Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 21 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)

Alright, a couple of things. You're assuming I'm trying to circumvent the deletion. This is a poor and wrong assumption on your part. I originally created the templates thinking they had never been created. After the first deletion, I saw they had been discussed previously and understood they should not have been re-created. I still thought they were good tools for me to use personally. Is it wrong to create personal tools to use Misplaced Pages more effectively? Maybe it is wrong, but I don't see a policy against it so point me to that if it exists.

Now for the block you placed on me, I don't see any policy that shows you were able to do that within the scope of your adminship, especially without any sort of warning what so ever. Furthermore, I was asking for clarity before you even placed a block on my account. My understanding of this situation was that I did reach out to you for clarity and you blocked without warning. You have a responsibility to explain those actions to me because, honestly, I feel like you completely abused your adminship in this case. Roguegeek (talk) 10:03, 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)

User:Uncle G/On notability

Alright, I was not sure if it was supposed to be that way or not, so I decided to be bold...thanks. =) the_ed17 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Ꙏ

I think the problem is on my end - the computer I'm on didn't render anything other than the gibberish unicode character Ꙏ, rather than any Cyrillic. That said, I think the appropriate criteria would have been A1 (No Context) which a translation from gibberish to Cyrillic would qualify as. I'm undeleting it now and tagging as a language stub and for expansion. Sorry for the confusion, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent speedy template deletion requests

Hi. Just to apologize for mistakenly listing some recent speedy template deletion requests incorrectly -- I meant to use {{db-t3}}. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly annoyed that you were replacing the redirects with the speedy tag while they were still transcluded in articles, which dropped them all into CAT:CSD. <noinclude> is your friend. —Cryptic 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also lost track of which links I'd updated and which I hadn't. Break time, I think. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotech page deletion

Cryptic, I would not have placed the article if I have not seen similar articles describing similar products. (MoTeC) Any chance of reinstating the article? --Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied MoTeC also; neither article contained any indication whatsoever why these companies belong in an encyclopedia. If you find any others, do please point them out. —Cryptic 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have opened a can of worms here, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Automotive_motorsports_and_performance_companies

--Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the companies listed supply more advertising than information.--Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic, I know you have to draw the line somewhere, mmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.68.144 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question re. Shoe Goo

Hi. I agree that the article should have been deleted, but I'd like to take a whack at doing an NPOV version of it. Would you mind terribly if I were to recreate a proper article? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Course not. Go right ahead. —Cryptic 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• You iz da man. I just didn't want to go over your head. Thanks much. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Got it done, at least for now. It's a good, serviceable stub. Thanks for the help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

about the Sungale Group Inc

Is it because I provided to little information? Or is it because I didn't provide enough reference.

What if I want to recreate it, should I add links to it to provide the source of the contents?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliaamy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As my deletion summary said, you have to show the company's importance or significance—that is, why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not the Yellow Pages. The relevant guidelines are here. —Cryptic 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV/2008 May 12

If you have a chance, could you clarify the statement "Wijikipeddia - Faljeirsic; Vikipeidiea - Galmoen; Wiquipedia - Raein (Galmosk); Viquarpedi - Galmoen (Retsaw)."? I've never heard of those languages. I'm just curious where you got that information from. Thanks! MrPrada (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?

What is considered advertising, because almost every marketed product has a wikipedia page, for example Edline or Coca Cola? How can I make my article 'not an advertisment' like all the others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.173.137 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no way to know what article you're talking about here. In general, make at least a passing attempt at writing from a neutral point of view with reference to third-party reliable sources, as opposed to just spewing content-free advertising copy. —Cryptic 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. do you think you can write an article on something. my last three attempts were deleted... 69.230.173.137 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the talk page cleanup. It's nice to know I'm getting more action online than off... Cheers. -- Longhair\ 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Thanks for compressing the new logo image, that really helped. I just downloaded pngcrush myself and I was wondering if you could tell me the command line you used in this case. It would save me the time of having to familiarize myself with the extra-long readme :) Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

pngcrush -brute -rem alla WikiNew.png WikiNewer.png —Cryptic 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Shelton Sanford

Hey, I just wanted to see if there was any particular reason you reverted the bot's edits to do default sorting for the categories instead of me just returning it. The bot edit looked acceptable to me at first glance, but did I miss a problem with it? Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This particular edit missorted the article in Category:Sanford family. Yes, just re-keying the one category would be ideal, but I'm rolling back/undoing wherever I can and the result is correct due to the volume; see my contributions and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry‎ for an idea of how much cleaning up needs to be done. —Cryptic 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; if there's a reason for doing it the old way, I'll trust that there is - I'm not terribly good with the technical side of everything yet (several years later), and that's why I just wanted to quick check in and see before I messed with anything. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Halloweentown (film)

Could you undelete any Talk:Halloweentown (film) history, too?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BSL, Business School Lausanne

Hi! What was the problem with this article? Where are the copyright content you report? It was "handwrited" by a member of this school, so please clarify so we can rewrite it accordingly. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchikoo (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For some bizarre definition of "handwrited" that accounts for two thirds of the content being lifted verbatim from the school's promotional materials, perhaps. —Cryptic 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)