User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10

Contents

DYK

Hey, not sure if the message was automated or not, but thanks! Twas my first time :P. Ironholds 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For my next trick i'll be working on a missing greek city-state. You wouldn't know anyone who makes maps would you? Dropping it off at WP:GL takes a long time, and since the project is currently in my sandbox it'd be rather moot. Ironholds 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you in advance for your future co-nom., it means a lot to me. I never actually got your email but Malinaccier told me the contents. Thanks again! Regards, --Cameron* 09:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Move query

I'm not particularly bothered either way, but could you explain why you chose to close Talk:Latin_hip_hop#Requested_move as move? The move rationale was more than a little illogical ("other pages use hip-hop") and had nothing to do with the article content, something I pointed out. If you have time, I'd be interested - thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was against any unsourced move (I could have made that clearer though!) - the article is completely unsourced, and I didn't think we should move it until we found out what reliable sources called the subject. I would be surprised if there is absolutely no distinction between Latin rap and Latin hip-hop as claimed in the text and implicitly suggested in the move. Seeing as no-one else has volunteered any thoughts or sources however, I suppose this title is no worse than before, but it's definitely no better. No further action is required, I can see why you moved it - I just hope someone sees my comment at some point and decided to do some research and sourcing on the subject. Thanks for your quick reply, Knepflerle (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Eucharist and more...

Hey. Sorry to trouble you, but something just came up. Several weeks ago, you placed Origin of the Eucharist on full protection due to edit warring and such. One of the editors involved in that little battle has since taken the fight to the history section of Eucharist, largely copying and pasting text from the Origin article. An editor started a discussion here, but I'm at a loss as to how to handle this so as to avoid having that page turn into a war/protect. Any advice? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Block per WP:SUICIDE"

I've unblocked this user... I think blocking users immediately after they make a suicide threat is a very bad idea - the last thing a truly depressed person needs to see is a big angry, impersonal "you are blocked" message. :/ They should be left alone while the Foundation and local authorities take action. I apologize for the overturning and don't mean to wheel war, I just feel it's rather urgent. krimpet 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

English footballers

I noticed that you created a whole series of articles recently about [[English]] footballers. As a friendly reminder, English is a disambiguation page. Surely, you meant that they were [[England|English]]. --Russ (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, he made the pages in regard of me, I had already made the articles in my userspace with the mistake, and I was short for time so I asked Peter if he would make them for me, I take full responsibility for this error. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages

{{talkback|Gears of War}}

Gears of War 2 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted revisions of User:BenBurch

Can you explain on the AN thread why you deleted those revisions? I don't see what WP policy the information in them violated. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted his unwarranted vandalism as a misapplication of WP:BLP. He has no right to infringe on Mr. Burch's right to provide a statement which clears his good name. More importantly, it stands as proof positive that we musn't allow whiners and liars the opportunity to spin articles on themseleves. WP:NPOV always trumps WP:BLP, we musn't allow ourselves to be involved in advocacy on behalf of the subject. As is readily apparent, the subject was resoundingly denied her frivolous litigation. Any further attempt to vandalize this user's page will result in swift reversion. Please refrain from WP:BLP hand-wringing. Thank you and have a nice day. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New Messages From Mifter

{{talkback|Mifter}}--Mifter (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you SatuSuro 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change problem

Hi Peter. You unblocked me but asked I put in a name change . Some admin rejected the change we discussed and I see no explaination just the grawpd IP ...which I looked up and it was some constant abuser??

Can you help? also I think I put this in the wrong place....newbie here

problem uploading image

Hi Peter. On reclaimed water page I am trying to upload image, kirby bauer disk diffusion test. I previously uploaded kirby bauer green, changed format from tif to jpg, then changed the name and tried to do it again, but couldn't. I must be doing something wrong. Thanks.Notindustry (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

You are the second admin, and third user, to endorse deletion of Fetish: Footage: Forum (and its unspaced counterpart). I would love to hear your rationale. Skomorokh 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottowa Wine Tasting - may I get a copy

Would you mind restoring (or otherwise getting to me) the table portion of the recently deleted Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981? (see here) I'll recreate it without they copyvio, but could use the table. Also, would you mind pointing out where it was copied from? That will help me avoid trouble in the new article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


recurring rollback misuse

after misusing rollback here [[1]], McJeff's explanation was that this was vandalism from a vandalism-only account. the "vandalism-only" account's contribs are here [[2]]. this was neither vandalism nor is this a vandalism only account (if it were vandalism, there wouldn't be a current RfC over whether this exact section should be in the article). here is another [[3]]. McJeff, for whatever reason, still misuses rollback even after it was removed and restored a few days ago for this same behavior. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I said to Theserialcomma in regards to this absolutely appropriate use of rollback.
I will restate - according to WP:BLP, Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I did revert the controversy section and in the case of new editors I will explain why to them, but in the case of a revert-only account like Bill.matthews who has already been contacted about his inappropriate behavior, using rollback to revert his edits is exactly what rollback is intended for.
McJeff (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as the aforementioned RfC goes, the reason there is an RfC is because Theserialcomma refuses to accept that consensus is against the criticism section he wants in the Tucker Max article. The second to last person arguing in favor of the section, Atlantabravz, suggested that we wait until the Tucker Max Movie came out and The Smoking Gun investigated the claims made in the controversy section [4]. With consensus clearly against the section, Theserialcomma then decided to file an RfC because he didn't like it [5]. McJeff (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
you forgot to add the part where you wrote "Out of all 25 diffs that you provided of my alleged rollback misuse, only one was found in the end to be actual misuse," which, of course, is untrue. and to be historically accurate, which you haven't been, you were the one who filed an RfC, not me. your personal memory of the facts are unbelievable. furthermore, there was no consensus for the removal of the section as you falsely claimed (evidence: [[6]].) but this is about your alleged misuse of rollback. let's keep this about rollback and not cloud the issue with irrelevancies. let's just find out if you are using your rollback correctly, as you adamantly claim to be doing so. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, however, it has to be addressed now. You demanded the RfC. I filed it because the last time you filed an RfC, you did not follow the directions and you used language favorable to your POV rather than neutral language. That doesn't change the fact that you are the sole reason the RfC was filed, and that you were the one that demanded the RfC in the first place. Incidentally I might remind you that it's the second RfC you demanded for the section - the first RfC found in favor of not including a criticism section, and you insisted on a second because you didn't like the result of the first. As far as the dif you provided, might I point out that it was again, just you refusing to accept consensus, and capping it off by attacking me personally as a rebuttal to my statements?
PeterSymonds, I'm sorry to clutter up your talk page with this stuff, but based on the two AN/I's that have been filed on him, his behavior on the talk pages, his determination to get me in trouble, and his reluctance to actually learn the policies of wikipedia, I feel that Theserialcomma should be written off as a troublemaking account. At the very least, I hope that if he complains to you about me again, you talk to me directly before taking any administrative action, as I think both this incident and the last incident demonstrate that Theserialcomma carries a grudge towards me over the Tucker Max article, does not truly understand how Wikipedia works, and has no inclination of learning.
By the way, would you consider reverting my rollback and then undoing his revert to be disruptive? What about repeatedly trying to remove a comment he didn't like from the RfC [7] [8] [9]? McJeff (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
actually, the only outside editor to comment on the first rfc (filed by you) voted completely in favor of my position. you then removed the controversy section anyway, without a consensus, and against the outside editor's comment. then i filed an rfc because you reverted my attempts to remove an anonymous blog. 3 or 4 outside editors and admins, everyone who commented, unanimously found you to be wrong. then you just moved the anonymous blog from a source to an external link, and vigorously defended and reverted attempts to remove that. this should have never happened for an anonymous blog, and you should not attack my grasp of wikipedia policies as someone who reverted attempts to remove an anonymous blog to the point of disobeying the outside editors and admins who commented on the RfC . you then removed my RfC and still wouldn't remove the anonymous link. finally an outside admin came in to remove it. that brings us to now. you filed a new RfC, and then you claimed here that I filed it. weird. and yes, you filed 3 ANIs on me. but they were all failures. the last one resulted in not a single admin or editor even responding to your ANI, so you decided to bump the whole complaint from the archives and respost it. the only admin to respond this time sided with me, and against you. i question your recollection of historical facts Theserialcomma (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Flat out lies, on both counts.

[10] The first RfC over the Criticism section. No outside editor "fully agreed" with Theserialcomma.

[11] The "anonymous blog" link, as mentioned, was removed not by an administrator but by me myself. Yes, I fought very hard for its inclusion as I felt it was useful enough to be worth ignoring rules for, but there comes a time to stop beating a dead horse.

As far as the AN/I's go, more lies. First, there were only two - one got reposted because no one responded. At any rate, on both of the AN/I threads on TSC, his behavior was found "lacking but not enough so for administrator intervention". In administrator User:DGG's words, The discussions seem inappropriately personal for an article talk page, but fall short of what would be termed personal attacks, so I cant see how to intervene as an administrator. On the first AN/I he was also reproached for violating WP:BLP. McJeff (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

your cherry picked "facts" and blatant historical revisionism is really irrelevant to your alleged misuse of rollback. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take this point to note that I provide proof with diffs whenever Theserialcomma accuses me of something, but his lines such as cherry picked "facts" and blatant historical revisionism have none. This is especially galling when you consider that my facts are all supported by diffs, whereas his usually are not supported at all, and on those occasions he does cite diffs, they rarely if ever say what he claims they will. My only improper action was the one misuse of rollback, which has already been dealt with, everything else was completely appropriate. McJeff (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion got a little unwieldy and off topic, i've filed an ANI so we don't have to burden Peter with this. [[12]] Theserialcomma (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The ANI was filed because Theserialcomma has nothing else he can say - I have debunked every point against him and turned most of them right around on him. This is ludicrous that I am being punished and he is not - I believe my rollback rights should be reinstated immediately and he should be forbidden from editing any articles that I work on, as he is unable to leave me alone. McJeff (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said you were going to leave a message on my talk page about your decision. I don't really care if you do that or not, but I am interested in knowing why, despite being one of the biggest problem editors I've encountered in my 2 years on wikipedia, Theserialcomma keeps getting ignored by the adminstration and no one is willing to step in and make him act right. McJeff (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
you have no right to make personal attacks against me. this was about your misuse of rollback, nothing more. you clearly misused it, and your privileged were permanently revoked - end of story. you need to leave me alone and stop making personal attacks, especially like what you wrote in your edit summary on your userpage. i'm not going to repeat it or link to it, but you should know that if any admin saw that, you'd probably get blocked or banned. that type of language and behavior is completely 100% unacceptable. you are way out of line. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal coronets

Hiya Peter. I need a little help — renaming Commons:Image:Monarch's Grandchildren Coronet.svg and Commons:Image:Royal Ducal Coronet.svg on the Commons (to Commons:Image:Heir apparent's Children Coronet.svg and Commons:Image:Monarch's Other Grandchildren Coronet.svg respectively). But I really can't figure out the process... Have you any idea, or do you know someone who has? Cheers DBD 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. I got the impression it might be something like that... DBD 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
All done, and the duplicates have been deleted. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK? update

Thanks for doing this! I don't care if I don't have the authority to present this; you deserve it. CB (ö) 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK Medal.svg The DYK Medal
Awarded to PeterSymonds for updating Did You Know? when all hope seemed lost.



Speedy G1 tagging

Hi there. Please refrain from tagging articles as G1. G1 is for absolute nonsense, incomprehensible content. An example would be a page with "ahhhhhhhhhsjsjdjjjjjjj!!!!!!!!!!!" on it. Articles which can be read and understood are not are not incomprehensible. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed the article on Jewelculture up for speedy deletion due to the fact that it made no sense and it seemed like some form of personal advertisement, which proved correct becuase the user that created the page, shared the same name as the article and had the same incoprehensible jargon on her talk page - no hard feelings Avi15 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Raywiki.jpg

What would be the right license for this? I know Ray's family and that image was just one of their own that they had on their computer. – Homestar-winner 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinarism

How come you've deleted the page about Chinarism? (Xizilbash (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Question

Re. "You claimed that it was necessary for context" – I never claimed that. Please explain.

I claimed removal of non-free content per policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...to alert the user that their comment has been removed, and wait until the discussion is concluded before actually removing it." – seems rather contradictory. The steps you propose are: remove, do something else, and then wait before actually removing. I can make no sense of that.
Further, "...comment has been removed..." is incorrect: I didn't remove a comment, I removed copyrighted text per policy. Steve had removed my comment when reverting ([13]): my comment started with "Shortened per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text [...]", ending with "[...] per WP:V#Non-English sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)" --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheetah Girls

Hey, you deleted this yesterday. Someone tagged it as spam but it clearly isn't. I'm sure you were just being careless but thought I should let you know I've restored it. Flowerparty 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

KFC

What was going on with the KFC article today? MMetro (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Nash Point West.jpg Thank you...

...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK updating

The DYK update is ready, I believe, mainly including all of the expiring hooks that were good, although it's possible that I'm missing another one in there. If you're available to do the update right now that'd be great. I can always help out with the article talk page and user DYK credit notifications if needed. :-) Thanks, JamieS93 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of new article - Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

You deleted the new article I inserted for the IIROC. It is an organization in Canada equivalent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in the United States. That is, it is not a commercial enterprise but a recognized self-regulatory organization that has a public interest mandate to protect investors aand the integrity of the securities market. This article, although very short so far, is justified as part of a series of articles explaining the system of government securities regulation and securities industry self regualtion in Canada. If FINRA rates an article in Wikipedia, why would you delete the IIROC article? Midstream (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you want evidence of IIROC's notability, just Google it. You'll see numerous news references to its activities in halting the traidn of stocks on Canadian exchanges and disciplining brokers. It's a fairly new organization, formed just two months ago from the merger of two predecessor organizations. One of them, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, has been around for about 100 years and would meet the notability tests itself. The other merger partner, Market Regulation Services, Inc, was of more recent vintage, having been formed about 6 years ago, but it was also very significant on the regulatory scene. Midstream (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've userfied it for you at User:Midstream/Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada. Please bear in mind WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS when writing the article, and feel free to ask any questions you may have. When it's ready for the mainspace, let me know or move it into the mainspace. Good luck and best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 24.84.61.129 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Without having seen this exchange, I have created an entry for IIROC. I also had it deleted a couple of times. My article for Advocis, another not-for-profit Canadian finance industry association, was also deleted mutiple times. Quite frustrating when you are just trying to improve the quality of information available on securities regulation and the investment industry in Canada. Pokey2009 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Bwanga

Whoa ... you just deleted an article with a HANGON tag that was added 3 seconds ago. Slow down, delting valid articles doesn't make you a good editor. Get the article undeleted ASAP so that I can add the information to the discussion page. I'm not sure what idiot PROD'd it yet, because it only takes 2 seconds of research to find the person on Google, and determine that the article belongs. BMW(drive) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem so reasonable, I'm sure Peter will consider this request. However, I endorse the deletion, which wasn't the first time the article was deleted. Just because the information can be verified doesn't mean this subject meets WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Also, no "idiot" put a PROD tag on it, it was tagged straight for speedy deletion. Adding eleven different cleanup tags to an article (as you did) is probably a good indication that deletion should at least be considered. Tan ǀ 39 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks (I supposed) ... I was doing NPP and did a quick 2 second Google search for the person, and found that yes, Wikipedia should have an article for this person, and they are notable enough, so I felt the article should stay...albeit, extremely cleaned up (hence my tags) BMW(drive) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you show how this person meets WP:MUSIC, instead of just stating that a Google search shows we "should" have an article for this subject? Tan ǀ 39 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ermm...4 African-produced albums, touring with one of Africa's biggest exports, a big North American release, airplay that includes Christian radio (ever tried to get that?) ... in the typical UK/US music industry, that may not seem like a big thing, but it's huge coming from Africa (and I only know a FEW African bands/artists). Of course, taking all my time explaining this is taking precious time that I have to fix the article this evening ... again, I did't WRITE the original, I merely NPP'd it to find it met Wikipedia's standards BMW(drive) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, until you actually address WP:MUSIC, there's not much to be done. Having four African-produced albums does not create notability. Touring with one of Africa's biggest exports does not automatically create notability. Having a North American release does not automatically create notability, unless you mean a hit that ranked on national charts, then it does. Etc, etc, etc. You need to specifically address the policy/guideline, not just state vague criteria. Tan ǀ 39 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, now some other editor has page-protected it. God, I tell you ... it's so hard to find good help these days :) BMW(drive) 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Blatant Advertising

So, I agree that Collarity is not blatant advertising anymore, but it sure is advertising. It looks like it only exists to get the company's name out, because it's a short sentence and then a lot of buzz-wordy "see also's." What to do, if not call it advertising? I'm rather new. Should it be tagged in some way? Stijndon (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be tagged for expansion :-) It's pretty sad, and yes still sounds a little like an advert, but not enough to be horrifically removed! BMW(drive) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Peter...

I'm probably jumping the gun - but I noticed that you've unprotected the ArbCom Elections page (per a request? - I'm not sure where to look for such a thing, but I had mentioned this recently too! small world!) - would you mind unprotecting the talk page too? - alternatively, please take this as a 'thank you' for already having done so! cheers :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks heaps, Peter! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)the database kept locking when I tried to pop this in earlier, but better late than never!

Tears from the Sky

This article was on my watchlist (although I'm not sure why... perhaps because they're Canadian). I might be recalling incorrectly, but was there not an earlier version of the article that was not a copyright violation? Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN 2008 Xinjiang attack

I've reverted your update because there is no need to have two hooks pointing to one article. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

The bot doesn't catch Already done so just use  Done instead. cheers, –xeno (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe we can get Sox to fix it up when he gets back, but he's been pretty busy I think. still hasn't changed the proc time to 24 hr. –xeno (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are everywhere!

This original barnstar is awarded to PeterSymonds for his ability to be everywhere (or at least, many of the places I frequent), and more, and to be very helpful in all of those places! -- Natalya 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And thus, a well-deserved barnstar. I remember voting in your RfA only a few months ago, and am wowed by how much you do with your admin tools. -- Natalya 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) whe n

You are most welcome! And we all muck things up time and again - at least it gives us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves! The first time I updated DYK, I managed to fail to do about half the things you're supposed to do when you do the update... but, so it goes! The future can only be better, then. -- Natalya 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtemplates of {{rnd}}

Peter,

Thanks. Also the following subtemplates are in the same boat.

Please G7 the lot. JIMp talk·cont 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. JIMp talk·cont 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Olympic Games

I've asked a few admins, but none seem to have replied and it needs to be done soon (plus when we've interacted in-wiki you've been very nice) so i'll ask you; could you semi protect this page? it's under regular attack from various IP's. I have no idea why; it's not like the page is titled "Gay muslim aids-infected paedophilic immigrants" but evidently "ancient olympic games" translates as "ooh, please post rude words here! you get +1 attack if your caps lock is stuck down". Ironholds 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :)Ironholds 08:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Rollback

Thanks for dealing with my rollback request so quickly and effectively. I will be sure to make good use of it. Thanks again, J.T Pearson (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

please help with image

Peter, I am putting 'gnu' after 'permission' but still being told I have not given copyright status to the uploaded image. I don't know what to try next to put 'kirby bauer disk diffusion test on 'reclaimed water page' Please don't give up on me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notindustry (talkcontribs) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it

I don't know if it will be removed. Also, I want to erase the word"image" from the caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.211.209 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Drama

Sorry for the drama over at StewieGriffin!'s talkpage. He just gets so immature and it makes us kid editors look bad. Gears of War 2 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, PeterSymonds, but I feel half tempted to delete these two podcasts as being nothing but sources of petty, unnecessary drama. Are they helping the project? At this point, I'd say absolutely not. Metros (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt blame you. Those podcast have brought nothing but drama. Gears of War 2 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your call, Metros. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. I'm quite happy for both parties to leave each other alone. No talk page bitching, no interaction about the two projects. Radio Wikipedia has a number of listeners, and one of its main contributors is Xenocidic (talk · contribs), so he should probably be asked before any deletion is mentioned. Drama can be avoided if Radio Wikipedia and WikiUpdate stay away from each other. I can't stress that enough. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
eh, don't base your decision on my participation, I've only put a few segments in here and there. I've tried to talk to stewie in the past about this, but it seems to have had little to no effect. –xeno (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing that edit to my user page! --Winger84 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Made me laugh. Don't be a hypocrite, though. Okay? Sceptre (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre changer

This IP (well all that start 87.196..... is changing genres for no reason as usual. I'm getting tired of this IP range and it's clones. — Realist2 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do, that IP range is arbitrarily changing genres without so much as edit summaries or talk page reasoning. He has been at it for months. Unfortunately it took me a long time to catch on and notice it was all coming from the same place. He won't stop unless he's forced, he's been doing it at the "Loose (album)" for months. When an article is protected he comes back when the protection ends. Thank you for the BarnStar, much appreciated, I have more FA articles in the works. :-) Let me know what happens with this IP stuff if anything. Cheers Peter. — Realist2 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Jamalar has a very similar editing habit to this IP range, edits the same/similar articles and is an obsessive genre changer. Notice, I believe Jamalar has been removing talk page warnings from myself and others making it difficult to understand her disruptive editing. I would say that Jamalar either is the IP range or is in direct competition with the IP, edit warring with one another over genres. — Realist2 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My image was removed again

I put GNU after "permission" and still my kirby bauer image was removed because of unknown copyright. What am I doing wrong?Notindustry (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About Tartarian Nights

Hi. I am writing about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tartarian Nights. I proposed the deletion of the article, and I am sure it deserves to be deleted for its own merits (or lack of). It was deleted instead as a copyvio of [14]. But that page claims to use material from Wikipedia (at the bottom). So perhaps the deletion was right, but the reason less so. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You.

Thank you for granting my request for AccountCreator permission. This will allow me to help the Wikipedia community even more. Thanks RandorXeus (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for contact

Hi. To make this brief, after having taken a few days to cool down, I'm truly ashamed of the way I acted during the rollback incident. I would like to speak with you, not about the returning of the rollback in the first place, but more of how I can move forward from this. However there's a few loose ends that need to be discussed, and the editor I'm having the dispute with watches my contributions page like a hawk. Would it be possible to contact you off wikipedia? McJeff (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist

Hi Peter. Back in July you protected History of the Eucharist because of edit-warring. The warring was primarily caused by one individual, user:Eschoir. That same individual has now pretty much wrecked Eucharist along the same lines. Any suggestions? (I'm not personally involved in this, but I find it sad to see a reasonably decent article destroyed by a rogue editor, while others can only stand by and complain.) Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Put the image back again

I put kirby bauer disk diffusion test back on reclaimed water page because I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. I write GNU, from CDC, US gov't, and the image still gets removed because I have not given the license. Do I need to talk to someone who teaches beginners? Please help me Peter. I'm frustrated. Thanks.Notindustry (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Before it expires...

Could you please take a look at Harold McCarter Taylor, which I nominated for the "did you know" column. I don't know why I had no reaction to the nomination until it was already placed in the "expiring" category, but I think I fixed the issues Gatoclass had with the citing. --Hegvald (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN order

Actually, the procedures page, which I drafted a while back, states, "admins are encouraged to place clearly more significant items higher in the template, thus ensuring that they remain longer." This was actually a codification of existing practice, as opposed to me creating a new practice. Also, "When significant updates are made to blurbs - always supported by the emboldened article - admins may reset items higher up the template.", so it's theoretically possible for an news event to be continually reset to the top of the template, as long as the associated article keeps being updated and it keeps getting support for inclusion at ITN/C. - BanyanTree 01:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Super Badnik

Hi. I unprotected Super Badnik's talk page, following a retraction of the legal threat via email . I posted to AN [15], but I do not think that you are currently involved in that discussion, so just wanted to notify you. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shiny?

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
it's my pleasure to give you, PeterSymonds the special barnstar. Thanks for all the help on cleaning Wikipedia! Kanonkas :  Talk  14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Since you're an administrator, How do I become part of A WikiProject I am really confused. Please reply on my page. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger Took image removal

"(rm image, deleted per I7 - person still alive)", Revision as of 15:38, 10 August 2008 PeterSymonds

Care to quote what Wikepdian rule states that images-of-persons-still-alive are not allowed .:)

emacsuser (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

unfair targeting of articles

the reason i am reverting articles is the fact that indian editors are obsessed by inserting there claims to articles such as pakistani mountains they dont even provided sources why dont editors ever look into giani g a editor with a nationalist veiw who exclusively puts tags on pakistani mountains??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.209.150 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

also do you see any point of always including disputed tags on the mountains especially pakistani ones ? if you do then maybe all indian mountains should be renamed disputed if ther=y are in the kashmir region do you undertsand?

Category deletion

Can you please tell me reason for declining category deletion ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits are under attack of banned user which is writing tags suspected puppets of Rjecina. See for example user page history of user:KhoiKURČINA (which is now protected). Checkuser Thatcher has confirmed that this account is puppet of banned user PaxEquilibrium [16], but user in question is writing that I am puppeteer. Category is created by banned user puppet (after he has been banned) user:EminentniEmir. You have not seen category comment when you have removed speedy deletion tag [17] ?? In my thinking this is enough for deleting article (category)--Rjecina (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Next update

HelloPeter. I noticed you reverted my removal of

"NOTE: Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks."

I have explained myself on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I understad, that is better than all at once, but since the U.S. doesn't take up half the world (or half its population, for that matter), why should it take up half of DYK? I guess I was being a bit too bold in that edit, and I do not wish to edit wor with you, but please enter the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Thanks. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Peter

Your help is deeply appreciated.RegardsNotindustry (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ITN update on monsoon rains in India.

Thanks a lot for the souvenir also on my talk page which said I created the article. I like to collect them. --gppande «talk» 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Current DYK

I am puzzled because the current DYK has only one US-related hook, Haas Lola. I thought you've agreed to Gato's notice. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much

I am greatly indebted to you for promptly granting me rollback privaleges. I promise that I shall use this ability with wisdom and discretion, and give you no cause to regret your decision.

𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 03:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK credits

Hi, thanks for doing the DYK labor :) However, I was credited for the Dundas Valley Conservation Area DYK today, but I have never edited the article. The poor soul Óðinn who actually wrote the article was on the other hand not credited. Thanks. Arsenikk (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights request

Hello there. I would like to request that I be given rollback rights. I am regularly reverting vandalism, and I feel that the ability to use the rollback feature would help with this. Thanks. – PeeJay 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. – PeeJay 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Virginids DYK

Hi. Thanks for informing me, but where is the DYK? I see the DYK tag on the talkpage, but not on the main page. Is something wrong with the article, or did someone forget to add it, or is either my cache or the server cache not purged? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)#Edit request (make template collapsible)

Hi. In case you lose sight of it, I've added a suggestion to the above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Pond

I'm puzzled by your protection of Pond. From the revision history, it appears to have low/normal amounts of vandalism, and several recent edits by anons have been good ones. Am I missing something? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. I thought page moves showed up in Revision histories, but I don't see that in this article's history. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize moves could just disappear. Sorry to trouble you over it, but I do like to try to make sense of these things. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For giving me so much help when I first started editing wikipedia Citedcover (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Please can you check your e-mail. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Since you seem to be an experienced editor and administrator, and you do very good work, I was hoping that you might answer a question for me. One of the main pages that I work on is Piedmont College, mainly because I'm a student there. One of the things that I have been working on in my spare time is a history of Piedmont. So far it is over 10,500 characters (I have more to write, and then lots of editing for grammar and such). My question is would it be better to add it to the Piedmont College article, or should I start a new History of Piedmont College Article? What would be your recommendation?

Thanks RandorXeus (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Emochila

Hi there, i had a question about the article Emochila that you deleted. I had been working with GRuban to get the article listed, if you see the talk pages of the article. About an hour after he issued a Keep on the article, it was deleted. The only reason I can see for this, was that someone had complained about a deletion of their talk (which I didn't do!) and that the article was spam and written by an officer.

I'm perplexed. I followed exactly the directions of GRuban, and he doesn't think it's spam - it's not! - and issued a keep, and i certainly am not an officer of this company, so that argument is unfounded. Can you please tell me why that Delete happened? Kwintern (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)kwintern

Deletion review for Emochila

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Emochila. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kwintern (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck

You declined my A7 speedy for Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck on the grounds that Waldeck is a region. I've no doubt that it is, however, Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck is a Verband, which is a kind of German collective of organisations which work together. As such the article qualified for A7 as an organisation. And the article contains nothing to say why it is a notable organisation. --JD554 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --JD554 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Galileo

Galileo is one of 100 biggest yachts in the world. All other superyachts have their own pages at wikipedia, so why Galileo cannot? Let me edit the page by adding pictures and external links to prove! This article was writtem by myself, so what is the point of Blatant copyright infringement? What about to delete Eos, Malteese Falcon etc.???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NataliaSpatar (talkcontribs) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy J. Sellars

Hi, Sorry for putting a second speedy delete tag on Jimmy J. Sellars, I didn't note the first decline. Thanks for your tolerance. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you declined I was going to speedy this under G3. Looking at the notability asserted it seems a series of Australian based IPs have been adding him to the articles of Sonic Youth, The Germs and The Brian Jonestown Massacre however he exists nowhere else on the internet. It's a sophisticated hoax attempt, but is is a hoax being performed by SPAs. –– Lid(Talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right; I've no objection to deletion on that grounds. I can't verify it either. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted?

Peter, you deleted the page for the Cherry Creek Diversity Conference because you said it didn't indicate the importance of the group? The conference is mentioned on another wikipedia article (Cherry Creek High School) so I was trying to expand the knowledge base. Additionally it is a major annual event in Colorado for over 1,000 high school students. Considering wikipedia has pages for far fewer important items, I'm confused why this would be targeted for deletion. Joeschmoe81 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

welcome

Thank you very much for your automated welcome.

May i ask, i have posted two questions at the help desk, would they be better suited for Reference Desk Computers? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Examtester (talkcontribs) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. No worries though. :) The people at the Help Desk will be quick to point you in the right direction. Sorry for the delayed reply; I didn't notice this here. Basically if it's at all Wikipedia-help-related, go to Wikipedia:Help desk; if it's for general off-wiki issues, it's best to go to the reference desk. If you have any general queries about Wikipedia, feel free to drop a note to my talk page, and I'll answer as quickly as possible. Again, welcome! PeterSymonds (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Institute of Management‎

Hello There!!!

An user is removing tags and adding personal info within the article named Guru Nanak Institute of Management without any proper reason. I cant make more reversal else i'll breach WP:3RR. Please look into this.

Thank you.

Hitro 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

Radio Cab deleted?

Hi Peter, you deleted the article of Radio Cab, but it was a nutral article I had written becuase it was a new kind of service started in India. I had also quoted news articles for the same. I am a Software Engineer and had no interest in any advertising of that service, which anyway is not from a single vendor or service provider. I had mentioned this in the talk too. Waveking (talk)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes

Hi. May I ask how did you weigh the arguments presented in this debate? And based on which policy that you find "the rationales presented by those in favour of deletion were strong in comparison to some in favour of keeping all"? I may be biased, because I've commented in that discussion, but I do find it hard to perceive any consensus for deletion being formed there. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of comments for keeping were for the hair colour userboxes. Comments such as "Keep all User boxen wars are over people." were personal opinion and possible bias. I saw no evidence that the userbox dispute was over people, but rather their content. The female editors that were commenting in the MfD were ones I sincerely respect: Alison, Krimpet, Eliz and Rebecca and AlisonW, for example, and I know their judgement is sound, so their interpretation of what the userboxes meant also meant a lot when making my decision. That was not so much based on policy, but if our female editors misinterpret userboxes and consider them to be demeaning, then that's a serious and problematic issue. The "delete all" comments that came before the significant discussion on compromise, and the discussion worked out a userbox on hair colour that was satisfactory to all. That was my reasoning for my decision, so feel free to ask me further questions. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must take issue with your reasoning. Three things: a/ You put more weight in the votes of editors that you respect, because (in your opinion) "their judgement is sound" regardless of whether it is based on policy or not? b/ You did realize that they misinterpret (your word) the content of the userboxes, but you deleted them anyway? c/ Did you really mean to say, this closure was "not so much based on policy", but rather subjective judgment? --PeaceNT (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said I put more weight on the comments from editors I respect: I took their reasoning into consideration. And yes, to a certain extent, I did put opinions before policy; I don't see any reason why not if our female editors are offended by them. There was a concerted effort to improve the userboxes on hair, which met with wide approval, but no effort was made with the others which met the same approval. If they are able to be misinterpreted in such a way, they should be reformed; editors did so with the hair userboxes, so why wasn't the same done with the others? Simply saying "they were fine as they are" is unacceptable, because the MfD clearly showed that the boxes weren't fine with everyone. This isn't an article, but subjective opinion anyway: userboxes expressing likes and dislikes are subjective in themselves, and will not be shared by everybody else. So it's not so easy to close such an MfD based solely on policy. Wikipedia:Editors matter works both ways. I'm sorry, but my reasoning was not based solely on policy, and it really couldn't have been. But as an admin and editor, I feel I must respect the views of the community, and I really would not have been if I'd simply closed as keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"But as an admin and editor, I feel I must respect the views of the community, and I really would not have been if I'd simply closed as keep." You have an option which you haven't considered: no consensus. Closing as "delete" because several editors misinterpret the userboxes - while many others do not see a problem - doesn't show that you "respect the views of the community". --PeaceNT (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't believe there was any close that would've been satisfactory to all. One userbox wasn't even used, and the other was found to be generally offensive. No-one expressed any approval of the changes made. I don't believe it was a simple "no consensus" either, but I suppose that was merely my judgement based on the arguments as the discussion progressed. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The userbox that wasn't used could have been removed from a userpage when it was speedy deleted. Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/August_4_userboxes#.7C---.3E_Compromise_on_Loves_sexy_girls, no compromise would mean no-consensus. While it's true that "no-one expressed any approval of the changes made", it is also true that many editors who voted keep do approve of the userbox content as it was, which means without changes made. I still don't see where this "consensus" for deletion comes from. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no consensus for any of the deletions here (I should note that I didn't comment in the discussion and was actually heading to close it myself when I saw that you already had). I think you should consider reversing that part of the closure. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBW wasn't in use at all, even before the MFD was closed- let it die imo. The beautiful women could probably be restored - that was a compromise version from sexy girls and no one came back to comment on it. –xeno (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I obviously disagree with undeleting any of these, but if an uninvolved admin requests it then fine. I agree with Xenocidic that debating the unused userbox is futile; what's the point in undeleting something that was never even used in the first place? MfD altered to include undeletion of the beautiful women userbox. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't blame Peter for this. This MfD was plagued with so many issues, it must have been very tough to sort out what the consensus actually was. They should not have been lumped all together. The transexual-related ones should have had their own multi (the g7 and out of process re-deletion probably muddied the waters as well), the hair colour ones their own multi, and the sexy girls/bbw should have been discussed on their own. Thanks for restoring the beautiful women one, I've no prejudice to relisting if some people still think it's problematic in its revised version. –xeno (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, I don't blame him in general. I would normally agree with you about unused user boxes, it was just the PeaceNT made a good point about them having been removed. I think there probably was consensus for deletion on the Shemale box. It's a shame Krimpet had to wheel-war on it before the MfD was over. G7 is G7, and that's fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, I ran a transclusion check midway through the MFD and it wasn't in use. Though people may have removed them because they had the MFD tag slapped up that John254 insisted on transcluding through. –xeno (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Could have happened after the speedy deletion or during the DRV as well. *shrugs* IronGargoyle (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
True enough. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, what?

Uh, perhaps you can explain why you archived the discussion before the conclusion was arrived at? Clearly, the second part seems to indicate that we are allowing the banned user to post, but the initial concern seems to have been shut down before we arrived at a conclusion (or even an answer, for that matter). Or was there an answer that I missed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that folk wanted the topic of allowing the banned user to post had overwhelming, emotionally brittle support. I also saw the linked closure of the perennial SandyGeorgia/DavedShankbone arguments.
However, that isn't what I asked initially in the post, and there seemed to be no resolution to that matter. The question was whether we list Jeffpw in the list of Deceased Wikipedians. Maybe I was unclear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exemption of account from block

Hi, Peter. Thanks a lot. The block was really getting on my nerves as I kept butting up against it every now and again. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of May contain nuts

I counted 3 Deletes, 5 Keeps and 5 Userfy? Has it been userfy-ed, or is that something I have to do? -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Katherine St-Laurent Article

I accept the decision, but have two requests:

(1) I did not have a chance to make an archive copy before the article was deleted. I would like to retain a copy in the event that Katherine St-Laurent does establish a notable career.

(2) No reasons were given for the deletion. I would appreciate some words of explanation.

Thanks for your attention to this.

JD Fan (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I will be stepping aside from further Wikipedia work, except maybe to maintain 1 or 2 previous articles. I have no desire to write any other articles that could be deleted in the future.

But I would like an archival copy of what I wrote in the Katherine St-Laurent article, and some idea of what the decisive reasons were for the deletion.

JD Fan (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Brye hook

I tried to update the Steve Brye before it was updated to the main page. The hook is misleading, should I report it to "errors" or is this something you are able to update? Source Thanks, Mitico (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Steve Brye. Mitico (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Antique Gift Shop

Peter Symonds, I read "13:03, 3 August 2008 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Antique Gift Shop" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.) (restore)"

I am afraid that is not an acceptable use of Speedy. When a manhwa is listed, notability is asserted. The companies listed are all major publishers. Next time, if you are questioning whether something is really important or significant, please use AFD. I am aware that someone else tagged it, but that someone else is now being told to restrict his speedying. See, as a deleter it may help to look at the article to ensure that the use of the said speedy is proper. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK of mine

Well, thanks for congratulating me on my first DYK?. Well, have a nice day; H2H (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brown

Please read the first sentence of the page before removing the image again "Jay Brown is a fictional character" Hence not a BLP... GunGagdinMoan 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, someone else did the same thing earlier on too :) GunGagdinMoan 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK missed credit

OK, so it's petty, and it's certainly not your fault, but I missed a DYK credit. In this diff you did the credits, but whoever moved Marilyn Roman into the next update template messed up the credits for the nomination. Alansohn nominated an article that I wrote. Can I get a little credit for the writing? Thanks. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

PeterSymonds, you there? DYK is over 2 hours late and I've just finished with the update. Thanks, I'll do talk page credits. :) -- RyRy (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums‎

Excuse me - you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums‎ as a "Delete" - can you explain your reasoning, please? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was in favour of deletion, so I closed it thus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but can you be a bit more specific? See, different admins mean different things when they say "consensus". Some mean "everyone agreed" - which doesn't seem to be the case. Some mean "the overwhelming majority agreed" ... which, with 5 people arguing for delete, and 3 for keep, doesn't seem to be overwhelming. Some mean "as the argument went on, more and more people changed to delete" - which also didn't seem to happen. Some mean "all those who had reasonable arguments, according to guidelines and policy, agreed" - which I hope isn't the case, given that the delete arguments were, basically, "too many red links", which isn't a reason for deletion of the list (at most of the individual links), and I believe I showed many could be turned into reasonable articles, I went and did two of them when challenged. Some just mean "the majority agreed", counting votes. Or do you mean something else? Which do you mean? --GRuban (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
While we're discussing it, would you be so kind as to drop a copy of the deleted article in my userspace, so I can have a clearer reference to what it looked like? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There were two main reasons why I closed: The solid arguments WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. "Keep - but remove red links" isn't really a solid rationale; it didn't really address the two arguments above. The second keep was stronger, but again didn't really address the points above, and was more along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As We66er said, removing the redlinks would leave a list of five, which defeats the object of a "list". On the counter side of that argument, redlinks show potential for new articles, but when there are so many redlinks, there is no need for such a list. There were many items on the list, yet only a handful were referenced, and as another said, one of the organisations on that list had been deleted previously through AfD. The strongest keep therefore was WP:STAND, but that was struck as a result of misinterpretation. This is the full reason for my close. However, deleting admins don't generally say any more than "keep" or "delete" in their closing statement, unless 1) there is a specific reason for the delete and/or 2) it was a decision that could cause controversy. Generally the reasons for delete are ascertainable in the discussion itself. By the way, the text is at User:GRuban/deleted article for your review. Best, 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, We66er is wrong; if you look, deleting the red links would leave a list of nine, which is longer than List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices which has seven, was created by administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, and was met with an overwhelming keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices, including strong arguments by highly respected admin, and later arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad, so I don't think there's any issue with it meeting any minimum length for lists. And the "too general or too broad in scope" are not likely, creation museums pretty clearly identify themselves as such, and there aren't unlimited numbers of them.
Anyway; what would I need to do to restore the article without your immediate re-deletion as closing admin? Would restoring it without some of the red links suffice? How about just keeping those that have external references in reliable sources? Would turning some more red links blue suffice? How many? Are there any other changes I need to make before it can be recreated? Or do I need to take it to WP:DRV no matter how I want to restore it? --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello? I know you're out there, I can see you editing. :-) I was hoping this would be a simple enough question. What do I need to do so that you, personally, the deleting admin, will not object to my recreating this article, or do I need to go to DRV no matter what? --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, done, I've been debating about what to do with it. I've temporarily restored the whole history to your userspace (User:GRuban/List of creationist museums‎) so you can work on it if needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been working on it, yesterday turned a third link blue, which seems to back up the point that many of these red links can become reasonable articles in themselves ... and even those that can't stand alone, can surely justify a line or two as part of a larger article. So I just want to know what I need to be able to make that larger article, given the AfD. Please say when you've decided. Hopefully it won't take longer than the course of the AfD did. :-) --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

British People

I think you may need to put the protection back in place. --Snowded TALK 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Katherine St-Laurent Article

Can I get an answer on this? [18]

Thanks!

JD Fan (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Wow... I am special :p this is why I usually stay away, both times I've tried, I have managed to botch it... --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... okay then :p --Admrb♉ltz (tclog) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Katherine St-Laurent Article

Thanks for your reply. If you could restore it temporarily to my user space and let me know, that would be great. I'll pick it up right away and archive it onto my system. No worries about my reposting the article as I am stepping aside from new articles.

Thanks again.

JD Fan (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emochila

Could you please restore the deleted talk page listed above? It seems it may play a role in the Afd for that article. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Katherine St-Laurent

Thanks very much for the text, which I added to my files and then deleted from the User Page. If Katherine St-Laurent gets going with her career down the road, it will be handy for reference.

Her performance on Canadian Idol was uneven, and she did have an early exit, but the judges said she had the best voice in the competition, and her best performances were excellent. With more practice and less pressure, she could be really good and could get some hits out there. She's on to post-secondary music studies now, and if she has good sense, she will build a career in Quebec in French first, and then branch out from there. We'll see.

For my part, I'm refocusing on things other than Wikipedia, so no more new articles for some time. But I will continue to maintain the Alexz Johnson article - no problem with notability there! (Her TV show is broadcast in 120 countries.)

JD Fan (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Nation

Uh oh. I just noticed you declined a request to protect The Obama Nation, but I just granted four day dispute protection. I didn't notice the earlier denial until now, and Clubjuggle (talk · contribs) requested it again, about 5 hours after his first request. Would you like protection rescinded? —EncMstr (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Exempt

Thanks man! Man with a tan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for approving

Thanks for approving my rollback request. Message from XENUu, t 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Thanks anyway. Message from XENUu, t 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinarism

Actually I would like to have the article back. Maybe this article was one of the most detailed about this new movement. You cannot find useful information about Chinarism other places. (Xizilbash (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

User talk:Cookie8191

I still have RPP on my watchlist, and I saw this userpage come up. For what it's worth, this is most likely a sock, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cookie81927. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Olympic Games

Would you be able to re-semi-protect the page? Apologies for my rampant slaughter of the English language there. Vandalism has continued now the SP has expired; I have no idea why odd IP's choose that article to attack. Ironholds 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

Hi PeterSymonds, are you online? I've finished setting up the next update, and I believe it is ready to be updated, but I can't have access to T:DYK since I'm not an administrator. If your online, can you take care of the update please? But before you do that, the balance is slightly loose as the "On this day" section has more white space. Could you help fix that? Thanks, and I hope your online, RyRy (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection removals

You might want to rethink these. Every single one has been re-vandalized. And moved, for the ones where you took off the move protection. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll be missed

Please return someday :( We're losing a fantastic admin here... good luck in university and beyond, Peter. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss yea buddy, study hard, get good grades, and COME BACK! MBisanz talk 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, all the non-admins from IRC send their good wishes, also. Again, good luck... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
All the best and good luck. Do come back if you fell like it. Ian¹³/t 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish you the best in all your future endeavors. —Animum (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Slap

Rainbow trout.png


Whack!

John Reaves 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Endorse whacking. Seconded. Keeper ǀ 76 21:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well deserved. Thirded. Silly and stupid mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA options

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_on_RFA_options_for_User:Coffee_and_User:PeterSymonds. RlevseTalk 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)