Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Placebo Effect (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 17 October 2007 (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

College of Dracology

Frankly, when I tagged it as not being notable (after someone insisted upon adding it to the Dragon article), I hadn't realized it had been so recently up for deletion and deleted after much discussion. The article simply doesn't have the multiple nontrivial reputable third party references needed. I see the admin who deleted it claimed that it had a number of separate sources, but those were almost all references to the publication of that same organization, which is not third party per the notability requirements (anybody can publish their own newsletter and call themselves important in it).

I think the thing should have been put up for speedy deletion (with criteria of "recreation of recently deleted article"), but I thought I'd give the person who contacted me about it a bit more time to find real sources. If she doesn't soon I'd say just tag it as speedy (the db template with the italic section above after a pipe}} and not bother with another AFD, as it already had one. I hate this "let's all vote over and over" concept where nothing ever gets deleted because people just ignore it and then expect another vote to confirm the earlier one. It's just a minority of people who didn't have the votes insisting that we vote and re-vote until we agree with them and in the meantime between votes the deleted page isn't deleted. It's a mockery of the entire concept. I can give some newbies some slack here, but if they want to try to make it work they should do it on a user page until they get outside people agreeing that it's solid enough to be an article again. DreamGuy 15:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it's a speedy candidate, though I do think there's still a lingering problem with the quality of sources. But like many organizations, it has a small pool of dedicated people who relentlessly push for its retention even in the absence of truly fitting the relevant criteria. Sadly, I've been seeing this more recently with some college-related organizations...and to be honest, I've seen people who are dedicated to the deletion of material even if there is a strong consensus after many discussions for the retention of the material. Ah well, at least it's not outright harmful material. Mister.Manticore 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recreating a previously deleted article is grounds for immediate deletion. I agree that this doesn't appear to be too harmful per se, but it does seem like free advertising for a group most people never heard of or care about. My main question is whether anyone in heraldry (other than the people themselves) care about it at all and how important they consider it. That's why sources are necessary. DreamGuy 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, recreating a previously deleted article can be grounds for immediate deletion, but it's *not* always the appropriate response. For example, in this case, the problem is one of adequate sources, which is actually a common grounds for restoring an article. I've actually done it myself. In this case, I'm at least assuming a good-faith attempt to meet the criteria. However, in this case, I do concur with the concern that the sources are still woefully inadequate and I feel the best thing to do would be to put it in user-space pending better sources. Which may or may not ever exist, but since it's not harmful, there's at least a reason to act in good faith and just try to be persuasive. I'd even be willing to give it another go-over in AFD over a CSD, it's not like it's going to cause any disruption there. Really depends what the contributing editor is willing to do. Mister.Manticore 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spa, not SPA

Okay, now I get it. I did not choose my username with the TLA SPA in mind. In fact, I just had to do some digging to figure out what you meant by SPA (I did not make the mental connection to Single Purpose Account). Spa toss 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thefurniture.com

Good argument on this AfD. I was beginning to think I was beating my head up against a wall. Thanks! Realkyhick 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope my explanation satisfies the concerned user, it did look to me as if that discussion was going in circles. It is unfortunate that sometimes folks seem to be talking past each other far too often on AFD (and elsewhere), but I suppose inevitable. Mister.Manticore 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination

I did apply forethought, when you consider the content of the first diff. I have now withdrawn the nomination, but I feel, after reading your comment on the AFD, the need to fully explain myself. It meets criteria A1 of the CSD as of the first diff, so it could almost fairly be deleted with the latter reasoning. It provided no context whatsoever, and consisted only of: a rephrasing of the title, and a large amount of wikitables with no explained content. I was not biting the user. He was new, but so are the other new good faith users who create articles that are removed all of the time. I hope you understand.

I also took a look on the essay your recently wrote. I feel that you are strongly correct on many of the bases you covered there, but it was obviously inspired by me, and my noming of the article. I think that perhaps you created it without understanding my reasoning for nominating the article. It was not vandalism. I never even considered that. It was not solely because it was unreferenced, but that further brought to me the suspicion that it may not be good for the project. It was because it provided no context - I could not possibly divine what the article was talking about, what it was describing, as of the first diff. Thats why I nominated it. I did assume good faith, and I fully trust that the editor can become a great Misplaced Pages user. But, in the end, it all comes down to the article's original lack of context. Finally, I will say that no tag would have been appropriate for that article - cleanup tag would be inappropriate because messiness was not the issue. Wikify - perhaps, but again, not the main problem. There are no tags I know of dealing with absolutely no context, and thats why that particular criteria is part of Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion.

Thanks for your message, and for expressing your concerns. I hope you have a nice day. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a friendly message to the user further explaining the issue. I hope that this is to your liking, and satisfies your concern about my perceived hostility (by the way, the truth is that, while you wanted me to assume good faith, you were not assuming good faith for me, but labeling my nomination as a hostility. I do not edit with hostility, or I try not to. I try to operate with a clear head. I would never nominate an article, or do anything on Misplaced Pages, if it were fueled by a force of bad will) Thanks -- Anonymous Dissident 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of forethought or examination on your part to the extent that would be appropriate. There is absolutely nothing in the article that speaks of vandalism, there's even a reference in the first diff. Those are things that tell me that more consideration needs to be given to the article than just rushing to the delete button. You need to learn to tell the difference between an article that is a problem by its very nature and one that's just developing. Only in the former case would I recommend the precipitous and hasty action you made. And I hope you don't find this offensive, but your protests only serve to convince me that you don't realize your mistake. There is little chance deletion would be appropriate here, let alone CSD. CSD is not to be used for things that are not obviously problems or that might be valid. While I'm glad you do recognize that your nomination was ill-considered, I think you're not truly recognizing your mistake, and are trying to defend yourself. That's not good. So you can't tell what the article is about. Did you try to ask the editor what they were trying to do? No, you didn't. Did you look up the subject at all? I can't see that you did. I don't even know if you performed a google search. I did. I got enough results that I was able to understand that there was something to do with motorcycle racing. Was it really so hard for you to go to news.google.com and search for "Swedish Speedway" ? Knowing that much, I'd have gone to the talk page of the editor and suggested they provide an explanation for this being a sport. You can say it's the burden of an editor to prove things, but I feel it's also the burden of any editors to take reasoned actions instead of automatic responses. (And it doesn't help you that there was a reference in the first edit).

So basically, while I might comprehend your actions, I believe they were highly mistaken. You chose the wrong actions. As for your protests that there was no appropriate template message to use, I'd consider that {{context}} would be appropriate, but um, since when were you limited to template messages anyway? Did you consider a message on the talk page? Or to the user? If you didn't, then that represents a mistake on your part. So next time you see a page like this, try at least one of the steps I suggested. Will they always be required? No, but you'll have to use your judgment. Just try to realize you have more options. I see you consider this a lack of assuming good faith on my part. I am making the good faith assumption that you made a mistake and didn't know there are other things you can do. I consider this to be a problem for you, but this doesn't mean you are a problem. It just means there's something you need to correct in yourself. Countering this concern with a lack of AGF on my part makes me think you're worrying way too much about defending your actions and not enough about correcting them. Trust me, I am not ascribing malice on your part, I am however, not sure there's sufficient awareness of the nature of your actions. Mister.Manticore 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And actually, my inspirations predate your nomination by a considerable bit. In fact, you can look at the history and note that it was created BEFORE your nomination, as I first made the page at 02:10, your nomination was not until several hours later. And I can go back to oh say, the 23rd of July to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Civil marriage in Israel for an earlier example. Not to mention the more recent Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/North China craton and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Western Block (North China Craton). Sorry if I'm deflating your vanity, but I've seen this problem before, and the only thing you're doing is reinforcing my belief that it is a problem. Which is why I do feel it's important to write the essay. Though it's not like there isn't existing material such as WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD Mister.Manticore 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I care not to further debate this. I feel a certain amount of hostility here, and I never want any animosity. It is obvious we stand at different viewpoints. I call on you to, one last time, look at the first diff. The article provided no context at all. We are building the encyclopedia for the readers. While you, as an editor, working to add and perfect content, and an editor who was trying to improve an AFD-ed article, may have just been able to guess it was about motorcycle racing, thats not good enough for an encyclopedic project, or for the readers of that project. The readers don't want to have to just take a bit of a guess on what an article is about. They want to clearly understand what the subject is, and not be reading simply a rephrasing of the title, and a large and unexplained compilation of results that, without context, seem almost unrelated to the article.

The latter does not fit as acceptable encyclopedic content, content that can be read and comprehended by those who we are making this marvelous project for - the masses, the readers, those who want to be educated. That is why I nominated it for removal from the content. And here, here I was not trying to defend myself, but rather explain my reasoning, so that we might both reach a friendly understanding. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC

Um, I have never said that objection of yours was not valid. Seriously, you didn't need to explain your reasoning. I understood it. I am concerned with your actions. The two are not the same thing. I disagree with your response, not your motivations. Being concerned there was no context? A valid concern. How could you have addressed it? Well, if you knew about the subject, you could have added to it. But say you don't. Say you don't understand. Fine, why didn't you ask the contributing editor about the subject? Why didn't you express your concern on the talk page? Did you even look up the situation? I can't see any evidence of that, and your continued protests tend to convince me that you didn't. So please, in the future, consider your options better.

Besides, you may think I'm hostile to you. I think you're overly defensive. I wish I knew how I could be less hostile to you, but I'm afraid I don't. Sorry. All I can say is I hope you learn from this. Mister.Manticore 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, I am not protesting. I am explaining, to apparently no avail. You say you already understand, but do not like my actions. Let me go through my process:

1. Found article with absolutely no context. Nominated for deletion
2. Article was improved, now had context.
3. Withdrew deletion debate per No.2, requested cleaning.

That considered, where is my mistake? I acted accordingly, based on the state of the article at each stage of the process. The true mistake would have been to leave the debate open. In regard to my actions at point of No.1, I feel I did not make a mistake, but rather chose one of a number of plausible paths.

In regards to hostility - while you are not entirely hostile now, I feel this getting just a little heated, so i was just trying to put a reminder in sort of thing to make sure we both keep a level head here. -- Anonymous Dissident 00:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And just to reply to this because I missed it, your mistake was when you used {{subst:afd1}} instead of the user's talk page, the article's talk page, or from what I can tell, a search engine to find out what Swedish Speedways were. Mister.Manticore 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you seem to be under the misguided understanding that I thought the article itself was an act of vandalism. This is wrong. I nominated it for the problems discussed in the preceding, and never mentioned vandalism. Thanks -- Anonymous Dissident 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's where you're showing you're not comprehending me. Perhaps I was unclear, but I'm not saying I thought you believed the page was vandalism. I'm saying the page did not represent obvious vandalism. Thus your actions were not warranted. If it were obvious vandalism, that would be the case where your actions would have been acceptable. I'm sure you didn't think it was. So what? I'm not trying to convince you it wasn't vandalism, I'm just pointing out that since it wasn't, you choose the wrong actions. Mister.Manticore 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That preceding statement indicates that you think that there is only one criteria for deletion: vandalism articles. This is wrong. An article doesnt have to 'represent obvious vandalism' to fall under the criteria for deletion. So, just because it isnt vandalism doesnt mean my actions in nominating it for deletion were wrong. It means your understanding of the criteria for deletion is not perfect. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not at all. That's not true at all. Once again, you're demonstrating that you didn't comprehend what I said. I'm saying that your actions would only be justified by something like that. Note the difference between deletion and your actions. My problem is with your actions. My understanding of the criteria for deletion is certainly not perfect (as I do not believe I am perfect), but what I see as the problem here is your understanding of my words. I don't know how to convince you of your mistake, but I do believe that is the problem. If you wish to know, I do feel there are many reasons for deletion of a page, if you wish to see some of them, you can read my comments on AFD(I've made a number of them), or my nominations. For example, just a few hours ago I nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter Online Domain. Why? Not because it's vandalism, but because after looking at the page, looking at the history, and comparing it to other deletion discussions I've seen, I decided that I didn't feel it merited an article. And since the editor had had quite some time to develop it, I didn't see any need to contact them. Mister.Manticore 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: 'I'm saying the page did not represent obvious vandalism. Thus your actions were not warranted.' - this is a clear statement. By my understanding of English, which is fairly good, this chain of words means the following 'The page you nominated for deletion was not a vandalism article, so, because the article was not pure vandalism, you were wrong to nominate it for deletion'. If that understanding is correct, then it sounds liek you are saying that there was no reason to nominate the article for deletion, because it was not vandalism. Lastly, you seem to think that I do not realise my mistake. There are a variety of ways to look at the problem. When I nominated it for deletion, I chose that option, having considered content. Now that the article was improved, the mistake would have been to leave the debate for deletion open. Therefore, I see no mistake on anyone's part. -- Anonymous Dissident 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do feel your reasons were incorrectly applied to your actions. Taking this to mean I feel the only reason I feel an article should be deleted is vandalism is yet another mistake, and I would say quite clearly represents poor comprehension of my words on your part. You did quite clearly say "That preceding statement indicates that you think that there is only one criteria for deletion: vandalism articles." . But my words indicate nothing of the sort. My words mean that under the circumstances as they occurred, the only reason to act as you did would be for a vandalism problem. You should have chosen other actions. Sure, the article changed. The ease of that improvement tells me you made a mistake in your action of nominating the page for deletion. Really, I respect that your concerns were valid. Your actions were not. Try to at least see the difference. Mister.Manticore 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that I'm explaining things clearly to you, I don't know why, but perhaps it would help to ask somebody else to help? I'm getting the impression that I'm not going to get you to understand what I'm saying, and I'm very concerned that your readings of my words are so inaccurate that I don't think there's much chance of correcting your errors. I don't feel I can do it on my own at all. Mister.Manticore 00:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly. I'm just not sure I agree altogether, and you in no way seem under the slightest impression that you could possibly be the one who is wrong. You continue to criticise me, and doubt my experience here. You do not appear to be understanding me. We dont seem to be understanding each other. Can you not see that my closing of the nomination was an acceptance of the improvements to the article? An acceptance that there was information to be added to bring context? It would have been a mistake to leave the debate open, but I do not feel that it was a mistake to nominate it, considering the state of it at point of nom. As the article was improved, I closed the debate. Had it not been improved, it would have been deleted - I am quite confident of that. Either way, I took one of a number of options at the point of nomination, and then proceeded to take the appropriate steps when it was improved. -- Anonymous Dissident 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's quite clear to me that you are not comprehending my words, as witness your statement above. You've made a clear an unambiguous statement about what you believed to be my position. That statement was completely and utterly incorrect. If you do recognize that, then you may withdraw the statement. That would indicate to me you realized your error. Until you do, I continue to see it as a problem that not only do you note understand me, you don't even fully apprehend how you're not. I don't know about your experience here, I don't think I have even looked at your contribs. I know about your actions in this circumstance. They were a clear mistake. You even corrected your actions. I don't know about you, but when I correct my actions, I consider that to represent a mistake on my part. To put it another way, you started off by choosing the wrong option for the reasons you had. The reasons as existed meant you should have acted otherwise. Mister.Manticore 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation - I see the article but say to myself 'Oh - this may be improved soon. I'll wait a week before noming for deletion'. A week passes. No improvements. I nominate it for deletion. Would you have approved of the preceding course of action? -- Anonymous Dissident 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly consider that more reasonable on your part, though I would not inherently say it is reasonable without knowing the full situation. There are cases where it would be, and cases where it would not. However, I would suggest you consider doing the following: Making a search to be sure you understand the subject's place in the world. Using a clean up tag (such as {{context}} or {{expert}} or such other as appropriate. Talking to the editor who made the contributions. Seeking out a relevant wikiproject. Considering a redirect. Improving it myself. Just looking at a page and then coming back to it in a week may not be quite active enough. It might work, but it might not be enough on your part. If you don't at least consider the other options, then you've made absolutely made a mistake. Mister.Manticore 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I considered adding tags to this article. But would a tag on context really be good enough when no context was there? I considered what it might be about, thought of perhaps improving it, but I honestly could not figure it. I did not blindly nominate this. I just might not have waited long enough, and I will admit that, because I am not perfect, and mistakes are made. I just want you to understand that it was not as if I made a mistake or some kind of error that is impossible to comprehend. -- Anonymous Dissident 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good enough to tell an editor they needed to add context? Yes, I think it could work, that would seem to be the purpose of the template, and considering there was only one previous edit (to create the page), it's quite likely the editor was just working as they went along. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but so what? You didn't try. I don't know that you did consider any such things. I can't read your mind. I can only look at your actions here, and in this case, you didn't do them. Three minutes after this page was created, you used {{subst:afd1}}.. Which in this case was a clear mistake on your part. Anyway, it does seem you're acknowledging you did make a mistake. Yes, you had reasons. Yes, those reasons were valid for concern. They weren't valid for the actions you took. Next time, just act differently. If you truly did consider other options, then next time, take this as an experience that should tell you to consider things better. Mister.Manticore 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know - this is one of only a few Xfds of mine that I have withdrawn. Mostly they are deleted. I do know policy. So please do not feel too concerned in regards to my actions in these areas. I feel I have gathered something here, but rather than learnt something I feel i have learned of an area where I may need improvement in the deletion domain: other options, and perhaps patience. Lastly, i do not think it was an entirely blatant mistake of mine: I think the reasoning behind it is easily clear. -- Anonymous Dissident 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly haven't considered this as a pattern on your part. As I said, I am pretty sure I haven't looked up your contribs, and I haven't even looked up the contribs of Ideogram. I did notice where Tenpoundhammer and another user did seem to have a pattern that concerned me, but even then, I didn't do it because I looked at their contribs. I know I haven't noticed your name on AFD, which probably means I haven't had a real problem with your actions before. I certainly haven't been bringing up the issue. To me, this is a single incident, nothing more. I usually don't review people's actions just because of a single conflict. In this case, I very much am sticking to the matter at hand. If you've done better in other cases, great, but I haven't seen it. Not really interested in looking here either, the mistake was corrected, I see no reason to worry about your patterns. In any case, your mistake certainly wasn't on a horrendous one, note my lack of suggestion for any kind of punishment or censure beyond saying you made a mistake. If you've learned to increase your level of patience, then that's great, I think it's certainly the important part. Mister.Manticore 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wider attention list

My bot isn't deprecated, it's just down for some upgrades (which are being tested by BetacommandBot). MessedRocker (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just thought it looked a bit odd on the WP:VP page when it's not working. Mister.Manticore 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The template, {{wider attention list}} itself, is indeed deprecated, but the system is not. It's possible to edit it, but I think the bot would just steamroll over the edits as it's programmed to do. MessedRocker (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Misplaced Pages experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

K, I'll take a look and list some thoughts for you.  :) Mister.Manticore 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TV schedule afds

Thanks for the help removing the tags! NawlinWiki 04:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter

Hey, this article has been nominated for deletion again, would you mind swinging by and defending it as you did so staunchly last time? Looks like it could really use the help! GlassCobra 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope,since I can't say I staunchly defended it the first time and it looks like enough of a trainwreck already. Mister.Manticore 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Technomancer (Disambiguition)

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Technomancer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Wow, you're deletion happy aren't you. Too bad notability isn't a valid criteria here, as the purpose of the page is to disambiguate, nothing more. Mister.Manticore 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

I enjoyed and appreciated your contributions to the recent deletion discussions related to GURPS and the Dungeons and Dragons creature articles. Just wanted to let you know. Rray 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Rray's comment above. You seem to make some pretty solid arguments. Bravo! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnitrix

I've noticed you've been quite vocal in your support of the article in question, and I thought it would be good if I pointed out the guidelines in WP:FICTION that the article in question is violating. Fiction states that articles must '...contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.'. The article in question is entirely in universe, with no relation to the outside world. WP:NOTE states: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' There are no references on the page independent of the subject, as all are from Ben 10 episodes or from Bandai. Perhaps you could find out if a Ben 10 wiki exists, but Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you have questions, rebuttal, or anything to say, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.Ravenmasterq 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not considering WP:FICTION to be any kind of gold standard. In fact, I consider your arguments to be sorely lacking in common sense. Try reading the start of the page: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Really, do you think it makes for a better coverage of Ben 10 to not mention the Omnitrix at all? Is that really a good idea? I don't think so. I think that's a horrible idea. Mister.Manticore 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted my apology on the AfD in question, and am now re iterating it here. I hope that we can come to some consensus on the issue and work together to resolve our differences. However, I would think it would have been of better etiquette to bring to my attention WP:CANVAS before pasting an attack against me, though a valid one, in a more public place. I also wonder how you found the request in question without going through my recent contribution s page.Ravenmasterq 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't attack you, in either the notification or the note on the page. Yes, you did wrong, and I did specifically cite your actions, but that doesn't make it an attack. There are ways to express disapproval of an act without it being an attack. In fact, I made sure to balance my comment by advising both sides not to engage in the conduct. And it's pretty easy, I was going to leave a note on TenPoundHammer's talk page because I was troubled by a remark made at another AFD. Mister.Manticore 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just in case you're curious I did check the talk pages of everybody who commented on the article just to see if there was any other canvassing going on. Mister.Manticore 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I thought you were saying, by directly linking said Canvassing, it felt more attacking than trying to clear the issue. And that's because it was linked right there in the post. I may have misinterpreted your feelings, but with the link there, it was like you were pointing the finger in an 'attacking' manner. I will remove said post as according to WP:CANVAS after this AfD is over.Ravenmasterq 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel attacked, but I tried to be as neutral as I could. What you did was something I highly disapprove of doing, so it's probably not going to feel like a pat on the head. It's hardly unknown to link to a diff of the inappropriate conduct when regards to a canvass. (I can note two cases of seeing it recently, one of a HP-related website and another involving Spells of Harry Potter.) In fact, I consider it very important to do so when the person being canvassed has commented on the subject. This lets everybody know about the problem, not just a few editors. Mister.Manticore 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view and would probably have done the same thing if I had encountered it more. That said, I believe it is time to move on and go back to the original topic we were discussing, that of the Omnitrix article.Ravenmasterq 04:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the topic of this convesation, I believe I have a half-confession to make. My younger brother already has an account here (Chiafriend12). When I found out that the Omnitrix had been nominated for deletion, I happened to tell him as soon as he walked in. This morning he decided to get involved and listed his reasons for keeping the Omnitrix (I don't know if he stopped to read what was already there before adding his comments, but knowing him I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't). Although it was not my intention to get him involved, I felt I should "come clean" now just in case somebody finds out we're related and accuses me of canvasing. That is all. The world's hungriest paperweight 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may wish to avoid that kind of concern in the future by being very careful with what you talk with your brother about, as that sort of thing can lead to a lot of problems, like stealth canvassing and sockpuppeting. And I hope you'll make a note of this on the AFD. Mister.Manticore 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, what I'll go ahead and do it. Mister.Manticore 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Dravidian civilizations

Hi, with all due respect I have created this article with over 30 referrenced sources. Furthermore, segments of the article that was taken from parts of other related articles had the link:

This was to link the reader to the Main page of that particular topic. An example of that can be found from the following articles which have done the same:

• Karnataka
• Kalarippayattu
• India
• Hinduism

Would you suggest that I reword some of the sections in the article? Regards. Wiki Raja 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Canvassing

Oh, NOW you're interested in WP policy? Well perhaps you should read WP:CANVASS again: canvassing is the recruitment of multiple users. One friendly note to another user asking for their opinion is not canvassing. Groupthink 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in any Misplaced Pages policy whose application I agree with. One note to a person you selected because you feel they will influence the outcome is bad. Not enough that any kind of action needs to be taking other than saying it was done, but still not appropriate. Multiple notes to many people is worse, perhaps enough that sanctions should be imposed. If you do feel a need to contact people, it must be done in a neutral manner. Mister.Manticore 15:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Canvassing Activities

Sorry to have opened Pandora's Box on you. It looks like you and the Hammer have quite a few opposing views, and I do plan to remove the post entirely as according to WP:CANVAS as soon as the Omnitrix AfD is over. Until then, since the AfD page links right to it, the only polite thing to do is leave it and take full responsibility, as it has become part of the debate.Ravenmasterq 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the AFD page links to the diff, which you can't remove without editing the history, something I don't advise you to do. And as far as it goes, I have no strong opposition to Hammer, I think there might be a few concerns, but nothing I'd consider significant. I'm more concerned about hastiness than view. Mister.Manticore 15:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You and Groupthink

Give it a rest. Artw 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty much done. Mister.Manticore 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Dear Sir or Madam: I have filed a Wikiquette alert regarding your conduct. The notice may be viewed here. I have also requested a third opinion. I regret any hard feelings this might cause, but as we have been at loggerheads, it is my hope that outside parties might aid in resolving our dispute. Groupthink 04:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like, I'm comfortable with my actions, and I've made no attacks on your person at all. I do feel your actions were questionable in regards contacting another user in the manner you did, but anything else? Uncivil? Perhaps. But if so, not to a major degree on either side. Ill-advised? Maybe. But not to the extent it's bothersome. I do think you have a troublesomely inaccurate understanding of me, but I'd say that's not a problem I can do anything about. Either you're capable of perceiving my words accurately or you're not. Mister.Manticore 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Bolt

Please do not remove speedy delete tags, it is considered vandalism. If you wish to discuss and prove your opinion then bring it up on the discussion page. Scarian 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism when you don't have anything to do with the article, thank you. Especially when the alleged copyvio is blantantly untrue. Really, the page it was claimed to be copyvio of? Was directly from Misplaced Pages. So don't give me a complaint about my actions, the tag was clearly mistaken. Mister.Manticore 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the article will still be deleted for not being notable... . Thanks! Scarian 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not necessarily true, but so what? It doesn't mean you were correct that it was a copy vio, or correct to criticize me for a completely appropriate action. You weren't, and if you can't show us what it's a copyvio from besides that one site, I'm going to ask you to strike that allegation from the AFD. I'm also going to ask you to strike your above statement. Mister.Manticore 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a funny thing - do I look like the only user whom has thought that there is a copyvio going on? I'm following the request of an experienced user who is ten times more experienced than you or I put together so I wouldn't really question him. Also, if you care to take a look at the AfD discussion, you'll see more people than just I whom believe it is a copyvio.

Are the pure blooded Manticore's a dying breed, by the way? Scarian 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes? If you're talking about TenPoundHammer, that editor has retracted his claim, and to be honest, in my experience, TPH has been hasty and not as considered in examining situations as desirable. If you're talking about someone else, I don't know their names, there is nobody else in the AFD who has brought up copyvio as an issue. In any case, anybody can be wrong from time to time, which brings us back to the real point, you haven't identified where you believe this to be a copyvio from. Maybe you should just admit the mistake, rather than continue to make more. If you can show me where you claim this is a copyvio from, that'd mean something, but right now? All you're doing is convincing me your complaint was invalid. Mister.Manticore 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he wouldn't be too pleased if you were slandering him . - the bio makes no reference to having taken it from Misplaced Pages and right at the bottom "Copyright © 2007 Mel Bay Publications, Inc." Hooah. Scarian 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What Slander? My opinion of his actions isn't slander. Slander is an entirely different concept, which goes along a different direction. And I've told TPH my concerns before, if it displeases TPH, then there's been an opportunity to say so. Instead, I think it's been taken as the good-natured and helpful advise it's been meant to be. Believe it or not, there is a place for criticism of people, and I don't see that there's anything wrong in the advise I've given him. OTOH, I do see that it's wrong of you to accuse me of vandalism when I remove an obviously inappropriate CSD tag. That's a far stronger word to use, and not at all helpful. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should solicit some opinions on WP:WQA. As for your link, thank you for finally providing a link to the material. However, I'm not convinced this is an irredeemable copyvio. I'm not even sure they didn't just copy the material from Misplaced Pages without due credit. It's not like the page hasn't been worked on since 2004. This is especially possible since the editor who did make the changes to make the page more like the page you're referring to is Ben Bolt, who may well have been the author of that material as well. While there are concerns about verification (an issue for OTRS, not us), and COI (which does bother me), a person does have the right to produce material in more than one place and license one under the GFDL. So as concerns go, I'm afraid Copyright violation *isn't* the big one here. Notability is far more pertinent concern. Mister.Manticore 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove that it IS NOT a copyvio - so, please, feel free to leave me alone from now on. All I wanted was the article deleted - it was going to happen either way. You're dragging something way, way, way out of proportion to claim a very minor victory. Do as you wish, the article still gets deleted either way! I no longer wish to receive messages from you on this subject. You are free to message me if something else entirely unrelated to this occur's. Scarian 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're dragging something on way out of proportion, accusing me of vandalism, and not even retracting your unfounded accusations against me. Consider that you could have simply not worried about the copyright issue, not accused me of vandalism, and just stuck to notability. Heck, at any time you could have withdrawn your accusation against me. But you haven't stricken it. You haven't even said "I'm sorry, that was a mistake" but instead, ignored that whole problem. Now you're coming at me with some argument that I'm harassing you. I'm sorry, but if you don't wish to continue a discussion, it behooves you not to continue to discuss it, rather than say you don't want to hear about it any more. Sorry, but I find that sort of action very troublesome. Really, do you not even see your responsibility here? I'm comfortable discussing it with you, if you're not, maybe you should ask somebody else for their input. I really hope you do give this situation an open and thoughtful examination and see what mistakes you might have made in the process. But hey, the instant you don't want to talk about this anymore? Take it in your hands, and stop writing replies. Though I do hope you will at least do like I ask and strike your unfounded accusation against me. Mister.Manticore 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There. I apologise. I automatically assumed anyone who removes Speedy deletion tags without discussing it first is automatically considered vandalism. I apologise. I lost interest in this petty crap a very long time ago. Just for the record, I never ONCE said or implied "harrassment". "Hassle" - which I believe you may have misread - is a colloquial slang term for "irritating or an annoyance". It has nothing to do with harrassment. Have a good day. Please recognise my request of leaving me alone now unless you have some sort of other small bone to pick with me. Scarian 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm glad you've at least recognized your mistake, as the removal of CSD tags is appropriate for anyone who isn't the creator of the article, and I think it's highly unfortunate that you didn't understand how they were handle. Though I do think you may wish to reflect further on the situation, and your role in it, if you've at least learned a lesson about CSD, that's important enough. Mister.Manticore 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have reflected on our conversation. I do sincerely apologise. I suffer from some complex about being told I'm wrong :-D - I also like to learn... so today I've learnt that people whom the page doesn't belong to can remove speedy delete tags and I've also learnt to take being told that I'm wrong. Thanks, Manticore. I put my gruff reaction down to just plain ol' denial. Not X-Files governmental denial but just plain psychological human denial. I was also wondering about your handle. It is Star Wars, right? As I said earlier? Manticore, if my memory serves me correctly, is the home planet of the Mandalorian's... If you've ever seen any of the Star War's films they basically invented that weird helmet with the 'T' for eye holes. As you can probably assume correctly; I'm a geek. Heh. Take care, friend, and, sorry again. Scarian 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your status on Misplaced Pages

Hello! I read that you were leaving this site. Anyway, I hope that is not the case as I have seen some absolutely outstanding arguments from you in AfDs and I therefore hope that you will stay. In any case, I really hope that everything is okay with you and wish you all the best in any scenario! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. — xDanielx /_C 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Animecon (Finland)

Long story short, I rewrote, want to check if the new version cuts it? Thanks. --Kizor 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Just thought you should know Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination). The Placebo Effect 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)