User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveFive

"Keep" decision for CC Slaughters

Hi, you recently closed the deletion discussion on the article for CC Slaughters with a decision to "Keep" the article. I am the person who originally nominated it, and I felt I had made a good case as to why the article did not belong on Wikipedia. I did not get the sense that the article was, in the end, anything more than a travel guide entry, and did not get the sense that a claim of notability had been or could be established on the topic (and I cited those items in the policy and guidelines which supported that argument). While the number of "votes" to keep was higher than mine to delete, deletion is, of course, not meant to be a democratic process. Could you explain to me your reasoning , especially as a non-admin, for closing the discussion when there did not appear to be a clear consensus among discussants as to whether or not the article met the criteria for inclusion? I still maintain that it does not, and did not find the arguments of the other editors in the discussion (none of which referenced policy) to be compelling in favor of retaining it. Thanks KDS4444^Talk 05:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of deletion discussions is not supposed to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Four experienced users in that discussion opined that the article should be kept because the coverage in reliable sources was sufficient to establish notability, per WP:GNG. One of these users referenced the GNG explicitly, but the other comments contained implicit references to the GNG as well. I find these users comments to be solidly based on the relevant guideline. You were the only user arguing for deletion, based on the claim that the sources weren't reliable. So both positions have a guideline basis. This is precisely the context in which the user closing the discussion should not approach supervote territory, by performing their own analysis of source reliability, and holding the result of such to be superior to the analyses in which the discussion participants had already engaged. Instead, the supermajority position must prevail. I do not believe that any administrator would have closed that discussion as "delete" or even "relist". You are welcome to appeal the discussion closure to WP:DRV; however, the probability of overturning the result is quite minimal. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Then a travel guide entry it shall be. KDS444 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of my edit on "King Herod"

You said...

"Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Herod the Great seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page."

I say...

1. "wide diversity of opinions" ... Except mine or only those with which you agree?

2. "we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view" ... Removing something because YOU disagree with it is not remaining neutral.

3. "seemed less than neutral to YOU, so you removed it" ... Again, removing something because YOU disagree with it is not remaining neutral. Silencing that with which you disagree is not adhering to a wide diversity of opinions. It is counter to free speech. It is oppression.

Allowing only that with which you agree does not constitute a wide diversity of opinions, it constitutes the opposite. When you take it upon yourself to promote only one side of a thing whilst calling it diverse and neutral you deprive people of the ability to think critically and decide for themselves. Can you say MSM? Can you say evolution in schools? This is not conducive to a well informed and educated public. To the contrary, it exemplifies the very definition of indoctrination.

I made the edit that I made to prove a point. That point is, while many acknowledge the existence of Herod The Great (and others) they will ignore anything Biblical that pertains to them because they refuse to accept the Bible as anything other than fairy tails and myth while others, such as myself, know that The Bible is historical fact. You cannot talk about people, places, or things, in historical context and only talk about the aspects that YOU agree with as if the other parts didn't happen or exist. Egypt, Israel, Rome, etc., these places really exist/ed. Just because they are mentioned in The Bible doesn't lesson that fact. The same goes for Herod The Great.

You have demonstrated to me the bias that is so prevalent in today's modern politically correct anti-God society. Now I understand why non of my professors would accept this site as a credible resource for assignments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.220.102 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post comments on this article to Talk:Herod the Great, not the article itself. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the keep (Article: Captivity of the Nairs at Seringapatam).Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the keep (Article: William R. Gruber). I was recently going through his papers at The Hoover Institution Archives and his collection of papers reveal that he not only a good friend to the Eisenhowers, but has a very decorated career as a commanding officer in the Army. William R. Gruber is the brother of Brigadier general Edmund L. Gruber who was a famous military musician. I connected both brothers on their respective pages but made no official entries. My aim is adding additional data and citations. I will add a photograph of Mr. Gruber as soon as I am able to enhance the page. Thanks once again for keeping this page. User:Tess600 23:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your latest vandal fan

See here; I thought you should know. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance required

Can you please help reach a consensus for this AfD debate article ([1]) as you did for another similar article ([2]). Thank you for your time. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Shoemaker

Hi David. You're monitoring the J. Michael Shoemaker article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tadd Roosevelt closure

It's too soon to close the AfD as it hasn't been a week yet. Wait at least another 24 hours before closing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you nominated the article for deletion on March 2, and I closed the AFD on March 9, seven days have elapsed. Granted, if we're counting hours and minutes, I should have waited until 23:37 today before closing the AFD. However, interpretation of the seven day rule is subject to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. There is a vanishingly small probability that the article was going to be deleted. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is how the "keep" voters neglected to mention how the subject was notable other than for being part of famous families. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors supporting the retention of the article believed that coverage of the subject in reliable sources was sufficient to confer notability, implicitly invoking WP:GNG. They considered the notability guideline to outweigh purely subjective impressions of importance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There was only one reliable source that really went in depth, so fails WP:GNG which requires multiple. Not even that one source mentioned what he was noted for, didn't even list an occupation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The general notability guideline states that "multiple sources are generally expected", not "multiple sources are required in all cases." The bottom line is that three experienced users offered a guideline-based rationale for retaining the article, and you were the only user arguing for deletion. For the editor closing the discussion to perform their own analysis of source adequacy approaches dangerously close to WP:SUPERVOTE territory. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note

Hi, at AE I think they generally prefer threads where evidence is presented in bullet point lists like: [3]. I.e not much text and just links to diffs with a summary of what it demonstrates. It would be a good idea to modify your current request in that format or it will probably be rejected. AE admins tend not to do exhaustive searches about behaviour without reasonable cause (since it takes time), Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, hopefully. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

AE request

Hi David, so we can more easily understand the issue could you please give us some more information on why each diff you presented adds to your reasoning that a sanction needs to be imposed? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

List of banned editors

You can't just add someone to the banned list that way. No uninvolved admin came in and close the discussion with that conclusion, and you can't close it as you participated. If anything, there was clearly no consensus there, which isn't surprising considering it is an IP, a category of user we generally do not ban for technical reasons. If you disagree, you are free to bring up the issue at WP:AN. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It looked like a pretty clear consensus to me, with 7 users supporting and 1 opposed. WP:NOTBURO would seem to apply to this situation, where there was a consensus for a ban but the discussion was archived without administrative closure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to banning a user (the most extreme thing we can do to a user) a little bureaucracy is a good thing. The fact that it was archived indicates that no one saw fit to close as a ban. Had it been clear, some admin would have. Under all circumstances, the close and logging of the ban should only be done by someone who didn't !vote. Again, if you want it reviewed, you are welcome to take it to WP:AN and I won't be offended in the least. I certainly don't mind having my actions reviewed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

José González

Hi,

I saw that you moved Mr. Gonzalez' page as if you intended to close the RM, but you haven't actually closed the discussion yet. You also seem to have moved on to close other RMs. Are you waiting for some reason to close Talk:José González? Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the redirects at José González and talk:José González to be deleted so that I can move José González (disambiguation) to José González. I thought that I would be able to perform the move over the redirect since it had only one revision, but the software won't let me do it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done :) Xoloz (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese character(s)

Are you sure that was a consensus against the move? It looks an awful lot like "no consensus" to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The end result would be the same, since that article has been at the current title for nearly three months. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The move was under dispute for the whole three months---the dispute began within hours of the move. Curly Turkey (gobble) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the closure has already been reviewed, and endorsed, by an uninvolved admin. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RussianSpring.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RussianSpring.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 05:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your tagging is incorrect. That image clearly has a fair use rationale. WP:CSD#F6 specifically excludes cases in which a fair use rationale is present, but disputed. Nonetheless, if some more garrulous rationale is desired, I can provide it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Stopps

David, I see that you did a non-admin closure on the 'Stopps vs Ladies Fitness' AFD. In that case, I expect you to be the one who adds some secondary sources to the article. DS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

shabka article. Hi David. I can't see why non consensus would lead to the article remaining the same so I am going to request a move review.Sarasin (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil

Infobox Greek constituency

unfortunately, you broke the maps (see Elis (Hellenic Parliament constituency)). somewhat surprised you didn't notice. I am going to ask for the code to be temporarily restored so I can fix them. I already changed them to the redirect so I can find them. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Does [4] correct the problem? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Comox_people#Requested_move

You participated in the move request for Comox. I wanted to let you know I've put forward a more comprehensive move request. Whether you're supportive or not, your input would be appreciated given your past participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

CFD closes

Hi; if you close a CFD and the category remains, either through a "keep" or "no consensus", you need to remove the template from the category, like this. It's also a good idea to do this. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OKay, thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For info, the full instructions are at WP:CFDAI. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Society by country

As you closed this, please see the subsequent CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27#Society_by_country, where I have with regret suggested reversing your close – although I think it was going the right way. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, an anon editor has now suggested a split which might be helpful. Your views would be welcome. – Fayenatic London 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have closed that CfD as well . IMHO you should give a justification for ending up with a position where the head category and the contents do not match. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus to rename the categories, the categories weren't renamed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping you would be willing to add a comment in the closure to explain why you did not pursue the proposed "Alternative" either. Actually, I think there is still scope for you to find in favour of the Alternative. (As closer, you can change or expand your decision after closing; I've done that a few times.) – Fayenatic London 08:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are thinking of applying to become an admin, I would encourage you to be ready to communicate more fully, and to be ready to give a justification for your actions and their outcomes.

For info, I have raised a fresh discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 14. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for move request discussions.

Please do NOT close move requests before the time allotted for the discussion has run. A substantial number of editors wait until such discussions reach the bottom of the list before they participate. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the error. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation

An editor has asked for a Move review of Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 05:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Hello, could you take a look at the contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Attacks#Fox Attacks? I feel that there may be some additional socking going on. Certainly something is going on... Hobit (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that AFD is such a mess it's going to require an administrator to sort it out. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dieselpunk AfD

Hi,

I noticed you did a NAC on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (4th nomination). Given the article's extensive history I would prefer an admin closure to prevent any controversies. Could you please revert. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is a clear, obvious keep, and thus ripe for non-admin closure per the relevant guideline. If the closure should be challenged at deletion review, I am confident the result will be upheld. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but if someone challenges your close, you're REQUIRED to undo it, if it was NAC. On top of that, Valoem's right - you shouldn't have touched that close on its 4th AFD DP 18:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant material I see in the guideline is "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought." Thus, non-admins are not qualified to compulsorily demand the undoing of an NAC. Nor does any number of previous AFDs preclude an otherwise permissible NAC. Unless you're qualified as uninvolved, and will undo my closure yourself, or intend to challenge the result at deletion review, this matter should be considered closed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this: undo your close, I'll take care of it (pretty sure I didn't !vote in it). This is not the first time I've had to ask twice, IIRC DP 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I already took care of it, I was trying to be respectful and give him a chance to undo it :(. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know I voted keep at the AfD. I took it to DRV already for relist. No one could be more happy for the keep than me (except maybe Andy). Unfortunately, its not about me. It's about proper procedure. Articles that have controversial pasts should reserve an admin close as a preventative measure for any issues going forward. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And the AFD has now been closed exactly the same way I closed it. I told you so... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I already knew that, not the point though. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right: the point is obviously process wonkery. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot seriously see it that way, can you? NAC's are for clearly uncontroversial closes only. The 4th AFD for an article is clearly not uncontroversial. You may not close those DP 08:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse, AFDs are decided on the content of the discussion, not the number of previous AFDs, unless a nomination occurs too soon after a previous AFD. Controversial valence does not accrue solely by reason of the number of prior nominations. Moreover, the reversal of my AFD closure, only to reclose the AFD exactly the same way, is a borderline abuse of the administrative prerogative of NAC reversal, which is intended for use only when the invoking administrator intends to close the discussion with an alternate outcome or leave the discussion open. I trust this will not be a frequent occurrence. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to take me to ANI if you honestly believe you did the right thing in refusing to reopen when requested. Otherwise, the above is a threat. Admins FREQUENTLY re-close in exactly the same close - so stop making crap up to try and recover from your own screwup and refusal to fix when requested politely DP 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What you suppose ANI will do? Impose a sanction for a single bad NAC reversal? No. Reverse your closure, and restore my close? That would be just as useless as your closure reversal. Now, if you were to make a habit of this by following my discussion closures, then we would have an issue for ANI. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

David, I think there is a misunderstanding. I thank DP for the defense and ignored your accusation of process wonkery as that is clearly not the case. I asked you for a very innocent request to undo an NAC. No one was accusing you of anything improper, how editors get so politically defensive is highly discouraging. If you reviewed the AfD history of that article you will see an NAC was clearly not applicable. This was simply not the article's 4th nomination, it was taken to DRV three times and an ANI incident occurred in the process which I was involved in and was accused of not following proper procedure. Fortunately there were no consequences, however, given the incident I wanted to insure that proper procedure was followed this time around. Honesty, I could care less who closed the AfD if not for the ANI and as it stands I kindly asked for an admin to close which any editor can do. Dangerous Panda, further asked nicely to undo the NAC when either of us could have just undone it ourselves. Our request was out of respect for your tireless hard work on Wikipedia and I assume based on your edits you are considering RFA. Your response was surprising, to say the least. Undoing an NAC will have no effect on that, but turning this into a pissing contest may.

And for the record this AfD came directly from DRV, you cannot close those.Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergei Volchkov (singer)

Hi David

Please will you reconsider you closure of Talk:Sergei Volchkov (singer)#Requested_move?

By the time the discussion was closed, an article had been created on Sergei Volchkov (Russian Academy of Sciences). If anyone meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has the greatest claim to long-term significance.

I know that more editor supported the move than opposed it, but debates should be weighed on policy rather than by counting !votes. Per WP:RMNAC, Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved. This was such a case, because the arguments by User:In ictu oculi did involve unresolved contentious debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Although the move was 3 support to 1 oppose including the nominator, I had thought that the article about the scientist didn't exist in English yet, and the disambiguation was in view of a hypothetical. I will revert the pagemove, but I don't have the technical ability to delete the redirect so that Sergei Volchkov (Russian Academy of Sciences) can be moved to Sergei Volchkov. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, David. No request has been made to move the article on the scientist, so it can say where it is for now. A dab page can be created at Sergei Volchkov.

I am surprised that you thought that the article about the scientist didn't exist in English yet. The bluelink was what alerted me :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I just did a few tweaks to the dab page. Per WP:MOSDAB, links should not be piped, there should be only one bluelink per line. Per MOS:DABPEOPLE, dates of birth and death should be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for resolving this. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note about the Pseudoscience arb com decision

Please note that Ken Ham and his Young Earth Creationism fall under the Arb Com's Pseudoscience Arbitration Enforcement which means that people who tendentiously edit by continually asserting that the earth is only 6000 years old are subject to the discretionary sanctions including blocks and topic bans.

The starting point for the discussions is that his claim of the age of the earth and his claims about the flood are incorrect. The only thing for discussion is how to appropriately frame the fact of his claims being wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of me asserting that the earth is only 6000 years old please? What I'm saying is that an article concerning the nexus of science and religion should attribute the scientific POV as such. WP:BLP requires as much. And I don't believe that users who edit from the position that "Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith" and describe the subject's beliefs as "this particular religious nonsense" [5] have any business editing the BLP of a deeply religious person. In any case, I appreciate that I'm currently outnumbered. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

David, have you read WP:FRINGE? The things you are have been writing on the Ken Ham Talk page don't seem to be taking it into account, and it is the key guideline for issues like the one you are contesting. You will notice that "creation science" is given as an example in that guideline so it definitely applies to Ken Ham's views on the age of the earth. There is no conflict between doing what FRINGE obligates us to do with FRINGE claims, and BLP. I hope you can see that. Happy to talk through it if you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ham's views are indeed fringe as science, but they are mainstream in Christianity, as quite a few Christians do take the Bible quite literally. In any case, I appreciate that consensus is against me on this point. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He is not presenting them in the realm of religion. He is presenting them in the realm of science where there is zero support. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He, and his organization, are avowedly dedicated to interpreting the Bible as the literal word of God. This is quite clearly religious in character. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That they are proclaiming it is science and should be taught as science is also abundantly clear. When they stop promoting it as science then we can reassess.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RedPen, PLEASE don't drag your battleground here. You guys can play your game of "i can yell louder than you" elsewhere - I am trying to have an actual conversation. Please! David, thanks for talking. However, would you please answer my question - have you read WP:FRINGE and thought about it? The reason why I am asking, is because WP's policies and guidelines (PAG) are what separate WP from the wild west, and are what allow for there to rational discussion. Ideally, especially in difficult discussions, people go back and re-read and consider the relevant PAG in light of the content under discussion, instead of just trying to yell louder than the other guy. The discussion, driving toward consensus, ~should~ leave everyone with a clear sense of how the content and sourcing fits with PAG, and discussions that leave somebody just feeling outvoted (without a reason why) are the suckiest kinds of discussions here.Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

if this is anyone's conversation with DavidLeighEllis it is mine that you are interrupting! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've ready WP:FRINGE, and I see "creation science" used as an example of fringeness. One could say, I suppose, that Ham's views are ipso facto fringe. So the question becomes whether his views can be pidgeonholed as "creation science", or something else. More generally, the guideline describes "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus" as "pseudoscience". I would argue that whereas "creation science" tries and fails to marshal scientific evidence independent of the Bible for creationism, thus becoming a pseudoscience, Ham and Answers In Genesis are proceeding from the position that the Bible is axiomatically true. This makes his views quintessentially religious in character. As religion, they are part of mainstream Christianity. Note that Ham's Creation Museum has attracted millions of visitors, by the way. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

wow - Wikilawyering to try to say that the Psci Arbcom ruling that specifically calls out creation science as psuedo science doesnt apply to Ken Ham's creationism because he thinks its religious and not science (particularly when he repeatedly places it as science) - THAT in an of itself is probably prima facia evidence for an AE block of tendentious editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. An "AE block" for what I wrote on my own talk page? I already said that I recognize consensus is against me. I do not intend to pursue this issue further on the Ken Ham article, on BLP/N or the Ken Ham talk page. Please consider this matter closed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

David, my goal here is not to play "gotcha" or to argue with you. If you have not read it before (and even you have, just a long time ago) I'd ask you to reflect on it a bit instead of reacting and making arguments right away; getting wikipedia's policies and guidelines in, at the base of your work here, takes time -- my position on several things with regard to my work here has definitely changed over time, the deeper I have come to understand PAG. I know it it is hard to be reflective when there are people aggressively opposing you, but one of the gifts of Wikipedia is that kind of test of character. Anyway, good luck. And RedPen, you are your own worst enemy - treating people like nails and hammering away at them is an unproductive way to try to reach consensus.Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

PS - David I should say that after you have read FRINGE again, please do read the link that RedPen provided to you above. As you can imagine, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", Wikipedia has seen all kinds of arguments break out, about pretty much anything you can imagine - and people who hold to FRINGE views have defended them bitterly and protractedly. It is out of those very real struggles that policies, guidelines, and ArbCom "case law" grew, as Wikipedia's mission has been worked out over time. ArbCom rulings are something to take very seriously - so please do read that decision and reflect on it, too. Again, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears, per [6], that the whole point of this discussion has been to entrap me into saying something on my own talk page that an overzealous admin might possibly block me for, even though I have long since dropped the issue on BLP/N, the Ken Ham article, and the article talk page, and I have stated here that I recognize consensus is against me. I'm done playing this rigged game. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

that is unfair. i came here to really try to talk with you and RedPen has been continuing to hammer away at you; I cannot help what he writes any more than I can help what you write. You seem like a reasonable person and I do hope you take my advice. I know I can come across like a condescending creep-o but i am trying to help you see why the consensus formed as it did. When I reviewed what you wrote and saw that you seemed unaware of FRINGE etc it made sense to me to bring it to your attention and ask you to consider it - i did that because you seem to be a reasonable guy. please don't go all conspiracy on me and refute that assumption! anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I have been too harsh in characterizing your motivations. However, the fact remains that the current environment is inimical to the open discussion of this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

whew thanks for that! i don't mean to be a dick here, but this is what can happen when folks get too aggressive, and stake out positions in content disputes (and even going to drama boards) before they fully understand the PAG and arbcom case law underlying the issues being disputed. especially on contentious articles. (and on those articles, you find editors like RedPen who defend policy and take no prisoners) One of things i try to do around here is to try to talk editors who seem unaware of what they are doing, down from the precipice and try to get them to look at PAG/case law before they go too far. while i am sorry i didn't catch you earlier and i am sorry that nobody else did either, you have to take responsibility for having leapt before you looked, as it were. There are people willing to discuss the background issues but it is hard to get people to explore with you after you have been disputatious - especially right afterwards. And the place for exploring is more likely to be the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, not the Talk page of an article where that policy applies. And just to beat my condescending horse to death, the exploration on your part ~should~ start out as inquiry (really asking - "why is the policy/guideline/ruling like this?") and understanding that, before you start arguing with it. (being born is like walking into the middle of a movie; ditto editing at wikipedia) ok that is enough from me. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Fluss1

Please revisit your closure at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 5#Template:Infobox Fluss1, which overlooks the unanimous view that the template should only be used for shimming {{Infobox river}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The consensus in that discussion was to keep the template in some form. A "keep" closure does not imply that the template should not be altered. You are welcome to edit the template. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where your closing summary reflects that. Again; please revisit it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The closure does not need to explicitly grant permission to edit the template, since you already have that. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Template Editor

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! v/r - TP 00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Null edits

Hi, this wasn't a null edit. A null edit changes nothing on the page, doesn't add an entry to the page history, but does force all the templates to be reparsed and therefore the categorisation to be redone. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox ESC entry

Regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 23#Template:Infobox ESC entry; please will you explain how you weighted up the arguments, rather than simply counting !votes? (Your one-word comment on closing does not do so) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The template is frequently used (so frequently that it's template protected), and a merger would a royal pain in the posterior. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to apply that sort of judgement (which in any case is bogus; and does not answer my question), then you should not be closing discussions. Please reopen it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You wanted my weighing of the arguments, and now you have it. Further comments regarding this issue should be directed to deletion review. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the discussion has been open since March 23. Someone eventually has to close it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Infobox ESC entry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox ESC entry. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Also, please refrain from closing any further discussions which I have initiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review requested

I am requesting a move review on the recent closure of a move request at Talk:Social_network#Move_request. Consensus was only determined by considering the preferences of the participants. Each point made in opposition was countered with a valid objection to the opposition. Evaluation of arguments did not take place by assigning due weight accordingly and giving due consideration to applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Thank you, 74.192.227.151 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hi David. Can you tell me which one of the WP:SK criteria would apply to the nomination of {{Infobox record label}}? I understand that many people find the TfD banner annoying, but without it other readers and editors won't notice the discussion and have a chance to give their opinion. So I ask you to let it stay for another four days, when the time for the TfD will expire. Thanks, --eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I understand that isn't in the speedy keep guideline, but its common practice. Anyway, if we want to follow policy/guidelines to the letter, you, as an involved non-admin who nominated the template for deletion, are unqualified to revert an XFD closure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So in that case should the result not be restored, unless an Admin intervenes and reverts the closure? STATic message me! 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, technically my closure should have stood unless reverted by an admin or overturned at deletion review. But I don't feel like having an edit war this morning... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't originally revert the non-admin closure, another editor did, but he was himself reverted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Who also wasn't an administrator, and thus unqualified to revert an XFD closure. However, I did not intend to start the edit war that resulted from my closure... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. A non-admin closure can be reverted by anyone, especially if the provided rationale is patently wrong.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, NACs "are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Thus, only admins are qualified to reverse NACs. You are quite mistaken. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting in touch

Hi David, I was hoping to discuss something with you, but you don't seem to have a connected email address where I can send you something through Wikipedia. If you don't want to set one up, would you be so kind as to email me? Thanks, BDD (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have enabled my Wikipedia email. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidLeighEllis. You have new messages at Talk:Ken Ham.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your work on uniformity of references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cardinality of the continuum

Hi David,

I've been observing your changes to the cardinality of the continuum article, silently so far. On balance, I'm not against them so far — they might not be exactly in line with our best practices, but it's not as though the article was a pristine jewel beforehand.

But I'm starting to get concerned about how far you're planning to take this. WP being a reference work rather than a textbook, we don't include a lot of proofs (except for rare proofs that are notable in their own right). Also, I'm wondering how "encyclopedia-like" the long list of examples is going to wind up being.

So if you wouldn't mind laying out your vision a little bit on the talk page of the article, that would be appreciated.

Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

TfD closures

As you seem to have missed it the last time; I repeat here my request that you refrain from closing TfD/TfM discussions which I have started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your requests do not carry the force of policy. In any case, your reversal of my closure was out of process; only administrators are authorized to reverse NACs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (1968–present)

Hey, David. There also seemed to be a consensus for redirects for the smaller lists that were combined to create this one. Any verdict on that? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and now done. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, DavidLeighEllis. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping the William R. Gruber page! User:Tess600 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Blackboxwarning

Template:Blackboxwarning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you fix this?

Hi David, I noticed that your talk-page notification of the closure of the most recent AfD of Gary Renard only linked the earlier AfD discussion. Could you please fix this so that both AfDs are mentioned and linked? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Never mind, I figured out how to do it myself. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson's Local Buses

Please self-revert your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson's Local Buses and leave this to an admin. There is no cosensus to keep when the strength of arguments is weighed. Thanks in advance.Charles (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Now closed as keep by an admin, on the basis of the same arguments. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)