I'm still "getting there" with Bot flagging, so forgive a stupid question, but it appears that SoxBotVI has long had its flag? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still "getting there" with Bot flagging, so forgive a stupid question, but it appears that SoxBotVI has long had its flag? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
== Fred M. Levin ==
Can you explain to me how canvassing clearly happened? Which on of these did I violate?
I used limited scale, a neutral message, audience was non-partisan, and it was done in the open. although several people said Levin was not notable as a scholar, no one discussed the issue that I raised that perhaps he should not be judged as a scholar but as a therapist. You also said that I attacked people. Where in the deletion review did I attack anyone? [[User:Mwalla|Mwalla]] ([[User talk:Mwalla|talk]]) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla
| Raises questions of bad faith intentions{{fn|4}}
-->
|}</center>
Revision as of 21:25, 6 March 2009
Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.
This is MBisanz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
I am puzzled as to why all reference to Stellar Crisis has been removed from Wikipedia.
Stellar Crisis was the first browser based game on the web. It was listed in the list of multiplayer brower games. [List_of_multiplayer_browser_games] and as every game in that list has a reference page there was also one for Stellar Crisis.
I can see that some attempt was made to validate the information on that page however although links to the web sites serving that game and the yahoo user group were given it is surprising that no query was sent to any of the three server sysops. (There's a term you don't hear anymore; sysop.)
The Silver Dart was the first airplane flown and has historic significance. There is only one copy made for the 100th aniversary. The validity of this plane & it's flight is validated through the people of the area and notes of the developers. This is the same type of material that validates Stellar Crisis. If I interview the old guys where would I be able to get it published. The magazines are dying. We put it in Wikipedia.
Stellar Crisis has historic significance. It is unfair to remove it.
Attempts to use the wayback machine which was only started in 1996 see FAQ to verify existence of a site for 1993 seems ineffective however it can validate back to 1998. The archive shows sites active in Dec 12, 1998 and 1999 If you wish to maintain historical accuracy adding the phrase "claims to have launched in 1993" would not be unreasonable. Deletion is!
You appear to have found the article and although it gives only a cursor reference to Stellar Crisis. Publicizing a free game is significant in an advertiser paid magazine. Do you consider the stellar-crisis room web site to be published or gamestats.com from 1999 or on everything2
The following instruction page available on sourceforge is dated as "Revised 5/5/97" and other documents on sourceforge present the year as 1992 although the source code for version 2.9 shows 1996.
The list of servers is available at servers and on the front pages at the links above for 1998, 1999.
First I should acknowledge that although I saw and contributed to earlier page versions, I did not see the article upon which you based your decision.
As I read the policy it indicated that I should discuss with you, the deleter, first. Are you simply saying you won't change your mind and don't want to discuss this or is my reading of the policy inaccurate and I need to progress to an undeletion request?
Stellar Crisis is at least as notable as The Continuum and KDice. I'm not looking at further examples as this isn't a competition. If it is your decision, should I prepare an article for your review?
Strider22 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daveport Iowa=
You are listed as an administrator for deleting Davenport, Iowa African American history (changed to African Americans in Davenport, Iowa). There was a deletion debate and that article was not slated to be deleted. What gives?Brrryce (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wait a minute. You are the final arbiter? Despite there being what I think were reasonable compromises to explore, you can simply say, 'Delete'? I'm not comfortable with that. I note that you wrote an article on a bowling alley, which I'll assume is something you consider notable. I don't accept that. In fact, I think it's absurd. I'm hoping the administrator review process is considerably less capricious than this. Brrryce (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I would like to add reliable sources to attest to notability for the Sophia Lamar entry which was recently deleted. She is a legend & an icon in not only New York City but also the transgendered and fashion communities as a whole, far more notable than most of the figures on the List of transgender people which remain. Please advise on how I should go about this; I can assure you it was not a vanity page that she tried to maintain herself. Thanks! Dnyinnyc (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You decided to keep the entry Forestle based on WP:SNOW. Could you please explain this guideline; I read the wiki page but do not fully understand what it means in the current case. Does it mean that the case FOR keeping the entry was very clear from the discussions? This might be particularly important as the Forestle entry early had a speedy deletion tag that was removed after a short presence. Second, the notability issue is still marked at the top of the Forestle entry page, although essentially every important aspect of Forestle has external references that in my view are fully suitable. I would very much appreciate your help. --Subwaynyc (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means the unanimity of the people saying to Keep at that AFD meant the AFD had a snow ball's chance in hell of resulting in a Delete. Other editorial issues like Notability should be dealt with at the article talk page or at the relevant Wikiproject. User:DGG knows alot about Notability, so I might ask for his help. MBisanztalk22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a bit suprised that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myer stores as a delete - by my reckoning (albeit as someone who voted to keep the article) there was no consensus either way. While AfDs aren't a poll, there were 10 keep votes and 11 delete, with both sides arguing that WP:NOTDIR supported their position. The deletion discussion wasn't helped by the very poor quality of the original AfD nomination which provided no detail on the nominating editor's concerns. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't vote count, but including the nominator, the count is 13 delete, 10 keep. Some of the Keep comments are quite strong, but DGG's argument citing past practice and the Keep comments merely indicating the article isn't intended as a directory tipped it to a rough consensus to delete. MBisanztalk22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, but maybe you misunderstood what was going on? Jaakobou edited Nishidani's comments, I reverted it, he reverted me, and Tznkai reverted him. So... why warn me? Avruch T 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know I am running a bit late. I broke my knee this week and am a bit slower moving around than usual. Just that reverting on WP:RFAR, even to the right version, isn't a good idea, since if there is a problem (someone editing someone else's comments or someone being uncivil), that is something that clerks should know about to make sure it is dealt with. MBisanztalk03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is silly. Kind of like saying you shouldn't leave a note about editing comments at RfAr unless you're an ArbCom clerk. Avruch T 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is useful to let the clerks know though, so that we can be on the look out for that kind of editing. Now Jaakobou has been warned not to edit war and had it explained what he should do if he objects to a comment. If he does it again once the case starts, it won't be a warning from a clerk, it will probably be a block. MBisanztalk03:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre channel almost two days early (28 days in February...).
Relisted: 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Closed: 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This was not a clear consensus deletion and it was currently split about 50/50, especially as the nom withdrew the AfD (withdrawn long before the first relist), which put it at an exact 50/50 split. There was also a source from an actual book, and not a "self published" book. Please double check. Thanks. Tothwolf (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed on the 15th, it was past due, not early. Also the AfD sure looks like a delete to me, it only looks close if you see it as a vote. Chillum04:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't overdue. It was relisted twice instead of a no consensus close the first two times. A relist still has to go through the normal 5 day listing. I had already removed two sections from the article that prompted the initial nom and first two delete votes, which is likely why this thing got relisted and no one else really felt like voting delete. Tothwolf (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the various early AFD closing discussions, no one has ever voiced an objection to closing a relist after the five day period but before the 10 day period. This was already working on 14 days. Please see WP:RELIST and WP:DRV. MBisanztalk04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why wasn't this closed as a no consensus before we got a few more drive-by deletes? Going by the discussion this was still clearly a no consensus issue. If not for the fact that we actually found sources I'd have voted delete on this one myself. (Sorry to hear about your knee, I didn't have your talk page watchlisted so I hadn't seen you mention that until now. Probably a bit cliché but hope you feel better soon.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because AfD is not a vote. Also, by talking about him closing it earlier, are you saying that you are complaining that he closed it "early" as Delete, but would not have complained if he had closed it "early" as Keep? J.delanoygabsadds05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'd have likely asked the same thing if had been closed early as Keep. IMO the only possible outcome of that AfD given the current discussion that I'd seen was no consensus. Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern. AFDs generally get closed whenever a patrolling admin gets around to them. There are maybe 10 admins who patrol AFD on a regular basis, so closing times are fairly random. In this case what tilted me more towards Delete was that Capitalistroadster and Sloane came back after the improvements were made and still thought it should be deleted. Now if you can convince Dynaflow or Frozenevolution that it is ok, that would tip it towards a No Consensus close, but without any indication of change of their opinions (they did have 10 days to come back to the discussion), it is sort of stuck here. MBisanztalk05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that's bothering me here is the first two "voters" never bothered to come back and follow up after the unreferenced sections were removed. Capitalistroadster didn't see the references on the Talk page (or read the full AfD until I made a bold comment pointing out the references were on the talk page). Then he changed his reasoning that they should be in the article (which might be valid if not for the fact we located them after the AfD was initiated and had planned to rework the entire thing anyway). As for Sloane...eh... I can't take anything he said seriously. Would it be appropriate to post links to Sloane's talk page here? (I ask because worry those might turn into a can of worms...) Tothwolf (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...the only conclusion I could come to is the guy lives to nom things for AfD and vote to delete everything on AfDs. I just couldn't take him seriously at that point (and I saw these before I left a followup for him in the AfD.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not really seeing how this relates to the article in question. I mean just because someone was blocked for editing at another article isn't a reason to discount their comment at AFD. Unless you can show me something Sloane has done wrong at this article. I can't do anything further. MBisanztalk07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link might help explain why he didn't bother to come back and clarify? Have a look though the AfDs from the redlinks linked from his pages above. If you look close you'll spot the different usernames he has used. These look like trophy pages to me... This is why I can't take anything he said in the Pre channel AfD seriously. Tothwolf (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see what I meant I guess? I mean [2] yikes... We already had sources that covered the material left in Pre channel and they were on the talk page. The nom checked them and seemed ok with them as did some of the others who weighed in during the AfD. I've got a full archive (all revisions) of Pre channel anyway. I thought this might happen so I carefully archived everything so I can work on rewriting/merging it and the other related articles that need major work later. At that point I'll likely just do a redirect and request a history undeletion to remain GFDL compliant. I'm more concerned at this point with the fact that there are people on wiki who are just here for a delete thrill. I suspected there were a few here and there, but this one disturbs me. Btw, I might as well ask here since I'm thinking about it... Are you handling things for Rjd0060? I wasn't sure if I should post things to his talk page or yours? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are fine by me, so just flag me or anyone else down to do the GFDL undeletion. Yea, it concerns me with such meatball:VestedContributors, but I can't do anything about that, so I just do other things. I'm covering for Rjd while he is traveling, so what can I do for you? MBisanztalk07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we work on whatever we can... I've got a number of {{prod}}s that I'd uncovered that Rjd0060 deleted but I wasn't sure who to ask about them. He hadn't been active so I wasn't sure if something had happened to him or what. I'm not really ready to deal with those articles just yet, I've just been compiling a list while cleaning up the rest of the IRC stuff. I'll see if I can get them sorted out in the next day or so. Btw, I discovered a few AfDs that were initiated and led by two people in retaliation after their own IRC project's article got deleted (that article has since been recreated after it became notable) but the articles that were deleted covered competing projects that were already notable. What's the proper course of action for dealing with that sort of COI mess? It's blatant and one of the two guys even mentioned he was going to do it in the AfD for his project's article. Should I provide links to those here? Tothwolf (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not worth it here, I can't do anything about that sort of thing on my own. You might try posting to WP:AN. I can handle undeletions of his PRODs whenever you are ready. MBisanztalk08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work up a list of the prods. It looked like someone went though the entire category of IRC networks (and maybe some others) and prodded pretty much everything. It left an awful mess of redlinks in the templates and it took me awhile to figure out exactly what had happened. What would be the best way to present that COI mess at WP:AN? These two guys actually tried an AfD on a third article after they succeeded with the first two but it looks like they gave up their plan of getting all the other articles deleted after the third one failed. Looking at their account histories it seems like they created their accounts just for the purpose of dealing with their own project's AfD but then almost immediately targeted those other articles after it got deleted. I actually have those links ready at hand because I've been trying to figure out the best way to deal with the mess they created. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this and decided I should clarify some things for the record as I still consider this a bad close. There just wasn't any way to consider this AfD as anything other than no consensus. I would take it to DRV if not for the fact that DRV doesn't seem to be worth the trouble and would otherwise take up a lot of time I'd rather spend working on other articles.
Here is a breakdown of the AfD itself (nomination:withdrawn, keep:3, delete:4):
nomination: Zetawoof -- (withdrawn after sources were located)
delete: Dynaflow"There's no way I can see it passing WP:V, let alone WP:WEB" -- Seemed to be referring to sections of the article that were removed for failing WP:NOT / WP:EL, never came back to clarify.
delete: Frozenevolution"Cannot find any reliable sources as per nom its unlikely that reliable sources do exist." -- That's funny, I managed to find some, including a dead tree book reference that is also used in some of the other Warez articles.
keep: My own comment and vote where I pointed out we had sources.
relist: "no consensus" (20 February 2009)
relist: "no consensus" (25 February 2009)
keep: Letsdrinktea -- "Looks notable enough and has potential"
delete: Capitalistroadster"unless references from reliable sources are added." -- Didn't read the AfD or see that that references had been placed on the talk page for discussion.
delete: Sloane"As no references." -- Also didn't seem to read the AfD...
My comment pointing out the references on the talk page again...
keep: MichaelQSchmidt"and allow continued improvement of the article since there is an active good faith effort to address the nom's concerns."
If this wasn't "no consensus" then it should have been closed as a delete instead of being relisted twice. Further discussion did not help with consensus and obviously did not help improve the article as it is now flagged as deleted.
If you have the time, you may wish to see this message I left to you on Commons: [3] When there is 199 outstanding flickr images and images have been waiting to be reviewed for 1 full week...something is seriously wrong here. I wish SterkeBak was around to clean this up but he's gone. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could delete the history under the redirect if you wanted. Fire's comment on the likelihood of a search term was very strong though. MBisanztalk04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be a reasonable search term, but nearly everyone strongly agreed that the article's actual content was original research/made up or a hoax. Multiple editors calling it "ridiculous" or expressing severe reservations as to the concept ("What is this", "My goodness", "[only] God knows", etc) is especially compelling and makes me think the content should be permanently removed since it will never be of use anywhere on the project. I won't make an issue of this if you disagree, but I was surprised that such an obvious consensus to nuke the content led to a redirect closure. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider deletion of Jack Talbert, discussed [here]. Of the two editors who voted Keep, one clearly did not read the article or review sources (this is easily determined by observing that his reason for voting keep was faulty; he stated that Talbert was an inventor, a claim neither Talbert, nor the article makes), and the other was Talbert himself, the author and subject of the article (conflict of interest). Neither of the sources establish notability, if closely examined.--E8 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It came down to a disagreement over notability. I could have pushed it towards deletion, but I felt there was good faith disagreement over the notability of the subject. I would suggest a merger or redirection to Gasoline Vapor or an AFD in another couple weeks when the fate of Gasoline Vapor is known. MBisanztalk04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prods and a much larger mess, help requested
I've mostly finished sifting out the prods from the red links list although I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet. I'd like to have them restored slowly so I can have an updated version ready for each article as they are restored. I was able to pull copies of this batch of prodded articles from deletionpedia so I have copies to work with.
What troubles me is while going though all of these links for the final sort, I noticed a pattern and upon further digging discovered a connection with a much larger issue. It doesn't have anything to do with the admin who deleted them (he was just deleting expired prods) but I have some concerns about the person(s) who prodded them. I think this is going to warrant further investigation and I'm requesting help in sorting out this mess. I'd been absent from Wikipedia for a long time until this last year for personal reasons and I really don't know who to contact now since things on Wikipedia seem to have changed a lot since I was originally active. The very reason I returned to Wikipedia last year is I noticed articles were disappearing from the Internet Relay Chat categories. I initially noticed articles were disappearing while I was working on fixing a bug in some software. I had been using one article as a quick reference and when I happened to try to pull it up again, it had been deleted. It has taken me this long to finally get to the bottom of this mess and what I've found really disturbs me. I hope you can bring this to the attention of the correct people so we can right the problems and make sure this doesn't happen again.
There were at least 14 articles that I can find that were mass-tagged with a {{prod}} template in this batch. There may have been others but these are the articles I could find going by the red links that I removed while reworking the navigation templates. These are not all of the IRC articles that disappeared but these are the articles I can easily connect to the same mass-prod.
Here is the list that I have so far. I'm not ready to have them all restored just yet but I would like you to restore one that I'm just about done reworking which I'll mention below.
Two of the 14 articles are already back on Wikipedia. You restored AbleNET last week and Byxnet was recreated from what appears to be a snapshot version by one of its editors (I guess he didn't know how to contest a prod). AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge, Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration.
AustNet appears to have gone though an AfD so I doubt you can do much with this one yourself but maybe other admins can get involved and help fix this larger mess.
IRCHighway for some reason isn't showing up in the deletion logs. I'm not sure what's going on with that one. Its redirect still shows up though and I was able to pull a copy of the article itself from deletionpedia.
The article I'd like to have restored first is Abjects. I believe this is the one that kicked off this mass-prod. As you were already aware, AbleNET was deleted outside of the rules for a {{prod}} since it had already gone though an AfD. It also had plenty of references and clearly was a notable topic even if the article was (and really still is) in need of major attention. (I'm currently trying to help the other editor who asked to have AbleNET restored clean up the references section and include {{cite}} templates.)
Abjects contains a section and a reference linked to a court case [4] initiated by Hal Turner against 4chan.org, 7chan.org, Ebaumsworld.com, NexisOnline.net, Abjects.com, and John Does 1-1000. This alone more than made Abjects a notable article even though like AbleNET, it was poorly written and needed major work.
After I discovered the Hal Turner connection and court documents, I started digging deeper into online postings made by Hal Turner on a number of fringe sites where he posted and discovered what seems to be a loose connection with this mass-prod of IRC articles. It appears that one or more supporters of Hal Turner or someone somehow connected with this group decided to try to rid Wikipedia of IRC-related articles. Nothing firm was stated that I saw but there was a general unhappiness within his group of supporters over the information available on Wikipedia. I haven't checked the edit logs of the other IRC network articles just yet but I'm wondering if the rest of the Internet Relay Chat networks were similarly targeted and prodded. If this is the case, I would expect that the Rizon article would have also been targeted as it just so happens to be the home of 4chan.
In any case, this mess is a bit overwhelming and I'm requesting assistance in trying to sort it all out. I can rewrite and improve the articles themselves but I feel that I'm reaching my limits on digging into the larger issue. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
I know you are really busy right now so this can wait if need be. If there is someone else you think would be better suited to help handle and clean up this mess handing this off to someone else would be ok too. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reworked Abjects and I think its much better now than it was previously. I've also reworked Rizon but the vandals are still removing content. I tried taking it to Requests for page protection but even with 40+ links to the diffs showing the long term ongoing vandalism, comments left by the vandal claiming to use automated processes, and logs of past semi-protections someone tagged the request as declined. If there was any content on the talk page for Abjects we should probably also get that restored. As I mentioned above, AbleNET's talk page currently needs a history merge (if it existed), Byxnet itself needs a history merge for GFDL compliance, and Byxnet also needs a talk page restoration (if there was any content there as well). I guess I'll go ahead and try to fix up AbleNET's references next and then figure out which of the other prods I want to tackle after that. (Btw, I've discovered even more articles that were part of this mass-prod batch but I still need to sort them out. This is an awful mess.) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I finally put the info I had so far for this specific batch of articles into a table and put it on the WikiProject IRC/to do page. I'm not quite sure what to start with next. This is a much larger mess than I originally thought. (And this isn't even the mess I mentioned earlier about the software authors nominating competing project's articles after their own project's article was deleted.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you just deleted that article (thank you, by the way), but Guinea pig warrior (talk·contribs), the creator of that article, has decided to move User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel (created by HK22 (talk·contribs)), in which I prodded earlier but the user userfied to the userspace) to Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA) after you deleted it. I'm thinking that this is more of a dispute resolution issue (a user wanting to de-userfy another user's article into the mainspace against that user's wishes) than an admin issue (I did inadvertently tag for G4 here but reverted here after discovering what happened. I don't know if admin help is needed here, but since you were the deleting admin, I thought I would let you know. Thank you, MuZemike08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you re-open the AFD and extend its duration? There is no consensus to merge the content into heavy metal music: two editors suggested that but after I made a reply, one of them has changed his mind into delete. I can only assume the other editor has not returned to the AFD and seen my response. In any case, that means only one editor thinks it should be merged into heavy metal music, another editor thinks its should be merged into black metal, another thinks it should be kept while two editors (including myself as nominator) think it should be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I closed as a Merge into either article. WP:RELIST only permits relisting for a lack of comments, not a disagreement of comments. Merging can be discussed at the article talk page, AFD is just for deciding retention of the article. MBisanztalk21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think four comments qualify as a lack of comments, especially since not one of those four comments were in agreement with another. Also, Heavy Metal Music is nothing more than a redirect so there's little chance that anyone will complete the merge. You might want to change it accordingly. --Bardin (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four is a good number of comments, and there was definitely consensus to not retain the article. Merging it presented the best compromise method of dealing with it. I moved the merge tag to the talk page with the proper capitalization. MBisanztalk02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna invoke WP:IAR here -- that "Redundant policies" village pumps page is just ridiculous, and I really don't think an immediate delete would be controversial. Equazcion•✗/C •05:18, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't heard a reply back from you re: your deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa after the deletion discussion had advised against doing so. So I filed a report against you. Brrryce (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brrryce - MBisanz's close was probably wrong, but you're likely to find that a recall won't be successful. Have you tried bringing the case up at deletion review? WilyD18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious if the page I recently authored was still up for deletion. It has been put up twice for discussion and I have noticed that no one in the community has objected to the article. I wanted to get your thoughts on if there were any revisions that needed to be made to make it Wikipedia worthy. I think the original dilemma is now solved seeing that the article now has credible notability . Thank you assistance!Mlsizemore (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know that particular field well. I was just relisting since few people had commented at the discussion. Right now it looks like it will close as a No Consensus Keep, so it should be ok. MBisanztalk20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for the timely response. I just couldn't get a hold of "Mr. Senseless" so thats why I left a comment on your talk page. Thanks for the info!Mlsizemore (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting only redirects the article, all the content is still under the redirect, so it can be merged (the effective difference between Merge and Redirect in zero). WP:RELIST permits the extension of discussions only when there is a lack of comments (one or two), there were more than that, so relisting wouldn't have been possible. Also, I think I finished the history merge you tagged. MBisanztalk21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the case of "Spokes..." the content is not available anymore. Same for "Binge and Grab". I don't know what exactly makes them less notable then "We Are One", but you might tell me. Also, I've made a note at the "Welcome..." discussion, which points out the double standard, being used on Wikipedia. As for the merges, 1 out of 9, yes. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord222:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed a good number of AfDs, and it never ceases to amaze me how two nearly identical articles can have different results just because different people comment in the discussions. It is a real double standard, I agree, mitigated to some extend by deletion sorting, but otherwise no solvable. Redirects are generally harmless, so if you want me to restore content under a redirect, let me know where and I'll do it. MBisanztalk22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me why you said the afd is keep? I know afd's are not vote but the three keeps are all arguments that it exist. Personally I would have waited or at most said no consensus. 16x9 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:RELIST does not permit relists when people have commented. And given all of the comments after the relist were keep, it moved it that way. Also No Consensus defaults to Keep, so it is the same effective close. MBisanztalk02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User:MBisanz/AfD for a more detailed discussion. In this case several established users disagreed over the notability of the article. The promotional nature of it was cited as a reason to delete and was corrected by a user. OwenBlacker provided several sources. That tipped it to Keep. MBisanztalk02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Frank, but most of those are PR. I guess I will agree to disagree.
BRFA request
I'm still "getting there" with Bot flagging, so forgive a stupid question, but it appears that SoxBotVI has long had its flag? --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred M. Levin
Can you explain to me how canvassing clearly happened? Which on of these did I violate?
I used limited scale, a neutral message, audience was non-partisan, and it was done in the open. although several people said Levin was not notable as a scholar, no one discussed the issue that I raised that perhaps he should not be judged as a scholar but as a therapist. You also said that I attacked people. Where in the deletion review did I attack anyone? Mwalla (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
