This is the 28th page of my talkpage archives, dated mid-February 2007 to end-February 2007. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
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 05:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that the Institute of Ideas page has been removed under the rationale that there is nothing to indicate that it is noteworthy, and that the page contained no external links. While that may have been true of the article, the think tank certainly is notible. As well as their own website, a google search for the term reveals a long profile by gmwatch.com campaigning group, a similar profile by sourcewatch.com, details of a debate organised by the institute sponsored by Pfizer, a major international pharmceutical company, and a long article on the institute on the British Government's Department of Trade and Industry site.
The institute regularly organise depates on scientific and social matters featuring big name speakers. The institute's director, Claire Fox, regularly features on BBC programmes Question Time and The Moral Maze, billed as a representative of the organisation. She has also been profiled in mass-circulation news papers The Times[1] and The Guardian[2]. The internet magazine Spiked[3] is closely linked with the IoI, and together they organised a journalism school for schoochildren, funded by the City of London. The institute is also staunchly opposed by green groups and others on the left, resulting in a number of articles, again in [The Guardian]] [4], by George Monbiot.
The IoI provoked a media storm a few years ago when they defended Gary Glitter's right to download child pornography.
The article certainly needed improving, but the fault lay with the article itself rather than its subject matter. I would be grateful if you review this case, as it will be much easier to work from the existing material than start afresh.FrFintonStack 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Should also point out that this wasn't my page to begin with. I just believe that it's an important and notible subject.FrFintonStack 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please explain on what grounds you deleted the article on the band Fletcher? If you see in the discussion, I was preparing more quotes and references. This was a very speedy deletion and I would say pretty unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banjo666 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
You seem to be making a lot of people unhappy... By deleting all their pages. I can fully understand when things are not 'notable' or just nonsense, but what is very wrong is the fact that you deleted my page just one day after I requested some more time to get my references together. You claim that deletion for 'notability' is one of the slower processes - it seems not.
You seem far too self important, and reading the comments above, you seem completly unjustified removing these peoples articles - in fact it seems you actually enjoy it.
Can you remember this user? User:Andrewbeghou who was abusing me. He's been blocked indefinitely for more attack pages and abuse. Retiono Virginian 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
i am unsure why you removed my holdon tag but left 2 CSD tags on the article (while removeing one of the CSD tags). Did you mean to remove all of the CSD tags? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
note i am not the user who added CSD to the article (that was done by an anon user), i was trying to stop the article from being completely deleted by putting a holdon tag on the article until we arrived at an agreement as to which parts to remove. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
thanks sorry about the confusion.Harlock jds 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you recently deleted my article titled Charles E. Crutchfield III, MD.
The significance of Dr. Crutchfield is that he is the first and only African-American Dermatologist to practice medicine in Minnesota, and one of the few Dermatologists practicing in the United States that specializes in the treatment of ethnic skin disorders.
He is also the co-author of a textbook of dermatology, and as a physician and scientist, has conducted and published important psoriasis research and authored over 150 scientific articles and papers. He is also the publisher of a health related e-zine that has a circulation of 8,000+; hat has been published for two years. Finally, he is an international speaker that is regularly invited by his peers to speak on skin care concerns.
He was the co-host of the Radio Show “Med-Chat” 950 AM, 1996-1999, that was award winning from the American Academy of Dermatology for the promotion of health care in the African-American Community in Minnesota
The content is factual and non-biased. Please comment as to why it was deleted, and what we can do to successfully re-submit or save it. Thank you for your assistance. Rosco Taco Head
You deleted the information about LeRoy Jefferson back in April of 2006. Why? What do you know about him? What did it say?
He is our grandfather and we never had the opportunity to meet him, and are just trying to know more.
Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talia j (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
WHy was Emma's dilemma deleted? and if possible could you send me a copy of the deleted article please? at konga33@yahoo.com
Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.190.183 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I beleive the deletion of the "Kingdom of Drakkar" article was incredibly ludicrous because people deemed it "non-notable". Even if the page hadnt been updated in a long time, which is false btw, the MMORPG Kingdom of Drakkar has a very active community of over 300 players. Being the first MMORPG on the Internet, I think it is as notable as Everquest or World of Warcraft, It has a very significant history and is the longest running RPG on the internet. I believe the article should stay in the wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.6.155 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
It was AfD-ed before. Not much can be done here. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I came accross Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil) that seems to be a recreation of the old article that was deleted by you. While I am considering bringing it to AfD, I was wondering if you could undelete it the proper way before to have the full history? (If you want do re delete it no problem of course :p) -- lucasbfrtalk 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
IP 151.199.193.224 vandalized my userpage. Is there a template for user page vandalism or is the regular warning template used? -Sunshine 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this sounds like a reasonable idea. A couple of thoughts... first, it needs subpages, preferably one per question. This page will become very lengthy. Second, nitpick point, it's worded like "I believe foo ... agree/disagree" which just sounds weird (should be "I believe ... yes/no" or "Foo. agree/disagree"). Third, there's too many questions, imho. Overall it's a good idea but you're asking several wrong questions, or good questions in the wrong way. Imho, of course, but then you did ask :)
Note, by the way, that what I'm saying below are things worth thinking about or things I often see brought up; they are not my personal opinions.
Then, about some questions... "trust in the 'crats" does that mean in general, or the current set of 'crats? It may be worthwhile to add a question that "crats should stand for yearly reconfirmation", something suggested occasionally. "Rfa is not a vote" is not a meaningful question, but boils down to semantics. Rather, you should ask "should RFA be decided by simple vote count (as it is on every other wiki, Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages, and duh discounting for socks) or by interpretation (the way it is now)" Note that whenever closure is not done by simple vote count, it tends to get ugly (e.g. the Carnildo affair).
"Editcountitis is of the past" is asking people whether or not a fact is true. That's pointless. It is blatantly obvious that several people in RFA do use arguments based on edit count. So this matter basically belongs in the same question as "should some !votes be ignored" (which, by the way, needs to point out that ignoring certain kinds of votes encourages the voters to simply lie about their reasoning). It is similarly an obvious fact that "RFA standards have risen as compared to the past" so there's no real point in asking that at all. "I partcipiate in RFA" is also a pointless question; a bot or Durin can give you a list of whomever does so. One problem that RFA does not have is a lack of participants/voters, so asking people why they do or do not vote there is pretty much pointless statistics.
Regarding "how de-adminship is handled" a question would be, what else would you suggest? There's WP:RFDA, and the possibility of mandating admin recall (i.e. if five users, or perhaps five admins, ask, you must RFA again, or something). Note possibility of abuse by trolls or axegrinders, which is a very likely outcome of any recall process. Note that "mandatory yearly reconfirmation" is not going to fly because of the overhead involved, so warn users against re-debating that particular dead horse.
By "adminship is a more like popularity contest" I assume you mean "Requests for Adminship has become a popularity contest". This is also not a particularly useful question, actually, but more useful than those I pointed out above. Some people believe it is, others believe it isn't, and neither side can prove that or actually do something about it.
"I accept an admin-bot" is something we already know, so no need to ask. Per that recent bot RFA (which would have passed if it were not withdrawn), most people do, and several more would support iff the bot is open source. So yes, people support admin bots. Besides, we've had Curpsbot for a while now, and I know at least one other admin who runs a bot on his own account. "Is there room for improvement" is essentially the same question as "I am satisfied with RFA now" as posed above; merge the two.
"Happy with current admin performance" is meaningless. It will just bring out pet peeves like "I hate admin X". The second question (accountability) is far more useful. The workload question is interesting if you ask people for actual solutions rather than saying it's a problem. Asking whether backloads are frequent is once more asking after a fact. We know there's perennial and growing backlogs, and lots of 'em.
"Consensus can be ignored by admins" is a no-brainer; no, they can't, except in cases of overriding policy, and doing otherwise will get you shouted at. No real need in asking that again. "Intermediate layer" is a perennial suggestion that gets put down at least once a month on the village pump, and at any rate not something the devs seem eager to implement. Again, no real point. The IRC question is a valid one, but also one that's not likely to change anything (even if 80% of people say no, that doesn't stop the 20% from doing it anyway).
With respect to the IRC question, a more interesting query might be "admins who are often incivil, on wiki or on IRC, should be demoted". As variant queries, note that several other wikis have rules for instant demotion of admins for (1) wheelwarring, (2) continuing an edit war on a protected page, or (3) inactivity. The latter is a perennial issue here so may not be worth asking since we already know.
Oh yeah. You might want to ask whether the current ~75% standard for RFA is too high/too low/too broad. And you might want to ask whether Wikipedia:Trial adminship is a good idea in principle, or whether people believe that some agency other than the community should decide upon adminship (e.g. let the 'crats pick whomever they like, some people have suggested that). I should also point out that last year's survey was summarily ignored by anyone in a position to do something about it, and therefore had a neglible or total lack of effect. >Radiant< 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, while we're at it, "the community should have a say in who gets oversight / checkuser privs / access to the arbcom mailing list / accses to the admin IRC channel". The powers that be will summarily ignore the outcome of that question, of course, but some people have wanted to ask this. >Radiant< 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks better; let me think on it a bit. I still think it needs subpages. Note that the "current admin performance" question was added to last year's WP:AAP at a slightly later stage by, IIRC, some novice user, and didn't really get any meaningful response. Hm, I'll tweak that, tell me what you think. By the way what is an IR cop? >Radiant< 13:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Should probably clarify that term in the survey then :) >Radiant< 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah - don't use wikilinks in section headers, especially piped links. Because if you edit it, the edit summary doesn't link to the right section, and the page doesn't return there after editing. By the way I believe the 'all-rounder' question is kind of moot. >Radiant< 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And also, the 'what are your main factors' question is more easily decided by parsing a bunch of recent RFA pages for the arguments people use. >Radiant< 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And finally, each and every section needs a line or two explaining what the big deal is (e.g. summarize WP:RECALL rather than forcing people to look it up). Other than that, looks ok to me. Well, and subpaging :) >Radiant< 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Question, I'd say; it's easiest. The sections are somewhat arbitrary anyway. Look at WP:AAP and you'll see that each question got rather lengthy responses. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Apart from CENT, I'd suggest the village pump, RFC/policy, and of course the admin noticeboard. Possibly WP:GO or the recent changes template. >Radiant< 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I object the deletion of the article on 'Nikita Nanos' because I feel the article was created with factual information and with a neutral tone. I would appreciate an explanation of the difference between the article written about Nikita Nanos and the articles written about ‘Angus Reid’ and ‘Allan Gregg’, who are also Canadian pollsters and a part of market research industry.
Please reply with an explanation as to why it was deleted, and what changes need to be made so that I can re-submit my contribution. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nnanos (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Why did you decide to make every question a separate page? Now my watchlist has 20 different pages floating near the top! At least if they weren't named P and Q I'd know which are the interesting one to watch and which not to... :-( (Just a quibble, the survey idea itself is clearly popular). --AnonEMouse(squeak) 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This site was deleted. How do I recover a copy of this?
Information was posted here that was not recorded elsewhere.
Thank you -- bboze@stark.kent.edu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.71.233 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Gee, thanks for deleting that from my user page, pal. WOW! YOU'RE THE BEST! I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!--Sand Squid 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be great if you would put it back. I hate to disturb you. You seem so busy doing what it is you do. Thanks. You are the best of the best.--Sand Squid 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Telepresence-enabled cognitive apprenticeship model of teacher professional development
This is regarding the Cybergrind article that was deleted. First of all, I think that once you get into subgenres and sub-subgenres, any of them can theoretically be picked on and nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, this always seems to happen with metal and punk-related articles. I detect a hint of elitism, as Wikipedia editors seem to think that listeners of such music are all dumb kids anyway and thus any classifications or genres they make up are arbitrary because it's all horrible noise anyway. Added to that you have the subgenre elitists who think that their metal or hardcore subgenre is the only 'true' one and constantly vandalize or nominate the pages of other ones for deletion, which the former group are only too happy to do.
That is what I think hapenned here. The deletion process was extremely slanted. A lot of people weighed in on the first nomination and the result was no consensus. There was no indication on that page that there had been a second nomination, and no one short of Wikipedia experts could have known about it. Thus there were only 3 or 4 opinions represented on the second (and decisive) round of nomination. I have looked at the discussion pages and contributions of the people involved. 2 of them had no knowledge of the subject at all. The other two were strictly metal listeners. Some Grindcore overlaps with death metal, but Cybergrind happens to be at the other end of the spectrum, being closer to punk and indie rock. It seems like they merely encountered a subgenre that they were not familiar with and thus decided it's 'not notable'. If you look through music subgenres you can find plenty of others that are even less vague.
I have no personal stake in this, but as someone who listens to many different types of music, I can honestly tell you that this is a legitimate subgenre with a distinctive sound that is quite separate from that of other grindcore bands. There is a separate article for Indietronica, which is the combination of indie rock with electronica. Cybergrind is the combination of grindcore with electronica. The two genres are distinct enough that merging them would create a new sound, much more so than 'deathgrind' or 'goregrind', both of which have been given more leeway. The other fact is that before the page was deleted, there was a substantial list of bands that fit the description. Now the list is gone, and the bands on their individual pages are described as 'metal' or 'rock', which is completely uninformative.
I am not an expert on Wikipedia processes, so I am not going to keep fighting this. And really, I have no problem with the idea of merging the article into Grindcore. I do have some specific complaints about the way in which it was done, however:
1. The article was fairly short. I don't see why all the information couldn't have been merged into the section of the Grindcore article instead of deleting everything and replacing it with one sentence.
2. There was an accompanying list of cybergrind bands. This list would have been helpful to people interested in the genre, but has now been deleted. If you look at other subgenres of grindcore that were merged into the main article, they have maintainted separate lists that are linked to at the bottom of this page:
See how there's a link for list of goregrind bands and deathgrind bands? The same thing should have been done for cybergrind bands rather than deleting the list and making it lost forever. This is a change that would only take a few seconds to make, but it would have to be done by someone with administrative power. It would be completely in keeping with the merge decision, so I don't think it needs a new review - it's just that the original merge was done half-assedly. I would much appreciate it if you could make this happen.
Yes, I know I can improve it and that it's a wiki. I'm not a complete novice. Did you read my comment? The point was about the deletion of the Cybergrind article and the loss of the information contained in it. I would love to improve the now-merged Cybergrind section of the Grindcore article, but I would need access to the information contained within the protected and deleted article, which I don't have. So I'm asking you to either take the steps I outlined in my previous post yourself, or copy the content onto my talk page so I can make use of it. Thanks.
Thanks, but at one point in the history there should have been an associated article called "list of cybergrind bands" - do you have that by any chance? Thanks again.
I'm not looking to create it, I'm looking to combine it into the existing List of Grindcore Bands. I definitely remember it being there, either as a separate article or as a list within the main article. Could you check the history please? Say, from like 6 months or a year ago.
Dude, they're not. The list I'm referring to included An Albatross and Genghis Tron. I understand if you don't want to take the time to find it, but this is exactly why people should be careful when deleting. I'd happily look for it myself if I had the ability to.
What do you mean you're not allowed? I just want to know what bands were on that list. Why can't you userfy it the same way that you userfied the original article?
Ok, noted. I won't add the redlinked ones into the list, but could I still have them for personal reference?
Hi, you honored the speedy delete of Template:User TV Single Ep per WP:CSD#G7. However. This is a WikiProject userbox. The creator copied it to his own subpage, but this has 1: caused loss of edit history and 2: it's not the correct place. WikiProject boxes generally should be under a /Userbox subpage or the WikiProject in case. Could you please undelete it, so that i can properly move it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
The article I submitted on environmental issues around the festival of Holi was speedily deleted by you. Since this is my first contribution I adont quite understand what was the criteria that it did not fulfill. If you can explain this to me perhap it can be rewritten to be more appropriate to be included in the Wikipedia.
The subject is extremely relevant in India where festivals are causing an enormous amount of pollution in the cities and several people are working towards making festivals environmentally sensitive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shethgutman (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Hiya, I'm rather new at this so bear with me - but from what I can see you deleted the article Continental Wrestling Association after it was tagged for deletion for five days. If I understand correctly it was deleted for lack of notoriety (listed as "P1") only I strongly disagree with that claim, now I don't know the extend of the article but if the article itself is a bit on the short side I'm hoping to add to it. The CWA is actually very well known in wrestling circles, especially if you're a long time fan such as myself. Could you perhaps undelete it? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK 23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a page on Alicia von Sobbe-Grimberg and your reasons were notability. Were you aware that she is a Baroness before you deleted the page on her? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Why did you delete the article Damn Interesting, about the website damninteresting.com? The website itself has no advertising, and generates no revenue besides that which is donated to it. I was not advertising the website. It was founded in Sep of 2005, and is high-volume - why didn't you tap it into alexa.com and check its rankings? It's not too bad compared to other websites which are documented in Wikipedia, if that is any precedent. –Damni 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the greetings and comments! I agree; it's a good idea to built up on our collection of unrefurbished SMRT KHI C151 images before all the trains are gone. I would be happy to help take those photos whenever I get the chance too, or when I am free.
Well, I do have some images of those trains on my hard drive, and would be glad to upload them! However, I guess I have not collected much of the other stuff, such as the safety features et al. Not to worry, I'll try to look out for them the next time I board a C151! For the dynamic in-train system, I'm afraid it has been taken down for further testing. Hope it'll be back up soon.
Oh yes, Happy New Year too! - Advanced 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed you have had my page removed. This is the only message I can find pointing to you :
02:08, 30 December 2006 Mailer diablo (Talk | contribs) deleted "Skitsoy" (Proposed deletion expiring after 5 days (24/12))
sadly I'm not the kind of person who has time to check wikipedia every day, so this page is gone now, and your reasons for doing so with it..
I have gone through great lengths and efforts to make sure the page met all the wikipedia criteria so it's a little discouraging to find that you thought otherwise. I welcome constructive criticism, but simple removing a page doesn't seem like any criticism at all.
Would you be so kind and let me know what your problem with this page was ?
I just read the section "notability concerns" twice. The article met almost all of those criteria. Everything that was summed up there was in the article... Does somebody actually read an article before they stamp "deletion" on it ?
The band is an offspring of what was Belgians biggest metal export act a few years ago, this new project is just getting started and they have already an album out, have performed with many top international acts, have been repeatadly on television shows both in europe and canada, have worked with a multiple grammy awarded producer, and recently won the biggest european rock contest...how does that clash with notability ?
I can understand that if someone from africa reads the article, they don't have a clue who or what this band is and can come up with such a conclusion, but what gives such a person the right to decide upon this ? The article was factual, there were no lies being told, so notability concerns does not hold much water. Isn't the idea of wikipedia to provide information for those who seek it ? So why would deletion of a perfectly reasonable article benefit wikipedia ?
I agree that there is much junk on wikipedia and a cleanup process is needed, but this deletion really baffles me, as do the reasons why.
To answer your question, yes I would like to contest the prod ! - Viskwal 17:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Pray, Why did you delete the article concerning the Jesus College (Oxford) gossip rag that is the Sheepshagger? It is part of my college's history and is very much part of the undergraduate community. Further more the vatican has been made aware of its existence and we are currently awaiting its decision with regard to the renouncement of an oath pertaining to the Sheepshagger so it is something that is not just confined to Jesus College JCR.
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 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear admin. You are one of the admins that deleted one of the around 70 images that became unlinked due to a change in an Infobox. This resulted in many of these images to become orphaned and subsequently deleted because they are not Free images. It took a while before the less experienced authors understood there was a problem and informed more experienced authors to look into the problem. Because these images would not be deleted if the template change had gone without problems, I ask they be undeleted. kindly -- 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
'Ssaims' page "speedy" deleted. Could you explain to me why I have not been allowed, as Wikipedia policy allows, time to edit and add to my page in order to make it worthy of a place on Wikipedia? According to precedence, it is more worthy than some pages on Wikipedia of a place here.
Also, please explain 'importance or significance' of a subject, as these are very subjective terms. In a website that tries to be objective, such subjective terms and conditions are bound to throw up all sorts of problems.
I beg of you to be less hasty when frowning upon an article.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Web 3.0. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Angelo 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Mailer Diablo, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I was so glad to see the traditional "I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve" message! Brightened up my day. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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 β" page.
