Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:23, 1 April 2015

User:Chetblong/bar

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Coffee}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 October 2014 December 2014 February 2015 March 2015

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Angie Savage

While I'm here...why? The relist, that is. There's only 3 keeps, 2 of which rely heavily (1 solely) on a demonstrably disproven laurel of "passes PORNBIO", the refrain of the people who disagreed with PORNBIO's strengthening/tightening criteria a ways back. AfDs aren't votes, I say that line all the time myself, but is the other keep votes reliance on a smattering of news-of-the-hour sources really strong enough to counter 5 deletes + the nomination? Tarc (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Tarc: That particular relist was done in the fashion of: it never hurts to have a stronger consensus... and, relists are cheap and (usually) uncontroversial. I've had people complain about relists as well as closing discussions without relisting them again... guess when you close the majority of the old AFDs, it's impossible to make everyone happy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh no worry, not unhappy, just wanted to get a sense of the reason behind it. You do good work. :) Much appreciated. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

5 days, 2 additional calls for deletion. Are we there yet? :) Tarc (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics, again... :/

Hi,
I hit the deletion discussion via WP:ECON and can see that this Spiral Dynamics fuzz is commercially motivated, but then again what isn't - at least to a certain extent - commercially motivated in our society. The topic has been denounced as "pseudoscience" but then again it's not more pseudoscience than most other managerial concepts, and both are perfectly valid encyclopedic subjects.
Now basically I'm questioning your decision on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spiral Dynamics, as there clearly hasn't been a consensus, not even solid arguments for deletion. I'm tempted to file a WP:DRV but want to give you the opportunity to explain your - IMHO questionable - decision. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You may feel free to file that DRV and see just how much SPA's opinions are taken into account at AFD. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to think I have any personal grudge or issue

I do disagree with the way you've handled several things in this circumstance, and I'm trying to stick to discussing process and sources as opposed to entering the fray. My opinions can be taken with all the salt with which you choose to season them; I have been wrong before. Generally speaking, your admin efforts have been laudable. Please accept my respect and kind regards. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think I overstated my case and wrote more quickly than was appropriate and said more than I actually believe. I screwed up. What I wrote was unkind and didn't assume good faith on your part. Allow me to say I'm sorry. I think while asking Spartaz for explanation, I struck closer to my correct feeling. In addition, instead of complaining about the new AFD, I should have flat out thanked you. Your previous closures notwithstanding, you gave Valoem an ethical platform upon which to remeasure consensus and even if the fresh AFD goes against inclusion, I think most of us will agree you honored Valoem's intention with a reasonable opportunity for success. Again, sorry for acting dickish. In the future I will remember to pause before saving such edits. If there's something I can do to make it right, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Zaza

Hi, i just informed the vikipedia officials about the vandalism goes on in the article. You may read same e-mail that i wrote i will share with you First i would like to say that i'm not agree with zaza or kurdish nationalism. I'm just analytic mind who not comfortable with an issue which has different researchs and beliefs. An idelogy believers editing the article acording to their ideas as it's a certain scientific information and article includes so much comment and subjectivity.

My e-mail:

Hello, I would like to inform you about a vandalism on a issue which is 'Zaza people' article on Misplaced Pages page. There is couple of people who are probably Kurdish fanatics or nationalits not sure, are interfering and demolishing the all contributions of the other users and turning the page on a version that they did and writing the note as 'vandalism' ironicly. This meaningless fanatism goes on and on unfortunately.

There is a line at the begining of article as summary description:

'Almost all speakers of the Zaza language considering themselves as Kurds and they are often counted as such by international statistics and surveys as part of the Kurdish people.

I am cheking the references from the source for this statement and it does not include any staticts, statement or research about how Zaza speakers are considering themselves. Sources are quotes from writers who acclaims that is a Kurdish dialect.

There is a division between researchers about that issue. Some of the reserchers are acclaming that Zazas are from the Kurdish community and some of them are acclaiming that they are a different ethnic, and this discussion is become a political issue and it's still going on. Couple of users who are agree with the Zazas are coming from the Kurdish community idea is updating the page acording to that ideology and sources, and manupilating it. There would be two ideas of Zaza description too from all the sources not a particular idealogy's.

Also there is 'Zaza nationalism' part which is additional subjectivity to confirm that idea of 'Zazas are part of Kurdish community'. If there could be a nationalism part on this community's article, it would include both nationalism of Zazas and Kurds. As i said, there is division of thoughts and two groups think differently. If we consider the Zaza's who thinks they are an ethnic as nationalist, the Kurds who thinks Zazas are Kurds also Kurdish nationalist right?

What i want to say is basicly: there is not any scientific and reliable extensive research about that topic. There is division between thoughts and fanatics are editing the page acording to their ideology. I would ask you to check and confrim the referances and the versions of the article which is edited by other users before the recent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solinom (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Solinom: Any issues you have with Zaza people should be brought up at that article's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the PNAC AfD

Thank you for handling the close for the PNAC AfD. That was a massive wall of text, and I'm sure very difficult to get through. GabrielF (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

GabrielF: As always, it's my pleasure. And, yes, yes it was. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fabriziodg91

Hey Coffee, I accepted this user's unblock because this isn't Commons. Clearly false vandal reports are concerning, but there's currently (and unfortunately) no policy on cross-project disruption. I've stated in no uncertain terms that a a second block will be swift if he/she decides to be a problem editor here. Ed  08:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you dear The ed17 for have accepted my request,i will do my best for can show at the whole community that i never will fall again into vandalism actions. Fabriziodg91 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

F8

It seems that you just deleted a lot of files per WP:CSD#F8. The requirements for F8 includes amongst other things:

• The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons. To avoid deletion at Commons, please ensure the Commons page description has all of the following:

Several of the files you have deleted seem to have copyright problems and should therefore be nominated for deletion on Commons. Those files do not satisfy WP:CSD#F8.

• All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.

File:Pore structure representation 1.png and other files contain the statement I have made some Modification. As it seems that there are revisions of the files on Misplaced Pages to which the user hasn't made modifications, those unmodified files do not satisfy WP:CSD#F8.

• All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages (the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended).

Several files are missing that information and do not satisfy WP:CSD#F8 until the file information pages on Commons have been cleaned up.

Can you fix the problems with respect to these deletions? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thirty Days of Night Records

Hello, I just noticed that the article for Thirty Days of Night Records was deleted via PROD today, and you were the deleting admin. However, this article was already nominated for (and deleted via) PROD in 2008, which the edit logs indicate. Per WP:PROD, an article previously PRODded cannot be PRODded again. Could you please restore the article when you get a chance? Thanks! Chubbles (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Masashi Endō

Dear Coffee, I am surprised that you have deleted this article without going through a discussion first. He played major roles in Wild Zero and Sawako Decides. Please undelete this article to enable a discussion on WP:AFD as similar cases like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/İpek Özkök passed the discussion. Inwind (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Inwind: At the time of deletion, there was no mention of him playing major roles in the movies listed on his article. It merely stated that he played a role - which means there was no credible claim of significance made, making it eligible for speedy deletion under WP:A7. If you wish to re-create an article wherein it shows that he played major roles, and that is actually sourced, that's fine by me. But there is no reason for me to undelete the article as it stands. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Can we agree that articles with unsure notability should go through a deletion discussion. Inwind (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Spirit (Sirius) and Universo Latino deletions

Hi Coffee. I doubt these would survive an AfD. Nonetheless, as they had previously been PROD-ed and contested, they are now ineligible for WP:PROD. Thanks, Paul Erik 03:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Reem Al Marzouqi

Hi, can you move this back to the mainspace? It is in the middle of an AfD. Valoem 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem:  Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christian terrorism

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christian terrorism. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pax 01:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note the same editor is also contesting your closure of this AfD further down the same page. Hut 8.5 08:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

List of English-speaking places occupied by Axis powers in World War II

Can you paste the copy from the above page into User:BeenAroundAWhile/Sandbox4 so I can turn the info into a category or make other use of it, per a suggestion on the Talk page concerning this deletion? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Please remove the "Jimbo Wales" from your signature. NE Ent 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)