Marshal Walker ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

abuse of military outlaw hardware in a public facility (WINDUH) MarsHALwaLker ( talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) contribs) MIL.HUNGRY over the Gogo Dodo is a false credential mafia affiliate not established as MIL authority - fake acting OAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment by deleting admin: Article was a mostly incomprehensible mish-mash of some conspiracy theory, much like this DRV request. While the article was delete under CSD G1, it could have been deleted under CSD G3 as a blatant hoax or CSD A7 as a non-notable biography. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

the article was a legitimate description of the military facade behind wikipedia that is using brain manipulation to distort articles - CSD G1 is a mafia established means of taking down any references to playboy or vegas inter alia , it has no military credibility and there is no military behind WIKIPEDIA the scanning engine which was used to determine terrorist activity is a non-employ of any legitimate military who using false credentials and stolen hardware developed and enterprise for lobbying for more porn and greed - you have a lot of explaining to do for working for that mutt let alone for the CSD G3 which means criminal intent to terrorize a terrorist network (mafia) and CSD A7 which is an actual nuclear detonation code to attempt to detonate any thermal device within the area of the person who submitted the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

rocks and dirt is the mil supervisor faking NATO clearance, there is no nato there never was a legitimate body as such let alone an imposter , "salt if recreated" means turn body into land mine through aerial bacterial weaponry out of FBA nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

thinking that you can backdoor the MIL-SUPREME network with some sort of logic that the FBI is not allowed to administer their own wikipedia page by "cert authority" is going to get you dead real, real, real quick -- ever walk outside at all ? ever ? -- MarsHALwaLker ( talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

better call up NATO-ITALY and ask for a car -- MarsHALwaLker ( talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

three feet away from the pi mainframe you used to control saigon to escalate a nuclear attack against the Network Nefin ? sitting in mil-command complex does not make you a mil man , 2 feet of steel bar wont save you either - and i can sit here where its warm and wait all day for your brain to be harvested and studied for research as to your multiple personality disorder , aside from your having eaten pig penis back in somolia —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Anushka Wirasinha ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

An author page was created for this author in 2008 by someone. It was included in wikipedia as it met notabiity criteria. There were some edits done but poorly done but article remained for 2 yrs till 2010. An unusual email was sent by an unknown source to wiki foundation via an email claiming some issues that were not quite correct but it led to deletion of the article even though there was interest in adding further material and comments by certain users that it had met notability criteria through verifiable sources that were relliable. Another editor created a new page for the author and I also worked on getting more material done. The article seemed to have met notability criteria in a number of ways. WP:ACADEMICS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTTEMP and WP:RS Despite meeting technical criteria and these discussed, while the discussion was on going the article was deleted by an admin. Editors were in the process of collecting further archived works from foreign sources that shows further notability when the article was deleted. Translations were also being done and alot of this work that many editors incuding myself were doing came to an end. Attempts to contact the admins are of little luck and I was wondering if the article can be sent to the incubator so work can continue on it and we do not lose the work already done.I understand the difficulty in getting material in foreign countries but we have taken a lot of effort to contact persons in those countries to get the article done well. We just want to keep working on this for a few more days to include everything. Muthuwella

In my view notability is met with the following:

• Three IT books (Visually Learn PC, On Your Marks Net Set Go, Surviving in an e-world and Flash in a Flash: web development) published by well known traditional publisher Prentice Hall India are used as University textbooks and course material in several universities in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.
• Other books including "Study buddy" is used in Sri Lanka schools and endorsed by the Sri Lanka education board to be used in schools in the country.
• Books have been used as school textbooks, university textbooks and course material for over 10 years.
• Author has introduced a new concept of Computer art and animation to schools and verifiable by the schools and reliable mainstream newspapers.
• Author's books of IT when published by Prentice Hall India were the first IT books written by a Sri Lankan in Sri Lanka in English to be published by an international publisher.
• Her books were in the India Times bestseller list (need few days to get the archives content)
• Several mainstream newspapers and magazines have written articles about her and interviews are there in well known sources. (another editor scanned and had included these images but due to copyright it has been temporarily removed till copyright is obtained. Meanwhile it is temporarily on flikr page for that editor.)

Discussion was taking place on how better to improve this article and some admins were helping with useful comments and we were all trying to get a good article put together. It is really not about getting the article on wikipedia but rather I am determined to give any article the chance to give the best shot at showing editors why it should be included. This article has not been given that chance. There is much more material that is different and relevant to determining its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra ( talk • contribs)

• Please list the reliable sources you suggest that we use for an article about this lady. I have some concerns about the sources that were used in the deleted version of the article.— S Marshall T/ C 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent published sources. I didn't find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources, but you are losing your argument by citing evidence of her importance. Everyone is important, but it takes being noticed to a significant degree by independent published sources to get a biographical article in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Re-List I don't know why Chanithra listed this in deletion review as even though it should be relisted so Sri Lanka editors can edit it, it's not happening even after showing tons of sources as admins are dead set on getting rid of it. User: Uzma Gamal, Answering your comment "find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources". There are TONS of links that were put. Didn't you see the Island Newspaper, Sunday Leader, Business Today and all the mag articles I put in flikr temporarily so the sources can be seen? She is noted to a significant degree. I am not saying she is important, the sources prove it.

If you need specific evidence ask me and I can e-mail or put on flikr. I took the stuff down as I didn't want a copyright issue but if it is needed as proof, I'd put it. Also I don't think anyone can deny that the books are textbooks in a number of very reputable Universities in many countries. Do a google search and you will find them. Otherwise, see the links I have put on her page that was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Muthuwella ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse the single purpose editors have been constantly appearing at these AfDs, the consensus was well established to delete. LibStar ( talk) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Re-List the consensus was not clear. The editors have stated many times to keep it for further discussion but the administrators are just not looking at the credentials of this subject. She was included in 2008 because she was notable. As one administrator put it correctly there was an "unusual" trigger to delete this sent to OTRS. If didn't come through normal circumstances that lead to believe that the author is being targeted wrongly. Despite a relist I see it was deleted by an admin. Then the page recreated but the earlier admin is no longer there. I feel the editors whould decide on this. Re-list, keep it for discussion open to editors and anyone who wants to improve it and then if nothing, delete it. Give it a fair chance.
• Endorse I commented at the AfD, but decided to not express an opinion. This is an interesting borderline case, where the WP:PROF requirement (and conceivably the GNG) is technically met, but the person is not by common sense standards clearly notable. Common sense has to be judged by the consensus. I do not support an over-literal reading of notablity guidelines to artificially include articles any more than I support using them to artificially delete them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion This author claims notability for authoring books "of university level", yet to read the refs cited to support this (their pitiful grammar and spelling apart) is to degrade the whole notion of what "university level" means. These books might have been recommended, but not by credible courses at a serious level of study. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Andy Dingley, I have no idea what your problem is. If her books are used in 25 Universities as a textbook, then it is "university level". She is not just saying university level, the universities have listed them as textbooks. You are blatantly untrue in your nasty comments. They are credible as they are listed as mandatory textbooks in these universities. I see bias in your comments as you are not taking a fact into account. If universities list these books as textbooks, then they are university level. What do you mean pitiful grammar and spelling? Please clarify your comments. Sources2 ( talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment how did Sources2 ( talk · contribs) know to come here on their first edit? LibStar ( talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I did a search on Anushka Wirasinha as I saw the article up for deletion and then when I checked it said deletion review on top of the page, so I clicked it.
• Harassment Why are all the Admins being nasty and trying to delete this author from United Kingdom? The only not bias admin here is DGG ( talk · contribs) as he is the only one who is actually giving any valid points. The others are all from UNITED KINGDOM and are all having one aim to harass the author. Andy Dingley is way out of line. It doesn't matter what he thinks the books are textbooks in well known universities in many countries and this is a notability criteria under wikipedia. Andy Digney has claimed by his ill thought out poor taste comment that half the Indian Universities that use this authors publications are not "credible"- as he states "not by credible courses at a serious level of study" What do you call the BTech exam? Not credible??

Please note that you may have some sort of brain block where you cannot properly deduct facts but facts remain facts and your comments show that you need to get an education before you wrongly degrade foreign authors and universities. I have no interest in wikipedia, I joined this conversation because I went through all the Admins who are degrading this article and see that they are all from the UK. Maybe some are disgruntled employees from her establishment in the UK.

• Question for Sources2 how do you know about Deletion review process in Wikipedia? do you have any connection to Anushka Wirasinha? LibStar ( talk) 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I suspect the 3 single purpose editors involved in this ongoing desperate want to save effort are the same person, am logging a sockpuppet investigation. LibStar ( talk) 06:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment LibStar you have ignored the rules of wikipedia that clearly asks you to act in goodfaith and have accused me from the very start of sockpuppeting. You have not given any constructive advice or critisism but rather went straight into pointing the finger at me without attempting to be polite or nice or handle the matter professionally taking into account facts. You are welcome to do anything you wish, I don't really care about the article anymore or your threats, it is the way the situation was handled by certain administrators including you that is very unprofessional. Admins are there to look into facts not disregard them when they are blatantly clear. It is a fact that the books are textbooks used in universities. If it is not and I am untrue in claiming this, let me know. But I don't think so. Google and you will get the evidence that they are used as university textbooks in many universities for well known graduate level exams. So, I it's annoying that this fact is disregarded and the author is dragged in the mud for no reason. I took a lot of effor creating a page for Ms. Wirasinha and then when I started on Ms. Ranasinghe, that was deleted claiming copyright violation. It doesn't look like a copyright violation as the facts seem to be taken from a government page. I thought that when I started the article, I would get help from the admins, who would tell me honestly as to what I exactly needed to do and what actually met the wikipedia notability criteria. ONLY DGG and Gamal have tried to be atleast somewhat objective in this respect and asked for clarification of something. Andy Dingley is completely rude, arrogant and has no idea of how to do any research. If he did he would take a few minutes to see the links I provided from google that clearly proves the level and credibility of the author's textbooks and the credibility of the universities that use them in their graduate courses. There is no reason to put down these credible universities and courses they offer. Disregarding facts doesn't make you a good administrator just a lousy researcher. I have also scanned articles written by third party journalists in mainstream newspapers that does meet the notability criteria put forth by wikipedia. But anyone can disregard facts for their own selfish motive and it is so sad that this is what certain admins have aimed to do from the get go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Per an SPI investigation, Muthuwella, Sources2 and Chamithra are all the same person. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Chamithra and I are not the same person. We are working on the same articles on preventing wikipedia harassing foreign authors. If LibStar put as much effort into doing research and finding notability criteria rather than being nasty and trying to eliminate people actually focusing on getting the article done, then actual research would have been done and a credible encyclopedia would be created with credibly notable people. Firstly, the person who emailed the wiki foundation with nonsense (as one admin said "unusualy") that triggered a unusual delete and some of the admins are working together on bending notability guidlines to justify their interests rather than accepting true notability. Secondly user "B" and user "shimeru" are the same person and I wouldn't be surprised if LibStar and Andy Dingley are from the same source. I am a historian who has worked in the field of research for over 55 years and some of these admins who just don't bother researching but are extremely quick to remove anyone they have little knowledge on, are pathetic. Chamithra certainly doesn't need to be my sockpuppet his translation skills in sanskrit and others is remarkable and our interest is to put forward subjects that meet notability criteria after doing many many months of research not just bring those of interest to admins that hardly fall into wikipedia notability criteria.

the desperate nature in trying to save this article is something I've seen before, only from people with a clear conflict of interest. suggest you desist and live out your block period. LibStar ( talk) 06:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment The desperate nature of your one sided attempts to delete an article that meets notability criteria outlined by wikipedia itself is extremely unprofessional on your part as an administrator AND a clear abuse of authority as an administrator. Please note that this article in a very poor state was accepted as notable and remained in wikipedia for several years till someone with a conflict of interest against the subject sent an e-mail highly irregular with normal wikipedia policy to the wikipedia foundation. Certain admins like yourself without looking into that matter decided to contribute to the irregular activities and initiate a deletion of articles without cause or reason. You are not looking into any facts of the notability criteria. You clearly have a conflict of interest where you are against foreign authors of notable nature from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, you and Andy Dingley have put down reputable universities, courses and newspapers from Asian countries. You are promoting persons who do not meet the notability criteria and misusing your authority as an administrator to do so. You have removed half of the notable authors from Sri Lanka, India and other Asian regions recently and you have also promoted certain subjects that hardly meet any criteria of notability. Chamithra. 124.43.234.170 ( talk) 07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is fairly new to me but seems to be the recommended procedure. Deleted category as I felt that reflect consensus at CfD and this was disputed at WikiProject Baseball. Some discussion ensued on my talk page. Procedural listing in which I do not hold a strong opinion either way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as I agree with the argurments put up in the discussion and would add that categorizing by a single action in a game would be the equivalent of picking any other random action in a game and categorizing by it. You can't look up a pinch hitter on a team roster as the position does not exist. The fact that a few players only ever performed that action in their career does not make it a position. All that being said I have no problem with a relisting. But not an outright restore. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. For the vast majority of players, the fact that they pinch hit is not a defining characteristic. I agree with the comparison I read elsewhere that this is comparable to a category for players who hit 4th in the batting order. -- Kbdank71 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (orig nominator). I understand the idea that there are some players who only were ever pinch hitters in their careers and never played a defensive position or were in a starting line-up, but they are a miniscule minority compared to the total number of players who have been pinch hitters. I suppose we could re-list this due to limited participation, but I wouldn't anticipate that a different result would be likely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The category is appropriate for players who never played a defensive position. While such players are few in proportion to the thousands of major league baseball players, there were a non-trivial number of players whose sole major league appearances were as pinch hitters. I am not sure that "pinch hitter" is not a defensive position or a position listed on a roster matters in the context of retaining or deleting the category. Rlendog ( talk) 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• I'm really not a fan of these procedural nominations, it's the second of the kind in a few days. I think we should leave it to the unhappy customers to decide that they want to take the step from questioning the deletion to filing a DRV. It seems to me that a fair bit of the dispute could be resolved by the definition of the category. Is it limited to players who only ever pinch-hit? Does it extend to players who ever fulfilled the role of pinch-hitter? Or is it somewhere in between? The fact that a very small number of players fall into the first category doesn't seem to me to be a problem with adopting that as the scope. I tend to think we should treat low-participation CfDs like prods and send them back for another round (relist) if there are reasonable objections.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• We can send it back for another round, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different outcome. CfD is (inevitably) controlled by those editors who're concerned about categories. In practice this is quite a small subset of Wikipedians and they tend to share the same view. What I'd say to Rambo's Revenge is, please don't procedurally list CfDs at DRV. I agree with everything Mkativerata says, and over and above that I think there are non-trivial technical difficulties with overturning a CfD. (What happens is that the category is deleted and then a bot removes all the now-redlinked categorisations from the articles; on the only occasion I know of when a CfD was ever overturned at DRV, which I think was in March 2009, I believe that the bot's actions had to be reversed manually.) In other words, if you're not sure about the closure of a CfD, then it really is a great deal easier not to close it in the first place.— S Marshall T/ C 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The close was straightforward enough—I don't think anyone could dispute that it reflected the discussion—but it was the post-close complaints that made the close a "problem" after the fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Ah—yes, I see that. Hmm. Retracted with apologies.— S Marshall T/ C 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist - This category is useful in organizing players by position. I have used it while creating pages for players who never held any other position either offensive or defensive. There are at least a dozen such players, because that's how many pages I used this category on before it was deleted. The only alternative for such players would be to put them in the overly generic "Major League baseball players" category which tells you nothing about what they did in the majors. Others have suggested that it would be useful for categorizing players who were well known for their pinch hitting skills or who hold pinch hitting records. I would have no objection to it being used for that purpose as well. The two most respected and used baseball sites here on Wikipedia are MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com. They both recognize pinch hitter as a position for the purposes of their categorization of players, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. Kinston eagle ( talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • If the category doesn't exist, why can't they be placed in a MLB team category rather than Category:Major League Baseball players? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That could be said of all the position categories. The usual practice is to put players in team categories, a geographic category (state or country), and position based on the primary position they played while in the majors. Kinston eagle ( talk) 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • My point is that they don't have to go in Category:Major League Baseball players, as you stated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
        • They were/are Major League Baseball players, so excluding them from the category would not be sensible. Whether they need to be placed in a subcategory within Major League Baseball players in the question here. Rlendog ( talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC) reply
          • The don't go directly in the category, which is what was suggested. Of course they go in a subcategory--the team subcategory. The issue in this CFD is not whether they will go in a subcategory or in the general category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist There are plenty of reliable sources that categorize players as pinch hitters and there's no reason that we shouldn't be grouping players as such where sources have defined them in the pinch hitting role. There was inadequate discussion of the issue at CfD and there should be broader discussion and participation before deciding either way on this category. Alansohn ( talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There's no position here, as just about everyone's been a pinch hitter at some point. Category:Major League Baseball players without positions seems a much stronger possibility, however.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist. There was a time, a while back, when there were only eight teams in each league, no more than two teams west of the Rockies, and dinosaurs roamed Forbes Field, when most MLB teams carried a utility player whose most important role was to pinch hit for the pitcher in late innings. (Something like being a holder in the NFL). What with the DH, sabremetrics, etc, that specialization has gone out of fashion. That's what the category should be used for; it shouldn't be a subcategory of baseball positions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. It seems to me that we are trying to identify a characteristic which is non-defining for most people to whom it applies but very defining for a small minority. If that is the case, then a list would be more appropriate than a category. With a list, it is possible to set inclusion standards (e.g., players who are notable for being pinch hitters), apply them and discuss individual cases on a single talk page. I think the category should remain deleted (inclusion standards are much easier to overlook when they are in a category description as opposed to the lead of a list) and a narrowly defined list (e.g., List of Major League Baseball players who pinch-hit only or List of Major League Baseball pinch hitters) created. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I realize that my suggestion (and many of the comments above) addresses the merits of the category rather than the close itself; however, in a situation where the close was undoubtedly technically correct, I think that is not inappropriate. I don't object too much to relisting, but I also don't support it because I don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • From the discussion so far, I can't understand why you would say that you "don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side." Looking at the original cfd discussion, there was only one opinion given and it was just for one side of the argument then a per nom seconding. At least now, people who see the value in the category and those who don't have had their views aired. Regardless of the outcome, at least now there will be a reasonable case that a true consensus was arrived at rather than just an endorsement of one person's opinion. Kinston eagle ( talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closing admin was correct. Bluntly, this is a poorly conceived category that would contain nearly every player. If there is a need to categorize players who never played a position in the majors - which I don't see value in myself - then the easier solution is to find a more accurate name for a new category. Reso lute 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

They did play a position. Their position happened to be offensive rather than defensive. Kinston eagle ( talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Pinch hitter is not a designated position in the rulebook. As such they played no position. - DJSasso ( talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Both the official source (MLB) and the most respected internet secondary source (Baseball-Reference.com) categorize players by position and both recognize pinch hitter as a position for players who held no defensive position. See, for example, Ray Cosey's pages at both sites: [1], [2] Kinston eagle ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

They do that because PH fits into a small space on the profile page and looks better then leaving it empty. Wikipedia isn't restricted to using 2/3 letter abreviations like those pages are. We are able to say things like "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" or whatever alternative you can think of. WHich is more accurate, and avoids the issue of nearly every baseball player fitting into the category. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If that's why they do that then N/A would be a much more logical choice. I feel they put that as their position because that was their position. It is what it says it is. A category such as "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" would also include anyone who has only been a DH or pinch runner. Kinston eagle ( talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes it would, which would still be a better option than one which includes almost every player who has ever played. That being said I am not married to that name, it was just an example. Someone might be able to think of a better one. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply