User talk:Redvers/Archive21

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Redvers. 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.

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert H. Hewsen

Hi. Thanks for your edit to the above article. But do you think that the person is not notable for an article? Google search gives plenty of hits, and many articles by this scholar are available in JSTOR. I believe the tag is not justified. Right now I'm unable to provide detailed description of his scientific contribution, but I included a link to one of his books published by a reputable publisher. We refer to Hewsen in many articles about Transcaucasia, as he is one of the leading experts on the ancient history of the region, and an article about him is useful to give some background about who he is. I'm sure it will be expanded further if it is kept. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not tagged for deletion as I'm aware that Prof Hewsen is notable. The tag in question is actually a clean-up tag, asking for someone to assert some notability about the subject. As the article stands, it doesn't mention what he does or why he is in an encyclopedia. If someone were to add something like "he is one of the leading experts on the ancient history of the Transcaucasia region" into the article - BANG! notability. (A source saying this would also be good). But whilst the article doesn't say something as basic as that, it has to remain tagged until it does. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now. Hewsen's profile at Rowan used to say: Through his research, he has become one of the leading scholars in Armenia history, however this link has been removed from the university's website. But it is still avalable at google cache: [1] Grandmaster 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests this saying something similarly useful. If the article introduction was rewritten to:

Robert H. Hewsen is the author of the first ever historical atlas of Armenia, the first historical atlas for any of the former Soviet republics.^[1] He is professor emeritus of History at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey. He received his B.A. in history...

The production of an atlas with those superlatives establishes notablity. Added to the article early on, the notability would be both firmly established and asserted. Plus there's a lovely source to prove it (I know its a book-sales site, but it's still the UoC!). The tag could then be removed by the person adding the sentence and everybody'll be happy :o) ➔ REDVEЯS was here 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the line that you proposed should be added to the text of the article, but in my opinion it should not be the very first line. Hewsen is notable not only for this collection of maps, but for many other publications. But mentioning the notability of this publication in the text can help assertain notability of this person. What do you think? Grandmaster 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is not just my addition of the clean-up tag, but the new editor before me who, not knowing the system, tried but failed to AfD it. AGF that they meant well and weren't just some general nutter, I think that notability was what they were looking at. And the subject does meet Wikipedia standards for notability, as you know. But the article is a bit light on this.

So we need a punchy introduction. "Foo is a professor emeritus" isn't notability per se, certainly not enough for the new editor and not quite enough for me (Wikipedia standards aren't clear on this either!). "Foo is the author of this unique work [ref]" is notability, and a good one - and right up-front: just as far as the new editor got(!)

There's a compromise here that will work for you (who knows a lot), me (who knows a little) and the new editor (who knows [not intended as an insult] nothing). Perhaps the existing wording but with the unique bit from the UoC in the second sentence? Or mentioned in the first but picked up upon later? Just a bit of <shudder> journalistic punch to get Prof Hewsen away from the danger zone clearly and without ambiguity?

Any ideas? Your article-writing skills are clearly well above-average, so help me out here! What do you think we could say? :o) ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have certain problems with the editor who added the tag, and if you check his contribs you’ll see why. So I have my suspicions about this user’s intents. As for Hewsen, you have probably noticed that I have already used the source that you mentioned in the text to provide the reference to Hewsen’s latest book. But you are absolutely right, we need to add something to establish notability right away so that no one could question it. British journalist Thomas de Waal in his book “Black Garden” mentions Hewsen in the following context:

Fortunately, Professor Robert Hewsen of Rowan College, New Jersey, the foremost expert on this period of Caucasian history, was able to advise.

So we can add a line proposed by you in your first post, i.e.:

Robert H. Hewsen is professor emeritus of History at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey and one of the leading experts on the ancient history of South Caucasus. Ref: Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p 156.

And use de Waal as a reference. And more details about the latest book of this scholar could be added to the text. I think no one could question notability of Hewsen after that. My point is that Hewsen is notable not because he wrote one good book, but because he made many important contributions, which is why he is considered one of the best experts on the history of a certain region. So picking just one is not the best option, but mentioning general notability in my opinion would be a better solution. I'm trying to create articles or at least stubs about notable experts on the history of South Caucasus, some of them already been created by other users, such as Vladimir Minorsky, Cyril Toumanoff, Kamilla Trever, Charles Dowsett, and some others need to be started. I'm going to start another one about Firuz Kazemzadeh. I think it is useful when you refer to someone and there's an article which explains who that person actually is. Grandmaster 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested introduction sounds great to me - it's got the punch that the article needs. If you want to write it up, you can remove the {{notability}} tag with a clear conscience at the same time :o) ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll do that now. Grandmaster 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, so nice of you. I’m really flattered that my humble efforts are appreciated. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a great deal of validity in your argument ..., but I believe that you may have been incorrect in your recent deletion.

I see your point in calling my post that you recently deleted, original research. While I did discover many facts in this article, through personal investigation, I have always assumed that many other people had discovered many of these facts long before I did. As one example that I was correct in this assumption, I have recently learned that Chicago elementary Schools teach that Chicago is located at the same latitude as Rome. (Props to Wikipedian Speciate). I don’t know if anyone before me has discovered that no other pair of cities, both of which are at least as populous as these two cities, is so close in latitude. I believe, though, that any source that publishes coordinates for any group of cities, also publishes, by implication, the differences between these coordinates, and comparisons of these differences, and that, for this reason, any source that publishes coordinates of all cities this populous can, be cited as a source for all that I wrote in the article you deleted.

While we may often think that ideas of ours, are original, often these ideas are only new to us. I consider it flattering to me, that you consider my ideas, to be original research, but in this case, I believe that you are incorrect to believe this.

George Pelly-Bosela

gpelly.bosela@gmail.com

Also, you can reread the article you deleted on the Chicago discussion page. GPelly-Bosela 06:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)

There appears to be a problem with your understanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't for. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. That is official policy. You may not like it, but it's one of our longest-serving policies. A "fascinating fact" like the latitudes of Chicago and Rome being almost the same is a piece of trivial random information.

Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. That is official policy. You may not like it, but it's also one of our longest-serving policies. You have to be able to point to someone else making your point. It's great that the Chicago school system teaches this bit of trivia, but you'll need to prove that by supplying us with the name of the book, its ISBN and the page where they say it.

Which leads to Wikipedia requires all information to be sourced. That is official policy. You may not like it, but it's again one of our longest-serving policies. If you want to say something new, tough. You can only say what someone else has already said and point us to where they said it. And where they said it is important - we need reliable, third-party sources.

This is a lot for you to read - but you're going to have to read these links. Read them all, not just the first paragraph or so. Because if you continue on this path, inserting your "fascinating fact" into articles and creating articles about it, then complaining loudly everywhere when the "fascinating fact" is rightly deleted, you will be blocked for distruption. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: {{copyedit}} on that article.

Sorry bout that... nat^tang 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Mew 2

Hi Redvers. Thank you for removing the Mew 2 article. It's been there for quite a while. Could you do the same with this article? Cheers, Face 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 7 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White House Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:AfDM

Hi Redvers. I'm not sure I follow the reasons for the sentence you have added. You're experienced on Wiki and know it better than me, so I understand you'd have a valid reason - it's just that I can't quite see it. Are you saying that anons are using this template instead of the correct speedy template, and that the anons get frustrated when the template is swapped for a speedy one? The way the sentence is worded it sounds like you are saying that unless the anon gives a reason for deletion on the talkpage (rather than the proper Afd discussion page) then the AfDM template will be removed. Why should they not give their views where the debate is taking place? Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork! Yes, the AfD template is accidentally misused in two ways by anons and new users; they don't understand CSD, so seeing a CSD-worthy article, they slap an AfD message on it, thinking that does the trick. It doesn't, as you know. Also, anons and cannot create pages, so if they follow the AfD instructions, they get confused quickly and give up.

User:DumbBOT produces a list of these broken AfDs. For other mistakes, the bot can fix them, but human intervention is required when we don't know what the reason for deletion is.

For 60% of them, the article is a clear CSD, so the admin flushing the list just deletes the article. But for the other 40%, the article doesn't fit CSD and it's not obvious what the problem is. So the AfD tag is removed.

At that point, the anon or new user turns up at the admin's talk page and detonates, or blanks the article, or starts a revert war putting the AfD tag back, or vandalises DumbBot, or otherwise shows the typical reactions of a badly bitten new user.

However, if the line I've added needs this explanation, perhaps it isn't clear enough. And you're right, it does sort of say to anons "don't contribute to the AfD itself". Hadn't thought of that (solved one problem, created another... typical!).

If the above makes sense to you, can you suggest a tweak in wording so that the new line is clearly "when you've just placed this tag" rather than "for all AfD discussions"? I'd be very grateful for your input and together we might come up with something that solves both problems! ➔ REDVEЯS was here 09:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So it's the anon's placing the tag for whom the message is directed? Perhaps that would be the starting point? "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article may encounter problems." The problem is normally they are unable to complete the process and leave their comments on the AfD page? How about "If you are unable to complete the procedure, please leave your reasons for deletion on the talkpage." At the risk of the message getting too long, adding: "If the procedure is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." Is that too long? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't want to go over two lines (actually, I didn't want to go over one, but there's no choice!) so I've condensed your wording. Have a look and let me know what you think. It can be worked on further. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good. Thanks for taking my input on board. My niggle: "cannot complete" may be interpreted as a rule restricting anons. "are unable to complete" is longer, but is clearer in that it is neutrally conveying information. Suggestion: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article will be unable to complete the deletion nomination so should leave reasons for deletion on Talk:AfDM instead. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." I've removed "detailed" as the instruction for listing an AfD only says "Give a reason for the deletion", and perhaps we shouldn't be asking anons to do more than we ask of others. I've highlighted Unregistered to make it clear that it's only anons who need to follow this procedure. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not had chance to come back to this; I will do in next the 48hrs. This comment is to keep MiszaBot away. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Redvers - I got your message. Thanks for the assistance, I was able to re-submit the article in question and now see it in the list. I guess I should have read it a bit better the first time! Thanks again! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Boitumelo McCallum

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:

While I'd normally revert an addition to a closed AfD, do you think it would make sense to leave this up; since the talk page of the article's been deleted, and the comments being replied to having been left by an IP who's unlikely to check their talk page, would it make sense to leave the comments up;
The comments allude to three other articles (Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon), all of which appear to be clear violations of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (and - almost - WP:BLP1E); a look down their contribution history shows plenty more such as Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue. I'm reluctant to AfD them - it seems incredibly bitey to nominate seven+ good-faith articles, all of which have obviously had a lot of work put into them. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so awkward. Yeah, you're right, on both counts. Certainly, the AfD can remain unreverted - it's a good-faith edit. [The reply and the ramifications are territory slightly beyond our BLP policies - we aim to cause no harm, as you know, to living people - but the family of the allegedly-murdered woman are living people; I deliberately ignored the father's addition to the AfD, whilst coming to the same outcome he wanted for different reasons - so very weasel of me, I know]. I think, on general principles, I'll let the Foundation know about the father (if, of course, it is him) having had input. He's got no email set, either, alas.

As for the other articles, well, yes, you're right. At a glance, they can't really stay. From a Wikipedia point of view, they only made minor impact in the country of origin. They are largely common-or-garden slayings - not notable serial murders that led to a capture or of famous people or the like (I've only skim-read). So, yes, they're clear AfD cases, if not even CSD. But the author will be bitten to death by doing so. I made this mistake a couple of years ago, when I found a walled garden of minor university professors; I AfD's the lot of them but the (newish) author was surprisingly well-connected and felt very bitten. It almost came to ArbCom, I was threatened with desysoping (who knows what admin tools I used) and I had 3 weeks of anti-Welsh talk page messages and emails. Don't ask.

This is the long way of saying that I agree with the AfDs; that I would rather it was you than me; that the editor in question will detonate all over you; that the abuse you'd get will be astounding; that you'd be right; and that you'd lose. And there isn't a forum apparent that we could go to instead. Chilling, isn't it? Let me think on about this. There must be a way of doing the right thing here. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You suppose poking it in the direction of WP:NYC would do any good? They might be able to either build them up into something valid, or offer better explanations of why these don't stand out among NYC's 550 murders per year. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In theory... but in practice, WikiProjects are very protective over their articles. To get a bit Cabal-ly, they will form a bloc for whatever is done next if they know about it in advance, so let's not tell them! :o) Human nature an' all. Bad-tempered email sent to the WMF about the father, BTW - I'm expecting the same type of slapdown I got the last times I got involved in anything controversial. And probably from the same person. Gawd, I'm so not over that yet!

Let me have a sniff around the various options. But don't let that stop you from doing something. I'll support you 'coz I agree with you. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the category's a "Wikipedia Review"-inspired WP:POINT violation, but we could always challenge the few non-SPAs amongst this lot to put their money where their mouth is... (Where's Guy when you need him?) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Eck - a year and a half on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and they add a far harder category! Well, if we're going to cite JzG, we might as well be in for a penny as a pound and AfD the lot and take the consequences. Do we tell the user in advance that this is going to happen (to un-bite him/her), or do we just do it, or do we start a "centralised discussion" to go round in circles forever? So many wrong choices... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The category was created as a pure WP:POINT violation by a Certain Individual We Do Not Name - see this (don't think this is one of the sites it's a blocking offence to link to — there's a link on Criticism of Wikipedia — but if I vanish suddenly, you'll know why).

I'd be inclined to start a discussion at AN/I, to get at least some kind of consensus before the firing squad marches into place. If my seven longest articles all suddenly vanished within a few days of each other I'd be fuming - at least if The Cabal is watching it might temper the backlash. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted to AN/I, on reflection I think this needs multiple opinions as someone is going to wind up angry here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately invited DGG and ImmortanGoddezz to the discussion in the hope they could provide some reason to save at least some of them - and in the expectation that if even they can't, they really aren't savable. (Looks like you've come to the same conclusion.) IG makes a good case for saving Imette St. Guillen, and I think I'll leave that out of any AfD run. I started this whole sorry episode, so I suppose I ought to be the one to finish it; I think I'll wait until the thread is archived from AN/I, to let as many people as possible comment, although I think we can all see where it's headed. I'll nominate them separately, and reasonably spaced apart, to avoid them becoming a de facto delete all/keep all bulk nomination.

The quote on MW1's userpage "In a sense, Imette St. Guillen's Wikipedia reference is something like her gravesite - sacred - more representative of who and what she was than a physical gravestone - and it should be respected", I think sums up the problem perfectly. MW1 doesn't just see WP as a memorial, but as a shrine, and is starting to see us as desecrating the shrine. It's ironic, given the lengths everyone is going to not to drive him off (if these had been by, say, Lucy-marie or Billy Hathorn they'd all be A7'd by now), but with an editor who seems to have violation of Wikipedia policy as a religious obligation, in some ways I'd rather scare him off now, then face the same problem in a couple of months time with 20+ articles instead of seven. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PBS Maltese broadcaster logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by me. Has been replaced by a more recent logo, without rationale or correct copyright tag. Article doesn't suffer from the end result of no logo appearing at all. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's beautiful that you respond to this bot with courtesy and accuracy. All is not lost after all.... The Rambling Man 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots are people too. No, wait... ➔ REDVEЯS was here 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

funny!

How funny! "Most of our vandals start with a single edit" How true! Everyone has to start sometime if they do start. Reporting it was worth it if only to get a surprise joke back! Archtransit 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Theft Vandal

Thanks, would have messaged you but didn't know if you were about. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Time Lords

Thanks for semi-protecting that! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since his threat and actions indicate not just bad but dreadful faith, could I suggest increasing the block-length? The usertalk has been listed for protection, and the article is protected, but he could find other stuff to mess up, I'm sure... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the talk page a rouge semi-protect for the rest of the block. The problem is his claim that the IP is dynamic - the collateral damage would be A Bad Thing if this is right. We're better just to watch the great mentalist to see what he does next. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The "censoring" issue has come up a couple of times before with issues about John Barrowman, and all on similar articles! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. Doctor Who is written and produced by a gay guy, historically not an unusual position. It has gay and straight fans. It has gay and straight characters. And at no point has it ever been a children's show anyway, although that doesn't really matter either way - there are such things as gay kids (I was one, born gay, grew up gay, still gay). Ho hum. I suppose you can't legislate against ignorance. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know! I've got no problem with it :-) BTW, I assume you've seen that he's come back? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm slamming him with 24hr blocks on each IP. He's saving me the job of rangeblocking and I've got nothing else to do. WP:RBI ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC) ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm just off now to listen to my father on British radio... don't ask! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel Segal

Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to delete the article on Israel Segal under A1, A3 and A7. In my opinion, the article had sufficient context to make sense of it, sufficient content to stand as a stub and enough assertion of notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals to mandate wider review. WP:CSD specifies that if A7 is controversial, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Controversy should be evident, I would think, when another editor removes the speedy tag. Under non-criteria, WP:CSD also specifies that speedy is not for "Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply." Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations explains that A3 is for "no content whatsoever", whereas this article indicated a name, a profession and offered a link to substantiate the claim. There are 21,900 google hits for the name "Israel Segal". Many of these are about other individuals, but he is the subject assuredly of some—"Israel Segal" + journalist hits 525. His death is covered here (the source listed in the article), here he speaks to the BBC, his position as a "long-time Israeli news commentor" is referenced here, and in this obituary he is described as "one of Israel's leading journalists and authors". I'm requesting that you restore the article so that it may be duly expanded. --Moonriddengirl 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article said none of this. Not one word. It read, in full:

Israel Segal was a renowned Israeli journalist and author.

Sources

Journalist, author Israel Segal dies at 63

Renown for what? I'm a renowned editor. At Wikipedia, so not renowned in the real world. Wikipedia is not a memorial so if he's renowned for being dead, as the source asserts, then that's not much.

If you want to recreate the article, then do so BUT you'll have to say why the guy was renowned. And give more than just half a sentence and an obit to say why. The article should be able to say this before waiting for expansion if the guy is actually notable. It's not hard. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is now at User talk:Moonriddengirl, due to an egregious misleading edit summary in the deletion log. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the conversation on my talk page, I am now presuming that I mistook REDVEЯS's intent when he said, "If you want to recreate the article, then do so BUT". Since I was not the original author, I understood that to mean that he wanted me to restore the article myself, but that he expected me to expand it. I proceeded under this assumption. Since I seem to have been mistaken, I apologize to Redvers for mis-characterizing our conversation in the deletion log. --Moonriddengirl 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Boitumelo McCallum

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum as delete. The original creator of the article has since posted a reply to the father. Two issues I want to get a second opinion on:

While I'd normally revert an addition to a closed AfD, do you think it would make sense to leave this up; since the talk page of the article's been deleted, and the comments being replied to having been left by an IP who's unlikely to check their talk page, would it make sense to leave the comments up;
The comments allude to three other articles (Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon), all of which appear to be clear violations of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (and - almost - WP:BLP1E); a look down their contribution history shows plenty more such as Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue. I'm reluctant to AfD them - it seems incredibly bitey to nominate seven+ good-faith articles, all of which have obviously had a lot of work put into them. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)