Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
As this gibberish is being picked up by Google and displayed amongst my relevant poetry pages, I would request that any reference such as the above to me or my work is deleted forthwith. --David Lewis Paget (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)David Lewis Paget[reply]
The gibberish to which Mr. Paget refers is the hard to understand, but normal process of Wikipedia. As a courtesy to the editor, I have blanked their user talk page. The user page shows in google searches but is only available from the google cache, over which we have no control. The newly blanked user talk page will become available only from the google cache upon the next google re-indexing of the English Wikipedia site. We have no control over the length of time that external sites retain information contributed to Wikipedia under GFDL. Franamax (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance here, Franamax. :) Google caching is outside of my experience, and I would not have known how to respond. Mr. Paget, I have also blanked the question above and my response to it as a courtesy to you. The user who asked the question will still be able to see my response by going into the history of the page, here, but it will not otherwise be visible. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moonriddengirl. I do appreciate your help. --David Lewis Paget (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, rather troubling, a page has surfaced described on Google as - David Lewis Paget Comprehensive consumer drug information, including usage information, interaction precautions, side effects, and withdrawal or discontinuation effects.
medlibrary.org/medwiki/David_Lewis_Paget - 18k -
This would appear to indicate that I am a drug user, which I have never been. On clicki9ng onto the page, my name is prominent, but then it states that there is no such page. What is going on here? I'm most upset over this.--David Lewis Paget (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here again is that contributions made to Wikipedia are licensed under GFDL. That means they can be reused by others, for any purpose whatsoever, as long as they are attributed to Wikipedia, thence to the original author. There are literally dozens of other websites that copy Wikipedia content for their own purposes and we have absolutely no control over what they do (as long as they say it came from Wikipedia and it's GFDL content). When you created an account using your own name and made contributions, and when you created an article about yourself (as I understand you may have done), you agreed to the license terms just below the box on the edit page. You may not have read or fully understood those terms, but all we can do is try to help you on this site by blanking your name where it appears here. Alternatively, perhaps we could create a short and valid article on yourself, which should rapidly be taken up as the "official" copy from Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with your work, but if you can provide me with some details via email, including references and reviews from the press, I'll give it a try. Moonriddengirl would be able to do this much more easily than me, but that's not for me to say:) Franamax (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this topic, and for letting me know that our previous discussion had been archived. Things have been busy here, and I wanted to be able to take the time to discuss the issues in depth with Sassy before moving forward.
Sassy and I are both very grateful for the time that you have spent on this and the amendments that you have already made, which go some way to improve her personal security. However, we would like to investigate further the options for removing the name "Porter" from the page, as our preference would be to not include her last name in the Wikipedia page at all, since this does continue to expose her to some level of risk. I know that there are some references on the internet to the name "Porter", but in practice everyone in her industry always refers to her as DJ Sassy (or DJ Sassy P or DJ Sassy Pandez), so I don't believe that including her real name adds any particular value. If you could possibly seek additional feedback on this from other editors I think that would be useful, and then we can decide on the best way forward from there.
I have gone through my list of website links that can be used as references in support of the content of the page, and have found a few that I believe would be useful. But let's sort out the issue of the name first, and then we can follow this up.
Hi. No problem for not getting back to me quickly; we can take this at whatever pace is comfortable to you. I will seek further feedback on the question of her name, although I suspect that some contributors may not see the point of an exception to standard practice in this case, given that her name will still be visible on the page in what is currently footnote #8 and is used in a number of the references. It will probably take a few days for clear consensus to emerge, depending on how much participation the conversation attracts. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that while conversations sometimes develop slowly on Wikipedia and further feedback could easily still arrive, the question hasn't generated much heat. One individual felt it was censorship, but he evidently didn't feel very strongly about it. Nobody else has bothered to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Albums - Hound Dog Taylor and the HouseRockers
I notice that you participate in the Albums and Missing article projects. I'm quite new to creating new articles, and any advice/observations etc. would be very welcome. In particular, I'm uncertain how to load an image for the album cover, and how to deal with disambiguation/redirects (Hound Dog Taylor & The HouseRockers currently redirects to Hound Dog Taylor, so I imagine I need to do something about that). I'm aware that the background section needs expansion, particularly regarding the effect the album's success had on Taylor's career, and I'm looking for a source for this.
Hi, and welcome to the project! :) It looks like a fine start. To get the cover, you first download it to your computer from AMG or another source, presuming they have it. AMG's covers are sized perfectly for Wikipedia. Sometimes if you find it elsewhere, you will need to shrink it to make it small enough to fit fair use; I believe 300 dpi is about as large as we're supposed to go. I'd have to look to verify that, but from AMG it isn't an issue. After that, you Upload the cover, selectng "Album or single cover" as the licensing tag on the pull-down menu. You paste into the summary field{{subst:Album cover article rationale|Article Title|Brunton}}Image from [link AMG]. That will expand into the fair-use summary. You can see an example of it in action at Image:Juju Music (album).jpg.
Good like finding sources. I've found it a little frustrating digging up information on some of the jazz legends whose articles I've worked on. I find [book search] helpful sometimes. For example, I get 52 hits on "Hound Dog Taylor and the HouseRockers" there, but I haven't looked to see if they're actually relevant or usable.
As far as the existing redirect at Hound Dog Taylor & The HouseRockers, the handling of that depends on how the redirect was created. In some cases, you'll be able to "move" your title directly over an existing redirect. Help:Moving tells you more about when that applies. In many cases, it's a simple matter of tagging it with {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}. An administrator will come along and either delete the first page or go ahead and move the new one over it. In this particular case, though, I'd be happy to help out. :) If I happen to be actively contributing when you're ready to go live, let me know, and I'll delete the old page for you.
Again, welcome to the project; it's good to see somebody else working on that backlog. :) I'm glad you stopped by, and please do let me know if I've been unclear about any of this or if I can assist you in any other way. Cheers! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've got the cover image. I'll look into the rest later (and thanks for reminding me about Google Books - I keep forgetting to look there). Brunton (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can see that you've deleted Slime Volleyball on the grounds that it was "Patent Nonsense" (on 15:34, 8 November 2007). I find that incredibly hard to understand. Could you please elaborate?
CygnusPius (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some looking into your deleted contribution history, and I begin to see why you're perplexed, as you had contributed to an earlier incarnation of that article. It had been deleted on 01:07, 8 November 2007 by User:Stephen under WP:CSD#A7, with an indication that it was a website that didn't assert importance. The article that I deleted had only one contributor other than the CSD tagger, User:Mattkool13, subsequently indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need Help (2)
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. I need your help! You know there is an upcoming Indian television series called Waaris on Zee TV channel, but with the same title two other telvision series exist, one already aired on Zee TV channel in 1999. So I need your help in choosing/creating the correct title so I can create a page for this upcoming television series. (I already have used Waaris (Zee TV) for the old television drama-series. So what should I put for the new one. Besides that with the same title there will also be an another drama-series that will air on STAR Plus, one of the Indian channels. [Note:They all have different concept)! You can also take a look at the disambiguation page Waaris for help. This is just a minor question, I hope you will help. Thanx! your wiki friend Survir (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm happy to help. I've placed the article at your userpage. If you believe that you can assert notability, the article can be restored to article space. But please first read over WP:MUSIC and make sure that the band meets those notability guidelines. You should verify information with reliable, independent sources. Primary sources connected to a band or its label can't be used to verify notability. If the band doesn't yet meet guidelines, you may wish to remove the material to another host until it does, as such material is likely to be deleted if stored long in userspace. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about these policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by all means, help yourself. :) I'm hardly a master of design, though. I could use a wikifairy. :D (Note to the kindly ones: only a bit, though, in case any should be listening. I like being basically text based.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, I'm coming to you with a problem, since you did such a great job with the last one I had (with Grant Alpaugh, as you may remember) :-) JonBroxton came to me with a situation about a particular soccer player's wiki page, Jamie Watson (soccer). This player currently plays for a minor league squad (Austin Aztex U23), but someone with an anonymous IP continues to delete any evidence of his existence on the team, even though multiple sources have been confirmed ([1], [2], [3]). Could you help us out on this one, please? --Otav347 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This one is actually easy. :) I've semi-protected the page for three weeks so that only logged in users can edit it. Ordinarily, persistent unexplained blanking is treated like vandalism, and editors who persist in doing it are blocked. In this case, you seem to have a changing IP, which means that any blocks are likely to affect somebody other than the blanker. I will give the IPs the proper warning anyway in case it's a simple case of the same person editing from several computers, such as work and home. Perhaps they'll respond to your requests to discuss the changes.
Please go ahead and add one of those sources to the article to verify that the information being blanked is true. It looks like this is a good choice for that. I'm not going to edit the article, as it's important that I remain uninvolved, but unverified material is subject to removal. It's best to go ahead and verify it. :)
I'm keeping an eye on the article, so I should see if the problem persists after the protection expires. If I don't or if you encounter this at any point elsewhere, try warning the editor by the templates linked at WP:Vandal and requesting page protection if it involves more than one IP. If it doesn't, after sufficient notice, the vandal can be reported at WP:AIV for administrator handling. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right
Extensive discussion of CSD is a bit off-topic for the RFA page. Still, your response surprises me. I'd assumed it was widely accepted (if not explicitly codified) that admins should exercise some judgment with CSDs. If you try to take them at their exact literal face value, you run into all kind of paradoxes and silliness. Garage band albums certainly can be deleted, just like an article for the band itself. The written CSDs lag behind actual practice. I don't personally see a good reason to try to keep them up to date- I'd rather call them historical and pay no further attention to them. One thing that is relevant to RFA- certainly it's good for a new admin to play things more or less "by the book" at first while they're getting comfortable. One they know better what they're doing, they will tend to use discretion more. This, as far as I know, is uncontroversial. I've been doing deletions that way for a year or two and I can't remember anyone ever having any reasonable objection. Friday(talk)18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience and observations are somewhat different than yours. I don't think the practice you describe is uncontroversial, but maybe that's because I somewhat routinely hang out WT:CSD, where the criteria tend to be discussed and taken very literally. Take this conversation for instance. There's more on the album point here, here, here, here, here & here. It's one of those frequently issues that never seems to get resolved. Here's where wording was codified to explicitly exclude albums--a change I proposed, though I do not necessarily support it, just for clarity. I personally feel like we need consistency in how we handle articles, and if there's no consensus to delete something by speedy, we should be clear about that. Again, I'm all for finding a way to include albums by non-notable bands. I do feel fairly silly PRODding them. I PROD them anyway.
There's a fairly concise (for wordy me) explanation of my own approach to deletions on my userpage, here. To really understand it, you sort of need to see the section on adminship below it, here. I guess it probably comes down to the fact that I think of new contributors as an extremely important resource to Wikipedia. (I don't mean to suggest that you or anybody else don't; I'm just explaining my own perspective.) Deletion is taken personally. I know it's not meant to be, because I've deleted all kinds of things without any ill will whatsoever towards the creator. (I sometimes am literally at it for hours each day.) But it is taken personally, and I think that's unavoidable. Nobody wants to see their work erased.
By remaining within process, I hope to encourage article creators to also remain within process and to contribute to process. If I cannot point them to a specific reason & rule by which their article was deleted, then I worry that I will instead be contributing to the notion that admins are arbitrary authorities rather than deputized enforcers of community consensus. :) For this reason, I think that CSD criteria should remain clearly worded and should be encoded before implementation rather than after. I know that policies can be revised to reflect actual practice, but in this case I think actual practice should reflect policy...not to increase the bureaucracy, but because I believe that the core point of CSD is not that we must quickly dispose of bad content, but rather that quick disposals must be uncontroversial, and we can't know that without some kind of clear consensus on what an uncontroversial deletion may be. Nobody gets the chance to object if they don't know that certain article types are being speedily deleted. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make just one small note, that I think the sentiment at new page patrol that people work from the "bottom-up", to give new articles a fighting chance needs to be encouraged/enforced a little more strictly. The fact is, if you don't tag a page in the first minute or two, someone else will. New page patrol has become somewhat of a race to see who can tag it first. One user even had a userbox stating it angered them when they were beaten to a tag. I don't think it should be that way. We're driving off people who could become excellent contributors in this manner. xenocidic (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an article can turn into something useful, what are we doing deleting it? Fast or slow, this is a mistake. But if it's pure crap, nip it in the bud. It's not helpful to newbies to let them spend lots of time on something that cannot possible be kept. I get asked why I delete things fairly regularly, and I've never found that it's helpful to quote chapter and verse of some rulebook. This encourages lawyering over it. I explain in plain English why the article was not suitable, and I can't remember some newbie ever saying "I wish you had explained this with terms like 'A7' or 'G6' instead." There is consensus that we can delete articles about albums of bands we would delete. Maybe this consensus did not become visible in some particular discussion, but it's there. I certainly try to help newbies understand what we're about when I see they've made inappropriate content. But I've never seen a case where being a stickler for the letter of the law makes this work better. Friday(talk)19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you don't buy my assertion that albums of deletable bands are clearly deletable, here's a little trick. An editor can merge articles as desired, and (unless there's objection) this is considered a perfectly legitimate edit, right? So, merge the album article up into an article on the band, then delete the lot. This is all perfectly legit and above-the-board. However, we don't require editors to jump through silly hoops like this just to satisfy the letter of the rules- we use a bit of common sense instead, and our rules aren't meant to be all that firm anyway. So, if you can get to the desired result by legitimately allowed actions, you can certainly skip the intermediate steps and just delete the album article. Simple. Friday(talk)19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't remember really talking to you before I'm not familiar with your tone, Friday. I'm not sure if this is an emotionally charged conversation for you; it's not for me. My point in the above was not to criticize your approach or anybody else's, but, since you expressed surprise, to explain mine. It's not that I don't "buy" your assertion, I just perceive the matter differently based on those conversations which suggest to me that it's not uncontroversial. I think it should be. But I don't think it is. That doesn't mean that I think you're trying to sell me a bill of goods. :) It's just that though the silent majority of Wikipedians may be all for it, they haven't pushed it through at WT:CSD, where controversy does exist, and, after all, "In the case of policy and process pages pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages." (If they want it, they should speak up for it.) Also, I have not intended to imply that you don't help newbies or that there are a string of confused contributors trailing in your wake or that you are not the absolute nicest guy ever in the whole wide world . :D And if your tone doesn't reflect actual irritation, never mind. :D Tone can be hard to read in text, but I don't mean to offend you. I actually enjoy discussing philosophies.
Anyway, I don't see letting newbies "spend lots of time on something that cannot possibly be kept" as the only alternative to speedy deletion. In fact, I've convinced creators on occasion to tag their own articles with {{db-g7}} when they do not clearly fit into the speedy criteria but also do not meet guidelines. And I, too, explain in plain English why an article was not suitable (or is not; I also volunteer at the Drawing Board in an effort to nip them before they bud). I don't think I've ever really run into lawyering. Well, not on a speedy case. I did once hit a fairly serious case of it after an AfD I closed. No newbie there, though. :/ He was eventually ousted for disruption and sock-puppetry.
But I don't see the CSD criteria as historical. I think they're alive and kicking and, more, I think they're a good idea. They aren't perfect, but I approve of them in concept. If even good faith and experienced contributors didn't vary so widely on what they believe merits inclusion, there wouldn't be as many polarized arguments as there are at AfD...or, for that matter, RfA. There wouldn't be so many arguments at WT:CSD.
Switching gears (and responders), xenocidic, I think that's a big problem, too. Just like some editors are trying hard to rack up edit counts, a lot of them seem to want to rack up kill counts, which in my opinion is contrary to the point of CSD. :/ And I'm glad you came by. I really meant what I said about your general contribution history. It's obvious to me that you're a helpful and kind editor; I like to see stuff like this. After our last exchange I looked through every CSD tag you've made in the month of May to confirm my first impression, and it did. It's only the speed & content at A1 that I really found problematic. I suspect you're going to pass your RfA just fine, and I think you'll probably be a very good administrator when you do. Seriously, before looking through your contributions I would not have imagined doing anything less than an oppose over the concerns I had. As my user page says, CSD is a big focus of mine, but I have great respect for your contributions in spite of it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Just FYI, no, this is not an emotional topic for me. I had no clue I came off sounding like it was. I was just giving my opinion. Like you said, plain text is difficult. Don't worry about offending me at all. Open exchange of ideas on how to make Wikipedia work better can only ever be a good thing.) Friday(talk)20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<-- I suspect we're closer together on deletion issues than we sound. The main reason I don't bother spending time to try to get the CSDs to match what people really do, is that this process is quite tedious and unlikely to succeed. You can scarcely change policy formally these days. Besides, the real policies and guidelines aren't what's written on some page somewhere. They're what exist in the minds of clueful editors everywhere. It's true that there are some legitimate differences of opinion on what belongs- so, any sensible admin won't tend to speedy cases like that. They'll speedy the things that obviously don't belong. I remember back when the "no assertion of significance" criteria referred only to people and not to groups. Well, "Billy and Jimmy are the two coolest kids in the world" is clearly speediable. This was true even before the CSD was updated to include groups. Sure, it's good that someone took the time to update the CSD, but I sure hope they didn't spend much time on it. I'm way more interested in what actually works than what's written on some policy page somewhere.
If someone objects to one of my deletions for some legitimate reason, I'll certainly listen (and probably undelete if this is what's best for our content.) But if someone just says "This does not exactly match this specific criterion", well.. I'll never find that a compelling reason. We can simplify and achieve better results by always thinking in terms of "how does this make Wikipedia better or worse?" instead of "What does section 3, paragraph 12 say?" If I'd been strictly following existing rules back a year or so ago, I would never have speedied a bunch of "Billy and Jimmy are two cool kids.." articles. But I did delete them, and Wikipedia is better off because of it. I did it because I knew any sensible editor would agree that the 'pedia was better off without that stuff. I don't need to worry about what WP:CSD says at the moment, as long as I follow this simple principle. Friday(talk)20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can't disagree with you on the difficulty of changing policy. :/ I suspect that I still have some squeaky new admin idealism in me. I've been an admin for over 8 months now, but my first logged in edit (I had a handful as an IP previously) was only in April of 2007. I've lost some of my eagerness to work on policies & guidelines after finding out how nearly impossible it is to keep policy change conversations even on track, much less to reach consensus about them. Herding cats, yes. I guess I'm probably still idealistic enough to believe, though, that if we really tried.... (Insert self-deprecating laugh. Which means that even though I suspect it's nuts, I still kind of believe it's true.) Really, though, I do think it's important to try. :) There's turn-over in this project, and new contributors and admins won't know if practice deviates from encoded policy. Wikipedia is better of that "Billy and Jimmy" are out of here. All the better that every contributor and admin know it, so nobody has to guess. :) It seems likely to me to lead to drama at DRV and individual little contributor pages that could be avoided if good sense is transcribed on the page.
I do think there's room in the policy as it exists for things that obviously don't belong. It's in WP:CSD#G3, as Wikipedia:Vandalism includes "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc." (I'm a compulsive wikilinker; I try to stop, but find I do it even in e-mails sometimes. I almost removed those two, but I know I'm going to slip up and do it at some point; might as well get it out of the way and explain now.) I wouldn't haul that out for good-faith contributions though, obviously, as being labeled a "vandal" is way more likely to offend than having your article improperly speedied under WP:CSD#Ga37.65(rev). Perhaps as I was not around before the CSD list became as extensive as it is, I wasn't quite as confronted by piles of inappropriate content that had no ready remedy. There are only a few times I remember that I've gnashed my teeth about having to AfD as they were so plainly wrong that I thought they needed to be gone immediately but had no process for doing so. (Please don't ask me which; I don't remember specifics, and I will feel compelled to spend hours searching my history and will likely only find myself going, "Oh, I guess that wasn't quite the emergency it felt like at the time.") We benefit from the work you guys have already done. :)
I guess to me it comes down to the same point it does to you: "how does this make Wikipedia better or worse?" I just still think that the best way to uniformly improve Wikipedia is to convince everybody else to look at it the same way. If, well, if we can. And if somebody doesn't inadvertently shift the conversation to some other soapbox instead. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. Not realizing s/he had replaced your content, I presumed it was overzealous double tagging. I'm trying to puzzle out what's going on there. Perhaps it was an edit conflict and rather than note it and merge, the IP simply overwrote what you had already placed? He left a note supporting the deletion of that article on its talk page the same minute that he left the speedy warning, which makes it difficult to tell if he realized that the article had already been tagged when he placed the note. Anyway, I've restored your warning and removed CSDbots as unnecessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't assuming good faith, a look at the user's subsequent edits might make me think they were simply a troll. I'm sure they're just enthusiastic and trying to be extra helpful by tagging things for three different kinds of speedy delete at once. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Let me take a look. If the recreation does not address the problems for which the article was deleted at AfD, it can be speedily deleted. Otherwise, other processes may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one turned out to be easy. Another admin has already reviewed it for just that very thing and concludes that the current article, while probably not meeting WP:BIO, does not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation. He left his note here. It seems he has intentions of launching an AfD if he is not satisfied as to notability. You may choose either to wait for him to do so and express your opinion or (since it's been some time) just start a new AfD yourself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. I strongly oppose the term "cooling denier" to be transwikied to the Wiktionary. Also I propose the the article Cooling denier to be speedy deleted. The User Kauffner has disrupted the Global Warming talk page multiple times yesterday. He was reverted three times by a different person each (2 of them being admins). I tried to leave a message on his talk page to explain why his post was not helpful to the improvement of the article and was removed. So did another admin. Afterwords he started deleting other peoples entries from the Global Warming talk page. His behavious is more than disruptive. Now, he has decided to create the article 'cooling deniers' for which there is no scientific base. Even the website he cites is not using this term, which seems to be made up by him. Therefore I deleted the template to transwiki the term. Is there something else that needs to be done? Thanks Splette :)How's my driving?13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Splette. :) Before tagging it I did a google search on the term, and it does seem to have some usage as a term, not simply unrelated words in proximity. I won't argue that it's probably a neologism, though, as its surely not widespread, and I certainly have no objections to the removal of the template, as I have no strong feelings about its inclusion on Wiktionary. (And as the template isn't working anyway, see my last edit before I got your note here :D.) But it doesn't fit into the speedy criterion for "nonsense", since "nonsense" is pretty narrowly defined at WP:CSD#G1. Given what you say, I rather doubt that he's going to allow the article to go through PROD. Since the term is in use, it can't be speedily deleted as a hoax, through WP:CSD#G3. I'd guess AfD may be the best course of action here. As far as disruption, that's a little tougher. Unless an editor crosses a clearly visible line, there doesn't seem to be a swift recourse there. As there seem to be more than two involved, if you can't reach an understanding with him, maybe Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the place to go. Unless, of course, he does cross that line, in which case WP:3RRN or WP:ANI may work better. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I usually dont use deletion templates, so I wasn't sure. I will change it to AFD as you suggested. Thanks a lot for the quick reply, Splette :)How's my driving?14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that despite these cogent arguements, the cooling denier article was speedy deleted anyway. I have been editing Wikipedia for years and I don't what to make this situation. Everything I write on Talk:GW gets deleted, even perfectly innocuous comments. Here Splette is openly admitting that he chases me to other pages in order to get revenge. I don't do personal attacks, violate 3RR, or anything like that. The phrase "cool denier" seems to be what rankles. Kauffner (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the Digital Devil Saga 2 Article
Hello Miss Moonridengirl, I've noticed that you've removed the Speedy deletion tag in this article. So what will happen to that article now, if it seems that the original article it was splitted from doesn't cite any sources or such? Also, the contributor of those text doesn't seem to take note of it either. Thanks Logicartery (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) As I explained at the talk page of the main article, contributors to that article need to figure out if the material warrants splitting or not. If it doesn't, the new article should probably be deleted. If it does, the material needs to be removed from the parent article and replaced with a summary and a note where to find the split. If contributors can't agree, then there are several options in the dispute resolution process that could be helpful in finding consensus. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the contributor not taking note of it; if you could explain that, I'd be happy to expand. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. From that "contributor not taking note of it", it seems they simply change and add texts to what they seem appropriate from their own words or they simply did not cited the source they got those from. I'll try to talk to the contributors and deal with the matters if the splitting was appropriate. Thanks again for the information :) .--Logicartery (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious as to how the article asserts notability now. Admittedly I'm a bit narked that the author removed the original speedy tag himself and made no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page but, I'm also trying to learn as I go what counts as a "proper" assertion of notability. Also I'd think the author removing the speedy tag sort of means that the deletion of the article is contested and therefore not a PRODable article or have I misunderstood that as well? Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) The article doesn't assert notability, but does assert importance or significance as it appears now in that he is claimed to have appeared in several notable films. The threshold for asserting importance is, of course, significantly lower than the threshold for meeting notability. I have no doubts that the article does not meet notability guidelines as it is and, as I suggested in the PROD, have doubts that it can.
In terms of a PROD, there's nothing at the policy to suggest that PROD can't be used following a creator challenge of a CSD. Without mention of challenge, it does indicate under "Conflicts" that "a rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for PROD, but a rejected AfD candidate is not." I realize that this may sound like wikilawyering, as relying on a technicality, but I don't think it is. :) CSD criteria are generally very specific, deliberately narrow and related to one issue, while a PROD may relate to more general and variant guidelines or policy. (Let me clarify here that I would not PROD a challenged speedy if the PROD related to the same charge as the speedy.)
In this case, I don't see where the creator removed a speedy tag? It seems to have been intact from the time you placed it until I removed it.
I have notified the creator of the PROD with the usual template and left a note explaining how and why to contest the PROD. If the PROD is contested but notability not verified, I plan to take the article to AfD. I rather hope that the creator will read the notability guidelines and, if the article can't meet them, consider requesting deletion. That sometimes does happen. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you're thinking about the fact that he started a new article on the same topic? According to his deleted contribution log, he never removed the CSD tag from that one either. As soon as it was tagged, he abandoned it. :) In a lot of cases, I'd be inclined to judge that as bad faith (an attempt to escape deletion), but I'm not entirely sure here. His note at the new article's talk page seems sincere enough. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our grumpy friend from the thread above will soon find his google search back to the old familiar. Your talk page ranks up there, but the next archive round of your page will take care of it. DLP's wiki-page was still showing up on the 2nd page of google, but I've expunged his name from various spam reporting and COI archives, the cross-links are gone, everything will be good. There is a strong temptation to shout DUDE, you registered your name on the world's 6th most-popular website and made an article about yourself, what did you THINK would happen? But, we're here to serve :) Since Mr. D.L. P. has not been forthcoming with reliable information to help us create an article, I consider our responsibilities here to be fully discharged. Plus ten bonus points! Franamax (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}