User talk:Eluchil404/Archive7

Veronica Moser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_14#14_November_2010 Hi, you deleted the page for Veronica Moser and also the talk page. I did not see any reasononed arguments for doing that and I also noticed that you deleted the talk page as well. I've opened up a deletion review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_14#14_November_2010

I am optimistic about restoring that page. Any disputed parts of it can be questioned independently afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Eluchil404! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 244 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Lu Hao (born 1967) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Vineyards

Thanks for taking the time to read through those protracted discussions. Now that you have kindly restored the article, I shall endeavour to build on this so we may achieve a good article after all this labour. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you closed WP:Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards, I'm following up here. Would you delete (WP:Selective deletion) the merged content from North Fork of Roanoke AVA (all revisions after oldid=335934430)? I explained my reasoning at the DRV, and it turns out that the winery is not in that AVA. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary. There is no remaining attribution problem since the merged material has been undeleted and inappropriate content does not need to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. I don't see how any of the listed criteria are met or that this is anything but an ordinary content dispute that can be handled through the ordinary editing process. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I will collect my points here in hopes of being more persuasive.

The copied content, unless removed by deletion, has an attribution dependency (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia). If the content remains visible, I will tag the Talk pages with {{Copied}} as recommended. The content will interfere with and confuse a future AfD much like it did the DRV, leading to arguments of "Speedy keep, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Merge and delete".
North Fork of Roanoke AVA's history is clean now, with the only change (an interwiki link) added to a revision without the merged text, and no need for attribution in dummy edit summaries. With Valhalla Vineyards restored, the text forms a content fork – in this case, a redundant copy – in the article of the wrong AVA. Deletion would cause no damage to the quality of North Fork of Roanoke AVA and no loss of information.
With the warning boxes all over WP:Revision deletion, I can understand why you or any other admin would be reluctant to perform a non-essential deletion. I believe it fits under 5. Valid deletion under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete. Following the link to WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion finds Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). Using deletion to undo inappropriate mergers is hinted at in WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (last bullet), but I am not aware of any actual uses.

Regardless of whether I convince you, I will probably propose the use of deletion to undo mergers in similar situations. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made that it fits under criteria 5 but it just seems odd to revision delete material added inappropriately but in good faith and not similarly delete vandalism. In any event, my preference for keeping histories complete rather than "clean" is decisive here and I won't be taking any additional action in this area. If someone else wants to tackle this or similar matters that's fine, of course. Happy editing! Eluchil404 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'll raise a similar hypothetical situation at WT:Revision deletion in the near future. Thanks for your attention, and the same to you. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image restore File:Valhalla-Logo.jpg

The image File:Valhalla-Logo.jpg was deleted by Orphaned image deletion bot (talk · contribs · count) during the period that Valhalla Vineyards was deleted. The current version of Valhalla Vineyards has a redlink to the logo. Could you please restore the logo and remove the orphaned non-free tag from the file page? Many thanks. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article on Hoxs64

Regarding [1]. This software may not be well covered, but it is the most accurate C64 emulator available. As virtually all software for the C64 relies on very intricate details of the hardware, being the most accurate emulator available makes it notable and highly significant. You should rethink your decision to delete this wiki page. You can find further information on this topic in these threads on the c64.org forums, [2] and [3]. Thank you. --Leffmann (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Eluchil404,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- None meaning that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop. That was my intention (as my comment at the time hopefully makes clear) and is still my opinion (not that this is a re-vote). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedobear

Hi, Eluchil404. I see you recreated the page Pedobear. Is it acceptable to restore the discussion page? Even if not, I think there's no point in keeping the talk page protected if the main page isn't. I was looking to place {{multidel}} on it, but couldn't and I can't think of where to place an {{editprotected}} request for a talk page that is itself protected. Can you fix this? Thanks, Waldir ^talk 11:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've placed the {{multidel}} on the talk page, please take a look to confirm everything looks fine. --Waldir ^talk 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Anandita Dutta Tamuly

Thank you very much Sir for your having restored my deleted article Anandita Dutta Tamuly. I find no words to thank you. I had nothing to say against the deletion of Jayanta Lahon, but in the case of Anandita Dutta Tamuly I could not agree with the result. Just because someone is not making any record in the Guinness, her/his other notabilities are disowned. Now the article is getting its dues getting a space in wikipedia. Regards XETELI ^{(HELLO • FOOTAGE)} 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page restoration request

Greetings. I wonder if you could do me a favor and restore a page for me. I had requested deletion for this page as it was in my userspace and I was "retiring" at the time. It's User:Equazcion/Awards. Thanks in advance. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:34, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's been done by someone else. Thanks though and sorry to bother you. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:00, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Biologist Mark

Hello, Eluchil404. When I reported BiologistMark, you said, "I don't see that any administrative intervention is needed here. He has not been edit warring or making personal attacks. Some advice about WP:OR and the need to write from sources may be appropriate here, but I don't see any grounds for a block or editing restriction."

In response to the "He has not been edit warring" part, I ask how so? For a few days, I would revert him and he would add the same thing back after that (after warnings and explanations). WP:Reliable sources, which I pointed him to, covers WP:OR. I do not see how explaining sourcing policies to him yet again will help. Not only was he adding back in dubious, unsourced material, he was changing and deleting sourced material. He has not added anything back in two days, but I have my doubts that he will never add back the same unsourced material yet again. What am I suppose to do in this case, just keep reverting him and leaving more messages on his talk page? He should read. If he does not understand, I do not see how that means we should just keep allowing him to add dubious/unsourced material to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capstone publishers

hi,

although i voted to keep, i think you're delete rationale was spot-on. just felt like telling you that.--Pink Bull 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Shaitan

Hi, you just closed this as "keep", but to me it seems like there's actually a good majority for merging. Note that DGG voted "keep", but in his explanation actually argues for merging. Could you perhaps have a second look at this? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the discussion again, I don't see any consensus to merge. A majority of editors said a merge was an acceptable outcome but two of those (DDG and Phil Bridger) seemed to prefer a straight keep and Toddy1 doesn't appear to have considered whether or not a merge was an acceptable outcome. The nominator also specifically argues for deletion to the exclusion of merging. As I clarified in my closing comment, this close should not be understood as precluding a later merge but I can't see a consensus for it here. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Vanity 800 Numbers

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vanity 800 Numbers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity 800 Numbers. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dash (The Incredibles).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dash (The Incredibles).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eluchil404,

I understand that the article about my father Warren Laughlin has been or is being deleted. I also understand that you were rightfully trying to find something on google to support the article. I struggled with whether to have the article title be a name or the actual thing that I thought most basketball fans would find interesting. I also have a Wichita newspaper article written about my father (with a picture) and the Foul Light as well as a pdf of the actual patent but I have no clue as to whether something like that is deemed copyright protected. I would be glad to send you what I have related to the Foul Light if you are interested. I really tried to be non-sensational and limit the he-did-this-and-that but he really was active in tons of stuff across the state (he's still alive but is in the middle stages of Alzheimers). Anyway, if it makes sense to have the article title be Foul-Light instead of Warren Laughlin, that's alright with me. I was a toddler when the first Foul Lights were made in the basement of our house. They were four sided and were eventually changed to three (as mentioned in the newspaper article). I actually had the four sided prototype one (made out of wood) but my parents got divorced when I was in college and it got moved or misplaced. No one remembers exactly what happened to it. The Foul Light that was used in Allen Field House at Kansas University until the mid 90's is still there I'm guessing. I had dialog via e-mail with Roy Williams about it and he said it was being stored in Hoch Auditorium but then Hoch burned down in a fire. So, my family was assuming it was burned also. But then my brother, who was a coach in Wichita at the time, was in AFH for a basketball camp and he walked into one of the secretary's offices and he said it was standing up on display. Whether all the numbers were lit up in the various colors for display I don't know. I also have neat pictures of Larry Brown standing next to the Foul Light when he was head coach at KU as well as Roy Williams standing next to it. I could send you those as well. You might actually be able to find pictures like that on google in their image section. The newspaper article describes in brief detail about my Father's childhood, etc. Anyway, just thought that the very first electronic method of showing fouls to the referees and crowd in a basketball game would be interesting as part of the history of the sport of basketball. I also have a couple of patents myself, one of which I've been told the saga surrounding it (decade-long patent battle involving the DOC, NWS, NOAA, and the FCC) would make for a great 60 minutes show. But I'm not overly interested in rehashing that whole thing in a Wiki setting. I'm mainly just trying to capture my Dad's contribution to the game of basketball. Any help on your end would be most helpful. Thank you kindly. --Historydgl (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of fictional magic users

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Trading In Danger (front cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Trading In Danger (front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Command Decision (front cover).jpg

I've restored it; thanks for the note. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review: Electro Love

Hello there, I have a few questions about your closure of the AfD on Electro Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as keep. From my understanding the number of opinions along with the supporting arguments decides the outcome of the AfD. Aside from the editor nominating the article, I voted for deletion citing that the album had been a WP:CRYSTAL for too long. Additionally the article's main contributor even agreed that the article's relavance was questionable since the information was already contained on the artist's page. Then there two opposing votes for keeping the article but neither really puts forward arguments which counteract the concerns outline by the three editors requesting the deletion/redirection of the article. I'm frankly dumbfounded as to why the discussion could be deemed as a consensus to keep. By the way no disrespect to you for making the decision, I was just confused and though I would ask you first before requesting a formal deletion review. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine, it makes sense. I will open a merge discussion on the talk page as you've hinted at. I just dont think an article for an album which has an unconfirmed release date, no actual confirmed information (just speculated/reported) and a lot of speculation is too vague for indepedence. A lot of the info is already at the artist page, i just think the rest of it would be better there too. thanks for the explaination though. much appreciated. and no hard feelings. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Laura Massey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laura Massey. 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.Gregsteimel (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]