Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:16, 31 October 2008

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #216

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

Speedy Deletion Query

Hello Akradecki,

I see you have speedily deleted a biography I posted on Norris Lozano. I am writing this in good humor and with the intention to learn from this.

This being my first foray into Misplaced Pages writing, please help me understand why a person who is uniquely responsible for innovations in finance, saving cool old buildings from the wrecking ball and reaching the highest levels of green building (LEED Platinum) before anyone else is deleted, whilst a guy who runs a phone company stays (http://en.wikipedia.org/Randall_L._Stephenson)?

Is is just that I'm a bad writer? Bio too long?

What gives?

Cesmith111urban (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer is on your talk page. AKRadecki 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

delete

Please delete:

• User:Navy Blue/monobook.js
• User talk:Navy Blue

thank you — Navy  Blue  20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

done AKRadecki 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Franciscan International Studies Centre

Why did you delete this article? Its an established UK institution of higher learning which vets its degrees through the British University system. I would like to reinstate it but will not until I hear from you. If you insist I would like to appeal. Calcium617 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion because it was an organization that did not demonstrate encyclopedic notability, as defined by Misplaced Pages at WP:N. When I reviewed the article, I agreed. It was short, incomplete, did not demonstrate notability, had no references, and somewhat promotional. It was written by a user whose username indicated a conflict of interest. I have no problem with you recreating the material as long as it is written in a non-promotional manner, demonstrates notability, and has that notability backed up by references to non-trivial reliable sources that are not connected with the institution. AKRadecki 15:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

352 Media Group Question

Hi Akradecki! Thank you for responding to my question so quickly. I think I could make a page for 352 Media meet the guidelines for Misplaced Pages. I was looking at pages for big companies like Walmart and Coke, and it would be quite easy to do so without advertising for them. There is a lot of news articles out there about them and I wouldn't write anything from my personal experience with them. I would simply write facts from the articles about them and put one of those tags that asks people to add more. I think a "stub" right now would at least work for now until more people added to it. Thanks Akradecki!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.... AKRadecki 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Another 352 Media Question

Hi Akradecki! Thanks for your help with this, I am still new with Misplaced Pages. I made a few edits on a couple pages and it's actually pretty fun. I started working on the 352 Media page in my sandbox. It is located at User:Raysfan2008/sandbox. I have a few questions. Should I just post what I have as a "stub" and let other users add on to it? Or should I keep working on it? I have to work and I'm afraid it will take up a lot of time to be working on something not related to my job. Also, is what I have ok so far? I know there are strict guidelines, especially when writing about companies. Thank you so much for your help!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi...I took a look, and it really needs more before going live...it's bound to get deleted as it currently is. The QSR Magazine ref is the only valid one, and you need more than that to demonstrate notability. You've got a good start, though, and I made a couple of tweaks as a way of showing you how things should be done. We don't hyperlink like you did the company name, rather we simply bold it in the first sentence. The only place a company link would be appropriate is in the External Links section. AKRadecki 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki! OK so I added on A LOT, maybe too much. I have like 13 or 14 references which I'm afraid is too much. But I did add a lot of content. I also got a notice of "Disputed fair use rationale" for the picture I added (I'm not sure exactly what this entails). It's the logo for the company and I think I fixed it but not sure. So, if you could check it out again and let me know what else I need to change. Also, how do I put in a table of contents? Also, I was going to put a section for "Services" where I would talk about what exactly they do, and also "Awards", but I was afraid I would be spamming. Can I do this? Thanks again!--Raysfan2008 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just went and did some cleanup, but it's looking pretty good. An awards section is not only acceptable, but a good idea, as long as it doesn't become spammish. It's a good idea b/c it helps demonstrate notability. Just make sure there's a ref to a good reliable source for each award, and it states it matter-of-factly instead of in "glowing" or promotional terms. Be real careful about services...as that can look like spam. It might be better to leave things as they are now. The TOC happens automatically, you don't put it in. I move the infobox to the top where it belongs, and did some other minor cleanup tasks. AKRadecki 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki! I am very excited because I believe I am finished with the 352 Media Group page and this would be my first page that I've created. What do you think? Is it ready to go up? Since you last looked at it I just added a short "Awards" section. I decided NOT to add a "Services" section because I really couldn't do it in a way that didn't look like spamming or advertising. So, thanks for all of your help! I really appreciate it. Let me know if there is anything I need to change before it can go live. --Raysfan2008 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Gage Page

Hi Akradeci, I wrote the stub Richard Gage and it was not an advertising at all. I actually wanted to demonstrate thee fallacies and lies of this guy who claims that the World Trade Center was brought down with a controlled Demolition. I have benn trying to be objective and to post links to information readily available on the internet, things like, his website named to be a sponsor of terrorism! this is important and it was televised on Congressional Hearings all over the nation. If you please check and help me to put the information again in the right context I will appreciate it. I definitely do not believe it was an advertisemt since I do not agree with his organisation. ThanksCeleronel (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Celerone, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a place to demonstrate someone's fallacies, no matter how ridiculous. Sorry. AKRadecki 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Erme

Looks like we had a little edit clash over Erne I had to revert your edit since the page is actually vandal created and contains the wikicode copied off another page. I had reverted it back to the vandal state and readded the speedy deletion tag. I would appreciate your input on my handling of this situation and any suggestions as I do think I could have handled it better but got a litte confused. Cheers.

Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Elfster logo

I don't understand why the logo has been deleted while I was working on editing the article. Please let me know. joliette (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Joliette.

It's a non-free image. Upload it after you have an actual article to put it in. AKRadecki 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Chloe Albert

Hi there, you just recently deleted my article - Chloe Albert. I am fine with this as I assume you know way more about[REDACTED] than me, I originally started this for a university assignment. However, would you be able to e-mail it to me, just so I cold have it. I will not put it up again or anything like that. I just want to be able to show what I have been working on forever to friends.

Thanks, 

(Pilut (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Warren Conrad

I don't understand? Why do you think? SirWTC and Warren Conrad are the same person? Can you prove it? Please restore my article until the Deletion Review is over. Tnks Sirwtc (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Please read WP:BIO and WP:RS. It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to you to demonstrate that this person is notable according to our policy. I'm a prolific blogger on Blogspot as well, and you don't find an article about me on Misplaced Pages, and for good reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to drop links to drive people to Blogspot. AKRadecki 15:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion of Cory Davenport

The nomination was invalid and the AFD should have been allowed to run. My wife objected to the original speedy nomination earlier today. I would also note that the second speedy nominator is currently involved in an unrelated deletion dispute with my wife and myself, and I find it curious that he would make such an invalid nomination. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That article was totally spammish and promotional. It used glowing language clearly intended to promote its subject. The subject may or may not be notable...write a neutral, encyclopedic language and back up your claims with reliable sources and we'll see. At this point, though, there was no point in letting it go through AfD when it clearly met speedy criteria. If you want to build a real article, fine, let me know and I'll help you create a sandbox in which to do it. BTW, what's your wife's user name? AKRadecki 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My wife uses the name "The Enchantress Of Florence." Please explain to me why, when the speedy deletion process states that the process may not be used after a prior unsuccessful deletion attempt, it is acceptable to simply reapply the tag. I believe that this has been several times today, and is driven by animosity towards her and myself, rather than any good faith motives. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the prior unsuccessful deletion attempt? That would mean it went through AfD and was closed as "keep". If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest going to WP:DRV. If you post it there, I'll summarize the rationale for my actions and we can let the rest of the community decide. One note, though...if you take it to DRV, you'll probably be expected to put in the work to make this article encyclopedic...are you willing to do so? If so, start in a sandbox, and point to the cleaned up version in DRV...it'll go much better for you there if you do that. AKRadecki 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy isn't limited to AFDs, but any deletion attempts, including AFDs, prods, and speedys, except in the case of copyright violations. There was a discussion of this at AN/I earlier this year, where repeat speedying was, as I remember it, considered inappropriate behavior. Are you refusing to reopen the AFD on request? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not reopening AfD, I'm saying to take it to DRV...that's where deletions, proper and alleged improper, are reviewed and second opinions are rendered. AKRadecki 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

user = misterpines, you deleted my entry, Broadband Learning Inc

I have had my page taken down for violating G11, you say. I have read G11 and it does not say that just because I am making an entry about a company, that you have the right to delete my work. I only put in cited information, I only put in facts, why did you delete my entry and would you please put it back up, or tell me what exactly, you took issue with? Could you at least give me my code back? Thanks in advance.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterpines (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted twice, once by me and once by another admin a few days ago. In both cases, the article reads like a promotional advertising pitch for the organization. Further, in my opinion, in clearly fails our notability standards, which you can read at WP:N AND WP:CORP. What is your connection with the organization? AKRadecki 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Amrutanjan

Could you please explain why the article was delete despite the fact that I was working upon it?-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the article despite the fact that there was a hang-on tag affixed to it-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The hangon tag doesn't automatically save an article...it is supposed to lead to the talk page where an explanation of why it should be saved should be given. The article was nommed and deleted because it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. However, upon review, I can see that with further development, such justification could be met, so I moved the text that you were working on over to a sandbox for you, at User:Ravichandar84/sandbox2. Hope that helps. (copy of this message also on your talk.) AKRadecki 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

fine. thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RCI0, RCI1

I note that you have speedily deleted RCI0 and RCI1, without the courtesy of discussing the matter with me (I created them) first; and ignoring discussion at User_talk:Fabrictramp#RCI0 and on the former's talk page, which you also deleted. The page are where users with no Javascript are directed, if they click on the Javascript-based "expand" links in their watch-lists etc; and were not "patent nonsense". Please recreate the pages, and list at AfD or use their talk pages if you wish to dispute their existence, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not articles, and don't belong in article space. If you want them restored, please list them at WP:DRV. AKRadecki 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Lol are you trying to lecture me on the Christian scripture? Perhaps you should read Jesus and the money changers, or the numerous times Jesus Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites, liars, deceivers etc.

My Christianity is irrelevant to this. I will try to be more civil, but as a human being, it is not to be unexpected for me to get angry at individuals who refuse to use reason or references to support their viewpoints.

Take this message as an affirmation of your warning; I will try to be more civil.

Gabr-el 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not her business for her to insult me. What is her business is to take a look a the situation and appreciate the whole picture, not just pick out loose evidence. User:AramaenSyriac has been blocked for vandalizing the Assyrian people page, and I demanded that he stop. Were is the incivility in that? I told him that if he would not stop, I would edit the Aramaen page as well. Unless you understand the full picture of what is going on, you will easily misinterpret my edits are uncivil. I suggest that you enlighten yourself here:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gabr-el Gabr-el 19:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Young Progressive Majority

You deleted this page calling it blatant advertising. There is a serious controversy involved in California right now between two organizations operating under the initials YPM. Young Progressive Majority, an offshoot of Progressive Majority (which has a page) is a legitimate non-profit with chapters around the county. Young Political Majors has been involved in voter fraud, with its founder being arrested this past weekend. It's important for people to be informed on these two organizations. Topdown5 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your connection? AKRadecki 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the president of the organization. We recently (and legally) registered over 500 new voters in the LA area. These people, watching the news, may be concerned that it was the other YPM who registered them and will look to find out if they'll be able to vote on November 4th.Topdown5 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're connected with the organization, you should not be editing an article about it. Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. The piece I deleted was considered blatant spam because it was written by a rep of the organization, was written in the first person, and was written in a tone that communicated that it was promoting that organization. This is an encyclopedia, not a public forum, not a bulletin board of political subjects, not a free advertising service and not a soapbox. If your organization is truly notable, as we define notability, then an neutral, independent editor who has access to reliable, independent sources will write about the subject. About all you can do is go and request an article be written. Thanks for your understanding. AKRadecki 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Helitron

I urge you to restore Helitron, an article in progress. It may have been a stub, but as one of the three major technical collective choirs in late Soviet-occupied Estonia, it's certainly notable, and has played an important -- if small -- part in the Singing Revolution; specifically, as a source for composers and singers to participate in the latter.

{{db-band}}'s purpose is to broom away school bands of no acclaim and other wannabes; attempting to use it on a choir of more than four decades of solid orchestral experience is a little bit weird at best, and nonsensical at worst. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I supposed that a garage would be a lousy place to form a choir, the bottom line here is that notability was not asserted or demonstrated. Please read WP:MUSIC for our notability criteria. However, to give you the opportunity to bring the article up to speed to meet the criteria, I've moved the text over to User:Digwuren/sandbox, a place where you can work on it without threat of it getting deleted. Once it's up to speed, it can be moved back to article space. AKRadecki 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of traps in the Saw film series

I don't see why the page had to be salted. All I did was make it a redirect to the main Saw page, it wasn't as if I was recreating article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a redirect...the entire thing that had been AfD'd had been recreated. My speedy represented the third deletion, and I tend to automatically salt things that have been deleted that many times, because it's very likely that it'll get recreated yet again, wasting more time. AKRadecki 03:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, sorry. I just intended to make it a redirect for the existing red links. I wasn't aware that others had edited it afterwards.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, can you tell me who the user who added the article back was?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Zangai was the one. AKRadecki 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please can you add the list of Saw traps back because it forms an integral part of the film series. Dalek (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It was deleted at AfD. That's pretty much the final word, and I can see why. The article was extremely long, detailed, unencyclopedic and very poorly referenced. You are always welcome to try listing it at WP:DRV, but you'd have to make a pretty good case to overturn an AfD. AKRadecki 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes from the Road

Hi, could you userfy Notes from the Road to me? I'm pretty sure it can be made to meet notability criteria and would like to work on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done...it's at User:JoshuaZ/Notes. Have fun! AKRadecki 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. To preserve the GFDL it should have the history attached. Did you copy and paste it? To userfy content one should undelete, move to the user spot and then delete the original redirect. Otherwise the GFDL becomes a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is only necessary when it's a permanent userfication. For a situation like this, once you're done, and the article gets moved back to its old title, the former history will show up as well as the history of your work. However, if you're interested in its history to help you build, I'd be happy to do it the other way. AKRadecki 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, while it isn't strictly necessary, it does become what amounts to a temporary violation of the GFDL. I'd prefer if I had the whole history if you don't mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

done. AKRadecki 01:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

States Reorganisation Act

Alan, since you've had some experience with topics related to India (IIRC), could you take a look at the series of edits beginning with this diff? Btw, do you have a clue what the user may have been referring to in this diff by "do not abuse tools"? Might he be confusing using the undo feature with Rollback restrictions? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, won't have time tonight...have to go help daughter with calculus then write an piece for FI that I promised them this afternoon. The one thing I learned in dealing with Indian articles is that often times the editors involved don't want to discuss, they want to promote POV. Try seeing what response you get on the talk page, and I'll look into it more tomorrow. AKRadecki 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, no prob. I know you're quite busy, and I'm fine with that. POV certainly seems to be the case here. I'll post on the talk page later tonight or tomorrow, and see what happens. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Company notability requirements

Regarding Genaker speed deletion, I think I understand the criteria for notability but I start to believe there is an implicit requirement that the evidence of notability should be found on freely available documents. What I mean is that I can give several references of market studies regarding PoC that include the proeminent position of Genaker (which would justify an article with a small history of the company), however those market studies, although available from the biggest market studies companies (IDC, Insight Research, Market Research.com, Moriana Group, etc.), are not found freely in the Internet for anyone to read (they charge high for those reports).

How can add such references as evidence of notability?

Thanks,

Mmanta (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's truly notable, it will be covered my major media, ie Fortune, Business Week, Financial Times, etc. AKRadecki 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility

Hello, since I read your comment about this user -- just to let you know he/she is doing again. Tut tut. I'd just thought I'd inform you. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Show me a dif, and I'll consider it. AKRadecki 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite LOTR's flaunting of my mistakes, I have issued an apology to him, and on the Misplaced Pages's admin notice board have also issued an apology. I was at fault, and my denial of being at fault brought others to bear against me. Gabr-el 07:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it's behind us...let's move forward with constructive discussion on the article's talk page. AKRadecki 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg

Hi, you deleted the above image citing: Misplaced Pages:CSD#G4. But this is not a recreation of deleted material in the sense that I recreated it. A discussion is open User_talk:Nv8200p#Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg - I am waiting for User:Nv8200p to reply. Could you restore and let User:Nv8200p and I sort out, what we initiated Power.corrupts (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was recreation in that it had been discussed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 19 and had been deleted after that. For such a deletion to be restored, it should go through WP:DRV and make sure that all concerns which led to the deletion are resolved.

• The image was not recreated by the uploader. As the deleting admin, I restored the image so the uploader could rework the use of the image to meet the concerns presented in the IFD, which I believe he did. Rather than take this to DRV, how about I see if I can get the two delete opinions to buy into the rework and agree to keep the image? If not, then I'll take it to DRV? -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Have at it...I didn't realize that it had been an admin restoration...didn't mean to appear to wheel war. AKRadecki 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaean-Syriac People

you recently protected this page from being edited.It's true that there is a real issue in that page but you have to realize that there are some nationalists who have vandalized the page and keep the page to their POV. Just look at the conversations in the discussion boards even though Waleeta tries to have a proper and educated conversation the TriZ is just immature and discounts all his points without any justification. You have to realize that people like The TriZ and Aramean-Syriac do not want to have a proper discussion to resolve these issues ... they want to abuse Misplaced Pages policy to turn many pages into their POV. This is what will/has happened. Malik Danno (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

you protected this article right after the single account editing against everyone else did their fifth revert back to his version. Man, we have 3RR for a reason. The reason is, we don't need to lock down articles when a single pov-pusher is out of line, we can just block the offending account over 3RR: This has been how English Misplaced Pages has kept its epic edit wars under control since what, 2005. You have also amazingly managed to lock for "dispute" an article right after the user trolling it had once again removed the templates saying there is a dispute ( - I have taken the liberty to reinstate those). Pray reconsider your action. --dab (𒁳) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, you action is even weirder than I thought.

10:26: User does his fifth revert

18:44, you lock their version

18:52 you block them for 3RR

This doesn't make any sense. I can see you self-describe as a "rouge admin", but what do you think you are doing here, exactly? Block users for 3RR, but make them feel better about that in protecting their version while they are blocked? I find this rather surreal. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify some things. As a neutral admin, I don't and can't pick and choose which version to lock it down at...that's against policy. That being said, what was essentially being done, as far as I can see, was the wholesale deletion of the article, and replacing it with a redirect. What I didn't see was any AfD discussion to delete the article, nor a clear consensus on the article's talk page that the article should be removed and replaced with a redirect. If I'm mistaken about this, please point me to where this was done. What I would suggest you do is to propose in clear, simple language what you want to see happen...if you get a clear consensus, fine, if not, then please stop trying to delete an article against consensus. Is my position now clear enough? AKRadecki 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Akradeki, sources play a large role in Misplaced Pages ... and if there is a page without sources it is not taken credibly. Also if there is a page on Misplaced Pages which misuses it's sources to match the POV of some then that page is not credible as well and something should happen to it. This is what we see on the Aramaean-Syriac page ... the first line of the page clearly states that The Aramean-Syriac people (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ, IPA: ) are an ethnic group. So from the beginning one would assume that these people are in fact an ethnicity. Being a page of the 'Aramaean-Syrac people' their sources should reflect that claim. However you never see this in almost all of their sources. One source after the other there is no mention of Aramaean-Syriac people as an ethnicity but members of a church. This is seen on . I will stop there but I can provide you with a majority of their sources NOT being about the Aramaean-Syriac (or even Syriac) people but the Syriac Orthodox Church. Last time I checked this was a page of an ethnicity not of a religion. Please help in solving this issue. Malik Danno (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for those comments. I'm not saying that they are without merit, but they belong as part of the discussion on the article's talk page. You don't need to make a case to me, because I'm not sitting in judgement on the merits or lack of merits of the content, or sources. I'm insisting that 1) people stop making this a discussion about the contributors and 2) that people discuss the merits of text and sources on the talk pages, including making proposals for changes and backing up those proposals with reliable sources. So, go make the argument that you just made in its proper place, and if you feel so strongly, make a proposal of what you'd like to see happen to the article and why. AKRadecki 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all don't be so aggressive about it. Weren't you the one who was endorsing us to keep a cool head about everything? Second of all If you participate in a page like you did in Aramaean-Syriac People page then you can't just leave it. I have been commenting on the template (where I will start) and you are no where to be seen, now after you protected the page I would have at least figured that you would participate in solving the issue but you did not. That's why I came to you talk page to tell you of what is going on. You did not have to react the way you did and please do not leave a page after you have protected it (without it being solved). Finally I have told you ... some people cannot be reasoned with because they are too nationalistic, so NO matter how much my points make sense and how much reliable sources I have some people will never agree because of their POV. Its like telling a hardcore Nazi that Jews are good people ... No matter how much proof and how much you try to persuade them they will never agree with you. I'm not saying any member is precisely like that example but i thought that example fits in this case. Malik Danno (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I was being too aggressive...nothing of the sort was intended. Also, I have not left. I did see your proposal, and I appreciate the fact that you stepped up to get the ball rolling. All I'm saying is that I have to remain neutral, so I can't participate directly in the editing or discussions. Yes, certainly some people cannot be reasoned with, because they are too nationalistic, but in the end they usually get themselves blocked by their behavior. AKRadecki 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki, I was not asking you to "pick a version to lock down". I was asking you to unlock an article you had locked without good reason. Where on earth did you get the idea that 3rrvio requires full protection of the article? that's the exact opposite of what 3rr is intended to do. If you are acting as the basic clueless "uninvolved admin", block the account violating 3rr and be done. If you want to base any further admin action based on the actual substance of the dispute, you would need to familiarize yourself with the mere basics of what it is about, right? You can't remain completely unaware of the issue and begin policing the dispute. As in, voicing opinions about the "deletion" of an article that was a 100% WP:CFORK to begin with, or equating redirection back to the article it was split off of with "deletion". I have been a Misplaced Pages admin since 2004, and I don't think you need to inform me about basics like the "wrong version", ok? Now can you please go ahead and undo your protection, or invest an hour or two to familiarize yourself with the actual issues this is about so you will be in a position help me moderate this pathetic ethnic feud. Begin reading up on its history here and here. Once you've understood the stuff that has been going down over the past year, I will be glad to welcome your judicious admin actions. If you cannot be bothered to do this, take this as a mere formal complaint. You do not need to understand what is going on to realize that you should not block an editor for 3rr, and lock down the article in the revision re-instated by the illegal edit you just blocked someone for, that's utterly stupid, and I have difficulties believing I need to explain this to a Misplaced Pages administrator. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bill revert issue (header that was missing

Where to post discussions... The editor about whom you posted your message explicitly stated on his discussion page that he'd prefer messages to him be posted to his site. It was tackey of him to delete my message to him, which required a response, after he posted his reply to my board. So, where should the discussion go? --Zeamays (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting messages before the owners can read them...mmm I see that you deleted my response to his message. I don't think that's proper. He might like to know what I wrote. --Zeamays (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do know what happens on my talk page when I'm offline, because I check the history when I get back online. Alan, he must have missed the next point on my talk page: If you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page... This is the kind of issue that should be discussed on an article talk page anyway, especially since I was not the only editor to remove the link as "Spam", as User:Dchall1 did both before and after my reverts. I deleted his comments because I felt he was being disingenuous in claiming I did not leave an explanation. "Linkspam" is a perfectly acceptable edit summary requiring no further explanation. Since he apparently didn't know what it meant, I left him the linkspam warning, which contains all the necessary links, which he did check out. I understand he may be new here, but it's not a good idea to keep re-adding something over and over again when it keeps being removed. When it comes to external links, that's a good way for the link to end up on the Misplaced Pages External links Blacklist. - BillCJ (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to keep deleting something over and over again when it keeps being added. it's not a good idea to keep re-adding something over and over again when it keeps being removed. When it comes to external links. Threatening blacklisting is not appropriate in this case. A discussion of the merits is what is needed. There is clearly not a consensus on the Memphis Riverboats link. That doesn't justify repeatedly deleating it. --Zeamays (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

North American Aerospace Defense Command

ALan, would you mind taking a look at the history and talk page of North American Aerospace Defense Command? We've got primarily an IP user(s?) repeatedly adding POV and synthesis to the article re: 9/11. I really don't know what to do here, as I ahve posted at MILHIST (I think), and there was no interest there. This is a perfect example of where the community-model of WP breaks down. If you don't want to mess with it, I understand. I do wish we could get a semi-p on this, but I understand that other admins might not agree, as they would view this as an edit dispute. Of course, when the POVers don't play by the rules, and just keep dumping in text, it's hardly a dispute! Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ (talk)

Bill, I dropped a note on the IP's talk page, to which he responded and I replied...I think the issue is that he's new and doesn't understand the concept of OR and synthesis of conclusions. I've tried to explain it better. You might want to go read what I wrote and make sure it's coherent (I took a momentary break from calculus to do this, and that stuff always seems to warp my brain!). AKRadecki 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine to me. I hope it helps! (The note, not the calculus!) - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...not the calc? But I'm stuck...find dy/dx of x(x+1)(x+1) ... will have to try tomorrow when my brain's not so addled. AKRadecki 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are your feet cold? I found you some socks. Sigh. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent deletion

You have recently deleted an article - Aasis Vinayak PG. This article was started by me and I was tracking its status day by day. Many people , including many "key" people in FOSS community, have reviewed the same (see the logs). Also, the person is very popular in the FOSS community in India. We have tried to include all the reference links and awards as well.

It would have been better if you could reinstate the article and post it for a "voting" so that the quality of the article can be improvised. Karthika.kerala (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You have your wish. Sent to AfD, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aasis Vinayak PG. AKRadecki 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple Green

Regarding Simple Green, which you deleted recently. Did I miss the AFD on this one? Here one moment (actually with a lengthy history), then all of a sudden gone with the explanation "blatant advertising"? Neil916 (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides being edited by Simple Green's marketing department, which certainly gave it a COI strike, the lead sentence read "For North American consumers, the most recognized product in the line of approximately 25 Simple Green products is a concentrated all-purpose cleaner and degreaser." That reads just like advertising copy. It went on from there. The only refs were the company's website. Sorry, but that, to me, is blatant advertising. However, my feelings won't be hurt if you want to take it to WP:DRV AKRadecki 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be a acting bit over-eager with the delete button. I appreciate your efforts to clear away the crap on Misplaced Pages, but deleting established articles with a variety of editors on sight because of some suspicious phrasing seems to be not in the spirit of the admin tools. The article needed work and there definitely was conflict between someone in the Simple Green company IP range fighting with someone else from the Clorox Company IP range. That is a reason to clean up the article, not delete it. I don't have time to drag it over to DRV right now, I'll have to come back at a later date and do it. Neil916 (Talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's salvagable, and want to do the work, I suppose we don't need to go the DRV route. I could userfy it to a sandbox for you and you could work through the issues. AKRadecki 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want it userfied... it's not my article, the only thing I'd done to it was clean up some of the references in it and kept it on my watchlist to deal with some of the corporate edit-warring that was taking place. My recollection of it was that it was a decent start-quality article that had plenty of work to be done with it, certainly not speedy-deletion quality. At worst, if you disagree with me, put it through an AFD or something, I'd really be surprised if there's consensus to delete it. I'm just too swamped with real work to dedicate a lot of time to it, given my general lack of interest in the subject matter. I'd rather have it in article space where it can be improved by the general population. Neil916 (Talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notifying you of requested un-deletion

Hello, as requested by the rules for un-deletion request, I am notifying you of the request I've made. Thanks.

Deletion review for Freeway (eCommerce)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Freeway (eCommerce). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. techwriter75 (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Award

(janitorial award moved to user page)

Wow...thanks...that was delightfully unexpected! AKRadecki 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacation notice

To all and sundry, I'll be off to the east side of the continent for the next nine days visiting relatives and the National Air & Space Museum for a feature article I'm writing. Will have my laptop with me, but probably won't be checking in all that often. Cheers! AKRadecki 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. http://i-cias.com/e.o/syr_orth.htm
2. http://adherents.com/Na/Na_622.html
3. http://i-cias.com/e.o/syria_4.htm
4. http://www.planetware.com/turkey/tur-abdin-jacobites-tr-ma-mat.htm
5. http://countrystudies.us/turkey/39.htm
6. http://www.friesian.com/notes/note-n.htm