User talk:Splash/Archive8

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005 – Archive to end 5 December 2005

Apologies from me too. I made a snap decision, and it may have been the wrong one. -- SCZenz 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys apologizing? He's the one who violated the policy. 216.237.179.238 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket skin / Exogenous xeroderma modo

Splash, I do not understand why the above article was judged to be deleted. Ifca 21:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin and the argumentation therein. Basically, you were unable to provide reliable sources proving that the condition exists in the form described in the articles. If you can provide such sources, that'd be great. -Splash^talk 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, Was this judgement made by you alone, or with other knowledgeable people ? Ifca 14:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the collected opinion of those involved in the debate. But I alone decided how to read that debate. The article at the time of deletion contained no references that made explicit the existence of the condition under these names. You will have to provide good, reliable references (preferably online, but that's not obligatory) detailing the usage in the article before it is acceptable. You'll also need to explain why both Google and PubMed both haven't heard of it. -Splash^talk 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that your lone decision may have been made in haste. It is a complex debate, involving many of the points you list above, also a debate that was not concluded; the original deletion proposer left without retracting the deletion proposal. Ifca 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't made in haste, I sat and read the debate, checked the article against the claims in the debate and then decided. However, the debate was quite clear: you didn't and haven't provided references or proof that this even exists, and noone could provide them for you. WP:V, a core policy demands removal in such a case. The original deletion proposer had absoluetly no need to retract the proposal. The fact that you have still declined to explain the lack of existence simply reaffirms my decision. However, we have Wikipedia:Deletion review which is a community forum where you can seek to have the decision overturned. You will have little chance of success until you fix the problems in the deletion debate. -Splash^talk 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spash, If as you claim, you did not make judgement in haste, you would be able to explain, a) what 'Exogenous xeroderma modo' means. Andor b) explain which element of this description warrants a lone action of removing the entire content. (rather than suggest a more constructive course, such as renaming, amalgamation, or improving the article with your own fingers and mind ;) If you are unable to do the above, I hope you would either correct your actions, or refer this matter to someone who can. Ifca 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the debate can be found at;- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin

Ok, let me be clear. I am not going to reverse my deletion of these articles unless and until Wikipedia:Deletion review mandates such a reversal. I do not see anything wrong with the debate and I do not find your reluctance to provide hard evidence of the kind lacking in the debate convincing. Further discussion of the matter should take place on Wikipedia:Deletion review, where the request will only have a chance of success if the concerns of the deletion debate are dealt with. Thank you. -Splash^talk 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is an admission that you are unable to explain either a) or b) above ? ...and... are you really expecting others to correct your actions, would you not prefer to be responsible for your own actions ?? :( Ifca 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an admission of nothing. Take it to deletion review. I will not respond to further messages about this topic. We're done. -Splash^talk 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, surely every Wikipedian should be responsible for their own actions, especially administrators. Ifca 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Splash, its Eric W.Bragg

Splash, will you please not delete my user talk page. thanks.Eric W.Bragg 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

scinet, storcloud, copyvio

Steve Lau sent me mail, and indicated that he was in the process of working on those articles, and of getting rid of the copyvio'd text. I'm assuming good faith and giving him a chance to do so (and, as I indicated on deletion review, I'll take responsibility for making sure what's there is legit and not a copyvio). Nandesuka 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IEEE/ACM endorses the publication of this info on Wikipedia. What would it take to prevent this from being seen as a copyvio? Steve Lau 21:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Blitzer

Vandalism resulting from high profile coverage of the article on CNN. I am restoring the protection. Danny 23:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was Danny that protected - but I can see his point, we really don't want an article that is getting this much attention to be vandalised. And it will be vandalised -- sannse (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many times was it vandalised before it was protected? Hall Monitor 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple over the course of a few minutes. -Splash^talk 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, vprotection seems called for according to our current protection policy. Hall Monitor 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree, since it is hardly persistent-in-italics. But then you're the one who'd have GWB protected until 2009, so we're not on a course to agreement over whether we let people edit in amongst the vandals. -Splash^talk 23:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your last remark was not necessary. Yes, we do appear to disagree on how existing protection policy should be interpreted, but I've never suggested that any page should be fully protected for years on end. This is exactly why we need something along the lines of what is being proposed at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy so that well-intended editors may make their contributions without persistent interruption and edit conflicts from vandals. Hall Monitor 19:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thank you for reverting the vandalism to my main user page. [1] It was so far buried in my watchlist I hadn't noticed. Hall Monitor 19:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hello, Splash. This is Chad again. I hope you don't mind, but I had a quick question in regards to the "Japanese Journal of Religious Studies" article. Instead of going through the undeletion process, is it permittable to rewrite the entire article in my own words, not including verbatim text from the copyrighted website of the same project, and post it as an original article? Would you recommend this? Thank you so much for your time! Jb05-crd 02:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it. Thank you!!! Jb05-crd 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarkets AfD

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermarkets, did you mean to write "No consensus" instead of "delete"? After all, you removed the AfD tag from List of supermarkets and it is not deleted yet. Kusma (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Apologies; I correct my closure note. -Splash^talk 03:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a tease, aren't you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:$ Splash^talk 03:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT

What's that mean? ;-) The Land 13:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Splash, for supporting me without thinking it over! ;-) I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio policy

I posted a comment about copyvios on Wikipedia talk:Pure wiki deletion system#Copyvios, arguing for hard deleted with respect to these because otherwise we may be used to circumvent copyright protection. The point was raised that blanking is widely used to counteract copyright infringement, despite the possibility of circumvention.

I don't know much about the way the wind blows amongst admins on this matter, and you've always struck me as someone who takes these matters seriously, so I'd welcome your contribution. --- Charles Stewart 23:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped off message. I haven't thought very deeply about PWDS, so I deliberately didn't comment very widely. -Splash^talk 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your comments were very interesting for me, and I think useful for the discussion there. --- Charles Stewart 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treigloffobia

Hi Splash, I just wanted to thank you for your conclusion on the AfD vote of the article Treigloffobia. I was afraid the result would be a "No consensus" and the article would be kept, because too few people took the time to vote on it, while it's an obvious thing to delete. Thanks. -- Ze miguel 09:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could thos be speedied?

They were made by someone for Template:Infobox Movie, but I have changed to more generic form of Template:Infobox Movie/row1 and Template:Infobox Movie/row2 _→AzaToth 12:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Greetings, Splash:

As you may already be aware, my RFA was successful, and squeaked by with a final tally of 46/13/2. I would like to express my appreciation for your participation in my RFA, even though you voted oppose. I consider your stated reasons for opposing the vote to be thoughtful and well-spoken, and I will strive to conduct myself in such a manner that you will never regret the success of my RFA. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Your comment [2] edit conflicted with my follow up to the set deadline. It appears that there is a strong consensus for this implementation so I felt a one week deadline should be established for this poll to keep things moving. If you would like to remove your comment, please feel free to remove mine as well to avoid confusion in this discussion. Hall Monitor 18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Semi protection

'Lo mate, replied here. Blackcap (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Treigloffobia insufficient votes

Hi. I know that you have already deleted this, but I think that with 2 deletes and 1 keep, that's not enough to make a consensus. The article had already been improved, and I think that it should have been given more time, and been relisted on the AFD page to try to reach a consensus. I know that I voted delete on this one myself, hence you agreed with me, but I really think that that is irrelevant. I was also interested in the last comment by the author of the page, and would have been interested in seeing the new page. Is it possible for you to independently decide to relist it rather than going through the messy undeletion process? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genomeceutical insufficient votes

Whilst I guess this one is a bit more reasonable, with 2/0 in favour of keep, I still think that we needed more to form a definite consensus. Or is that within the discretionary powers of the closer? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forest_dweller insufficient votes

I am sensing a pattern here... lol. Sorry. Tell me if you hate me going through and checking all the AFDs. Its just something I've been doing lately. Other admins have appreciated my little notes, so I hope you don't mind. This one was 2/1 in favour of keep. IMO should have been relisted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikko_Välimäki comments

I just thought I'd point out that this one was 7k/8d, and I wasn't the first person who noted the original vote for deletion. No consensus was the right option, and I thought pretty obvious with 7/8. Why make a note about me? I also noted on Hellogoodbye you said "See deletion review does work". LOL. Hope you are okay. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird honor

I have today named my new pet fish Splash Jr., in your honor. :) Lest you worry that my wiki-crush on you is becoming too intense, I hasten to add that it is an excellent fish name; the death of my former fish, the ironically named Fluffy, leaves me thinking that appropriate names are perhaps less ominous. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your deletions...

hello there Splash, I see that you have deleted this one image Image:Reichskrone Schatzkammer.jpg, maybe because it existed in the Commons already, did you want to free up some space?

I uploaded that image once way in the beginning when I started, that was before I became aware of the commons. I have another image uploaded "twice" if you will, Image:Krone Kaiser Rudolf II Kaisertum Österreich.jpg, which exists in the commons with the exact same name [3], is there also a need to do something about that? Please be careful though that the current image in the en. Wikipedia is linked to many many articles, if this one will be deleted, does it get replaced automatically by the one from the commons? Better not to make a horrible mess... looking forward to your reply, cheers. Gryffindor 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok, thanks for your message, very complicated. Alright, no I did not create the image, I took it initially from German Wikipedia and uploaded it into the English version. I noticed the the history was missing from the german file, I just added it on. Later I discovered the Commons, therefore loaded it there. So I guess in this case, better not do anything considering someone else took that picture, right, you said the system will do it automatically? The license status is identical to the one it showed in the German wikipedia though, so I hope I didn't do anything wrong...?-( Gryffindor 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasine Church

I don't understand your question. The discussion is to whether the new, redirected-to article should be kept or not, as it is a dupe of the original, AFD'd page, which had no references. The new article has references, at least one of which seems valid, that's why I think it should be kept. Am I missing something? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. The discussion is not very clear. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion graphs and derivatives

Well, the article looks very good right now! Thanks for the help. I actually was starting to lose confidence in Wiki, but seeing how the article went from an anonymous request to a very decent article in just a few hours made me a believer again. Well, I'm off to study for a Physics exam in about 12 hours, but thanks again! Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Form of Preaching

I speedy kept this article as it's on a relatively well known subject and is obviously not even remotely deletable. The source problems can be fixed by any editor with access to a reasonably well stocked university library. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We get that you don't want things deleted, already. But people still get to discuss it. I suppose WP:NOR is strictly optional anyway. -Splash^talk 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if this were reopened, as I'd like to comment. I ask you, Splash, to do so; but, if you feel disinclined, I will be BOLD and do it myself. I'm no admin, but "adminship is no big deal", and an admin who acts out of process isn't acting as an admin anyway, is he? Xoloz 04:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did the revert myself. I will make a comment in a day or so in the debate, well within my right. I suggest we treat future faulty closes as bad-faith vandalism, and revert without regard to 3RR, under the doctrine of Ignore All Rules. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sandifer reverted me, and I him. While 3RR is a very important rule, consensus is a more important one. IAR, some say, exists for situations just like this. If necessary, I will revert to keep the article open until 15 December, or until I am prevented from doing so by admin blocking power. I believe, incidentally, that it is Mr. Sidaway who has broken WP:POINT by speedy keeping out of process, so I equally believe that my reversion(s) enforce that policy, and don't violate it. Xoloz 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could trouble you to answer my question on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Form_of_Preaching (2nd_nomination), cheers Pete.Hurd 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I was hoping that once you made your comment about David Gerard, you would realize that it was inappropriate on that page. Apparently I was wrong. -- DS1953 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right (or so my mother always told me when I wanted to pound on one of my brothers for what I undoubtedly believed to be a valid reason), but I agree that both comments were inappropriate for the DRV page and if I was going to stick my nose in, I should have deleted the pair. -- DS1953 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help page

No it was not an accident i wanted to create a page where people can learn in an easy way how to use the open source code. Can you please help me to build this article. User:Studentmrb

hello Splash

Please, when you can check User_talk:Matia.gr#Translation_needed. Should we (after I translate it) re-write it to avoid the copy-vio? Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 11:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if one takes a literal interpretation of the current WP:NOT guideline, the captions that go along with the images would mean the gallery does not qualify as the kind of article specifically prohibited. Whether one wants a keep or delete outcome to the AfD, the current wording of WP:NOT is unsatisfactory. --- Charles Stewart 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

look

Check out the Daniel Brandt page if you havn't yet. A real treat. jucifer 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crikey me! -Splash^talk 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Template:Badbio

Good evening, Splash. I just saw your edit to the template. Please see Template talk:Badbio for my thoughts. I thought about it for a bit and reverted your edit but it's a close judgment call in my opinion. I don't feel strongly about it and won't revert it back if you disagree with my reasoning. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the talk page. Perhaps some form of words indicating the possible problem is all that is needed. -Splash^talk 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Motion graphs and derivatives, which you recently helped with, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I'm pretty sure I can (I made the image from scratch on Paint), but we probably should wait until it is off the main page, though... Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have it ready now. Would there be any policy violations if I upload the image over the protected one? Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've uploaded a new image now. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I went rogue on that one... ;) But hey, thanks for the help! It's my first article on the Main Page... :) Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of logo for policies

Hi Splash,

I understand that my graphical abilities are far from the best, but I think it would be useful to include logos on commonly-used templates, such as the Policy template.

If you are good at logo-making, could you please create a logo for policies (as well as replacement logos for style guides and other logos I uploaded)? Elvarg 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article validation

(Following your WP:VP talk comment) This is something I've been thinking about a bit over the past few months, and more recently since Raph Levien posted this. I'me quite convinced that he is right when he says that the kind of trust metric he has devised can help WP with article validation. I'm wondering if you might be interested in help me put together a case for this that might convince wikipedians who matter? You don't need to be persuaded the idea is correct, only that it just maybe contains some useful ideas. --- Charles Stewart 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the very interesting information. I was familiar with the article validation proposal: they are aware of trust metrics, but they don't seem to grasp how important attack resistance is for the kind of trust issues WP deals with. I couldn't find the WP:AN (with or without /I) story you mentioned, though on WP:VP it was mentioned there was some discussion of a forthcoming feature on the Wikitech-l mailinglist. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case against CarlHewitt

Hello. I think I should let you know out of courtesy that I used one of your edits as evidence in the arbitration case against Carl Hewitt; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence and search for your name for details. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-il

Can you please look into the incessant reverting being done by user Appleby on the KJI page. There has been a long discussion in the KJI discussion page and he has yet to convince multiple users of his reasoning.

I supported

Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S-P debate

I crossposted your comments to Jimbo's talk page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've seen this, but it's time to tag it with {{policy}}. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Black List

I think that you should be informed that you are on the wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html Black List (in case you didn't already know). I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When unprotecting a page...

...can you make sure you remove it from the protected pages list? Thanks! Dan100 (Talk) 23:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

Splash, please do not unprotect Daniel Brandt again. You've expressed strong views about the redirect, which puts you in violation of the protection policy if you protect or unprotect. Please discuss the issue on the talk page or on AN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Splash, I appreciate that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spash.

I just wanted to apologize for the entire Brandt thing. You're right... it turned into a fiasco. I didn't try trading Wikipedia or anything like that, but I had no idea that it would be met with the opposition that it did have. I posted my apology on WP:AN.

Please forgive me... this is not me in the norm. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thank you for your support. I'm now an administrator (final vote 64-2). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:53, Dec. 17, 2005

Protection policy RfC

Hello - I posted an RfC yesterday regarding violations of WP:PPol on the Daniel Brandt article by SlimVirgin when she protected it. I saw that she also accused you of violating this policy by unprotecting, though WP:PPol does not state the same restrictions for unprotecting that it does for protecting. Please see [4]. Thanks. Rangerdude 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Stanley DRV

Splash, I noted your recent comments in the Deletion review discussion on the Mariah Stanley article. I agree and withdrew my vote. Thanks. ERcheck 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sry

Edit conflict, I was trying to revert back at the same time. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I figured it was just a bot being enthusiastic and you wouldn't mind if I rolled you back too. -Splash^talk

Princeton Consultants

Too bad that AfD didn't get more discussion. You might find it interesting that the article's creator (named User:Princeton) came here just to make that article and hasn't returned: Special:Contributions/Princeton. That makes me feel more confident in the nomination, at least. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting table for you. Related question: When closing AfDs, how do you view "meatpuppet" votes, where the user isn't redlinked but is tagged with a "User's first edit" line? One of my other AfD's has become very contentious, with a flood of first-time editors clogging up the votes. (And, interestingly, no "keep" votes from any user with more than ten edits prior to voting.) It's been a challenge, and I'm curious whether tagging all these mp's was a good approach, and whether I'm right to think that their votes shouldn't count (although their comments should be considered). Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That answers my question. Keep or delete doesn't matter, but ballot-box stuffing should be strongly discouraged, IMO. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't provide more discussion, but I was not sure that it was appropriate for the author to defend his own post. It seemed to me obvious that if I created an article that I assumed the entry was significant. I live in Princeton New Jersey and am associated with Princeton.EDU and often get questions about the company with Princeton.COM. The company I know personally is totally legit, is based in Princeton, but has no relationship to the University. Whether it is "notable" or not is I guess a matter of opinion. It seemed to me that there are a lot of similar companies with entries, and most of the ones that get removed seem to be to be start-ups, phantoms, or bogus. Anyhow, no offense taken, I hope none given. Peace. | User:Princeton 09:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astral music

That seemed like a good candidate to get re-listed to gather some more discussion, as only 2 editors other than myself weighing in so far. Any particular reason you didn't re-list? I'm not trying to complain or anything, just wondering. --W.marsh 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, on closer inspection I see it had been a full 8 days... guess I lost track of time. Nevermind my ramblings. --W.marsh 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Appliance Technical Conference & Exhibition

I can't personally expand every article. Therefore since no one else bothered to do it, the outcome was delete. I think that's what I meant when I voted -- JJay 01:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

: I mentioned it because that particular construction is rather confusing. Expand is obviously a keep-style comment, but you didn't actually say "and delete unless expanded", you just offered delete as another, opposing, option. It would have been clearer had you expanded the article (or phrased differently). On the broader point, I personally think those who say an article should be expanded should do some of the legwork they are mandating. That's just a personal opinion, though. -Splashtalk 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have expanded a bunch of things on AfD lately like Amphitheatre Anglois and United States 2010 Census, plus some of the high school articles. Probably I felt that if someone expanded it, I wouldn't oppose keeping. But you are right, the comment should have been better phrased. -- JJay 01:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD

Greetings:

The text as it stands is confusing and redundant, and no one benefits by having it remain.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's kind of a tautology in the speedy-of-a-previous-speedy situation, wouldn't you say? That is, if the article was speedied appropriately in the previous instance, any substantially identical recreation of that article will, by definition of the phrase "substantially identical", continue to be a violation of the same clause that got the article speedied in the first place. So G4 for articles that haven't gone through an xFD process is just icing on the cake, like the tax stamps that are required for all illegal drugs.

So perhaps G4 should specifically exclude speedy deletes of content that hasn't gone through some xFD process. Just avoid all the beating around the bush and say flat-out "If the page you're thinking of speedying with G4 hasn't gone through some xFD process and been deleted by consensus, you can't delete it under the auspices of G4."

Or would that be undesirable?

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was uselessly oblique earlier. What I meant by "tautology" was simply that G4's can't be speedied because speedies can't be G4'd.

...

Or something like that, at any rate. I promise it made sense to me when I wrote it, though I confess it makes little sense to me now.

In any case, I think we are actually in violent agreement on the issue. I misunderstood the reasoning behind the text before. Now that it has been explained to me, I understand it, and I agree with you conceptually on all your points. Even so, I still think that the criteria could be better served with different phrasing. Though given my brain dribble above, I'm not certain I'm the one who should be rephrasing it. But I'll take a stab at it.

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via one of the deletion discussion pages (AfD, TfD, CfD, IfD, RfD, SfD, and/or MfD). Articles which have never gone through one of these deletion discussion processes cannot be speedied with this criteria. Before deleting a page using this criteria, the admin should check to see if the page has ever been nominated for a non-speedy deletion. The admin should also ensure that the material is substantially identical to previously deleted versions, and not merely a new page covering the same subject.

A smidge wordy. Perhaps it can be tightened up a bit further. But I think the revision above speaks more directly to the issue you're trying to address.

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed wording runs into the same problem I was having when I tried to come up with a coherent phrasing: Someone will argue that Speedy Deletion is a "regular" deletion process. That's why I explictly listed the individual pages. I'm certain there's a way around this particular snag that is more concise than my version but still avoids the "what qualifies as a 'regular' deletion process" problem, but my mind is not coming up with decent alternatives. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, then. How about:

A substantially identical copy, under any title, of a page deleted by one of the regular deletion processes. Pages which have never gone through one of these deletion discussions (i.e. pages which have only ever been speedily deleted) must not be speedied with this criterion.

That puts it out there in an explicit fashion, and removes ambiguity on what qualifies as a "regular deletion process".

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now what? =)

→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other news...

I have proposed a rather substantial change to the current WP:RFD page. I would be interested in your thoughts. You can find my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion, at or near the bottom of the page.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Well, there's several changes but nearly all of them were discussed on the talk page. But we can always discuss more, that's no problem. Most of them are common sense anyway. However, I do object to your reverting something that was put to a formal proposal and got obvious consensual support in there. If you wish to tweak the wording, go right ahead. R adiant _>|< 23:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, "organizations" is a poor choice of wording on my part. Note that the CSDs were the regular target of small modifications for at least a year, usually by adding comments or caveats, or by modifying the example for "attack pages"; it's one of our most heavily edited policy page. My initial response (not quite related to Kim's comments, which I don't see as entirely appropriate) was to clear out all unnecessary additions. Radiant_>|< 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you object to resetting gradual minor changes, I'll name some specific minor changes that you reverted... the to/form WikiCommons issue was discussed on the talk page, and my rewording is how things actually work. At present the "attack page" example is actually an example of patent nonsense. That's inappropriate. The words "reserved for future use" are bureaucratese. And the formatting of "Template:Nothanks-sd" is incorrect (which I fixed and you reverted). And the current version of G4 is wrong because it states that for a redeletion an admin should evaluate the first deletion, whereas in fact he should evaluate the present article. Seems to me you reverted more than you bargained for. R adiant _>|< 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmgrenadier AfD

I'm dropping you this note, as I've seen you are very involved in the AfD, CfD and VfD process. Recently, the article for Sturmgrenadier met with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmgrenadier (2nd nomination). I would appreciate your input on the article and comments on the AfD page, whether you see fit to retain it or delete it. --Habap 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One line summaries

Suggest we discuss the issue at template talk:Guideline one liner. Stevage 23:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godmode lite?

I notice that on an RfAr, you make reference to something called "godmode lite". Other than being barbarously misspelled, what exactly is it? --Calton | Talk 07:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 14:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny?

We kind of started out on opposite sides of the semi protection debate, but now we're echoing each other quite a bit. :) I just hate this assuming the worst stuff. It was just like the idea of time limits and needing 5 admins to continue semi protection and all of that. It's just assuming the worst. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have people proposing major changes to it. It's not even fully live yet! Good grief. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Bug is fixed! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

Sorry didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I'll find somewhere else to highlight the stats. Fuzheado | Talk 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This is ridiculous"

Hi Splash (Superhero),

Mr Gerard has undeleted the Snoop Dog Bootleg/Album now on DRV. Why is there such a profound lack of patience from IAR people? Anyway, someone has marked as CSD already, but I thought I should alert you, and take the opportunity to wish you a happy holiday. Admiringly, Xoloz 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Hi Splash - just wanted to say it's good to see you're still here after my hiatus :). Take care and happy holidays! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sprotecting user talk

You're right, most of those user talk pages can be unprotected, especially those of users for whom the block has expired. I was rushing to change all full protected talk pages for anons to semi-p, which was a no brainer. Those for blocked static IPs who persistently blank their page should probably stay sprotected. Regarding the subst, my Javascripts currently subst all user talk template warnings I issue, but I'll fix that tomorrow. Owen× ☎ 02:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor RfA

Is it okay for the RfA to be taking votes when it isn't posted on the main RfA page? That's why I linked it even though he has yet to accept. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Didn't know the rules had been changed recently. I was wondering why no one posted the RfA since I had seen them posted before without acceptance. Thanks for the info.--Alabamaboy 14:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GWB

Just wondering if you agree with me that it's time to come up with a concrete policy or guideline on the Bush article. I don't think SP and un-SP every few days is the answer. Think it's time for a community wide discussion on it. What do you think? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, me either. I almost wonder if we should make it a proposed policy of some sort. Or. Something. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template if

Hi. Template:if is unused. All existing uses have been migrated and consolidated to template:qif. Besides that template:if is already defunct and serves no purpose any longer. Bluemoose did a hughe bot run to touch all old dependent articles. So there are absolutely no articles depending on template:if any longer. The migration to qif and the bot runs were quite some work. So template:if is ready for deletion. There is nothing left to do. A single example would prove me false. Adrian Buehlmann 13:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk. I can assure you that this template is absolutely defunct in the state it currently is (see the contents of that template, only a text and protected) and thus cannot serve it's original purpose (beeing a logical template). The references on Wikipedia namespace are pure references as such in their function refering to that template. template:if has been the object of much discussion, especially on WP:AUM and the like. It serves no purpose there but that it is referenced to express something about it. I agree that this template is indeed an extremly special one (In fact it was, because it is now semi-death). I understand that you are reluctant to act on it. The only "danger" I can see in deleting is, that someone might go and recreate it, making a link to qif or copy the contents of qif, which both would be a bad thing (especially the linking due to server load). But the poll result was "delete" and I assure you all involved parties have seen that TfD and said what they had to say. qif was needed to phase out if because qif does not support a usage variant which if did. So we needed another name. Otherwise both of them served the same function (providing if then else logic), where qif being the server friendlier (one less template call level). But template if is now defunct whereas qif still works and is still in massive use (32'000+ articles depend on it). Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting template:if but keeping the talk page. That's fine. Adrian Buehlmann 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Romanian

You did right what you did on Anti-Romanian page. He did also something similar to Moldova, Transnistria Moldovan language He was warned one time by Admin user:TSO1D "rv vandalism -Miky stop

" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33437730&oldid=33426842)

He was warned but never stopped his bad behaviour. -- Bonaparte talk 13:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose protection

Last protection was NOT after a "single poor edit". Last protection was after someone created a sockpuppet username that consisted of my home telephone number, evidence of which was then completely removed by other admins to protect my privacy. Discussion here.

Gently, I appreciate your attempt to be helpful, but the story over there is pretty complex. It would be great if you talked to the other admins and got some info before removing their work. Thanks. --Sojambi Pinola 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this page: Special:Undelete/Biff_Rose is only visible to the other admins (which appears to be the case, as I can't access it), I'd consider that enough privacy of my phone number. Works for me....Thanks for your concern, though!

Sorry about reverting the "protect tag" announcement. I was trying to revert everything else, and re-included that by accident. What you said makes sense.

The freezing of anon IP access was an attempt to limit 3RR abuse of the page by sockpuppets of a specific user. This user is refusing to dialogue constructively with the other editors, and continuously inserts the same POV material into the article. I don't know exactly how this technically or "legally" works, and perhaps I am wrong in thinking that such blockage would also prevent the use of phone numbers as usernames. I will look into your advice on how better to deal with the situation. It may simply take more time than I was hoping to have to put into it. Thanks for your input. --Sojambi Pinola 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see the link when signed in. That's OK. That's GOOD, as it's the username, not the content of that edit, that is the problem.

Believe me, these content issues have been thrashed out time and time again, with admins and content experts often dragged into the discussion; many of these disussions are hidden in the archive. Here's an example. and here's another one. It's a question of whether these edits are POV or not, original criticism or not. Rose is a complex artist who certainly plays with edgy material. The issue is one of someone's subjective interpretation of the intent behind that material being presented as fact. The artist in question feels that the statement consists of libel. I took your advice and requested a page protection. Thanks again. --Sojambi Pinola 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've taken a peek at the Biff rose talk page then you certianly have seen the trouble here. sojombi disagrees about the anti semiticism so much that he himself has reverted to breaking the 3RR himself on numerous occassions, even logging in and editing as his anon IP address, adn then logging out and back in as Sojombi and continuing to edit. If even one person views something as anti semitic, then it must be said that there is a critic, however a great number of others have said this about Rose, as well as the racist tag following him throughout the country. it seems that no matter what, unless the article is wrtten solely by sojombi, he will continue to carry on his edit war. i too will not lay down my arms, so to speak until the issues are addressed correctly. I do appreciate your efforts to make the edits come off on a less arbitrary method. and applaud your dilligence making wikipedia a more workable and honest encyclopedia.216.244.0.13

Re: Protecting the FA

Sorry. It seems I have a habit of learning policy and procedure the hard way...

-- Denelson 83 05:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test5

Hi again. I feel that since blocking a user is a very profound action, and since graphics really get the point of a message across, the "block" messages deserve to include a graphic icon as impacting as Image:Octagon-warning.png (which I created, BTW). -- Denelson 83 08:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please see the comment page, I was not trying to offend you. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry that I angered you, can you accept my apology? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. One should generally steer far clear of such comments all the time, and especially in the bear-pit of RfA/B. I mean, it's unlikely that I was going to like the comment, isn't it? I think I will not 'vote' at all in the RfB, since I am unhappy at the extension of the process to non-self-noms, and do not want to lend my support to what I think is not a good idea. Francs2000 is an outstanding editor and admin, and clearly knows how RfBs work, and should not have accepted on that basis; this makes reaching a 'support' conclusion hard

Than you for accepting the apology. Sorry for stating that you weren't the "sunny kid in class." I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but as a joke. I even put this ; ) by the statement to make sure it wasn't mistaken as one. I hope that we can move pass this, and I hope you believe that I sincerely was playing. Francs2000, in my opinion, is more than capable of the job. I presented the idea and he accepted it, and I feel that it was an honor to nominate him, not a basis to oppose him. Sure, several RfBs (and according to your comment, all RfBs with sucess) are self-noms. Self nominations or a request to me aren't much of a difference in this case, especially considering the fact that Francs2000 wanted to nominated himself previously. Thus, I am very convinced that more Wikipedians will support him, as he is probably one of the best here. Furthermore, I think you could be a bureaucrat in 6-12 months. You do very well here, I, however, have little hope of becoming an adm. soon. (Not to say that I want to be one, but I would love to have the extra tools). Again, I hope that you have success in your life, and aren't upset. See you later, cheers and happy editing. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!

My Wiki-Lord,

It warms my heart to see you back tending DRV. :) I hope you had a wonderful holiday; this place always seems a little less sensible in your absence. Now that the Arbcom elections have been delayed until 9 Jan., I don't feel comfortable making my quarterly donation to the Foundation in the ongoing fund drive (why give money when I am unsure if this place is about to become less friendly, eh?); ergo, I was wondering if there is a "Splash fund" to which I might donate in its stead? ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Are you incapable of reading the talk page of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? If you did you would see precisely why the page needs semi-protection right now. It has been under attack for the last two weeks by IPs adding in unsourced, frequently unverifiable claims, including of people with a history for suing people for making such claims. Much of the IP edits have been continually reverted by users who spent their time on the page doing nothing else. And most of the IPs who are doing the editing edit no other pages but that one. They come on, add in teachers/gossip/legally dodgy claims and then go away again, then reappear and do it again and again. (At one stage, 70% of the edits were vandalism, practically all IP editors who visit no other pages.) Try doing some homework next time, and maybe reading the talk page before making stupid reversions without establishing the facts first. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a lot on my mind when I wrote this long message

I only just saw your second post to my talk page; it got obscured by another within the same minute. I'm fine with the thing, don't worry about it. I too think Francs2000 would be fine as a 'crat. But I'm not persuaded that there is a good case for non-self-noms. In RfA, noms are given out a little bit like presents to good editors, and, more importantly, the nominator can have a significant impact on the request. I personally think that RsfB should be able to stand entirely alone on the strength only of the nominee, and not need any cajoling from a nominator. I'm also not sure if I think we need more 'crats at the present moment, and 'cratship is a power I think should be narrowly held. More 'crats produce greater non-uniformity in the process, and takes us in the direction of AfD closures and the problems surrounding those. How narrowly it should be held changes over time, of course, in turn with the expansion of WP:RfA and WP:CHU. Everything together means I'm not sure which way I should go, and so I'll probably not 'go' at all. Which means I won't oppose, either.

I wonder why you think you wouldn't have much hope of a successful RfA any time soon. The prima facie case of account age, edit count and edit distribution looks alright, although I haven't trawled your contribs at all so perhaps there's stuff I don't know. -Splash^talk 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in honestly following WP:NPA is not my forté, (as shown especially when I deal with racism from certain vandals. I tried to contain myself, but I was pretty pissed when I saw my own friend attacked here. I don't vandalize, troll, haven't gotten an any significant edit wars (except when I change information with a cantankerous user that refuses to keep rank articles in a certain format, despite constant revision from several editors, myself included.) I haven't had an RfC or RfAr filed against me, but I am not looking forward to being an admin. here. Even if I become one, I will have to work this article out to be featured until I even consider it. I have really tried to put good work here, but when I think of racism and trolls like 71.139.9.104 and Wareware, it becomes hard to "let it go" and leave a {{test}} template on their pages. A problem that I have seen on Wikipedia in general, is that some editors are allowed to get away with their actions, while others are reprimanded for a sporadic slip of the "civility policies" here. I personally don't agree that a "slip-of-the-tongue" here or there represents incivility, and I think it is NOT a reason to prevent an editor to use useful tools to help them aide Wikipedia. I will apologize for any civility slips that I have had over the past, and I am not going to assert that other slips from people surrounding me and the incivil environment of Wikipedia as a whole is an excuse, but it is unfair. Editors are judged on different bases - especially depending which person decides they have the right to judge them - and even articles are to get in FA status. I have found myself very dismayed to the point of wanting to leave Wikipedia in the past, did so nearly with success in September, but wound up having more edits in October than any other! In November, I didn't think I could do it "cold turkey" so I tried the Nicorette way and tried to "slip off" on my edits, but I came back with an explosion of edits in December. Although I have found myself upset with certain editors, I have actually found the experience of adding free knowledge to a global encyclopedia very rewarding, and this has always lured me back to the project. But users will see my discontent with others as a reason to oppose me - as it may be - so I won't give it the effort of trying to become an admin. until far off. I have actually received several requests to be nominated, but at this point I will simply refuse them, mostly for the part I think that an adm. as Jimbo Wales (it took me until October to remember his name!) states, is "no big deal." And, thus, no reason for me to worry about winning, losing, or having a tie nomination. Let me state that I believe that a few slips are, not acceptable, nice or whatever people may say, but they are natural. Some admins. do get angry and I see them "recommend therapy" or give some type of sarcasm to users, or believe that their "intellect" entitles them to abuse power, and run-over newbies. I know some things I do here that would be of good use for an adm: I do help newbies, and I do revert vandalism. My articles, although I am struggling to get one featured, are better than several one sentenced, ill grammered, and sloppy articles I find by exploring the site. I plan to add citations to the Military history of Mexico articles, get it featured, and then I may consider nominating myself to be an adm. But that'll be in some months, and based on what I have already said: Will I be here 2 years from now? Probably not. I plan to stay, because I do love Wales' philosophy of giving free knowledge to the world. But I know there are other things that I need to do in the real world. To finish of my (very long) message, I want to state that based on my one criterion for being an admin., I would win an RfA. That one criterion is very simple: I vote support if I believe that them being elevated to admin. status would help Wikipedia out. So far, I have only opposed one user on this site based on this criterion, as I feel excessively opposing is rather silly. (Think about it, it negates the rights of already dedicated users to help Wikipedia, while putting too much work on a shortage of admins. that have the necessary tools to combat certain types of vandalism). Someday I plan to become an adm., in the near future, but not in the next few months. In all honesty, I think the 750,000 registered users should be represented by more than only 768 administrators. I think there should be a larger hierarchy of power: the status pro being that of the vandal, IP, the newbie, the editor, the admin., the beaureaucrat, and Jimbo. Something about that system, and especially the three highests levels, seems a bit odd to me, but users who criticize certain aspects of Wikipedia are labeled as "trolls" or "malactors" if they demonstrate against the status pro. Wikipedia also ignores several of its malpractices, as shown in the deletion of Racism in the Wikipedia community, shown here - that should have been moved to Meta, or something, as it describes a fact here. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I was honest, I am not a fan of blocking vandals unless they are persistant. Anyway, it, to me, wasn't so recent. See ya : ) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would not help me, but I had to state the truth to this man. Again, I am sorry. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

I've just had to speedy-delete the bike-stub redirect. Again - and after it was protected from re-creation. What the hell is going on? Is there any particular reason why you decided to restore it, or was it just a whim? The page has been the subject of a bitter battle due to SPUI trying to subvert the process of stub deletion, and it would be nice if you could at least have told WP:SFD that you were considering doing this. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you mention on Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion after the fact that there had been a discussion process on these stubs which were legitimately deleted by SFD. I see, however, no mention that SFD was informed on the process while it was in process, nor any indication that anyone associated with WP:WSS or who is normally a regular voter on SFD knew about the DRV page, except SPUI (see above). Given that - with the exception of SPUI's one objecting voice - the votes were overwhelmingly in favour of deleting these stubs when they were first brought to SFD (by an average margin of around 8-1), I see no reason why they should have been re-created. Had there been mention on WP:SFD or WP:WSS about the proposed re-creation of these stubs, then the comments would no doubt have been similarly overwhelming on DRV. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that you didn't get any inkling at DRV of why some of those things were deleted in the first place, or the history behind it. Take bike-stub, for instance. If "bike" had been an article, it wouldn't have been redirected to cycling, it would have been a disambiguation page. The reason for the deletion of the redirect was that it could have referred to bicycles, to cycling, or to motorbikes. You can't have a stub template that's a disambiguation, so it was seem as being too ambiguous to be a useful redirect. Yet none of that was mentioned at DRV, because no-one involved in stub-sorting or stub template naming was involved in the discussion. All you got was SPUI' side of the argument (SPUI, it should be added, has been blocked at various times recently for deliberate vandalism of WP:WSS work). It was all a very one-sided thing, and even then the votes for undeletion at DRV seem to have only been 8-6 in favour. That should simply result in relisting the items at SFD, and not in automatic overturning of the original deletion decision (which requires a 75% majority, which this simply did not have). Grutness...wha? 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Wow, you seem to be keeping your head down atm. --Doc ^ask? 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Overview of Class Roles in World of Warcraft

Hi there. I was about to close this AfD, but got an edit conflict with you (and then my browser crashed for good measure). At first, I was going to resolve it with no consensus also, but I then decided that a transwiki vote is an implicit vote for deletion, just that someone wants to salvage the information somewhere outside the scope of Wikipedia. The votes were 10 delete, 3 transwiki, 4 keep and 1 merge, which in my view is clear consensus to delete. I'm not going to change the AfD, but thought I should bring this up in the event it may affect your decision. If not, no worries :-) Mind matrix 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, apparently I can't read very well. Never mind then. Mind matrix 23:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie