble mumble :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• AFD is a serious business - the editing equivalent of capital punishment. It should not be used lightly as a way of continuing an existing content discussion. The RFC process is more appropriate for that. Also, please see WP:SAUCE - if it is reasonable to criticise an article and demand that it be deleted then it is reasonable that the nomination should likewise be open to peremptory closure. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• There may just be a teensy weensy bit of a lack of perspective there, CW: if an article is deleted, nobody dies. In fact, nobody even gets locked up or roughed up or handcuffed or even required to attend a hearing.
  Deletion is a similar process to what happens every day of the week in hundreds of editorial offices: text is not published. And you appear not to have noticed that AFD is not a death sentence, it is a process, only one of whose possible outcomes is deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Bill Shankly#Quotations. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's not my religion, but it's a classic one-liner.
  Still, hyperbole doesn't help editors with a difference of opinion reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see analogy which explains the usage. The essential point is that deletion of articles is a last resort, reserved for hopeless or pathological cases. By speedily closing nominations which lack the due diligence described at WP:BEFORE, we make the process run smoother. The option is there for this reason and follows the general principle of this place that all edits are open to challenge. See also The Golden Rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please do take some time to read WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on wikipedia; if you had done so you would not be labelling good faith deletion nominations as "frivolous and vexatious". I did due diligence on the articles I nominated, and out of more than 25 such articles, there are I think only two or three where there is any plausible evidence that I missed any substantial coverage. (That doesn't include the likes of the #72 bus, where you produced a few utterly trivial mentions which are irrelevant to WP:GNG).
  Like Jeni's hysterical accusations of disruption, your bad faith leads you to assume that the subsequent discovery of sources for a small proportion of the routes indicates that no checking was done at all, which is simply wrong. All that happened was that I missed some, and because any of us can miss things, we have a process whereby other editors have time to review the nomination. That's exactly what is happening: the process is working as it is supposed to, with different conclusions being formed on different articles. It's a great pity that you show so little concern either about the actions of editors who have created so many unreferenced under-referenced articles on topics where there is little or no evidence of notability, or about the actions of editors on the bus project whose "notability" completely ignored the community's long-standing criteria at WP:GNG. I see nothing in anything you have written which expresses a hint of criticism either of those who created these articles ignoring WP:RS and WP:V, and instead you chose to proceed directly to character assassination of an editor who has tried to get some of the chaff removed.
  The Golden Rule is an important one, and it would be nice if you were to reflect on it, particularly before leaping once again to your cheap and nasty slur at ANI that that this AFD is some of nationalist attack. You could also consider the possibility that someone who you disagree with is acting sincerely, and has just reached different conclusions to you ... but on what I have seen so far, I'm not holding my breath. You appear to be quite happy to launch straight in to a series of personal attacks rather than discussing the substantive issues, and I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly how you think that the trivial mentions you found of route 72 meet the GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Governance, risk management, and compliance

An article that you have been involved in editing, Governance, risk management, and compliance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governance, risk management, and compliance. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Darkwind (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For your interest

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian soldier WritersCramp (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest of flattery

— Charles Caleb Colton

so many thanks, Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

London Bus Route AfDs

Much as I would love to see these articles kept (I'm the one adding sources to the more marginal routes), your argument of Speedy Keep for disruptive nominations doesn't really stack up. I agree that too many were nominated, for example London Buses route 73, but I also feel that it's the user's right to nominate any article which doesn't show notability at AfD. I appreciate your efforts to rescue the articles, but it would be nice if you made an argument which the closing admin is more likely to accept. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement is more productive than argument. I plan to work further upon the number 74 when I have a free moment. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well deserved barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Colonel Warden, for his hard work in referencing and working on the bus route purge.Okip 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving a barnstar to you, who already commented in a AFD, is now considered "canvassing". Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing What a complete joke, worse this baseless harassment is by an admin. Okip 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)