Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 9 September 2008

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LARP group deletions

Would you be so kind as to reconsider your deletion of True Adventures? While the article was poor at explaining the notability, with about 3,000 players, a budget on the order of $100,000 a year for a single four day event, and a level of complexity of build unmatched in the US, it is most certainly notable. You appear to have deleted it under Misplaced Pages:CSD#A7 while ignoring the citations provided as "not reliable or independent". CSD A7 specifically says we should not consider verifiability or reliability of sources, only that notability is asserted. If you would be so kind as to restore the article, I will strive to make the notability far more clear. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, let's just turn this into a list. Should be easier to go over:

• True Adventures - Massive complexity of build, 3,000 players and ticket sales of over $100,000 for a single event.
• Darkon Wargaming Club - Notable for long history (since 1985) and for having a documentary made about it (Darkon (film)).
• International Fantasy Games Society - One of the first LARPs, founded in 1981.
• LARP Alliance - Previously speedy deleted and restored for the exact same reason. As such warrants a proper AfD discussion and not just a speedy deletion.

(More to come, I'm sure)

No notability was asserted, they were all A7s. Any note I made about sources had to do with my having tried to skirt deleting an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that some the groups are notable and in many cases did list why they were notable. The article's only fault was failing to clearly spell out the notability. As far as I can tell, had I gotten to each of these pages before you and simply slapped, "This group is notable for" with my above notes, they would still be there. I would in fact have already done so had I realized that someone unfamiliar with LARPing would not have appreciated their notability from the article as they stood. As far as I can tell, I could re-create them right now, but more carefully spell out the notability and they would survive a CSD challenge. If I must, I will. But I'll be spending hours of work copying text from Google and re-wikifying it. Were the articles restored, it will save me a great deal of time. Please reconsider. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good faith articles about non-notable topics often don't assert notability. The deletions had nothing to do with anyone's unfamiliarity with LARPing. Members of groups like this often mistake their enthusiasm with Misplaced Pages's wider notability standards. I should also ask, are you aware of the conflict of interest policy and are there any worries about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying these articles would survive an AfD challenge on notability grounds. That's not the question. I'm saying that speedy deletion was too aggressive. CSD:A7 very clearly sets a lower bar for notability than the wider standards. Were I to repost the articles, in the process pulling out the notable part and putting a very clear, "This group is notable because," would they have survived an A7 speedy deletion attempt? I believe so. If that's the case, the flaw was simply that the notability wasn't well stated. As such, restoration and an opportunity to make this very minor improvement is superior to posting new articles copied off Google and losing the edit history. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note, you are aware that simply copying the information from google would be a copyright violation right?— Dædαlus /_Improve 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion below? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LARP doesn't need to be clogged with them. Indeed many of these articles exist because LARP was getting clogged. I feel that the standard that each group's article needs to survive on their own is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps none of them will survive AfD. But, for the reasons given above I believe CSD was the wrong path to deleting them. I believe the articles were deleted on a minor technicality that is easily remedied. I would like the opportunity to remedy the minor fault. If they're not notable enough, they'll be deleted via AfD soon enough. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my suggestion for LARP clubs. "Clogging" LARP would not be a worry. Either way, they were all CSD A7, which is not a "minor technicality," nor was there a "minor fault" in each of these articles. As you acknowledge there is a question whether any of these could make it through AfD, so I see no need to restore them. You might want to look into WP:DRV instead, since if a consensus showed up there to restore, I'd be more than happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading it as a way to weasel otherwise arguably non-notable topics into Misplaced Pages, which I decidedly don't want to do. As I said above, I'm okay with the articles standing on their own strengths, so I thought my answer was implied. Upon further thought, perhaps such an article could stand on its own merits, one I'll consider the possibility. That the articles might not survive AfD (and I believe some would), seems irrelevant to my questioning the decision to speedily delete them. And my point isn't that CSD:A7 is minor; my point was that some of the articles did express notability, simply poorly, a minor and easily correctable fault. However, it seems clear we disagree, so I'll take it to DRV. Though we disagree, thank you for your time. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, I declined the speedies on Dragonbane, Dagorhir, Belegarth Medieval Combat Society and Amtgard. I think an article along the lines of LARP clubs could handily cover the non-notable ones. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LARP

It might be more helpful to list these clubs at LARP, or in an article called LARP clubs, since taken altogether an assertion of notability can easily be made for them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All restored

Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Talk pages are not deleted under RTV, as numerous administrators had said there. Why did you delete this page? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding about WP:RTV. All user talk pages can be deleted if the user is in good standing and requests RTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So from where did Krimpet, chaser and Stifle get the idea that user talk pages are not deleted? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the user is not in good standing, the community may decline to delete user pages, most often the talk page. This happens, but otherwise you might want to ask them. WP:RTV is clear and makes no exception for talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not explicitly say we do not delete talk pages, that is true, but it does not say we do. Several people here, as well as the three administrators I mentioned above, do not agree with you that RTV covers user talk pages. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See Right to Vanish at meta, which says User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The meta policy differs from the en.wp policy; elsewise it would just be a soft redirect. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like wikilawyering to me. Meta is referred to in the see also section of WP:RTV. Moreover, when RTV refers to user page and subpages, it wlinks to Misplaced Pages:User page which clearly includes talk pages, which have been a part of RTVs for users in good standing as long as I can remember. As I said, users not in good standing sometimes are declined deletion of their talk pages, which is how this misunderstanding likely came about. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

←The main thing is that in all discussions I've found about this, the agreement is that talk pages aren't deleted. They can be blanked, and they're not indexed by search engines. You seem to be the distinct majority in this opinion, given what I provided above. Given LRG's history, I don't view the deletion as wise after the speedy had been denied and two other administrators agreed. But fighting about LGR is hardly worth my time. So I'll defer to you. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those were good faith misunderstandings. Mind, lots of RTVs come about because a user not in good standing (or at least, in "dodgy" standing) has become unhappy about how things have gone and wants the user account and its history thrown down the memory hole, but nevertheless the talk pages are kept, following the "good standing" bit in RTV, so that later editors and admins stumbling across the user's edits may be made aware of past worries. If one wants to assert that LGRC was not in good standing, that's another tale. However, in my experience, the talk page is deleted in uncontroversial right to vanish episodes, which we are all much less likely to hear about, whereas the "not in good standing" episodes get plastered all over ANI and AN, the talk pages aren't deleted and hence, a snowball of misunderstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think those were misunderstandings at all, I think that's what the community supported and thought was happening all along. Talk pages are different from other userpages, and contain large amounts of comments/contributions from other editors. I'm very tempted to take this to DRV, and make some proposals to clear up this deletion nonsense once and for all. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RTV is clear, talk page deletion is not nonsense. If you want to try and get the policy changed and consensus gathers for that, it's ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RTV is certainly not clear on that issue, and I recall several discussions where several long standing editors and admins have said that RTV did not include talk pages. There is no policy to change. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right to Vanish at meta explicity includes talk pages and is linked from WP:RTV
• WP:RTV wlinks with the phrase user page and subpages (to Misplaced Pages:User page) which clearly includes talk pages.
• Otherwise, WP:RTV makes no mention of or exception for user talk pages.

The policy is clear, misunderstandings abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to simply disagree, but now you're just acting stupid. For one, it's not a policy. Two, we've specifically held a different version from meta for years, so whatever the heck they've put on their page means jack shit in regards to what this community supports. Historically, we've always treated user talk" and user namespaces differently. This is evident at WP:CSD, WP:UP, and several other pages and discussions. What the heck gives here, Gwen? I'm already collecting links for the DRV listing, but I don't understand why that is necessary. It's pretty clear from WT:RTV itself that there is no consensus for the user talk page to be deleted at request, and RTV on en.wiki has always been a guideline. It's not covered under WP:CSD, either. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Acting stupid? Anyway, we have a disagreement. Why do you want the talk page restored? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

True Adventures

I wasn't editing between the time that got nominated for speedy and speedied, and, frankly, don't recall what was in it. Can you restore it to my userspace, so I can see if I want to make an argument to keep? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done (User:GRuban/sandbox). It needs a meaningful assertion of significance in the lead. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at it, I think you made a mistake speedying it. Your deletion comment was "(A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.: although many references are cited, most are not reliable or independent) - the first reference cited is Wired (magazine), which is both reliable and independent. As for "a meaningful assertion of significance in the lead", that would be "True Dungeon has been described as "the single most popular event" at Gen Con. People attend Gen Con just for True Dungeon." which are in the lead, and cited. If you think that's not enough, then take it to AfD, but the assertion has been made, so it's is not eligible for speedy. I don't recall, specifically, and you didn't restore the article talk page, which would have documented it, but I seem to remember the article survived an AfD before. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was tagged by an editor and then deleted by me because it carries no assertion of significance. I did look at the citations before making the deletion and although there are many, they are very thin. The Wired article doesn't seem to confer notability at all, only verifiability. There is no note of an AfD on the talk page and no Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/True Adventures. WP:DRV would be the next step. If a consensus to restore shows up I'll be happy to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my suggestion above that these less notable LARPs could perhaps be put in an article like LARP clubs. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated! --GRuban (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's make that a little more graphic. :-) I know it's hard to go back and say: I may have been wrong. Thanks for being big enough to do that. --GRuban (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ta! Mind, I don't think I was wrong but now and then, a straightforward take on A7 doesn't quite match up with the background, on-wiki and off, of a topic. Hearing from a bunch of good faith editors made me think that's what was happening here and I'm always happy to find a reason to restore stuff, moreover if I think it'll be watched over. I'm hoping y'all will strengthen the leads of these articles so this doesn't happen again. Cheers for the daisy-thingy! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of material by Hayabusa2938 on talk page

Hi. I noticed that you made this edit and wondered if you'd care to clarify. I see that you blocked (the very rude) Hayabusa2938 for leaving a fake signature, but why not just clarify that it was his comment instead of erasing it. The comment to the talk page that you reverted did not appear especially offensive. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The signature was forged (with the name of his sockpuppet) and the edit summary was a lie, the comment waved GNAA like a troll flag, hence the edit was vandalism and I reverted it as such. If you support forged signatures and wholly misleading edit summaries, please take it to WP:Village Pump and get a consensus for a change in policy which would allow and/or encourage these methods, as you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that I do not support Hayabusa's methods. I can also see that his comments might be somewhat defamatory (against Administrators). Since I do not have Administrative tools to check to see if the page he mentioned actually was erased, and whether the erasures he mentioned were also erased I wasn't sure if his comments were lies, or were just his opinions. That's why I asked. Please don't take it personally. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't a forged signature. (It may have been a sockpuppet, of course, but using a sock isn't the same as forging a signature) The original comment was by Mythstory (again, presumably a sock), so restoring the comment with the original name is hardly 'forging'.

Additionally, it was poor form for Gwen to lock his talk page for insulting her personally. That's generally a conflict of interest, so she really should've had someone else do it for her. (It's not about impropriety. It's about the appearance of impropriety) (uh... did I spell 'impropriety' right? anyways, you know what I mean)

That said, while although the actual content of the original comment wasn't terribly offensive (and in some parts was even true:[REDACTED] is indeed censored, and abuse of power is a problem in any large project), it was still entirely unrelated to the advancement of any article. So, issues concerning sockpuppets, and a comment that didn't belong in an article talk page... general practice is to simply remove it. (though it shouldn't have been marked as 'minor', but that's a clerical issue)

Incidentally, you don't need to be an admin to see if someone has deleted a page. You can see the deletion log here. However, many of those previous "attempts" didn't actually include any conversation whatsoever, so they don't really count as "surviving deletion". (eg. Check out the 12th-17th attempts here: . Many keeps were after less than 8 people commented at all, and at least one was a lack of consensus=>default keep) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you two having fun? If either of you would like to be blocked, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?!?

You care telling me what policy, rule, or even general rule of etiquette I broke that would warrant blocking?!? If not, don't go throwing around random threats. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments remind me of the Ryugyong. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Uh... because... I'm made of concrete? You never know if I'm finished? Pictures of me would benefit from extensive airbrushing? (not going to disagree on that one) I don't get it. Nor do I understand how that warrants threatening someone. Civil much? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ryugyong is (mostly) empty, costly, botched and doomed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could use a third opinion

Some heated editing between me and User:Nayatwa is occurring at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Before this escalates further, I thought you could opine on our edits to help build a consensus either way (See Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Early Linguistic Inquiry on Language Development. I seem to recall you helped simmer down another dispute on a Mormon related article and was impressed by your neutrality and tact, and think you would be a good dispassionate observer. Let me know what you think.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are sources with differing PoVs being cited? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Darkon Wargaming Club

I am unsure as to your motive for the deletion of Darkon Wargaming Club for its being "Non-notable", as the group, which is a 25-year old non-profit organization with over 3,000 members, was notable enough to not only have been featured on Fox News and CNN, but also have a full-length documentary about it. I feel that this meets requirements for notability. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 05:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article makes no assertions of importance, nor did it mention the club had been featured in any national television broadcasts, hence it was deleted as a CSD A7. Would you like a copy in your user space, to hopefully build up the article and get it by CSD? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the television broadcasts were not mentioned, in the first paragraph the documentary is clearly stated. If you can copy it back to my userspace that's fine...but I think it would be easier to restore this article which does not meet the criteria for A7 deletion, which I feel was a bit harsh. Its notability is clearly defined in the article. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Although these articles were CSD A7s, good faith editor enthusiasm for restoring them seems to trump CSD or notability worries, so I've restored them all following what I think are hints of a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Much appreciated. I will add some more things to the article so its notability won't be disputed in the future. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do, it will help a lot :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Misplaced Pages Commons images can only be deleted at Misplaced Pages Commons, not Misplaced Pages, right? And could you please remove the sockpuppet tag from my user page? Fclass (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't worry about deleting images and yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be a bit more careful

Hello.
I notice that you removed someone's comment in the Kim Jong-il discussion page (here).
I know you had the most honest of intentions, but I don't think you were reading their comment very carefully before you deleted it.
It was not just a random bit of nonsense. The article itself, under Fictional portrayals, says, Comedian David Letterman refers to him as "Lil Kim" or "Ment-Ally Ill". The talk page comment was a correction that Letterman suggested that he had a brother called "Ment-Ally Ill". ie. he was suggesting that part of the article was slightly inaccurate.Keeping that in mind, I cannot fathom any reason to remove such a comment without any explanation.
Again, I assume it was just an honest mistake (heck, even I misread the comment at first as well), but you really should be just a slight bit more careful before removing the comments of other editors in the future. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In Gwen's defense, a comment by David Letterman is hardly encyclopedic to start with, and that bit in the article appears unsourced anyway.  Frank  |  talk  18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree. And I don't think Letterman calling him "Lil Kim" or making jokes about an imaginary brother even qualify as "fictional portrayals" to begin with. Frankly, I don't think either should be in the article. My concern, however, isn't with the accuracy of such a trivial detail in the article, but rather with the removal of an editor's comments from a talk page.

Like I said, I read it wrong first as well, but that's why I read it again before removing it. Honest mistake of course, Gwen does a lot of work, so statistics demand that she make such a mistake eventually (trust me, you don't want to meet 'statistics' in a dark alley). I just figure that nobody can learn from a mistake if they don't know they even made it. :)

(incidentally, no point in replying to this on my talk page, as it's a dynamic IP. If you choose to reply, you can do so here, or you can just ignore me. :D 209.90.134.118 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But can I ignore you here? ;-) Seriously - I think Gwen's revert was clean, since the comment was without context. No biggie though. How about if we just remove the Letterman remark from the article in the first place?  Frank  |  talk  19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that gladly. (but can you do it? the page is semi-protected, so I can't edit it) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Frank  |  talk  19:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)