Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 4 February 2007

• Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
• Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
• Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006

Six Laws of Adam

First of all Mazel Tov on the mop n bucket!!! Hope you become an asset to WP. About getting the above article undeleted, must I now find the exact daf in the Talmud and section name in Rambam? frummer 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Westinghosue reversion?

I don't understand why you reverted, without explanation of any kind, the speedy-delete tag I had added to Westinghosue Electric Corporation. It's a peculiar and unlikely typo, one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Jkatzen 07:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, because I didn't even see the typo while I was processing the CSD category. Additionally, CSD R3, to which you refer, only applies to recently created created redirects. October 2005 is beyond my understanding of recently created, so I'm not going to reverse myself. GRBerry 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you recommend keeping a random typo page? Instead of just undoing the speedy-delete, why don't you do something useful and practical like nominating it however you feel a page of that nature should be? I don't understand why you're taking such a patronizing tone -- I was just trying to help. "So I'm not going to reverse myself." Sheesh. Jkatzen 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies that you saw a patronizing tone in my response; I did not intend one. I don't think it is worth getting rid of the typo, so I'm not going to spend the time no nominate it on WP:RfD. GRBerry 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever (you're doing it again) . . . I don't understand why people on here can't be appreciative of others trying to help. Some of you frequent editors get these egos about yourselves with some sort of sense of entitlement. Telling me that you are granting "apologies" because I saw a patronizing tone is just repeating the slight. I thought, as an administrator, you were supposed help other editors out. If you see something that's been mistakenly misnominated, instead of invoking a flippant veto (as if you're some sort of terminal voice), it would be far more helpful if you would use your experience and expertise to a.) not make others feel foolish or ignorant, and b.) aid others through the bureaucracy. I'm not asking for you to even defend yourself here -- I'm just looking for you to be helpful. Jkatzen 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fresh frozen seafood

This person deleted my new page 'fresh frozen seafood for' copyright violations, he said

well PAL. i made the web page the info came from as an Evangelical you claim to be, I have doubts about ANY information you expouse with the experience IO have had with 'these types' in Latin America your rhetoric falls short, and the ceiling of your educational abailities is always in doubt, especially your openness to other's creed and beliefs

I am Buddhist I assume you may have seen this on my pages and deleted because of this leave my mess alone PAL you know more about seafood than us? I seriously doubt it I will repost, and leave it alone, then you will not have a problemo, delete it again, expect a visit, this is a promise, not a threat and there are other religions on this planet other than you evangelicals go edit something else, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.180.21 (talk)

An obvious G11 as advertising, never mind that the article may have been also a copyright violation. GRBerry 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Red Paint People

I was going through my contribute list, and noticed your generous additions: it took a over a year for anyone to give it a good makeover. Cwolfsheep 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deletion Review for Khalil Kalfat

The problem is that I am busy right now in real life. I am currently maintaining 48 articles (the articles I have created). I don't have time to look after another article. Most of my contributions are related to WikiProject Egypt which is just starting. Also, I don't know much about him. The information provided in the four links are enough to create a Start-Class article or at least Stub-Class but we will have to carefully write the article so that it is not a copyright violation. How about placing him in Category:Needed-Class Egypt articles?

--Meno25 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, since you are an administrator, I have tagged about 20 articles for speedy deletion. Could you please delete them? They are the most recent articles in my contributions. Their edit summary is: Adding speedy template. Thank you.

--Meno25 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. Yours was one of the neutral votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Don Roberts

Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Saint Mary's DRV

First, as I also posted on the DRV, you made the point that someone could still merge/redirect the article after the AfD was closed as a keep. In fact, this was attempted, but reverted soon after as failure to adhere to the closure. Second, you admit that the only point made by keep !voters was passage of WP:SCHOOL, which the article does not, so how can you urge to endorse the closure or endorse a no consensus when 1) there's a clear consensus, and 2) those going against the consensus do not provide sufficient reasoning for doing so? Cheers. -- Kicking222 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as the first point, please note that, in my DRV nomination, I state "overturn and delete or redirect"; thus, I would support redirecting the page if this had been allowed by other users (which, clearly, it is not). -- Kicking222 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The delete arguments actually made in the AFD are not really any better, so I don't see the strength of arguments that you, and others, see. A bunch of NN per noms, one to WP:SCHOOLS3 which is also a proposal, and most validly some "no assertion of notability", with which the keep opiners differed. Nobody opining delete actually said "I can't find any sources and here is how I tried", so WP:V was not in play so far as I'm concerned. Had those arguments been made, we'd be evaluating a different discussion. But if all we see are "no it isn't", "yes it is", I can't use strength of arguments to evaluate the close. GRBerry 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point regarding WP:V. Nobody really gave a good argument supporting verification nor supporting the lack thereof; thus, it's really impossible to judge the AfD on the basis of discussion. Of course, I would then argue that the AfD closure should be analyzed based on head count, which, in my opinion, shows a consensus. 72.7% is in a slightly grey area, but I would argue that it's a strong enough consensus to overturn the AfD closure.

I hope that you don't think that I'm attempting to badger you so as to change your !vote in the DRV. You, of course, are welcome to your own opinions, just as I am and everyone else is. I'd like it if you reevaluated your stance, but if you don't, it's all good. I will certainly respect your opinion either way. Have a nice day. -- Kicking222 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

vote on deletion

Hi GRBerry. If you have time please revisit John Gorenfeld. More information has been added to establish his notability. Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for helping me get started on wikipedia!

More Freedom License 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. :( :( :( I'm leaving[REDACTED] for good, I'm having lots of trouble with other people. Sorry again. Goodbye. I'm the one who you helped by putting all that stuff on my page. Actually maybe I'll run for being an Admin.

More Freedom License 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Thanks for the various heads-ups on the {afd}s on Guantanamo detainees.

I have been thinking, for some time, that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees should be rewritten, or replaced. Those goldarn Guantanamo intelligence analysts did such an abysmal job at managing the list of names of the captives..

Anyhow, would you take a look at the first couple of hundred entries in User:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15?

I am changing this file that I used to help manage my work on the Guantanamo articles. I think the current state of the first couple of hundred entries comes near the merge you thought was a good idea. I finished beginning to flesh out almost all the articles beyond the stubs generated by my python scripts.

Maybe a smarter person could figure out a way to automate changing these all the entries at once. This took a surprisingly long amount of time.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15

Thanks for your prompt attention. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic-link deletion review

You endorsed the "no consensus" ruling, and I have addressed this at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link, where I invite you to take a second look. — coelacan talk — 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here,

You might need this: WP:TROUT :) >Radiant< 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

You went against a clear consensus. I will be filing a deletion review. TruthCrusader 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, my first deletion review. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17#rec.sport.pro-wrestling. GRBerry 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

friedman

ok. didnt realize there was a previously a prod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs) 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

research/support

If you'd like to do a more elaborate sample of deletions, I'd be glad to help--design, collection, or analysis. I find I'm doing so much there that I might as well be systematic. (And I do know the applicable research methods if we really want to do it right, probably by content analysis). I think we see it similarly--I am there because of trying to help combat the injustices, tho I only really have time to work on the injustice to my segment of the world, university and science people. I noticed your user p. disclaimers. I have exactly the opposite religious polarity to yours, and say it on mine but not nearly so well. I see things the same way & think I can constructively edit what I do not like. (I've been trying to rescue the page of a lithuanian fascist just now, from some who would rather call him names instead of presenting his views objectively--which would serve their purposes very well, if they could just understand that.) DGG 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoothbeats

Thanks. Well. I am not bragging when I say this...really I'm not. :) But of the probably 1,000 deletes I've done, I think I've had 2 or 3 questioned. So this is new to me. --Woohookitty 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Newly-Qualified Teacher

Thanks for re-directing this; stupid really - never crossed my mind to do it! Tafkam 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: PediaPress

It's OK. I found the old version of it on a mirror site, so there was no need for me to ask for it to be replaced. I was going to rewrite or add to it if I could find sources, but I can't, so I'll just take the link out of Misplaced Pages instead. Thanks anyway – Qxz 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Nomination

So, it seems like a tight knit community. Thanks for the advice. And, can you explain your comment on my nomination? How can someone quote me Wkipedia usage policy on the one hand, than tell me that it is a concesus decision anyway? The two can be at odds at times. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Concensus

Thank you for taking the time. I'll do my research and stay on it.Juda S. Engelmayer 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing

See my comment on my talk page, & further commentary on the rfa, and a strong support vote. Sorry, maybe village pump would have been better. What do you want me to do now? --Parker007 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Youth Friendship Games

This is an older AfD so might have fallen of your radar. Please review Youth Friendship Games, I think the delete tag can come off. Jeepday 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Voting

I am user GRBerry on Commons. GRBerry 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bay Ridge Christian College

The revisions since you began creating this article afresh have been userfied at User:Absolon/Bay Ridge Christian College. If you can't find independent and reliable published sources in a reasonable amount of time, please tag it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (with {{db-repost}}) or WP:CSD#U1 (with {{db-userreq}}). GRBerry 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Absolon S. Kent 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AKN

i left a comment on for your endorsement here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_30#Alpha_Kappa_Nu FrozenApe 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Aloka

Thanks for the heads up. --BozMo talk 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Marsden

Hi GRB, I'm concerned about your decision in the Marsden deletion review. Most of the people who commented endorsed the deletion. There was no consensus to relist it, yet that's what you've done. In so doing, you've effectively changed the proportion of users needed to have it kept deleted i.e. you've undermined the deletion review process. My apologies if I have that wrong: I don't get involved in deletion issues much, so maybe this is the normal process, but it seems a little odd. Any clarification would be appreciated.

By the way, I deleted the new title, thinking that one of the sockpuppets had turned up to create it before the deletion review was over. It was only after I'd done it that I saw you'd closed it and redirected the title. SlimVirgin 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the old problems with DRV was that it was just a vote, from the days when AfD was still VfD. This got changed late last year. So DRV is now a consensus area, not a vote area. If you look at the timestamp on my struck out notes about closing in progress versus the timestamp on the final close, you can see I spent a lot of time determining the consensus here. (Yeah, I did spend some time talking with my wife, but 90% of that interval was spent on this close.)

The standards (documented at Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy) are fairly simple. 1) If there is consensus to keep it deleted, it stays deleted. 2) If there is consensus to undelete without listing at XfD, it is just undeleted. 3) If there is no consensus, it goes to XfD. Normally it would go exactly as it was immediately prior to deletion.

About two or three hours into deciding how to close the DRV it was clear that there was no consensus on the main issue of whether or not to endorse the deletion. So the article was going to be undeleted a second time and listed at AFD a second time. But something didn't feel right about that answer, and I found that I couldn't swallow just doing that. So I thought about it some more, and analyzed from a different angle, looking for any consensus on minor issues and any ways off the wheel.

That is when I realized that there was a very weak consensus that the article shouldn't be at the old title. While Thatcher131's proposal to just have the content be in the History of SFU article did not obtain consensus support (5 of 42 is anything but consensus, and that is all I found who clearly would support that outcome), some of those who thought the content should be restored did agree that the old title was not the right place for the content. That enabled me to find consensus for moving it to a better title.

I tried to make clear that my particular choice of new title was editorial, rather than part of the close. It has been moved once since, and I agree that the new title is even better than the one I chose.

The discussion also revealed that the encyclopedic notability of the controversy is not because it is an incident in RM's life, it is because it an incident in SFU's history, and may (this was demonstrably expected, but not demonstrably proven, see the new page's talk) have had a wider influence on other Universities policies and procedures for handling harassment claims. So I also editorially whacked back the article trying to get it refocused on those issues. That hatchet job was and is improvable, as I've already commented in the new AFD. I don't claim that this had demonstrated consensus support, and do say that the hatchet job was an editorial action instead of an administrative job. (Of course the ArbComm remedy encouraging admins to delete says that any editor can stub, and admins are also editors, so whacking biographical detail is supported by the ArbComm remedy.)

I wielded the hatchet in an attempt to prevent this from going around the wheel a third time. (I do mean that in the sense which "wheel" is used in Misplaced Pages:Wheel war, although as of my close no single admin had acted twice so we didn't yet have a war.) Guy had speedy deleted with an eye on the unclosed ArbComm case, it was brought to deletion review, overturned, sent to AFD (with a pointer at the case), the ArbComm case closed, and the AFD closed as keep. Then at the suggestion of a user (unfortunately later proven to be a sockpuppet of a user banned by the ArbComm case) you looked at the ArbComm case and speedy deleted it, starting the second trip around the wheel. Consensus to keep deleted was not mustered at deletion review, so it has gone back to AFD. Thus far the AFD is a unanimous keep, which if it stays that way through the close will result in two complete spins of the wheel.

I wish the discussion had endorsed DGG's suggestion for an RFC on how to handle this, but nobody seconded it. I believe that the lack of consensus at deletion review exists because there are two groups of editors approaching the question from two independent frames. One group believes this is an incident in RM's life, and thus that having an article on it constitutes undue weight given the low level of biographical sources available about her. One group believes that this incident is clearly notable in its own right without regard to any later notability of RM, and should be covered by us regardless of how the page started. Some went so far as to say that if we only have one article, it should not be the biographical entry on RM. I believe that a RFC, which has no deadline, or ordinary conversation on the article's talk page, is more likely to produce a reconciliation of these views and a true overall consensus, than either DRV or AFD is, because the latter pair are decision processes with deadlines.

Normally, in the case of an article with a prior keep AFD that is later speedily deleted, the discussion at DRV depends on whether or not to relist the article at AFD, with overturning the speedy deletion a foregone conclusion. The normal exception to that standard outcome is when policy has clearly changed subsequently. In my eyes, reading the timestamps on the proposed decision page of the ArbComm case, it was clear during the original AFD that the ArbComm remedy was going to exist as it does now. The case was mentioned in the AFD, and the case closed before the AFD, so we really can't say the remedy from the case is a policy change since the AFD (and ArbComm would probably disagree if we said that they had set "policy" in its usual meaning.) This situation did influence the outcome; since it is mentioned in some of the opinions it presumably influenced them, and it definitely influenced the close.

I think we need to look for creative ways to get off the wheel. I couldn't accept myself the standard no consensus close action of relisting without changing the article because doing that would just be spinning the wheel another third of the cycle, but could close as I did because I think it may be a path off the wheel. An obvious pair of other ways to get off the wheel is if the new AFD finds a consensus to delete or merge the content. Given time and people who are looking for new options, we should eventually find a way off the wheel that we can all live with. GRBerry 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)