This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 9 October 2011 (link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:42, 9 October 2011 by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) (link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 |
|
 | This user is a member of WikiProject Florida, which seeks to expand information about the state of Florida. Please feel free to join us. |
 Archives |
|
as Aerobird - Jul 2008-Apr 2010 - May 2010 - Jun 2010-Oct 2010 - Nov 2010-Dec 2010 - Jan 2011-Mar 2011 - Apr 2011-Sep 2011 - Oct 2011- |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
New page question?
On the deletion discussion for the page "Electro house", someone said that the reason why it was deleted is because the page was written very badly. And if I completely re-write the page, like the person asked me to, I won't be able to make a redirect to the page called "Electro-house". And I can only do this if you redirect "Electro-house" (NOT "Electro house") to "House music#2000s". Ian Streeter (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was not deleted because of bad writing. It was deleted because no reliable sources could be found. If reliable sources are found, you can feel free to try to rewrite. And why would you not be able to make a redirect? Redirects can be edited and changed. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Problem caused by redlink
Hello again, The Bushranger …
I think that we may have created a problem because of a redirect that was created in response to a redlink … Some Other Editor recreated Electro house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after it had been deleted because of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electro house so that they could have a #REDIRECT, and provided the edit summary, "appropriate redirect" … please see this dialog as well as this referenced dialog for how I got confused and thought that the deleted article had been recreated as a WP:CSD#G4 … it turns out that the redirect also created a circular loop, because the target section contained a wikilink to electro house … I have recently completed redlink cleanup after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fidget house and found that it was in {{House music-footer}} … "Electro house" was also in that template, but I have removed it, just as I removed "Fidget house" following its AfD.
What I really want to say is that Electro_house#2000s is not an appropriate target for a redirect, because it contains absolutely nothing about "electro house" except to mention it … note that Some Other Editor created another problem when they "simplified heading" from The 21st century: 2000s to 2000s (broke the redirect) … anywho, the result of the AfD was that "Electro house" is not notable enough for an article, so even trying to redirect it is a Bad Idea … it should be redlinked, just like "Fidget house" … so how can we delete the "electro house" file? I think that as the closing admin maybe you could just delete it, referencing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electro house and this dialog as the source of the problem.
Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) 02:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's entirely possible for things that ren't notable enough to have an article to be perfectly fine as redirects. Of course, if the target of the redirect says nothing about the subject... Anyway, the place to discuss redirects that aren't "recently created and implausible" (And thus speedy-able) is WP:RFD. :) (Given it points to "House music" I'd have trouble justifying it as "implausible" despite the lack of content.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Done - see Rolls-Royce Olympus
Thank you for your helpful comments on Rolls-Royce Olympus in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment. I have added the additional citations as you have suggested. Cheers. XJ784 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nice work! It just needs one more reference - for the paragraph in the "Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593" section - and it'll be a solid B. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. XJ784 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk
- Can you help to assess the article? And ways to improve it? Thanks bunch, see you in 8 hours. --Dave 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm about to head off myself, but I'll give it a looking over when I get back. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, looks to me like it needs a lot more inline citations, but that's the only thing keeping it from becoming B-class. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm... Thanks, I'll work on that. --Dave 05:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No worries! We all miss stuff. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested Deletion
Hello, I see the post for "Danilo Ursini" has been deleted. It is my understanding that the deletion relates to queries as to whether the artist exposed at the Louvre. After research, I was able to find references that he was a participating artist in "Carrousel de Louvre" 2010 - also called "Art Shopping".
<:ref>http://www.artconek.com/page/art-shopping-2010.php</ref> / http://www.salon-artshopping.com/</ref>
The artist appears to have some notoriety if you google his name. In particular, he is well-known in the Ossola region of Italy.
He is a featured artist at Ingremiomatris Culture Association <:ref>http://www.ingremiomatris.com/sottopasso/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83%3Adanilo-ursini&catid=58%3Adanilo-ursini&Itemid=63</ref> <:ref>http://www.lagomaggiore.it/eventi/domodossola-sottopasso-arte-contemporanea-volo</ref>
He is a winner of the Whole9 Peace Project "Inspiration Award" <:ref>http://www.thewhole9.com/thepeaceproject-home.php</ref>
He is featured in Puglia Esclusive and many other news articles <:ref>http://www.pugliainesclusiva.it/en/destroy-mostra/</ref> for an exhibition in Bari: <:ref>http://www.controweb.it/desc_articolo.php?id=2123; http://www.barimagazine.it/2011/07/25/destroy-mostra-darte-contemporanea-multimediale-2/</ref>
He has a profile on Vogue Italia <:ref>http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profilo/6c8e8ede-a3e8-4e4e-857a-536112456fc7/User</ref>
He had an Exhibition for Fashion Night Out, Vogue Italia "Watch Mi" <:ref>http://www.cronacamilano.it/mostre-eventi/17292-mostra-watch-click-milano-vogue-fashion-night-out-sinergia-tra-nuovi-talenti-fotografici-e-autorevoli-marchi-dorologi.html</ref> <:ref>http://it.paperblog.com/vogue-fashion-s-night-out-2011-568871/</ref>
He had an exhibit at the Florence Biennale <:ref>http://www.florencebiennale.org/artisti09.php</ref> <:ref>http://www.mirror800.it/</ref>
He exhibited in the Ossola region in Italy <:ref>http://www.arteinossola.it/archivio_2010.html
He exhibited for Human Rights Art from World in Trento, Italy <:ref>http://www.robertoronca.com/eventi/invito%20HR%202010.pdf</ref> <:ref>http://www.larepubblicanews.it/default.asp?lang=ita&sezione=Mostre&contenuto=8858</ref> <:ref>http://www.positanonews.it/articoli/44178/colle_di_miravalle_rovereto_tn_human_rights.html</ref>
An exhibition in Verbania <:ref>http://www.museodelpaesaggio.it/836,News.html</ref>
There are many more references on google. Also, many photos if you go to <:ref>http://www.google.it/search?q=danilo+ursini&hl=it&biw=1390&bih=780&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=BmaKToeJDI7I0AHU2snNBA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBAQ_AUoAQ</ref>
Amanda003 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. If you've found reliable sources for the artist, you can post at deletion review to discuss having the article undeleted or recreated. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Allow me to tweaked the horrendously rendered format a bit as it is screwing up with the browser's layout, hope you don't mind this. Best. --Dave 06:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No prob. If stuff is broken, fix it. :P - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- TBH, I spend half my time looking out for formatting error and the other half trying to fix them, apologies for the latest foul-up. Anyway, its bleedingly obvious the split amongst the Editor/SysOp population how the template of facepalm is argued upon but it is cases such as now that I... Facepalm... you get the picture.
--Dave 06:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- TBH, I spend half my time looking out for formatting error and the other half trying to fix them, apologies for the latest foul-up. Anyway, its bleedingly obvious the split amongst the Editor/SysOp population how the template of facepalm is argued upon but it is cases such as now that I...
AfDs with little or no discussion
Hey Bushranger, I noticed you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stuart Lafferty. Last year, I started a discussion about AfDs that have already been relisted twice. (If you already know about all this, feel free to ignore the rest of my message.) The conclusion is pretty much spelled out in WP:QUORUM: relist a third time only if there is a very good reason to do so, otherwise close as "no consensus" or "delete." When I make such a "no consensus" close, I like to specify WP:NPASR (i.e. since the community didn't reject the deletion, the nominator should be allowed to renominate immediately), and when I make such a "delete" close, it is called soft deletion and treated as an uncontested PROD, so anyone can request restoration at WP:REFUND. My rule of thumb is: if there are no "keep" !votes, close as "soft delete," but if there are any "keep" !votes, no matter how poorly reasoned (remember that if it were closed as soft delete they could just refund it for any reason), close as "no consensus NPASR." (In these closes I always link to WP:NPASR or WP:SOFTDELETE to let people know what I'm talking about.) In your case I would have closed as "soft delete" as the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. You don't have to go change it, just trying to be helpful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh, thanks. I kinda wondered about that but wasn't quite sure. I think I'll start doing that from now on. Thanks for the help! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Global Poverty Project
Hi Bushranger. As I was doing some work on the Hugh Evans (humanitarian) article, I see you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Poverty_Project. Would it be possible for you to userfy a copy of that article so I can see if it is worth attempting to cite and write? There seem to be a lot of references to the organization as I've been working on the Evans article. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem! Here you go. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, Bushranger. I've taken a stab at sourcing it and think it may be ready for others to contribute to the effort, but would like a second opinion. I think it currently has enough to pass WP:GNG now. Would you mind taking a look, and if you feel it is ready for others to start working on it would you be kind enough to move it back to Article space and tag it with a tag for expansion if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Despite its short length, that's stupendously improved; I have no problem moving it to Articlespace as a valid stub. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for moving it back, I hope some other users can use it as a stub to build upon effectively. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! Glad to be able to help out. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for moving it back, I hope some other users can use it as a stub to build upon effectively. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Despite its short length, that's stupendously improved; I have no problem moving it to Articlespace as a valid stub. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, Bushranger. I've taken a stab at sourcing it and think it may be ready for others to contribute to the effort, but would like a second opinion. I think it currently has enough to pass WP:GNG now. Would you mind taking a look, and if you feel it is ready for others to start working on it would you be kind enough to move it back to Article space and tag it with a tag for expansion if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murzyn and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination)
When AfD discussions have had substantial debate, admins should explain why they are relisting them. Would you append rationales to your relistings of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murzyn and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination) on the AfD pages, so that the participants understand why their discussion was deficient? You can see examples at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yadunandana Swami. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done, and thanks for the tip. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Your rationale here for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination) can be applicable to most divided AfD discussions. Would you elaborate further about why you chose to relist instead of close? Specifically, please explain which policies and arguments by the "delete" convinced you to relist the discussion. This will allow the participants to focus on addressing your concerns. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really have any specific policies that spring to mind as major reasons, it just seems that (bearing in mind that it is not a majority vote the deletion arguments balance the keep !votes. I have added a note though noting that I have no objections if anyone else thinks differently and goes ahead and closes it. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The same is applicable here with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murzyn.
I don't think your explanation here is sufficient. If you cannot articulate specific reasons as to why you are relisting the discussions, then I don't think the discussions should be relisted. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then another admin is free to close them one way or the other, without any complaint from me. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the consensus seems clear (both AfDs seem to be "keeps"), they should be closed after seven days unless there are deficiencies in the discussions (see Beeblebrox's comment here for an example). Your relists indicate that the discussions are deficient. Most admins will not close relisted discussions until an additional seven days have passed. By maintaining your relist, closing admins likely won't see the discussions until after seven days because they mainly review overdue discussions for closure. It is unfair to the AfD participants to have the discussions run for an additional seven days without explanations why the discussions were insufficient. Please either provide specific reasons for your relists or undo them. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I'll undo them, then - hopefully they won't get lost in the shuffle due to MathBot's insisting the old AfD discussions are empty. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope that whenever you relist a discussion that has had substantial participation, you leave a relisting comment. I asked you to review your relists because I have seen AfD participants become confused as to why a discussion is relisted when there has been plenty of participation. Sometimes, the relists led to additional acrimony among the participants. I hope you do not take my comments as an affront to the good work you do at AfD. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. :) I probably should resist the urge to close borderline AfDs when it's 5am anyway. And thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- 5am? You are very devoted to Misplaced Pages. I'd recommend saving the easy AfDs for 5am closures, and the borderline ones for 5pm. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sleep is for the weak, and I was upgraded to replace hemoglobin with caffeine many moons ago. But you're probably right. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- And lack of sleep makes me weak. Sleep makes me strong. ;) Cunard (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sleep is for the weak, and I was upgraded to replace hemoglobin with caffeine many moons ago. But you're probably right. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- 5am? You are very devoted to Misplaced Pages. I'd recommend saving the easy AfDs for 5am closures, and the borderline ones for 5pm. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. :) I probably should resist the urge to close borderline AfDs when it's 5am anyway. And thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope that whenever you relist a discussion that has had substantial participation, you leave a relisting comment. I asked you to review your relists because I have seen AfD participants become confused as to why a discussion is relisted when there has been plenty of participation. Sometimes, the relists led to additional acrimony among the participants. I hope you do not take my comments as an affront to the good work you do at AfD. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I'll undo them, then - hopefully they won't get lost in the shuffle due to MathBot's insisting the old AfD discussions are empty. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the consensus seems clear (both AfDs seem to be "keeps"), they should be closed after seven days unless there are deficiencies in the discussions (see Beeblebrox's comment here for an example). Your relists indicate that the discussions are deficient. Most admins will not close relisted discussions until an additional seven days have passed. By maintaining your relist, closing admins likely won't see the discussions until after seven days because they mainly review overdue discussions for closure. It is unfair to the AfD participants to have the discussions run for an additional seven days without explanations why the discussions were insufficient. Please either provide specific reasons for your relists or undo them. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then another admin is free to close them one way or the other, without any complaint from me. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The same is applicable here with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murzyn.
- I don't really have any specific policies that spring to mind as major reasons, it just seems that (bearing in mind that it is not a majority vote the deletion arguments balance the keep !votes. I have added a note though noting that I have no objections if anyone else thinks differently and goes ahead and closes it. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Your rationale here for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination) can be applicable to most divided AfD discussions. Would you elaborate further about why you chose to relist instead of close? Specifically, please explain which policies and arguments by the "delete" convinced you to relist the discussion. This will allow the participants to focus on addressing your concerns. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You May Have Forgotten You Commented In A Deletion Discussion In Which You Closed
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dating and marriage at Brigham Young University
I just noticed that you have closed this as an involved administrator, which is against deletion policy. I'll leave it up to you to take this to WP:DR or relist the article, or wait for an uninvolved editor to close the debate.Curb Chain (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I had forgotten I'd commented. However I didn't !vote in it. If that doesn't make a difference, I'll revert the closing. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'll play it safe. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I agree this was the right decision.Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'll play it safe. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hang glider (commerce)
In steps upon the deletion that feels most uncomfortable. In over ten years this has not happened to my works in WP. 1. Please tell me how I can get a copy of the work that I did for starting the article. I do not see the contents for use in sandboxing. Please direct me to how to see the work I did; or please e-mail to me the work I did. I sure hope the work is not forever lost. Thank you for helping me get a working copy of work. 2. Joefaust (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've created a userspace draft of the article for you here. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you in advance; I will go see the offer. Joefaust (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Thanks. I see it .Whew!. Bushranger, I am not a newbie about Hang glider commerce. I founded the first Hang Glider Manufacturer's Association HGMA and was first founding publisher of Hang Glider Business Weekly in early 1970. I substantially helped found USA hang glider manufacturing and helped to spawn the growth of hang glider commerce at its modern beginning. I was first publisher of modern hang gliding commerce publications. The article for WP holds a start toward a robust mature article that will serve readers around the world. What WP policy do you see in the start version that would cause the article to be be deleted fairly? I thought WP wants to encourage knowledge that is helpful to the world. Thank you for your moment. Joefaust (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be completely honest, the original article was impossible to understand. The only way multiple people could agree it made any sense was if it was designed to showcase the links in the references. If I could make a suggestion? You might want to contact the Guild of Copyeditors to look your article over once you have it completed, to smooth it before releasing it to articlespace; in addition, you might want to consider that Hang gliding already has a good start for information on the subject, and should be expanded upon, instead of having a new article written from scratch, perhaps. Alternatively, perhaps the article coul dbe about the Hang Glider Manufacturer's Association as an adjunct to that article (and bearing in mind WP:COI)? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Thanks. I see it .Whew!. Bushranger, I am not a newbie about Hang glider commerce. I founded the first Hang Glider Manufacturer's Association HGMA and was first founding publisher of Hang Glider Business Weekly in early 1970. I substantially helped found USA hang glider manufacturing and helped to spawn the growth of hang glider commerce at its modern beginning. I was first publisher of modern hang gliding commerce publications. The article for WP holds a start toward a robust mature article that will serve readers around the world. What WP policy do you see in the start version that would cause the article to be be deleted fairly? I thought WP wants to encourage knowledge that is helpful to the world. Thank you for your moment. Joefaust (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you in advance; I will go see the offer. Joefaust (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
.js pages
Thanks for deleting the moved .js file. Could yo please also delete User:Bongomatic/twinkleoptions.js and User:Bongomatic/monobook.js?
Regards, matic 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Consider it done! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
List of plants used as medicine AfD
Hi. You recently closed WP:Articles for deletion/List of plants used as medicine as withdrawn. Technically, withdrawal falls under WP:Speedy keep 1, which requires that there are no outstanding delete recommendations. I count three deletes, and User:Curb Chain made a comment a few hours before you closed it. This is just a reminder – I'm not challenging the outcome. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh, thanks. I'll keep that in mind for the next time somebody withdraws and there's delete votes. Thanks for the heads-up! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fenestron-using helicopters
Category:Fenestron-using helicopters, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)