| Revision as of 21:34, 9 August 2009 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,517 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination): r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:37, 17 January 2025 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,517 edits →Appealing against deletion?: r | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | ||
| I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at ] | |||
| '''Welcome, correspondents''' | |||
| I occasionally do ]. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons: | |||
| #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. | |||
| #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 ], 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 ]. | |||
| 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 ]'''. | |||
| <br>'''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. | |||
| '''Position Essays''' may help you understand my point of view with regard to... | '''Position Essays''' may help you understand my point of view with regard to... | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| '''Administrator Goals''' | |||
| Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I'm requesting this be undeleted. Terezka Drnzik is well known and respected in the Australian belly dance community and even has a radio interview archived at the National Library. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/558648 | |||
| Also this year she was invited to be a choreographer at the Australian Dance Festival. | |||
| http://site.auwebcenters.com/sydneysalsacongress/Terezkadrznik.html <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{tlx|tb|RadioFan|Jake Honig Speedy deletion tag removed with prejudice}} | |||
| == Babylon 5 articles == | |||
| Regarding your note here I can work with you on this. I have reviewed the B5-related articles previously and had similar thoughts. There is a lot of good content there, but susceptible to AfDs and the content is sometimes inappropriately split off into different articles. Is the B5 Wikiproject active? --] 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Other than you, I've received no response to my posts, either there or on the B5 project talk. Frankly, I work much better when I'm collaborating with at least one other person in trying to improve things. Are you up for such a Butch and Sundance take on it? :-) ] (]) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Didn't Butch and Sundance die at the end of that movie? I'm much slower on action. Actually, I'm about to go on a week-long vacation. Let me know what you have in mind. I won't be accessing this account on vacation but I may check my email. ] 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How about we pick one category and make it into a list... ] is one I've already started, and it needs more stuff integrated into it, as well as a lot of cleanup work. ] (]) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks like a good place to start. I'll look into it tonight but then I'm away for the week. ] 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's a volunteer job, do what you can, be sure and enjoy your vacation! Thanks for the help! ] (]) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Keeping redirects == | |||
| When you move a page like ] to ], please keep the redirect. In this case, it even has incoming links; in general, you should only delete the redirect if you'd normally be able to delete it through the ]. Thank you. --] 09:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No idea why I didn't in that case, as I only consciously uncheck the box when there's a good reason to--that was six weeks ago, and I have no recollection of that article. ] (]) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Nile Ranger == | |||
| Hi. I see the ] article has been deleted as "recreated", following an AfD !vote . While at the time of the AfD the player didn't meet ] he has since made his debut at senior level for ], referenced on the Newcastle United website (and elsewhere): "NEWCASTLE United hand senior debuts to Nile Ranger...", "Shola Ameobi (87) made it two after a mazy dribble inside the area before Nile Ranger got his first goal at senior level...". while admittedly this was in a ] the criterion at ] doesn't appear to draw a distinction regarding the status of a match in which a participant has "... competed at the fully professional level of a sport". I see your protect log summary notes: "Any admin can unprotect per DRV or if there's a sourced assertion he now meets WP:ATHLETE", however since I've edited the article following the AfD but before it was deleted as a recreation I feel I'd be overstepping the mark if I were to unprotect it. Do you feel the source I've quoted is sufficient to unprotect and undelete, or would it be more appropriate for me to take it to DRV? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :How about I userify it for you, you add the sourced information on his new appearance, and then we move it back to mainspace when you and I agree it's ready? It ought to be a lot faster than DRV, and I have no objection to it existing, just that it seemed to have kept being recreated without the circumstances changing. Cheers, ] (]) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm happy with that - I'd have done that myself but, as I say, as an involved admin I wouldn't like to! Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::] and the blank page at ] deleted. I'll work on it and give you a shout. Regards ] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were a fellow admin, else I would have suggested you do it directly. Cheers, ] (]) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{tl|talkback|Arcayne}} | |||
| == Request for assistance == | |||
| I am currently trying to help the editors in the {{la|Falun Gong}} topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: ].) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! ] (]) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your kind invitation. However, I think I shall decline the invitation at this time. I have enough other things to consume my energies. ] (]) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're a savvy editor and very helpful in religion and spirituality topic areas, so I thought to ask. Thank you for the response. If I can be of assistance to you, in the fashion I asked or otherwise, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well! --] (]) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I was going to create a page for Elizabeth & The Catapult and saw a note that the page used to exist and that you had deleted it on 22 Jun 2009. Since I'm a non-admin, I don't know what the page looked like before deletion; do you feel that the band (which has since reached #1 on the iTunes singer/songwriter chart) doesn't meet notability requirements, or that the previous page was just poorly done? I don't want to recreate it if it goes against a previous consensus. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure that an iTunes ranking meets ], but I can restore the past article for you to work on in your directory, so you can use it as a starting point and improve it from there. Interested? ] (]) 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, looking at it, there was a section that was a copyright violation, it was removed, and after it was taken out, there really wasn't that much of an article left. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to make a decent article about them, providing the sources exist. ] (]) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for looking at it. If you don't mind restoring the old article to my directory when you have a moment, I think I have enough citations to flesh it out into something decent. I appreciate your help! --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Moved to ] ] (]) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for your restraint == | |||
| I want to express my appreciation for your recognizing when choosing NOT to edit is the right thing to do. Such demonstrated restraint, a simple good-faith thing to do, gives me strong reason to more closely appreciate your reasoning when you do choose to participate. Good for you. Good for pagespace. Thanks again for keeping your eyes on the ball, a long way down the field. ] (]) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome, but which restraint is this in regard to? ] (]) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I requested you take a break on ]; today you edited the page for the first time in weeks. ] (]) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah. I've been on and off the page since. There simply wasn't any reason for me to have said or done anything in the interim. ] (]) 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just saying. I called you out, then you did as I requested. I thank you for valuing my advice enough to act. ] (]) 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The truth is more mundane. I keep worrying away at the topic of Saint Pancake, because it really is a festering sore in the pillar of NPOV and NOTCENSORED. At the same time, there's no particular action on the table at the moment, so my participation in that thread is intentionally sparse--I wasn't planning on rapidly responding on that page no matter what you or anyone else might have said. ] (]) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're correct, better sourcing will appear eventually, so you'll have something to work with. I just noticed the Corrie talk space isn't as noisy recently. ] (]) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==WoW== | |||
| What are we doing with sightings these days? ANI? UAA? Ignoring? ] (]) 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Dunno. I think the real WoW retired and apologized, but we've got a Pseudo-WoW doing the same schtick. ] (]) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a simple dance to learn. I was looking for the appropriate warning template. Level 4 improper humor? UW-sarcasm? ] (]) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Eh, if it's Jimbo's talk page or some other heavily watched page, I usually don't bother--let someone else handle it. On the admin bits, I tend to stick to the non-controversial things, like deleting PRODs, blocking obvious vandals, and closing clearcut AfD's. I think I've only blocked one editor with more than a few edits, and never had anything overturned at DRV. Only using the bit for the routine maintenance that needs doing lets me be more productive. ] (]) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Viva64 - thanks == | |||
| Hey, thanks for finally getting rid of ]. That article has been bugging me for ages. --] (]) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Friendly reminder == | |||
| This is just a friendly reminder to make sure you check the history of an expired ] before deleting it. Earlier today, you deleted ] as an expired PROD, which I've now restored. Four other active articles were split off of it (improperly documented, but I'll fix that shortly) and thus it couldn't actually be deleted unless all those articles where deleted first. | |||
| Also, you are supposed to make an independent judgment about whether a deletion is truly uncontroversial. I just don't see how an article with 1600 edits over 4 year could possibly be uncontroversial, regardless of the fact no one removed the tag in 7 days. | |||
| Have a nice day, ] (]) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You're right, that was an oversight on my part. ] (]) 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == WQA == | |||
| Please note that I have raised a WQA in order to get independent views on your accusations of my edits being Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing at ].—] (]) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You misunderstand, I think. I didn't ''accuse'' you of those actions, I ''informed you'' that your behavior constituted that, and advised you that if you persisted, you would face sanctions for that behavior. ] (]) 07:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] relisted Orly Taitz ''yesterday'', after an extremely contentious DRV, and you've ''already'' closed it as a keep. What's that about? I thought the point of relisting was for it to be ''relisted''. If the closing admin's decision was simply going to be overturned, do it honestly: call it overturned and be done with it instead of pretending to relist. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, as the closer of the DRV, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer, but the AfD is intended to run for 7 additional days. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As somebody who believes the article should be kept, I also think the AFD should be allowed to run for a minimum of 7 days, and so far it's around 5 days, with a large gap in the middle. This is an unusual case, given the problems with the initial close, makinga ] close (if that's what's going on) less appropriate. ] (]) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| So, a bit of an explanation is in order. I've made it a habit to go through ] and close relistings that really shouldn't have been relisted. A cursory review showed consensus to keep, (33 vs. 7 total, including 11 vs. 3 after the relisting, with a half dozen redirects) which appears to have a ] chance of switching to delete. I must confess, I missed the date gap and the DRV notice, and didn't consider it in my close. As such, I've gone back through the entire debate much more carefully, and come to the following conclusions: | |||
| A '''no consensus''' outcome might be remotely possible if a large amount of canvassing were done, but the fact is, those arguing for the article to be kept have the stronger policy-based argument. has ''hundreds'' of references for Taitz--many of which deal specifically with her--and she has no stated or implied intention of remaining a low-profile figure. Consider , , and for starters--these are not articles about birthers which mention Taitz, they're articles about Taitz. Per ], this is not an '''uphill battle'''--it's a done deal. | |||
| While everyone involved has my sincere apologies for inadvertently shortcutting the process and causing additional consternation, a keep is the only policy-based outcome. In fairness to the nominator and initial !voters, Taitz prominence rather rapidly, but the issue is and should remain settled. Any of you are welcome to take ''my'' close to DRV, but I cannot in good conscience reopen an AfD which cannot end otherwise without a serious ''de facto'' alteration of the policies under which I closed it. ] (]) 05:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I guess the SNOW will stand, since no one will ]lessly DRV it. -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough. A DRV can have three outcomes relevant here: relist, endorse, or overturn. After a lengthy argument at DRV, user ] conculded that the consensus was to relist. By shutting down the relisting almost immediately, you have in effect said that no, KofH called it wrong, the result of the DRV discussion was to ''overturn''. That's the upshot, because there's no practical difference between where we we stand now and where we would stand if the DRV had been called as overturn. | |||
| :The consensus was to relist. This article should therefore ''be'' relisted, which it has not yet been in any meaningful sense. While I agree with KofH that DRV is not the right vehicle to deal with this mistaken close, I think it's ''fully'' appropriate (and not pointy) that since the consensus of DRV was to relist, the article be renominated for deletion so that it gets the relisting that DRV concluded it should have. Do you object?<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that would be unwise. I'd suggest you either find an admin to reopen it (unlikely IMO) or send it to DRV. A new AfD will likely get speedied in 24 hours or less and cause yet more drama. The outcome of this AfD is pretty clear and I'd suggest you consider leaving it be for a few months. At that point I think everyone will have a lot more perspective... ] (]) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No admin in their right mind is going to risk wheelwar accusations by reopening the AFD, so that's not an option. DRV is unnecessary because we have already ''had'' a DRV! The result was to relist. Because this article was never relisted (it was reopened for a very brief period, which wasn't enough, and was never actually relisted), that relist mandate is still good. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And what point would relisting or reopening solve? Go look at the AfDs for ] or ]. People who show up on TV and in the press a lot and who are routinely kept at AfD despite large volumes of BLP1E arguments. I see no reasonable probability that this would end any differently if allowed to continue for any additional period whatsoever, especially considering the ''trajectory'' of Taitz' notability. ] (]) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The consensus was to relist. ''That'''s the point of relisting it. Your assumption that a keep is inevitable is the functional equivalent of a vote to overturn at the DRV, but that position did not carry the day. Relisting did. And what is more, overturn ''certainly'' did not command consensus; your premature closing that is even worse than the original close, because the original close could at least claim to have chosen between two plausible interpretations of the AFD, while yours enshrines the noe result that was plainly ''rejected'' by both the AFD and DRV. Delete may be off the table, but we didn't yet know whether keep and no consensus close would prevail. | |||
| == Appealing against deletion? == | |||
| :::::I'm sorry to put to fine a point on this, but in the circumstances, I must. Frankly, it's very difficult to take seriously your protestation that this was an innocent error when you're trying to insulate so clearly flawed a decision rather than remedy it. The correct thing for you to do here would be to admit error (which you essentially have already done), revert yuor premature close, and relist. That spares everyone a needless fight about re-nomination or wheelwarring, it was the consensus at DRV, and you ought to do it. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Two simple points: 1) the keeps were winning on numbers, and 2) the keeps were right on notability. If you want to look for conspiracy theories, be my guest, but not on this talk page. I fail to see how any good faith interpretation of the debate and the underlying policies can come to any other conclusion than that Taitz is independently notable and should be kept as a separate article. Process is a tool with which to arrive at the right outcome, so if you want to convince me to alter the outcome, you must comvince me the outcome was wrong--I've already admitted that I made an oversight in the process. ] (]) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In other words, you admit that you closed the debate early, you admit recognition that this was inappropriate, you admit that the close reflects your personal opinion as to the notability question at issue in the AFD, and you admit that the SNOW close was inappropriate (because "f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause," and you have conceded the reasonableness of the objection). And with all that on the table you ''still'' refuse to make things right by reopening the AFD? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. No ''reasonable objection'' has yet been raised. By that, I mean that no one, including yourself, has yet asserted that if the relisted AfD had been reopened to run for the full seven days, that the outcome would have been otherwise. Count 'em yourself: 11 to 3, almost 4:1 in favor of keeping the article, in the time it was relisted. I'm not sure what my "opnion" has to do with anything, unless there's an assertion that I misjudged the reliable sources available based on a personal bias. Precedent in our handling of similar BLP1Es, the wording of notablity and BLP1E policies, the presence of current reliable sources, and the rate at which new reliable sources are being added all informed my decision. If you'd like to make a reasonable objection to these points, rather than to process or to person, feel free to do so. ] (]) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Can I ask you for some advice? My was ]. (It was redirected, but in effect it was deleted.) You were the only person who voted to keep it. Is there anything I can do to appeal against the deletion? I don't think the process was very fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it; other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. It was also a non-admin closure (if that matters). ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Hello again. I decided to request a deletion review: ]. ] (]) 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please reconsider your premature close of this discussion. Such discussions are not resolved by counting heads and it seemed that the Keep opinions were all weak as they made little reference to either policy or the article in question. Many of them came from members of the Pokemon project who have a vested interest in the matter and so are not impartial. If the discussion were allowed to continue for the full time then a wider spread of opinion might be expected. ] (]) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::So, DRV isn't looking terribly positive, but I'd argue that a NAC DRV with no consensus should be overturned. If it's not, then feel free to find and add more content and unredirect. Unfortunately DRV is being rather stupid about not assessing the validity of arguments made lately--the notion that an RS has to mention a topic by name is improper, but no one is engaging with that critique. ] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:37, 17 January 2025
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Appealing against deletion?
Can I ask you for some advice? My article about Chokobsa was deleted today. (It was redirected, but in effect it was deleted.) You were the only person who voted to keep it. Is there anything I can do to appeal against the deletion? I don't think the process was very fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it; other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. It was also a non-admin closure (if that matters). Khiikiat (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again. I decided to request a deletion review: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 16#Chakobsa (Dune). Khiikiat (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, DRV isn't looking terribly positive, but I'd argue that a NAC DRV with no consensus should be overturned. If it's not, then feel free to find and add more content and unredirect. Unfortunately DRV is being rather stupid about not assessing the validity of arguments made lately--the notion that an RS has to mention a topic by name is improper, but no one is engaging with that critique. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)