| Revision as of 17:31, 23 March 2011 editHangakiran (talk | contribs)126 edits →Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep"← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:28, 23 March 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 3d) to User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/3.Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| {{/Persistent}} | {{/Persistent}} | ||
| ⚫ | == Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep" == | ||
| == Abolition of Prostitution deletion == | |||
| Would you mind amending the deletion closure to indicate a merge to ] as well as ]? Several of us indicated this was a closer match in the deletion discussion and would avoid deleting quite as much material.--] (]) 13:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Merge it wherever you want. AfD merge closes are generally not binding as to the merge target. ] (]) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == KSL Bug == | |||
| I have just discovered a bug when using KSL to report usernames at ]. In I reported a user via KSL and the application created 3 duplicate entries. ] ] 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Did they update the bot to have the <nowiki>"<!-- Marked -->"</nowiki> comment? Anyway, fixed in r41. Download the new version. ] (]) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not sure about the <nowiki>"<!-- Marked -->"</nowiki> comment. Thanks for the fix though ] ] 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep" == | ||
| {{hat}} | {{hat}} | ||
| Hello Timotheus, | Hello Timotheus, | ||
Revision as of 18:28, 23 March 2011
 | If you are interested in trying Kissle, edit the dedicated "requests" section below. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks. |
| My off-wiki communications policy: I prefer, to the extent possible, that all communications regarding a Wikimedia matter be done on-wiki for the sake of transparency. If there is a compelling reason why it should be done off-wiki, you may email me or talk to me on IRC, but:
|
Please click here to leave me a new message.
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| 2+ months |
| 1,902 pending submissionsPurge to update |
Notes
| PGP key |
|---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep"
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello Timotheus, This is regarding the article "Janos Boros" who is a Hungarian Politician. In 2009 there was some move by Romanian users of Misplaced Pages to have this article deleted. The deletion request was rejected and the Article was kept based on the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janos_BOROS . A re-nomination for deletion by User:P199, User:Biruitorul and User:Iaaasi seems ill-motivated in total ignorance of the discussion and conclusions that have happened already in 2009. This way all articles on Misplaced Pages can be endlessly nominated for deletion after each decision to keep. Please do consider all the discussion that have taken place for the article, not just the ones by the three users who re-nominated for delete. In the light of facts and fairness towards the article, we request you to un-delete the article. Regards.--Hangakiran (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, Thank you very much for relisting and opening up the debate. appreciate the fairness. Regards. Hangakiran (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, The problem is that the discussion has started to become lopsided with hardly any representation from Hungarian users as well. Another aspect of concern is that when the article was nominated a second time for deletion, we came to know about it by accident when we tried to view the page. Under the circumstances, I thought it pertinent to intimate other users about the discussion, as otherwise they might never know about the discussion until it is concluded. If you look at the body of the message posted in the concerned User Talks pages, I clearly ask them to contribute with their views - that is the help I was asking for. Nowhere am I asking them to post a certain opinion favourable to my point of view. Warm regards, Hangakiran (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, It is quite difficult to ascertain from Hobartimus's page if he Hungarian. And he has not made a conclusive decision either for Keep or Delete. Hangakiran (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Enough. I consider using the nationality of editors as an argument prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct under WP:DIGWUREN, and I'm tired of my talk page being used as a battleground and the constant orange bars showing up. The two of you should stop. Immediately. And Hangakiran, if I see one more instance of canvassing from you I'll block you myself. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Timotheus, Apologies for bothering you. This will be my last post on your talk page regarding the Article under discussion. Will have to read up on the rules on Wiki I guess. Hangakiran (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A premature decision?
Hi Timotheus. On February 21 user:passionless was topic banned on I/P related articles. Apparently you replaced user:Passionless's topic ban on I/P related articles with 1 R/R per week restriction. It could have been a premature decision. The user demonstrates rather tendentious editing pattern in the topic area. Please see this report. The user was only warned for it, but as user:CIreland said: "I would have blocked if I had seen this first"
In this revert #3 (made 17 minutes after the first two reverts) user:Passionless removed well sourced information. Of course that edit was reverted at once (not by me). Before that the user nominated the article on deletion. The user claimed it to be WP:Event and told me at my talk page that "Really, hundreds of people are murdered everyday, with most of them getting some air time in their nation's newspapers". IN AFD the user calls this "merely a non significant double murder". Timotheus, it was said about two 13 and 14 years old boys, who were stoned to death. It was said about the boy, whose story prompted US Congress to adopt the Act of Koby Mandell.
In this comment the user calls Jerusalem Post "a local paper", and claims that "US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed". I understand that the latest claim was brought up by confusion expressed by another user, but when the confusion was cleared up, that claim should have been stricken out, but it never have. If you to add to all of the above filing an not actionable AE on user:B, and user:passionless behavior on a not the same but a very related topic it really looks the topic will benefit with user:passionless taking a break.
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies about the delay. I'd prefer that this be taken to AE so that we can get more eyes on it (and give Passionless an opportunity to respond) before any action is taken. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but I don't understand why you have restored the article about Janos Boros. In the previous AfD discussion there were 3 participants, and all of them supported the deletion. I thought it is clear that it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Can you please give me some details? Thanks in advance (Iaaasi (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
- The first AfD closed as no consensus after a vigorous debate and someone brought up sources (which may or may not withstand scrutiny). Then in the second AfD the three people who commented didn't bother to address the keeps from the first AfD at all. You can't deny that there's the appearance that the second AfD sneaked through - and appearance is just as important in those cases. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Misplaced Pages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Reply at AE
You wrote that "The idea that one edit cannot be edit warring, while perhaps superficiality appealing, does not hold up under scrutiny.". This is not what I (or others) were saying. Yes, under extreme circumstances, such as coordinated edit warring, socking and so on, one edit can be edit warring. But those are not the circumstances here. Making a single edit in an ongoing edit war should not make one an edit warrior, one revert is permissible. It is the second revert that makes one into an edit warrior, and that condition was not met by VM (who generally made talk comments, and reverted once only after days passed with nobody replying to him). I believe that VM was acting within BRD, that one of his reverts ended up being in the middle of a (slow) edit war should not be seen as a problem. If there is an edit war going somewhere, I go, I post at talk, I get no replies and and then make a single revert to the article (with an informative edit summary, explaining my rationale and asking editors to join me at talk) am I edit warring? I very much think no (and this is what VM did). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a hypothetical in response to someone's claim that "no reasonable person should consider a single edit to be edit warring"; a general comment only. I thought I was quite clear that I didn't have an opinion on VM's conduct - largely since I haven't yet reviewed the history myself in detail. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)