Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 17 July 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents I occasionally do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning.

If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Jake Honig

{{tb|RadioFan|Jake Honig Speedy deletion tag removed with prejudice}}

Viz Mail

I do not understand how it could possibly have been deleted as per the Speedy rationale: 1. This is not a typo or a misnomer, and the speedy rationale specifically stated so; if the name does not match the rationale, the speedy should not happen. 2. The company Viz Communications did offer a service called "Viz Mail," and this was documented in reliable sources 3. Logically the name of a service operated by a company should redirect to the name of the company 4. The particular service is now discussed in the article

I am kindly requesting an explanation. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the nominating editor's comments, Googling VizMail showed something different entirely. If no one is likely to search on that term, there's no need for it to be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Include quotation marks and possibly other to get the actual search results. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22VizMail%22+anime&aq=f&oq=&aqi= as an example.

2. I found reliable sources that discuss this service. We use reliable sources as measures for whether a topic can be discussed on Misplaced Pages. While I find not too many google hits, reliable sources discuss this topic. There aren't enough for it to have its own article, but branded names of company services often redirect to the company's page.

3. This service is now discussed in the article Viz Media. You can see it here: Viz_Media#Website

4. You did not follow the Speedy deletion criteria. Misplaced Pages:Speedy_deletion#Redirects states the reasons why a redirect can be speedied (The "general" criteria can be used in all namespaces, but I don't see how any of the general criteria fit).

"Redirects from the article namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Misplaced Pages:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. If the redirect was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. See also Misplaced Pages:Cross-namespace redirects. "

"Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."

Because "Viz Mail" is not a typo or a misnomer for "Viz Media," you are not allowed to speedy delete it as a redirect. You were required to keep the redirect as it did not fit the criteria, and that was the only outcome that fits the speedy deletion criteria. You should never have speedied deleted the redirect in this case. One can only speedy delete something for very specific reasons, and User:Collectionian's objections do not follow any of the allowable reasons for the speedy deletion. If User:Collectonian wanted to delete it, she should have had to have used Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. Since you were not allowed to speedy the redirect in that case, I would like for both reidrects to be recreated. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Step down from the rhetoric a bit, please. The assertion, judged by me to have merit after a cursory google search, was that VizMail was in fact a misnomer. Go ahead and recreate the redirect (I certainly didn't salt it), and leave Collectonian a note asking her to take it to RfD if she still disagrees. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Next time, though, please only delete for reasons outlined in the speedy criteria. In future cases may be best to say something to the users like "I think User:XX has a proper rationale for deletion, but it does not fit the speedy criteria. While I am keeping the redirect, I am encouraging User:XX to use Redirects for discussion" - something like that :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

She has nominated it for redirects for discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_8#Viz_Mail WhisperToMe (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Commented, thanks. Jclemens (talk)

Enerbev Undeletion for further additions

Hello, I understand your deletion of my post for Enerbev and would just like the opportunity to continue to edit it until it is ready for Misplaced Pages. Enerbev is my first try at editing articles so please try to help. If possible, please put the deleted article on my userpage or email (wawooten@hotmail.com) it to me. Thank you for your help in advance. (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this, I really don't see much hope that it will ever be a useful article, but I could be wrong. Please review WP:COI and WP:SPAM and post here again if you believe, after reading those guidelines, that the topic really will merit an encyclopedia article. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns and do understand my conflict of interest. I do, however, strongly believe that Enerbev deserves an encyclopedia article and that it will have to be done by someone else. More than anything, I would just like to use the article as practice for myself and would not like to lose all of the work I put into the article in the first place. Please email it to wawooten@hotmail.com or put it on my userpage if possible. Thank you for your quick response, honest assessment, and assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawooten (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, undeleted and moved to User:Wawooten/Enerbev. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines for admins

Yeah, I do think we need the IAR bit in there (for the benefit of newer users who might not be aware of it). Clarity's good.—S Marshall /_Cont 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We ought to have this conversation on the talk page, for the benefit of others. I'm not convinced that we want newbie admins handed an "IAR applies more here than elsewhere" license--ideally, we will have picked good admins who will not misuse IAR in "dramah"-inducing ways, but I think that overall a reminder of IAR in that context might have a net negative effect on the project. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can move it to the talk page, if you like; but since it's you who's objecting to the edit, I thought I'd talk to you personally first.

I've spent a fair bit of time at DRV, and my experiences there have taught me to think we need clarity in the deletion guidelines. And I don't think my edit implied that "IAR applies more here than elsewhere" -- but if it did, the answer would surely be to clarify it, not to cut it. Hiding the rules is bad.—S Marshall /_Cont 23:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll refactor the sentence to take account of your concerns.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Line

I was hoping to avoid overloading Afd with articles that clearly violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:INUNIVERSE by redirecting the most egregious examples (i.e. articles that made no attempt to even assert out-of-universe notability and contained copious amounts of pure plot summary). However, as you disagree, I have instead nominated the article for deletion. I find it ironic that someone who uses this image on their userpage would disagree on this... Savidan 07:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, and you appear to have looked at the article in its current state, rather than the subject of the article. Are you even familiar with the topic? Did you try to execute any part of WP:BEFORE? Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey J, on a related note, do you have anything that can help these? BOZ (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding

According to Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion, which is a policy, when you remove a prod tag from an article, it is required that you state in the edit summary why you disagree with the proposed deletion. For example, you deprodded The Sublimed with the edit summary "Decline PROD" which is insufficient to explain why you think this pure WP:PLOT reguritation should have an article on Misplaced Pages. In future, please provide a detailed edit summary when removing prod tags from articles. Abductive (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the word "must" or "should"? I have no problem expaining, however: I simply want to see each of these fictional elements given an AfD--that is all that is required for any editor to contest a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Experienced users should follow the spirit of policies even more so than regular editors. You accuse users of not following WP:BEFORE, but can't understand why the policy has this text in it? Abductive (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand perfectly well why it's a good idea. Did you realize that I deprodded about 20 articles? Lacking an automated deprodding script, I simply didn't feel the need to type redundantly. Thanks for your advice, it's been heard, and that's pretty much all these is to say on this matter. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)