Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 28 January 2012

This is Causa sui's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Laura Ramsey - deletion block lift?

recreated article

Hi, did you notice that the Ramsey article was recreated in main space? It seems a bit out of process to me. Do you have any objections the recreation? What is the situation now with the open DRV ? Youreallycan (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Laura Ramsey

Hi there,

Sorry for doing something wrong by re-creating the article in the mainspace -- I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand-alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here?

I posted at the DR thread because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (not just copied and pasted, but filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in the References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out) and wikilinks into a new article.

What else could be discussed here if I didn't make the article all over again? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits?

What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article. JesseRafe (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You raise some interesting philosophical points about deletion process, but what I think you really want is a copy of the article so you can improve it. If you like, I will move the article to your userspace so you can spend some time to bring it more in line with the notability policy without worrying that it will be deleted out from under you. This would be a good way to draft new articles in general.

To your other point, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did restore the article with the previous revision visible in the history before you recreated the new version. Those revisions are still visible to non-admins here: .

causa sui (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have no experience with this userfy aspect, but now in retrospect it makes sense when I came across that over the past couple of days of this discussion. My honest question, though, is did you look at it freshly this time, or just see that it was recreated when it shouldn't've been (not the right timing for that process) and delete it for that? Because looking at the links now, I can see that previously the only source was IMDb and it was just an infobox and list of movies, but in my version, there's a paragraph of prose and references to several well-known publications that have given her write-ups or interviewed her. My intention was to create this article from nothing, sorry if I appeared to have just reinstated a version that was already put to vote and deleted, but I think that as I had it before, were it to be nominated anew it would pass notability. JesseRafe (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that it was different, and I think made some important steps to establishing notability. However, it was not a good idea to do this while the deletion review was still in process. AFD discussions are generally held to be binding and while they don't necessarily prohibit recreation if the new version fully addressed the concerns raised in the AFD, it would confuse the process to have a new revision in the works while the DRV was trying to consider the old one. It may have been better to go with one or the other, but not both.

Please let me know if and when you would like me to userfy the article. Regards, causa sui (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, again, I really had no idea what the Deletion Review process was for. That seemed to be the only place to post what I thought was merely a request to lift the ban on non-admins editing the page (or even viewing its past iterations). It was not my intention to confuse the process or to engage in two at the same time, but merely the one. The only one I was familiar with, AfD. It would seem odd to me to go back and look at something already found wanting, and come to a new consensus about its merits without having something new and shiny to look at.

Also, I only vaguely understand the userfy concept. But at your convenience, yes, please userfy it. Would you put it on your page or mine? I don't know how much more time I have to devote to this one article, but I think it's worth some more effort to get it out here, as she truly is notable. I mean, they can read about her in Viet Namese and Finnish, but not English! JesseRafe (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. I view your confusion not at all as a strike against you, but rather as evidence that our deletion process is much too complicated if it takes seven years of experience to make sense of it. Your good faith is evident and your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages are greatly appreciated. Thank you!

To userfy the article, I will move it to a subpage in your user-space. I will also leave a message on your talk page explaining where I put it. You can then edit to your heart's content and, once you think it is good to go, ask me or anyone else to review it and move it back. I need a couple minutes to wrap something up here and then I will go ahead and do that. Thanks again for your patience and your work here. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I would also point out that the sourcing policy does not prohibit using non-English sources in citations. If there are sources in Finnish or Vietnamese that demonstrate notability, please include them. See WP:NOENG. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

user keeps removing citation needed tags at Union Carbide

AFAIK, the statement needs to be sourced per WP:V, and the user insists on using his anecdotal knowledge as a source. Could I have intervention please. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look without promising anything. FYI, for more visibility, there's also WP:RS/N. causa sui (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

dropping you the line

Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Integration_into_Mediawiki

Now just watch it ... ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically, How would you answer Redrose.. if you were to answer? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I left a comment. By the way, you might also be interested in a proposal I made over here. I'd like to know what you think. causa sui (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav Partisans

Hello Causa sui. At Talk:Yugoslav Partisans#Protection you mention having read part of this talk page when considering a request to protect the article. If you have some familiarity with the dispute, your comment would be welcome at User talk:EdJohnston#WP:AE, where FkpCascais is asking for reconsideration of his six month topic ban as imposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#FkpCascais. Some, but not all editors at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans seem to think that FkpCascais was jumping through hoops to avoid admitting that sources show the Chetniks to have engaged in ethnic cleansing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could

If you could take a moment to look at the request posted here and make a response stating whether you think the draft should be inserted into mainspace, i'd appreciate it. Silverseren 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)