Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005
Just wondering if a page can ever be undeleted.
this is in referance to the deleted Charlie Wenzel article.
As i stated in the discussion for deletion, google had no time to index all the pages discussing Charlie Wenzel and in fact still has not. As of today the total google pages indexed now approach 10,000(9,890 to be exact) Google,
What would be an appropriate number to be considered "notable"?
and if in fact it is notable how can the error of it's deletion be rectified.
Todrick 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and explaination... it is appreciated
The entry was deleted from wikionary within 1 hour... mostly because the person who did include it did so in an atacking manner(something i did try to avoid with the wikipedia entry) That was the avenue attempted first, and was the reason I attempted the wikipedia entry forcused on Charlie himself as opposed to the term "Wenzeled". It is quite easy to write what we know about charlie in an objective manner, but rather difficult to explain the term "Wenzeled" without it sounding like an attack on him.
It is tough pill to swallow, there are a lot of people who know the charlie wenzel story but many seem to want to simply attack the guy at every opportunity instead of documenting the story.
As for sticking around here... I have browsed for years, now that I have joined i will likely make some edits here and there.
Thanks again.
Todrick 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings, Splash. This is in regards to a deletion, so I am posting it here. The article "Japanese Journal of Religious Studies" was deleted by administrator RedWolf for a copyright violation. Below is a transcript of a brief discussion with RedWolf about the article.
Splash, I wanted to inform you of this exhange, because it seems that you recommended the article for deletion, and may be interested in what has happened since. Thank you for your time. Jb05-crd 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)I see you've been reverting User 72.136.3.182's vandalism of Louis XIV of France. That user has been targeting that individual all night. I have now imposed a 24 hour block. It is possible that they will reappear and continue the vandalism using a new IP. I'm sure you know it, but if they do impose an immediate block, using the template {{MIPblock}}. That template is designed to tell people that the block is not simply for someone vandalising using that IP but that they have been using multiple IPs for vandalism. FearÉIREANN 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello again... I noticed that you'd tagged this as {{ or-fu-nr}}. Do know where it's copyrighted from? I like this image, and I know that it has virtually no chance of surviving, but I was just wondering if/how you knew so that permission might be gotten. Blackcap (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. EddieSegoura 20:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm moving the category and interwiki stuff from the header to the main CP page. I think they were originally put in the header because they would get in the way of new listings if they were at the bottom of the page. But now that we have daily subpages transcluded onto the CP page, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Coffee 22:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash, I am sorry you didn't approve and I will do all I can to ensure that this opinion you have of me changes. I wasn't trying to dissuade other voices from chiming in, but merely addressing one users sentiments and explaining my actions so they may also understand that I have never intended any malice towards others. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you and I'll do my best.-- MONGO 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura 2 -- Viriditas 09:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I was closing some keeps for the 17th and noticed that List of Catholic scientists was blue-linked despite taking a thumping and being deleted here. It is now a re-direct to List of avowed Christians in science which was created by User:T. Anthony while the AfD debate was on-going. I tagged the re-direct db = G4 and was tempted to do the same with new list as it's presumably a re-creation. However, I cannot view the old content as I'm not an admin--perhaps the new list belongs. User:Mailer diablo closed it initially and I'd contact him but his last edit was a wikivaction note so I went searching for someone else instead. Cheers, Marskell 09:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The new list involves some recreation. of the List of Christian scientists(not the Catholic ones, Catholics are predominating at the moment because I merged stuff from an aborted Jesuit scientists page into it when starting) but it's specifically about scientists who contributed in some way to both religion and science. I also have almost every name sourced and there's in least 6 references listed at the bottom. I hope you allow this one to survive.-- T. Anthony 10:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've had to sit and think fairly hard about this, and am still not sure I have reached the right conclusion. I'm not going to speedily delete the new article. The previous article, whilst incorporated almost entirely in the new one was not substantially identical from a content point of view, includng as it did far fewer entries, no references and little context. On the other hand, AfD is supposed to decide on the topic not tthe article, and the AfD debate Marskell references does do that, and is indeed a thumping delete. On those grounds, it's a borderline speedy since the topic is very plainly the same; the word "avowed" in the title makes a difference by narrowing the scope, but not much of one. Nevertheless, the addition of external material and "reasons for fame" is just enough to keep me from speedying it.
However, I do not think the current version of the 'Avowed' article makes the grade: it includes references but they emphatically do not provide any evidence that the people on the list were avowed Christians. I even clicked a few of the inline links, and the word Christian or Catholic was completely absent from the document. Now clearly, some of the entries on the list were avowed Christians, but there is insufficient hard evidence that all, or probably even most, of them were. I would want to see a little superscript after each and every entry (or an inline link) linking to a reliable source that explicitly says they were an "avowed Christian" or words to that effect. Marksell: you probably have a case for taking this to AfD, and T. Anthony, you probably have a (somewhat weak) case for defending it. Also, T. Anthony, your comment on your talk page reads rather like premeditated recreation of deleted content and nearly made me react by deleting it: you should be aware that, when AfD decides to delete something, it is not for you to think of other titles under which to spirit away the deleted material. You can ask at deletion review to have the decision overturned, but placing the deleted content elsewhere in "substantially identical" form is bad practise. - Splash talk 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
Just wondering--why was my vote here not counted? Can you give me a little background on this?
Thanks in advance! Telestylo 08:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You took part in the discussion over the renaming of this category when I nominated it for renaming on 14th September. I think that everyone agreed that it needed to be renamed, although there wasn't any agreement over what to rename it to. I've nominated it again and I'd be grateful if you could consider my new proposal to rename it Relics attributed to Jesus. Thanks! -- G Rutter 09:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help at User:David Pierce/Metaphysics. Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 14:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
My apostrophies IAR! :-) -- Doc ask? 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Mysekurity, I'm sorry, but this template is actually being used. I've put it on TfD. You might want to userfy it or something. Speedily, if you like. I've removed it from George W. Bush and Muhammad already. This isn't personal, ok? - Splash talk 02:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was a good idea to put a vandalism template on Islam -- I didn't put it up, didn't know it existed, but as soon as I saw it, I thought it was useful. The article is vandalized several times a day. You switched the tag to NPOV. What's POV about the article? The first template was a good idea. The second is a mistake. Explain to those of us who EDIT the article, please. Zora 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash! Thanks for your support on my RfA. I was glad to see your name on there, we don't cross swords so much now but I always find yo a pleasure to deal with. Hope to bump into you again soon, Steve block talk 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi- thank you for asking me about this article. It is the subject of a massive, months-long revert war; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine. JamesF has informed me that the Arbcom should have voted on it by next Monday. If they have not, then Tony Sidaway or I will unprotect the article. As it stands, we have no reason to believe that unprotecting the article will do anything but let Ultramarine keep reverting, so we are leaving it protected until Arbcom finalized the issue. -- Ryan Delaney talk 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Should I push the issue at Sexual slang and use my full 3 reverts? I strenuously believe that the short version is ideally preferably to the long version, but lately I've been trying to tone down on my, uh, antagonistic approach to things. The Literate Engineer 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Last two reverts weren't actually by me or Bend Over. Seems Friday and Daycd got involved. I think everything's going to turn out ok with this article. The Literate Engineer 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[1]. Bend over got himself a new user name, moved the list into List of sexual slang, re-wrote his "letter" with somewhat more concise accusations of vandalism against me and VoiceOfAll (with at least one additional factual inaccuracy: I never moved anything), and sent a copy of it to about 15 people. I want to send the list to AFD ( Sexual slang is fine now, although the "see also" needs to go, obviously), but I'm fairly certain it's still "too soon after the previous AfDs". So, advice? The Literate Engineer 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
One question about the TFD log: when I speedy a template (under G7, G3 or something else), should I add it to the deleted log, or should I just remove it from the TFD page without logging it? There really isn't any discussion to archive in those cases, so I'm not sure... Tito xd( ?!?) 04:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for bashing the disambig page too, saves the extra AFD overhead. In your opinion, would it be unreasonable to propose something like this:
As a qualification for speedy deletion? Lol, in a perfect world maybe? — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Calamity please explain how you came to your conclusion after reading the page, because I read it differently:
As AFAICT only one opinion was to keep and even that was to keep or rename. All the others were to merge or delete and/or redirect. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I know that you don't exactly like me ever since I disagreed with your view point, however if you take another cheap shot at me again I will report you. Paul Cyr 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Oooh! I'm the first to post on this nice clean talk page :-) Anyway, I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk. -- HappyCamper 04:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this article? It states that the subject is fictional, yet claims that he posts on an internet forum under the screen name Wombosi. "Wombosi" was a vanity article by the same author that was deleted. That author has had a couple of other articles deleted, and I just don't trust him, or most of what he's written. I also love the cute little answer he's given on the Talk:Franz Hemingbeck page when I asked if the subject was fact or fiction. Do you think it's worth trying to keep this? Joyous | Talk 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion of my behavior on the bottom section of the talk here? It's always possible that I am the one out of line and that I'm not seeing that, but if you tell me that I'll believe it. - brenneman (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I wanted to know why you reverted my changes to the vandalism-prevention notice on the Gay article. I've added some ideas for how to make the notice more effective to the bottom of that article's talk page. Cheers. Tlogmer 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi I have restored some of this article which was deleted - I think if it is notable enough to a get a wikibook article, than it should get a shorter version here. I don't see why my vote was ignored for 'obvious reasons'. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packages in Java Wikibooks is much more of an obscure site, and unless there is a shorter article here on wikipedia which points to the wikibook article, than it would be as difficult to find as all the rest of the mass of information out there on the internet. Wikipedia is great because it brings all that info together Astrokey44 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete the votes on the Church of Reality or I will point the membership at your talk page. These are votes - leave them alone!!!
I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and offering any sugguestions, comments, or edits you may have? Thanks, Mys e ku rity 12:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. You've recently begun something of a determined course of action to have this article protected. Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly; I was wondering if you were aware of this. It's fundamentally wrong to have our highest profile articles protected, in the same way we never protect the main page article. Most vandalism on GWB is removed in well under a minute, and those in #wikipedia-en-vandalism practically scramble to be the first to revert. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Semi protection instead? - Splash talk 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for leaping right out and threatening an RfC, but perhaps we could discuss the matter rather than opening the page up to more vandals? I was annoyed with your "no point" summary, as if we should simply surrender. I'm not prepared to do that. Yes, protection is to be used as a temporary solution - that can even mean more than 60-90 minutes, even on a high-impact page such as this. Because, yes, the initial vandal flood was stopped - and another one just popped up in its place. -- Golbez 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right on the 3RR stuff - however, I think it is important that people are stopped from making contentious changes to a deletion policy page when there is an open poll on the issue. Surely you agree? Trollderella 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, this might be too little too late, but I thought I'd let you know I've been active in clearing the AfD backlog over the past few days. I've closed a lot of controversial debates (because the backlog is always full of the most controversial ones), so if you want some idea of how I view consensus, you might be interested in reviewing my contributions again. Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to work on old xd deletions and add your pages to the log! Quite unexpected. Thanks again. ∴ here… ♠ 19:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Can be deleted now → Aza Toth 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hiya Splash! Just writing some thank you notes to the (wonderful, and obviously highly intelligent) people who have supported my RfA. Its not done, I might squeak by, but whatever way it turns out, you have my thanks! Good egg, you are! Hamster Sandwich 05:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for containing this vandals apathy... -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Good call on recognizing and blocking this user. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Splash, I do not understand why the above article was judged to be deleted. Ifca 21:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Alkivar. Can I just remind you to tread lightly when deleting images? Three images from Ty Cobb were public domain by virtue of being published in the US in 1923, as the article reveals. Additionally, you left the redlinks to the images in the article, which is unsightly. Always check the "file links" section before deleting an image, and orphan it before deleting it. I've re-uploaded the images. Thanks. - Splash talk 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know it wasn't deliberate (probably an edit conflict) but you removed a comment from WP:AN that I posted here [10]. Careful! :-) -- Ryan Delaney talk 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash, super-admin,
The MfD page is fairly ugly with cluttering old debates. A few from OCTOBER even need closing. Radiant or Titoxd might do it, but they've voted in the things, and I don't know if any other admins visit the joint. Since you're my Wiki-hero, you were the first person I thought to ask to do the dirty work -- is that contradictory, or what? ;) Xoloz 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Reference: Log of deletion votes
Template: Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide
I've removed all references to the template from all articles. The template is now safe to remove. Infinity0 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I voted to Keep it. And by the way, I created it in the first place (I created both of them). I even have it embedded into the top of my talk page for instant access. I was its strongest supporter, but I've learned the hard way that it is too controversial, too prone to edit wars, reversion wars, tag-removal wars, growth problems, and too prone to deletion nomination, and just not worth the effort. It will keep popping up on TfD until they kill it, putting any further time spent on it at great risk. And they certainly will claim that they killed it this time, raising their ire to try again as soon as possible, or to go after it directly. This thing will always remain controversial and counterproductive. So just let it go.
But don't worry, I haven't been idle. There are better alternatives. The template has been listified, see-also-templatified, portalfied, and is currently in the process of being portalfied further in an integrated fashion into a brand new replacement portal. I stepped up efforts to do this after the first TfD, to ensure that the information wasn't lost to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the new Philosophy portal template, which is a simple link box to the Philosophy portal, has been placed on many articles, and doesn't seem to stir up complaints as the Quick Guide template did. The Quick Guide template could be useful to keep for the subject's overview articles, except that it has already been obsoleted by a new type of see-also template, which is seamless, unobtrusive, and easier to edit-in-place. Variations of it are already on some of the overview articles, and haven't received so much as a fuss.
I originally designed the Quick Guide to be part of an overall Integrated Navigation System for Philosophy, but it turned out to be the weakest link, so I have redesigned the system without it in light of the problems associated with it. In contrast, none of the parts of the new system have received significant complaints nor resistance. See the WikiProject:Philosophy talk page for more details on the navigation system. The Quick Guide served its purpose, but now it's time to move on to better implementations -- implementations that don't stir up trouble nor waste time.
Go for it! 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
As I am ever desirous of learning from my mistakes, and as you have expressed concerns over my AfD closures, I would like to ask your opinion of the following:
The articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Aoki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Quirk are slated to be closed. There are only two votes per AfD discussion, but both votes are, essentially, merge/redirect. I have merged the info at Don Aoki and Patrick Quirk (minus a lot of vanity blather in the latter case) into Keynote Systems as suggested by the AfD discussions. Is it kosher for me to now close out the two AfD discussions (assuming they're not already closed by someone else by the time you read this)? Or should I just mention in the discussions that I've merged the articles, and let someone else do the closing? → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
My opposition to your RfA is reluctant and more a request to play around a bit more than anything. - Splash talk 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the wordings because I have seen on a number of occasions miscountings made by administrators who make a quick count of "keep" vs "delete" and miss all of these, either thinking that they are not votes, or else sometimes even thinking that "Do not delete" equates to "delete" because of the word "delete" being there. A recent vote miscounted, when it was actually 19/8 in favour of keep, it gave it 13/11 because of these miscounts, and hence was a "no consensus". I am sure that this is commonly done.
Why do you think that I am doing anything wrong in doing this? I am aiding in making the process fairer. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in here and point out that AfD is not a vote it is a discussion. The admins do not merely count keeps and deletes and decide what happens. Also, just because you feel someone voiced support one way or the other in their comment does not mean that they were willing to go as far as putting a definite keep or delete to it. I often comment on AfDs perhaps with a tone towards keeping or deleting but without wanting to vote. Peyna 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, "tidying up" usually means asthetic things, like properly threading comments, whitespace issues, maybe attributing unsigned comments, etc. Discussions and articles are two different things. Feel free to change wording on articles to improve them, but someone's chosen words in a discussion are their chosen words, and it is not up to you to change them. I would not even recommend correcting spelling, punctuation, etc. If you feel you need to clarify, you can reply with what you think that person intended, but you should not change their words for them. One last thing: Do not delete and keep are not the same thing and different connotative and denotative meanings. Peyna 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay fair enough if you feel this way. In that case, please can you remove the "newbie" tag that you placed, and also revert the reverted edits put in place [11]. Per your logic, such a reversion equates to vandalism. The two are mutually exclusive (i.e. cannot co-exist). Either, he is allowed to revert such a thing and I am allowed to change their wording from "Do not delete" to "Keep" OR it all has to be left as it is. Can't be both.
Whilst it is nice to see you all back up your good friend Splash here, who I note is the 3rd biggest Deletionist on Wikipedia ( Wikipedia:AFD_100_days), the logic and soundness of your arguments in doing so leave a lot to be desired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
already done, left on links list is link residue → Aza Toth 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Wellsir I already tried a little revert here [12].If the person who left the previous edit had an account I could have left them a message to explain the revision. Oh well... Thank you for your support and good counsel from almost my first day here. Once, upon a time, long ago, you slapped me a little on a VfD debate. I think we agreed in the greater part on the article in question (it was deleted), but you pointed out to me that my reasoning wasn't a valid consideration. It prompted me to do some ancillary reading on Wikipedia procedure and protocol, and that is a good thing for any editor to do. So El Splasho (if I may), I can also thank you for that. A cabal, in the sense of WP, of intelligent, reasonable people who make sure that it isn't destroyed as a knowledge base and reference work, is something that I want to join! Do you know where there are any kicking around? I'll buy it a coffee and biscotti and we can sit down and chat for awhile, just me and the cabal, and perhaps we could look longingly into each others eyes and make, you know, a special connection...trade phone numbers...(sighs). I will NOT apologise for my love! :-D I'll be doing a lot of reading at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list for the next few days, and I will try to get in some AfD time as well. Thanks again Splash, I squeaked by, your support went a long way to helping me to help WP! I'm sure I'm up to it. Hamster Sandwich 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You have that in the wrong order. First, I have to say "Who, me?". - Splash talk 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm replying here in an effort to not clutter Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion more than neccessary.
You're right, applying XD6 (my current favorite) is not the way things are most commonly done, at this time. Afd's and speedies are the way things are most commonly done right now. I find XD6 preferable in some cases. I suppose I won't convince you that it's a handy technique, just as you won't convince me that it's not. I disagree, though, that it's not reasonable to do it, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument about why it would matter how long a page stays in that state. I follow harmonious editing principles, and my use of XD6 is a classic example of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, so I don't see the problem. Friday (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 05:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.-- JuanMuslim 1m 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. -- Gmaxwell 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay! But I didn't think the Communist vandal should have a vote! (look at their contribs.) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi--I didn't create an AfD entry for this, I just commented. It doesn't look like you created it, though. There was some sort of glitch when I was editing... did your comment get deleted or something? rodii 03:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know the article is spelt that way, the article states that they spell it that way on purpose. So I don't think that my google search was any worse than yours. :-D Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
When I referred to Wikipedia practice, I did not mean what was written on policy pages, I meant what was actually being done by the Wikipedia community in general. As you know, written policies often deviate from actual practice. By the way, Wikipedia:Image description page, which you cite, does not have a banner stating that it is an official policy. Is this an oversight, or are these simply recommendations? Wikipedia:Fair use has guideline status, but not policy status. I realize that there are legal issues involved here, but I do not think that claiming fair use for screenshots is a particularly novel application or one that requires extensive justification in each individual case. There are many, many Web pages that contain dozens (if not hundreds) of screenshots of specific copyrighted works, often with far less commentary per image than Wikipedia. I am not aware of any of these Web sites being threatened with C&D letters (much less actual lawsuits) for merely displaying screenshots of films or video games. Screenshots are almost always considered fair use, and the templates give justification as needed. In most cases, I will write a short, sentence-length description (see Image:Valentine Pelka.jpg for an example) stating where the image came from and why it is needed. I would prefer to save my loquacity for actual articles. As I stated, the vast majority of fair use screenshots on Wikipedia, including those in very prominent articles, do not contain even the length of justification that I provide, much less the essays that some of the Wikipedia namespace pages unrealistically demand. Firebug 05:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You believe that the icon I put into that template was not appropriate because "there might be nothing wrong with the article". Well, what about if I put a question mark beside the icon? Or should the template just be left as it is? Denelson 83 07:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! You had deleted the Treaty of Sugali on October 9:
"08:05, October 9, 2005 Splash deleted "Treaty of Sugali" (one of a pair of copyvios from http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9062.html on CP >7days)"
I had created the article in question. From the summary, you mention that it was listed on CP. Unfortunately, the copyvio tag was not added to the page. Without the tag on the page an article should not be deleted.
Now the article is NOT a copyvio. It was copied from the Library of Congress site (I had also referenced it). The site unfortunately does not have static html pages (they are generated after a request); so a fixed URL is not possible. The LoC site is a US government site, so is in Public Domain, and matter from the site can be copied verbatim.
I have restored the page. Please be more cautious in the future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005
Just wondering if a page can ever be undeleted.
this is in referance to the deleted Charlie Wenzel article.
As i stated in the discussion for deletion, google had no time to index all the pages discussing Charlie Wenzel and in fact still has not. As of today the total google pages indexed now approach 10,000(9,890 to be exact) Google,
What would be an appropriate number to be considered "notable"?
and if in fact it is notable how can the error of it's deletion be rectified.
Todrick 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and explaination... it is appreciated
The entry was deleted from wikionary within 1 hour... mostly because the person who did include it did so in an atacking manner(something i did try to avoid with the wikipedia entry) That was the avenue attempted first, and was the reason I attempted the wikipedia entry forcused on Charlie himself as opposed to the term "Wenzeled". It is quite easy to write what we know about charlie in an objective manner, but rather difficult to explain the term "Wenzeled" without it sounding like an attack on him.
It is tough pill to swallow, there are a lot of people who know the charlie wenzel story but many seem to want to simply attack the guy at every opportunity instead of documenting the story.
As for sticking around here... I have browsed for years, now that I have joined i will likely make some edits here and there.
Thanks again.
Todrick 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings, Splash. This is in regards to a deletion, so I am posting it here. The article "Japanese Journal of Religious Studies" was deleted by administrator RedWolf for a copyright violation. Below is a transcript of a brief discussion with RedWolf about the article.
Splash, I wanted to inform you of this exhange, because it seems that you recommended the article for deletion, and may be interested in what has happened since. Thank you for your time. Jb05-crd 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)I see you've been reverting User 72.136.3.182's vandalism of Louis XIV of France. That user has been targeting that individual all night. I have now imposed a 24 hour block. It is possible that they will reappear and continue the vandalism using a new IP. I'm sure you know it, but if they do impose an immediate block, using the template {{MIPblock}}. That template is designed to tell people that the block is not simply for someone vandalising using that IP but that they have been using multiple IPs for vandalism. FearÉIREANN 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello again... I noticed that you'd tagged this as {{ or-fu-nr}}. Do know where it's copyrighted from? I like this image, and I know that it has virtually no chance of surviving, but I was just wondering if/how you knew so that permission might be gotten. Blackcap (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. EddieSegoura 20:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm moving the category and interwiki stuff from the header to the main CP page. I think they were originally put in the header because they would get in the way of new listings if they were at the bottom of the page. But now that we have daily subpages transcluded onto the CP page, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Coffee 22:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash, I am sorry you didn't approve and I will do all I can to ensure that this opinion you have of me changes. I wasn't trying to dissuade other voices from chiming in, but merely addressing one users sentiments and explaining my actions so they may also understand that I have never intended any malice towards others. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you and I'll do my best.-- MONGO 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura 2 -- Viriditas 09:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I was closing some keeps for the 17th and noticed that List of Catholic scientists was blue-linked despite taking a thumping and being deleted here. It is now a re-direct to List of avowed Christians in science which was created by User:T. Anthony while the AfD debate was on-going. I tagged the re-direct db = G4 and was tempted to do the same with new list as it's presumably a re-creation. However, I cannot view the old content as I'm not an admin--perhaps the new list belongs. User:Mailer diablo closed it initially and I'd contact him but his last edit was a wikivaction note so I went searching for someone else instead. Cheers, Marskell 09:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The new list involves some recreation. of the List of Christian scientists(not the Catholic ones, Catholics are predominating at the moment because I merged stuff from an aborted Jesuit scientists page into it when starting) but it's specifically about scientists who contributed in some way to both religion and science. I also have almost every name sourced and there's in least 6 references listed at the bottom. I hope you allow this one to survive.-- T. Anthony 10:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've had to sit and think fairly hard about this, and am still not sure I have reached the right conclusion. I'm not going to speedily delete the new article. The previous article, whilst incorporated almost entirely in the new one was not substantially identical from a content point of view, includng as it did far fewer entries, no references and little context. On the other hand, AfD is supposed to decide on the topic not tthe article, and the AfD debate Marskell references does do that, and is indeed a thumping delete. On those grounds, it's a borderline speedy since the topic is very plainly the same; the word "avowed" in the title makes a difference by narrowing the scope, but not much of one. Nevertheless, the addition of external material and "reasons for fame" is just enough to keep me from speedying it.
However, I do not think the current version of the 'Avowed' article makes the grade: it includes references but they emphatically do not provide any evidence that the people on the list were avowed Christians. I even clicked a few of the inline links, and the word Christian or Catholic was completely absent from the document. Now clearly, some of the entries on the list were avowed Christians, but there is insufficient hard evidence that all, or probably even most, of them were. I would want to see a little superscript after each and every entry (or an inline link) linking to a reliable source that explicitly says they were an "avowed Christian" or words to that effect. Marksell: you probably have a case for taking this to AfD, and T. Anthony, you probably have a (somewhat weak) case for defending it. Also, T. Anthony, your comment on your talk page reads rather like premeditated recreation of deleted content and nearly made me react by deleting it: you should be aware that, when AfD decides to delete something, it is not for you to think of other titles under which to spirit away the deleted material. You can ask at deletion review to have the decision overturned, but placing the deleted content elsewhere in "substantially identical" form is bad practise. - Splash talk 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash,
Just wondering--why was my vote here not counted? Can you give me a little background on this?
Thanks in advance! Telestylo 08:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You took part in the discussion over the renaming of this category when I nominated it for renaming on 14th September. I think that everyone agreed that it needed to be renamed, although there wasn't any agreement over what to rename it to. I've nominated it again and I'd be grateful if you could consider my new proposal to rename it Relics attributed to Jesus. Thanks! -- G Rutter 09:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help at User:David Pierce/Metaphysics. Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 14:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
My apostrophies IAR! :-) -- Doc ask? 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Mysekurity, I'm sorry, but this template is actually being used. I've put it on TfD. You might want to userfy it or something. Speedily, if you like. I've removed it from George W. Bush and Muhammad already. This isn't personal, ok? - Splash talk 02:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was a good idea to put a vandalism template on Islam -- I didn't put it up, didn't know it existed, but as soon as I saw it, I thought it was useful. The article is vandalized several times a day. You switched the tag to NPOV. What's POV about the article? The first template was a good idea. The second is a mistake. Explain to those of us who EDIT the article, please. Zora 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash! Thanks for your support on my RfA. I was glad to see your name on there, we don't cross swords so much now but I always find yo a pleasure to deal with. Hope to bump into you again soon, Steve block talk 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi- thank you for asking me about this article. It is the subject of a massive, months-long revert war; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine. JamesF has informed me that the Arbcom should have voted on it by next Monday. If they have not, then Tony Sidaway or I will unprotect the article. As it stands, we have no reason to believe that unprotecting the article will do anything but let Ultramarine keep reverting, so we are leaving it protected until Arbcom finalized the issue. -- Ryan Delaney talk 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Should I push the issue at Sexual slang and use my full 3 reverts? I strenuously believe that the short version is ideally preferably to the long version, but lately I've been trying to tone down on my, uh, antagonistic approach to things. The Literate Engineer 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Last two reverts weren't actually by me or Bend Over. Seems Friday and Daycd got involved. I think everything's going to turn out ok with this article. The Literate Engineer 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[1]. Bend over got himself a new user name, moved the list into List of sexual slang, re-wrote his "letter" with somewhat more concise accusations of vandalism against me and VoiceOfAll (with at least one additional factual inaccuracy: I never moved anything), and sent a copy of it to about 15 people. I want to send the list to AFD ( Sexual slang is fine now, although the "see also" needs to go, obviously), but I'm fairly certain it's still "too soon after the previous AfDs". So, advice? The Literate Engineer 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
One question about the TFD log: when I speedy a template (under G7, G3 or something else), should I add it to the deleted log, or should I just remove it from the TFD page without logging it? There really isn't any discussion to archive in those cases, so I'm not sure... Tito xd( ?!?) 04:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for bashing the disambig page too, saves the extra AFD overhead. In your opinion, would it be unreasonable to propose something like this:
As a qualification for speedy deletion? Lol, in a perfect world maybe? — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Calamity please explain how you came to your conclusion after reading the page, because I read it differently:
As AFAICT only one opinion was to keep and even that was to keep or rename. All the others were to merge or delete and/or redirect. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I know that you don't exactly like me ever since I disagreed with your view point, however if you take another cheap shot at me again I will report you. Paul Cyr 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Oooh! I'm the first to post on this nice clean talk page :-) Anyway, I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk. -- HappyCamper 04:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this article? It states that the subject is fictional, yet claims that he posts on an internet forum under the screen name Wombosi. "Wombosi" was a vanity article by the same author that was deleted. That author has had a couple of other articles deleted, and I just don't trust him, or most of what he's written. I also love the cute little answer he's given on the Talk:Franz Hemingbeck page when I asked if the subject was fact or fiction. Do you think it's worth trying to keep this? Joyous | Talk 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion of my behavior on the bottom section of the talk here? It's always possible that I am the one out of line and that I'm not seeing that, but if you tell me that I'll believe it. - brenneman (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I wanted to know why you reverted my changes to the vandalism-prevention notice on the Gay article. I've added some ideas for how to make the notice more effective to the bottom of that article's talk page. Cheers. Tlogmer 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi I have restored some of this article which was deleted - I think if it is notable enough to a get a wikibook article, than it should get a shorter version here. I don't see why my vote was ignored for 'obvious reasons'. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packages in Java Wikibooks is much more of an obscure site, and unless there is a shorter article here on wikipedia which points to the wikibook article, than it would be as difficult to find as all the rest of the mass of information out there on the internet. Wikipedia is great because it brings all that info together Astrokey44 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete the votes on the Church of Reality or I will point the membership at your talk page. These are votes - leave them alone!!!
I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Splash, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and offering any sugguestions, comments, or edits you may have? Thanks, Mys e ku rity 12:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. You've recently begun something of a determined course of action to have this article protected. Admins have repeatedly unprotected it quite quickly; I was wondering if you were aware of this. It's fundamentally wrong to have our highest profile articles protected, in the same way we never protect the main page article. Most vandalism on GWB is removed in well under a minute, and those in #wikipedia-en-vandalism practically scramble to be the first to revert. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Semi protection instead? - Splash talk 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for leaping right out and threatening an RfC, but perhaps we could discuss the matter rather than opening the page up to more vandals? I was annoyed with your "no point" summary, as if we should simply surrender. I'm not prepared to do that. Yes, protection is to be used as a temporary solution - that can even mean more than 60-90 minutes, even on a high-impact page such as this. Because, yes, the initial vandal flood was stopped - and another one just popped up in its place. -- Golbez 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right on the 3RR stuff - however, I think it is important that people are stopped from making contentious changes to a deletion policy page when there is an open poll on the issue. Surely you agree? Trollderella 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Splash, this might be too little too late, but I thought I'd let you know I've been active in clearing the AfD backlog over the past few days. I've closed a lot of controversial debates (because the backlog is always full of the most controversial ones), so if you want some idea of how I view consensus, you might be interested in reviewing my contributions again. Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to work on old xd deletions and add your pages to the log! Quite unexpected. Thanks again. ∴ here… ♠ 19:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Can be deleted now → Aza Toth 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hiya Splash! Just writing some thank you notes to the (wonderful, and obviously highly intelligent) people who have supported my RfA. Its not done, I might squeak by, but whatever way it turns out, you have my thanks! Good egg, you are! Hamster Sandwich 05:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for containing this vandals apathy... -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Good call on recognizing and blocking this user. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Splash, I do not understand why the above article was judged to be deleted. Ifca 21:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Alkivar. Can I just remind you to tread lightly when deleting images? Three images from Ty Cobb were public domain by virtue of being published in the US in 1923, as the article reveals. Additionally, you left the redlinks to the images in the article, which is unsightly. Always check the "file links" section before deleting an image, and orphan it before deleting it. I've re-uploaded the images. Thanks. - Splash talk 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know it wasn't deliberate (probably an edit conflict) but you removed a comment from WP:AN that I posted here [10]. Careful! :-) -- Ryan Delaney talk 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Splash, super-admin,
The MfD page is fairly ugly with cluttering old debates. A few from OCTOBER even need closing. Radiant or Titoxd might do it, but they've voted in the things, and I don't know if any other admins visit the joint. Since you're my Wiki-hero, you were the first person I thought to ask to do the dirty work -- is that contradictory, or what? ;) Xoloz 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Reference: Log of deletion votes
Template: Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide
I've removed all references to the template from all articles. The template is now safe to remove. Infinity0 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I voted to Keep it. And by the way, I created it in the first place (I created both of them). I even have it embedded into the top of my talk page for instant access. I was its strongest supporter, but I've learned the hard way that it is too controversial, too prone to edit wars, reversion wars, tag-removal wars, growth problems, and too prone to deletion nomination, and just not worth the effort. It will keep popping up on TfD until they kill it, putting any further time spent on it at great risk. And they certainly will claim that they killed it this time, raising their ire to try again as soon as possible, or to go after it directly. This thing will always remain controversial and counterproductive. So just let it go.
But don't worry, I haven't been idle. There are better alternatives. The template has been listified, see-also-templatified, portalfied, and is currently in the process of being portalfied further in an integrated fashion into a brand new replacement portal. I stepped up efforts to do this after the first TfD, to ensure that the information wasn't lost to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the new Philosophy portal template, which is a simple link box to the Philosophy portal, has been placed on many articles, and doesn't seem to stir up complaints as the Quick Guide template did. The Quick Guide template could be useful to keep for the subject's overview articles, except that it has already been obsoleted by a new type of see-also template, which is seamless, unobtrusive, and easier to edit-in-place. Variations of it are already on some of the overview articles, and haven't received so much as a fuss.
I originally designed the Quick Guide to be part of an overall Integrated Navigation System for Philosophy, but it turned out to be the weakest link, so I have redesigned the system without it in light of the problems associated with it. In contrast, none of the parts of the new system have received significant complaints nor resistance. See the WikiProject:Philosophy talk page for more details on the navigation system. The Quick Guide served its purpose, but now it's time to move on to better implementations -- implementations that don't stir up trouble nor waste time.
Go for it! 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
As I am ever desirous of learning from my mistakes, and as you have expressed concerns over my AfD closures, I would like to ask your opinion of the following:
The articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Aoki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Quirk are slated to be closed. There are only two votes per AfD discussion, but both votes are, essentially, merge/redirect. I have merged the info at Don Aoki and Patrick Quirk (minus a lot of vanity blather in the latter case) into Keynote Systems as suggested by the AfD discussions. Is it kosher for me to now close out the two AfD discussions (assuming they're not already closed by someone else by the time you read this)? Or should I just mention in the discussions that I've merged the articles, and let someone else do the closing? → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
My opposition to your RfA is reluctant and more a request to play around a bit more than anything. - Splash talk 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the wordings because I have seen on a number of occasions miscountings made by administrators who make a quick count of "keep" vs "delete" and miss all of these, either thinking that they are not votes, or else sometimes even thinking that "Do not delete" equates to "delete" because of the word "delete" being there. A recent vote miscounted, when it was actually 19/8 in favour of keep, it gave it 13/11 because of these miscounts, and hence was a "no consensus". I am sure that this is commonly done.
Why do you think that I am doing anything wrong in doing this? I am aiding in making the process fairer. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in here and point out that AfD is not a vote it is a discussion. The admins do not merely count keeps and deletes and decide what happens. Also, just because you feel someone voiced support one way or the other in their comment does not mean that they were willing to go as far as putting a definite keep or delete to it. I often comment on AfDs perhaps with a tone towards keeping or deleting but without wanting to vote. Peyna 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, "tidying up" usually means asthetic things, like properly threading comments, whitespace issues, maybe attributing unsigned comments, etc. Discussions and articles are two different things. Feel free to change wording on articles to improve them, but someone's chosen words in a discussion are their chosen words, and it is not up to you to change them. I would not even recommend correcting spelling, punctuation, etc. If you feel you need to clarify, you can reply with what you think that person intended, but you should not change their words for them. One last thing: Do not delete and keep are not the same thing and different connotative and denotative meanings. Peyna 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay fair enough if you feel this way. In that case, please can you remove the "newbie" tag that you placed, and also revert the reverted edits put in place [11]. Per your logic, such a reversion equates to vandalism. The two are mutually exclusive (i.e. cannot co-exist). Either, he is allowed to revert such a thing and I am allowed to change their wording from "Do not delete" to "Keep" OR it all has to be left as it is. Can't be both.
Whilst it is nice to see you all back up your good friend Splash here, who I note is the 3rd biggest Deletionist on Wikipedia ( Wikipedia:AFD_100_days), the logic and soundness of your arguments in doing so leave a lot to be desired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
already done, left on links list is link residue → Aza Toth 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Wellsir I already tried a little revert here [12].If the person who left the previous edit had an account I could have left them a message to explain the revision. Oh well... Thank you for your support and good counsel from almost my first day here. Once, upon a time, long ago, you slapped me a little on a VfD debate. I think we agreed in the greater part on the article in question (it was deleted), but you pointed out to me that my reasoning wasn't a valid consideration. It prompted me to do some ancillary reading on Wikipedia procedure and protocol, and that is a good thing for any editor to do. So El Splasho (if I may), I can also thank you for that. A cabal, in the sense of WP, of intelligent, reasonable people who make sure that it isn't destroyed as a knowledge base and reference work, is something that I want to join! Do you know where there are any kicking around? I'll buy it a coffee and biscotti and we can sit down and chat for awhile, just me and the cabal, and perhaps we could look longingly into each others eyes and make, you know, a special connection...trade phone numbers...(sighs). I will NOT apologise for my love! :-D I'll be doing a lot of reading at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list for the next few days, and I will try to get in some AfD time as well. Thanks again Splash, I squeaked by, your support went a long way to helping me to help WP! I'm sure I'm up to it. Hamster Sandwich 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You have that in the wrong order. First, I have to say "Who, me?". - Splash talk 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm replying here in an effort to not clutter Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion more than neccessary.
You're right, applying XD6 (my current favorite) is not the way things are most commonly done, at this time. Afd's and speedies are the way things are most commonly done right now. I find XD6 preferable in some cases. I suppose I won't convince you that it's a handy technique, just as you won't convince me that it's not. I disagree, though, that it's not reasonable to do it, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument about why it would matter how long a page stays in that state. I follow harmonious editing principles, and my use of XD6 is a classic example of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, so I don't see the problem. Friday (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 05:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns as best as possible. Let me know if you will now change your mind about deleting my personal subpage User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you.-- JuanMuslim 1m 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. -- Gmaxwell 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay! But I didn't think the Communist vandal should have a vote! (look at their contribs.) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi--I didn't create an AfD entry for this, I just commented. It doesn't look like you created it, though. There was some sort of glitch when I was editing... did your comment get deleted or something? rodii 03:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know the article is spelt that way, the article states that they spell it that way on purpose. So I don't think that my google search was any worse than yours. :-D Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
When I referred to Wikipedia practice, I did not mean what was written on policy pages, I meant what was actually being done by the Wikipedia community in general. As you know, written policies often deviate from actual practice. By the way, Wikipedia:Image description page, which you cite, does not have a banner stating that it is an official policy. Is this an oversight, or are these simply recommendations? Wikipedia:Fair use has guideline status, but not policy status. I realize that there are legal issues involved here, but I do not think that claiming fair use for screenshots is a particularly novel application or one that requires extensive justification in each individual case. There are many, many Web pages that contain dozens (if not hundreds) of screenshots of specific copyrighted works, often with far less commentary per image than Wikipedia. I am not aware of any of these Web sites being threatened with C&D letters (much less actual lawsuits) for merely displaying screenshots of films or video games. Screenshots are almost always considered fair use, and the templates give justification as needed. In most cases, I will write a short, sentence-length description (see Image:Valentine Pelka.jpg for an example) stating where the image came from and why it is needed. I would prefer to save my loquacity for actual articles. As I stated, the vast majority of fair use screenshots on Wikipedia, including those in very prominent articles, do not contain even the length of justification that I provide, much less the essays that some of the Wikipedia namespace pages unrealistically demand. Firebug 05:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You believe that the icon I put into that template was not appropriate because "there might be nothing wrong with the article". Well, what about if I put a question mark beside the icon? Or should the template just be left as it is? Denelson 83 07:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! You had deleted the Treaty of Sugali on October 9:
"08:05, October 9, 2005 Splash deleted "Treaty of Sugali" (one of a pair of copyvios from http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9062.html on CP >7days)"
I had created the article in question. From the summary, you mention that it was listed on CP. Unfortunately, the copyvio tag was not added to the page. Without the tag on the page an article should not be deleted.
Now the article is NOT a copyvio. It was copied from the Library of Congress site (I had also referenced it). The site unfortunately does not have static html pages (they are generated after a request); so a fixed URL is not possible. The LoC site is a US government site, so is in Public Domain, and matter from the site can be copied verbatim.
I have restored the page. Please be more cautious in the future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)