User talk:DESiegel/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Just a thanks for going through many NuremTrial pics and updating the info on them :) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am going though the list of iomage tagged with {{Unimage}}. I will not on this pass be dealign with any NuremTrial images no so tagged. DES (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
So a bad time to admit I only notice you doing that because you've 'fixed' 3 images I updated myself then, eh? *hides* Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)

Firebird Foundation[edit]

The source of Firebird Foundation it's at the end of the page (external link). The text it's not protected. --Rapomon 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Galleries[edit]

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_rewording. I have commented in reply, specifically I am very interested in knowing your opinion as to wether or not the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery would be acceptable under your proposed wording. Dsmdgold 21:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be about the minimum acceptable, IMO, and not realy quite what I had in mind. it does give an organizational structure (chronological) which is valuable, and it does give some text for each image, specifically a title (or caption when there is no accepted title). It does not provide any content beyond the titles -- to me "annotation" suggests some substantive comment on the images (or their subjects if they are images of things, there to illustrate the things, say a gallery of "Firearms of WWII"). This page provides no such substantive comment, but it might aid another article that does so. This fits the letter of my wording. I am unsure just where to draw the line. DES (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I don't object to your merging these templates, but would it be possible to have the "importance or significance" link for band pages should point to WP:MUSIC rather than WP:DVAIN? That seems more appropriate. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Done with a second optiona parameter on {{db-bio}}. See if you like the result. DES (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I've just sent you an email. Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it. Many thanks! – Adrian | Talk 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

email response sent. DES (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

re:Deleting AFD pages[edit]

Please do not tag old AfD pages for speedy delteion. They should be properly closed instesd. DES (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • What does "properly closed" mean? Sct72 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Close as described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. Specifically, subst {{at}} and {{{ab}} (AfD top and AfD Bottom) onto the page, along with a note of the result. DES (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of article on "Blogdecs"[edit]

Mr. Siegel:

It's true. I indulged myself with a fanciful, future look-back on blogdecs in the spirit of Encyclopedia Galactica, Manual of Muad'Dib, or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Guilty. But I did want to encapulate the concept of blogdecs as the "get-to-the-point", limited expressions I feel blogs should be, and I have promoted that concept on my site, BlogsAreStupid.Com. The 100-word blog essay, (also encouraged by, needs a verbal coinage, and "blogdec" is my two cents. If be it must unwhimsical and no-nonsense, then I would be most pleased to generate a more formal and sober entry for your publication.

Thank you for your time and attention of my above blogdec,

JC Strider <email deleted> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcstrider (talkcontribs) 12:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC-5)

Note that although I actually delted the entry, another user tagged it for deletion, and i was following our Speedy deletion criteria. Wikipedia is not the palce for humerous or farciacal fiction. Nor is it the place for personal essays on the way things ought to be. Wikipedia is intended to report already published and notable information on the way things are. Our verifiability and original research policies are relevant to this point. as a result, we normaly do not include even "formal and sober" entries on newly coined terms until there is outside verifiable evidenc that they have at least moderately wide acceptance or usage. If your site BlogsAreStupid.Com is itself notable or influential, than an arricle about it might be appropriate. Note our guidelines for inclusion of web sites. Note also Wikipedia:autobiography which indicates why a person is generally discouraged from writing about himself or herself, or his or her own work. Alternatively, if your views represent a significant point of view, it might be aprpopriate to incorporate a mention of them in our Blog article, with a citation to your site, or to That could be discussed at Talk:Blog. I thank you for your desire to contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope yuou will make other contributions. I hope this message is helpful. I assure you that I am not hostile to your point of view (indeed I am not particularly a fan of blogs myself) -- I am merely upholding wikipedias established policies for what should and should not be included. Of course I am only one of many volunteers who contribute to this site, and my own views, as opposed to policy pages, are in no way official. DES (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice on linking dates[edit]

Hi there

I've noticed your trawl of Charles Dickens making all years wikilinks, and am confused about this. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) strongly recommends _not_ to link dates unless they add value. I've also noticed real variety between articles in this. Is this a disputed issue, or have I just misunderstood something? (Sorry, newbie...) JackyR 22:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You have mis-read my edit. infact i was removing such links. This is a somewhat disputed issue, but there is a fairly wide consensu on the MoS reccomendation you just cited. i am no doing a large number of edits to apply this recomendation to various articels, and the Charles Dickens edit was one of these. See my comments on Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and look at my recent edits. DES (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Aha. All is clear! Sorry, still getting the hang of using diff pages... But I don't feel (too) bad about asking, because I've been a bit shy about removing these links so far ("Maybe I've misunderstood!"), and shall now Be Bold... Cheers, JackyR 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Eras[edit]

I oppose not just the coinflip, but the idea of limiting to one style across all of wikipedia. It would IMO be perverse to use "CE/BCE" on Jesus and related articles, and equally pervese to use "AD/BC" on, for example, Jew. DES (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, is it really much more perverse to use AD/BC on Jew than to use the Christian/Western rather than Jewish calendar to begin with? Maybe a smidge more, but a small smidge I think. BCE/CE on Jesus might be a hard sell, but "perverse" seems too strong... using BCE/CE in the Jesus article strikes me as no more insulting than not saying "blessed be his name" every time we mention Mohammed. Just my thoughts. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your concern that WP:BP is followed. I'd like you to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 if possible. Firebug 17:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

watchin' the wheels go 'round[edit]

G'day David,

I see we're having a little wheel war on {{Help Wikiboxes}}. We're all admins here, and we're trusted by the Wikipedia community to behave better than this. Your conduct in thist little battle has been the most egregious — you have undeleted the article three times, while the other "side" has been made up of multiple "warriors". Wheel wars are considered harmful by the community, and by Yours Truly in particular, and if it keeps up I shall have to block you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I take you point -- I will not undelete again. I think the action of deleting out-of-process a template involved in discussing internal actions on wikipedia, and in deleting a page admitedly out-of-process are quite egregious, and I note that the deltion policy quit specifically permits undeletion of out-of-process deletions. You might alwso look at the block log, where i have unblocked once, but others have blocked more than once. See Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 please. DES (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your help modifying this template. Although I do hope everyone uses "subst:" for these templates, it just doesn't make sense to add it to every template on the page. Thanks again, JHMM13 (T | C) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your help on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin. Don't forget to vote, too, please. Thanks. Peter S. 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i jhust left this on the AfD where you suggest i logged the first time 17 oct and that to just edit aladin.

DESu r completelyout of order. CHECK MY EDIT HISTORY. wiki since 13 oct and edited 7 other pages before i got intothis page. have also edited practically every magic page goin Tiksustoo 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I said that your first article edit was on 17 oct and was to Aladin, it appears that your edits before that were all to talk pages, not articles. I said nothing about the number or range of your edits since. I a, sorry if you were offended or took this as an attack -- it was not so intended. every editor must start somewhere. I was atte,pting to document, as an aid to teh eventuall closer, the degree to which Peter S's comments weree factually supported -- and the degree to which they are not so supported. DES (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not convivncing. anyone seeing you tagg wouldj thingk this points me out to be bad faith contibutior or even sock puppet. Tiksustoo 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have edited muy comment to make my intentions clearer. DES (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing image[edit]

The image on your userpage has been deleted. I know this was used with permission, but I think you should remove the missing link or restore that image. Thank you, Adnghiem501 07:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have restored the image. DES (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

List of video games considered the worst ever[edit]

The article in question was nominated less than two months ago and resulted in overwhelming "keep" result. I think Sjakkale's vote sums it all very well. The reasons for deletion were "not NPOV", which is actually not a reason for deletion at all.  Grue  18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. I still urge you to place a note on the AfD page explaining that, and Zi really think that a note in the AfD pointiong to the previous AFD might have been better than a speedy keep. DES (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


(copied from the Help Desk) There is no rule on this, but if it is percieved that a candiate is in effect trying to recuit his friends to vote for him, there is likely to be a reaction. If a candidate feels that this is essential, then IMO it eould be best to word pointers neutrally, such as "I have been nominated for adminship. Perhaps you would like to express your opnion of my fitness for adminship on WP:RFA/Example" It would be even better to also leave such message on the talk pages of users with which the candidate has had neagative encounters. Whe I was nominated, i put this on my user pages, invaiting anyoen who interacted with me to comment -- and i got lots of positive comments. In general if not enough people will find there way to a person's RfA without a campaign, that says soemthing about that person's community-wide trust. DES (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the Wiktionary article. Uncle G 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:AfD in 3 steps[edit]

I strongly disagree with trying to present alternate methods in {{AfD in 3 steps}}. It is important that these instructions be simple. Simple instructions do not present unnecessary options. Ideally, they do not present any options. "Do this. Do that. Do the third thing, and you're done" is always simpler than "Do this. Do that. Do the third thing, but you can do this other thing instead." The instructions don't have to teach people how things work, they just have to show someone how to quickly nominate a page for deletion. Those who are interested in the mechanics can figure it out on their own, or there could be an explanation on the talk page.--Srleffler 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography[edit]

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive pages[edit]

I moved both your user talk page archives so they are subpages of your user talk page. --cesarb 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Role accounts[edit]

These role accounts are only used by me, and are not used for voting more than once etc. If you see the userpage of the accounts in question they are tagged as such. User:Marleyknowe is an example. --Sunfazer 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there is, as I understand the matter, no rule, policy, or custom against your using such multiple accounts. DES (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA question[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Admrboltz[edit]

Replied :) --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Spell check in google toolbar[edit]

I saw your mention of spelling errors on your user page. In fact, I saw two error that I fixed for you. If you use Google toolbar, either in Internet Explorer or in Mozilla Firefox, it has a built in spell checker that works quite well. In fact I noticed one of the spell errors and the spell checker found the other one. --rogerd 04:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet[edit]


During a google search I see that I was referred to as a sockpuppet. I guess this is wiki speak for a spoof account to try and win votes?

I am genuine and I only voted on the one issue because it was the only one I happened to be interested in at the time and which I thought I could speak with some authority as an English nationalist.

If, in future, I see any other votes that I feel strongly about I will vote again. I don't have the time to spare to participate in Wiki or anything else very often at the moment.

Anyway, the accusation was made against someone called Mais Oui and you quite rightly dismissed the accusers (can't remember their name but I think it began with an R) accusation. For the record, I don't have a clue who Mais Oui is - like I said, I don't really have that much time on my hands to get involved.

If you want to check me out, just search for wonkotsane in Google and virtually all the top matches are me. The Wiki page I am referring to was on page 2 (I think) of a search for wonkotsane on My time is taken up mainly with my involvement in the Campaign for an English Parliament ( and my own blog (

Anyway, thanks for making the right decision and maybe we'll cross paths again some time.

Stuart (wonko)

This seems to have been during the debates on the deletion of Category:English organisations andCategory:Companies of England. FYI a "sockpuppet" is a secondary account used by a person who already has an account, particularly when it is used to spuriously join the discussion and make it seem that there is a more general agreement with a position than there in fact is, or when it is used to vote more than once in the same poll or discussion. (There are also legitimate uses for multiple accounts. Some editors have separate accounts from which they work on particular fields of interset, or tasks.) The term is borrowed from Usenet.
It is in general considered impolite to accuse another user of being or having an illegitimate sockpuppet except when there is significant evidence indicating that this is in fact true. User:Rhollenton was, IMO, going too far in making such accusations.
That said, it is noraml to note when a person who expresses an opnion or "votes" (technically they are not votes) in a deletion discussion is relatively new to the project, or has relatively few edits, and it is considered proper for the adminstrator who asseses the discussion and makes the final decision based on the views expressed and the "votes" cast to discount views from users who are not logged in, or who are very new to the project, or who have made very few contributiosn to it. This is partly becasue such users could be sockpuppets, but more because such users may well not have a good feeling for the customs and policies of Wikipedia, and their views on what should be deleted and what should not be deleted may not be as represenative of the community as a whole as those of longer-established users are. So if you plan to comment on future deletion discussions, you will find it advisable to make at least a few article edits first. I understand that you are busy, and Wikipedia is not the first priority in your life, nor need it be. We would welcome whatever occasional contribution you care to make. If you were to fill out your user page (at it would help to indicate your real nature and give you a presence in this project. Users with filled-out user pages are soemtimes taken more seriously in various contexts. this may not make good sense, but it does happen.
I am copying this to User talk:Wonkotsane and to you via email, since it seems you log on only rarely. DES (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

reply to rfa question[edit]

Hello, I just thought that I would let you know that I have replied to your RfA question. I did move it into the "questions" section, but it seemed like it fit there better. - Trysha (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack speedies[edit]

I appreciate, and am taking into consideration, your opinions on some of the speedies. I think you have a good point on, say war on drugs and may change my opinion on this in due course. Meanwhile I'm seeing a strong consensus forming here on attack speedies and would like it to be as wide as possible, so perhaps we can discuss our differences on detail. Your talk page or mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Tony Sidaway DES (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Process is Important[edit]

Bravo, and very well done! --Durin 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thnak you. DES (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
<chipmunk>No, no, no; thnak you!</chipmunk>. I saw your comment on your user page about two character transpositions. Now I see it in action :) --Durin 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2[edit]

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Aubrey-Maturin section redirects[edit]

Thanks for reverting those bot changes so quickly. Dabbler 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I had them all on my watchlist since I did th4e merge and created the redirects in the first place. I saw your reversion on 21, and simply did the same thing on all the others. I have also left a msg for the bot operator. DES (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, could you please look at this. Thanks. Pilatus 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite clear what you want me to review. i think the analogy adds little. First of all obscenity alw and copyright law are based on different principles adn use different standars. Secondly it is most unlikely that even a gallery of penus images would be held unprotected under current US law. It is true that often use of "fair use images" outside article space has not complied with fair sue limitations -- for that matter it has all too often not complied inside articel space. It is also true that the most common justifications we use are less likely to apply in userspace. -- Tempaltes, particularly nav tempaltes, are to my mind a differnt case -- for example the use of a logo on {{SEPTA}} seems to me perfectly defensible under copyright law, and I would change our policy to permit that kind of use. DES (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was trying to point out that a suitable context is needed to claim fair use. Pilatus 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

Just FYI, the articles my bot fixed were double-redirects, because someone had moved the main article (which all the redirects originally pointed to) from Aubrey-Maturin series to Aubrey–Maturin series, replacing the hyphen with an en-dash. However, you do have a good point about preserving section redirects in this situation, and I will fix the bot to do so. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Rfa's[edit]

I noticed you asked a dozen candidates for adminship a question and yet, in not one case did you bother to return to these nominations to then vote support, oppose or make a comment. In some cases, these nominees even told you they had addressed your question. Is there an explantion on your part that explains this? Just trying to understand why a stressful situation needs to be made more stressful.--MONGO 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see that asking a simple question "How do you feel about X" in any undue way makes an RfA more stressful. I had intended to return to those RfAs before this -- I plan to do so today. Your inquiry seems to imply that asking a question is soemhow inappropriate. Even if I never returned, the answer is on record and might be of assistance to other voters. I plan to ask more or less the same question to most RfA candidates in future. BTW, you are incorrect, in at least one case I did express an opnion after i asked that question. DES (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I advise you to ensure you do return to follow up on those questions, rather than making them dance through hoops and hear no response. I didn't notice any additional questions asked of you on your Rfa. The next time I notice that you have asked an additional question and don't have the decency to return and either register a vote of support, oppose or comment, I will be most displeased. Happy editing.--MONGO 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This hardly deserves a response. Any user is free to ask any admin candidate any civil question. There is no obligation to follow up. nor is there an obligation on the candidate to answer the question. DES (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I say your questions deserve no response...learn some manners...they'll serve you well.--MONGO 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If I knew which candidate you were championing here you would tempt me to vote against that person. However i won't do that, because I do think that adminship is too important to play petty games with. You advise me to "learn some mannners". Let's reveiw this exchsnge. In your first comment here you said that I "did not bother to return" in even one case (an incorect assertion even at that time, i might add) and asked me for an "explanation" as if there was some ned to explain asking a quite relevant question, one which was asked in a compaltely non-challanging manner. I responsed that I did not see that my qestions in anyway increased the stress of an RfA, and that I did intend to return to the various RFAs. I belive that I was calm an polite in this response, although i found the tone of your inital msg quite challanging. You responded, sugesting that I was "making them [The candidates] dance through hoops" which i find a compeltly unfair characterization of the situation, and "advised" me to "make sure" I returned, and threented that If I did this again you would be "most displeased." You also accued me of hving a lack of "decency". I was quite displeased to read this, as i made clear in my respone. However at about that same time i also returned to several of the RfAs, and on one had an extensive back and forth dialog with the candidate. I intend to return to others today -- not because of your urging, but becuae i do think them important. You are trying to imply that I have obligations where in fact I do not, and to set your self up as the arbititer of how I have carried them out. i resent this. You also said "I didn't notice any additional questions asked of you on your Rfa." Several people did in fact question or challange me on several issues. They did not use the form of "additional questions" but rather of comments, but several were questions in fact, and others were statemetns that I felt required to respond to. Several asked about my principals on specific issues, others presented specific edits of mine in a negative light. I think that these were far tighter "hoops" to jump through than a simple general question about wiki-philosophy such as I asked. But I do not think those who ask such questions of me were out of line. it is hard to know anotehr person on this project at ll well, and often a candidate is soemoen with whom a potential voter may have had littel or no prior interaction. It is perfectly reasonable to ask probing questions, or to challange a candidate's past actions. I am sorry that you find my actions less than mannerly. I really feel that in this exchange I have been the less agressive and more mannerly participant. DES (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As of my initial post above, you did indeed respond in one (out of 12) situations. There may have been comments to you, but I did not see any additional questions below the standard ones on your Rfa. I do not in any way say that you shouldn't be allowed to post extra questions. I do, however, believe that it is indeed rude to not then return promptly, especially after they have informed you they have responded to the question posed. That you would vote against a nominee I list because of any exchange that we have together indicates clearly to me that if you would take it out on them as some sort of retribution, then that makes me feel just a bit ill.--MONGO 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
PLease let me be clear. I have not and will not vote against any nominee because of our exchange -- I said that I was "tempted" but I also said that I wouldn't do that. I was angry when I wrote that, but I will not take my anger out on people who are not in any way at fault. You did give me the impression of being very protective -- perhaps I misread your comments. The questions on my RFA were not put below the standard questions, no -- at that time no one seemed to be doing that -- but they were direct questions none the less. DES (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

policy on american elementary/middle schools not having articles[edit]

I'm going to do some cleanup of some american city articles and I want to be ready to cite the policy that elementary/middle schools traditionally do not have their own articles. Where would I find this? Cornell Rockey 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know there is no such written policy, and the trend on recent AfDs suggests that there is no consensus for such a policy. I personally believe that only fairly exceptional or particularly noteworthy schools should have articles, even at the high-school level (and still more at lower levels), but that view has not commanded a firm consensus. I predict much opposition if you intend to merge such articles. See Wikipedia:Schools for more on this issue. DES (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it the link. Actually, the articles don't exist yet, I'm just gonna de-wikify the school names so that no one gets the bright idea to make them. Cornell Rockey 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That's a bit different. Go right ahead. I see no need to cite a policy page to unwikify redlinks. DES (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allboxes and vote stacking[edit]

Have you tried looking at where the links on this userbox went? In particular, this one (before Knowledge Seeker removed it about two hours ago)? Of course, it's really that target page that badly needs to go away, but holding a vote to delete a deletion-process-vote-stacking page is beyond futile. (The same reason I didn't bother to nominate this userbox when I first saw it popping up.) This edit summary is also instructive. —Cryptic (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I don't approve of this "alerts" page, and my first reaction is to put it up on WP:MfD. But given how much out-of-process deletion there has been lately, I can actually see some justification for this at the moment. If people would stop proposing userboxes for deletion until we had soem sort of policy consensus, I think the whol;e issue would be far less heated. In any case my reasoning on the TfD is unchanged. DES (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre[edit]

Looks like you cut it quite close there. Thanks for giving me feedback, and I hope I'll be a better admin, if (and it looks like it), I'll be promoted tonight Sceptre (Talk) 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. i hope to find my misgivings completely unjustified. if you are promoted and want any advice I'll be glad to provide the best I can. DES (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

self righteousness[edit]

self-righteous and ego-maniacal zealots such as yourself are ruining wikipedia...just bc u dont agree with something doesn't mean that it is either false or an opinion...please get off your high horse and stop alientaing those who genuinely wish to better Wikipedia! WhoermasterWhoermaster

I don't know what you are refering to. I try not to be either "self-righteous" or a "zealot", and I don't think i am "ego-maniacal". I am human, and I can make mistakes. if you indicate where you think I have made one I am open to honsetly dicussing the matter. DES (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be you referto my edit on Jewfro. If so, i dodn't see that edit as fitting your description. also remind you of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. DES (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

DESiegel, thank you very much for supporting me during my recent RfA campaign! Thanks to you, I am now an admin. Please drop by if you need anything - I'll be glad to help you. Once again, thanks! --M@thwiz2020 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)



Can you restore my GWB2 template. If you look at this page [1] you can see that it was not an attack template as it references a piece of legislation, the patriot act, rather than directly attacking GWB. The first GWB template was undeleted and this one was much harsher saying the user hates George W. Bush. thanks.--God of War 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. But if this is re-deleted I wiull not war over the matter. DES (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. If a tfd votes for deletion, I will not bother you with this again. But if it is unilaterally speedily deleted that is a problem.--God of War 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be a problem, but I am not going to enter a delete/undelte war. If that happens speak up on WP:DRV or WP:ANI and see what the response is. DES (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Mitchell[edit]

Oliver Mitchell is a real person who is facing serious charges. A lot of the content of the article was very accurate as it happens--First Class 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Then if you choose to recreate the article (which has been deleted) please cite sources (for example newspaper articels in regional or larger papers). Also please include eopme reason why the person is notable enough for an artilce here -- we do not include articels on every real person who is charged with serious crimes, or even who is convicted. The part of the article that said this person had been "Exiled to a pacific island" certianly sounded like a hoax. I am assuming your good faith at the moment, but the articel in the form it had was simply not acceptable. DES (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: William Du[edit]

William Du is a real contest winner. Within a week I will be able to provide sources that prove he is an actual champion of long distance competition eating. The problem is that the contest which he eats within is colloquial, and not mainstream, however within this week I will provide sources for this sport and an entry for the contest. Many Thanks Terry Arif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Techno666 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC-5)

You should be aware that the article is now listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Du. You would be well advised to comment there promptly with what information you can provide, as the AfD process normally lasts only 5 days. The picture, which seems to be of a child, while the articel does not mention age, does not make this look more like a real encyclopedic article. I don't know what you mena by a "colloquial contest" but if it has not recieved real media coverage, or a similar reason for regarding it as notable, it may not be considered a sufficient reason for an article. You should read Our biography criteria. DES (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: MaoJin[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. If you see Maoririder using any other user names in the future, please let me know and I'll try and deal with it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. You are welcome. Noter that I might not have spotted this one except for the AN/I post. DES (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Use Clarification[edit]

Thanks for the clarification on image use - I understand the entire workings of the policy now! -- Natalya 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm, we may not have always seen eye to eye, but process does appear something that's quite under-represented on wikipedia. Due to our history, I'm slightly skeptical if you might be promoting nomic over encyclopedia, but I'm going to hold my breath and see what happens :-) Kim Bruning 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that is an accurate description of my views or actions. (I have played Nomic in person and enjoyed it, but wikipedia is not the palce for that, and i have never knowingly done so here.) I honestly pelive that adherence to process, and I mostly mean existing writtne process, is for the benefit of the encycloopedia, and that out of process actions (often supported by WP:IAR citaions) ultimately harm the project. I know you have not agreed with thsi view in the past, at least not on variosu specific occasions. i suspect that your view of "process" and mine are not identical. But I am convinced that you intend only what you think is for the good of the project. So do I. We may disagree about what that is, but I hope we can disscus the matter openly and in a spirit of good faith and intended cooperation. DES (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, in a way, I feel somewhat reassured. Note that I don't agree with every invocation of Ignore All Rules, by the way. It's often used as a last resort when someone has been caught red handed. "But I was just ignoring all rules!". Bzzt! Try again!
I feel a lot of people don't take the time to document their application of ignore all rules very well, which has all kinds of annoying side effects. When used properly, IAR is supposed to be in support of process, and is used to explore, create, modify, and otherwise maintain it. This might seem ironic to you, seeing your experiences with it. I think your experiences differ considerably from mine, which might perhaps be the cause of our differences in opinion also.
Kim Bruning 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No doubt our experiences do differ. My first experince of it was when you cited it to me, and i honesltly thought it must be a joke at first. I presume that your experiencs go back to a time when wikipedia was a much smaller project. I do think tha devleoping policy/process by the "experimental method" that you seem to be supporting here is often a poor idea. i will expand on that if your are intersted, but not tonight. But I remain convinced of your good faith, evne when i strongly disagree with some of your actions. i hope you will feel the same of me, and have good reason to do so. Im now going off-line for the night. See you around the project, i hope. DES (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, DES! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fr. John Corapi[edit]

Thank you very much for editing the article on Fr. John Corapi. I'm trying to learn how to write aricles in a Neutral PoV better. Tony 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Please note that the articel should read like a neutral account, not an exceport from hsi own work nor form the work of a fan. Statements of fact should be distinguished from opnions, adn all opnions should be attributed to a specific source, preferably with a reference cited. The articel is still far from the best on wikipedia, but it is significantly better than it was. I wish i could find an outside source on the effect or prominence of Corapi's talks and preaching. DES (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez, sorry[edit]

I was caught in so many edit conflicts trying to leave a comment at WP:ANI, I probably screwed something up there. Dosn't help my roomie is rushing me to get off. So sorry, about the conflict, or inadvertant removal of any comments. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob I think I screwed up too. DES (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti[edit]

I would not be inclined to take Sarfatti as an expert, no. And in general I would not consider people experts on themselves for exactly this reason. Phil Sandifer 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I dopn't mean an expert on himself, but an expert on Physics in general. After all, he does hold a doctoerate in that field, and has published numerous articels in peer-reveiwwed journals, soem of which have been praised by people with significant reputations. If this is not enough to qualify a person as an expert, what objective standards would so qualify a person. And if the standards are not objective, the whole idea is in trouble IMO. Perhaps you can see some of the reasons why I think this case shows that people withj expert credentails are not always reliabel sources, and your proposed course of action is a major mistake. Please don't act on your proposed "expert undeltion" or "expert early closure" principles. DES (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And absent other concerns, those would be enough. But, well, there are obviously plenty of problems with Sarfatti. There's no hard and fast rule here, beyond, I suppose, "If one of my students cited this person, would I accept it." It is a judgment call, and I consider myself wholly empowered to say "Sorry, don't think it's a good idea to do this one." Phil Sandifer 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Saugeen Stripper[edit]

David (if I can be presumptuous!), just to let you know that Alkivar has locked this page. I've asked him to undo it because, of course, he's involved in the editing conflict over it. It goes without saying that the pro-redirection editors have not formed a consensus. This kind of abuse of admin powers really upsets the ordinary editor, because it's nothing more than a kind of bullying. Alkivar is imposing his view on the page, rather than convincing other editors that he is right about it. James James 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

revisions to the article I contributed to[edit]

I just revised my first article yesterday. Today I find that almost everything I wrote has been removed, but the person who revised it didn't say why. I thought my work was neutral, and I certainly cited sources for the things I said. They removed the magizine articles I worked so hard to find.

What's that about? The article was Gwen Shamblin. Anne 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne

I Presume you are refering to this edit which removed a good deal of recent work, and several cited sources. You will note that another user has already reverted these changes. I see only one very minor edit from you logged in, preceeded by several edits from a user who was not looged in, adding up to this set of changes. Do I correctly understand that you were the user who made these while changes not logged in? (there is nothing wrong with that, i just need to be sure that I have correctly understood which edits you are talking about.) Please note in the article's history that only one editor, who was also not logged in, removed these changes. In a case like this, commentinmg on the talk page, as you did, adn drawing the attention of other editors, as you also did, is the best way to proceed. I will put Gwen Shamblin on my watch list. The current state of the article seems reasonably neutral we will hope that these sorts of changes will not be applied again, but if they are, they can easily and quickly be reverted. Thank you for calling this to my attention. DES (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it is generally considered a poor idea to refer to an article that an editor has worked on, or even started, as "my article". Wikipedia is a collaberative project, and no one owns any article. I am sure you did not mean this as anythign but "the article that I recently edited", but other editors might take this the wrong way, so tryu not to sue such terms in the future, please DES (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks for your help. Yes, I am the user who made changes while not logged in.. I was not yet registered and I only intended to change some ISBN's, but somehow I got sucked in, so I decided to register. And I realized later that the article was not "mine" but I do feel a certain sense of ownership, now that I am an official Wikipedian. :-) I had lots of fun working on the article and I'm looking forward to contributing in the future. Thanks again for your guidance. Anne 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne

You are very welcome. I hope you stay and do lots more. Warning wikipedia can be quite addictive. Yes one does feel pride in articels one has worked on, and that is good. Just remeber that helpful edits, even ones you may not agree with, made by other editors should be respected. Clearly unhelpful edits, such as the one that brought you to me, are another matter, but even thouse should be reacted to politely if possible. I am curious, how did you happen to select me out of many active wikipdians and over 700 admins to bring the matter to? i am glad you did, but wonder which link led you to me. DES (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to Wikipedia:General Complaints and then to the link reference desk and from there to help desk where I saw this (pasted below) and you looked like a smart, powerful guy so I went to you. :-)Anne 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
3 RV rule
Whoermaster keeps on insisting on retaining Uncyclopedia-esque and POV content in the Jewfro article. I have reverted it twice, so I guess I cannot revert it a third time. It appears that Whoermaster has violated the 3 revert rule, although this is impossible to prove since the last revert was done using an anonymous IP (sneaky...). My question is, what am I supposed to do now since I cannot revert the content? Where 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
i have reverted, and warned User:Whoermaster. I have also placed a note about this on WP:ANI. In future that is a good palce to report such events. DES (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Where 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah I see. Thanks. Again, welcome. DES (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 11 on Template:user allboxes[edit]

I'd appreciate a bit more explanation on how you don't find this template disruptive. To lay out my argument explicitly:

1. WP decision making depends upon fairly constructed polls;
2. Poll-stacking operations interfere with the fairness of these polls;
3. Hence, poll-stacking operations disrupt WP decision making;
4. By extension, templates that facilitate poll-stacking are disruptive.

I'm guessing you don't agree with the above, but I'd like to know where you think the argument goes wrong. --- --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia decision making depends on discussions that attempt to achieve consensus. In rare cases such discussuons take the form of polls, but this should never be the first or preferd form. Thus your point 1 is in error.
2 Attracting more eyes to polls, incuding eyes that may have partular views, increases the bredth of the possible consensus decision, and hence is generally a good thing. Callign this "Poll stacking" is poisening the well. It is true that attractign eyese from ONLY one side of a cotraversy is generally a bad thing, but haveing people from multiple poitns of view each attracing eyes may not be. This your point 2 is in error.
3 Tempaltes that express a viewpoint on issues of wikipedi policy can be sued to attract people to polls, but this is not their only use -- they can also be sued to demonstrate the number of wpople who hold a certain view, and thus be a method on helping form a proper consensus on such an issue. A page or tempalte that expresses such a view would IMO only be disruptive if it were actually beign used disriptively, note merely if it could be so used. In short, untill you can show that this tempalte has actually been used for disruptive "poll stacking", or that it has no other possible use, your point 4 is in error.

I think the same reasoning applies to all userbox and similar templates that express a PoV on issues of Wikipedia policy, or on the propriety or otherwise of particular actions or kinds of actions on wikipedia. They might be used for disruption, yes. The letter F might be used as part of a profane term, too. But we don't prevent people from having Fs on their keyboards for that reason. I could see an argument that such userboxes shoudl not incorporate a category, that the category is more likely to be used in a disruptive way and has less legitimate value. I am not sure even of that. DES (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Two things:
Would you extend your reasoning that my argument is flawed to conclude that the information that a poll-stacking operation took place was of no potential interest to, say, an admin closing an AfD?
There's a big difference between something that might happen to have some incidental utility to a poll-stacker, and something that openly advertises an intention that has little use other than for poll-stacking.
Thanks for your response. I think it will help me in presenting a tighter argument in future. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1) No. If there is evidence that people were being recruited to join a discussion/poll by soemone with a particular viewpoint, and that the people being recruited were thsoe that the recruiter expected would favor his viewpoint (as opposed to, say, notifing everyone who had previously expressed an interst in a subject or had edited an article), that should be of interest to an AfD clsoer, and would even be legit to mention in other kinds of polls -- people might discount the views of those who seemed to be so recruited. Besides, there is IMO a large difference between "evidence that a thing has occured" and "the potential that the thing might occur".
2) I agree that soemthing that has "little use other than for poll-stacking" is not of much value to the project, and may become disruptive. I would argue that expressing an opnion, even of the form "I would vote for Policy X" does have other use -- it can be a legit attempt to build consensus. If a person sees that User A is a good editor in other ways, and visit user A's user page, and see a user box supporting policy X, they may be persuaded that Policy X is a good idea. This would be even better if the user box linked to a page where the arguments for policy X were put forward, IMO.
3) On the other hand, there is at least an argument that Category:Wikipedias who favor policy X has less value in building consensus, and leads to much more temtation to use in disruptive ways. Thus I would be much more in favor of editing userboxes to remove such categories, and even in the creation of a policy agaist their existance, than I would be in deleting "I would vote..." templates.
4 I would prefer "I favor X" to "I would vote for X" -- it conveyes the same message, and has less implications of "poll-stacking". But that is a wording preference, i can't see enough difference for us to have a rule permitting one and not the other.

I hope this furhter response is of interst to you. Perhaps it may even go some distance toward buildign a consensus on this issue. DES (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might. Thanks. --- --- Charles Stewart(talk) 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Idiotic Administrators on Wikipedia[edit]

Thanks for the reply in the help desk. You seem to be the only person that is of some help to me. Maybe that is because you seem to agree with my "opinion". To me it is not an opinion and I was stating how alot of critics feel. The quote from Benjamin Franklin needs to be in the critic section. I will try to post from some "authoritarian" source who has spoken out in the media as you suggested. There seems to be a majority of people on Wikipedia who defend the patriot act and can't accept any outside views. Why is there even a critic section in the article if no opposing views are allowed in the article? If I was to edit it and put in a source that is legit then what do I do if it gets deleted again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC-5)

Let me be clear -- I would have removed the edit in question too. In my experience on wikipedia, people who have generally "left-wing" views and oppose the so called patriot act outnumber the ones who support it. I agree that the Franklin quote is relevant -- I used it when speaking at my local township council in support of an anti-patriot act resolution -- and it cost me votes when i ran for council the next year. But on Wikipedia it is simply not good enough to report what "everyone says" or what "many critics allege". Opnions need to be attributed to specifc people, and a source cited that shows that thsoe people in fact expressed that opnion. Find a nbes story where soemone discussign the patriot act used that BF quote -- and there must be lots of such stories, because the quote has been much used -- then cite that! The critics section should be for views from specifc named critics, not generaic unverifiable "many critics say". I hope this helps. DES (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If you put in an attributed, sourced, adn relevant comment, I'll gladly help you defend it from anyone who wants to remove it. I can assure you the TBDY, the admin who removed the previous comment, will not remove that kind of content from an article. DES (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildas (like this ~~~~. Thanks DES (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


What point did deleting a page which baers no real relvence to any other band, I searched long and hard for another band named condemned and did not come up with any. I do not wish to oppese your power in the wikipedia group, I am just stating that whill they're is no important band named condemned, you still ban me from creating a page. I would willing give up the page if a band named condemned, that is not use, comes along.

-- 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Led-zep

The point is, wikipedia does not include articels on non-notable bands, whether there is another band oc the same name or not. Please read What Wikipedia is not and our band & music inclusion criteria. Pages about bands that don't meet the criteria are pretty much always deleted, whether another band has the same name or not. If I am mistaken and your band meeets thsoe criteria, please cite some sources to show it. If you think i acted improperly, you may raise the matter at Deletion review. DES (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well i dont fit the critera, however I still dont get what is meant by "Pages about bands that don't meet the criteria are pretty much always delted". Why cant our site be the part that makes your statement "almost always" come true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC-5)

The exceptions are cases where a band doesn't fit the technical criteria, but is quite notable for some other reason. Your band doesn't seem to be notable except to its members. If you think the band is notable, tell me why. Would you expect an article about your band in Encyclopedia Britannica? Or in a major music magazine? If not, why do you expect one here? Oh, and since you have an ID, you might want to log in with it. DES (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
i would but when i do the next page i click on i get logged out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC-5)
I see. You might want to check that you have enabled cookies on your browser. You might want to clear your browser's cache (Ctrl-F5 on IE). You could also try clearing your stored cookies and re-logging in.
In any case i hope you understandf why I have acted as i have. DES (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


yes, i understand.

Image tags[edit]

When you are using the no source or the no license tag on images, you need to include all the parameters like {{no source|month=January|day=17|year=2006}} so that admins can easily delete them after seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin myself, i never trust what is included in the tags anyway -- I always check the history to see when the tag was actually inserted. I don't really think the additional parameters are that useful, adn they way they were designed makes them significantly ahrder to sue. I was already using these tags when there were no parameters, and they worked just fine. Still i will try to insert them in future. I may see if the tempalte can be usefully modified to insert teh current values as defaults. DES (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you compare this version with the full tags, you'll see that the image is now in a category based upon its date, so that admins don't have to go through and click on hundreds of images to see which ones have passed seven days. Simply go into the category for each day, clean it up and delete the cat. That will help eliminate images quicker. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah I see. I have edited {{no license}} so that it uses the curent date if no date is supplied. DES (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Maoririder[edit]

Thanks for letting me know; I'll see what I can do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)



Can you please assist me with moving the orginal OpenGCL article to a place where I can work on it?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OpenInfo (talkcontribs) 22:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC-5)

Done. DES (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


please read the post on the adm. page that you reported me to. i hope after reading it, it will clead up all issues. -- 20:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Led-zep


See User talk: The following text is copied from the above page. The ful contents of that page were originally posted here, i have trimmed to only the most relevant sections, for to save space and increase clarity. DES (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) <snip> ...

This IP address,, is registered to Tennessee schools and is shared by multiple users. <snip> ....

The two Tennessee school proxy IPs, and, are blocked for one month for continuous vandalism of Wikipedia. School administrators are encouraged to prevent students from vandalizing Wikipedia if they wish their students to have the ability to edit. Please e-mail rhobite at gmail dot com with any questions. See User talk: for another case of a school IP with a long-term block.

<snip> ....

User: and User: have repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia for over a year. Due to this vandalism, these IP addresses have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 3 months. If you are a school administrator and have questions about this block, please e-mail me. Rhobite 03:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

<snip> ....

This is the notice given to my school computers IP. The fact that our school has 4 classes in that room a day, and the fact our school is on a 2 semester block shedulae, means that though 3 warnings were givin out only one ever reached the violater. This message was sent to my friend and me after the vandlizm of the eminem page, not by me, was committed. He nor I was aware of prior offences that had taken place on the computer. For this we got punished by you and the staff of this web site with a 1 month ban from editing. I am pointing out the fact that while you thought 1 person had commited all the vadalization, 2 or more people commited them. I am also pointing out that you are banning a number of inoocent people, including me, from editing for something they never did. I ask you consider the Unbanning of the IP address. Thank you.

-- 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Led-zep

P.S. I am sorry of my constant posting and argueing of the same point.

The problem is that there seems to have been regular and continuing vandalism from these IP addresses. We knew that these were school addresses, and that the vandalism was probably the work of multiple people, and that other people not responsible for the vandalism would be affected by this block. The block is not a punishment, it is to prevent furhter damage. If the school puts into place measures designed to prevent or even reduce future vandalism, adn lets wikipedia know of this, the block might well be lifted. I did not place this block, and will not lift it without consultation. But I will bring the matter to wider attention. DES (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
See WP:AN#Continued block of User: DES (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

user freedom[edit]

This box was speedy deleted even though there is an on-going tfd at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22#Template:User_freedom. There were 14 keeps to 1 delete and most of the keeps were speedy keeps. As you can see here [2], User:MarkSweep is clear going against consensus to force a deletion. Please undelete this.--God of War 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I expect the accusation from some of the newer users, but I'm a bit dissapointed in another adminstrator throwing those words around. Care to share any evidence? Or perhaps just remove the comments--Tznkai 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the recent history of user box deltions, and the huge pro-keep consensus for this page, I can not think that the deltion is anything but an abuse. While the TfD reusults could not have been know at the time of the nom, the history was, and IMO nominating any user box at this time, prior to the adoption of a clear policy on user boxes, or a modification of WP:UP, seems to me to savor of bad faith. I have just finished reporting my own action in undeleting at WP:DRV. My comment stands. DES (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The history of deletion for the template was minimal, and if you'll actually read my nomination AND the deletion log, I stated my reasons and someone else deleted them. Legitimate disagreement is in no way a sign of bad faith. I legitimatly disagree with the existance of the template, whether its a userbox or not. You can't have it both ways: you complain about it being nominated within process, and you complain about it deleted out of process.--Tznkai 17:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am refering to the history not merely on this specific tempalte, bnut on userboxes generally. Can you possibly not have been aware of Kelly Martin's "New Year's day purge" (which quite probably cost her reelection to the arbcom), of Tony Sidaway's "Attack template" series of deletions (most of which have been reversed) and of the ongoing debate on userbox policy on several pages? In light of that history I feel that any current nomination for a userbox tempalte must be based on truly compelling reasons or else be so obviously unwise as to savor of bad faith. DES (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I stayed out of the general history, and what little I gleaned from it was people kept yelling at Kelly for out of process deletion. Something I most notabily did not. Again, legitimate disagreement (I believe the reasons are compelling, you do not) is not the sign of bad faith--Tznkai 17:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think not merely that the reason are not compllling but that the reason not to delete at this point are quite compelling. Have you looked at the ongoign depates on the userbox policy page? If not, I advaise that you do so before nominating any more such templaes for deletion. DES (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I asked the deletion of Image:Lusophoneworld.JPG (77144 bytes), because :

  • this one is now not use on Wikipedia english, because...
  • a better version is avable Image:Map-Lusophone World-en.png , with a better quality
  • this new version is a .PNG, so it have a better compression rate => 38931 bytes.
  • This new version is on commons, what is more convenient for other wikipedias.

lyhana8 [[Image:lyhana8_logo.png]] 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

These may be good reasons to delete this image, but not to Speedy delete it. the speedy delete criteria page says (under Images/Media, item #1) "Redundant. An image which is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with {{NowCommons|Image:newname.ext}} instead." So go to Images for Deletion to propose that this image be deleted. DES (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks you for this (more clear) answer ^0^ lyhana8 [[Image:lyhana8_logo.png]] 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I know that I wouldn't get admin. I have not edited or had my account for a long time. I still want to ask how to nominate your self. The directions I got seemed to say creat that page. I also followed the link you gave me and saw that it said to post. What do I do.


P.S. I feel that the only way to know if a tree falls down and no one is around to here it, does it make a sound, is to put a sound recorder near a tree and come back after it falls. Of course Im not sure that that is what the question asks. If anyone whould like to answer my question click this link User talk: Led-zep

OK on fire dep't[edit]

Thanks for fixing to explain FL etc. I do not know how to find the recommend-for-deletion entry other that the speedy-delete one - can you tell me? I just do random looks sometimes and this entry seemed of minimal or zero informational content. I assume you left in the link near the bottom which just goes to a site that also does not give a location - not even a state. Does Wikipedia want entries for the Tell City, (or Durant) OK Chamber of Commerce [3], the Moorcroft WY Library [4], and the Teaneck, NJ girl scouts [5] ? I don't mean to be snobby - sorry if so. Finally, what is "blanking" (that you state you reversed) please? I do not think I "blanked" anything - if it means to remove words. Thanks Carrionluggage 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Carrionluggage. DES (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Parker/Issac Parker[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but I ran across an article for "Issac Parker" and fixed some misspellings, but I could not fix the title, which should be "Isaac Parker." Then I looked under that and I think it is a different article about the same person. Maybe you want to delete one of the two and if necessary fix the name on the other. Carrionluggage 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Carrionluggage. Merged the two articles, and redirected Issac Parker to Isaac Parker after copying relevant content. DES (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You certainly do a thorough job. I will look at the hints you left for me anytime I am unsure what to do about page titles, duplicates, etc. Carrionluggage 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)



I am interested in some help editing the OpenGCL article. Can you please give me some pointers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OpenInfo (talkcontribs) 10:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC-5)

Courtesy note about DreamGuy dispute[edit]

FYI, I am preparing information for an RfC or RFAr concerning User:DreamGuy. On the page where I am formatting the miscellaneous evidence, you are listed as a distantly-related party, since I reference one of your posts as part of the timeline, so I am just letting you know about the page, since your name appears on it. The page is still in process as I try to figure out proper formatting, but you are welcome to review the page at User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute, to ensure that information related to you is being presented correctly. If you have any comments about how the page is constructed, or any other opinions on the matter, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Thank you, Elonka 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV and SFD discussions...[edit]

... both seem to be dying a death. If you're still of the view that the original deletion of the unused stub type is in want of "Some reason for speedy supplied", your "vote" would seem to be the telling one, and I'm wondering if I shouldn't just speedily undelete it, so that it can be very sloooowly re-deleted on SFD, otherwise the process is simply being drawn out yet longer. Alai 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I see this was a newly create (and never proposed) stub, rather than a formerly used one that was emptied via stub-sorting and/or expansion of stubs, I will withdraw my opposition at DRV and let this stay deelted, but I think we should be more carful and consistant in the future. I think that if a properly created and used stub type happens to become empty, it should not be subject to speedy deletion because of the possibility that more such stubs will come along. Thanks DES (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think empty-and-never-populated is roughly the criterion I'd use, though I'm hestitant to make that a specific requirement (if the speedy criterion is ever changed or clarified), partly as it's so hard to check that (category-membership not having a collective "history"). If a long-standing and previously-populated stub-type is "emptied" then SFD is the better place, I absolutely agree. Alai 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's empty, and recently created, and was not properly proposed, I am willing to assume "never used". I have edited WP:SFD to this effect, and changed 24 hours to 4 days to match the CSD rule. I mentioned this on the talk page, of course. If it has been around for a while, I woulkd assume sue in the past, and say discussion is needed. If it was peroperly propsoed i would assume either prior use or not yet populated, and again a speedy is not appropriate. DES (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair enough on all counts. Alai 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


This tag might be a better tag for your image on your user page rather than a Fair Use image tag. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added that tag to the image in question. DES (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Have your PI and eat it[edit]

You're right, I shouldn't have done it that way and won't be doing that again. However, what I'm afraid of is that PI is turning into a problem. Specifically, the concept is good, and I can understand why the so-called "IAR crowd" (really just three or four editors) is so impopular - but PI is being abused to endorse sticking to process even in spite of common sense (see ANI and DRV discussions recently). What we really need is some middle ground that "process is generally important but there are some reasonable moments when it's not", and I'm not sure how to get there. Radiant_>|< 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding comments to PI indicating when there needs to be some flexability. In any case PI is a philosophy, not a policy. I explicitly write it as such so that people could not cite it mindlessly. It can be cited as a set of reasons to follow process, but not as a command to do so no matter what. I am curious what sort of cases you are refering to. i have often seen people say things that sound similar to what you are saying to justify, for example, speedy deletions of things obviously not covered by any of the CSD, but which the tagger or deletor thought "obviously" ought to be delted nonetheless. in general I oppose that sort of "common sense" -- i think it is neither so commonly shared as its proponets think it, nor quite so clearly good sense. But I try not to make an ass of myself in asserting this view. DES (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's see... WP:DRV#Template:User_ku_klux is one, but that's also because people want to keep all userboxes on principle (otoh it's very funny to see that some people who were radical school inclusionists and vigorously attacking the opposition, are now radical template deletionists and dismayed at the sheer amount of attacks they get from the inclusionists). There were a couple of AFDs last week that were closed two days early as a 'delete' but had a 90% consensus-to-delete at that time, then put on DRV; people wanted to throw those back to AFD even if the result was clear. I don't see any obvious examples now on WP:ANI, but it's not uncommon for people to dispute a block on an obviously disruptive user because he hasn't broken the 3RR yet, or something. I get a lot of it in policy-land, though, with people insisting on votes and bureaucratic processes on anything, while I'm in the habit of just flagging pages as {{rejected}} if nobody but the author even likes the proposal. I note that every ArbCom candidate was asked their view on IAR, but their answers didn't seriously influence the election results. Radiant_>|< 16:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I think the attempt to delete {{User_ku_klux}} was an outragous violation of both policy and good sense, as well as out-of-process, and I am not likely to change my mind on this. I don't really object to closing AfDs early if there is clear consensus, but on the other hand what is the rush? If we want to allow this, i think we ought to make the option clearer in the relevant policy pages, and give some standards to indicate when it is appropriate. The blocking policy already covers "Disruiptive editing" whether it amounts to a 3RR violation or not, so anyoen tryign to cite PI in oipposition to such a block ought to look foolish -- of course peopel might disagree about what constitutes disruption, and how much disruption warrents a block -- those are the sorts of issues that must be judgement calls, IMO, and where the only process needed is disclosign the facts of and reasons for the block on some appropere public page, and listening if other admins disagree. Had I had PI ready earlier, i might well have asked every arb-com candidate about it -- i probably will next year, and based at least my votes in part on the answers. DES (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


This user was sitting beside me when i posted the message, also he is one of my best friends. I also was getting back at him for comments he had said. That is all. User: Led-zep

That is fine, but this is not the sort of thing that is appropriate on wikipedia. You notice that I assumed tha tit was a joke of soem sort. DES (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Again!![edit]

  1. 21:15, 30 January 2006 Zoe deleted "Template:User ku klux" (inappropriate undeletion)

This userbox has been deleted again even though there is a civilized discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_27#Template:User_ku_klux. There are 12 keeps to 3 deletes yet someone on the losing side of this debate thinks they can just go in and delete this because the TFD discussion isn't going the way they want it to. I wish these rogue admins would start acting in a more civilized is getting very aggrivating!¡! Please undelete this and tell me what we can do about admins that just don't care about consensus.--God of War 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with this, there is consensus for thsi deletion at WP:DRV, and i'm not going to engage in a wheel-war over it, particualrly since I would lose. I have already made what arguemtns I can on the matter at TfD and DRV. DES (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So the moderate consensus to delete on DRV over-rides the strong consensus to keep on TFD. What complete and utter rubbish this has all become.--God of War 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps so, but in the face of the DRV discussion an attempt to undelete would be pointless. Also, if you were to combine the views on TfD and those on DRV I think you might still have a consensus to delete, although i haven't done the math. There is also the point that it seems no active user actually wants to use this at the moment, which makes arguing over it of less value. While I have opposed what I think are out-of-process deeltions, adn i think callign this an "attack tempalte" is simpley incorrect, i would not oppose a general rule banning userboxes indicating membership in political or activist organizations, and under such a rule this would go. Anyway i oppsoe this deletion -- if you want to argue about this, raise the matter with someone who did not. In theory an RfC or RfAr is the way to deal with policy violations, but given recvent history neither seems likely to achieve much good in this case. You are of course welcome to try. DES (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I screwed up archiving before. Nearly two years ago, the page was getting too large. Because there were only two person in the debate and the other guy wasn't doing anything, I (a newb) tried to archive it. Because I didn't know how to do it, I deleted the entire talk page, then wiki linked to a page in history. As of the second archving attempt I have no Idea what I did. I thought I figured out how to use "move". So I wanted to shift the fist talk page properly into Archive 1 and the current page into Archive 2. Instead, I somewhat misused paste and added wrong title to Archive page (which explain "libetarian"). So I tried to correct my mistake but then the page content has dissapeared. May be, my case can be used as example of what not to do in archving page? Hope my explanation helped. Thanks. FWBOarticle

I figured that out soemwhat. Please look at the archivces as i have created them, and see if they seem to be complete or if anything is missing. DES (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


yep, it is whole page. Thank you. I will be careful from now on about using move. By the way, nice beard. FWBOarticle

The Federal Reserve System and the US Dollar[edit]

Dear DESiegel:

Recalling the BB69 matter back in December, a somewhat interesting discourse (with, shall we say, some "similarities") has been developing with an editor named "Xode" at the discussion page Talk:United States Dollar at:

under the heading for Factuality Dispute. I am in no way comparing Xode's conduct to the outrageous behavior of BB69. The similarity lies in part in the way certain editors seem to be on a "mission" to educate everyone on what they perceive as some great injustice and, I argue, want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox as part of that mission. When you see the materials Xode is promoting regarding the Federal Reserve and the banking system and compare them to the tax protester rhetoric, I think you'll know exactly what is going on. Your input on that Talk page would bring a lot to the table! Xode's User Talk page is interesting too. Yours, Famspear 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD closings[edit]

Thank you for your comments regarding my AfD closings. I appreciate your helpfulness. -- Jonel | Speak 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles titled "Statistical fallacy and "Misuse of statistics"[edit]

Hi David

As "Misuse of statistics" is about statistical fallacies, it might be profitable to restructure Wikipedia to eliminate possible redundancy with the article entitled "Statistical fallacy." If said restructuring were to be done, the term "statistical fallacies" should be adopted and "Misuse of statistics" deleted, as the semantics of the former phrase are precise and of the latter phrase are vague.

Presently, "Misuse of statistics" is poorly written. However, I'm unable to commit the necessary time to fixing it.

Terry Oldberg

I have therefore redirected Statistical fallacy to Misuse of statistics as that is an established article, and as not all misuses are fallacies, strictly speaking. Feel free to suggest moving thsi article to Statistical fallacy on Talk:Misuse of statistics. If there is consensu in doing such a move, but you want assistance in carrying it out, feel free to ask me, or at the requested moves page. DES (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin series augmented[edit]

New article now in place as The Mauritius Command also reference made from the series article and detail issues like publications removed from the series article. Just thought it would be polite to let you know and see what you thought, still a work in progress though  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

(Thank you)**1000  :) Elonka 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not over yet -- i still need to get the archived talk pages fixed. DES (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I wish you hadn't done that quite so quickly. The discussion has been up for only about two hours, and there's still questions to be answered about whether or not Eenasul Fateh is even his name! aladin may have been better, but...done is done, I guess, just wish you hadn't been so hasty. You redirected right in an edit conflict as I was responding, which was surreal. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had seen several people supporting a page move, and a comment on ANI that the main page was moved after consensus had been achieved but the talk page had not. If people want theis moved back, or moved again, i will do the work. DES (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest here other than to observe that the move debate had been running since the 26 January, not 2 hours as suggested. Not as hasty as at first seemed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the original proposal was a week ago, but (dis)information has been changing rapidly on this article. I should have been more clear above, that the question 'do we have consensus now?' was asked 2 hours before the move, and after significant doubt had been raised as to his name/verifiability. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see my recent comments at Talk:Aladin (magician), and lets return substantive discussion there. Thank you. DES (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you people were trying to do here. Elonka asks for opinions on apage move then moves the page the second anyone objects. That's completely out of line and a controversial page like this requires a lot more time before a move. -- JJay 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Elonka reported on WP:SD that consensus for the move had been achieved, that she had already moved the article, but had been unable to move the talk page (because the new ttitle already ahd a talk page that was non-empty). I took her at her word and simply completed the move making all talk pages match the article. I should have double checked the talk page to verify the consensus, and if I had I would have acted differetly. You have now moved the article and the talk page back, but (last time i checked) left the archived talk pages at the other title. Plese finish the move you did by moving those talk pages also (or indicate that you won't and let me do so). Then, when everyone is agreed on a place to move this to (if consensus is obtained) please let me, or some other relatively uninvolved editor, carry out the move, if there is to be a move. Thank you. DES (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
DES, sorry if this put you in a bad spot. JJay has assumed that I moved the page in response to his objection, but that is incorrect -- I was in the middle of the move when he was posting. Also, when he weighed in on this the first time, he said that he didn't care about the name change[6]. I was not aware that he was going to change his mind. As I've posted elsewhere though, I agree that getting a new consensus at this point would be best. Elonka 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, this archive problem further complicates matters. I didn't even know there was an archive- someone set that up just prior to the move. Furthermore, there has been a great deal of controversy regarding both the aladin page and the Fateh page she wants to move this to. If you read the admin board, you will see a massive amount of posts regarding the fateh talk page that Elonka wants to suppress. I suspect the urgency shown here is part of that campaign. In any case, I would appreciate if you could move the archive back. Hope this was clear and sorry for the bother. -- JJay 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I was aware there had been controversy, and i was not goign to help suppress anything -- part of what I did was an attempt to preserve ALL relevant talk pages. I did accept Elonlka statement (on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, not ANI, sorry) that consensu to move had been achieved, adn a look at the talk page which must have been just before yoyu posted your objections to teh move seemed to confirm that. I apologize for hastiness. DES (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, if you have time, could you please take another look to judge whether or not you agree on Aladin page move consensus? Or would you like to give it another few days? Either way's fine with me.  :) Elonka 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
(update) Looking pretty good, I think.  :) Elonka 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind welcome. Actually, I do have a question. I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia but my favorite thing to do is detailed copy-editing. Like reading something, fixing corrections and then giving suggestions on how to improve the article overall. Is there a list of articles that wish to have this done to them? Hdstubbs 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, and also Category:Wikipedia references cleanup, and quite a few other categories listed at Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. We can use all the help we can get on that kind of editing. DES (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Hdstubbs 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mississippi mud pie (thanks)[edit]

Much oblige for the delete/partial undelete. I'd offer you a slice if it could be emailed. Youngamerican 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub tags[edit]

When creating short articels such as Firewall pinhole, please add the proper stub tag. The list of avaialble tags is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Thank you. DES (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello; I think that I understand stub articles. I had not marked this article as a stub since I thought, perhaps erroneously, that the article was relatively complete and would not need much further addition. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of stubs? ppblais 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I deal on new-page patrol with lots of articles created by people who are relatively new to wikipedia. If you had made an editorial decision that this was as complete as it was likely to get, then it is arguably not a stub. It is surely short enough to fit the classic def of a sub by length. If this is all that there is to say about this topic, then perhaps it should be merged into a larger topic, say Firewall. But perhaps not. In any case, I apologize if I sounded condescendign or told you what you already were well aware of -- such was not my intention. If you think the stub tag does not belong on that article, feel free to remove it. Of course there are no hard and fast rules about when a stub tag should be used -- it is always a judgement call. DES (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD pages[edit]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the mess about the AfD pages for Mythopoesis etc. that I created. First time I tried that "nominate multiple pages", and it didn't really work out well, did it? Lukas (T.|@) 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Joint nomination is sometimes a good idea, when the pages are very simialr. For eaxmaple there was a mass nom for a bunch of pages on specific colors a while ago. Or when there is a bio page about a person that just descrivbes a particular project, and a page about the project. But when the subjects are as separate or seperable as in this case, a mass nom doesn't work too well. if ther is a need for subhedings within an AfD page, something is not right. DES (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Washington University Article continues to be vandalized.[edit]

Hi! You helped us out before over at the Washington University in St. Louis article. A specific user continues to remove sourced information, despite continued requests and pleading from a half dozen users that (s)he at least discuss his/her edits. An official warning was posted and the user continued anyway, and was temporarily blocked. The user's block has expired, apparantly, because (s)he immediately went and made the same edit again. It seems clear that this person is interested only in ruffling feathers and being a nuisance. The IP belongs to Washington University, they may be interested in knowing that a user is using their network to harrass and vandalize another web service, which is in violation of the University's terms of service for their student network. Bjsiders 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has already reverted the change, which so far has been amde only once today. I have warned the user. Any user is fre to reprot what seems to be abuse to any ISP. The block was for 24 hours only, which is the stndard length of block for this sort of thing, so this user did not retuen as soon as the block expired. I have the page and the user on my watch list. DES (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"veterans of other conflicts" deletion[edit]

I think the category should be given a chance. It's only been an hour. As long as the category is limited to people famous for something other than the military, I think it would be quite manageable. If it does go out of control, then yes, it should be deleted. Thoughts on the subject?

Nobunaga24 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it's nota category but a list. there is a significant difference. Secondly there is strong feeling against "list of notable" titels for articles. Thirdly, the nmajoriuty of famous people in history have been involved in soem military, soemtime or other, so this potentially becomes "List of famous people". For example, virtually every roman emperor (at least all the earlier ones) would qualify, as would most middle ages rulers. Socretes would qualify, as would Plato, and most other famous figures from classical Greece. and so on and so on. Fourthly, and finally, the "Proposed deletion" process says that if even ONE person objects, the process halts for that article -- although it can of course be put on WP:AFD. And by they way, in the title "other conflicts" -- other than what? DES (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The list is a sublist of List of military veterans, so the other refers to people who don't fall into the lists such as WWI, WWII, Vietnam War, etc. The link for "other conflicts" had been red for at least a couple months, so there hasn't been a huge groundswell of people wanting to populate the list. I think maybe it should be WP:AFD then, but being relatively new here and not having done it before, I've no idea how to do it, or if removing your tag and replacing it would violate wikipedia ettiquite. Please advise.....Nobunaga24 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There is really no such thing as a "sub-list" particularly when the list doesn't even link back to the "main" list. Adding such a link might give useful added context, but the article (and lists are articles) must really stand or fall on its own.
As to ettiquite -- WP:PROD is a brand-new process, just in use today. The process page explicitly says that anyone who objects to the deletion, particuarlly if that person also edits to remove or address the objections, can remove the tag. You are free to do so, and it is not insulting or wrong in any way. if you do so, i could list on Afd, if I choose to -- I haven't yet decided if I will. But I will NOT simply replace the PROD tag. On AFD anyone can discus and express an opnion. You could also start a discussionm on the article's talk page. DES (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Hope I'm doing this right. Anyway, you contacted me about deleting PokeRealm's entry and that's fine with me. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's rules on the issue. However, I do have a problem. A rival website which is searchable under Smogon has their page listed. There's no article but they are listed as a link. How can I get that done for PokeRealm as well? Thanks. Zeroality 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links. Basically, likes which add significant encyclopedic content or which will be sueful to readers should be added, others should not. If you honestly think a particular link would be useful in a perticluar artilce, you may add it. If others disagree they cna remove it again. Or you can suggest addign a link on the talk page of the articel in question and see what people think there. But you should add a link only if you honestly think it will help readers of wikipedia, not because you think it will help the site being linked to. DES (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Date debate[edit]

I like your summary. Thanks for making it. :) --w:User:Unforgettableid

You are weldome. Please express your views at Wikipedia talk:Date debate. DES (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

one more[edit]

want to get William hyams while you're at it? aa v ^ 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. DES (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. aa v ^ 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Netbattle article issue[edit]

I withdraw my complaint. Thank you. Zeroality 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

TFD Result[edit]

Hey DES, on the tfd for user pacifist, here, there were 30 keep votes to 19 delete votes. A Strong majority to keep. However User:Splash has closed the afd as a No Consensus. He then went to Speedy delete the box claming it was divisive. Cleary the TFD has proven that the community thinks this userbox is not divisive. Please Undelete this.--God of War 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)