User talk:John254

Archives Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz

Hi John. You closed out an AfD on Anya Kamenetz i started where only two people had written in and less than five days had passed. i do not think we had consensus yet and i had also hoped to receive suggestions in light of a revised proposal i had offered. was it premature to close this AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The closure of this AFD discussion was proper, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides yourself supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline. The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later. The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome. Moreover, I strongly disagree with your recent edit to Anya Kamenetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): the tenor of the reviews described in Wikipedia articles is not determined by giving "equal time" to favorable and unfavorable treatments, but rather by describing all available reviews, or, where this would prove excessively long-winded, giving space to critical reactions in accordance with the percentage of qualified experts who endorse them (please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If a book has received generally favorable reviews, we may properly describe more positive than negative reviews. Additionally, it is permissible to include a few external links to websites maintained by Anya Kamenetz, in our biography of her. Your unilateral reopening of an AFD nomination with which no one but yourself agrees is inappropriate -- if you disagree with this AFD closure, please raise the matter at deletion review. John254 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i did not know deletion review was an option for articles closed prematurely as keep. i will list for deletion review. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous army stores

Just a friendly note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous army stores. While you closed the discussion itself, you did not finish the closure by removing the AfD template from the article and adding the correct template to the article's talk page. If you're going to close AfD's, please remember to do all the steps -- new editors can be seriously confused if they see an AfD template on an article and think they should be commenting on a closed discussion. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hi John,

On the page move [1], the only problem is that it basically comes in under the Paranormal ArbCom. We renamed a lot of categories, for instance [[Category:Remote viewers]] and [[Category:Remote viewing]], because of that ArbCom. Look at [[Category:purported remote viewers]] and see where you get. I know it's slightly different, but I think it applies.

Here is the section, [2] and there are other places in that ArbCom which might be relevant. What I'm saying is that Psychic abilities are cultural artefacts. Calling them such doesn't make a statement of whether they are real or not. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I will move the article back to its original location. John254 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow- cool (: (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass Tours

Hi there. I notice that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass Tours was closed as keep, yet the article still doesn't make any mention of why it is a notable organisation. Could I ask you for your comment on this? Cheers, -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The references provided in the AFD discussion indicated that Compass Tours has been the subject of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus for the retention of the article. John254 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

Hi. I've closed this as speedy close; simply put, MFD cannot overrule the Arbcom, and so cannot take binding action. Additionally, we don't know what's what (yet), and so it's a premature request anyway. If it turns out to be shenanigans, I expect it'll be deleted anyway, so no worries there. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD close?

Please reopen and relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coconut (project) for further discussion. I feel that my argument was not refuted. Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- while a cursory inspection of the discussion appears to favor a unanimous keep result, republished press releases don't provide evidence of notability. Therefore, I am relisting the discussion. John254 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Vintagekit's userpage

[3] John254, perhaps you were unaware that there is currently an extensive discussion ongoing at WP:Arbitration Enforcement as of this time to determine exactly how long Vintagekit's block will be, and what variations in editing restrictions shall be made. I have reverted your tagging of his page at this time because of this ongoing discussion; I assume that your tagging is based on some routine housekeeping activities and was not intended as a commentary specific to this editor. Risker (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

re User:CarolSpears

The discussion at WP:ANI has concluded that the above editor is indefinitely blocked, not banned. Therefore the template is incorrect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl Play

Hi there.

You closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Play discussion with a keep verdict. I maintain that the film does not pass WP:MOVIE and is still completely unreferenced. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References sufficient to indicate that the film passes WP:MOVIE were provided in the AFD discussion. We're not going to delete the article solely because it doesn't currently contain the references provided at AFD, since this is obviously a problem that can be remedied editorially. Of course, if you disagree with this conclusion, you are welcome to raise the matter at deletion review. John254 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy)

Please reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy). While there are four "keeps," one notes it should be kept and renamed/reworked into an article on the series and a second one hints towards the same direction, and one keep is very week. Additionally, another keep really only provides evidence of notability of the series as a whole, and the author, not of any individual books. None of ht If you decline to reopen, please at least properly note that it is a non-admin closure, which should always be included when you do a close so people can be clear it was an an administratively decided close. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. The editing of the article to describe the series as a whole, and moving the article to an appropriate page title for that purpose, could be accomplished quite easily without the complete deletion of the article and the entire page history. I find that there is no support for the deletion of this article by any editors other than yourself, and that the editors supporting retention persuasively argued that it would be far more efficient to rework this article than to delete it and start over. As my AFD closure stands on its own merits, it does not require that a "non-administrative closure" disclaimer be attached to it. Naturally, if you disagree with this outcome, you are welcome to raise the matter at deletion review. John254 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden photo

Are you sure the photo of Rachel Marsden has her eyes closed? To me, it appears that she is glancing down and delivering a speech from a prepared text without the benefit of a teleprompter. It may not be the best choice of photos if there are others, but I don't see it as an attack. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Marsden might indeed be reading a speech, rather than having her eyes entirely closed due to momentary blinking -- we can't determine the matter conclusively due to the angle at which the photograph was taken. In any event, it is readily apparent that this photograph was taken at a highly unfavorable moment, and that it's not the sort of portrait that should be used to illustrate a biography of a living person. John254 03:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y Lolfa

Hi John 254. On 15 July I nominated the article Y Lolfa for deletion. Three users participated in the debate and argued to keep the article. On 21 July you finalised the debate, writing The result was keep. You gave no further information about the decision.

Y Lolfa was only my second nomination for deletion and I was keen to observe the process in action, and learn from it. I have no problem with the decision but I was disappointed that no information was provided to explain the decision. I, and other Users, have no idea whether the decision was based on voting (one in favour of deletion; and three in favour of keeping) or some criterion related to articles about companies, or the toss of a coin, or something else. Are you willing to explain the background to the decision?

Wikipedia has an excellent system for debating the case for deleting an article. I notice that many of these debates result in the Administrator leaving a succinct explanation of the final decision. Your comment The result was keep was not compatible with the facility in place for transparent debates about deletion of articles. In future, please give an appropriate explanation as to how the final decision was reached. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I often close AFD discussions without explanation for reasons of expediency where I believe that the reasons for the AFD result are obvious (which means, in practice, that rationale for the AFD closure would be obvious to users having extensive experience with the deletion process, not necessarily all users.) I will, however, provide an explanation for the tenor of AFD closures upon any good-faith request. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y Lolfa, I noted that, at the time I closed the discussion, the article contained references to significant coverage of the company in multiple reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline (even though such references were not present at the time you nominated the article for deletion.) Furthermore, I gave significant weight to the fact that two established users supported the retention of the article (Rhydypennau is not an established user), persuasively arguing that the references present in the article provided evidence of the company's notability, and that only the nominator supported the deletion of the article. Moreover, the fact that you offered no response to the arguments advanced for the retention of the article weighed in favor of my decision to the close the discussion as "keep". John254 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation. I will use the information if I nominate articles for deletion in the future. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Terrol

Hey, check back on that guy's talk page. Some of the edits made to Roy L. Dennis were good faith additions of content supported by the only source for the article (the obit). Might want to dial down the warning in that case (As he might have been frustrated that good faith additions were being reverted). The first reversion was probably my fault. I didn't double check the source and didn't follow the rule of "if you have doubts, don't". Just a heads up. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I issued a test4 warning to Terrol on the basis of this edit, and your prior warning to the user, without further investigation. John254 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. For some reason I thought the warning was for text placed in the Roy L. Dennis article after I incorrectly reverted a good faith edit. Thanks for explaining it. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my userpage! Apparition11 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Douglas AfD

While I respect your authority to keep the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Dutton_Douglas_(2nd_nomination) article, I disagree with your decision or justification to do so. I feel that you failed to take into consideration the blatant external advertising targeting politically liberal editors on a popular news aggregate site (reddit.com top page) that led to a (slight) keep consensus (not including the first/only editors). This was, clearly a case of WP:Canvassing as was warned about on the AfD template. Not to mention that (perhaps jokingly?) the editor who presented the justification to keep that everyone else said keep per that person's argument essentially changed his/her position. Anyway, I have no intention of nominating the article for deletion (nor was I the original nominator), but I felt compelled to express my disagreement with this decision. Anyway, have a great day! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The AFD discussion had no support for the administrative deletion of the article by anyone apart from the nominator. Since, per GFDL concerns, we can't merge then administratively delete the article (as the page history is required for the attribution of the original authors), I construed comments favoring the merger of the article as supportive of the retention of the page history. This leaves us with a nearly unanimous consensus against administrative deletion, and, therefore, a nominal outcome of "keep", since the AFD process is primarily intended to determine whether articles should be administratively deleted. While we certainly can resolve merger issues at AFD, where there is a clear consensus for, or against, a merger, the primary purpose of the AFD process suggests that the question of a merger be deferred to the conventional editorial process of talk page discussion where there is any doubt as to the outcome, as there clearly was here. An AFD closure need not involve detailed analysis of the extent to which canvassing affected support or opposition to a merger with respect to which there was no immediately apparent consensus for or against. While the AFD outcome should not be construed as prejudicial against a merger (since there was some support for this outcome, and not simply an overwhelming keep result), editors merging content to Laura Bush should bear in mind that WP:BLP concerns prohibit us from providing an excessively long description of the incident in the first lady's biography. Furthermore, I hardly see how "politically liberal" canvassing would have favored the retention of the article, since the primary argument against the merger was that the information in the article would give undue weight to the events if pasted in our biography of Laura Bush, in violation of our biographies of living persons policy. John254 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Laura Bush article? This incident is already sufficiently covered in her article. It would not cause her article to become too large or unwieldy per WP:BLP (it's in there ANYWAY). As for how politically liberal canvassing would have favored the retention the title of the article link on reddit.com was as follows "Bush Apologists trying to delete wikipedia page of the dead boyfriend Laura Bush killed" filed under "WTF" which made it to the front page of reddit.com. This is CLEARLY canvassing for liberal contributions and editors to keep the information in an entirely different article (so as to created additional weight to the situation).Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in essence, you claim that users who favored the merger of the article did not actually support having any content merged, but merely having the article blanked and redirected to Laura Bush, whereas editors who supported the retention of the article did so because they knew that, despite a number of editors favoring a merger, nothing would actually be merged (so keeping a separate article was the best way to give undue weight to the situation)? In that case, we have a very messy AFD discussion, with no actionable outcome. AFD closures are predicated upon the assumption that editors clearly express their preferences -- that they don't say, for example,

*Merge to Laura Bush. A young future First Lady ran into an ex-boyfriend and killed him. The deceased and the accident were certainly not notable at the time. It deserves merger into the Laura Bush article and not just deletion or a redirect...[4]

when they actually mean "blank and redirect, don't merge anything". John254 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the original nominator of this article, and I still believe the article comes under WP:BLP, though I probably did not make this clear enough in my nomination. Regardless of the article's title, it is in fact a biographical article about Laura Bush; if you read through it you see that it contains hardly any biographical information about the subject that is not related to the first lady. As such it serves simply as a WP:POVFORK for the Laura Bush article, and by POV I am not talking about the content or style, but that it is a WP:COATRACK that gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one aspect of her biography, something you yourself say must be avoided, with reference to the main Laura Bush article. I chose to put it up for deletion rather than a merge, but if there is information or sources in the article that can be merged into the main article, then fine. However, the Laura Bush article (a GA) seems to already have this well covered. If this means that WP:RS-compliant material must be scrapped, then so be it, as WP:BLP overrides all of those concerns. Lampman (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles which describe events occurring in the lives of living persons are not, ipso facto, biographies of the people in question (though any information that they contain concerning living people is, of course, subject to the requirements of our biographies of living persons policy). It is quite possible to have descriptions of controversies relating to living people consistent with our biographies of living persons policy, provided that the events are notable, and the articles are well-sourced and written in a fair and balanced manner. Indeed, our article concerning a controversy in the life of a political figure on the opposite end of the liberal/conservative spectrum, John Edwards extramarital affair, was recently retained at AFD. If you still have concerns regarding this AFD closure, please raise the matter at deletion review. John254 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello John254.

I would like to thank you for helping out. I should notify you of 203.10.121.81—that IP has a terrible history of vandalism.

He/she recently used the IP talk page abusively, so if you see something that looks fishy, don't take any chances. Thanks again! ~ Troy (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi there. Thanks for giving User:Tomcat4680 a warning about his personal attack against me on my talk page. I have, however, reinstated the actual attack on my page, as I believe that it will help to make an example of him, and the comment will eventually be archived. – PeeJay 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i lol'd

This made tea shoot out my nose. Thanks! :-) --Stormie (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

John254, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Moore AfD

Someone tampered with this AfD, removing my !vote. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored your comment. However, I maintain the tenor of my AFD closure, as there was clearly no consensus for redirection, an action which is primarily editorial in character, and is performed as a result of an AFD discussion only where there is an obvious consensus for such a result. John254 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C9orf3

You closed this AfD very early with no explanation other than 'keep'. Given there was hardly consensus (one delete / two keep votes if you include my nomination) this, at least at first glance, seems an entirely out of process closure especially as IMO no good reason for keeping was given. One arguement was just 'notable gene' with no reason given at all while the other basically said it was a human gene cited in peer reviewed literature so was notable. If that's the case are we to eventually have articles on all 20,000 human genes and I've no idea how many other genes from other species. Wikipedia is not a directory and to me this sort of information would be better staying in the specialist databases with only those genes which are notable in a wider sense having articles on wikipedia. Hence the reason I took this to AfD. If there was some precedent for your closure than could you please point me in that direction and can I suggest that in future you put such precedent in your close statement so people understand why your closing. If there is no applicable precedent then I will take this to deletion review. Can I also suggest you look at WP:DPR#NAC which says suggests non-admins state as much when closing AfDs. Personally I also think that closing a discussion after less than a day with only two keep votes falls into the "controversial decisions category" and so should be left to an administrator, although I accpet this is open to interpretation. Dpmuk (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)