Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:47, 12 May 2008

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 16‎#Patrick A. Reid

• I modified my statement on Patrick A. Reid at DelRev based on your comment--thought you'd like to know. DGG (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leeuwarden (municipality)

I'm sorry that was rather silly of me, but when I say more to come I mean it will come. My intentions are to make a distinction between Leeuwarden (city) and Leeuwarden (municipality). I recently created Leeuwarden (disambiguation) to clear things up. I appreciate your concern but I assure it will soon be decent article. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to tell whether a "I'll be back to work on this" note on a page really does mean someone will be back to work on it. I've found such notes on pages that were months old. In the meantime, the bluelinked page title keeps anyone else from noticing that we don't have an article there and writing one. There's no need to reserve a page name in advance. —Cryptic 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kersal edits

Thanks for reverting the edit made by Kersalflats to the Kersal page as I've done a lot of work on it. I couldn't quite work out what he'd done when I checked the history, did he remove the whole history section? He doesn't seem to understand that once you put something on wikipedia it's in the public domain and no longer your property. Anyway, to avoid an edit war I've edited out the stuff that was copied from his page - which was copied on by someone else and mostly POV stuff which I wouldn't have used myself. I've just left in the stuff that was referenced subsequently. I might add that some of his wording was a straight lift from other websites anyway so I don't know why he should be so upset! I'd be grateful if you would reply on my talk page. Richerman (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/U

A page to which you have significant contributions, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV missed?

You asked in your DRV edit summaries about John B. if you missed anything in listing prior discussion. We had this lovely RFAR suggestion, but I don't think it is worth posting in the DRV. GRBerry 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting BetacommandBot flagging an image as disputed fair use.

Regarding this edit in which you revert BetacommandBot, which added a challenge to the fair use of the image: I appreciate the intent. It annoys the hell out of me as well. But that image was not quite up to the letter of the rules. The Bot probably won't try again, but the image would be subject to any wikilawyer who wandered by. So while the Bot pisses me off, it's best to just fix whatever fiddly complaint it has at the moment. I'd be far more pissed if some administrator swooped in and deleted it without the warning BetacommandBot provides. I've fixed Image:The Meteor, the Stone and a Long Glass of Sherbet.png so we should be set. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It linked to a former title of the page which still redirects to it. Supposedly, the bot accounts for such cases, but - surprise! - it's broken (again). By all rights, it should be blocked (again), but I didn't feel up to instigating drama. —Cryptic 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Now that I've actually looked at your edit, I see you misunderstood both me and the bot: the only substance to its complaint was that the exact current title of the page wasn't linked. The image already had an adequate (if minimal) fair use rationale for its use there. —Cryptic 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Firefly Minor Characters

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RickK

I was not part of the dispute RickK had. I was completely uninvolved. I was on a vacation back then. To but it bluntly I do not understand what you are getting at. -- Cat 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dramatica

I'm just a random nobody, but came across this and wondered if you could be a bit more specific. Thanks. 75.161.105.130 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I second this request Entro-P (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Me too. I don't get it.--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Northwest Royale

These guys are really good friends of mine, and I thought that they deserved a Wiki entry...then I found that there *had* been one for them, but it was deleted. I really would like to make one for them, not for advertisement's sake, but to basically show that they are hard workers, great musicians, and that they have a rather large following, especially here in their hometown. I don't know what was on the original page, but I do have access to articles, websites, photos, their manager, and the band members themselves (3 of the members are in my top friends on MySpace), so I'm sure a very accurate, reliable entry could be made about them...but I don't want to recreate something that's previously been deleted, only to be deleted again...I guess I'm asking your views and opinion on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitterpatedxpagan (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important question is either, "What's changed since October 2006 that makes them meet WP:MUSIC?", or "What's not accurate about the assessment at the deletion discussion?". The deleted article itself is of no use; other than the opening sentence ("Northwest Royale is a Metalcore band from Eugene, Oregon."), a list of band members, and the name of their last cd (then The Nosebleed Section), I don't see anything that would appear in a neutral, well-written article. —Cryptic 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

soo...if I could come up with something that's not less than a couple sentences, and meets guidelines/requirements, then my friends could once again be on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitterpatedxpagan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FP Delist Nom

Hi Cryptic,

An image you have been involved with uploading has been nominated for delist at FPC. See Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Bunch of Grapes. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My vote templates

I understand the removal of the vote templates, but do not understand the removal of the templates that I personally use that are created in my own user space. Please explain your reasoning. Roguegeek (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting them in userspace does not magically make them ok. —Cryptic 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That was completely no where close to being helpful. Does that mean there is no rationale you can provide? Roguegeek (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and be as helpful as I can be by providing pertaining policies that you're apparently not going to provide yourself. Here's the claim for deletion that you provided under G4:

4. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). Also, content moved to user space for explicit improvement is excluded, although material moved or copied to circumvent Misplaced Pages's deletion policy is not.

So please explain to me your rationale for using this policy as the reason for deleting the templates? Honestly, I don't see it and maybe you can help me see it. Roguegeek (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, yeah, did you actually read the last sentence in that? —Cryptic 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are of no help with your vague comments. I see the last line very clearly. Which part of the deletion policy do you claim I am attempting to circumvent? Roguegeek (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you placed a block over me during the last 48 hours. Fair enough I if I was doing something wrong. Unfortunately, I'm still no where close to understanding what (if anything) I did wrong and you definitely have a clear intent to not clarify as per your actions without proper warning of any kind. It's an excellent example of your failure to communicate in this discussion which actually goes against the administrator conduct policy. Do you have any plan to remedy this at all? Roguegeek (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No response? Roguegeek (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll spell it out. These templates have been consistently and overwhelmingly rejected; a sample of the debates can be seen here (fourth section), here, here, and here. These aren't likely ever to be acceptable, and making irrelevent tweaks in the formatting or just repeatedly re-creating them until folks stop noticing isn't going to get them there; the only way to "improve" these is to demonstrate consensus has changed. Putting them in userspace and calling for people to subst them like they were normal templates isn't a proper use of userspace; it's deliberate circumvention their deletion. —Cryptic 09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes

I see you were involved in some deletion discussion regarding TOMS Shoes. This article was deleted, then recreated by the business itself, then edited by someone who claims to be a newspaper writer, but it still reads like an ad and is generally unreferenced, unless you include press releases, dead links and references to the company's own websites. I've put notices on the page and note that there is no talk page. Post on my talk page if you're interested in discussing this for cleanup or deletion. (Sheesh, Rogan's Shoes looks similar! What's with the shoes?) It looks like the only notability is that of the owner, who appeared on The Amazing Race reality TV show, then attempted to co-found a reality TV cable network. Something smells spammish. --Danorton 05:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Atlantic Estuarine Research Society (AERS)

How can an organization entry display the mission statement of the organization without the appearance of a copyright violation with said organization's web page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zednaught (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By quoting it as their mission statement and attributing it to them, instead of just dropping it into the article unlabelled and letting it masquerade as the actual content. —Cryptic 12:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the tip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.33.72 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I'm delighted to see you back editing again. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Minor Barnstar
		For making exceptionally good-quality minor edits Stifle (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)