User talk:GRBerry/Archive 7

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DYK

On 4 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article gulf sturgeon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of International Chaplains Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, International Chaplains Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Chaplains Association. Thank you. Springnuts 11:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for getting involved a little with Great Commission Association. Please stick around for the next few weeks (if only by adding it to your watch-list). It's very hard to build consensus because of the strong POV on both sides of the editors. A lot of people have just given up. If you could help and moderate some with us, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Nswinton\^talk 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It remains on my watch list, and probably will for a while. GRBerry 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's still on your watch list :) We could really use some cool heads with NPOV right now. Nswinton\^talk 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

An article that you have been involved in commenting on in a speedy deletion process, Mark Warner (Canadian politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician). Thank you. --Canam1 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please look again at your decison.

GRBerry, I don't think your decision was very well considered in this case. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Skinny_McGee. Please consider the fact that that Skinny McGee was banned from editing any pages having to do with his band Midnight Syndicate, which also includes the band Nox Arcana. Skinny McGee was already found to be biased against his former band member (Vargo) who is in the band Nox Arcana. Skinny McGee did ignor his ban by editing the Nox Arcana "Darklore Manor" album page, plus reverting another Midnight Syndicate album page, and was never punished for it. Skinny McGee made a false report on me, resulting in a block of my account, and I did not make the edits that he claims (the info I edited was already in the article by a previous user). Feel free to do another check user, as I believe I was totally railroaded on this count as well by Thatcher131 who tells me my IP was NOT a match to someone else's then still blocked me, but his decision was based on Skinny McGee's false report to start with! Can you please research that case some more. I really want my name cleared and the proper person punished for breaking that ban. Thank you. Ebonyskye 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement as to the ban scope is false. He is banned from the page Midnight Syndicate, not from all related content; the ArbComm knows how to say what it means in this regard. Feel free to use the processes described at Wikipedia:Dipsute resolution for solving the dispute. GRBerry 12:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, I am only going by what Thatcher131 said in terms of "scope." He said that Skinny McGee is not permitted to edit his band (Midnight Syndicate) nor his past partner's band (Nox Arcana) nor any related pages. If Skinny is only banned from the Midnight Syndicate page, then am I to understand that he is not banned from his own album pages? And if that is true, then I am not banned from editing the Nox Arcana pages or the album pages. That is not what Thatcher131 led me to believe. If I am permitted to edit on the Nox Arcana albums, then I have a new article I would like to post. If Skinny McGee will refrain from removing or changing my citations, then I don't see any future problems. However, if what Thatcher131 said is true, then Skinny should be punished for editing on those pages. Please let me know. For now I will begin a stub and see what happens. I'll let Thatcher131 know what you said too. Ebonyskye 07:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note remedy 2, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Ban_for_disruption_2. It is my judgement, based on their edits and the evidence in the case, that both Skinny McGee and Ebonyskye are a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics" and as such are banned from editing Midnight Syndicate and related articles, which would include articles about Nox Arcana, a band founded by former MS memeber Joseph Vargo. (The dispute which resulted in the filing of the arbitration case was over Vargo's role in the band and its various projects.) Skinny McGee did in fact make two edits on an article from which he is banned; enforcement is not required in my judgement because he apologized and promised not to do it again. Ebonyskye, on the other hand, has denied having any relationship with the band (despite checkuser findings that he is on the same ISP in the same town as GuardianZ (talk · contribs) and that his edits involve original research and personal knowledge not contained in the references cited) and has also engaged in forum shopping. See the archived AE report on Ebonyskye and my talk page achives for more conversation. Thatcher131 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth noting that Skinny McGee is still using the same account he used when the Arbitration case was filed, while Ebonyskye is, in my judgement, a sock or meat puppet account created to evade the editing restrictions imposed on GuardianZ. Thatcher131 12:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your deal? Again, I made one single edit that you (Thatcher131) have damned me for, and it was cited from the band's website and from Amazon and from IMDB. Nothing was original research! And some other editor went and posted the info again and even elaborated on it. All I did was write a very short sentence. You are totally blaming other edits on me when I did not make them. WHY? Also, you told me that my IP was NOT in the same town but that the numbers were close, now you are changing your story. I am done. I will take this to arbcom or whatever, as instructed. I had hoped to avoid that but you are acting really weird and it's creeping me out. I even gave you my home address, which I totally regret. And what the heck is forum shopping? You told me I was not allowed to edit, but I could make suggestions on talk pages, so if that is forum shopping, I was only doing what you told me to do!!! Ebonyskye 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not an appropriate place for your dispute with Thatcher. Use procedures at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It is probably time for step 2 - disengaging. I happen to agree with him on puppetry, even without seeing checkuser evidence, which is not required at all to conclude puppetry. Your edits are sufficiently similar to those of GuardianZ that the remedy should apply to you.

On the other hand, I've reopened the AE thread for someone else to close, but you'll probably find minimal comfort in that given how I evaluated the complaint. GRBerry 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations

As someone who is only intermittently involved in AfDs, I just want to tell you how good it is to see someone clearly having weighed up the arguments on this one and coming down with a close as a clear keep rather than the no consensus verdict which would have been so easy. Well done! Given how the Messianic issue is understandably a sore spot for Jews, I won't be surprised to see this one come up again, but really keep is the only possible decision.--Peter cohen 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a good decision with good reasoning. This is a breath of fresh air in some of the countless VfDs MJ articles get nominated for and then hammered with "per noms" with most admins concluding the VfD as a democratic vote for delete, or a confused "no consensus" result. Thanks again on being truly impartial and reasonable per wikipedia guidelines. inigmatus 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

Has anyone offered to host it yet? If not, I will. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also take it. east.718 at 03:57, September 11, 2007

Now at User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War. GRBerry 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV participation

I would appreciate seeing your thoughts on this DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Kung Foundation

The New York Times articles go into the details of the foundation, which should help keep it out of AfD. I just posted the link without adding the material from the New York Times article. I did add the earilest info I could find and am not clear if they were founded in 1992 or 1994. 1994 would make more sense, but the 2002 New York Times article said they were found ten yuears prior (e.g. 1992). They specialize in releasing news, so there are a lot of news articles mentioning them. They did testify before the U.S. Congress (August 9, 1994 * July 20, 1995 * May 19, 1997 * June 23, 1997 * June 24, 1997 * May 14, 1998 * June 4, 1998 * July 27, 1999 * January 27, 2000 * September 19, 2000 * December 5, 2000 * July 22, 2002 * September 25, 2003 * October 1, 2003 * November 6, 2003 * November 19, 2003 * March 2, 2004 * June 16, 2005 * September 15, 2005 * April 26, 2006 * June 28, 2006), and you might find some of that at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html. Their website is detailed and has a good database of their press releases. Some of that may be used in the article. They probably have press clippings about themselves, but their website is large and may take some time to find it. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is at least a starting point. Hopefully I'll work on it more soon, but definitely it is going on my to do list. GRBerry 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn

Could you take another look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alansohn? The language you quoted as the RfC consensus was actually a proposal that was not supported by any other users. It would be fair to say that this later proposal, to which nobody objected, represents the actual consensus. I think you should modify your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn. Thank you. (I'd comment there myself, but I'm trying to stay out of this one.) -- But|seriously|folks 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. I goofed. GRBerry 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Commission

Responding to the message you left me and your latest discussion note at the Great Commission article.

On the personal side, I have read and understand the NPOV. Theoretically, I agree. The problem here is that all of the primary article editors have a personal interest in the article. Three of them are very critical, and three are currently memebers (including myself). That makes for tough sledding.

About your discussion note: I have addressed this at GC site. But let me say that this is the single biggest problem with the entire article. All of the criticisms are more than 10 years old. The "negative" editors want this old info to be the primary focus of the article. Of course, those of us on the "pro" side want to emphasize that the criticisms are mostly 20-30 years ago.

The Wiki approach to the problem is this: "Source newer info that highlights the pro side to counter the citations that highlight the negative, in order to create a balanced article." But with church movements, that's a flawed notion. If a church is behaving itself, it doesn't make any news. "News" is when a church has a scandal.Mr. Pharoah Man 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Searching alternative weekly newspapers

Hi Walton and GRBerry. I'm noticing that many of the rapper and alternative type topics are unsourced. Many of these topics are covered in alternative weekly newspapers, but that sourced information does not seem to make its way into Wikipedia because people do not know to look for it and there is no easy way to search for it. Template:Search is a template I used every now and then. Would either of you guys know how to create a Template:Alternative newspaper search that searches one or more of the newspapers at List of alternative weekly newspapers? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no significant experience with template writing. Trialsanderrors did the writing for the DRV closing templates. He and Amarkov added the google cache link to {{Newdelrev}} back in March. They might be able to help. GRBerry 19:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KinseyTIME.jpg

User:EliminatorJR has re-deleted the image as a recreation of the original deleted image. I was in favor of keeping the image deleted on the DRV, but the new version had what sounded like a plausiable no-longer-copyrighted status. I've asked EliminatorJR for input, but should the DRV be reopened? Corvus cornix 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the image talk page. The theory that TIME magazine failed to renew its copyrights is not really plausible, and certainly isn't something we could feel comfortable in relying on. Newyorkbrad 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks to User:CBM for his research. Corvus cornix 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not reopen the DRV, I would restart a new one. (It having now been long enough that reopening seems incorrect; reopens should only be after a hiatus of at most a few hours, probably not more than 8, certainly not more than 24.) This is not an urgent matter, I'd let discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Copyrights that were not renewed develop; I make no prediction as to what will be decided there. GRBerry 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PalestineRemembered

new AN/I here - [1]. please participate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, GRBerry. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your opinion please...

Greetings!

You are one of the wikipeidan's administrators whose sense of fairness I have the most respect for.

I just left a note on the talk page of an admin who closed a deletion discussion on a template I wrapped around Image:Taliban bounty 3.jpg.

I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my note to the clsoing admin, and let me know if you thought I had been sufficiently tactful.

Yes, I know it is long. I'll have to be more brief if I have to initiate a deletion review. If you don't have time to read the whole thing I would still apperciate you reading as much as you can stand.

Thanks! Geo Swan 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re: Emotion templates

I looked around and I don't see where the emotion templates are being discussed. The was a proposal to change the category from Category:Emotion to Category:Affective processes (or something similar) but that failed. I do not know why there are two different templates for Emotion or the rationale for the articles that are linked to it. Regards, --Mattisse 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Family Insurance

GRBerry, would you please keep an eye on the revision wars on the article of American Family Insurance. I've brought this to administrator Newyorkbrad's attention on his talk page, but in his reply he said he would be away over the weekend, and to bring this to another administrators attention. Ergo this message.

I've personally tried to warn User_talk:Wegrzyns about using wikipedia to further their personal complaints, but Wegrzyns continues to change valid links to a personal homepage, and put in insubstantiated claims about the company. Newyorkbrad has also put an admonition into the talk page, and I'm going to clean up some of the edits one more time. I'm trying to keep the article clean, and not having much luck today.

Thanks in advance! Timmccloud 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also won't be on much over the weekend. GRBerry 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch it. I just reverted the last batch. DGG (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV on Flash Flash Revolution

Hi! I think you might have misread the DRV on Flash Flash Revolution located here. The DRV was to overturn an improper speedy so that the article could have due process at an AfD if that was deemed necessary. In other words, the DRV was to ascertain if it was a valid speedy per CSD G4. Basic headcount shows 5 for endorse deletion, 4 for overturn...and the general rule behind speedy deletions says "if there's reasonable doubt, discuss under another deletion method." I know that DRV is not a vote, but it seems like 44% supporting an overturning of the speedy is "reasonable doubt." I invite you to take another look at this matter. Thanks! : ) - Chardish 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got a discussion, at DRV, the decision was that the speedy should not be overturned. The conclusion was that the recreation did not successfully address the reasons for deletion in the original AFD. Reliable sources are not optional, they are requirement. Any future recreation should be written strictly in accordance with WP:FORGET and using only independent sources. If a viable article can be produced that way, then create it in userspace and list it at DRV. GRBerry 02:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So wait - once an article is deleted via AfD, the only way to recreate an article under that title is through DRV? - Chardish 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the only way, but given the troubled history of this article, it is my recommendation for this article. I sense that the recreators of this article are having a hard time with limiting themselves to appropriate sources and making appropriate judgments. GRBerry 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair assessment. It just seems, though, in my experience, that once an article gets deleted once via AfD, future versions of the article get held to a much higher standard than other articles about related topics. I would think that the article on FFR has enough sources to establish notability, and that the rest of the information can be mostly derived from the game's website. Is there something wrong with this approach? It seems to be the approach taken by other articles on Flash games. - Chardish 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article has major problems. References 2 and 4 are blogs, so are neither reliable nor evidence of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Reference #3 is not independent, does not establish notability. #1 looks to be a reliable source, but it does not offer substantial coverage, so isn't much for notability purposes. Really, blank the page and start over - using only reliable sources. See WP:RS for a discussion of reliable sources. GRBerry 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty familiar with the idea of reliable sources: in fact, I wrote an essay on the topic. However, I see there as being a fair amount of prejudice against already deleted articles which would prevent this article's recreation - after all, when it was recreated, it stayed alive for about six months of edits and improvements before it was unilaterally speedied. The edit history of the article shows a large amount of interest in improving it, in spite of a fairly low standard for articles on music games right now (here are some examples). The same low standard applies for numerous Flash games that have WP pages (see the links above.) I'm a deletionist, but I seek to delete cruft. Prohibitive deletionism of articles on an upward quality trend does nothing to help the project. - Chardish 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. When I say "prejudice against already deleted articles" I am not suggesting the existence of a cabal - I'm merely saying that an article has a better chance to survive an AfD than an article of equal quality does to be restored via DRV. - Chardish 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point your attention here - can you explain how this article survived an AfD and FFR's article didn't? - Chardish 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different people evaluated different sources in different articles different ways. If you feel the close of the StepMania one is obviously wrong, discuss it with the closing admin, and if that doesn't lead to deletion feel free to nominate the keep for reconsideration at DRV. GRBerry 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice, but I am interested in your opinion on this article's AfD. : ) - Chardish 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still patiently waiting for an answer. - Chardish 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one I gave back on the 29th. No reason to wait for that. Nor to expect anything different if you wait longer. GRBerry 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I misphrased my question. Do you believe that the StepMania article deserves to exist and that the FFR article does not? - Chardish 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? - Chardish 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible for you to close this AFD discussion since the article is included in this group AFD? Please reply on my talk page. Thank You. - Rjd0060 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I can, and will do, is remove it from the group discussion because 1) individual discussions are better and 2) the individual discussion was already in existence, so you were wrong to merge it to the group nomination. GRBerry 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I was informed by somebody else that thats how I should have done it, but I guess I was misinformed. Thanks for fixing it. - Rjd0060 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something else you might want to check

Hello! I noticed your post at ANI. Anyway, you may also want to notice the following similarities: [2] and [3]; [4] and [5]; [6] and [7]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a different puppet master. May be worth noting in the ANI thread as a different possibility, but I don't see it as convincing. I suspect there is puppetry, but I'm not sure and don't have any top suspects. GRBerry 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travelport

I decided to be bold and speedy restored it, based on the way the page looked. I think the admin was a little careless in that particular case, given his self-declared stress at the time. Please give me a second opinion--If you think i was really wrong, delete it again or userify it, and say you do it in consultation with me. I will accept your more experienced judgment. DGG (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big problem with restoring it. However, your deletion log entry for the restoration said "as explained by me at DRV". You should explain and close the DRV. GRBerry 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop your vendetta

It is time for you to drop your vendetta against Guy/JzG. There is no need for personal attacks and incivility such as that demonstrated previously on your talk page, at WP:AN/I, and again today at deletion review. You can make more effective arguments in deletion fora, such as DRV, if you ignore personalities and focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of a given article.

I've seen this trend of behavior from you before, with different users on the other side of the dispute, and you need to learn to stop this pattern of behavior if you are going to remain an editor in good standing. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn demonstrated a community consensus that you have a problem with this pattern of behavior. A few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents we nearly decided (final comment in the discussion) that we should open an Arbitration Case about your behavior. If you don't learn to moderate yourself, we will have to open one, possibly leading to a loss of editing privileges. GRBerry 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vendetta? The most cursory look at the RfC shows it to be primarily a collection of rantings from a rather motley group of individuals, many of whom have committed violations of Wikipedia policy that far exceed anything even claimed in my RfC. JzG, a real stickler for Wikipedia policy had the gall to file an ANI based on "misleading edit summaries", a charge that could only have been concocted by someone acting in staggering bad faith. His deletions of the articles in question stink to high hell, and his decision to walk away from Wikipedia only obviated the need to take steps at removing his admin privileges and other appropriate punishment. I stand behind my work on Wikipedia; I fail to see how you can justify huge numbers of JzG's actions over the past several months. I look forward to seeing you taking steps to stand up to the abuse of Wikipedia policy of some of your fellow admins, such as JzG. Alansohn 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

169.244.50.11

Thanks for blocking this user. However, if I could comment a bit: this user has been vandalizing the same pages for days; are you sure that a one day block is enough? Also, this IP has vandalized consistently since the last block of 2 months, with an exception for the off-year in school. Are you sure that we should be decreasing the block lengths? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a school IP, and unlikely to be the same person each time. I choose to start over again on that basis. If the same articles/topic areas were being hit as before the last block, I'd suspect the same person and consider another long block. With new topic areas, I choose to start over. GRBerry 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not surprisingly, the IP is back, and once again is vandalizing the same pages as yesterday and the many days before it. Will you put on a longer block now? The Evil Spartan 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Callaway

I have known Phil Callaway for 40 years or so, I know as a fact that he drop of of college to marry his high school sweetheart Ramona. I know how Prairie Bible College indicate how people who have attended Bible College and never graduated. Both of my parent graduated there from College and my dad was president of Prairie Bible College for 6 years. I also worked there for almost 15 years. They use u. (last year of attendance). eg. u. '82.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverendall (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Leaping

Hey there - I honestly just want to make the Atlantic sturgeon article better so if you really think that section isn't applicable under 'Atlantic sturgeon' let's talk about it a bit and I'm sure we'll come to an agreement one way or the other. By the way - the reason I edited it at all is I had a sturgeon leap right next to me, in the ocean, here off of Long Island. I did some research and whammo - it was an Atlantic sturgeon (perhaps a Gulf, not sure on that)! Anyway, thanks a lot and good night! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off Long Island it would be Atlantic. The Gulf are found only in the Gulf of New Mexico and rivers draining into it. The Atlantic are found off the East Coast of Florida up to the east coast of Canada, and in rivers draining into it. If specimens of both were put side by side in an aquarium, it would be essentially impossible for the untrained eye to tell them apart - the differences are primarily behavioral, genetic, and interior to the body. GRBerry 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - well I'm no expert and I wouldn't pass WP:RS but I can personally attest to the fact that Atlantic sturgeon leap (if there's another similar silvery 'bone plated' fish, maybe it was one of those)! Just a few weeks back I was standing in waist-high ocean water without a soul in either direction and a fish 2-3' long leapt up and I was riveted! I also thought something might've scared it, so I started looking for sharks :) In any case I do welcome your expertise and maybe we can find some good corroboration of the facts together. Thanks again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 2-3' long it could also be a shortnose sturgeon. Generally speaking there are more shortnose than Atlantic around, but I don't know the distribution for the Long Island area. Populations would likely be from either the Hudson or Connecticut rivers. An adult shortnose is that size, as is a juvenile Atlantic. The two species have commonly been confused or left undifferentiated; see the second paragraph of Shortnose sturgeon. GRBerry 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is sooooo cool. I'm gonna read up. I'm an avid seagoer and that makes 1 Atlantic (or shortnose) sturgeon, 1 Portuguese Man-o-War, 1 seal and 1 giant tortoise in over a decade of daily beachery. Each time it was a personal, one-on-one, heart-stopping, what-the-heck situation, and each time I came away loving nature that much more. Thanks for getting me interested and for your guidance and icthy-knowledge! Also - that shortnose does indeed look a lot like the fish I saw (as you say it does). :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD notification

Just a heads up = Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin has been nominated for deletion here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth your time to read Wikipedia talk:Protected titles#Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate?. I certainly don't recommend getting rid of the list of protection pages without first getting rid of the individual pages... GRBerry 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm deletion review

I agree number arguments are weaker than policy arguments. Why then did you ignore the policy arguments of the keep or overturn votes? Did you read the debates? On all complaints by the deletes there were policies and sound arguments to counter, If the keeps and overturns didn't win the debate then they at least deserved a no consensus. WP policy states that WP is run by consensus, I am finding that admins ignore this policy when deciding on AFD's and instead act as Judges and award the side they think is correct. That is to say they award the side they agree with and ignore the other arguments. There is a difference in judging a debate by consensus and judging it by your own feelings on the subject. Please answer my questions here, not on my talk page, I have a feeling its more use here. Viperix 09:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the DRV again. Policy based arguments for endorsing deletion in the DRV came from Spartaz, Guy, Otto4711, Cordesaat and Masaruemoto. Policy based arguments for the article's existence are non-existant in the DRV. Reasonable arguments about whether consensus was reached or not are less significant than policy arguments about the article, but were produced by Alkivar (endorse deletion) Viperix, WaltonOne, Deus Ex Machina, DHowell, xDanielx (overturn). Arguments about numbers were produced by Radiant (endorse deletion), the nominator, Tilefish, and Ryanasaurus0077 (overturn) - these four arguments carry essentially zero weight as they don't address the relevant issues. The numbers of the DRV opinions are evenly split, but DRV is not decided solely on the numbers. The strength of DRV arguments is clearly in favor of endorsing deletion.

The WP:NOR argument is very, both in the AFD and the DRV. If I'd been the AFD closer, I'd have looked first at Merge as the decision based on WP:NOT, as there was a clear AFD consensus against having a separate article. However, on reading the article I'd have realized that since nothing was cited inline there was no way for me to know what items were reliably sourced and could survive a merge, what was unreliably sourced, and what was pure original research. So I'd have closed that AFD as delete due to lack of content usable for a merge. There is nothing preventing an appropriate subset of examples from appearing in the main article - but to do that the editors of the main article need to do the research, as this article was not sourced well enough to be used.

In deletion related decisions, consensus is not just a matter of the opinions presented in the local discussion. The local discussion is supposed to illuminate how wider, general project community consensus applies to the current topic. This is why one opinion that an article is a copyright violation is stronger than any number of arguments that the article should be kept anyway, provided the copyright violation is real and not a research error on the part of the opiner. GRBerry 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy of WP:NOT#DIR was indeed quoted by these people, But in both the AFD and the review was countered with WP:SAL. Which is linked to in wp:NotDir and explains quite well why the NotDir arguments should have been discounted. So saying that policy arguments did not exist for keep is untrue. Anyone quoting NotDir did not read past what they wanted to hear, the information regarding what should be kept is at the end of the paragraph. Also, while the NotDir arguments were contested many times, not one person contested the SAL argument.

Policy based arguments based on WP:OR also came up, these should be discounted since there were sources added, and the arguments ignored that until I made it plainly clear, and then that viewpoint was abandoned by the delete arguments. So while I didn't quote a policy, it is policy that if an article is fixed while under AFD it should stay per How to discuss an AfD. So once again saying policy arguments did not exist for keep is untrue. As far as your OR concerns above, I would have been perfectly willing to go through the article and add in-line references for every single sentence, and delete things I found to be not referenced.

One would think that in a deletion review arguments based on whether or not the AFD should be overturned or endorsed would carry a lot of weight, since that is what the review is reviewing. In that instance, based on your argument above one person made a reasonable argument for endorse and five made reasonable arguments for overturn. Seems consensus based on this part was for overturn.

One final thing, the articles were originally one article, but the author of the list thought that it was getting to bulky to fit on just the Wilhelm page. So He/She made the list page, but did not delete the list on the original page. Enter me, I found there were two lists and made a judgment based on talking in the talk page that the list should be on the list page not the original. Viperix 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what I said about the strength of arguments in the DRV. The strongest arguments are those about whether the article should exist. The second strongest set arguments are those that you suggest should have carried the discussion. The pure numbers arguments carry essentially no weight. The strongest set of arguments were unanimously for deletion. Evaluating the DRV arguments properly, it is clear and unambiguous that deletion was endorsed.

You also claim that the WP:NOR arguments were overcome by the added sources. They were not. Nothing in the article was sourced well enough to be merged. If you had actually gone through the article and removed the unverifiable material during the AFD, that would have amounting to fixing the article. Just tossing a grab bag of links on the end of an article, some of which were clearly not reliable sources, does not amount to sourcing it. IMDB is not a reliable source. www.hollywoodlostandfound.net appears not to be a reliable source, given its standards for adding to their list "Do you think you've heard another Wilhelm that is not on this list? Email us at <redacted>. If we can confirm it, we'll add it!" www.filmsound.org explicitly credits hollywoodlostandfound, so is not a separate source at all. It looks like only one reliable source was linked; the transcript from WNYC. That looks like a good basis for a subset list for the main article - use the films mentioned therein. GRBerry 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd like to chime in here. I'm really trying to understand here why you think the arguments endorsing deletion were stronger than the overturn arguments.

First of all, DRV is not supposed to be a second AfD, so arguments which simply reassert the arguments made in the original AfD ought to be discounted; otherwise all AfD's could simply automatically be endorsed and we wouldn't need DRV. I hadn't participated in the original AfD, and had I known this was simply a second AfD debate I suppose I could have made policy-based arguments about whether the article itself should be kept, though this would have been difficult since I had not seen the original article. But since I thought we were debating whether the AfD closure was correct or not, my arguments were based on deletion policy (WP:DP) and consensus policy (WP:CONSENSUS), and based on the actual debate at AfD.

Secondly, the real problem I have with your closing is that the arguments endorsing deletion were not arguments at all, but mere assertions. Spartaz asserted "Listcruft & unverfied OR". Guy asserted "delete arguments (original research and indiscriminate) carried more weight". Otto4711 asserted "WP:OR concerns were not overcome", an assertion which was challenged by Viperix, and you even acknowledge that at least one reliable source was indeed added (WNYC), which means OR concerns could have been overcome by editing, if given a chance, and deletion was unwarranted. Cordesaat asserted "even the merge arguments acknowledged the fact that this article failed WP:NOT#DIR", an assertion which I challenged and is proven false by reading the original AfD, and also asserted that "it was clearly a loosely associated collection of topics centered around a very minor aspect". Masaruemoto asserted "the delete arguments were stronger and based on policy, including the unavoidable WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, a policy which this list unquestionably violates", an assertion proven false simply by noting that several editors were indeed, in good faith, "questioning" the claim that policy was violated. However, Masaruemoto was the only one who did at least attempt to support his assertion with an argument: "In order to suggest that the films on this list do not violate WP:NOT#DIR we have to entertain the notion that The Empire Strikes Back, Reservoir Dogs, and A Goofy Movie share a significant connection because they all contain the same 2-second sound effect. It's laughable." Was this the "strong" argument that demolished all of the "reasonable arguments about whether consensus was reached"? If so, let me just say (since the DRV was closed before I could respond) that I am certainly willing to entertain, without laughing, the notion that the films share a "significant connection because they all contain the same 2-second sound effect." That connection might not be significant to the films themselves, but it is certainly significant to the sound-effect itself, which is notable precisely because it was used in so many famous films.

If this was not the "strong" argument that drove this list to deletion, what exactly were the strong arguments? Because I'm really trying and I am not able to find them. Is an assertion that something violates policy the same as a strong argument? DHowell 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not AFD round two. This is a subtle thing, that I have a hard time explaining better than this. It means that DRV is not a second forum for having an original AFD discussion, so attention should be given to whether the close correctly applied policies, guidelines (especially content guidelines), and the consensus of the discussion. But DRV is also ultimately about whether Wikipedia is better off with or without the content under review. We have before, and will again, overturned unanimous AFDs that were closed in line with the consensus of that discussion, because everyone involved missed something. One memorable example was that the discussion was held about a vandalized version of an article, and nobody realized that, making all the AFD comments irrelevant to the non-vandalized.

DRV is also a forum for cloture on deletion discussions. Historically, this meant that DRV is far more vote driven than AFD. Look at the history of Wikipedia:Undeletion policy back around mid March. Very vote oriented, and required a pure majority for undeletion. The relevant part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy now says "The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count." We've moved away from the pure vote counting, but not all that far away. But no matter how I slice the arguments in the DRV, it is clear that the strength of arguments was for deletion. If I treat it as a pure vote, deletion is endorsed because there is no majority to overturn. If all I do is disregard the 4 arguments about the numbers in the AFD, and treat all other arguments identically, deletion is endorsed by a majority. If I weight the arguments the way I believe they should be weighted, deletion is clearly endorsed because all of the policy arguments about the actual article are for endorsing deletion.

Ultimately, the strong arguments were, as I've said above, WP:NOT and WP:NOR. There was a consensus in the AFD against having a separate article, based primarily on WP:NOT, when you consider the delete and merge opinions as indicating that a separate article shouldn't exist. Ignoring for a moment the actual article text and history, there is a reasonable case that merge could have been the right outcome of that AFD discussion. But the WP:NOR problem meant that the actual article text violated WP:NOR. So merging the actual article text was not a policy compliant outcome. So the right outcome is to delete the list article, and allow editors of the main article to include an appropriate list of examples in that article. The one source that I think is potentially reliable mentions by name about 10% of the films mentioned in the list, and not all the content that was in the list about them. The deleted history makes it clear that the list was built up via original research on the part of Wikipedians, such as the edit summaries "Watched Troy a couple times and cant find it. also had it up for confirmation for awhile" or "Nope. See the talk page, and find out what the Wilhelm scream actually sounds like. It's not this one (at all)."

I believe the right thing to do now is to improve Wilhelm scream by creating article text (man does that need prose) that discusses the most prominent examples, using only reliable sources. (FYI, the reliable source is the "On the media" transcript already linked from that article.) GRBerry 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First on your assertion that I should have edited every entry on the article during the AFD, I don't have time for that. I was spending all my time researching the AFD process and arguing in favor of Keep. The list was very long, I would have gotten to verifying eventually, but five days is too short. The fact that I found the secondary sources I did find testifies that there are most likley more out there once again time is needed to find them. The movies in fact do count as primary sources, I do not see how you can sit there and tell me that reading something in a book to verify it is any different whatsoever than listening for something in a movie. What if said book was on audio tape? Are blind people unable to source anything since they cannot read? Also regarding your views on sourcing, "tossing a grab bag of links" is all I had time for, And really yes that is sourcing. A source is a person, publication or other record or document that gives information. Including but not at all limited to official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by an event or issue. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. You know just by visiting those cites I offered that they do not meet this criteria? Even if they do not, in the end they still prove that reliable sources on the matter can be scrounged up.

Again you maintain that policy arguments were not made in favor of keep when they were. Not just once but multiple times. The strongest set of arguments mere not for deletion, they were evenly spread. Lets try this, lets discount all policy arguments that have a policy argument counter. Delete: (1) WP:OR countered by adding sources. (2) Wp:NotDir countered by WP:SAL. Keep: (1) Proof by assertion, not countered. (2) WP:SAL also not countered. (3)WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it also not countered. (4) WP:DP countered by assertions that there was consensus. So by this method we are left with three policy arguments for keep and none for delete. Clear consensus to keep or overturn.

"But no matter how I slice the arguments in the DRV, it is clear that the strength of arguments was for deletion" I disagree with this sentence no matter how many times I read it. If you treat it as a pure vote, The answer is no consensus 8-8. If all you do is disregard the 4 arguments about the numbers in the AFD, and treat all other arguments identically, no consensus is reached again 6-7. If you weight the arguments the way they should be weighted, Keep is clearly endorsed because all policy arguments made to delete were effectively countered and neutralized while policy arguments to keep were not touched.

Regarding your OR concerns. None of the edits you claim are OR did any of the folloing which is the definition of OR per WP: Introduce a theory of method of solution; Introduce original ideas; Define terms; or Introduce neologisms. Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Examples of primary sources include a lot of stuff but most importantly novels, and motion pictures It goes on to say that secondary sources are only needed if the primary source had to be subjected to interpretation. This is quite obviously not the case here. If you can tell when someone uses your name in a movie, you can tell when the scream is used as well, it requires no interpretation. I think most contributors and even most admins think no OR means that you cannot open a book find info and post it on WP which is not the case. No OR means that no Original Idea's or concepts can be put on WP. Meaning I could not write an essay on a topic in my astronomy book and post it here. But I could write about black holes straight from my Astronomy book and source it.

Sources for my arguments above: The DRV; WP:NOR; WP:RS; and Secondary source. Viperix 09:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that when proven wrong, editors on WP tend to ignore the fact and let the issue dissapear. I don't presume to think that is what happened here, at least I hope thats not it. In any case I believe in what I said above and that yours and Maxims closures were not based on consensus but instead your own feelings on the matter at hand. Although I will not stop editing like I said on maxims page, I will participate in AFD since, the main reason I visit WP has been wrongly deleted. Viperix 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to have the last word. When someone isn't listening, it isn't worth continuing a conversation. That I was willing to give you the last word doesn't mean that you are right, just that I don't think I can say anything that will make you see that you are wrong. But since you came back, I'll be blunt. You were wrong, you remain wrong. Feel free to get the last word again if you wish. GRBerry 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your generous invitation. I guess I was under the impression that we were having a debate, but you could be right. Possibly one of us was not listening. In a debate not countering an opponents argument is akin to admitting it is correct, (think if a lawyer in court completely ignored the opposite sides key points). Being blunt does not make you right anymore than getting in the last word does. I can be blunt as well. You were wrong, and I hope someday you realize the difference between judging based on consensus and just judging based on opinion. Viperix 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see part of the problem. You are thinking in a debate paradigm. We don't hold debates here. We hold discussions. If you view deletion discussions as debates you won't understand their outcomes. This may be why you find a lot of people just stop communicating with you - you are acting outside the community accepted paradigm, and the second step in the accepted paradigm for dispute resolution is to disengage. GRBerry 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to chime in again. While your comment appears polite on the surface, IMNSHO it essentially boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away!" and could be perceived as less than civil. Perhaps a better way to foster consensus and community spirit is to offer to userfy the page for him and give suggestions for improvement (such as proper sourcing and removing original research) in order to bring it back in to the mainspace, whether as a separate article or merged into the Wilhelm scream article, which I believe is now woefully inadequate without a representative list of films in which it is used. I can't speak for him, but it seems to me that Viperix is obviously quite invested in this article ("the main reason I visit WP has been wrongly deleted"), and so I think he would be willing to work on the list in order to ensure conformance to policy, no? DHowell 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Both actually bring up good points. GRBerry, you are correct I was thinking in a debate format, I have thought about that for a day or two now. It does explain some things, although I still refer to the lawyers, they are not debating either, but ignoring the others presentation or main points is still unwise. Also debate or discussion, consensus is for the most part the same, I still stand by my points. DHowell, Your point on my willingness to work on the article is 100% correct. I will be working on the parent article, since if I had done that in the first place, there would have been no AFD. However, I will not start until I understand why the list that got deleted was considered OR, Even though it says here why primary sources can be movies and videos as long as there is no interpretation. That part makes no sense at all. One can see on my user page that I have personally heard the scream in 69 movies, and I have more on the way (Netflix). Viperix 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Since you created Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZone.com

I appreciate your comments in the Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_24 for MediaZone.com. In order to make the best use of what you wrote, am I to assume that "doesn't violate copyright, is not spam, and is sourced" was on the positive side of the ledger and "not all of the sources here or in the deleted article are independent" qualified as a negative? Any other insights you care to provide would be welcome. JohnRobertCrowley 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are meaning by positive and negative. If you were to take "doesn't violate copyright, is not spam, and is sourced" as conditions to meet and "not all of the sources here or in the deleted article are independent" as a warning about which sources to use, you'd be understanding what I meant. I am a firm believer in the essays WP:INDY and WP:FORGET as advice for writing an article. The organization is partnered to NBC, so sources from other NBC media channels and partners would not be independent. GRBerry 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

improper moves

Thank you for contacting me. I am sorry if I caused any undue inconvenience. I appreciate your work as an administrator. I don't know if you can see exactly what I am trying to do in the philosophy dept, but it has been quite a bit of work.

I have been trying to task force-ize (see WP:REFORM) many of the former wikiprojects that are more properly supported by WP:PHILO. This has involved a lot of moves, and content merges, etc. LOTS. Recently (after discussing the whole thing), I requested a speedy deletion for the continiental phil task force, got it, and then moved the critical theory wp into that space. I then merged some of the content of both via cut and paste. There seems to be no controversy about such a move because the continental t.f. was new and undeveloped, no talk page, and with only myself in the history.

In the case of the logic participants, the move was for the purpose of consistency with all of the other task forces. The participant list was previously on the main project page. Since only the participants section was being moved, a "move this page" did not seem appropriate at all. Arthur was able to move the history on that move, but the format is still not consistent with the others. I have left that issue for later. I am still wondering how to proceed on it, I guess.

So I understand how to move, and that it is important to preserve the history. What I am wondering is just exactly which provision of GFDL do I need to be mindful? In my mind it was about priorities, not principles: preserve the history by a move if I can, but the important thing is being able to put things in the proper place. I am quite indifferent to "getting credit" for particular edits for myself, so I guess I was just indifferent to that priority. But I was under the impression that in the WP space, an area that is a tool rather than encyclopedia content, it really doesn't that much at matter at all. Please correct me. Be well, Greg Bard 22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I appreciate your explaining the 5 steps you went through. I find that instructive (and constructive). I think I am ahead of you on 6. I try to be mindful of cleaning things up. Be well. Greg Bard 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL requires attribution of authorship. Whether or not we care is not particularly relevant. With copy paste moves, who changed what gets lost. In theory the authorship history can be credited adequately via a merge and redirect, where the old page is turned into a redirect, and the merging edit(s) to the new page use as an edit summary "merge from page X". GRBerry 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more mindful of it in the future. Hopefully, if there are any issues with any past edits, the "user contributions" will still include the appropriate record. Also, it was not the case (as I had stated) that the logic participants were on the main project page, they were separate. That cut and paste move occurred before I was aware of the whole "move page" option. I think I had clicked it far in the past and didn't think to consider that option at the time. I am pretty sure that after that, the task forces were moved appropriately. If you have any other comments on the whole taskforceization of WP:PHILO, I invite your correspondence. Be well, Greg Bard 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Heine

BEN HEINE SPEAKING: MAY I ASK WHY YOU PARTICIPATED IN MY WIKIPEDIA's ENTRY DELETION WITH KARL MEIER AND OFFICE GIRL? THIS IS NOT FAIR! THE ENTRY HAD BEEN WRITTEN AGAIN AND RE DOWNLOADED BY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU STILL KEEP DELETING IT. WHO ARE YOU? CONTACT ME HERE : heinebenjamin@hotmail.com YOU CAN TYPE MY NAME ON GOOGLE OR YAHOO TO VERIFY THAT MY WORKS IS BEING PUBLISHED ON SEVERAL SERIOUS SITES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 because it did not assert significance or notability. I salted because it has been repeatedly recreated since an articles for deletion discussion determined that it is not suitable for Wikipedia. GRBerry 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Owls

I'm confused by your declining to delete the above redirect page, which resulted from a vandal moving an article. You declined "based on target article history and content"; what about the article's content (or history for that matter) would make you think this was a proper redirect? If you check the revision history for After Bathing at Baxter's you'll see that any references to Walking Owls were added here, just prior to the same editor moving the article. Precious Roy 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history of the article, but probably in looking further a vandalized version in the history. I'll cleanup. GRBerry 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool—thanks! Precious Roy 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson

Hello-I see that you have deleted the page Ronald A. Carson-This comes as a shock, seeing as how in the past you have remaind unbiased and neutral. It seems to me that a couple of rogue administrators, improbcat,rjd0060 and accounting4taste, had a biased opinion of Carson. I would repectfully ask that you undelet the page Ronald A. Carson until Mr. Whales has had a chance to weigh in, for it appears that there were more "undelet's" than "delete's" on the deletion review page. I expect to see the page restored soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.21.36 (talk) shortly before 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for DGG and the original nominator, they were all sockpuppets. Deletion was clearly the intent of the DRV closer, see their talk page. GRBerry 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Changes had been made to the article which addressed the reasons for which it was deleted. A Deletion Review had been called in. Please let it take its course. Thank you. DollyD 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Stubbert

I am filing in biographical information referenced in the Cape Breton fiddling and List of Cape Breton fiddlers articles. I am unsure why you invoked WP:CSD#A7 on an article linked to by two other articles. The article contained several categories and two stub tags. If you would be so kind as to undelete the article, I would add a proper reference citation. Thanks! jmcw 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article had no assertion of notability. Categories and stub tags are not assertions of notability, the total content of the article regarding here was her year and town of birth in the infobox. There was no article text. WP:CSD#A7 clearly applies, as did WP:CSD#A3. WP:BLP concerns also are relevant, in that nothing was sourced and she probably is alive. GRBerry 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a prompt reply. Re WP:BLP, I have a book reference and her web page to verify her birthplace and year. These are high quality references. Re WP:DSD#A3, as a very short article ( an info box), it is a valid stub ( as it was marked). Re: WP:CSD#A7, the assertion of importance is established in the referring articles and the citation that I cannot enter because the article is deleted. I hope I have satisfied your concerns and that after the article is undeleted, I can add the necessary material. If you could undelete it to a subpage for me, I could add the information you require. Thanks! jmcw 13:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of importance and context need to be in the article, not in other articles. Marking something as a stub does not make it a stub. From WP:STUB "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." With no sentences of text, this was not a stub. Infoboxes are supplements to an article, not articles. I can userfy for you, but please do not create articles that have no article content, they will be speedily deleted. GRBerry 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would appreciate the userfy. I will change my work habits: I will create a more complete article in my subspace before adding the article to wikispace. jmcw 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmcw/Brenda Stubbert

Thank you! jmcw 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'd appreciate your input on an userbox issue

Hi GRBerry, I'd like to ask for your input on a userbox issue I've encountered, regarding the speedy deletion of several userfied userboxes that expressed negative stance toward a thing or concept (e.g. hate/despise/dislike/loathe/choosing one over something else). I've held a discussion with the deleting admin in question, and we have hit a dead point in the discussion. As I know I'm biased in this issue I'd appreciate it if you could spare a neutral look at the dispute. (Note: I've randomly pulled your name - along with 3 others - out of my hat. If I bothered you I deeply apologize - feel free to ignore & delete this comment in that case) Best wishes! Charon X/talk 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the current primary closer of DRV (Xoloz's vacation is running longer than originally advertised), I can't in good conscience opine on this. We have one current related DRV, and some of these may well end up there. GRBerry 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion requested on a new external tool

After a few hours of work, I produced a PHP script for making userboxes. It can be found at [8]. Since I'm rather new, I need your opinion on where to "advertise" it. I find it a pretty good tool (I made all the userboxes on my page with it), but I need a second opinion. I'm not very adept with PHP, so the script does not support wiki-markup, but I do plan to work on it further. Thanks, The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to support the userbox migration solution to the old userbox wars. Part of that is gradually moving away from the creation of more userboxes. I thus can't really see advertising tools for creating more userboxes as a good idea; it would tend to cause the creation of more userboxes. GRBerry 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aroostook War

How is Aroostook War a relation between "sub-national units"? (personal curiosity). Looks like a conflict between two countries. -- Cat ^chi? 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was declared by the state of Maine, which was one of the then 20ish states in the United States. The declaration was also a response to actions of the British colony of New Brunswick, itself a sub-national unit. Both sides called out the troops themselves. The peace settlement was national, the war began at the sub-national level. GRBerry 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRV

Although the conclusion seems to be not in doubt, I'd appreciate it if the DRV is left open for its normal length, as I still have a few unanswered questions. It may not be the best place for those questions, but that's where they are. =) Powers ^T 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 3

Hi, you recently closed this DRV as a withdrawn request. I noticed that the nominator's request was to create a new article in spite of two previous AfD deletion closures, so if the nominator requests withdrawal, shouldn't the article remain a red link? I ask because it seems that this DRV allowed the recreation of an article with almost no commentary on prior closures or the merits of the new draft in satisfying notability concerns. If it is all right with you, I'd like to relist the DRV to solicit more opinions on what should be done, or at the very least re-nominate the article for deletion for a third time. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that DRV pre-approve the creation of new articles, so that wasn't the actual request under consideration. The actual DRV request was for the old article history back to help with the new article. The request to get the old article back was withdrawn. With that request withdrawn, there isn't a DRV issue until an admin speedy deletes the new article under WP:CSD#G4, if one does. Personally, I don't think G4 applies, as the article discusses other, potentially different, sources of notability.

As to nominating for AFD a third time, that is possible and might be the right thing to do. I'd say nothing prevents it; the guidance against quick repeat AFD nominations is intended to apply to articles which survived the prior discussion, not to new articles for which G4 doesn't apply that happen to have the same title and subject as a previously deleted article. Notability is clearly asserted in the new article, a PROD obviously wouldn't succeeed, so if you think deletion as non-notable is the right answer, the AFD is the right venue. However, I note that the creator of the new article appears to be a new user, so it is probably worth being extra courteous and discussing the issue with them first. GRBerry 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Eddie Anaclet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Eddie Anaclet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Anaclet. Thank you. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

The place has survived and prospered under your fine guiding eye! I gave you a barnstar on leaving for my vacation, but here's another:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For dedicated performance of tiresome and monotonous administrative tasks, always with a fair hand and keen judgment, GRBerry deserves ten thousand such Barnstars of Diligence! Xoloz 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been, and will continue to be, mired under real-life work following my vacation (there's always a price for a moment's freedom!), but I'll be on watch. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding Slipknot's 4th studio release

My point is, the album is coming out, regardless. It's listed for a 2008 release on Roadrunner Records' website. We'll need to recreate the page regardless. The same can also be said for Children of Bodom's 6th studio album and Sepultura's 11th, who were also deleted for the same ridiculous reason. They're not crystal balls either because all the info I put onto those pages came directly from either the respective band's official websites or their respective label's websites. I propose bringing the pages back because I'll just have to recreate them again.

P.S. Respond to me on my talk page, not yours. Otherwise I'll have no idea if you even respond, since I'll most likely forget to come here again. Thanks. Dark Executioner 12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner [reply]

Lightsource.com

You declined the WP:CSD#g4 on Lightsource.com because you said there was no previous AfD, but in fact there was: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsource.com, which was speedied along and deleted. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD was closed due to the first speedy deletion, so the article wasn't deleted via AFD, and thus G4 doesn't apply. The purpose of the restriction on G4 is to limit it to pages deleted as the result of a community decision. The criteria exists because some users have persistently recreated pages the community said "no thanks" to, and it isn't worth wasting time on community discussion when somebody is just reposting the same content the community previously discussed. GRBerry 03:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: Please read

I am trying to obtain info about what it would take to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on allowing an entry for the Character/Person of Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel to exsist and 'stick'. Could you please offer any assistance in the matter, as I am on a fact gathering mission and am currently in search for criteria? I can also be contacted at christiandiablo@gmail.com Thank you very much for your time and surely enough patience in this email. Christian Diablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Diablo (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which article this is in relation to. See Wikipedia:Notability (and related guidelines), Wikipedia:Amnesia test and Wikipedia:Independent sources for some general guidance that might apply to almost anything. GRBerry 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SD of B'nai Elim

Hi... I originally thought of nominating this article G4, but the criterion states that this is to be done only when the "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". As a non-admin, there's no way to tell whether that's the case. Is it reasonable to conclude, then, that this criterion is for admin use only? -- and if so, should WP:CSD#G4 be edited to make it clear that this is the case? Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin can actually implement any deletion, G4 included, and the admins are responsible to cofirm that the speedy deletion criteria applies. Regular users can use {{db-repost}} to tag an article as a suspected repost for an admin to investigate. The deletion log of the article should contain a deletion summary linking to, or at least mentioning, the prior XfD discussion. If that was recent, Google's cache may still have the old article, or individuals who participated in the first XfD may remember what the article looked like. GRBerry 03:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly aggressive user

I am writing to inform an admin about an overly aggressive user who consistently disobeys civility rules. VegitaU cannot make an kind of correction or apply a tag without harassing other users, and constantly threatens with having someone blocked. Since he's not an admin, this is an empty threat, but it's inappropriate, nonetheless. Thanks, JaMikePA 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see that you are regularly getting warned about images that are at risk of deletion. Time, perhaps, to read the warnings, figure out why you are getting them, and revise images that you have uploaded to comply with our image policy so that they won't be at risk of deletion?

Other than that, I don't see where your dispute with him is. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; asking a random admin to but in isn't very productive. GRBerry 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö Devilants

I closed the DRV and restored Malmö Devilants. The article is not appearing on my computer screen for some reason. It might be a computer delay, but if it is not, please see if you can restore it properly. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting it, you created a redirect. history. When you restore the deleted edits, they are all older than the redirect, so it remains in effect. I see that you have now fixed this. GRBerry 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a computer delay in the article history being restored and I kept going in circles. -- Jreferee t/c 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Konstakuten

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

(You were the nominator of the last AfD, hence the notice.) --B. Wolterding 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of English Americans

As you are an admin, I wonder if you could look up the reasons for the deletion of List of English Americans and whether they were valid or worthy of challenge (I don't know how to do this). I believe this deletion was the 'trigger deletion' that then prompted the deletion actions against the rest of the 'List of foo American' articles that are now being reversed. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn how to look this up :). What I do is click on the link you provided. Because the page doesn't exist, that takes me to an edit page for the former list, which shows the deletion log directly above the edit box. Most deleting admins put the reason for deletion into the log, often as a link. In this case, they did. So click on the link and you get taken directly to the AFD that resulted in deletion.

If the article had been recreated in some form, you'd use the history tab, which has a small link at the top "show logs for this page". Alternatively, you could use the "Logs" link in the toolbox (left panel). Once on the log page, select Deletion log in the drop down box, and put the article title in the Title box, and press Go. Another route to the log page is to select "my contributions" at the top, then select "logs" on the contribution page. Once there, you'll need to do the same steps as if you went directly from the toolbox and also clearing your username. GRBerry 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I tried that, but I guess not. Hmains 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade protection

Hi, is there any reason why you've cascade protected User:GRBerry/monobook.css and User:GRBerry/monobook.js? Since they are user stylesheet and javascript pages, they can only be edited by you and other administrators anyway, so this protection doesn't do anything. Thanks – Gurch 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I didn't know they were automatically protected. Two, how can I trust that the automatic protection will stay in force? (This is a wiki.) Redundancy in design is a good thing, especially redundancy in security. Now if only there was a way to eliminate the ability of other administrators to edit them, I could be more comfortable. GRBerry 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic protection will stay in force for the same reason everyone's password won't suddenly be reset to 'cheese'; it's part of MediaWiki's code and, unlike a wiki, only a handful of people can change that. What makes you so concerned that other administrators might edit them? You realize that anything they could add to your own personal stylesheet/javascript pages they could simply add to the site-wide stylesheet and javascript pages, and affect everyone? If you're that paranoid, I suggest you disable javascript, or perhaps avoid using the Internet altogether. Thanks – Gurch 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Madison

You closed the Talia Madison AfD and now the article is at DRV. Please feel free to comment at the DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was closed before I saw this comment, and I never realized I was the closer of the AFD that led to the G4 deletions. Oh well, the AFD spoke for itself perfectly well, and in my opinion still does. GRBerry 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recevied and read. Thanks. GRBerry 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discrepancies

Greetings!

I was grateful that you spoke up and voiced your opinion that {{blp}} did not require references be provably true, only authoritative and verifiable.

I asked User:Bearian, a new administrator, and I hope you don't mind me asking you, for advice on how to settle to everyone's satisfaction, the {{blp}} does not require references to be provably true?

Thanks! Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, I am not really an expert at deletion review.

The first deletion review I requested was extremely clear cut case of failure to honour a hangon and everyone agreed that the article was going to hold merit. So I was confused as to why I then had to endure a second {{afd}}.

The second one confused me too, because I thought the discussion was supposed to be about whether the procedure was followed, but most of the participants wanted to discuss the article's merits. Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rock DRV

Sources have been provided. Thanks for leaving your opinion. link. T Rex | talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns

Hi, sorry I got the issues sidetracked here. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Bearian 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't sidetrack that; the user who created both the other sections did by popping up with the same question there. Your question was legitimate, which is why I also answered it separately (after an edit conflict with you). GRBerry 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this exchange before. Bearian aplogized. And you told him it was unnecessary. I am not sure whether you are referring to me as the sidetracking user, or the other fellow with the different interpretation of {{blp}}. If you think it was me do you think I owe anyone an apology for this question? I realized, after the fact, that I had left some potential triggers in my query of October 16th. I regret that. My apologies. If you thought I wasn't sufficiently careful on the 24th, you can have my apology for that too.

You have been very helpful to me in the past. I particularly appreciate the several times you gave me a heads-up that someone had nominated an article I started for deletion, but had not chosen to honor the recommended courtesy of giving me a heads-up myself. If there is ever anything I can do for you, don't hesitate to let me know.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my mind the side tracker is the user (whose name I don't recall) who had previously posted a missive in two other places and added it to this thread. I have no qualms about your behavior (though, as you know, I think many of these articles would be better off merged.) GRBerry 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting my mind at ease. Geo Swan 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people Hmains 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Villebillies

db-band links directly to WP:MUSIC. If the article does not meet WP:MUSIC, then, no matter that they have one album released on a major label, it's still a speedy delete criterion, because it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may link there, but WP:CSD#A7 is the policy that governs {{db-band}}. WP:MUSIC in the template is just an informative link for editors trying to rescue articles. Many, many articles can survive WP:CSD#A7 without meeting WP:MUSIC. 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

not directory

Do you think you cqn rewrite it according to the comment you left of List of Ashkenazi Jews? it would facilitate more rational AfDs. DGG (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]