User talk:Jerry/Archive 3

This user is an adminstrator

Tuesday

26

November
2024

06:31 UTC

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

EditNavigation bar

Home Home

About About

Talk Talk

Logs Logs

Index Index

Tests Tests

E-mail E-mail

“ ...delusional...kangaroo... ”

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

*Question from a user about renaming categories

RE: Categories I initiated the discussion for Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe and Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies as well as later putting them up for deletion, because no one was discussing redirecting them. Can you just delete them? Also, please note the recent actions of the user Suedois, who has been engaged in an uncivil dispute with me. If I had not Afd'd an article which interested him, he would not have repopulated the Hungarian and Bohemian categories (he has been stalking my contributions). Charles 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, no. WP:CFD states: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". Further, WP:CSD#I1 states: "should not be used for categories being discussed on Categories for discussion". So deletion of these cats would be outside of process. Please continue the discussion at CFD, or ask an administrator who has closed recent discussions there to relist it. As for the other editor, I have not investigated what you said, but it sounds like you may wish to refer this issue to WP:AN or WP:RFC, or possibly even WP:AIV, if their edits could be considered vandalism. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) It's already been to AN/I. I think the admin who dealt with it was on her morning shift because she wasn't particularly helpful in the matter. But that's a separate issue. The category was already empty when CFD was started. I got advice from an admin way earlier (like a week or so ago) about these categories and it seems it's led to a confusing situation. Why would they be relisted for discussion though? Discussion has gone nowhere. Can't I just remove the discussion listing since I nominated it and no one has commented? And then remove the tag on the category page? Charles 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) After 5 days, a CFD discussion can be closed as No concensus; not enough participation instead of being relisted. At that point, you could tag the category as empty WP:CSD#C1, and if it remains empty for >4 days, it can be deleted. But if another editor places an article in the category, then you would need to relist it at CFD, and hope for more participation. Do feel free to consult another administrator, particularly one who has recently closed CFD discussions, they may have a different opinion than me, or may see fit to make this case an exception. JERRY talk contribs 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*A request for me to review an article for deletion after changes to the article have been made.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School Hi, I wonder if you would revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School please? The article is still rubbish but an amazing range of sources has been found by DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Hey, you know I am normally all for keeping most schools, but in this case, many of the further reading articles that I checked just trivially mention this specific school. Such articles about the budget for the district, for example. Others are about a field trip location and mention that students came from the school. What I look for in a source being used for notabilty is that the subject of the article is the subject of the source cited. I did not take the time to read each one, so it is possible that the volume of links there is obfuscating some that would meet my criteria. If the list was pared-down to only such references, I would be willing to revisit it. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I wondered about that; thanks for looking. TerriersFan (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*Question from a user about deleting categories

Category:People of former Portuguese colonies Hi, Jerry. I created that category but replaced it with another. In such situations, when it's a self-created category, what's the best way for me to have them deleted? SamEV (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I deleted Category:People of former Portuguese colonies 3 hours ago; do you mean undeleted? Or do you meanCategory:People of the former Portuguese colonies? And if so, why do you want it deleted? JERRY talk contribs 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I didn't check. Yes, I wanted it deleted, as I do others I created but which I then decided I had accidentally misnamed. Do I nominate them for speedy deletion, or is there a different procedure you recommend? SamEV (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I would create the new category pages, depopulate the former categories while populating the new categories. Then once the former categories are empty, I would nominate them for speedy deletion under crtieria WP:CSD#C1. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. No, I don't mean Category:People of the former Portuguese colonies. But I see that the others have either been deleted or tagged already. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Editor expressing objection to denied csd on image.

I Disagree On Image:Realtimecrimecenterofficial.gif he licenses it as his own work. the correct license would be a fair-use license. Of course I'm no expert on licensing Compwhiz II 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) No evidence has been provided, not plausible reason to doubt the veracity of the uploader that this is in fact entirely his own work. If provided with some webpage, or claim by another party that this is their work, then perhaps the tag would be appropriate. Until then I assume good faith. JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, I understand. Sorry About that. Compwhiz II 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Editor expressing objection to denied csd on article talk page.

Speedy delete On Image talk:Tiesto elements of life tour.jpg the only text is "hi. tiesto . i love you. i am from iran," but you said that there was no reason to delete the article. Since this looks like random nonsense to me, I am just curious why? I am not saying that the page shouldn't exist in the future, but for the time being it seems fairly pointless to me. Thanks, Falconusp t c 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I know, but it is a talk page, not an article, and there really is no criteria that requires this comment to be removed. It is harmless, and useless, both. We make a point to not delete user comments on talk pages unless they cause disruption, violate WP:BLP, or otherwise fit criteria requiring removal. JERRY talk contribs 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Alright. Thanks, Falconusp t c 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

** Editor requesting my opinion on a centent dispute related (slightly) to an AfD that I recently closed.

Afd Boostrapping I noticed you got involved in the AfD for Ron Paul legislation. I was wondering if you could provide advice on another Ron Paul related AfD: [39]. The nominator and a few others say that when a subarticle is created and then voted to "delete" on AfD, that the content of that AfD should also be deleted and not allowed to be merged into the main article. In this case, the content details Paul's campaign developments, which are central to the whole article on his presidential campaign (other presidential articles all have a campaign developments section, which means it's supposed to be there). I've already merged the content in question back in (and cleaned it up, too), but several editors (such as tqbf) have threatened to delete it if the AfD ends with a vote of "deletion," which strikes me as counter-productive to making the presidential article a good one. Can you please advise me, or join in on the talk page to help moderate the disagreement? Thanks! Buspar (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Not being very familiar with the subject of the articles in question, I can only speak to the wikipedia processes involved. First, a minor clarification: in the case of the AFD for Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, as closing admin, I determined that the concensus was to keep the article. This determination was based on the number of !votes, the strength of agument, and applicability of policy, guideline, or precedent cited by each comment. At no time did I personally review the article itself or come up with my own reasoning for whether the article should be deleted or not. The closing admin (or non-admin) of an AFD must be an impartial nuetral party. Therefore it would not be correct to say (as you did above) that I got involved in the AfD, (if you meant the actual discussion), as my involvement was limited, as I just stated, to closing the discussion. In the case of the AFD for Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign_developments,_2008, I see that it was closed by a non-admin, User:Zetawoof. In his closing comments, he states it is to be (or already was) merged and redirected to the parent article, Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Non-admin closures are reserved for non-controversial keep closes only, and merge/redirect in-fact both (and combined) are forms of keep. As for non-controversial, this would require further analysis. First of all, let me say that the bolded summary at the beginning of a !vote comment is the least important part there. This is the most widely misunderstood thing about XFD debate closures, imho. The closer must analyze each comment, and make the determination as to whether it is made in good faith, whether the cited reason is applicable and valid, and whether the bolded lead recommendation actually matches the comment. I could show you an example sometime, where every single !vote on an CFD was I agree, but each person actually meant that the recommendation of the nominator should not be done. This gets very tricky sometimes. Other times people say something like "Keep this band is really good and will be famous someday." or "Delete the article contains numerous spelling errors. the likes of which have to be ignored completey by the closer. So in the AFD in question, I see the nominator states that the content should have been in the main article, but then says delete do not merge, which is contrary to the basis of his nom, as he stated it. He seems to say this as an appeal to punish somebody for not doing what he thinks was the right thing to do to begin with. As closing admin, I would dismis his recommendation and only validate his reasoning, which was "The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing". Which so far matches the closing by Zetawoof. Buspar,Southern Texas provide sound precedent and reasonable arguments for merge, although seem to disagree with eachother somewhat; their comments are taken as agreement with my interpretation of the nom, again still ok with Zetawoof's closing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad says not worthy of a separate article; again still ok with Zetawoof's closing. Xdenizen says delete as fancruft, and unexplained comment that does not address the concerns of the nominator, so it is duly ignored. SeanMD80 says merge. Metropolitan90 says delete per nom. But as I explained the nom's statement is interpreted as merge, and so therefore is this one. HelloAnnyong says delete as fancruft and that the parent article contains what is needed. This does not seem to be a vote against merging, but one that clearly does not want a separate article. Once again, Zetawoof's call seems ok here. Wasted Time R says "One campaign article is enough, no need for daughter articles", which is interpreted as merge. Hnsampat makes an invalid comment about WP:NOT#News, and is ignored. Pilotbob says keep, which merge does cover. tqbf basically says that the separate article can't exist, that the parent article should cover the notable content, and that it shuld be edited for quality reasons. Exactly what Zetawoof closed it as. PeteHurd says he agrees with tqbf, Wasted Time R, whose !votes were interpeted as merge, so he is a merge with lower weighting because he did not provide his own arguments. So my determination is the the closing was correct, and non-controversial. The content that gets added to the parent article must be scrutinized in its own right, but can not be blanket thrown out because of the AFD. JERRY talk contribs 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Bunch of thoughts: I thought non-admin closures were reserved for unambiguous "keep". I respect that an experience editor can possibly read a legitimate "merge" from an AfD where the !votes overwhelmingly --- overwhelmingly --- favor delete. I dispute that anyone could call such a read "unambiguous". This AfD should have been closed by an admin. My perception of Zettawoof's close is that it was done because User:Buspar had already merged the content into the main article, thus "mooting" the AfD. To my knowledge, the only thing that moots an AfD is a speedy delete. As a pure, "statutory" process matter, I believe this was handled incorrectly. I caution further: Ron Paul is not the only WP subject that has this problem. Almost the exact same problem occurs with Pokemon cards and, more notoriously, "Family Guy" material. In all these cases, a notable topic becomes an anchor for a constellation of articles about marginalia, which left to fester devolves to WP:OR and fancruft. The logic employed here basically says that nothing can be pruned from WP's coverage of these subjects; a savvy Family Guy fan can simply merge "endangered" content somewhere else, "mooting" the debate. Finally, you've misread the intent of my vote. I probably didn't write it well. Since I contribute to a lot of AfD debates, I'd love to know why my vote was ineffective. I felt I was clear about saying that the content should not be merged. I'm not petulant enough to take this to DRV. My concern WRT Ron Paul is not about the candidacy directly, but rather the problems it's causing for the encyclopedia. The impact of this AfD closure, which resulted in a wholesale merger of content widely considered "cruft" into the main article, has had the effect of damaging an "important" article, for the sake of salvaging content from a marginal one. Too bad, I guess. But I'd like to know what I'm getting wrong about my analysis of this AfD. Thanks in advance for your time. --- tqbf 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I would be glad to review this with you. You said: “ 'Delete' --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- ” Let's examine the part that seems like valid reasoning: of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. It seems that you are saying we need fewer articles for this content... hence a merge argument is assumed. I recognize that you also have concerns about the quality of the content, but that is never an issue for AFD, so it gets ignored. Pre-merge or Post-merge editing can easily fix those concerns. I took your statement on face value that you were concerned about the content having "metastasized into many other articles". Merging fixes that perceived problem. JERRY talk contribs 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Interesting. So, in the future, I should make it clear when I think a "merge" is inappropriate, and provide reasoning for that? If so, lesson learned, and thanks. Exactly. JERRY talk contribs 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) If I can take your time with one further concern; I also wrote: Content that can't possibly make sense without continuous updates (such as a "list of 2008 events" that ends at January 5th) is inherently unencyclopedic: you're writing a newpaper (or worse, an almanac), not an encyclopedia article. I think everyone working in good faith here realizes that even if Jupiter aligns with Pluto and Paul is elected, virtually all of this content will be jettisoned. Let's take it, and the notion that Wikipedia should carry up-to-the-moment news of campaigns, and kill it off while it's easy. Setting aside the caustic tone I used here: is the argument valid? The "main" Paul article already had a summary of notable campaign events; the purpose of this article was to break out the campaign in much finer detail, and was rapidly devolving into an up-to-the-moment news resource citing every (positive) appearance of Paul in the news. My read of a "merge" closure is as an endorsement for this type of content. I feel like I must be misunderstanding some aspect of WP:ISNOT, and in your analysis with Buspar, you specifically called out someone else's appeal to ISNOT#NEWS as invalid. What am I missing? Thanks again for your time. I'm not challenging the closure (again I think it was a mistake for Zettawoof to close, but I concede that an admin closure would have gone the same way). I just want to get better at AfD. --- tqbf 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC) WP:NOT#NEWS is not intended to say that things covered in the news can't go in wikipedia until after a long time has passed. It is just saying that immediate coverage in the news is not by itself evidence of notability. Where the subject is clearly notable, and the event is clearly significant (as was asserted by yourself and several other editors who participated in the AFD), then the notnews does not apply. If there was some particular nuance that did apply, then the person should have explained it... a simply *Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, absent any explanation is to be ignored, if it is contrary to what everyone else said. As for your comment you just copied above... it was too flowery for me to understand what you were getting at. You may choose to write AFD comments such that they would be easily understood by those who know nothing about the actual subject of the article, because normally that is who will be closing the debate. References to Pluto jupiter and jettisoning almanacs was just too much for me to decipher, so it was easy to ignore, especially where you had made a comment I did understand elsewhere in the debate. If I was the closing admin, I may have taken the time to ask what you meant, if the closing was a close call, but don't count on that when AFD has a backlog. JERRY talk contribs 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Good stuff. Extremely helpful. Thank you! --- tqbf 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

** Censored Email correspondence from an anonymous editor with whom I was recently involved in a content dispute at Bocce.

From my email In a message dated 1/5/2008 9:17:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: “ After reviewing the article it is clear that your post was changed, but it was not by me, the anon. It looks like it was done by a different anon. ” One of the benefits of being logged-in is that such an error can't be made. It does not seem plausible what you are saying, however, as your IP address was the same as that used in the comment left before and after the change. Unless you were in some situation where you are using a proxy server, such as at a school or hotel, and somebody near you thought it would be funny to jump in and make the change, but I think you'd have to admit that this is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe.JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) In a message dated 1/6/2008 2:13:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: “ I didn't even realize that it had been changed until you mentioned it. Then I went and looked and sure enough it had been changed. I was doing my editing around a group of friends who thought this whole thing was comical. Today, I went back and asked a few of them what they could have done, and sure enough they admitted to making the change, from a different computer on the same wireless network, when I left the room for a while. Their little joke is not so funny and I have scolded them about it. So I apologize on their behalf; because they surely won't apologize as they think it is all very funny. I wouldn't do that, its not my style. ” Fair enough. While we are communicating somewhat amicably, would you consider working with me to get the Bocce article to a state that we could both live with? For a start I don't mind if any and all references to the bocce.org site are not in the article. However, I feel rather disinclined to yield on the point of the alternate names for the sport, as they are in quite widespread use. Perhaps we could work on a version in an offline location such as Bocce/temp, and see what we can co-create before putting it in the article? Let me know if this sounds agreeable to you.JERRY talk contribs 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) In a message dated 1/5/2008 9:08:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: “ Jerry, First and foremost, I'm not emailing you here to harass you. I am the anon, now user Bocceman. You seem to be more adept at Wiki than me so what do you say we take this to arbitration? Also why lock the page right after you changed it? Initially you are the one who made the controversial change. We should revert the article to the way it was before the controversy started and then lock it for arbitration. Essentially you're doing what you accuse me of; slanting the page to my own view. We disagree, but I made some valid points that others might agree with in arbitration. What do you say? - _Name_Censored_ ” Since I received this message out of chronological order (my spam filter got it) I assume that I don't need to respond, as I have already replied to address your concerns. JERRY talk contribs 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) In a message dated 1/10/2008 1:47:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: “ Jerry, The idea of collaborating on a bocce article is a good one. I know much about bocce; and you seem to know a lot about writing and editing wiki articles. I just need some time to wrap my head around the idea. I'm really busy with life (like everybody), so we would have to take our time. But I imagine this is a lengthy process anyway. The sport is old and the accurate histories and such are often written in French and Italian. ” Great! I look forward to collaborating with you! I am glad we have been able to turn around a conflict into a mutually beneficial outcome without the drama of an official dispute resolution process. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) In a message dated 1/10/2008 8:10:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: “ Ditto! ”

** 2 conversations about J0HNNY; 1 user was blocked, article was speedied and is at AfD.

Why was the article I created J0HNNY deleted Jerry, I dont see why the page J0HNNY is not of significance, it pairs up to what is already on Wikipedia, meaning other artists that have this artist featured. Please explain further what I need to do to get this information that is viable to get posted on wikipedia. get back to me as soon as possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love438 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Please see User:Love438/J0HNNY - I deleted this article because it does not assert the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Please review that, and improve the article in your userspace, if you think it can meet WP:BAND. If you thinki my deletion wass hasty and you think the article clearly does already meet the requirements, please elt me kmow or refer the matter to WP:DELREV. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) You violated the agreement about undeletion of articles by recreating the article in mainspace without addressing the concerns. I have therefore deleted the offline copy. Please do not recreate the article again without addressing the concerns, or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Consider this a FINAL WARNING. JERRY talk contribs 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) thank you for the heads up, and instruction - ok thanks for the speedy reply i will carefully read over what you gave me, wikipedia, has alot of rules and regulations, a bit much to read through but thanks for pointing me in the right direction ill try to get this all coveed so hopefully it goes up the proper way. -Love438 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love438 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) note: the article was recreated again by the user a few minutes later J0HNNY, I won't take it as wheel-warring if you want to delete the article. I give you my permission to do what you want with it. Probably best to leave it to another admin. I have tried clearing it up, but it is bad and sources are lacking. Have fun ;) They call this passing the buck in some countries ;) Woody (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I don't have a real emotional attachment to the article either way. I just don't appreciate an editor abusing my undeletion policy to recreate deleted content, so he has been accordingly blocked. I will not edit or delete the article again. JERRY talk contribs 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Fair enough, the editor does seem to be stretching his luck somewhat. I have added in a couple of "references" for what it is worth. The editor specifically asked for an AFD, so I made one simply to avoid constant deletion and probably salting of the article. (and subsequent aggravation to be honest.) We will let the afd cogs turn and see what comes out of it. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

** Another admin informing me that he undeleted Good Thing and Bad Thing; and my reply.

Good Thing and Bad Thing I restored Good Thing and Bad Thing‎. I don't believe CSD A3 applies in this case. If you disagree, please feel free to nominate it for AfD. - jc37 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I will leave it alone, but I have only rarely seen something less encyclopedic than that. Maybe I just don't get the inside joke associated with it? I see people leaving the comment A BAD THING and A GOOD THING alot lately, so maybe I just have my head in the sand or up my %^&? JERRY talk contribs 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

** Discussion about deletion review for a discussion at AFD that I closed.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria "!Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored." Do you think you could take the trouble to explain why? -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, it's really no trouble at all, Mattinbgn. WP:AFD is the wrong process for content improvement, the correct process is WP:EDIT. There is no need to delete the page history to change the content of the page, unless it is a WP:BLP or WP:CV violation. Any editor may use the edit button without an AFD to improve the article. If the subject was notable enough for a rewritten article, then it is notable, and therefore not a candidate for deletion. So those !votes, you see, were self-contradictory, and therefore ignored. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Disagree and will take to WP:DRV. There is no content in the existing article worth saving, and no reason to believe that anyone is going to rewrite in the immediate future. A delete and rewrite does not mean delete and rewrite immediately, it means this article is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia but there is no prejudice against a rewrite should someone care to do so in the future. Stubbing the article at this stage would leave "North Central Victoria is a region in the northern part of Central Victoria." This would be subject to speedy deletion under criterion A3. Thanks for the prompt explanation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with putting this up at DELREV. I doubt we'd come to some mutual conclusion here. JERRY talk contribs 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of North Central Victoria. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattinbgn\talk 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry for being so short earlier. I must admit I was surprised by the decision and its basis but I should have been a little more civil. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I noticed nothing out of the ordinary, no worries here, mate. I understand your concerns, and now that the article is stubbified, I may even agree with the need to delete it. But the article was not that way at the time of closing, so a WP:CSD#A3 would be my preference over having my closing decision reversed. I would even agree to carrying out said deletion if the delrev were to be withdrawn. offer retracted due to article improvement. JERRY talk contribs 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I think I will withdraw but not for deletion. User:Euryalus has done a sterling job of writing a passable stub. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I just noticed that myself. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

** A discussion about scrolling reference boxes when the reflist is many times the size of the stub.

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School Hi, I notice that you have added a scroll to the reflist of Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School. I have much sympathy with this since I added a similar one to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Unfortunately the policy wonks spotted it and got the policy changed to outlaw it see here. Naturally, I am not going to change anything but thought you might like to know. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC) They have alot of work to do then... see Michael Jackson. I am sure they will change their mind when editors complain that stubs with 28 fully-documented references have 1/2 inch of content and 19 inches of references. But first they will probably try some lame measure to limit the size or number of references, or the full use of the cite web templates for stubs.... an unmanageable task.... then they will decide to tell everyone to use discretion and scroll them again. In the meantime I will let them deal with it, it is their mess. JERRY talk contribs 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

** Follow-up by one of the best wikipedians I know.
Barnstar of Recovery Ha! Thank you. I actually made the edits after you closed the North Central Victoria AfD in which I supported deletion. Seeing as the decision went against me I thought I may as well swallow my pride and improve the article. I still don't think it is viable as a regional descriptor but let's see what can be made of it. Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

** An editor telling me I am correct (about what, I have no idea).
Correctness Whyy Yes you are correct —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoJo15 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

** A question from a new user about notability requirements for websites.

Social networking? To get a site listed in this social network you need to make a contribution as a writer? This site is worth listing as it is a not for profit site trying to do good. http://www.handmessages.com Why do I need help? -A--Pinkpig3144 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)amelia Please have a read over WP:WEB. I think your questions will be answered there. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

** Two amicable requests to discuss my rationale for an AFD closing.

Querying your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics) Hi Jerry, You closed the AfD as no consensus [40]. I believe your decision is not the obvious one. Could you please explain your decision, perhaps on the AfD talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss this before going to DELREV. I do make every attempt to be fair and impartial in my closing decisions. What I saw was one editor state that the article was needing to be deleted, one editor agreed with them, and one editor stated that the article should be merged, citing objections to the criteria raised by the nom. Two other editors then added a merge/redirect, but one of them suggested the reason was that the subject was not notable. So it was a very close call. If all of the merge !votes were counted with equal weight, then the decision would have been merge/redirect, which is a form of keep. Any editor may merge content and redirect one article page to another. But I decided to provide a little less weight to one of the merge/redirect !votes, because his reasoning seemed more akin with a delete vote. So I declared it no concensus. I really don't see what the matter is, though, because no concensus is also a keep, and in no way prevents any editor from merging and redirecting. Basically the one thing that was clear to me was that delete was not the proper outcome, and I had to split hairs to decide exactly which name to give my keep decision. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Just curious as to your thinking behind your close in this debate. Hiding T 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, no problem. Keep, no concensus, and merge are all mostly the same outcome, in that the article history does not need to be deleted, just somebody might have to edit the article to push some content over to another article and make a redirect or stubbify the original. These actions do not require an AFD at all, and when an AFD that originally started as a delete effort ends this way it is really just a way of saying "no, we are not going to delete it". So it is usually not very important to agonize over distinguishing between them, especially if the !vote level was low, especially after a relist, and there was a dead-even split decision about it. The only real thing to worry about is whether to delete or not. On that line, I offer the following: SatyrTN suggested deletion, noting that the article Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION. Hiding T (you) said that there was a suitable merge candidate out there, which is an objection to delete. Kww said Delete. Non-notable, no real-world information, which is an objection to merge. BOZ said Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics) SmokeyJoe said Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics). but then he made a comment that the content was not notable, which is really a delete vote. So I counted 2 deletes, 2 merges, and one delete disguised as a merge/ merge disguised as a delete. I determined that there was not enough concensus to delete the article, and that a "no concensus" close would allow editors to merge and redirect as they see fit. I realize that I could have as easily clsoed as Merge/Redirect, and this may have seemed more proper... but as I explained at the top, this is really the same outcome, a default keep. So since you first suggested it, I would encourage you to do so, as this is in perfect keeping with my closing. JERRY talk contribs 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

** Discussion with another admin about a denied DELREV and I suggested a user renominate a group of articles for deletion since the previous debate was closed out-of-process (same as the DELREV).

DRV There is no way consensus could be determined from that AfD, which was closed very rapidly. So, if you still think the article should/could be deleted by afd, just start another one. ViridaeTalk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I see your point. My concern was that the participation by the editor who provided a rational argument for deletion would be discounted, unless said editor came to the new AFD. I would have just preferred to undo the close and relist the existing discussion, but I could not find any precedent for this being acceptable. But now that you pointed out that it would not be possible to determine outcome concensus from such low participation, and having re-read delrev, I do agree with the closing. Objection withdrawn. JERRY talk contribs 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I figured that was what might have been the issue, but there is not much point in re-opening the afd, because the nom withdrew it. However feel free to contact the person !voting delete and suggest they open a new afd, or participate in one you open. ViridaeTalk 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I will contact the delete participator and suggest he nominate it again and offer my assistance in doing so. I don't have a strong opinion about the article in question, nor enough interest in nor sufficient knowledge of the subject to sponsor an AFD myself. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (CSI) Hello, I have determined that the referenced AFD was closed out-of-process, and I encourage you to create a new nomination. Although the nominator changed his mind and withdrew the nomination, this is not suitable grounds to close the debate, as another editor (you) had already !voted delete, and provided valid rationale to back your !vote. My personal opinion of the remaining !votes there was that they were very weak, and the only policy they cited which had relevance was WP:IAR, which does not often trump clear policy and guidelines for notability. If you decide to renominate these articles but require assistance to do so, please do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. I am here to help! JERRY talk contribs 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I was a bit surprised that the nominator backed down so quickly. I am away for a couple of days and will think about it: it might be worth the effort, to try and establish that WP:NOT#PLOT actually means something, though I flinch rather at the thoght of the eight further series... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

** Question relative to my making a null edit to the questioner's userpage.

Edit Hey, what's up with this edit? --EndlessDan 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and can you please reply on my talk page? Thanks! --EndlessDan 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) RE: null edit to your user page - Your page was transcluded into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. There was no apparent reason why this happeded. Sometimes this can happen if a user accidentally edits one of the templates that you have on your page then subseqeuntly fixes that error. Some pages just get "stuck" in the category. Purging the server cache does not fix the problem, as it is a database error, not a server error. The only fix for it is to perform an edit to the page. In such cases I perform a "null" edit, which means the resulting parsed page does not change, but it does get recompiled. This always works to remove the page from the category. If you look at my edit summary, I usually explain it fairly well; eg: "null edit to remove from candidates for speedy deletion". Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you for clearing that up. --EndlessDan 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) No problemo. JERRY talk contribs 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

** Question about an article I deleted at AfD. These get somewhat discouraging after a while... perhaps this explains the huge backlog at AfD?

When Jonny Met Sharky So you deleted this article for the sake of one day? you can you put it back up as it was. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) No. I think you may misunderstand my involvement in this process. I was the administrator who closed the deletion debate about this article, determined the rough concensus of that discussion, and carried-out the prescribed deletion as per that concensus. This was not done based on my own subjective analysis of the article, or its subject; but rather was based on the assertions and recommendations of those who participated in the debate. If you believe that I incorrectly assessed the rough concensus, you may initiate a deletion review. Also note that I speedy-deleted the article a moment ago, under the criteria Recreated XfD content, as the article still lacks any sources and did not assert notability per WP:N.JERRY talk contribs 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

** 2 Questions about an article I deleted at AfD. One an example on how to ask, the other an example of how NOT to ask. (The latter was ended under my talk page rule #5.)

AfD Closing of the Poker psychology article I read in the deletion policies that I should discuss a closing to an AfD that I disagree with on the closing admin's talk page before taking something to review. I don't understand how a single editor's opinion of redirect constitutes a consensus to redirect when six other editors are of the opinion that the article should be kept. I understand that an AfD isn't a vote, but since only one editor seemed to be of the opinion that a redirect was appropriate, it seems like this outcome is in error. I don't doubt your good intentions, but I'd ask you to reconsider. As it stands now, the stub cannot even be expanded because a redirect has been put in place. And since at least two entire books have been written on the specific subject of psychology in poker, it certainly seems notable enough and covered well enough to warrant expansion. Having read the discussion, I would think the appropriate outcome would be no consensus and a default to keep as a result of that. I've added your talk page to my watchlist so that I'll see your comments when you reply here. Thanks. Rray (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Poker psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD) I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to review my closing decision and for explaining your concerns in a constructive and civil manner. I assure you that I will thoroughly review my decision and provide an explanation, and take remedial action if I feel it is warranted. I do make mistakes, and I want to correct them when I am aware of it. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 12:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC) The nominator used invalid rationale that it was nonsense, and that it had not been edited since 2002. Both statements are both false and not valid deletion criteria. His !vote is nullified. The Billy calls for delete, and explains that it is not nonsense but is unencyclopedic and original research. 2005 initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep. Sirex initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep. Lankiveil calls for delete because it is a short essay from which a proper article can not be created, although he feels the subject is legitamite. Rray calls for stubbification and keep. Uncle G gets angry that people are expecting a valid outcome of an AfD is to direct the closing admin to edit the article in a certain way. He makes a very valid point that all the edits that there appears to be forming concensus for, can all be done by anyone without the need for an AfD. CubeLurker says delete as OR, then changes to neutral after stubbification. .============= at this point the article content is drastically different ================= colonel warden Keep !vote pmedema Keep !vote lessthanclippers Keep !vote sirex Keep !vote TheBilly introduces a new argument and points out that the article appears to be a combination of ideas from three already existing and already sourced articles. PKT calls for delete. Uncle G points out that the new article has sources, and suggests merge. WPSize calls for Redirect. (This implies merge valid content first) Pmedema objects to MErge Surtel says delete, but makes a valid merge comment. Teleomatic says delete, but makes a valid merge comment. Gavin Collins makes an invalid suggestion including request to delete. He is ignored. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So all of the votes at the top were given little or no weight, because they were focussed on article content amd the content changed enough that their points were moot. 4 keep !votes then arrived, but were countered by an overwhelmingly sound suggestion to merge. Only one of these !voters replied in objection. We then get 4 merge !votes, and 1 delete. I determined, based on the arguments made, that several of the !votes for keep and delete would have their concerns met by the proposed merge. That and the fact that half of the existing !votes were directly merge, lead me to conclude that merge was the proper outcome. I do stand by that decision and admit that it is not the most clear-cut of debates. Some of them are tough calls, and this one may well get overturned in DELREV, so I support you if you choose to take it there. JERRY talk contribs 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your explanation. I understand your reasoning better now, but I still disagree with the final outcome. It seems as if it's now impossible to create an article about the subject, although I suppose someone could do an end run and create an article at Psychology of poker. I've never brought anything to a deletion review before, but I think a default keep is a more appropriate and better solution than the redirect that's been done now. At least two entire books have been written on the subject of poker psychology. I'd ask that you change the outcome to no consensus and default to keep with the understanding that I'll work on expanding the article. I only have one of the two books on the subject, but I'll order the other one on Amazon today. I don't think anyone who suggested merge will be unable to live with the outcome of a "no consensus to delete, default keep" outcome. Seems to me that taking this to a deletion review will probably result in an overturn anyway, and you and I probably both have better things to do than playing bureaucracy games together. :) Thanks again for discussing this with me. Rray (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, what you are suggesting does not require a change to the AfD at all. Since merge is a form of keep, as is no concensus. The redirect was made because of an editing decision, for which there was concensus; such an editing concensus does not need to occur at an AfD (as Uncle G went to great effort to emphasize at the AfD). What your suggestion would require, though, would be unprotection. I only protected the article because another editor restored the content to as it was before the AfD, even though my edit summary makes it clear that the action was taken as a result of ther AfD discussion. If this editor disagreed with the closing of the AfD, they should have discussed it with me, as you have. I am willing to make a deal with you, if you agree to it; create the article first in your user space, then once it is at least a satisfactory stub, let me know and I will move it for you across the namespaces, and then unprotect it. Would this be acceptable? JERRY talk contribs 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your note on my talk page today, but I don't have time to mess with it. I still think your actions as the closing admin were incorrect, and I think unprotecting the page so that the article can be worked on is the right thing to do. There was not a clear consensus to merge that article, and I've explained, both in the AfD and on your talk page, that two entire books have been written on the subject. But I don't even have enough time or interest to even bring it to a deletion review. Good luck with your efforts at improving the Wikipedia. I'm taking some time off though. :) Rray (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) It's ok with me that we part company for now, still in peaceful disagreement. I firmly believe that whether my actions were "right" or not, the power is in the hands of the editors to recreate an article and demonstrate that it will not violate the concerns of the closed AFD. This seems a perfectly valid way forward that will not be an inconvenience for anyone concerned. While I do think my actions were right, I also believe it is not important to debate it or prove it, as the recommendation I made is so easy to do, and will certainly result in everyone getting their way. It's an eat cake and still have cake solution. So let them eat cake. JERRY talk contribs 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The wrong way to start a discussion Your action was inappropriate since you ignored consensus and came up with an obtuse solution. Also, please read WP:DRV, "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." I did create a sourced and complete new stub, which will be expanded. You again acted inappropriately in deleting the new article without discussion. Please revert your inappropriate edit and save us any more of this lawyering silliness. The article is properly cited, states its importance, and was supported in a less complete form by a very wide consensus. Please in the future be rspectful of editors and don't create busy work. It's not nice. Please go ahead and revert your edit. If you don't like the article, put it up for AFD if you want, where the consensus again with no doubt support it. 2005 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Rray's comment above is an example that you should aspire to follow, 2005, yours just says I am a big poo-poo head, and I am rather disinclined to give yours a second look. I will look into Rray's concerns and respond accordingly, but yours will be ignored unless you can come up with a nonconfrontational way to restart the discussion. JERRY talk contribs 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Please be civil. No one said you were a poopoo or anything else. What you did however was not nice, and not respectful of the actions of other editors, both in the afd and much more importantly in very inappropriately deleting and locking a perfectly valid, referenced article. You should reflect on that, undo your edits, and then we can move on without further time wasted. 2005 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) You are telling ME to be civil?!?! Now that's a hoot. And then you go and bash in my teeth a second time? Just go away. JERRY talk contribs 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) User Jerry has invoked his talk page rule #5, and ended this thread. Do not continue this thread here.

** Several discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama and the subsequent deletion review.)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama I see only three deletes, one redirect, one neutral, two merges, and two keeps. I think this is no consensus at best. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Aha! But that's why I left the long comment after the closing summary.... there are 5 deletes..... look again.... I could point them out to you, but what fun would that be.... think of it like one of those Where's Waldo games, they are there. JERRY talk contribs 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (nom), Cheeser1, and TheBilly. That's it. Stardust8212 indirectly votes redirect, but also supports merger if sourced (which JoshuaZ claims to have). Even if we count Astroview's redirect vote, it's still basically 4 votes to get rid of the information to 4 votes to keep the information in some form. Torc2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Nope, Stardust8212 says "As such I'd support deleting this in favor of a redirect to the List of page." Which is not an indirect vote to redirect at all... it's a clear delete. Since Torc2 (yes, I realize that's you) struckthrough his/her original keep !vote and added "I'd agree with that." below Stardust8212's comment, it was taken as a delete as well. Probably not what you meant, based on your objection here, but what's an admin to do? It's what you said. JERRY talk contribs 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) "I agree with that" was a response to the portion "Assuming there are sources for such information I think it would likely serve wikipedia better as an introductory section to the "List of..." page." I clearly voted 'neutral. Regardless of whether you do something questionable like count my own vote against the AfD even though I explicitly voted neutral, that's still 6-4, which is clearly no consensus. "What's an admin to do?" Relist the AfD for starters. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I think the correct outcome occurred. If your !vote was neutral, then why are you so vocal about the outcome? Neutral means "I couldn't care less either way". You seem to be ambivalent about your !vote. It's difficult for me to understand that. If you were truly neutral, then why not just walk away from this and not care about the outcome? JERRY talk contribs 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Because I think the outcome was wrong - I don't think I need a reason beyond that? I don't see a compelling reason to delete it, but I don't see a real strong reason to vote keep on it either, and I wasn't sure which way it should be merged. I think it should have been kept by default, but I couldn't just cast a vote for "no consensus", and "neutral" doesn't mean "I don't care". I also think the people voting 'delete' are way too strict in their interpretations of the guidelines and essays they cite, and I'm just not swayed by their arguments. That said, I'm speaking up about it because it seems like a clear no-consensus outcome to me. Torc2 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I honestly can't see that logic going very far in a DELREV, it seems like you are more interested in the menutia of process than practicality, and I can't get really caught-up in that right now. Better-worded debate comments and more clearly-stated rationale might have made the outcome of this different, but as a human interpreting what was written there, I think I got it as right as could be expected. When someone says they agree with the comment above it, and the comment above it says delete, I have to ignore the previous time they said they were neutral and count that as a delete. (Truth told, I ignore the neutrals altogether anyway, unless they offer some whole new insight into the discussion, backed solidly by policy). So my decision stands. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I don't typically like to jump into other peoples conversations but in this case... Jerry, your interpretation of my statement was correct. The current version of the article has nothing in it which I would consider useful or meaningful to merge so I saw no reason to redirect or merge what was there thus my statement on the order of deleting and redirecting. I think JoshuaZ's source is good and I was aware of it and chose not to change my !2vote because I think starting from scratch with that source would be a better approach. I guess a redirect with a history isn't so bad but hopefully someone won't decide to just merge the whole kit and kaboodle and call it a "lead". Bleh. Anyway, if I'd known about the DRV I would have endorsed the closure. Stardust8212 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Deletion Review for Robots in Futurama An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robots in Futurama. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Torc2 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama I must respectfully disagree with your close of this AfD. In particular, did you note that there was at least one reliable source that was completely about this topic and that there were others that discussed it to a non-trivial extent? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I did see that, but I also saw the article described as better handled in the list format, which already existed. The article, as such, was redundant, and in article format invited original research. The list seemed like the way to go, according to the participants, with no content to merge.JERRY talk contribs 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Er yes, I don't know if you've taken a look at the article in question, but it appears(I haven't gotten ahold of the whole thing yet. Stupid paywall) to be talking about the cultural implications and crticism from the Robots in Futurama. That's something that can be reasonably in an article Robots in Futurama but not in a list. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Based on that (being new information), I would have no objection to the creation of a new article, which I do not think requires the undeletion of the contribution history (in other words overturning my closure) of the previous one. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)