Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RiverStyx23 (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 1 June 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Admins: If you feel I have erred in one of my admin actions, just correct it. I won't consider it wheel warring if you leave me a note explaining what you did and why!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Could you please check?

Hi again :)

I've made a referenced historical map. As an experienced guardian of images :), can you have a look at it ? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest, images really aren't my area. You might want to contact someone more knowledgeable in the area and explain it to them. You might like to try User:Fastily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'll follow your advice. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you advise me what to do, if an AE appeal was archived by a bot (along with others) but it was still in process? Aregakn (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, can you advise what to do or where to apply to for this? Aregakn (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone 1 RR

I still maintain that I didn't know of the 1RR in connection with this article. Prior to the subject revert, I had never made an edit on this article and the last time I even looked at it was on May 12 or 13. It wasn't on my watch list and as such, I wasn't aware of the edit war. Water under the bridge. Just to make sure, I'm entitled to no more than 1 revert, in connection with this article, within a 24 hour period. Is that correct? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's right. 1 revert per 24 hour period- ie you have to wait 24 hours to make another revert, you can't make one at 23:59 and another at 00:001- and a revert includes reinserting previously removed material and reversing the effects of another's edit. I'm genuinely sorry if the block took you by surprise but I did everything I could to make you aware of the restriction before your second revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. No big deal.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't take it personally. You were the first, but not the last. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Real world obligations prevented me from responding sooner to the AE request. As you are aware, my sole contributions to this article were two reverts within 24-hours. I was unaware (my fault for not paying closer attention to my Talk page) of the 1R restriction and you issued a sanction of a 24-hour block. I have not made an edit to the article since and intend to abide by the 1R restriction. Please explain why you would consider now banning my participation for 2-weeks? Essentially, you're santioning me twice for the same offense. Perplexed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw the correction. My apologies--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This youtube video is being used as a source. . It looks to me like a copyrighted newscast being put up by a user, then our use of it furthers the copy vio. Can you take a look and see what you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's almost certainly a copyvio and we're not allowed to link to copyright-violating content any more than violating it directly so the link should go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since I am involved in the AfD on the article and one of the defenders has been having a personality conflict with me, would you mind removing it with the explaination? I also believe the other 2 videos in that section should go. Neither would be RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An Award!

User:QwerpQwertus/The Puzzle Piece Award

Declined speedy deletion at Taya Uddin‎

Just thought I'd leave a quick note regarding this page; thanks for pointing out that I used the wrong criterion; I think this was a cross between brain-freeze and slight misinterpretation on my part. I was deciding between A7 and G11 and I have to agree that it doesn't quite meet G11 and I should have filed A7. I've refiled as A7 now. Regards, GiftigerWunsch 22:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). I wont be dealing with it, though- the only speedies I handle are vandalism/copyvio/spam/attack pages and some of the uncontroversial G6/7/8 but certainly not A7. I'm sure another admin will get to it eventually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And as if to demonstrate why I don't handle A7s, the speedy was just declined again! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought it was pretty straightforward as the greatest claim of notability seems to be "she is well known" and a series of non-notable magazines, but I guess I'll have to BLPPROD and/or AfD it. GiftigerWunsch 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canada-Marshall Islands relations

Could you please clarify, what this was a copyvio of? I didn't actually see that argument raised in the discussion and you didn't include a citation. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty much a word-for-word copy of . Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

Thanks for the protection. I keep a close eye on this article, and there is FREQUENT need to remove that sort of garbage from it. I'll let you know if it resurfaces. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Please do let me know if that kind of crap continues after the protection expires. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal ban

Thanks for banning 72.68.229.217 for vandalism. S/He was getting on my nerves. Gopher65_talk 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Here's a barnstar for your troubles;). You can never receive enough of these babies. Gopher65talk 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Diego_Grez

Quick note, not knowing all of the long past, but;

• I am impressed with your consideration and work with Diego_Grez (talk · contribs) - to summarise, 'complicated but a net+'

• I have interacted with Mr. Grez during their sanctions, and he has been co-operative, collegiate and reasoned

Is all, best,  Chzz  ►  03:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Beale and Melissa Suffield

Hey HJ!

How are you? Ain't spoken to you in what seems like ages!

Anyway it's your talk page stalker back again :), I'm looking for your assistance with the above two articles. Y'see Melissa Suffield who plays Lucy Beale in EastEnders was sacked from the programme today, allegedly for unruly behaviour (getting drunk, getting into nightclubs underage - the usual). Already the Lucy Beale page is constantly getting changed, the characters classification changing from present to departing when there's nothing to suggest that the character will go - EastEnders may well decide to just recast the part especially given that the new Executive Producer has already axed what seems like half the cast! Melissa Suffield's page also got tagged as having BLP vandalism damage to it, what was said wasn't untrue but I think it may have triggered off some filter for one of the bots so I just erased what was said as it was already mentioned elsewhere anyway.

The BBC have yet to confirm that the story is true, however all indications are that the story is true, just most of the press are choosing to wait until the BBC have confirmed it before saying anything. So far myself and a couple of other editors have been able to keep a lid on things but I'm thinking once the BBC confirms this story and it really hits the headlines then both pages might be subject to vandalism? I would really appreciate it if you could please add both pages to your watchlist, an extra pair of eyes watching them might help :) --5 albert square (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep an eye on them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ, it's just been confirmed that it's true :( --5 albert square (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kabul mediation

I've let Ariana and Tajik know that (due to Ahmed shahi's block being increased to indef) I'm discontinuing the mediation.

I've not said anything about resuming it if the issues arise again. Though obviously I'd be fine with that, it might be better if a non-involved newcomer took over ;-)

Personally, I'm kind of glad it's over - my heart wasn't in it while the key participant was blocked.

Cheers, TFOWR 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Let's see how it goes. I hadn't noticed that his block had been extended, but given the socking to get round it, I don't think anyone will miss him. Now, what about this RfA you're evading? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bill

Hiya

Yep a bot is supposed to be adding them but editors are helping out too :). I'm going to try and help, I would normally use AWB but don't have access to it :).

What I can't work out though is the bot is supposed to be adding the templates yet I can't see them displaying on the pages he's adding them to such as this one. There's no GA symbol on the article I can see there at all. It's not like that for just one of his edits it's like that for every single one! Is it just me being thick or is there no template displaying there? --5 albert square (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• What skin do you use? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• If it is Monobook, go to MediaWiki:Monobook.css and refresh your cache. If it is Vector, go to MediaWiki:Vector.css and do the same. If it is something else, you're out of luck as of now. --Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It's you being thick ;). That's a different bot doing a different task. That template, {{link GA|language}} is for GAs in other languages and it shows up in the interwiki links on the left hand side. The one for our GAs is {{Good article}} and it goes at the very bottom of the article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was me being thick! Thanks HJ, I can go back to sorting them out now! --5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say it has to be placed at the bottom? Is the bot actually up and running as of yet?I started helping earlier and there isn't exactly that much information on it yet.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Good article/doc. It's the same as {{featured article}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou! I can carry on adding them without worrying that I might have to go back and change them.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebola ITN

just saw that on the main page. it says its a "potential cure," then that is WP:Crystal Ball. Many articles (like elections) are not put on ITN till affirmation, (some still hadn't, like the Philippines) why did this "potential" get on?Lihaas (talk)

It's more my bad wording than anything else. As far as I know, they've tested it on monkeys and it worked. It went up because there was a strong consensus at ITN/C and a prose update to the article. From an admin perspective, I can;t decide to not post it because something else wan't posted, I just weigh up the consensus and check the update is sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it worked on the monkeys.Malke2010 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is this 3RR?

Original :

Attempt at dispute (which he started, i responded too, thenhe responded and immediately reverted, without waiting for consensus)

(Intentions: )Lihaas (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not as far as I can see. A violation of 3RR requires a fourth revert in 24 hours. From a look at the history, I only count 3 sets of reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply Rollback

Thank you for giving me rollback rights. I will remember to be careful with them. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Let me know if you need anything :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have one question on rollback. It says I am only allowed to revert vandalism with this tool. Am I allowed to revert my own edits with rollback, or should I just use twinkle to do that? Thank you --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD close, please.

Hi Mitchell, when you did the GA reviews for June and I a while back I did not know you were an administrator. Did you just recently become one? Anyway, I'm not sure if you close AfD's or not, but this one has been running for almost two weeks and it's basically an IP that keeps using the other stuff exists argument and the discussion is really going nowhere; it's been dead for a week. I was wondering you could determine the consensus and close it? Thanks. Mike Allen 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mike! I've not seen you around on my travels for a while. I've been an admin for about a month, so I wasn't one back then. I've closed that AfD as delete- you're right, the discussion wasn't going anywhere and it had been open for 2 weeks already. I don't often close AfDs but I don't mind dabbling every now and then. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I missed your nom. I don't usually take part in RFA unless I've had contact with the nominated. RFA can become a very nasty place for personal attacks. Therefore I don't spend any time there. Oh well, you passed and there weren't really many opposes so it's good. I've seen you lately on the WP:RFPP which is how I figured it out. Anyway, the IP claimed that their sister was in the film, so that explains why they were passionate about keeping the article. I've never seen an AfD that long, lol. Thanks again, and I'll probably see you soon on RFPP. LOL Mike Allen 02:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a few longer than that, but I tend to avoid closing the more contentious ones- my talk page is busy enough as it is without more people accusing me of admin abuse which is what happened after my first ever AfD close! I seem to be spending a lot of time at RfPP atm, but it seems to get backed up quickly. Good to hear from an old friend anyway :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To HJ Mitchell: I'll be simple and to the point ... I think you are doing a fantastic job. Fast, speedy and gets the job done. Tommy2010 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! —Tommy2010 01:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you :). I'm honoured. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure to hang the barnstar and eat the cookie, not vice versa. --an odd name 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone and 1R

I have reinserted the Goldstone edit, changed the contentious sources and removed the weak ones including WND. I intend to abide by 1R. Please let me know if there are any other restrictions and if there are, I will self-revert. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The other restriction, naturally, is BLP and it applies without notification to any individual editor. If Jiujitsuguy doesn't know that (and somehow thinks 1RR means he is entitled to put that stuff back without gaining consensus first), he needs to stay off BLPs, particularly this one. I now regret arguing that he should be taken off the AE case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy has very clearly, unambiguously and knowingly violated a core rule of BLP - that "consensus must be obtained" (note the imperative "must" there) before contentious content removed for good-faith BLP reasons can be restored. He has made no attempt to get consensus for his edits. The majority of editors and every uninvolved editor who has commented do not believe the deleted material should be in the article. Jimbo Wales himself says it should not be in the article. I included Jiujitsuguy in the AE case not for further punishment but because he was clearly going to continue to violate BLP and needed to be restrained. He has duly done so. I'll await your response with interest. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I took him put of the AE case because I hoped the block he'd just served would have been sufficient.

Jujitsuguy, I don't want to take sides here, but ChrisO is right on policy grounds. I'd hoped that you would discuss this on the talk page rather than continue to revert which was the point of not extending the page ban to you. Please don't restore that material until consensus has been reached on the talk page as to whether and how it should fit in. Instead, make use of the talk page to try to reach a consensus. I've banned three of the most vocal editors from the article and its talk page in the hopes of making it easier to discuss things there without getting shouted down. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, notwithstanding the fact the edit is supported by a lengthy list of reliable sources including Ynet, JPost, Haaretz, Yediot Achronot, the Atlantic, Business Day, the New York Times and the Huffingtonpost, among others, it can still be precluded so long as ChrisO and those who support his viewpoint oppose its inclusion? If that’s the case, the edit will never be included and regrettably, you have taken sides in an Israel-Arab dispute. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking a side, I'm upholding Misplaced Pages's single most important policy. I don't necessarily agree with it, but material removed in good faith as a possible BLP violation must not be restored without consensus. You are advised to make use of the talk page to try to establish such consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, it's not necessarily an either/or situation. As I understand the gathering consensus on the talkpage of the article, there's general agreement that some sort of a mention of the negative information may be appropriate, as long as it's done in a balanced and neutral fashion, which is not giving undue weight to this controversy, in context of the individual's entire biography. Or in other words, instead of edit-warring about the entire section, a better way to proceed might be to move slowly, with small incremental steps, per WP:BRD. Try adding one very solid, very neutral, extremely well-sourced sentence, and then wait. See how that is received. If no one objects after a day or so, maybe expand the information a bit. If there is an objection, take the new information to the talkpage, and see if perhaps the information that you'd like to include, can be condensed or reworded in a way that represents consensus. There is no deadline here, there is no need to proceed with urgency. Small incremental changes to an article are more likely to result in longterm stability. --Elonka 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

“Consensus?” I fear that this will never occur in this article. Arguing for the edit’s inclusion in the talk page as others have done will be an exercise in futility. ChrisO and those of like-mind will never relent on this issue and will never allow the edit’s inclusion no matter how well-sourced or neutrally phrased. By hanging the sanction card over our heads, you’ve effectively taken a position on an Israeli-Arab issue. The latest edit now contains mainstream sources, all of which have strong vetting processes. The previously complained of sources, like WND and "Emunah" have been removed. There is no shortage of reliable sources to support the disputed edit. The only reason for its exclusion by ChrisO and friends is that it does not comport with their particlar POVs. ChrisO's views on the IP subject are well known. Will I be sanctioned by you if I comply with 1R? If the answer is yes, I will refrain from engaging in any edits on this article. Awaiting your response,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Understand, the policy is crafted very purposefully to require a consensus before disputed contentious information can be re-inserted. This is done to prevent libeling a living person. If a fact is so obviously relevant/appropriate/well-sourced, even if it is contentious then it should have no trouble garnering a consensus to be in the article. If it has trouble garnering that consensus, then it's most likely not appropriate for inclusion. In that case Misplaced Pages's policies favor keeping it out, in order to protect the encyclopedia from becoming a venue for smears of living people. That's just the way the policy is designed, and very purposefully so, to err on the side of caution. — e. ripley\ 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And understand further, this is not simply an issue of sourcing. Something may be attributed entirely to reliable sources but may still not be suitable for inclusion. I suggest you consider the import of what Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages's founder, has written here about the issue of including these claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you comply with the 1RR restriction, you need not fear sanctions, but if you violate it, you'll be blocked- as will anybody who else who does so. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying fuck what your views, Jimmy Wales' or ChrisO's views or the views of Her Majesty the Queen are on I/P. We, as editors, are bound by WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I suggest you join in the discussion on the talk page and rationally and calmly present your view. The point of the 2-week ban I've just imposed on 3 editors is to better facilitate discussion there, so why don't you prove to me that wasn't just a waste of everybody's time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope you wouldn't tell Her Maj you wouldn't give a flying fuck - not so bluntly at least. Lèse majesté and all that. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) HJ Mitchell, I'm slightly confused now, by your saying just above that the 1RR restriction is what applies here. Saying that 1RR is what matters might be interpreted as indicating that those four paragraphs can be added by each editor once a day. The BLP provision requiring consensus before deleted material is restored seems more stringent: my understanding is that something like those four paragraphs, having been deleted, should not now be added unless/until there is consensus to do so. In your post above at 13:19, you seem to say that the latter is the right approach ("please don't restore that material until consensus has been reached..."). Can you please clarify which approach applies here -- 1RR or the more stringent provision of BLP? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

TFOWR 10:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected content at Talk:Gaza flotilla interception

Hi there. Saw that you protected the redirected Talk:Gaza flotilla interception – do you think you could remove all the misplaced talk page content underneath the redirect? I've already moved the content to the newly located talk page, but the still-existent content on the redirect page is causing it to appear in categories etc. where it shouldn't. Cheers, haz (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It should already have been moved; one editor (sean.hoyland) moved some (correctly), I moved the last lot (possibly incorrectly). Anything remaining is either because it's simply not been deleted - or because I'm an idiot. Both are quite likely...! Let me know if it's the latter and I'll re-move. Cheers! TFOWR 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I put the entire content except the redirect code in comment tags and removed the {{editsemiprotected}} templates. Hope that solves the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but why not remove it entirely? Surely that's what page histories are for? In any case, thanks for sorting it out. TFOWR, the content had indeed already been moved, it was just the removal of the content from the redirect page that I was concerned with. Cheers, haz (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, when the protection expires, someone should check that everything there has been copied over to the new title and then remove it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I've been feeling like my poor ol' brain isn't working, so it was entirely possible I'd messed up here - glad that wasn't the case ;-) TFOWR 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally enough, I just spotted your note here. Sorry about that, it took me a while to cotton onto the Vector rollout and a bit longer to update the script. It's now back in action. haz (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaaah! Thank you. Not that it makes much difference because I switched back- I like my buttons where they are! ;) Good to know, though, I love those menus- they make finding things so much easier! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

LÖVE server downtime

It seems as if the article on LÖVE (the 2D lua game framework) was deleted because the homepage went down a few days ago. We're currently working on restoring it to its full extent but we already have revived the forums. If this was not the reason for the deletion of the page, please elaborate on the reason. Bartbes (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process. An editor tagged it for deletion and nobody objected to it in 7 days so it was deleted. The reason given for the tag was: "Subject does not appear to be verifiable through reliable secondary sources (WP:V); by extension does not meet the notability guidelines (WP:N)". I can email you a copy of the content if you wish, but if I restored it, it would more than likely end up deleted again because your organisation doesn't appear to meet our notability criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that LÖVE is as notable as any other lua library, or indeed any other small open-source project. We indeed lack press, but is this not a problem all small indie and/or open-source projects are subject to? Bartbes (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers, have provided in-depth coverage of it? That's the required threshold of notability for an article. If you can find some decent sources, I can restore the article and you can add them in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find an in-depth article about the engine (which is surprising really), but I wonder, is a collection of games that use it a base for an article? Or should we/I focus on getting some press? Bartbes (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The best thing you can do for the minute would be to get a reputable newspaper or magazine or something like that to cover you in enough detail that an encyclopaedia article could be written from it. You might like to send a few emails to journalists to try and get an interview. I can restore the article if you want me to, but I fear it won't remain for very long. I'll also be happy to email you the text. Just ask. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll look into getting some press. Regarding the content of the old article, I would like it if you email it to me for archiving purposes. Thanks for your time. Bartbes (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've sent it to the email address you provided when you signed up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI pages deleted via the proposed deletion process should typically be restored on request (they may, of course, be immediately sent to AFD). –xeno 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm just trying to save it from a potential future AfD at the moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, good idea. –xeno 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: G11

Hi, you commented on my talk page that I had incorrectly tagged an article as G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), but you did not specify which article it was. Could you enlighten me?

Also, on a related note I tagged Cobblestone Farm and Museum with a cleanup tag {{advert}}. Do you think this was justified or am I being overly strict with articles that could be 'promotional' of their subjects?

I am quite new to new page patrolling, and have been trying to deal with the backlog of unpatrolled new pages so please don't bite me too hard! Thanks. CosmicJake (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). I was where you are not too long ago. I was cleaning out the spam category and the 2 articles that prompted me to leave you a note were this tagging of Oyster Marine and this tagging of BOC insurance company. Neither article had a particularly promotional tone so far as I could see. The {{advert}} tagging you asked about didn't seem invalid to me, but i's worth explaining what you think need improving on the talk page. Anyway, new page patrol is a thankless, endless task but it's invaluable to keeping the crap out of Misplaced Pages- we just need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all make mistakes, though- for example, my own CSD tagging before I was an admin was far from perfect, and that's why I only really deal with attack pages, spam and copyright violations. :) Let me know if you need any more help and keep up the good work. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. There's a common theme in the Oyster Marine and the Cobblestone Farm and Museum articles which gave me the impression of promotion of their subjects and that is the word 'pioneer'. With the BOC insurance company I accept it was rather stretching the definition to tag it as spam, however I considered the article to be of such poor quality that "Article would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" seemed apt! CosmicJake (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Wintonian (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash

Hi HJ Mitchell, I don't think the article needs to be fully protected. Actually, there is not much edit warring going on. A lot of edits, clearly from editors with somewhat different preferences, but mostly covering different aspects and parts of the article. When there is some back and forth, often parts of edits that are more consensual are being kept, thus resulting in progress even where the editing process may be a bit more controversial as we might wish it to be. Regards,  Cs32en Talk to me  00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully protecting an article that is top of ITN and removing it from ITN is not done. Could you please revert your actions on Gaza flotilla clash? I'm afraid it's going to have to go to WP:AN/I otherwise. Please don't think for a moment that I'm not assuming good faith in your actions - it's just that your decision is not the way we do things. And the decision to remove the #1 news story on every news website in the world is simply not credible. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

List of FM

Did I do something wrong? kcylsnavS{_harrass} 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)