| Revision as of 16:38, 30 November 2006 editSceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,186 editsm Money in Harry Potter← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:52, 30 November 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →[]: thanksNext edit → | ||
| Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
| Someone reverted your edit as an IP. I've reverted it back. ''']''' <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | Someone reverted your edit as an IP. I've reverted it back. ''']''' <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : Thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:52, 30 November 2006
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2025. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end. |
Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me
Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have written about what happened at User:JzG/Laura.
If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.
This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. This user posts using a British sense of humour.
Note to self: User talk:Brazucs, Esperanza admin coaching.
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of Science
- JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
Vista Ridge Mall on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vista Ridge Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.
Mega Society recreated by sock puppet
Hi!
I am sorry to bother you with this but a little under an hour ago Mega Society was recreated by a single-purpose account. Also, moments after my speedy tag was removed by Michael Price. Could you salt and block please? Also should I request CheckUser on Michael Price given his mysterious appearence moments after a single purpose account recreated the article?
Cheers, MartinDK 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hardly mysterious: it's on my watchlist. Do do a UserCheck. --Michael C. Price 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have lots of deleted articles on my watchlist, too. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Avi, could you, as an admin, restore the Mega Society and its talk page, with histories? User:JzG admits he raised the 2nd AfD in error but refuses to restore the article in despite of a number of complaints on his talk page, from various users, about his violation of procedure. Or should I go to arbitration? --Michael C. Price talk 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Avraham"
- cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MichaelCPrice"
- Thanks for solving the problem. The above conversation in mind I'll assume good faith and just let it be. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask you first since I'm still kind of new here when it comes to these things. Still sounds like an odd sequence of events to me but it doesn't matter anymore. MartinDK 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Does this page need protection as well? --DaturaS 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Colonial Mall Decatur
Umm, can you please explain to me why the Colonial Mall Decatur was deleted. You gave no reason, that I could find. I looked in the pages for deletion and could not find it listed. Please, tell me why you, for some odd reason, deleted this article. AlaGuy 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ummmm, I don't believe that the article was a directory or spam. I created the page and I am in no way form or fashion related to the mall. I despise the place. I really don't understand why it was deleted. Now, if someone spammed the site, wouldn't it just make more sense to delete the spam and delete the IP address or user? AlaGuy 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Cynwyd Elementary School
Regardless of the result of the earlier AfD, and regardless of when it occured, articles can and are recreated after "failing" an AfD. In many cases, the explicit purpose of a redirect is to allow the article to be recreated once additional information is available to establish notability. If you compare the article as it exists now after undoing your revert to the one that existed at the time of the AfD, you will see that the article has been expanded, is fully sourced, and makes explicit claims of notability. Pursuing a WP:DRV is not an option, as I have no issue whatsoever with the decision based on the state of the article at the point the the AfD was created and the decision made to "Speedy Delete" was not unjustified at the time. If you feel that the article in its current state does not merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages, the next step would be to create another AfD. Alansohn 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Call me jaded, but seeing it back in all it's "glory" so soon after the AfD looks awfully like "I don't like that result, I think I'll just ignore it". The next step surely should be DRV, rather than simply ignoring the (very recent) AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I will call you jaded. Please share with me a specification of how long one must wait to recreate an article and I will wait the requisite amount of time. Now that it exists, it either meets criteria for retention or it does not. Pursuing a WP:DRV can only challenge the legitimacy of the original AfD, which I do not question. In the rush to close this, there was no time to enhance the article to meet the issues that had been raised. They have been addressed, necessarily post facto, and stand to serve the community for this article. Alansohn 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Longer than you did, anyway. If you'd taken the new information to DRV I'm confident the result would have been no problem, and I am certainly no process wonk, policy is all, but I think you'd have to agree it doesn't look good, does it? It's not like there is any kind of widespread consensus to keep schools at this level, there are simply too many of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have often advocated that the Baseball Hall of Fame should limit itself to say a net of one new member per year. You'd be able to add more than one in a given year, but you'd have to knock out some existing members to fit in the new ones. We don't have that issue on Misplaced Pages. If an article meets retention criteria, it should be kept, regardless of how many we have just like it. I agree that all schools are not notable and that many elementary school articles should be deleted. The fact that there is widespread consensus hasn't help prevent AfDs for high school articles, and the fact that there is an opposite consensus on many elementary schools doesn't mean that all should be deleted. It doesn't look good? It looks like someone took the time to improve the article, and it either stands on its own as it exists or it doesn't. Alansohn 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Longer than you did, anyway. If you'd taken the new information to DRV I'm confident the result would have been no problem, and I am certainly no process wonk, policy is all, but I think you'd have to agree it doesn't look good, does it? It's not like there is any kind of widespread consensus to keep schools at this level, there are simply too many of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I will call you jaded. Please share with me a specification of how long one must wait to recreate an article and I will wait the requisite amount of time. Now that it exists, it either meets criteria for retention or it does not. Pursuing a WP:DRV can only challenge the legitimacy of the original AfD, which I do not question. In the rush to close this, there was no time to enhance the article to meet the issues that had been raised. They have been addressed, necessarily post facto, and stand to serve the community for this article. Alansohn 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Page on an Arizona shopping mall deleted without warning
Metrocenter Mall on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.
Paradise Valley Mall on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paradise Valley Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.
(Apologies for placing this in the wrong area at first)
I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.
Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by you citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with your conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls, including all the other ones in the Phoenix area (see List of shopping malls in the United States). Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Misplaced Pages. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours. I have posted a complaint on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Msr69er 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- See several sections above. I deleted a very large number of articles many of which were part of an evident spamming campaign and all of which seemed to me to be directory entries, one of the things that Misplaced Pages is not. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am making a similar assertion that the article Paradise Valley Mall needs to be reinstated on the same grounds. I disagree that any of the articles on the Phoenix Westcor malls qualify as spam. I made substantial edits to the article Paradise Valley Mall which make it much more encyclopedic in tone than the original.--Msr69er 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is still not a directory. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well written individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest (along with major skyscrapers, sports stadiums, universities, government buildings such as the U.S. Capitol, etc.,) - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I assert that the shopping center category is completely appropriate for coverage on Misplaced Pages, but if it is not, what would make that category appropriate at all? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it. Where do I start?--Msr69er 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- JzG, you say on the deletion review page that "the primary notability criterion (for appropriateness as an encyclopedia article)...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in local media (newspapers and locally produced magazines), and are considered a vital part of the regional economy. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Most of it is trivial. How many books are there on any of these malls? Guy (Help!) 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not many scholarly books exist on individual malls (that I am aware of), but rather on the mall phenomenon as a whole. "Reliable secondary sources" would need to lean heavily on the local newspapers. It sounds, from your assertions and policy citiations, as though Misplaced Pages is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. I would still disagree on the grounds I argued, but if those are the rules, then certainly I must abide by them, but if you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted, and you have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thig is, if the mall phenomenon is notable (which it is), then we have an article on shopping mall. The fact of the concept being notable does not confer notability on all or specific examples of that phenomenon. I have no problem at all with userfying for transwiki, my main concern here was what I can only see as a spamming campaign (and no, you are not a spammer). A newspaper story on the opening of a mall is pretty small beer - local newspapers will carry articles on the opening of an envelope if it's a slow news day. As to the rules, it's only my interpretation of the rules, and then only in this specific instance. So do please open a wider discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere, it would be good to have a bit of clarity. Please, though, let's have an end to the mall directory entries. An article on a generic mall which states its opening date and location and lists the anchor stores really is not an encyclopaedia article, to my understanding. I have no problem with articles on genuinely notable malls. Ones which break new ground (in the objectively verifiable sense, not the marketing bullshit sense, of course), ones which have changed the landscape by turning a poor town into a prosperous one, that kind of thing. Anything, really, as long as it's a substantive and verifiable claim to notability beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not many scholarly books exist on individual malls (that I am aware of), but rather on the mall phenomenon as a whole. "Reliable secondary sources" would need to lean heavily on the local newspapers. It sounds, from your assertions and policy citiations, as though Misplaced Pages is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. I would still disagree on the grounds I argued, but if those are the rules, then certainly I must abide by them, but if you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted, and you have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Most of it is trivial. How many books are there on any of these malls? Guy (Help!) 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- JzG, you say on the deletion review page that "the primary notability criterion (for appropriateness as an encyclopedia article)...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in local media (newspapers and locally produced magazines), and are considered a vital part of the regional economy. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well written individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest (along with major skyscrapers, sports stadiums, universities, government buildings such as the U.S. Capitol, etc.,) - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I assert that the shopping center category is completely appropriate for coverage on Misplaced Pages, but if it is not, what would make that category appropriate at all? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it. Where do I start?--Msr69er 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is still not a directory. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sharkface217 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Images, malls
Image:Gurnee Mills wide.jpg and Image:Gurnee Mills.jpg were speedy deleted... was there a licensing issue on these? I can provide the original 6MP files with timestamps that match the original upload times, and other information that shows they came from my camera. Also, both were deleted with the comment that they were orphaned, though both are still in use, the first by Mills Corporation, the second by Gurnee, Illinois. Since they're in use, and don't fall under CSD-I3, I've restored them.
As an aside, it was clear that Dvac (talk · contribs) was some sort of spammer. Gurnee Mills could have been much better sourced, so I won't protest its deletion much. Though I would like to note that the article existed long before Dvac came around, and Dvac's edits were frequently reverted, and it was frustrating to try to communicate with them about unencyclopedic content, and it's unfortunate that the frustrating collaboration was repaid by having the article deleted just because they touched it at some point. (though, as I said, if a stub is eventually created again, it needs to be much better sourced, so I won't protest). --Interiot 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If a sourced article on the mall which demonstrates notability can be written, then I will undelete the images. I usually remove images on deleted articles that do not link elsewhere, just to keep the place tidy. Maybe that's wrong. Or maybe they did link elsewhere and I missed it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dropped the note mainly to mention that I've undeleted them already, because they are (and were at the time of deletion) in use by other pages. --Interiot 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks (I saw you undeleted these; there were others, hence the comment about undeleting). Sorry about that, the image link thing is not 100% reliable and neither am I - in the end it was probably my fault. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dropped the note mainly to mention that I've undeleted them already, because they are (and were at the time of deletion) in use by other pages. --Interiot 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Slightly related to this:
Metrocenter Mall on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Titoxd 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Arbcomm
Just noticed that you were running. I'm really glad to hear that. Guettarda 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- oh my, and I am getting enough flak for the bumper stickers I already have. KillerChihuahua 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Greetings!
Greetings, oh puppetmaster! . Do you suppose that ripping sound could be the guy from AMA tearing his hair out? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, I left a note on the AMA request - I think the poor advocate is going to have his work cut out with this one! Dear oh dear. That's two of my most disputations former sparring partners active at once, as well. What joy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Just a note to say thanks for your understanding, assistance and guidance. It is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You had just better repay this by becoming as good an editor as Stephen :-) Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
GetWiki
Hello. First of all, I apologise for my earlier behaviour. I notice that why the issue is still subjudice at deletion review, User:Robert Buzink has created a "new" GetWiki article. I want to emphasize that there was no collusion whatsoever between Robert Buzink and me - I'm just letting you know what I noticed. David Cannon 10:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, it's not a problem, anyone can get carried away :-) Guy (Help!) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)
You deleted Willowbrook Mall at 00:03 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. I disagree. The article was informative. Please restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Yellow Pages is also informative. See above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you not restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion? It seems that because of one editor's spamming, all these articles were deleted. I personally saw the spam in some and reverted his edits because of it. Seems a little harsh to punish the entire class because of one rotten student. Clipper471 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have nothing against a deletion review, but I don't believe any of the articles I deleted was more than a directory entry, and Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas) on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Clipper471 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
The Shops at La Cantera
You deleted The Shops at La Cantera at 00:01 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. Please restore and nominate it with Afd so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- One of many, see above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
CSD abuse at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey)
I am extremely concerned about your rampage of deletion of perfectly legitimate articles regarding malls via the WP:CSD process, which is intended to deal with non-contentious deletes and has been abused at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey) and elsewhere. As demonstrated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000, there is widespread and overwhelming support for such articles, despite your personal, arbitrary and irrational distaste for such articles. If you feel a particular article should be deleted, please take the decent and intellectually honest approach, place a notability tag, ask for expansion and use the AfD process, rather than abusing CSD to delete perfectly valid articles or articles that could easily be improved to meet your arbitrary standards. As stated at WP:CSD, "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Misplaced Pages administrators may delete Misplaced Pages pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism.... Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved..." As none of the criteria for speedy deletion have been met in this case, your decision to take it upon yourself to delete the article is a blatant abuse of your authority as an administrator and the CSD process to pursue your own personal biases. Your claims that these articles are directory entries are patently false and deliberately misinterpret WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rampage? Perfectly legitimate? Perhaps a little good faith might be an idea here. I found a user who had created and editd a large number of articles on malls all owned and operated by a single company. WP:NOT a directory or storefront. I left a note on the admin noticeboard about it as well. And it was one session, none since. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Mall at Steamtown
On November 23, you deleted the page for The Mall at Steamtown. As it appeared initially, it was definitely sounded like an advertisement, but I performed extensive rewrites to bring it back to NPOV, and I believe that I did so successfully. I respectfully disagree that it qualified under G11.Brad E. Williams 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've just found the deletion review, so I'll add a note there to see if it can be reinstated. Brad E. Williams 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Together 4 ever
They're at it again. Fan-1967 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Chatting
Looks like we've got a group of 10-12 year-old girls using their talk pages as a chat site. Baby-girl015 (talk · contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk · contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk · contribs). Any ideas? Fan-1967 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- What you did seems about right to me. See if they continue. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Getting worse. They're leaving invitations to chat not only on other User Talk pages, but article Talk pages, Fan-1967 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
One of them appears to have created the following:
- Babyphat (talk · contribs)
- Big daddy thick (talk · contribs)
- Sexy 06 (talk · contribs)
- Big gay bubba (talk · contribs)
- ! JAY ! (talk · contribs)
- Pretty Ricky1820 (talk · contribs)
- Sexy Virgo Baby (talk · contribs)
- Sexy Jamacian (talk · contribs)
- BabyBlueStar (talk · contribs)
- Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk · contribs)
- Sexy Scorpio10 (talk · contribs)
Taking to ANI. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please help
This is with regard to the Notable attacks by LTTE deletion review. Proto is saying that everything I am saying is not true. I dont have an admins rights so I cannot even retrieve the pages to make a statistical analysis. If you could please go through pages and offer an opinion.Dutugemunu 13:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Guy, also is the AFD itself accessible to normal users. I tried searching but couldnt find it 220.236.183.59 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE
Hi. For your information, and further to the DRV discussion, I've restored Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. Proto::type 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fairy nuff. I have no opinion, really, I was just being helpful :-) Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just zis Thanks, yano?
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (and clichéd confusion), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal Rapid Transit - link deletion
Hello,
I added a link to my PPT project (www.pptproject.com) on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Personal_rapid_transit
But you deleted it. May I ask why? This is a sincere effort on my part at contributing to a solution. I don't have any ads of any kind. To the contrary, I've contributed a great deal of my time to this project, not to mention the hosting and domain name fees. I would be very appreciative if you could restore the link, or at least let me know why you don't feel it's appropriate.
Gary Stark gary@pptproject.com
- See WP:EL, links to avoid. The word "my" says it all here. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, I'm fine with leaving out the work "my". Is that sufficient to restore the link? If you take a look at the actual website (www.pptproject.com), you will see that it's a completely serious proposal and NOT about self promotion.
gary
- See WP:EL, links to avoid - links to sites you own or control. Also links to commercial sites. Also promotional links. This is simply not appropriate, sorry. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, I added the link under "External Links", "Proposals". And if you took a look at my site, you must realize that it's not at all about Spam as you suggested when you deleted it. So what possibly reason is there not to include it? And I'm not asking you to site some arbitrary rules somewhere. I'm asking for your personal opinion. All of the other links in this section point to personal or commercial sites. I don't see the difference. Finally, if you still think it doesn't belong in this section, where do you think it belongs? -- gary
- It's a link to your site, and it has not been identified as a significant proposal by any external authority that I can see. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that:
1) since no "external authority" has blessed the concept, you are censoring it? So there's no room on Misplaced Pages for personal innovation? How do you think new ideas come into being in the first place?
2) Yes, it's 'my' site. So if someone else were to add the link, it's OK?
I think if you look closer at the "approved" links, they are not that much different. And the very fact that your initial deletion was based on your labeling of my site as "spam" is not being addressed in this discussion. Or do you still see my site as spam? Guy, I feel that this is really unfair and would ask that you please reconsider.
gary
- The fact that It's yours means that you should not be lobbying for its inclusion in the first place. The fact that it has no obvious authority and no obvious support from any authority means that, per WP:EL, it should not be included anyway. Allegations of censorship are entirely inappropriate. Note that external links are there to provide reliabel sources for the content of the article and to include a level of detail which would be considered excessive within the article itself - they are not there to promote or endorse a site or concept. Spam has a particular meaning on Misplaced Pages, discussed at WP:SPAM: links included to publicise the site or its contents are considered spam. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So the difference between my proposal and the approved proposals is that they are recognized by some third party "authority", but mine isn't. Can you be more specific? Who is this entity or group? How does a new concept get the blessing of this authority?
Yes, I agree that I'm the one who added the link and I am the creator of the website. So if I can find anyone else willing to post the link besides myself, is this then allowed? Or do you also have an approved list of posters? Or is there some sort of "lobbying" process as you referred to it?
The bottom line is that I see no way for new concepts to be recognized by Misplaced Pages as you have outlined the process. Sort of a "good old boys" club. Presumably you have a personal interest in PRT concepts. Mine is unique in that it doesn't build an alternate road system, but instead recycles our existing road infrastructure. So if anything I believe the concept deserves discussion for it's unique approach. So maybe I should instead be inserting this aspect of the concept into the main body of the article...?
gary
- You added links to your own site promoting your own idea, there is no evidence that your idea is considered notable by independent authorities. The way to get it included is to suggest it on Talk with evidence of support from independent authorities. Arguing here is not going to achieve anything beyond pissing me off. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, I took your advise and posted my objection on the talk page:
]
gary
Link to list(s) of HL mods afd discussion
The link to the AfD is wrong, see my comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29#Lists of Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}}. You posted a double redlink, so I fixed that. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who opened the deletion review. --Pizzahut2 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. You could still have fixed it. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who opened the deletion review. --Pizzahut2 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Perimeter Mall on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Perimeter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --GGreeneVa 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Gregor Samsa (band)
This:
"Despite the name they will never metamorphose into the Beetles... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)"
is the GREATEST. COMMENT. EVER. :) Thanks for the laugh out loud moment, Xoloz 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- lolling here as well. Syrthiss 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Money in Harry Potter
Someone reverted your edit as an IP. I've reverted it back. Will 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)