Jump to content

User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Please undelete OzLabs article...

As you can see from the delete log, the proposed deletion was contested. Did we need to do something else?

The article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted!

Thanks, Rusty.

Hi Rusty. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozlabs. Proto::► 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'how to' - Wikipedia is not a how to guide.

You removed the 'how to' sections from Windsor knot and Half-Windsor knot. What do you think about all of the rest of the Category:Knots articles, since the majority of them have "how to" content? Dddstone 14:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you know what string is

Thanks for fixing that description on String - after I read it once you fixed it, I felt rather silly for having put it back as the prior definition. Definitly not thick! -- Natalya 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Proto, I think I over-reacted a bit with my histrionics on your Arbcom candidacy page. I was independently e-mailed by two people who commented that I was too harsh on you for a rather minor issue and who spoke highly of you. Please accept this modest modicum of an apology from me. -- Samir धर्म 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering C&C Obelisk article

May I ask what your justification for deleting the Command and Conquer related 'Obelisk of Light' article was? Different games same to have quite detailed articles for their characters and features etc and yet C&C doesn't. TheDoc774 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was a copy of the section in Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod, a deleted article. The deletion discussion can be found here. I will point the deleted article Obelisk of Light to Technology of the Brotherhood of Nod as a redirect. Proto::► 19:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the gamecruft section of your user page and understand your reasoning, thanks. I couldn't find a discussion page which is why I posted here.TheDoc774 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fishingboat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fishingboat.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was self made, but I've deleted it myself, as it wasn't being used. Thanks. Proto::► 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) 6th AFD

Just an FYI, I renominated "the game" for deletion here. KnightLago 02:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A policy proposal about images linked from Commons

As a followup of "Penis Vandal Again" at WP:ANI, please consider the Wikipedia:Images for blocking policy proposal `'mikkanarxi 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Unite

Why?

Separate operation, separate media coverage, distinct from Virgin Group. Problems? --Calton | Talk 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could, as the clear expert, see if the article itself could explain that it's a separate organization
Perhaps you, as an administrator, could stow the snark. Or are the rules about civility you like to wield as a club only for the little people?
Free clue: Virgin Airlines, Virgin Electronics, Virgin Books, Virgin Express, etc, are all "arms of the Virgin Group, and hey presto, they have separate articles, being separate operations, separate media coverage, and distinct from Virgin Group. As a non-expert, if you need further explanation, please let me know. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I upset you
The word is "annoy". And thanks for the non-apology apology. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also sorry if I annoyed you, bothered you, flustered you, irritated you or perturbed you.
So you own a thesaurus. That's nice. But the word is still "annoyed". And thanks for the longer, even more insincere, non-apology apology. You can stop now.
Oh, and a little reading -- which you'll note I put in the article -- that ought to make the point why this is a separate article: "Branson’s approach to charity is the same". --Calton | Talk 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For xyr

My username here is Proto, my master IRC nickname is Proto, and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Proto Proto::► 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser case you commented on in ANI

Regarding [1], can we please get this fellow and his associated IP addresses blocked as abusive socks? Here is the Checkuser; [2]

Thanks! --BenBurch 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fighters + Lovers

Why a couple of newspapers articles are enough to estabilish notability ? There are thousands newspapers articles about nonsenses. I am disenchanted. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course but, "reliable = verifiable != notable". ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kronos, Chronos (disambiguation), Cronos (disambiguation), Khronos

The parts of the WP:MOSDAB I'm reading are...

  1. For the various extra wikilinks in each entry, "Unlike a regular article page, do not wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information." (5. "Individual entries", 6th bullet point)
  2. For the various deleted periods, "Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments. When the entry forms a complete sentence, do not include commas or periods at the end of the line." (5. "Individual entries", 8th bullet point)
  3. For [[Cronos (film)|''Cronos'' (film)]], "Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), or "School" (song)." (5.3 "Piping", #3)
  4. For [[Khronos (portal)]], I left in the entry because you had already done so, although I took out the external link and moved it to the bottom (lowest priority). I'm happier to see it gone, though.
  5. For general layout of individual entries, I followed the same convention as used with every individual example on the MOSDAB page, i.e.:
  • <entry>, description, not
  • <entry> - Description. (Incidentally, putting a capital letter after a dash is poor English, since it isn't the start of a new sentence.)

I await guidance on what specific section of WP:MOSDAB I overlooked contradicts these, which will stop me reverting again. Regards, --DeLarge 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The very last sentence. Although I didn't know about the period thing - thanks for pointing that out. You can revert if you like, I really have better things to do. Proto::► 09:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Can you take that picture down please, I take offense to that. Check my user page to see why.Sam ov the blue sand 23:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Proto::► 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And why not?Sam ov the blue sand 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ace Combat Super Aircraft afd

This was recently recreated but with a slightly different title, as "Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft". Am I correct assuming it should be speedily deleted? Combination 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Done! Proto::► 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not a small change I changed the entire article to fit what you guys told me to. Please tell what's wrong with the article so I can fix it, please. Sam ov the blue sand 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You are a deletionist you delete things you don't like and don't give a reason or attempt to help the people who are trying to save the article and you don't care about how others feal on topics such as my post above.Sam ov the blue sand 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sam. The article was deleted by community consensus. If you disagree with this decision, then the appropriate place to query this is Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am sorry if this has upset you. Proto::► 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Super(cs)ede

Just curious if there's something in the MoS about this particular word. I quote from the usage notes of Oxford English Dictionary:

—Nitpicky Ned :) (a.k.a. —bbatsell ¿? 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

No, I agree with you that supercede looks better, so if it isn't wrong, then great :) Thanks for the clarification. —bbatsell ¿? 14:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It appears to have been changed by someone else, anyway :) Proto::► 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about WP:MUSIC

Don't worry, I'm not going to send that Blak Jak article to DRV, I never even heard of this guy before I came across that AfD :-p

I was just wondering if you could answer the question I asked there regarding the WP:MUSIC criteria, specifically:

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Exactly how is this statement proven? By "rotation", how many plays a week are needed? Is it enough to prove it's been played once, as the link I posted showed? Or if "light rotation" means 5-15 plays a week, do you need to either find 5-15 instances? When using a single reliable source, is it enough if that source says it's been played, or does that source need to say how often it's been played? Thanks for your time! Quack 688 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found a website during the AfD that lists what's playing in a time period of a few hours [3], but I didn't find any archives there of "what's been played in the last week". Meh, no worries.
(Btw, thanks for typing a few words in the AfD before deleting - it's always good to see some sort of reason there.) Quack 688 11:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Call me a sucker...

But would you kindly restore the text of the deleted article on Basementalism at User:ONUnicorn/Basementalism? I'd like to pull one or two snippets out of it to expand the brief mention in the main station article. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MapleStory character classes

Where can I get access to the edit history? -- Prod-You 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be busy for the next few days. -- Prod-You 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, see user's talk page. Proto::► 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you know how to get a proper dump of the page with complete edit histories (not just 100 revisions), without downloading the full wikipedia dump? -- Prod-You 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Does this help? BigNate37(T) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, since I want to export the edit histories for uploading to another wiki. If there's no easy way to do it, then I'll have to paste this on the talk page. -- Prod-You 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never needed to do that. Try asking on the talk page of WP:TRANSWIKI. Proto::► 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Horace Hearne Institute deletion

Hi

You seem to have deleted my entry for the Horace Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics on December 8th. I don't see any comments as to why you did so. Would you mind elaborating?

Thanks Jorge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pullin (talk • contribs)

Responded on user's talk page. Proto::► 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Camp Ramah in the Berkshires to be moved

Is it okay if it is a stub? I really don't know much about the camp except for its location and the name of its director. I can put out feelers on Wikiproject Judaism for anyone who might have the expertise to expand this stub. The stub is located at User:Valley2city/Camp Ramah in the Berkshires. Let me know if it is okay in this stage. Most articles start this way, anyway. Thanks, Valley2city 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See user's page. Proto::► 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Before you think of me as an editer who thinks that way let me say that when i'm typing my words get mixed up and I say what I would say in the real world and forget that I don't own anything here but my user page (I do own that, don't I?). Just felt like telling you that.Sam ov the blue sand 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:USER - you don't own your user page, either, strictly. Proto::► 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reviews

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) these articles, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I fail to see how you concluded that consensus had been reached in the original deletion review of those pages.--DaveOinSF 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bornmann article deletion

I have posted a query at Talk:Erik Bornmann#WP:BLPconcerning your deletion of the content. Could you clarify just what was not supported? KenWalker | Talk 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ken. I've responded on the article's talk page, thanks for the note. Proto::► 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jancey Sheats deletion

Well I guess I need to thank you for the final deletion of my article on KARK news anchor Jancey Sheats. I truely feel that this is a wrong move, as I have monitored many stubs that your administration has not bothered to touch or look into. It feels to me like a biased deletion, as it's request came from a fellow broadcaster. I came to wiki due to its nature, allowing people to add meaningful articles. You have proven that this is not the case, that it is a case of "who's who". As of such I feel I can't further contribute as an editor, nor can I honestly continue my work as a part of the Association of Members' Advocates. This saddens me as I feel I have made some good contributions in my limited time here, but now I have a doubt that any will remain. Kerusso 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. See user's talk page. Proto::► 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • respectfully, I replied to your comments on my user talk page, and that is where I will make the majority of further comments. Just directing you there for further. Kerusso 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

RE: Your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption Junction (second nomination). Will you delete, or shall I? Tomertalk 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it straight away, and then salted it, which may be why you're confused - did you click on the link to see why it was still blue? See [5]. Proto::► 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya, got it. Good work. BTW, the date on your new talkpage says that this archive only extends through 7 January... Tomertalk 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Harry Potter in translation series

Proto, would you please explain you decision to delete and your understanding of consensus.--SmokeyJoe 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe. The article was deleted because of the deletion nomination, which you can find here. The consensus was vastly in favour of deletion. See Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? for further advice. If you are unhappy with the decision, please see Deletion review for information on how to appeal. Proto::► 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Proto. There was no consensus. You have deviated from policy. Would you please correct the result and undelete the articles.--SmokeyJoe 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter in translation series on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Harry Potter in translation series. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SmokeyJoe 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by sockpuppet at Erik Bornmann

Hi. This just happened - another edit by the confirmed sockpuppet Omar Jack. This kind of bald-faced reversal and undoing of known and highly-publicized facts will go on until these sockpuppets are blocked, and/or a protect of some kind is placed on this article, and also on BC Legislature Raids. If the IP address associated with these sock puppets is also associated with the email address or physical address of the article's subject, then WP:AUTO is a big issue, as also on pages like Mark Marissen (where Tompettyfan, who came by the AFD once "we had them cornered", is one of the principal contributors, as also to extensive other contributions on a limited range of subjects concerning that article-subject's political party, suggesting that WP:COI is at play, although it is only a guideline. Accusations of identity are not allowed on Wikipedia but given an admin's powers - or someone's powers - to unmask the sockpuppets as regards the subject/content of the article, and the ongoing misbehaviour - vandalism, insults, and more - by these socks, I am submitting to you, as the most recently-aware admin of this page's troubled history - to take whatever action is appropriate. If there is a better way or place to make this complaint/recommendation at WP:ANI please advise. It won't be enough to block Omar Jack; all puppets would have to be blocked, as well as their host IP. This isn't to say meat puppets, or accounts at another IP address may be launched to intervene on the page. But it will give the rest of a chance to write the article undisturbed. Failing that, it is increasingly necessary that, as I opined/"voted" on the AFD, this article needs to be protected.Skookum1 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is increasingly urgent that "Protect" be placed on this page, as my comments above were in response to only one edit; there have been a half-dozen since, all "hostile" to the cited content and on the same "neutralizing" agenda which led to the page being such a deletable dud when Zoe found it. As there is such a series of edits, all of which should be reverted, I don't know what to do - do six/seven reverts in a row to reverse all the damage? All that will happen is an Edit War, and Omar Jack or another of the socks will be back, pronto, to reverse what "they" see as damage to their public image. P.r. men are p.r. men; it's all they know....but Wikipedia shouldn't allow itself to be subjected to such an ongoing onslaught. If the socks trace - I'm not saying they will - to a p.r. firm (at-home or otherwise) or political party office network - there are much larger issues at stake here. Please protect this page, and investigate/reverse therecent vandlism in question. If this is beyond your pale, please refer these issues to whatever branch of WP:ANI is most appropriate.Skookum1 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A request for semi-protection has been filed. Carson 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected, and all socks have been indefinitely blocked (I have not blocked Rascalpatrol, however). Proto::► 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding fuel to the fire

Your activities at WP:GUNDAM are borderline trollish, please take a breather. Kyaa the Catlord 10:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Please provide details. Proto::► 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yzak's angry already and your pushing his buttons by having a revert war with him isn't doing any good. I'm simply asking you to back off. Kyaa the Catlord 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RPA. Being 'angry' is not a justification for personal attacks. Proto::► 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No, and I never claimed that Yzak's behaviour was justifiable. But picking a fight with him via revert isn't nice either. Kyaa the Catlord 10:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You can call it 'picking a fight with him via revert', I'll call it removing instances of a user calling people "idiots", and again when the user reinstates the same personal attacks (under the edit summary of 'rv vandalism'). Proto::► 10:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not vandalism. See: [6] Kyaa the Catlord 11:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said personal attacks were vandalism. When Yzak reinstated his personal attach, he did so with the edit summary 'RV Vandalism' (see [7]). Proto::► 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The only way around 3RR is due to reverting vandalism. Hence, the protection you claim would be "reverting vandalism", removing and revert warring over a PA does not meet this criteria. Comprende? Kyaa the Catlord 13:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not the only way around 3RR. You can, for example, voluntarily re-revert yourself. Also, I usually like to see what the edits a user has been making were before blocking them for 3RR. I understand that many of my fellow admins don't do this, but many do, and I sincerely doubt any administrator would block someone for removing personal attacks more than 3 times in 24 hours (or if one did, it would soon be undone, and not because I'm an admin, but because I was doing nothing wrong). Proto::► 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Longmont Potion Castle deletion

Hi, I'm writing reguarding your deletion of the Longmont Potion Castle entry. What were your specific reasons for doing so? LPC is not exactly in popular culture, obviously, but he has quite a following, as well as an AMG entry. In addition, he has had reviews in SPIN, The Willamette Weekly and The LA Weekly. Shamrox 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry that you feel this way about the deletion of the article. Please see the article's deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longmont Potion Castle, and Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? for information as to why the article was deleted. If you disagree with the verdict, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thanks. Proto::► 15:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (Second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets and those who have already appeared at the new Afd- who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Proto::► 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

unilateral judgement?

Im curious as to why Consumption Junction was deleted without any debate and why it is forbidden to recreate it. --Carterhawk 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The AFD discussion had been vandalised. I have hard blocked the IP address responsible, and fixed and protected the AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption Junction (second nomination) for the discussion, and given the amount of vandalism, sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts and activity surrounding the article, I have protected it from being recreated (blame common sense for that one). If you disagree with the deletion, I suggest you go to Deletion review. Hope that helps. Proto::► 09:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for fixing that --Carterhawk 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Proto::► 10:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005

Thanks for a very thoughtful closure of a rather strange (but good!) AfD. I'll try to take this to WP:CENT myself, but it may take a few days, since I'll have to check the do's and don'ts there first (I haven't participated there yet). Fram 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I find this rather strange. You say there is consensus, yet it must nevertheless also be discussed somewhere else. I am aware that people said this was out of process for AFD, but if you ask it anywhere else people would also say it is out of process there, and we'd end up running in circles. I find this a rather bureaucratic approach, and ultimately it won't resolve anything. Please note that those articles are written mostly by a single person and have very few edits or incoming links, so they are rather unlikely to be watched by people anyway. >Radiant< 15:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There was consensus within the AFD discussion, but we shouldn't just delete 1,400 articles that don't qualify under any of the criteria for speedy deletion with an AFD tag only having been applied to one of them. The AFD discussion, as the articles in question were not all tagged cannot be used a sufficient justification for mass deletion. I personally am in favour of getting rid of the lot, and would speedy them all as having no real content under CSD A1, but I know the shit I would get for doing that. Proto::► 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Additionally, you just know someone would drag it to DRV if they were all deleted based on that AFD discussion, and enough people would ask for them to be restored based on them not having been AFD tagged for them to be restored. If you want them to go through AFD, then tag them for AFD and do it properly. Proto::► 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I'll just go to WP:CENT and start a discussion with focus perhaps on a number of possibilities; 1) delete them all after the CENT discussion 2) Merge to the month articles and redirect all 3) Create a proper mass AfD with notification on all 1,400 pages and delete them after the 5 days are over 4) anything else someone thinks is better. A straight deletion now would be the best thing, but I can imagine that someone would take it to DRV on a procedural basis and would disagree that WP:IAR or somesuch applied in this case. Since most people in the AfD clearly thought more discussion or at least more general notification was necessary, I agree that it's best to start the discussion. Fram 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think I'll start being a bit bolder, personally. They're all holdovers from the current events page and should be moved to the portal namespace. I'm also going to be more bolder in closing afd's. I can't quite get behind the close myself either. It's just forum shopping. I appreciate what everyone is getting at here, but the underlying point was never actually mentioned in the close. These pages were created as part of the Portal:Current events process when it was in the article namespace, and should have been moved when that was, but this didn't occur. I would have liked that noted in the close. All this talk about process and discussion seems to have missed the part about what these pages are and where they belong. Steve block Talk 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Nobody - at all - mentioned during the AFD that the pages were initially created as part of Portal:Current events, Steve - Kusma suggested they should be moved to subpages of the Portal, but that was it. If it's not brought up in the AFD, how can the closer be expected to know such things? If that's the case, be bold and move them. Proto::► 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Kusma raised the issue and I looked into the history whilst discussing at the admin's noticeboard how to close the debate. I do think it is part of a closing admin's responsibility to research the points made during an afd to discern the right way to close a debate. Steve block Talk 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, if you think I was terribly wrong to suggest deleting 1,400 articles off one AFD'sd article wasn't the best way to go about it, please go to deletion review. Proto::► 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • It's not that you were 'terribly wrong' (this is nowhere near personal, I should hope) it's simply that discussing the place again in a less-frequented forum than AFD is unlikely to help. Yes, someone would probably have brought a 'delete' decision to DRV, but that doesn't mean it'd get overturned. I don't see a good non-bureaucratic reason for insisting on tagging all 1000+ pages. >Radiant< 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't think that best serves the problem, and it isn't what I was suggesting. I was merely seeking to discuss the close with you, but with respect I'll withdraw from the debate. I apologise if my comments personalised the issue. I was hoping there might be some mutually agreeable way forward from this, but it appears none is forthcoming. I will look into having a bot perform the moves though. I'm not going to undertake them myself, but take the suggestion on board. Steve block Talk 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
              • (Edit conflict) - Radiant, it's not a bureaucracy thing, it's more that deleting things through AFD without tagging them will just result in policy wonkery getting them recreated, and wasting even more time, due to so many people being precious about AFD. If you want to circumvent policy, then just invoke IAR and deal with them properly, by deleting them all (if you want a CSD, try A1 - no significant content). I very much doubt more than a handful of people would complain (a lot less than if they were deleted through IAR, for some reason). I would back that decision (no complaints about the AFD close being discounted on my part). If you want to circumvent rules, circumvent them properly and delete away.
                  • Steve, I already said, if you want to merge them, ok, IAR and delete them, fine, move them to subpages of the Portal, great. We just shouldn't be using an AFD on one article as a pretext to deal with 1,400. That's the one thing people will gripe about. Proto::► 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Steve has asked me and I have agreed to wait a few days while he sees what he can do with these. So I'll not take them to Wp:CENT yet, but rest assured, we won't be just leaving them alone. Fram 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewdar history question

Hello! Is it possible to restore the history so I can grab the info, that I might add a summary to Jewish humor, if no one objects? I've asked on the talk page for that article if there are any objections to adding some info about Jewdar. I also posted this request on the AfD talk page. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! No problem. Userfied to User:Weirdoactor/Jewdar. As always, please don't go restoring it to article space, or it'll just get deleted and salted. Proto::► 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Another SPA on Talk:Erik Bornmann

Someone's trying to cover "their" tracks again. This time the Hydra's head is Riley Smyth contribs and he's been around for a while so not affected by the semi-block. This time he's trying to amend one of rascalpatrol's posts concerning whether or not other editors are "among those criminaly charged" - on the talkpage - [([8]. It's not the first time[9] [10] The history of the talkpage is even worse than that of the article, and this is tpyical. Now that they know they've said something that's out of line, they're using a separate SPA to try and cover-up the damage, in this case outright personal-attack stuff committed by rascalpatrol - so much of this kind of thing (by rascalpatrol) that he should have been blocked for it a long time ago, never mind the 3RR/sockpuppet thing that bbatsell and yourself finally brought down. By the language used in his inline comments, Riley Smyth does not appear to be the same person; but these SPAs have had little conversations with themselves before....even pretending to argue!

  • 1) please trace a sockpuppet on Riley Smyth, and I'd venture checkuser, too, despite this SPA speaking to Erik in the second person ([11]) and
  • 2) please place a suitable warning template on User talk:Riley Smyth as to not vandalize someone else's posts on talkpage, no matter whose they are; he has no business in changing what another account has said.

Please note that while his edits to the article do not appear to be "hostile edits", that is, hostile to Wiki's integrity, and aren't exactly friendly to EB, they are safe edits in EB's terms - adding the LSUC hearing which was taken out by a puppet soon after), talking about his policy about marijuana (EB's policy brags were a feature of the vanity version of the page. But the talkpage edits tell a different story as the linked items above demonstrate. Vandalizing a talkpage by an SPA is a no-go, and it's also something that I got in trouble for taking "them" on about; the talkpage edits are in the same style as before - deleting embarrassing information, or things said by other SPA/puppets that are now inconvenient. This may be a meat puppet, but it's got IMO the same master.Skookum1 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser powers. Please go to WP:RFCU again. You are entitled to place a warning yourself. You can also bring it up for administrator attention at WP:AN/I (the admin incident board), be advised it is best to keep the message as succinct as possible, neutral (just report the facts), and include diffs as you did here. Proto::► 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kings of Chaos. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Proto::► 09:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

About an hour ago, an article which you created back in the mists of time (July, 2005) was nominated for deletion. Just thought I'd let you know. I haven't linked it here in case anyone above wants to pile-on delete for revenge! Bubba HoTep 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. Proto::► 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BobMcEwenforCongress.jpg

Image:BobMcEwenforCongress.jpg, which you deleted as WP:CSD I7, was restored.(log). I have tagged it as {{subst:rfu}}. Just letting you know. --Oden 04:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redeleted it (under CSD I7 and G4). Proto::► 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate/Archive_12&oldid=1253901478"