Jump to content

User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Manhattan Institute at WP:RS/N

About your opinion about Manhattan Institute at WP:RS/N. I wonder if you know that the Manhattan Institute is widely held to be a conservative think tank that receives heavy corporate funding. City Journal is their own internal publication, not an independent newspaper, and Husock is the vice-president of the Manhattan Institute, as well as a contributing editor of City Journal. His article in City Journal is essentially a self-published source WP:SPS. Carolmoore was using it as a Reliable Source, to back statements of fact written in the encyclopedic voice on the Community Reinvestment Act. She has said that since people at WP:RS/N think its ok, she will reinsert Husock's writings as plain statements of fact. Can I beg you to have another look and perhaps qualify your statement? thanks lk (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I am familiar with the Manhattan Institute and City Journal and have been for some time. I agree that the Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank. However, according to their web site, only 13% of their revenue comes from corporations, so I am not sure what you consider "heavy" corporate funding. Keep in mind that most newspapers which we consider reliable sources are owned by corporations and receive large percentages of their income from advertising by corporations. I don't think of Husock's article in City Journal as being equivalent to a self-published source; by that standard, pretty much articles in any publication written by the publication's own editors would be considered self-published sources, and I don't think that's the intent of WP:SPS. I accept that City Journal is an opinionated source, and that people should not take it as the final and definitive statement of facts on any particular statement of fact, but I trust the consensus of our editors to do the right thing. So I'm not going to qualify my prior statement about City Journal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page spam

Gotcha.  :) I thought about that after I'd posted the warning, but I was noodling around here at work during a slowdown and things sped up before I could make the change. Thanks for the notice. --76.79.100.242 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to dab pages

Basically because the pattern says that most redirect pages like this should exist, and one of the side effects of that is that the dab pages are then not orphans, which helps keep the lonelypages special page for what it's intended. Secondly havingg exceptions to this sort of pattern generally leads to problems, and redirects are cheap. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51 14 October 2008 (UTC).

DAB pages

Can you see any reason for the continued existence of this DAB page? My Dark Places should link directly to the much more well-known Ellroy book, with a disambiguation link at the top of same for the album. Does this make sense? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical skepticism

In regard to this AfD, you tagged it as having been added to the list of philosophy-related deletion discussions, but it wasn't actually added to the list at that time. (I have since added it.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Thanks for the warning, I am working for the maintenance of Wikipedia, please give me a specific template for putting your pages user, please. A hug. --Fiendian Reptiloid, Demon (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I see that I will suspend my maintain until further notice, thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendian Reptiloid, Demon (talk • contribs)

United States presidential election, 2012

Are you aware that the United States presidential election, 2012 page was originally protected as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination) becuase it failed WP:CRYSTAL? Are you also aware that we are currently having a discussion on Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Redirected on when we should unprotect it? Please contribute there instead of unilaterally changing the protection beforehand. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was aware of why the original protection was imposed, and I supported it at that time, but due to the completion of the 2008 election, I no longer think the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. After I saw that you had restored the protection, that's when I joined in the discussion on the talk page. So I won't unilaterally change the protection on this page again, but I do think it should be unprotected. (By the way, my edit at 04:57 on November 5 was not intended to get into a wheel war with you; I hadn't seen at that time that you had restored the protection the first time at 04:56. I only saw the protection after the second time you restored it at 05:00.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SBS Bus route

When I looked atnthe article, the link to the AFD page was a redlink. I know there are innocent reasons for this, but think it best to flag these up for an expert, which is why (I hope) I said "may" be defective. If it is not, all the better. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You are correct to say that if the link to the AfD page is a redlink, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. Apparently it has been fixed already. But when you flag a problem like that for an expert, it would help to indicate what the problem as you see it is (like "article page has redlink to the AfD"). I have a good amount of experience in nominating articles for AfD, so I would have been willing to fix the nomination if the problem had still been going on and if I had known what the problem was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kamau Kambon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamau Kambon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination). Thank you. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Small subs

I suppose I'll live... this once. I actually meant to use small, been spending too much time on UBB boards, I guessBadger Drink (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Telugu through tamil

A7 - Unremarkable web content was my thought, for requesting WP:CSD. Speedy would have been better - but if it gets removed by any means is fine with me. The only thought I had is "Wouldn't it show Wikipedia in poor light if an article that just talks of learning Latin from English through related words, listing of the numbers in both languages, etc., is an article and stays around for at least 10 days (spidered by all search engines and so on)?" VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The problem with an A7 speedy deletion for this page is that I didn't see any evidence that the page was about web content. If the article creator had based the page on promoting a hypothetical web site http://www.TeluguThroughTamil.com, that might qualify for an A7 for non-notable web content. Here, though, I didn't see anything like that (judging from the translation on the talk page; I can't read even one word of either Tamil or Telugu). Admittedly, this content is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. However, it's unlikely that many people will read it (if they know Tamil) or even see it during its remaining 4+ days, and those who do see it during that time will see that we are trying to get rid of it, as shown by the proposed deletion notice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Noted. Will PROD in future when content does not meet Wikipedia criteria, as they will not fall into other CSD reasons. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for creation

Sorry my bad, I misread the page name and though it said articles for deletion. -- roleplayer 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:All-star 5000

Hey, I'll respond to this; check out WP:LTA/MG. The account name and the name of its creator (and his other created accounts) mark this as the work of MG. Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All-Star 5000

Hi. Sorry to have gone off on that individual, but the account was spun off of User:Almighty Guy, itself a sockpuppet of hard-banned uweer User:MascotGuy. You did right in welcoming him, but I assure you, he's never so much as placed a single bit on a talk page. His edits in more than four years have been a mix of legitimate edits mostly blended with blatant misinformation. I just have to keep in mind that not everyone is as familiar with this person as I am. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. Thanks again for doing the right thing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

How does one get rid of them, then? That one was blatant advertising. I think some advertisers put their spam on User Pages because they think they are safe there - and a lot of people outside don't know what a User Page is and may be impressed that some outfit 'merits' a Wikipedia page. Ditto for Talk. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Ta muchly. Peridon (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

சேரமான் பெருமாள்

Hi Met. சேரமான் பெருமாள் is actually an article about Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert). I'm copying the Tamil content to Tamil Wikipedia. The user needs to be pointed to the Tamil Wiki. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a Tamil message in their talk page. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I responded to your message on my talk page. I'm not very pleased with what you had to say, I feel like my good faith is not being assumed and it seems that you've overlooked several things. I was just trying to help. CheersSynchronism (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sync. Is this message directed at me? Please clarify. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. It was to Met regarding this article. But I'm over it. Sorry, Synchronism (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't bother. Just wanted to clarify. And thanks for your message at my talk page. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I will comment further at User talk:Synchronism, but for the record, I had no intention of questioning Synchronism's good faith. I just thought the speedy deletion tag was mistaken. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit to your entry on my talk page erroneously. Are you ending our dialogue?Synchronism (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I continued the dialogue at User talk:Synchronism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Hi there METROPOLITAN, VASCO here,

i found your reply on WP/ANI (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) about a disruptive editor. All i can say is the replies i received (yours and another) were not the ones i intended, not quite sure why...

In your case, you pointed out i should provide with DIFFS so people can see the difference in two disruptive edits. Well, i did just that if you look clearly through my report, and the other user/admin before you, SMASHVILLE, even used a little bit of sarcasm, so maybe this is clearly a case of "barking up the wrong tree".

Sorry 4 the incovenience, from PORTUGAL a good weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, you didn't provide diffs, but looking at your second report you at least pointed to the place in the edit history where I could find the bad edits. This particular link [1] is a diff which shows the person removing references. If you have similar problems in the future please check out Help:Diff and provide exact diffs and say exactly what is wrong with the particular edit. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NorthShore University Health System

If you think you can make a case for notability, I'd suggest creating a first draft in a sandbox first, then inviting some other editors to have a look at it. The deleted version contained neither assertions nor evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgot something

After you userfy a page from the mainspace to userspace, are you not supposed to delete it? here Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your an admin, why not delete it? Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To avoid acting overly unilaterally. As described here, admins aren't supposed to delete pages "just like that". (I realize that other admins may interpret this in other ways, but there are enough admins monitoring CAT:CSD that I have no problem with tagging articles for speedy deletion and letting another admin confirm my tag by actually performing the deletion.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whipper (The Budgie)

The "comments" noted above are referenced facts about "Whipper" and his Mutations. The removed links to notability are necessary for documenting his public life. Whipper was rejected as a baby, this is referenced audio interview and many internet articles; the single article referencing this was establishing fact about baby bird rejections, and therefore it is valid in this encyclopedia entry. If you find a better article, to clarify the validity of his story, please add that reference. The "01:36, 6 December 2008 Metropolitan90" version is less clear by its vagueness. That edit has taken away valuable material to the Whipper (The Budgie) article. Accordingly, I am reverting the last version change. --Hasbrook (talk to Hasbrook) 13:51 6 December 2008 (EST) CC (Whipper (The Budgie) discussion)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mevish1

I have no opinion on the userpage, but could you please respond to my comment on that MFD? -= Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant Troy

In your comment for the AFD of this article you said: "and Billboard was probably covering indie artists before the subject's grandparents were born." How is this relevant to the discussion? - Mgm|(talk) 15:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Todd roydon

Ah, my apologies then for tagging this incorrectly. I had previously thought that re-post just meant that an article, which had been deleted through any means, had been re-made without significant changes. In the case of an article previously speedily deleted, should I just tag it under the same criteria that it had been deleted under in the past? Thanks! TheXenocide (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Black slaves

Understood; after glancing over the article when it was newly created, it appeared to me as if it was simply an article filled with incorrect information, though I can't recall any specifics about it at this moment. I will try to keep in mind that page such as this should be redirected and not deleted. Thanks for all of your help, and I apologize for all of my errors. TheXenocide (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jet

Kww explained it as well as I could in the discussion. Userpages are not provided in order for a person to advertise themselves, which is what Jetman is doing. The pasting of the "from Wikipedia" language in that location seems calculated to make the userpage look like an actual article to the unsophisticate reader. If he asserts notability, he should have somebody create an article in articlespace (with solid sources, not a passing mention in an article on an unrelated topic). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:ItBeginsWithYou

User talk:ItBeginsWithYou, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ItBeginsWithYou and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:ItBeginsWithYou during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Flowanda | Talk 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

reply

In reply to your recent edit:

  1. Who? Here is one. Various captives independently testified about the camp's 2000 closure and independence. I've read other sources. The USA may have unpublished evidence or arguments to back up the interpretation that Khalden was an al Qaida camp. But in none of my reading have I found a place where they published any substantiation.
  2. Since: "Detainee does not believe in the sixth pillar of Islam and does not believe that jihad is a 6th [sic] pillar of Islam." is a direct quote, I think it is a mistake to correct it, even if it has grammatical or other errors. Agreed?
  3. I'd never heard of the 6th pillar of Islam, but I don't consider myself an expert on muslim theology. Can I ask if you consider yourself knowledgeable muslim theology? I looked at our article on the sixth pillar of Islam. It is currently totally unreferenced. I looked at an earlier version, which had a shaky reference. It characterized the 6th pillar as a fringe interpretation, no longer held by the one historical sect that had proposed it 1200 years ago, and now only held by members of one small extremist group.

I think I said it before, but thanks again for being willing to engage in civil dialogue.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note in the {{afd}}, requesting the discussion be kept there. I started a reply to something your wrote, on the {{afd}}, only to find it was closed early. I'll spare you most of it, unless you want it -- except for a general comment on articles based on primary documents. I was reminded of a comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive Order 12333. User:BD2412, one of the contributors to that discussion, wrote something I strongly agree with. I may be prepared to go farther than they did. If you don't mind, would you take a look at Executive Order 13355 and Executive Order 13356? Feel free to decline. I see these as two articles that could survive an {{afd}}, in their current form, even though they each only cited a single primary reference. Anyhow, feel free to decline. Thanks either way. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Charmaine Loh Jia Yi

Hi, I would like you to review your decission to decline speedy deletion on this user page because

  • 1. It was created by SPA on promotional purposes. Even article space was used for vanity purposes [2]
  • 2. It is a copy of deleted page Charmaine_Loh_Jia_Yi - so it is rather in breach of WP:USERPAGE guideline - WP is not free webhost, nor MySpace.
  • 3. WP:BLP discourages posting personal information about minors, even on their own userpages. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I recommend taking this to WP:MFD if you still believe it should be deleted. It does not look like a speedy deletion candidate to me. If you believe this is a true speedy deletion candidate, I will comment further later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I took it to MfD. Here's the link if you would like to add anything to discussion. M0RD00R (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Metropolitan90

I could use a little help. I'm trying to hash out what happened to an article here that's in deletion review you helped along the way. It's title: Matt Lee(musician deluxe) and also Matt lee. I apperciated you cleaning it up and Mr. Lee was pretty happy ,to say the least, to find that he had an article. Had is the operative. The guy has to have an operation on his hand to fix an arthritic condition and ,well, I and my friends wanted this for him. We ahve had 3 different people from this office try to put this together as a surprise for him. Fortunately,he does'nt use a computer too well right now, so he does'nt know he's off the page. Long story short, I can't figure out why someone eradicated all the documentation of the overturning of a speedy delete process, because the admin overturned his own speedy delete based on new entries to the article and saying that an AfD would have to be the way to go after that. Do you think there was malice involved or is it just policy? I'm very new to this, so I'm appealing to you, because you helped with the article. I put an un-delete vote in in the discussion on delete review. I hope you will shed some light on the agrguement at deletion review . If , in fact, the article was removed maliciously, how do we ahndle that here in wiki reality? Thanks.76.94.31.7 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note:You can link to the deletion review here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_31#Matt_Lee.28guitar_player.29 Thanks.76.94.31.7 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metropolitan90/Archive_10&oldid=1190125863"