Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 4 March 2009

Template:WPChristianity sidebar • {{ChristianityWikiProject}} • Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles
Christianity Recognized Content • AFD results by nominator

I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. GRBerry diffmeta diff I've also signed up for single user login.

Email advice: When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. GRBerry

New sections belong at the bottom, not here.

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SWIFT Portal

Hi, As you feel you that the portal is not of sufficient general interest- can you please explain based on what reasons do you declare this? 20 years ago women's rights wasnt sufficient general interest - today it is a leading topic. Also i would like to understand how can the UN have a portal and not SWIFT - they have similair goals but on different subjects! Both are created by nations / national banks intended for countries / financial institutions welfare. Without it[REDACTED] wouldnt be receiving the donations is so fervantly was 'advertising' a month ago!

I would appreciate a clear explanation because for the moment I have feeling that there is positive discrimination since only 3 people do not believe SWIFT is interesting enough!! FYI Anna abstained from the vote from her lack of understand of the complexity behind SWIFT (which I appreciate her honnestly) - how can one base their understand of SWIFT on SWIFTNet E&I - this is the same as saying understanding the UN through UNDP. The only reason I requested a DR was becuase the reasoning for the deletion (and for some reason no email was sent to me!!!) were weak in the first round and I STILL BELIEVE that there is no substanial reason for the deletion.

How can a DR be conducted by three people with only yourself a slight knowledge (with no disrespect meant) of SWIFT. How can information on a subject where little is written about it come to light if it being repressed. Furthermore what says that if this information is placed in the article in wont be AGAIN deleted? Can you ensure that this wont happen? Non of this information is advertisment as was critisied in the first place - just as a demonstration of the limited knowledge people have of SWIFT. It is the same as saying the UN portal is 'more like an advertisment' - is such the case? I feel strongly about this because wiki is supposed to be open and unbiased - I do not believe in adverisment but in the general dissemination of information. I do not know your position if you are a core admin or a volunteer however I assume you must have alot to review, however as said, I would appreciate input to better mold the portal so that this information can be posted (unfort i believe the article to not allow the broadness a portal does) and suit both your and my expectations. Thank you for your time. Nicolas39 (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I feel that you are ignoring my comments and I can understand when much has to be done and many people will try to plead cases in many times that have no real value. However I feel strongly that the topic of the SWIFT portal is a valid one baed on the reasons I have provided and will try to re-summarize in the following. Furthermore new information has to come to my attention which I believe you would not able to ignore. I have tried to discuss with the three admins who felt that the SWIFT portal was too narrow. However i provided a defence of which I still have not received a response. My defence still lies in the fact that the UN has its portal - SWIFT, albeit being smaller, serves the same role as the UN but to a different community. SWIFT is a non-profit and non-commerical organisation involved in Standards for the financial community and collaborates with ISO and the UN CEFACT for the community as a whole (e.g. the BIC codes being used to pay salaries and wages are an example). Based on this reasoning how can one have a portal and the other not? Furthermore it has come to my attention that microsoft has its portal - if this is the case than I would have to declare that the deletion of SWIFT portal would be positive discrimination. How can a profit and commerically orientated company be a valid portal topic and how is this not too narrow? A valid logical response would be appreciated. Thanks Nicolas39 (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work since then. And nice to see DRV participation bear signigicant fruit. GRBerry 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - in fact, I nominated it specifically at GA because of all the drama that had gone on, and I wanted to see if we could turn it around. BOZ (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Oath of office of the President of the United States

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your help clarifying the issues in the discussion there regarding OR. Much obliged. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indexing deletion discussions

Where is the policy that says this? I can find no evidence of it on AFD, IFD, CFD, or MFD. —Remember the dot 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Robots.txt, in particular:

Disallow: /Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3APages_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AMiscellaneous_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion/ Disallow: /Wikipedia:Deletion_review/ Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review/ GRBerry 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also see |bugzilla #4776. The DRV regulars realized that the robots.txt solution wasn't also capturing DRV, so we added {{NOINDEX}} to our log pages to achieve the same result. GRBerry 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV has been in MediaWiki:Robots.txt since September 13. Are you saying that robots.txt works for every page except DRV? —Remember the dot 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}} was created in August 2008, and added to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/New day the same months. I'd had (off wiki, for obvious reasons) private conversations going back at least to March before that about trying to close the indexing hole exposing DRV, but not directly with the admin that edited Robots.txt. Apparently we've had duplicate coverage since that September edit you just found, which hadn't been noticed until this discussion between us. Since we appear to have redundant coverage, we probably don't need the template on the DRV logs. I've taken the template back out of the log pages, and we can test in a few days. GRBerry 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. —Remember the dot 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Germans DRV

Hi, Would you be good enough to review my comment in the DRV, which seems to be in line with what you suggested, though your remarks that were a hair short of affirmative support for bringing the article back to Misplaced Pages. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They were a hair short because I don't believe that just bringing it back is a good idea, further work is needed to make it really belong here. I am not in a position to do that work. If you are in a position to do it, just do it and ask for partial history restore; you can use the history visible at http://en.wiktionary.org/search/?title=Transwiki:Good_Germans&action=history to see prior versions and specify which parts of the history you need. GRBerry 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I didn't misquote you...

I just quoted my memory of some advice you gave me a few years ago. I hope my memory of your advice is correct. If my memory is more or less accurate, but you think consensus has changed, would you let me know?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)