Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 30 July 2007

John, I noticed that you deleted the "Poseur" page because of some vandalism or whatever reason. I cannot create this page now as it is protected...

A poseur, in the hipster community (and many others, in fact), is someone who purports to encompass the community goals and/or values, but only does so on the surface. This use of the term has previously been on wikipedia, but no more.

It can also be spelled "Poser" but that page is taken entirely by some computer modelling program.

Hope you might be able to help and let me create the "Poseur" page. 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Jpickar JP - 6/11/07

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Deletion

Sir, with all respect I still protest the deletion of the Ceremonial Snips entry on the basis that the judgement: "18:39, 15 July 2007 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ceremonial Snips" (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance)" is wrong. Between the article and the talk page the significance of the band is both 1) the proliferation of ska-metal (where in the article I re-iterate the difference between ska-core and ska-metal that most Ontario publications have. And 2) That they are a cornerstone in the punk music revival in the Niagara region which includes Misplaced Pages approved bands such as Alexisonfire.

Once again - it is also needed to set the record straight on their history from before their new label picked them up. Could you please revisit this decision and if possible recover some of the old article. If not, could I at least ask for a better explanation than 'that popular band that you know, they're insignificant'.

--SamichX 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page request

Hi, I saw that you provide copies of deleted articles. I am interested in seeing the deleted copy of SaGoh 24/7, in the interest of recreating it or merging its content with Anberlin. Could you please userfy me a copy of it? Thanks Chubbles 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Deletion redux

It's tagged for speedy (again?) and I was going to wield the axe, then saw that you had already but restored it. Is there a reason (other than deference to you, which I am happy to grant) to not delete it. I read the post above but that doesn't convince me. I'll defer to you, please advise. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John,

You recently deleted a page that I started and intended to contribute more to. SmartKart.

Other than it being a brief description, how did this page differ from other pages that describe commercial products. I see little difference from the page I created and Glidescope, LMA or Kleenex.

John

• I just listed it at Afd. It seems easier than second-guessing ourselves repeatedly. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

HP7 full protection

I don't understand why you chose to full protect the Harry Potter 7 page. I mean, I understand the reasoning, but I don't understand the action, given the course of debate at WP:ANI and the decision at WP:RFPP. I've started a thread on the talk page about it; would you be interested in discussing? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you went against the consensus achieved in the above links without participating in the discussion. What gives? There's plenty of meaningful edits to be made in the days preceding the release of this book; the rationale that you doubt anything will happen in the next few days seems flimsy. Granted the vandalism is bad, but full protection is pretty onerous for a current event. Besides, if this is anything like past harry potter releases, the vandalism will remain equally noxious and prevalent after the book's release, but surely you wouldn't want the article protected then? Hemidemisemiquaver 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely unaware of any sort of Misplaced Pages policy against spoilers; indeed, every single book article on Misplaced Pages contains spoilers. I am also unaware of any sort of Misplaced Pages policy against spoilers before the release of the book; if there are any, please point them out to me. As-is, it seems you have simply protected the page because you're worried about it being spoiled. If you don't want it spoiled, why are you even reading that page? The book has been leaked online, and there is no policy against leaked information being included in Misplaced Pages articles to the best of my knowledge. Titanium Dragon 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy that information be based on verifiable, reliable sources. I doubt that the leaks satisfy those criteria. The question then becomes whether repeated introduction of unverified spoilers warrants protection. I don't think so. There's lots of unverified information in Misplaced Pages articles. I am inclined to lift the protection but I hesitate to do so until John has had a chance to read the above messages and respond. Keep me posted.

--Richard 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any of the discussions you refer to (and as it happens, I seen no consensus). Common dencency/sense should tell you that Misplaced Pages shouldn't spoil the book. Honestly, it's unlikely that anything that should (i.e. not spoilers) be in the article will occur prior to the 21st. Were this to happen, {{editprotected}} could easily be used. I set the protection to expire at what I thought was a good midpoint in the day (UTC) so no complaints should be had there. -- John Reaves (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Snips (Band) Protection

Thank you for allowing more time to fill out the Ceremonial Snips page. references to news articles, reviews and anything else will be in place as soon as possible to ensure that this article offers the most extensive information available, and if that still doesn't mark it for notability then I'm not sure what would.

Allow me to emphasize my thanks again while inquiring about how long or how much information it would take until people stop sending in speedy deletion request.

Have Fun,

--SamichX 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

smartkart deletion

I am new to Misplaced Pages. I don't understand your action to delete the article that I started and had planned to add to. Would you please respond with your position on this.... Will I have problems if I try again?

Thanks,

John JohnRSeitz 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted on the grounds of being blatant advertising. Presumably, SmartKart is the brand name of an endoscopic cart rather than being a generic name. Yes, you will have problems so long as you are trying to write an article about a specific product which is not notable. If you describe the generic product category (e.g. endoscopic cart) rather than a specific product, you should not have a problem.

--Richard 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice this message. Thanks for the reply Richard. -- John Reaves 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Neutral Deletion

Hi, You deleted a page at "conflict neutral" citing copyright violation from blood-diamond.com There is no violation of copyright in this case because conflict neutral is under the umbrella organisation of Blood Diamond Ltd as is blood-diamond.co.uk. They are the same company so there can be no copyright issues (I run both).

Please reinstate this. If you wish for a copyright waiver to be given this is fine.

Msinternet 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

HELLO??? Anybody there? Msinternet 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one. The text needs to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License to be used on Misplaced Pages. -- John Reaves 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FF RfM

John, why the wheel warring? I'm restoring the deleted edits so I can give diffs that people are asking for. The case was rejected, and I need to link to that rejection, but you keep deleting it without discussion. Can you explain? SlimVirgin 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, John. There is nothing in those edits that requires them to be deleted, never mind oversighted. Daniel is an admin and they are his edits; he could remove them himself if he wanted to. They are simply him rejecting the case. Also, why do you undo my undeletion just because Armedblowfish who no longer edits Misplaced Pages and is not an admin, asked you to? Please undelete this material, because I need to link to it for a discussion on AN/I. Wheel-warring over something like this at the request of a third party is unacceptable. SlimVirgin 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows 3RR issue?

Isn't that what we're up against with the table issue in the Deathly Hallows article? Claudia 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• A serious consideration for you as well, was my point in posting here. Claudia 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tranche (software)

Hi John. I just wanted to discuss your deletion of this page, since I was about to close it as a keep (I know nothing of the subject itself, I'm just looking at the discussion). As far as I can see, the only voice for delete was the nominator of the article, and despite the vote canvassing that might have taken place, two legitimate editors did say to keep. Did you see something I didn't? CitiCat 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the result. What was behind your decision? Owen× ☎ 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for deletion were more compelling than the keep comments. -- John Reaves 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit arbitrary. Are you willing to discuss this, or should we just go straight to WP:DRV? Owen× ☎ 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion. -- John Reaves 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the AfD, here's what I see: Roger, the nominator, brings up several valid observations about notability, which I acknowledged there. Another editor, not as experienced as Roger or me perhaps, makes a valid point regarding the level of sources provided. Then I add my opinion there, again with a solid basis on the amount of references provided.

Now, having closed hundreds of AfDs myself, I realize that AfD is not a vote, but a reflection of community consensus. Looking at the AfD you closed, with a total of 3 opinions--2 of which were to keep it--one can only wonder how your decision reflects community consensus. Even if you applied your own opinion to this AfD, which as the closing admin you shouldn't, it's still a "no-consensus" situation, at best. Unless you consider your own opinion to have far more weight than anyone else's on this AfD. I know Roger doesn't consider his own opinion any more valid than mine, and the fact that another admin, User:Citicat, was as surprised by the result as I was also hints to the conclusion that this AfD was closed improperly.

As a compromise, I'd suggest re-opening the AfD for 5 more days, or until a clear consensus builds up. Owen× ☎ 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When closing an AFD, one must also consider the validity and strength of the arguments in relation to relevant policy. But whatever, I'm fine with reopening...in fact, I'll do so in a moment. -- John Reaves 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Since you protected the page because of the constent reverts,I suggest that you tell the two parties involved to discuss their issues in the articles talk page and that you as the administrator who protected the page mediate and try to determine who is right. Tony the Marine 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I know what the problem is. Since all Puerto Ricans are American citizens, one user considers that placing "Puerto Rican, American" is rebundant and that by just stating that the person is Puerto Rican it is understood (and explained in the talk page) that he is also an American citizen as a fact. You know how it is. I think that you can unprotect and if they continue with the reverts then invite them to the talk page to discuss the issue and if you feel the need place the page under a semi-protect after notifing them. What do you think? Tony the Marine 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

JosephASpadaro, I have protected this page from editing due to repeated abuse of the helpme template, and personal attacks upon the helpers. This protection will expire, and once it does, do not continue to abuse the template. If it does continue, lengthier protection or possibly blocking may occur. Please review our policies on civility and no personal attacks. ⇒ SWATJester 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Joeseph, your talk page is unprotected and you may continue to user the helpme template in the same manner you have using it. You might consider using this (or go to java.freenode.net and to channel #wikipedia-en-help) for a real-time direct chat about your questions. Do try to be more civil when interacting with other users. Continuous incivility can lead to a block. -- John Reaves (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat belated ... but, nonetheless, thank you for your intervention in this matter. I appreciate that. (JosephASpadaro 19:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

My erroneous post to another user's talk page

Thanks for advising him how to do follow-up. I have already apologized to him. --Orange Mike 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee, Alabama

I think someone is adding spamish content to Cherokee, Alabama, and he's started to undo my reverts. Before risking 3RRs on either side, I'd like to check to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Can you check? -WarthogDemon 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)