User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 5

The strange case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasper Deng

Thanks for your note. Actually, my comment followed yours, but was in response to his third attempt to transclude his non existent RFA. I probably should have started a new thread. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the indenting would've been fine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fetus in fetu

The Fetus in fetu article needs some picture, don't you think:?? Just upload something, if you can. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got other things on my plate. If you find a free-license image, please upload one to the commons. Fair-use images will be difficult to justify for this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

DeadLinkBot

Thank you for commenting on my BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadLinkBOT). In response, I have published the working of the bot and would appreciate any comments you have. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Tree (Lady GaGa song)

I generally don't like merging songs, since 1.) I don't like redirecting anything with a qualifier in the title, as it seems an unlikely search term, and 2.) I'm afraid someone might undo it, yes. I've merged some country songs, but no one ever touches the country articles (although I wish they would… hint, hint). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Tree (Lady GaGa song) 2

How do you reconcile your comment to keep or merge with the comment that the edit history should be deleted? WP:MERGE and Wikipedia:Merge and delete and several other pages mention that edit histories for all material, including merged material should be retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed !delete - notice the ! - to do-not-delete. That should help keep the ! from disappearing from view. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

my request for admin

i understand it takes time to understand wiki but you should understand that i have been editing wiki for about a year before i registered, i only registered because i felt i could do more for wiki as an admin thanks man and remember u scratch my back ill scratch yours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpw (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carroll Pickett/GA1

In response to the first portion of your comment: I am not sure, it is possible that not enough material is out there yet for a WP:GA article, you'll have to do a bit more research in available material from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to make that determination. In response to your question about the linking, see WP:COPYLINKS - I am just not sure that linking to Google in such a manner in main-article-space is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia:COPYLINKS#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, there shouldn't be a problem with the newspaper- and book-search results, as Google's lawyers are presumably on the job. I can see a problem with linking to Google Cache though, that's more iffy, and is right out if the original hosting web site was a copyvio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Google's lawyers are presumably on the job is not applicable to Wikipedia as far as WP:COPYLINKS. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, Google scans books and newspapers with the permission of somebody, usually both the owners of a specimen of the work and the rights-owners. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 change

Hi David, too tired to see how this changes and what the changes mean. In a nutshell, how does this make things better? To me an assertion of notability means the article asserts (but does not need to prove with RS) that the subject meets one of the notability guidelines. Is that how you see it? It allseemed so clear once upon a time. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to change nothing about the policy, the clarification is just to reduce the number of times A7 is mis-applied by editors and mis-passed by administrators. It does add a recommendation of improving articles and the option of using PROD, but that's not a change to policy. It also makes the implicit exemption for school articles very explicit: Do not use A7 on school articles, period. Again, that's not a change in policy, only in emphasis. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for reverting my talk page...

rajalberini (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. To be honest though I wasn't sure if it was vandalism or if your login had timed out, which is why I make that comment in the edit history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Verified Supercentenarians?

Greetings,

In regards to your below comment:

[edit] Verified Supercentarians Please explain the difference between Amanda Roberts Jones, who you removed from List of supercentenarians from the United States, and other names you did not remove such as Delphia Spencer Hankins Thomas Nelson, Sr., with respect to "verified" status. I think the fact-checking departments at newspapers the world over would've raised the issue either now or back in the Spring if there was any doubt to the claim. By the way, if she wasn't 100, she committed fraud numerous times over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Some additional quick digging: her 105th birthday. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I suppose you mean "if she wasn't 110"...

2. If you have ever worked with newspapers, you'll realize they publish first, and check the facts later. For example, the NY Times just f'cked up again:

AFP New York Times falls for fake Paris mayor letter AFP - 11 hours ago ... despite outrageous comments from the comedian, before realizing it was a hoax. Caroline Kennedy, the sole surviving child of John F. Kennedy, ...

3. You obviously are not informed when it comes to extreme age claims. Did you know, for example, that the Social Security Aministration conducted a study of all those on Social Security who claimed to be age 110 or older from Jan 1 1980 to Dec 31 1999? the Results were: 74% false, 13% true, 13% uncertain. Therefore, the rule is that we do not give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant when the age claim is 110 or older.

If you must know, researchers actually believe that Amanda Jones is 111, not 110, years old. But no one bothered to ask, in part because she "just died" right after what the family believed to be her 110th birthday.

A list of verified supercentenarian cases can be found at:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

Note the listing of Delphia Hankins and Thomas Nelson.

And while Amanda Jones got "36" hits on Google news, I suggest running a Google news search for "Edna Parker" and see what the results are.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even the grg site admits they probably only have half of those listed. I still think that excluding people because they are not on a list that is admittedly only 50% complete does a disservice to those reading the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD A7

So it does not need to claim to meet one of the notability criteria? Just a claim of some significance? Dlohcierekim 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Passing A7 is not the same as passing WP:N. The change is really not a change it's an emphasis on things that A7 should not be used for that some A7 taggers and approvers overlooked. If you compare the two, there shouldn't be any actual difference in meaning, just emphasis. The purpose of A7 is to speedily get rid of articles about people, web sites, and organizations other than schools that are not only seemingly not notable but for which the author doesn't even make a claim of notability. "John Smith is a plumber in New York. He fixed my house." or "The Black Rubarbs are a band in San Francisco. They play next Tuesday at the Blue Bar Ballroom." That kind of thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Status Update on DeadLinkBot

The bot has now completed its trial. It has updated just under 50 Handbook of Texas links as follows:

• <ref>s are always transitioned to the full {{Handbook of Texas}} template. The correct author is retrieved from the actual page referenced and used. If the original <ref> supplied a non-generic title (i.e. not "Handbook of Texas" or similar) that title is used, otherwise the one supplied by the HT web page is used. If the original <ref> supplied a date, it is used otherwise the field is left blank. Date retrieved is always set to today.
• links in the notes/references sections are replaced in the same fashion as <ref>s
• links in the external links section are replaced with the shorter version of the {{Handbook of Texas}} template. I.E. only the article's title is used (using same methodology of determining it as above). This is more consistent with what one would expect to find in the external links section. I switched to this formatting mid-way through the 50 edits, so some older edits may be in the full template format.
• bare links (i.e. "text.[http://...]") get <ref> tags added and are transitioned to the full template format.
• links with titles (i.e. "text [http://..page.html texas stuff] ") are simply updated
• links on talk page are normally just updated (no transition to template form), but may be skipped if the bot thinks they could possibly be false positives

I had a number of kinks to iron out in the code (these transitions are not very straight forward), so the bot made a # of errors in the early going. I have manually reviewed every edit and made the necessary corrections (both to the pages and the code). You are welcome to review the changes the bot made yourself at User:DeadLinkBOT/Logs/HandbookOfTexas.log but you'll have to check the page's edit history to see any corrections I made myself. After you look over the log, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadLinkBOT#Discussion. Any questions/concerns related to the formatting choices I've made can be directed to my talk page. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RFA!

Thanks for participating! Although I feel I knew that it being closed as not now would be the result, the comments made me smile, and I did get some good advice out of it. Happy holidays as well! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I guess that makes me an evil person =O Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Just kidding, now to edit my page before anybody else notices that it says vote (*looks both ways*)

Happy holidays (again) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how does that look? Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

umm, what r the jetsons?

I was the one that requested the newbie welcome bot. But what r the Jetsons???????? I am not that old!!!!! lol Dcollins52^{Give me a yell} 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jetsons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

... o ok. lol Dcollins52^{Give me a yell} 20:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford: The Second Best University in the UK

I rise to your challenge, sire. Andorin (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Monroe High School (Tehachapi)

The 200px for the picture I added that you changed it to was too small, but I found the right size, because 390px I agree is too large. I found the right size.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To all my Wiki Stalkers - Merry Christmas

If you are reading this because you watchlisted my user page that makes you one of my Wiki Stalkers. I think there's 2 or 3 of you out there.

Anyways, to all of you, and you know who you are:

Merry Christmas

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Now that's funny!
--NBahn (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Thanks for the message. I just subst'd the {{vanish}} help desk template, so maybe that needs to be updated? – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuit sex

Replied to you there – if you can think of a better title, please do feel free to change it (or let me know and I'll change it). As I say, I'm not really happy with the title, but am having trouble thinking of something more appropriate. And if you can think of a way to expand it, do try; while I'm fairly certain it would survive AFD, I've no doubt at all that some of our more hardline deletionists would at least try to put together an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. – iridescent 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this; I've spent a lot of time lately reading unhelpful replies, and it's several lungfuls of fresh air to see you go out of your way to be helpful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yanjmaa1.jpg

An interesting result. In text, unsourced material may be deleted on sight, but for deleting unsourced images, consensus is needed. Not the only case where I have difficulties grasping the logic behind some deletion criteria, so it could be just me... Btw: Have you considered that if the "source" was wrong, it could even be a copyvio? Mongolian copyright on a movie still (not from the 20s then anyway) would only expire 50 years after the death of the author, and not 25 years after creation as with photographs. Of course, I'd much prefer for a confirmation in a book to turn up, ideally with a higher quality scan! --Latebird (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's the way it is with images. I don't regard this image as unsourced, but rather sourced from a source that is allegedly unreliable for that type of image. Other factors, including the photos apparent pd-US status, made it unnecessary to clear up the reliability of the source in a "keep/delete" decision. That's an argument best left for the editors of the articles that use the image.

I agree, the best course of action is to authenticate or replace the image. Alternatively, have the editors of the articles remove it and after it's clear that it's not going to be re-added in an edit-war, re-IFD it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Have you considered asking the Mongolian Embassy if they have an image they can certify is public domain in both Mongolia and the United States that they can send you? Or, if you live in a big city, try your main library or university library. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We have Mongolian editors, both here and on mnwiki, who often manage to dig up original sources for stuff like that. The communist era is usually not their favourite topic, but maybe one of them can be nudged into checking it out anyway. --Latebird (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines

Thanks for your note. A proper discussion on the guidelines has finally started at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification. You might want to put your oar in. --Helenalex (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone

Rather than spam all my friends with wishes, I'll just leave this note for those who are stopping by. May 2009 bless you with good fortune, good friends, and drama-free editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Love your vote rationales

...at RFA. Very nice job with Roux. (Watchlisting a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I hope my comments at places like xfd and policy/guideline proposals are more thoughtful and given more weight than those at RFA. RFA directly affects 1 person. Policy affects everyone and content affects people off-wiki. Roux has one other attribute highly recommended for administrators: A sense of humor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of a different vote rationale now: in the "red" thread at WT:RFA, "But 10 months of general uncivil behavior means 10+ months of exemplary civil behavior.": that seems very specific. Is it really true that the typical candidate who shows up at RFA with a record of 10 months of uncivil behavior can expect your support vote 10 months in the future, if they just behave in a way that seems exemplary to them for 10 months? I think my position is that it might be unfair to the candidate to dangle this in front of them, if the reality is closer to "No". If the community really doesn't see them as admin material, it be a better use of their wiki-time, and help to save them from burn out, if they know that that's the case. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be likely to give "support," other editors might not. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the question, I thought it was asking what we, as individuals, mean when we say "come back in a year." If the question was "what do you think the community means when the community says come back in a year" I think we won't know that until enough people say what we mean as individuals. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the two guys who said "wait a year" at Red Thunder's RFA for their opinions; if I have time tomorrow, I'll go back and ask people who voted in previous RfA's what they meant. My top goal is that people don't put off running out of a fear that running itself will mean that they are shooting themselves in the foot and won't be able to run for another year. I'm fine with the the known downsides to running (having to wait up to 6 months if it doesn't work, and having people dredge up all your misdeeds and hypothesizing or fantasizing about your character flaws); I think the fact that more and more people are saying "You shouldn't have run, wait a year" gives potential candidates the impression (right or wrong) that running before they are certain they will pass would be a horrible mistake. (And who is certain they will pass, these days?) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and sometimes, it is a horrible mistake. If someone is "plateauing" as an editor, that is, they won't be much better a year from now than now, it's better to not run until they know they can succeed, because people expect a noticeable change between runs. On the other hand, most rookie/NOTNOW and novice/still-learning editors will naturally improve significantly in the coming 6 months, so they have much less to be concerned about "poisoning the well." There are some editors who will only succeed by getting lucky in their timing, that is, who happens to see their RFA and what kinds of comments are made in it. There are others who of course should never run simply because either they don't have the maturity and never will, or because they don't have the project's best interests at heart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Survey results

Updated per your request.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I am currently reviewing you per your request...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 04:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize I'd moved to the head of the line. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to put people who are seriously thinking about running for admin ahead of those who are just looking for a review/coaching.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential obstacles:

1) You were blocked by Arbcom a year and a half ago. I personally don't see this as an issue, it was over 19 months ago. If we held that against you, then we are only creating a culture wherein we encourage people to create alternative accounts rather than redeem old ones. Personally, I would rather see somebody repair a damaged reputation that start afresh---this gives the community the ability to monitor their actions. The issue that you are going to face is that people are going to want to know the basics of what happened. If you aren't willing to disclose the basics 1) What happened, 2) Why you were blocked, 3) Why your block was lifted, 4) What you learned. Then you probably will never pass an RfA. You have the right to keep that private, which I've seen statements to that effect. BUT as long as you refuse to disclose the basics, you will never be an admin---people will always assume the worst and will oppose simply because they feel you are hiding something from them. Which you would be. It is your choice.

2) Your position on child pornography as described here can have negative impact. Having worked with child abuse victims, I know that Americans who have been exposed to child abuse issues may oppose you on this stance alone. Having lived in other parts of the world, I know that what you are saying is essentially correct---different countries have different views on nudity. Hell, the cover of National Geographic often has more explicit pictures than the cover of Playboy!! That being said, in the United States of America a frontal view of a nude child (or even baby) is likely to be deemed as indecent (unless on the cover of National Geographic.) Even if it is clear the child didn't have any issues with it---hell, my four year old doesn't understand the meaning of the word modesty.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3) You will need to highlight some of your article building/contributions. They are out there, but you really have to look for them. I know that you have several articles that you've created on your user page, but what is missing are the articles that you work on while you are patrolling pages. I was really impressed that you appear to be one of those editors who doesn't write too much, but when you stumble accross an article that interests you, you will pause to salvage it and help clean it up. Unfortunately, this gets lost in all of the clutter.

4) I was very impressed with your CSD work---namely the way that you would replace CSD tags with PROD/AFD when appropriate. If you are interested, AND willing to write a short summary per issue 1, I would be willing to write up a nomination for you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming in from left field here; but, Balloonman left a note that he was talking to potential noms and I had a feeling he meant you :) I came here to say that I believe you would be a fine addition to the admin corps; however, I'd like to echo B'man's words above. The community will ask for a disclosure about that ArbCom experience. If my suspicions as to what happened are correct: a concise and brief explanation should suffice. In fact, to my mind, that experience draws me to more strongly support you. You are the prodigal son; you've made mistakes, can admit them, and have grown. Also, you did not let the mistakes, the struggle, and the trial deter your committment to the project. I think the apparent weakness can be a stregnth; I tend to be suspicious of the "perfect" candidate. Just show us your mistakes are behind you!

Anyway, I look forward to your candidacy. Let me know if you need help in any way; i.e. conom or help crafting a statement. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... disclosure shouldn't hurt you at this point... but failing to disclose will kill you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On the condition that you do at least a minimal disclosure of the events surrounding your block. (I couldn't find anything about it when I looked at ya---a link would be good, but if the case/history was deleted, you should mention that as well.) Also, if you run: 1) No more than 3 total nominators, 2 IMHO is best. 2) Be available to answer questions for 2-4 hours after transcluding the nom. 3) read my essay---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Be prepared for the possibility that our intuition is incorrect. Perhaps the community is not ready to accept your candidacy; if that is the outcome, I hope that would not influence your dedication to the project. All the best, remember: RfA is not the end-all of Wikipedia. If you'd like, and provide some details, I would be willing to co-nom. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Too bad for me then, I was offering to co-nom you as well, but Lazulilasher came first. If you disclose those details Balloonman mentioned above, you'll probably do great anyway, so I'll leave my best wishes for that instead :-) SoWhy 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm encouraging our German friend to write that second DYK so that we can nominate him as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a rare talent encouraging people into becoming admin candidates that are almost sure to pass. I keep on being impressed :-) SoWhy 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all do... I vastly misjudged RyRy's and Realists2.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)MENTAL NOTE: DO NOT NOMINATE ANYBODY WHOSE NAME BEGINS WITH AN R!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the topic at hand, where is the man of the hour? Hehe... Lazulilasher (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If he was smart, he would be filling out the paper work to exercise his right to vanish...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this doesn't work maybe someone will nominate me for deletion. But one thing at a time, one thing at a time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Balloonman,SoWhy, Lazulilasher, thank you for the comments. The other major delay is "do I really need the tools," until there is a need, it would be hypocritical of me to ask for them. I'm still mulling that one. Oh, BallonMan, I'm glad my name isn't Rwdivad :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody need them? Generally no. The questions is would the project be better if you had them? The answer is yes. If a person has their head on straight, it is always a net positive for them to have the tools because if they use them just once in a constructive manner, then the project benefits. Plus, you have experience in several areas where the tools would be helpful. The question (in my mind) is do you want to disclose your reason for being blocked... if not, then you don't run. If you are willing to do so, then you can throw you hat in the muck and see where it goes. No guarantees, but I think you'd have a good chance of passing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have faith that the community will judge you on your contributions; not your past. I could, however, be incorrect. Pursuant to this, we should be prepared for the possibility. My only hope is that, regardless of the outcome, you continue your valuable contributions to the project. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I might not !vote in your RfA David, but good luck with everything! Always interesting to see an RfA that hasn't gone live yet... and wonder how the vote columns will fill out. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the child porn thread that Balloonman mentioned, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedians who would have a problem with what you said, but Balloonman knows the audience at RFA better than I do. If you want to run and Balloonman says it will work, I say, go for it; you're a very positive presence at WT:RFA, and you'll probably be even more helpful when you don't have your own impending doom RFA to think about. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much worried about the RfA regulars, but this is an issue that touches a lot of people close to home. It is also an issue that can drive people in different directions. Thus, it is a subject that might get people who have never participated in an RfA to materialize out of the woodwork.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be a net positive in its own right. If my nomination does not succeed, but it encourages other clearly qualified people to run, or encourages people previously unfamiliar with RFA to seek out such people and nominate them, then that's good for the project. On the other hand, if it becomes a one-time blackball-fest, and those editors don't participate further in RFA, then it's just wasting everyone's time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reply: Would things be different if I made a similar statement on any other charged issue, such as the Middle East, Scientology, or whatever the latest drama at WP:ARBCOM is today? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here is the difference, if you made a statement that motivated Scientologist to oppose you, they would be identifiable. People would look at their oppose and realize, "That's a scientologist POV pusher, we expected that oppose." When it comes to child abuse/porn, you don't know who/what sets people off.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's safe to say very few people are in favor of child abuse/porn, but not everyone agrees on what that is, especially in cases where entire cultures view certain forms of child nudity as "not porn" and other cultures view the same image as the most vile thing man has ever created. Picture in French book in a Paris bookstore of kids in France on a nude beach? Not porn. Same picture in an American bookstore in certain very conservative towns? You will probably get calls for the police and seize the book. Same picture but with American kids on an American beach nude? You'll see demands to arrest the parents, send the kids to foster homes, and arrest the photographer, the publisher, and the bookseller. The world is a tapestry of many different cultures, the rules that apply in Georgia (US State) are not the same rules that apply in Georgia (country). By the way, I plan on avoiding acting alone on controversial administrative decisions when it comes to things like Israel/Palestine, Scientology, and in cases like the recent Virgin Killer controversy, child nudity, because frankly, if they are controversial decisions on issues like these, it needs more than one set of eyes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) That was a verbose and excellent response. I heard, however, all that I needed to hear with: " By the way, I plan on avoiding acting alone on controversial administrative decisions when it comes to things like Israel/Palestine, Scientology, and in cases like the recent Virgin Killer controversy, child nudity, because frankly, if they are controversial decisions on issues like these, it needs more than one set of eyes. Bingo. You've got my support right there. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Administration

I just went ahead and removed the administration. The other school sites, or at least continuation sites I'm using as an example don't have the secretary mentioned, just head person, or principal. The principal for Monroe is already mentioned in the infobox, so just removed the whole administration page, or at least for Monroe, since really don't need that up there.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest undoing your close of discussion

I would think 70% support of any policy change would make it RIPE for a RFC, to try to engage more folks. There is No RAMROD, but there is also WP:CONSENSUS. SirFozzie (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's not 70%, it's closer to 60%. I went ahead and re-opened it but I'll probably shut it down in a week without taking it to RFC if nothing changes. The most widely supported proposal had 28 for, 18 against, plus 4 "against all proposals". 28 to 22 is about 60%. I didn't read through the details but as I considered 70% in the "maybe" range, 60% is well below what I'm comfortable with to add a new user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: If you get deleted

The latter :) Watchlist it now, just in case... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stereotypes of white people

I have nominated Stereotypes of white people, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would you be able to explain to me what needs to be done with the WP:COI for Monroe, if that needs to be done to the article, so that it gets done. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stereotypes of white people

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record for anyone reading this, the version that just got deleted is not the version I created in 2007. It was created anew from a redirect in December 2008 and did not belong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people

FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above yours, Baloonman. I feel it should be deleted for those reasons; specifically, the subject would be best served by study within the wider context offered by the White People article. Further, notability is not established outside of the broader paradigm. This would have the added benefit of opening it to a wider audience, to protect from NPOV, unsourced, and unreliable information (as both versions: reverted and unreverted have fallen victim to.) Lazulilasher (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, David! I just respectfully disagree with you in this case! Though, I may write a new essay WP:JustBecauseItHasFootnotesDoesNotMeanThatTheArticleisVerifiableNPOVorNotable. ) But, I've never tried my hand at that, before. All the best, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And...holy cow ballonman...that was fast.... Lazulilasher (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even the version I reverted to should have been deleted... but it wasn't speedy deletable, until I realized that it was already AfD'd... at which point you have two choices: revert to a version that was already AfD'd or leave a version that was a clear G10 violation. Either way it was deletable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Two requests: Add the following information to the recent AFD: 1) The thanks goes to DanielRigal, he found the August version before I did, and 2) please link to all AFDs related to this article, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. Also, you do realize that you shouldn't have snow-closed this. AFDs are supposed to run about 5 days. It would have been better to say "the August version is off limits due to this AFD [link], we are heading towards a snow-close delete, I'll close it X hours unless someone gives a reason not to." Yes, I know the current version was tripe and I'm glad to see Stereotypes of Whites go with it, but I don't think process should be ignored when there's no emergency. That's gonna cost me the !votes of the "admins should be able to act decisively and quickly in all circumstances" crowd at RFA. BTW, I'm thinking of late this month or early next for that, I've got some things I want to do first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version was deletable per G10. It was nothing but an unsourced attack page, so in order for it to remain as an article, we need a version that A) isn't an unsourced attack page and B) Isn't covered under the previous AfD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys crack me up. David, just walk into RfA and be cool. Create clear, concise, and scintillating prose that explains you and your weaknesses. Use proper punctuation. Again: Clear and Concise=Brief. Also, use semi-colons and colons (trust me, chicks dig semicolons!). So, rememeber: be cool, clear, concise, and scintillating. And do it quickly, because we need some candidates out there (not sure if you've noticed, but we're hemmoraghing sysops and not replacing them). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sysops need to procreate 2.2 other sysops in order to maintain their population... otherwise they are in danger of going extinct!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo, and I firmly believe that our best editors should have the bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

;:;;;:::;;;;;:;;;:?!? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it will be at least a week and a half before I put my hat in the ring, possibly up to a few more weeks after that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for rescinding your comments in the AfD. It appears some editors simply react to others' reactions rather than read the article and respond to their own interpretation. • Freechild'sup? 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)