MD, I noticed you were the closing admin Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and civil leaders. The page Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations was also included in the same nomination, but I notice it hasn't been deleted. I don't think any of the responders has different responses for the two different pages-- Could ask-- did you intentionally treat the second nominated page differently? or was it just an oversight? --Alecmconroy 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the ArbCom questions page. In my case, Cyde didn't change my opinion - I felt that abstaining from all voting was the ethical way to go. I don't think the community is going to be lacking because of my missing votes and it avoids any conflict of interest. I also wanted to wish you luck - Terence mentioned the other day that you might be going into service soon. Hope everything goes well! Shellbabelfish 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I've never seen your instructions image on your Talk page before now. Simple, yet with style. I like it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago, you were the closing admin for this AFD for The Blind Pig (fiction). The article was nominated for deletion because it had "[n]o evidence of notability or encyclopedic merit". I do not contest that assertion, having had the article at the time of deletion restored to my userspace here by Rossami.
I've tried to retool this into something that meets guidelines and is properly cited. I am curious, as the original closing admin, what your opinion is of its current sandbox state. Although this certainly wouldn't be "recreation of deleted content" were I to promote it into mainspace at this point, I'd like to avoid doing so against consensus. As an aside, the most commonly occurring title would be Tales From the Blind Pig, as noted in the lede, and so that is where I would promote the article if it earns the right to return to the project.
Thanks for your input! Feel free to respond either here or at my talk, at your option and convenience. Serpent's Choice 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No rush! I know you stay far busier than I do. The article's been gone awhile, and been being rewritten for awhile. I'd rather it patiently wait its turn to see if it deserves a return rather than jump the gun. It'll be there. Serpent's Choice 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Evil albino. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)
Yeah, I actually suspected that would be the case with the Derek Ryenberg article (I actually think I'll leave the other one, it might become something useful). Anyway, thanks for cleaning everything up! --Lijnema 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of iPhone. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. schitalk 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly appreciate a peek at the rewrite/reconstruction of the former The Blind Pig (fiction) article I'm working on in my userspace. I've also been in limited communication with the original AFD nominator, although I'm afraid not with quite the level of cooperation I'd've hoped for. His response to me didn't give me a lot to work with, although I tried to be thorough in my reply. I'm faced with three options at the moment: my first impulse is to be bold and promote to mainspace, but with the objections of the original AFD nominator, I'm afraid that might be viewed as unnecessarily antagonistic. Alternatively, I could take this to DRV since the original died in AFD, but this isn't strictly a recreation of deleted material and I know DRV stays busy as it stands. Or, should you agree substantively with Petaholmes, I'll probably lay it back to rest barring the discovery of further sourcing. Serpent's Choice 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Input was greatly appreciated. I'm working to determine if any of the major print-format fanzines ever published material from the setting, although the process is slow since that's well outside the realm of interlibrary loans! I'll confess that I don't have a good sense of what in this genre meets notability requirements either. I'm neither an expert nor a member of the subculture -- my focus on rewrites has been solely due to the overall low quality of the extant articles and frequency with which they are forced through AFD without an attempt to source. Well ... and all the science in my hobby field changed a year after my newest sources, so all I could write on mycology is wrong articles at the moment. :( Anyway, going to try to track down another firm independant source, then take to DRV. Serpent's Choice 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Malier diablo. I saw your work on MF 2000. I should like to invite you to the League of Copyeditors. Feel free to enlist. Rintrah 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was a member of Leicester University Theatre 2001-2004 and would like to know if the text added can be sent to me. The society was not responsible for the text added to Wikipedia and i was wondering if I could post the article on the society's forum for discussion.
Regards
Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.102.109 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Please email me with a reply address to receive a copy. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the page on Atlético Chorlton. I'd like to know why you thought to do this? Especially without any warning or message about why it was about to be deleted --Adamwjeffers 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atlético Chorlton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern with my RfA. For what it's worth, my 3RR violation was accidental; I was dealing with a user who was persistently reverting to the same text, and had been blocked before. I lost count over the course of a day and did a fourth reversion in 23:45, instead of proposing an alternate text, as I had intended, or going to AN3 myself. Septentrionalis 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested on your ideas regarding the best way to do these large XfD nominations. I have to think that having 50 separate AfDs on related articles is worse than having one AfD on 50 articles, but there needs to be a better way to structure these. I would like to try and develope a guideline for how to conduct these as I do think that we need to have some workable process for discussing the removal of classes of articles without having to repeat the discussion for every article in the class. Please reply here as I really hate fragmented conversations. —Doug Belltalk 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two main kinds of nominations normally accepted in AfD discussions, either mass (as a whole) or single (only one). The problem comes when editors try to turn one into another (i.e. mass to multiple single AfD), and this is an emerging trend. Usually this is because a topic scope may not been well discussed amongst editors on criteria of inclusion - once this is done (probably in the first "messy" AfD), one expects some follow-up action (merge, cleanup) and subsequent single/mass AfDs of clear-cut unfixable articles, by then a much easier task. I don't recommend judging by word-for-word argument (except non-negotiables WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV), because that opens up an avenue of endless rules lawyering that practically drives people mad. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Then I guess it is that first "messy" AfD that I'm thinking needs a better process. The problem I see is that since these large AfDs are so frequently closed as "no consensus" that people on both sides of the argument are now jaded. People arguing to keep figure they just need to make enough noise—with no requirement of making good arguments—and it will be kept by default. People arguing to delete become disallusioned and give up. The rejected AfD is then used to innocculate the articles against deletion for some period of time. All of this points to a broken process. In the AfD I closed (mentioned above), I tried to restore some faith in the process by actually sorting through all of the arguments. While I think it was successful in that regard, it was an awful lot of work because of the chaos that ensues on these mass AfDs. I think the discussion needs more structure. Not that I am suggesting anything similar to it, but one example of a structured debate is RfC and even more structure is RfAr. I don't have a specific idea yet, but one is brewing along the lines of having a different structure than simply a nomination and then unstructured discussion for AfDs that address a class of articles. Thoughts? —Doug Belltalk 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This is getting interesting. You may wish to read up on a similiar case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. Basically editors come and point out that there is a problem somewhere; it may require total deletion, it may all keepers, or something in between (usually that). Articles don't land on AfDs for no good reason. If you are interested in a prior discussion as a formalised institution, there's a process elsewhere which may be working already...featured article review. That's all I can think of for now. (After all, it's 3am here) ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest you take a second look at Jeff Goldstein, which was nominated AfD on Oct 3. The nomination was made in connection with an edit war on Deborah Frisch. The nominator, User:JBKramer, who was involved in the edit war, repeatedly removed a number of references to blogs citing WP:BLP, and did so with a certain amount of incivility. However, the reason for Deb Frisch's notability is largely due to her alleged cyberstalking on that blog - hence the edit war with editors who felt an exception could be made. I happen to believe Protein Wisdom is a notable blog - ranked 61st on the TruthLaidBear ecosystem and I'm worried that Jeff Goldstein simply ended up as collateral damage from the fallout. Ronnotel 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you be ok to recreate the edit history behind the redirect to Albino bias? Looks like the nominator could've asked you directly be instead he preferred to bog down DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if that was out-of-process; I just followed instructions on the deletion review page. Well I also went off a bit about how the AfD didn't seem to me to have consensus, and about how just as I'd un-prod'ed the target article and started working on the merge, the merge-from article vanished while I was in mid !vote, and the same day someone vandalized the parent Albinism article, and... I think I may be breached WP:CIVIL and/or WP:AGF. Wasn't a good day for me or that chunk of articlespace, and I think I took it out on you as the deleting admin. I apologize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
there was no consensus created for deletion, and all of the arguments for deletion were refuted. Can you please put the article back thank you and check the talk 81.178.73.30 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Article on R. Joe Brandon removed September 5th 2006
I just wanted to make a few comments to see if this page can be reinstated.
There is mention that I am promoting a site called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie . I have no idea why there would be any relation to me and this web site and how this correlation is being noted.
My book is noted as being ranked with an Amazon ranking of 800,000. At its peak, when it was released, it broke into the top 2,000 rank. However it has had only one run of about 2,500 copies so its decrease in Amazon rank is to be expected. Also when the book was released, it was done so under the Taylor & Francis brand. http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/1d426151b4275b82a19afeb4da09e526.html
No notable contributions to the field. While from a purely scholastic perspective, I have no argument. However from a practical standpoint I am one of the most widely known archaeologists in the world, seriously. There are estimated to be 10,000 archaeologists in the US. My archaeology employment service, ShovelBums.org has an active membership of over 12,000 professional members. This makes ShovelBums the worlds largest professional archaeology and CRM organization.
I also organized a major petition of scientists in support of school in the US not teaching Intelligent Design as science in the classroom. This petition received 8,000 verifiable signatories in four days, in response to a four year, 400 academic signatory petition for teaching intelligent design as science in the classroom. See: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2005/0004173856&EDATE
So yes, I am not notable in the classic academic sense. I am notable for my impact in archaeology. Finding a job might not sound like a big deal, but when you are an archaeologist, it is everything. And while I do not contribute to theory, I contribute to the future of archaeology.
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcytalk 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
A generic but nonetheless warm "thank you" for your support in my RfA. I'm glad that you affirmed Radiant's nomination and I'll be measured in my use of the cleaning closet's contents. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! 8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As Sportspower cup has been deleted, should these 2 also not be deleted as they cover much the same area i.e. of very limited, local interest. Daemonic Kangaroo 14:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is not appropriate. It gives the appearance that Tubezone was seeking out an admin who would close the AFD in a manner favorable to him. If Tubezone wanted the AFD closed in a hurry, he should have put a backlog tag on it to let a random admin come along and close it. It didn't help matters that you closed the AFD with no explanation. Ideally, I would ask you to revert your close, slap a backlog tag on it, and let a random admin come along and close it. Failing that, the least you could do is indicate the reason for your close, given that Tubezone asked you to close it and given that you closed it only 10 minutes after Tubezone posted the request. I want to emphasize that I don't contest the keep outcome -- reading the debate, this was clearly a keep or a no consensus. It's the process that bothers me. I hope you understand my concerns above. Thanks. Pan Dan 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the reply. :-) Pan Dan 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
Thank you so much, Mailer diablo, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting in my recent RfA, which failed. Any further advice you could offer would be quite welcome! Seraphimblade 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit late, but still, have a joyous, blessed, and very Merry Christmas! =) (I'm going to complain about how cabilist you are soon though!) -Advanced 13:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Users invoking your previous comments re: The Game
Since you closed the previous AFD no consensus, it seems that one of the pro-retention commenters is invoking your name and closing comment, out of context and in absentia. I'm really not sure what your viewpoint would be regarding WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V and whether or not this article meets them (fair disclosure: I'm strenuously supporting deletion), but I thought you'd like to know where you're being quoted, at least. Serpent's Choice 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral)
I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year!
All the best, Asteriontalk 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that you deleted PennSix (band) because it was prodded. The creator of this article, I did not see this until it was too late. Could you please provide me the texts of the article and the discussion page, so that I can review it and see whether I can restore it? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you also find the talk page so that I can read if there were any disputed points I could address? Again, thanks. - CobaltBlueTony 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy mackerel! Hang in there, and stay on the third floor or higher! - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello MD, I moved the WikiProject to my own user space since this is inactive. When things are better, then I will move it back into the project space. Hope you don't mind. BTW, the page is here. See you. Terence Ong 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
