User talk:Jerry/Archive 5

This user is an adminstrator

Wednesday

9

October
2024

23:31 UTC

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

EditNavigation bar

Home Home

About About

Talk Talk

Logs Logs

Index Index

Tests Tests

E-mail E-mail

“ ...delusional...kangaroo... ”

Please read my notice regarding deletion reviews.

Welcome to my talk page

You are also invited to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Occasionally I repost emails that I receive to this talk page, however I remove sensitive material and personally-identifying information, such as email address, first.

I frequently collapse sections once I think the conversation is done. The section will appear as a purple bar with a summary and a link that says "show". If you are leaving me a follow-on comment for such a collapsed section, please add the new comments below the collapsed section, NOT in it. If you add comments inside a collapsed section, I may never see them.

Jerry's 10 talk page rules

1. Please no foul language, threats or namecalling.
   See: Be civil.
2. If there is any possibility (at all) that I meant well, assume that is the case, until proven or admitted otherwise. I will do the same.
   See:Assume good faith
3. Please append your wikisignature to all comments.
   See:Signing your posts
4. Please do not add any contentious material about me or any other living person.
   See: WP:BLP. and No libel or slander
5. Stop means stop. If we are in a heated argument, and I ask you to stop sending me messages on this page, then simply stop. If you think my conduct requires a review:
   See: Administrator's noticeboard, or Requests for comment
6. Do not leave messages containing any personally-identifying information about children, including yourself.
   See: protecting childen's privacy and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
7. If you are here because a template showed up on your article or talk page, and you want to know why; 99% of the time, the information you seek is located right on the template itself. Please have the courtesy to read it first, then come here to complain or ask additional questions.
   Also try: The helpdesk
8. If I deleted an article/ image, etc, and you want to know why, please look at the log for the page... I usually leave a detailed explanation including a code like "CSD#G12, COPYVIO, Content was..." If you go to the deletion policy, you will likely find your answer faster than sending me a message.
   See: WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:IFD, WP:SFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:UCFD, and WP:DELREV
9. If you do decide to ask me why your article, image, etc. got deleted, please tell me which one you are talking about. I delete many things a day, most days, and it can be very difficult for me to figure out which one you're talking about. This is particularly impossible if you are not logged-in, and your current IP Address is different than what it was when you created the article, uploaded the image, etc.
   See: Why create an account?
10. If you are here to complain about another editor, for whatever reason, please consider using one of the forums to alert all administrators of the problem. This will get you faster service, from among dozens of patrolling admins.
    See: the Administrator's noticeboard, Administrator's intervention against vandalism, or Usernames requiring administrator attention

Notice regarding deletion reviews

This user is an active closing administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you are considering initiating a formal review of a recent closing, it is requested that you attempt to have a discussion with me first, as suggested by the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Please give me at least one day to respond, and keep in mind that we may be in different time zones. If you have a valid reason that my determination of consensus may be flawed, I do appreciate the opportunity to consider it and revert my own closing or explain to you my difference of opinion without the wikidrama that is often created at DRV. If you are here to drop me a template notice of a DRV that you have already initiated, but we have not discussed it yet, please consider closing that delrev and talking with me first. Just add the comment "please close this discussion until I have a chance to discuss this with the closing administrator per WP:DRV" to the discussion, and an administrator will surely close it shortly (as long as other editors have not significantly participated yet). Thank-you for your consideration.

New discussions

General

Jerry, I know a little about you. You seem to be someone I would like to ask a few questions. There are a few snafus I am trying to work out. Flyinghigher9 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem. You can ask here, or if you prefer, my email address is jerry@lavoie.com. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jack Wilshire

I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

Sorry Jerry, I came across some old taggings of yours in image deletion cases (Image:BrianUNM.JPG) and then checked a bit in your upload log. I find a few problematic cases there. Please check:

• Image:Julien Cardy.jpg
• Image:Barney Clark.jpg
• Image:PatriciaRacette.png
• Image:JJFinley cropped.png

Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to review these images, based on a bad faith comment you left on an image description page. I feel you are baiting me into an argument and I will not have it. Please see your talk page for more details. Somebody else will undoubtedly sort out these images when the end of the review period comes due. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no matter what others said, you should never have "closed" an issue that involved your own upload (you could have helped out closing others if there was such a backlog and you wanted to make yourself useful); and especially it really doesn't look good that you put the authoritative {{rk}} on it, when there really was no review process whatsoever other than your own.

I have no problem if you don't want to look at the images again - they are all speedy deletion candidates in the absence of further input, I can handle that alright. Just thought I'd give you the usual heads-up.

And, by the way, I have honestly no recollection that we had any such issue before. It may well be the case, but I honestly can't remember ever having interacted with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was User:Jerry_Lavoie at that time. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Madhukar (author)

I just realized, I probably should have involved you in this discussion since you closed the original AFD for which Accounting4Taste G4'd the recreation. Anyhow, User:Syb has improved the article to the point where A4T & I feel that it addresses the reasons for the original deletion as such I moved the userfy'd article back into the mainspace and restored the revisions for GFDL attribution and noted the same on the article's talk page. I hope I haven't done anything too off-base here. Please let me know if I have. –xeno (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thank-you for the notification. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Howard Perdew

I did not see that relist when I read over the article. My mistake, I certainly would not have closed it had I noticed it. I'll restore the AfD. Wizardman 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NimbleX deleted?

Did you watch Afd debate of NimbleX? All contributors except nominator voted for keep and you decided to delete the page. The nominator's claim was about notability, although contributors mentioned several independent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaribi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say "all contributors except nominator", you mean "both contributors", one being an IP that has only ever made one edit, that being the !vote in the AfD. The IP made essentially the exact argument as the other (yourself), and that argument was countered by a valid counter-argument that the sources mentioned were self-referential, self-published, personal blogs and the like. This left the only valid argument being the nominator's. Therefore I determined that there had been adequate review and discussion to find a consensus for delete. If you disagree, feel free to file a deletion review. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For some sources like this one on "start Linux page" www.linux.org the nominator did not say anything. But may be it is best to wait for few days and rewrite the article with a lot of positive and negative references. Google returns 400,000 pages on this topic, about 500 of them are dissimilar, including some articles from computer magazines. Still I can not find scientific article, however.Megaribi (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend writing a userfied version of the article in your userspace at User:Megaribi/NimbleX. Then once you feel it meets the requirements for inclusion, you can seek a review for it to be moved to mainspace. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Is there any reason why the above image cannot be unprotected? It has been fully protected since March. KnightLago (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else already unprotected it. Thanks anyway. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for consulting me on my protection of this image. I agree that the big hoopla on this image has passed, and that protection is no longer warranted. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour

I am extremely kind and patient with people who make a genuine effort of understanding our policies and acting on them. I am somewhat less patient with people who simply want to dodge and circumvent the policies in order to push as many pretty images into their favourite articles as they can. I am not patient at all with people who lie and cheat about their images. And I'm growing more and more impatient with people who hypocritically turn up at my talk page to badger me. Just go and do something else. I am not interested in discussing my behaviour with you in particular. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. This will likely result in an RFC at some point if an improvement is not seen. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Avakit

Dear Jerry,

I am a new Wikipedia user and my first article was deleted yesterday, less than a day after I wrote it. It was entitled "Avakit".

I would like to ask 2 things, but please tell me if I am going about it the wrong way since I am not sure yet how this works, I just clicked on the Discussion tab to write to you:

1. I would like to request a copy of the article that was deleted please because I don't have any backup of the text I wrote
2. Is there any way to make it more interesting or to fix it in your opinion? Or is it simply not Wikipedia material?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Avazed (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Avazed

I see that according to the deletion log:

15:31, 22 August 2008 Ian13 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Avakit" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)

I also see from your user page that an editor has already explained why the article was deleted, and that another admin, User:Aqwis, has already provided you with a copy of the deleted content at User:Avazed/Avakit.

I will add a welcome template to your userpage which has lots of helpful links to our policies, guidelines, and the manual of style. I recommend that you review these links, and if you still have questions, feel free to ask me. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you that was very helpful :) Avazed (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag at Deletion Review

I didn't remove your comments, I removed a tag you placed; there's a key difference between the two on Wikipedia, and I'm sure you can appreciate that. I removed my edit summary which you transposed as an unsigned comment. I would encourage you to move your comment (on the tag being removed and restored) to the talk page, as it does not contribute to the actual deletion review discussion.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the conclusion that you are correct. Since the ambox was primarily worded in such a manner as to address the nominator and make a suggestion. By deleting the ambox, you were essentially saying "I've read your request and have decided not to oblige it." And since none of that contributes to the evaluation of the deletion under review, it is entirely appropriate for it to be removed from the discussion page. I am disappointed that editors choose to hold DRV's without prior discussion, but that is an entirely separate issue. I am considering placing some text at the bottom of the ambox template such as: "nominator may remove this tag at anytime' any other editor may remove it after this review discussion has significant participation by others." Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Described change has been made: Template:NAD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the the change from "required" to "encouraged" was a good one. Adding the disclaimer at the bottom probably isn't incredibly necessary... Well, maybe the part about "once discussion is underway" is helpful. If the nominator for deletion review strongly feels the tag should be removed, they (like me) would normally just remove it (even without the disclaimer). On the other hand, maybe a nudge once the discussion has begun is helpful. Thanks for considering my concerns earlier. Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Orient de Suisse

Just to say thanks. JASpencer (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader not necessary

Hi, Jerry! Just as an FYI, the template {{talkheader}} is only meant to be used when necessary - as it says on the template page, "Using the template is suggested for talk pages that are very active or have had policy violation problems. This template should be used only when needed." Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But I like it. Can't I just ignore that rule and put it on any talk page I want? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to say you can't, but it's unnecessary, contributes to "talk page clutter" and extra work (both you putting it on and someone else maybe taking it off). But that's just my opinion, and the general consensus of the people that created (and use) the template... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only use it on talk pages for articles that have survived AfD. These articles, by definition, have been the subject of controversy, or at least of editors in conflict. It seems likely that these talk pages will be a venue for discussion among editors who begin out of disagreement, and therefore, the template seems like a good idea to me. By the way, the template is added as part of the {{topmatter}} template, which is suggested in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Having read the talk page fo0r the template, and the various TfD's, I do not see any consensus against its use on any page where an editor feels it is possibly useful. It was just shot down as boilerplate and discouraged for use on empty pages. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that all articles that go through an AfD are by definition "the subject of controversy". I know there are many articles that are nominated for AfD in a rote manner, not because of any "controversy". The documentation for {{talkheader}} says it's "for talk pages that are very active or have had policy violation problems". If, when you're closing an AfD, you think the template is needed, by all means, add it. But if the talk page was not very active, and you're adding the AfD notice to an all but empty page, perhaps it doesn't belong? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"or at least of editors in conflict" was an important part of the sentence you quoted. By that, I mean an editor created an article, which presumably means he or she wants (or at least wanted) the article to exist. And a nominator created the AfD, which presumably means that he or she did NOT want the article to exist. That defines a conflict of opinion, (albeit potentially amicably-so). I do not find the contents of the template to be radically specific to contentious battles, in fact it provides some nice links and includes an automatic listing of talk page archives now. That the original template designer(s) wanted it to be used for one specific purpose should not restrict my use of it. I also do not see any evidence of a consensus-forming process to determine or "bless" those instructions to be included in the template documentation; it rather instead seems like one or a few editor's personal opinion. I always reserve the right to disagree with most anyone's opinion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, you asked the question "Can't I just ignore that rule and put it on any talk page I want?" This is Wikipedia - you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't disrupt the encyclopedia. But there are valid reasons *not* to put it on "any talk page I want" - and I've pointed out a couple. I'd request that you not simply add the template when closing an AfD, since I don't believe (IMO) an AfD is always "editors in conflict" so much as just editors in process. But that's just my request :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have heard your request, and given it due consideration. I don't agree with you, obviously, and I do plan to continue to add the template to all article talk pages where I close the corresponding AfD as keep. This has been my practice for many months, now, and I can not see how anyone could possibly make a case that any disruption is caused. The nice thing is that on wikipedia, editors such as yourself and myself can disagree amicably and still edit together and help build and maintain the project. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FPAS

I was just reading that, having seen the outcome of the Chillenden photo deletion review. Basically I agree with what is claimed, but have never done a RFC before. Do I simply sign in the "Endorse" section or do I need to / may I add comments whilst signing? Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am not giving you suggestions or advice on how to contribute to this specific RFC, I will answer your question about contributing to RFC's in general. If you have additional concerns, or additional evidence that you wish to provide, or if your desired outcome is not the same as the existing section, then you can endorse or not endorse the existing section and still add your own section. If you add your own section, you should include all of the section formatting as the original, and you must endorse your own section by signing. If you simply wish to register your complete agreement with the original poster, then you can simply sign the section for endorsement, as I did, and then not bother to add your own section. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Although my last concern about another deletionist BetaCommand yielded criticism that I should refrain from being concerned about such people. I'll have a look later. I take it he is continuing to delete useful or irreplaceble fair use images despite consensus to keep them. Abusing his tools? The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Many editors in good standing apparently think so. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Equally many admins who have dealt with image issued think that he isn't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great opportunity for a discussion to attempt to see each other's point of view and find a workable solution that will meet each person's expectations and make the project more enjoyable and efficient. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure that RfC's are an efficient way of dealing with problems, but they certainly help people understand and appreciate other points of view. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I certainly agree with you, that RFC's are by no means an efficient way of dealing with issues; but forcing people who refuse to acknowledge the perceived grievance of others to at least read and comment is a good step toward finding the workable solution we all yearn for. If achievable, the win-win solution is one that then makes wikipedia more efficient. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

I am disappointed at the decision to delete this article after rather inconclusive and inconsistent discussion. First, there was the "Prof" title which was wrongly given as one of the reasons for deletion. Please see my discussion on this. Second reason was about "notability", which was again found to be rather strange argument for a man who published 12 books, many of which are found in Amazon today and a google search results in over 10K hits and who is featured in German Wikipedia. After I countered these two original reasons for deletion, then came a general complaint about "bias", without any specifics or examples, about a biography after all. Lastly, you mentioned "lack of proper sources", which is again hard to understand as there are sources given, which can certainly be improved and should not have been a cause for deletion. In fact, in all this, I still did not encounter a single good argument or reason why this article deserved an outright deletion. I would like your help and guidance on this matter as I am a rookie user. Also, as I do not have access to the original material anymore, I would like your help in recovering it for a future improvement. Thanks.--24.46.20.158 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How very disappointing to write up an entire reply with wikilinks and dates and times, names and quoted details. 4 paragraphs. And when I submitted it, the server said "mySQL server is in read-only mode", so my reply is gone away. Now I go write it up again. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the article Erich Feigl, that was created on 23 June 2008 by Hudavendigar. The Coren search bot identified the text of the article as a copyright violation of www.monarchie.at, and tagged it as such. The webpage was later identified as the personal website of the subject of the article, (confirmed by WHOIS), which also presented verifiability problems, as well as neutrality issues, even though the article had been re-written to correct the original copyvio issue. It therefore became maintenance-tagged for verifiability and POV. It was later tagged for lacking secondary sources, and ultimately was nominated for deletion by Namsos on 29 JUN 2008.

Jayjg closed the deletion discussion after 5 days of discussion during which time the article was flagged for rescue and the discussion received significant participation. Jayjg determined the consensus as delete, but (in my opinion) left a cloudy and ambiguous, if not confusing closing summary.

The closing was contested at Deletion review on August 11th, and after a full 5-day listing period I closed the review as deletion endorsed. I further indicated that there would be no prejudice against creation of a properly sourced, neutral article.

A major problem with both Jayjg's closing summary, and most of the DRV discussion, seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the heirarchical application of our notability guidelines. The primary notability guideline is WP:N. Any article subject that passes the criteria of this guideline does not need to be scrutinized against any other guideline, no matter how appropriate the applicability of the guideline may seem to be. If it passes WP:N, then it IS notable, period. Some articles are not able to easily be shown to pass the narrow and vague criteria of WP:N. For these articles, there may be a supplemental guideline that fits the subject. If so, then these supplemental guidelines provide a second catchment, under which the article may be retained. So whether WP:PROF applied or not, was an invalid objection to deletion. In reality, the article was likely scrutinized against all of the supplemental notability guidelines, but nobody bothered to mention the ones that obviously did not apply. That the article was given a seconf chance (WP:BIO) and a third chance (WP:PROF) to pass notability does not mean that we were stricter in our scrutiny, but rather quite the opposite.

You do have the option to submit another DRV to have the AfD closing and/ or my closing of the DRV reviewed. I do not think this will yield any practical results, as other administrators continuously review eachother's DRV closings, and if I got it wrong, I would have undoubtedly been told so by now, 2 weeks later.

As for your request to provide the deleted content, I am not willing to do that, based on the fact that it was originally a copyright violation, and was non-neutral. There are currently 109 other administrators who have listed themselves at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Other administrators may have a different opinion, so you may want to ask one of them.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Refocussing?

No, first I need to know when these things occurred. Some link please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your previous request, this conversation is not occurring on our talk pages. End of thread. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)