This is the 27th page of my talkpage archives, dated end-January 2007 to mid-February 2007. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid☎ 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.
Hi. Why did you delete my user page on Jan 16? The information is factual and correct, and I expect, verifiable. I am new to Wiki so this is all rather confusing. I see many pages throughout that have people's personal bios on them, submitted by either they or someone else for them. Please advise. Thanks. Hope the service is treating you well. -- AJ 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
did you think a deletion where the main dispute was how fast the delete should be, might be uncontroversial? how wrong you were (well not very...) might i just ask why not salt as well? thx in advance. ps if you insist on leaving weird instructions for posting on you talk page, we might be more inclined to follow them if you explained why... ⇒ bsnowball 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that your bot does subst-ing work, so I do appreciate some assistance here. Basically I'm doing the housekeeping work of the Esperanza'sMfD/DRV, in which I want to subst and then redirect some templates per the MessedRocker solution, but they are currently transcluded to too many pages for me to do by hand. I've added the request and to-do list here. Thanks in advance! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought the transclusion was already complete, in which I redirected the templates too early...My apologies for the error! I think I'd best leave the redirecting to you. Sorry again! - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem :-). It's all fixed. —Mets501 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you closed the AfD discussion on Chewbacca Defense with an outcome of "keep." I believe this to have been a misreading of the discussion - remove all the people who WP:ILIKEIT and the people who simply state "the sources are reliable" without explaining why, and the consensus is very clearly Merge with Chef Aid. The article as it stands remains in violation of Wikipedia's policy on neologisms, as it still lacks reliable sources about the Chewbacca defense, not sources that simply use it. I invite you to reconsider your decision. Thanks for your time : ) -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry for not signing my comment. It's very early in the morning! - Chardish 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than forcing users to follow your process, why not just get Werdnabot to archive your talk page on a daily basis? This seems needlessly cumbersome. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I went to check out the entire List of Gilmore Girls episodes and it appears the episodes are still in a developing (aka "organic growth") phrase, which also means that episode stubs will be inevitable. I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt and give editors time to do cleanup on the problem articles. To go delete will set a dangerous precedent for some editors to attempt wiping off all the remaining episodes using the same set of arguments, which is not what we want here. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that these articles were only created 2 months ago, I accept your point as to "organic growth" even though I disagree growth is possible. I am especially gratified that you added "and cleanup" (your emphasis :-)) to your close.
I very very very strongly disagree with what you say about "precedent." Wikipedia is not a court, and the topic of each article should be treated on its own. In every case, whether a topic can be given an article depends on the type and quantity of sources that can be found on that topic. If these articles were deleted, it would not "set a precedent" for other episodes articles. Even the page you linked to, WP:AFDP, agrees with me on this point; it emphasizes that "This page is not policy" (their emphasis). In the context of WP:AFDP, "precedent" is just a description of what has happened in past AfD's; it says nothing about what should happen in future AfD's. I would add that there is good reason for you not to fear that there would be a flood of AfD's on episode articles if this AfD were closed as Delete. Take school articles for example. A few months ago, school articles that failed WP:N finally started to get deleted through AfD. Yet there has been no attempt by any editor to "wipe off all the remaining" school articles. I point you to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive.
One last minor point: even if "setting a precedent" were a good reason not to Delete in this case, that could not be a basis for your close, as that argument was not raised in the AfD. If that was part of the basis for your close, you shouldn't have closed it on that basis, you should have added that thought to the bottom of the discussion so it could be debated.
So anyway, thanks for your response, thanks especially to your addition of "and cleanup," and I hope my criticism is well taken. I get the impression you're one of the most level-headed and sensible admins around, so please set me straight if you think I'm wrong somewhere. Pan Dan 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This may not be a good case for deletion review, because I am sure that you read the consensus of the vote correctly. However, looking at the current setup of the involved pages, I would be forced to make the same changes I made previously, and I wish to avoid spinning wheels, so I've come here to ask for help. A summary:
This would seem to have solved the problem. However,
The new disambiguation page was nominated for deletion (why delete a disambiguation page? I still haven't figured this out) and was deleted per the discussion linked above.
I also can't see what the discussion was that was referred to as "consensus" on the talk page of University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) now that that page has been deleted. Please lend a hand in sorting this out! Dekimasuが... 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I went to check out the entire List of Gilmore Girls episodes and it appears the episodes are still in a developing (aka "organic growth") phrase, which also means that episode stubs will be inevitable. I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt and give editors time to do cleanup on the problem articles. To go delete will set a dangerous precedent for some editors to attempt wiping off all the remaining episodes using the same set of arguments, which is not what we want here. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that these articles were only created 2 months ago, I accept your point as to "organic growth" even though I disagree growth is possible. I am especially gratified that you added "and cleanup" (your emphasis :-)) to your close.
I very very very strongly disagree with what you say about "precedent." Wikipedia is not a court, and the topic of each article should be treated on its own. In every case, whether a topic can be given an article depends on the type and quantity of sources that can be found on that topic. If these articles were deleted, it would not "set a precedent" for other episodes articles. Even the page you linked to, WP:AFDP, agrees with me on this point; it emphasizes that "This page is not policy" (their emphasis). In the context of WP:AFDP, "precedent" is just a description of what has happened in past AfD's; it says nothing about what should happen in future AfD's. I would add that there is good reason for you not to fear that there would be a flood of AfD's on episode articles if this AfD were closed as Delete. Take school articles for example. A few months ago, school articles that failed WP:N finally started to get deleted through AfD. Yet there has been no attempt by any editor to "wipe off all the remaining" school articles. I point you to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive.
One last minor point: even if "setting a precedent" were a good reason not to Delete in this case, that could not be a basis for your close, as that argument was not raised in the AfD. If that was part of the basis for your close, you shouldn't have closed it on that basis, you should have added that thought to the bottom of the discussion so it could be debated.
So anyway, thanks for your response, thanks especially to your addition of "and cleanup," and I hope my criticism is well taken. I get the impression you're one of the most level-headed and sensible admins around, so please set me straight if you think I'm wrong somewhere. Pan Dan 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to protest the deletion of the entry on Agel, a new network marketing company, for the following reasons. 1. All entries on companies may be incorrectly presented as "advertisements," if they are not objectively phrased. 2. You may have an issue with network marketing in general, but it is completely legal and many well-established MLM companies are listed. 3. Providing objective descriptions of companies and their products is useful. People do not read Wikipedia for advertising, but for information. 4. A brief scan of this page suggests many protested deletions, including those for noncommercial entries. It may be appropriate to lodge a complaint if some entries are singled out for deletion while similar entries are not. Please explain your rationale. If you wish to communicate you can email me at jcloud [at] ateamnj.com.
The Deletion log says you deleted PocketSensei 14:13, 29 January 2007. When this was proposed, no justification was given. I noted this, and no justification ever showed up on my watchlist. I propose to restore it from the Google cache.
There are hundreds if not thousands of churches listed on Wikipedia and most of them are smaller and less culturally relevant than this church. Are you going to remove all the churches from Wikipedia? What then? Will you then feel better? Please explain your actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wabwab (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading Image:Skynews.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Space_Victory. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 83.245.167.231 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello! You deleted Charles Scripps. The log says A7, but I see a copyvio message about it. Can you check it to see whether the version you deleted was a copyvio or not? Nick37 (talk • contribs) seems to be adding rather a lot of copyvio material lately. Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
Thanks for taking care of the Esperanza DRV undeletions. I realise that that must have been a tedious task.--Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
This goes to Mailer diablo for taking the time to carry out the consensus on WP:DRV/EA. Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you closed this AfD with a result of "consensus is cleanup." I don't understand the usefulness of this decision; we have over 30,000 articles tagged for cleanup right now, so the odds of it attracting attention from editors is slim. Furthermore, the article in its current state still fails WP:V and WP:NOR, which are non-negotiable. Also, this article has been tagged needing sources for 8 months now, and at no time during the AfD discussion did anyone who voted "keep" make any attempt to fix it (besides one person who added a single external link, which is not a reference.) Also, look at the article's talk page: it's been a bad article since February 2006. While cleanup is certainly preferred to deletion, I find it highly unlikely that anyone will clean up the article in its current state: an editor who wants to write a legitimate article will likely start from scratch with reliable sources. Isn't there a statute of limitations on these things? How long do bad articles get to stick around because they "might" be cleaned up? - Chardish 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting heavy abuse off this persistant vandal. User:Andrewbeghou He's keep vandalising my page and creating attack pages. Retiono Virginian 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank You, Mailer diablo/Archive α for your Support!
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.
...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, thanks for approving the message :P. ~ Arjun 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I notice that over the New Year period this article was deleted. Could you let me know how I can access the information that was previously on this page - I would like to grab it and replicate it offsite.
I noticed today that the Steve Pavlina article is still protected from recreation. I don't see any valid reason for this, which I've noted on Talk:Steve_Pavlina. I'd ask the admin who blocked it to revert the block, but he's retired, apparently. Since you performed the initial deletion, I thought you'd be the next person to point this out to. -- Dpark 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure if I currently care enough to go through the deletion review process, but I'll keep it in mind. If I get industrious sometime, I might. Thanks again. -- 74.247.172.202 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious why you deleted my page entitled "Montini Catholic". It says that you listed the reason as an attack page but I did a lot of work to ensure that only facts were presented in the article. All the information presented was completely factual and all the sources were listed (and in perfect MLA form). If you could please respond with an explanation I would appreciate it. This page would be fine. Thank you.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mailer diablo/Archive α" page.
){kind=link}
