User talk:Jerry/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry/Archive_3. |
“ | ...delusional...kangaroo... | ” |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
![This user is an adminstrator](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Broom_icon.svg/65px-Broom_icon.svg.png)
2024
*Question from a user about renaming categories |
---|
RE: CategoriesI initiated the discussion for Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe and Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies as well as later putting them up for deletion, because no one was discussing redirecting them. Can you just delete them? Also, please note the recent actions of the user Suedois, who has been engaged in an uncivil dispute with me. If I had not Afd'd an article which interested him, he would not have repopulated the Hungarian and Bohemian categories (he has been stalking my contributions). Charles 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
|
*A request for me to review an article for deletion after changes to the article have been made. |
---|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle SchoolHi, I wonder if you would revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School please? The article is still rubbish but an amazing range of sources has been found by DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
|
*Question from a user about deleting categories |
---|
Category:People of former Portuguese coloniesHi, Jerry. I created that category but replaced it with another. In such situations, when it's a self-created category, what's the best way for me to have them deleted? SamEV (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
*Editor expressing objection to denied csd on image. |
---|
I DisagreeOn Image:Realtimecrimecenterofficial.gif he licenses it as his own work. the correct license would be a fair-use license. Of course I'm no expert on licensing Compwhiz II 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
*Editor expressing objection to denied csd on article talk page. |
---|
Speedy deleteOn Image talk:Tiesto elements of life tour.jpg the only text is "hi. tiesto . i love you. i am from iran," but you said that there was no reason to delete the article. Since this looks like random nonsense to me, I am just curious why? I am not saying that the page shouldn't exist in the future, but for the time being it seems fairly pointless to me. Thanks, Falconusp t c 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Editor requesting my opinion on a centent dispute related (slightly) to an AfD that I recently closed. | |||
---|---|---|---|
Afd BoostrappingI noticed you got involved in the AfD for Ron Paul legislation. I was wondering if you could provide advice on another Ron Paul related AfD: . The nominator and a few others say that when a subarticle is created and then voted to "delete" on AfD, that the content of that AfD should also be deleted and not allowed to be merged into the main article. In this case, the content details Paul's campaign developments, which are central to the whole article on his presidential campaign (other presidential articles all have a campaign developments section, which means it's supposed to be there). I've already merged the content in question back in (and cleaned it up, too), but several editors (such as tqbf) have threatened to delete it if the AfD ends with a vote of "deletion," which strikes me as counter-productive to making the presidential article a good one. Can you please advise me, or join in on the talk page to help moderate the disagreement? Thanks! Buspar (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be glad to review this with you. You said:
Let's examine the part that seems like valid reasoning:
It seems that you are saying we need fewer articles for this content... hence a merge argument is assumed. I recognize that you also have concerns about the quality of the content, but that is never an issue for AFD, so it gets ignored. Pre-merge or Post-merge editing can easily fix those concerns. I took your statement on face value that you were concerned about the content having "metastasized into many other articles". Merging fixes that perceived problem. JERRY talk contribs 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Censored Email correspondence from an anonymous editor with whom I was recently involved in a content dispute at Bocce. | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
From my emailIn a message dated 1/5/2008 9:17:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes:
In a message dated 1/10/2008 1:47:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes:
|
** 2 conversations about J0HNNY; 1 user was blocked, article was speedied and is at AfD. |
---|
Why was the article I created J0HNNY deletedJerry, I dont see why the page J0HNNY is not of significance, it pairs up to what is already on Wikipedia, meaning other artists that have this artist featured. Please explain further what I need to do to get this information that is viable to get posted on wikipedia. get back to me as soon as possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love438 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
note: the article was recreated again by the user a few minutes later J0HNNY,I won't take it as wheel-warring if you want to delete the article. I give you my permission to do what you want with it. Probably best to leave it to another admin. I have tried clearing it up, but it is bad and sources are lacking. Have fun ;) They call this passing the buck in some countries ;) Woody (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Another admin informing me that he undeleted Good Thing and Bad Thing; and my reply. |
---|
Good Thing and Bad ThingI restored Good Thing and Bad Thing. I don't believe CSD A3 applies in this case. If you disagree, please feel free to nominate it for AfD. - jc37 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Discussion about deletion review for a discussion at AFD that I closed. |
---|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria"!Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored." Do you think you could take the trouble to explain why? -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being so short earlier. I must admit I was surprised by the decision and its basis but I should have been a little more civil. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** A discussion about scrolling reference boxes when the reflist is many times the size of the stub. |
---|
Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet SchoolHi, I notice that you have added a scroll to the reflist of Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School. I have much sympathy with this since I added a similar one to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Unfortunately the policy wonks spotted it and got the policy changed to outlaw it see here. Naturally, I am not going to change anything but thought you might like to know. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Follow-up by one of the best wikipedians I know. |
---|
Barnstar of RecoveryHa! Thank you. I actually made the edits after you closed the North Central Victoria AfD in which I supported deletion. Seeing as the decision went against me I thought I may as well swallow my pride and improve the article. I still don't think it is viable as a regional descriptor but let's see what can be made of it. Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
** An editor telling me I am correct (about what, I have no idea). |
---|
CorrectnessWhyy Yes you are correct —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoJo15 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC). |
** A question from a new user about notability requirements for websites. |
---|
Social networking?To get a site listed in this social network you need to make a contribution as a writer? This site is worth listing as it is a not for profit site trying to do good. http://www.handmessages.com Why do I need help? -A--Pinkpig3144 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)amelia |
** Two amicable requests to discuss my rationale for an AFD closing. |
---|
Querying your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics)Hi Jerry, You closed the AfD as no consensus . I believe your decision is not the obvious one. Could you please explain your decision, perhaps on the AfD talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious as to your thinking behind your close in this debate. Hiding T 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Discussion with another admin about a denied DELREV and I suggested a user renominate a group of articles for deletion since the previous debate was closed out-of-process (same as the DELREV). |
---|
DRVThere is no way consensus could be determined from that AfD, which was closed very rapidly. So, if you still think the article should/could be deleted by afd, just start another one. ViridaeTalk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (CSI)Hello, I have determined that the referenced AFD was closed out-of-process, and I encourage you to create a new nomination. Although the nominator changed his mind and withdrew the nomination, this is not suitable grounds to close the debate, as another editor (you) had already !voted delete, and provided valid rationale to back your !vote. My personal opinion of the remaining !votes there was that they were very weak, and the only policy they cited which had relevance was WP:IAR, which does not often trump clear policy and guidelines for notability. If you decide to renominate these articles but require assistance to do so, please do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. I am here to help! JERRY talk contribs 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Question relative to my making a null edit to the questioner's userpage. |
---|
EditHey, what's up with this edit? --EndlessDan 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** Question about an article I deleted at AfD. These get somewhat discouraging after a while... perhaps this explains the huge backlog at AfD? |
---|
When Jonny Met SharkySo you deleted this article for the sake of one day? you can you put it back up as it was. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
|
** 2 Questions about an article I deleted at AfD. One an example on how to ask, the other an example of how NOT to ask. (The latter was ended under my talk page rule #5.) |
---|
AfD Closing of the Poker psychology articleI read in the deletion policies that I should discuss a closing to an AfD that I disagree with on the closing admin's talk page before taking something to review. I don't understand how a single editor's opinion of redirect constitutes a consensus to redirect when six other editors are of the opinion that the article should be kept. I understand that an AfD isn't a vote, but since only one editor seemed to be of the opinion that a redirect was appropriate, it seems like this outcome is in error. I don't doubt your good intentions, but I'd ask you to reconsider. As it stands now, the stub cannot even be expanded because a redirect has been put in place. And since at least two entire books have been written on the specific subject of psychology in poker, it certainly seems notable enough and covered well enough to warrant expansion. Having read the discussion, I would think the appropriate outcome would be no consensus and a default to keep as a result of that. I've added your talk page to my watchlist so that I'll see your comments when you reply here. Thanks. Rray (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The nominator used invalid rationale that it was nonsense, and that it had not been edited since 2002. Both statements are both false and not valid deletion criteria. His !vote is nullified. The Billy calls for delete, and explains that it is not nonsense but is unencyclopedic and original research. 2005 initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep. Sirex initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep. Lankiveil calls for delete because it is a short essay from which a proper article can not be created, although he feels the subject is legitamite. Rray calls for stubbification and keep. Uncle G gets angry that people are expecting a valid outcome of an AfD is to direct the closing admin to edit the article in a certain way. He makes a very valid point that all the edits that there appears to be forming concensus for, can all be done by anyone without the need for an AfD. CubeLurker says delete as OR, then changes to neutral after stubbification. .============= at this point the article content is drastically different ================= pmedema Keep !vote lessthanclippers Keep !vote sirex Keep !vote TheBilly introduces a new argument and points out that the article appears to be a combination of ideas from three already existing and already sourced articles. PKT calls for delete. Uncle G points out that the new article has sources, and suggests merge. WPSize calls for Redirect. (This implies merge valid content first) Pmedema objects to MErge Surtel says delete, but makes a valid merge comment. Teleomatic says delete, but makes a valid merge comment. Gavin Collins makes an invalid suggestion including request to delete. He is ignored. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 keep !votes then arrived, but were countered by an overwhelmingly sound suggestion to merge. Only one of these !voters replied in objection. We then get 4 merge !votes, and 1 delete. I determined, based on the arguments made, that several of the !votes for keep and delete would have their concerns met by the proposed merge. That and the fact that half of the existing !votes were directly merge, lead me to conclude that merge was the proper outcome. I do stand by that decision and admit that it is not the most clear-cut of debates. Some of them are tough calls, and this one may well get overturned in DELREV, so I support you if you choose to take it there. JERRY talk contribs 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's ok with me that we part company for now, still in peaceful disagreement. I firmly believe that whether my actions were "right" or not, the power is in the hands of the editors to recreate an article and demonstrate that it will not violate the concerns of the closed AFD. This seems a perfectly valid way forward that will not be an inconvenience for anyone concerned. While I do think my actions were right, I also believe it is not important to debate it or prove it, as the recommendation I made is so easy to do, and will certainly result in everyone getting their way. It's an eat cake and still have cake solution. So let them eat cake. JERRY talk contribs 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The wrong way to start a discussionYour action was inappropriate since you ignored consensus and came up with an obtuse solution. Also, please read WP:DRV, "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." I did create a sourced and complete new stub, which will be expanded. You again acted inappropriately in deleting the new article without discussion. Please revert your inappropriate edit and save us any more of this lawyering silliness. The article is properly cited, states its importance, and was supported in a less complete form by a very wide consensus. Please in the future be rspectful of editors and don't create busy work. It's not nice. Please go ahead and revert your edit. If you don't like the article, put it up for AFD if you want, where the consensus again with no doubt support it. 2005 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
User Jerry has invoked his talk page rule #5, and ended this thread. Do not continue this thread here. |
** Several discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama and the subsequent deletion review.) |
---|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in FuturamaI see only three deletes, one redirect, one neutral, two merges, and two keeps. I think this is no consensus at best. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the correct outcome occurred. If your !vote was neutral, then why are you so vocal about the outcome? Neutral means "I couldn't care less either way". You seem to be ambivalent about your !vote. It's difficult for me to understand that. If you were truly neutral, then why not just walk away from this and not care about the outcome? JERRY talk contribs 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Robots in FuturamaAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Robots in Futurama. 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. Torc2 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in FuturamaI must respectfully disagree with your close of this AfD. In particular, did you note that there was at least one reliable source that was completely about this topic and that there were others that discussed it to a non-trivial extent? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
|