Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 17 December 2008

17 December 2008

‎

Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise

Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Jklein212 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)}}

This page Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise was deleted stating that is was "spam." I spoke with RHworth: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jklein212. I did post it wrong the first several times, even under the wrong title by accident at first. I am new to wikipedia so I apologize -- but I did read many articles about what to do and what not to do. I feel I followed these instructions closely. My page is about a book that has already received major news headlines to millions of readers, through notable sources, and is not by any means an "advertisement." I ask that you please reconsider this deletion and allow publicity stunt the art of noise to post as many people will find this article helpful. If I did something incorrectly, please either edit that part or delete that part or let me know how to fix it instead of deleting the entire page. As you can see, it has had major news coverage, as I said before, including AOL, The Insider, SOHH, BET, Essence magazine and the author his a very notable publicist within the music industry, as he also belongs to the Associated Press. jklein212 (Talk | 21:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment

User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

A page like there are many in Misplaced Pages, including the user spaces of the commenting users. It violates no policies. There was no consensus to delete, but an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, this screams bad faith: "...an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless." Can you please find a citation or substantive content to verify that poor acquisition? In fact, I can't recall having any prior interactions with you, Guido, because I have purposefully kept myself out of the dramas that you seem to induce on an almost weekly basis.

This edit summary is also in bad faith, in regards to the MFD. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The 'study' is the result of long-term deliberate disruption; no need to validate it by leaving it here. // roux   18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Clearly appropriate. MBisanz 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we have to ask ourselves a simple question here: Is this true? If it is true, then I'd be inclined to support an indefinite block of the remaining account. If it is not true, then the deletion is correct. Personally, it looks like a load of juvenile twaddle to me. CIreland (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - he claims it's true, and there's no way to prove otherwise. I'd absolutely support a community ban, but I think the consensus at ANI when it was brought up was not to ban. // roux   18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The original posting on the ANI was by Guido (here) and there was only one person who endorsed a ban in any formal way; I would venture that it wasn't a good place, or starting point, for a ban discussion (IMO). Carcharoth's follow-up thread dropped into the archive without a ripple. And as a general comment, any "endorse deletion" and "endorse undeletion" !votes on this page should probably be counted as well (but not twice if, as I did, an editor !voted on both pages). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - your reasoning is that an admin you have never had interaction with had a vendetta against you? --Smashville 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I have made no such claim. But if you must know, Seicer had me blocked in January and reverted my edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome. The block was found unjustified. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I noted that you were well over WP:3RR and reported it to the noticeboard, but did not do the blocking. You were blocked by Tariqabjotu for 40 hours, which was then lengthened to 48 hours. If you were to take into account all that have commented against you in the past, or have taken action against you in the past Guido, we would have very few "uninvolved" administrators left on this project. Your block log is quite scary. seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  "(An) admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless". Did you forget what you wrote in your nom here? --Smashville 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for all reasons cited in original MFD; the page disparages wikipedia in a way that does not help it, the truth of the statements are questionable and unproveable, and would not be a valid form of commenting on the project anyway. Anyone else who wants to review wikipedia as part of an external project does so in the open. It wasn't done here, the report can't help anything. The content exists anyway and wouldn't require a stand-alone page anyhow. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak endorse. Defensible application of WP:UP#NOT, although I fail to see why this particular instance of soapboxing is especially objectionable.  Sandstein  19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Because he spent over a year, in tandem with other people, disrupting WP to get to his 'results'. WP:DENY seems applicable. // roux   19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can you please address the issue of lack of consensus, rather than to do the MfD and the mud-slinging all over again? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no lack of consensus. --Smashville 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Does "Misplaced Pages, the Social Experiment" by the United Nations even exist Guido? seicer | talk | contribs 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  No, Seicer, such a report does not exist. Please get the reference right. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved admin: I count seven Delete !votes, including the nominator, to five Keep !votes on the original MfD. One of the keep !votes suggested simply moving the text to a subsection on Guido's userpage. Hardly consensus in either direction. Hermione1980 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion debates are not votes. The fact that the user's "experiment" was disrupting Misplaced Pages definitely weighed a lot into this argument. --Smashville 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm aware they're not votes (hence the !vote designation). The only reason I included that was for summary purposes. Everyone here is more than likely aware that there are other factors to consider when discussing deletion/undeletion. Hermione1980 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. It's not my experiment, only my report. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which does not exist. I've done quite a few queries for a report from the United Nations on Misplaced Pages, and have come up with nothing. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which you've been provided a copy of. --Smashville 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Seicer, now we are getting to the true motive for this quick deletion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Seicer? --Smashville 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, still not seeing your point, Guido. I've provided a personal copy of this surmised report to your e-mail address. seicer | talk | contribs 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - appears appropriate to me, policy and consensus considered appropriately by closing admin. Orderinchaos 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Richter7

Richter7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Valid content about an independently verifiable organization. Other similar organizations have nearly identical pages that have not been subject to deletion. Attempts to communicate with the deleting admin have been unsuccessful. Direction on specific changes needed to avoid deletion are welcome. 216.81.78.246 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn A7 speedy deletion. The article claimed notability for its subject through, e.g., awards received.  Sandstein  19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)