[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:MBisanz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sixtrojans (talk | contribs)
737 edits
Sixtrojans (talk | contribs)
737 edits
Line 292: Line 292:
== Leadership University deletion ==
== Leadership University deletion ==


I have a question about the Leadership University (leaderu.com) deletion. 2 of the 3 votes to delete came before I located and added an article that appeared in the Christian Post. The article was entirely about Leadership University and would seem to satisfy the demand for notability from a third party source. Did you notice that? I only had time to go through about 200 of the Web sites linking to leaderu.com and noticed that there are a number of published books that site leaderu.com in their references (including books on both sides of the intelligent design debate).--[[User:Sixtrojans|Sixtrojans]] ([[User talk:Sixtrojans|talk]]) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about the Leadership University (leaderu.com) deletion. 2 of the 3 votes to delete came before I located and added an article that appeared in the Christian Post. The article was entirely about Leadership University and would seem to satisfy the demand for notability from a third party source. Did you notice that? I only had time to go through about 200 of the 38,000 Web pages linking to leaderu.com and noticed that there are a number of published books that site leaderu.com in their references (including books on both sides of the intelligent design debate).--[[User:Sixtrojans|Sixtrojans]] ([[User talk:Sixtrojans|talk]]) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:08, 21 February 2009

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg as delete. I came across what appears to be a GFDL-violating copy at Talk:Green Lantern#FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg.

I came here because you were the closing admin, you have experience with AfD and deletion, and I'm not sure that the issue warrants AN. Feel free to refer me elsewhere. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suggest you take it up with Ikip and failing that, then WP:AN, I can't quite figure out what is going on. MBisanz talk 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. I'll try that. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I received no response from Ikip, and have thus started a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Copying content during AfD without attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed but do I remove the hat?

I've merged the article content from Sfcrowsnest to Stephen Hunt (author)#SF Crowsnest but am unsure if I should remove the {{afd-mergefrom}} hat from the destination's talk page. I assume the hats on the source will get deleted when the article itself is deleted. Also could I change the existing Sfcrowsnest into a REDIRECT to the new section or are we committed to having the article deleted from the namespace? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can change it to a redirect and remove the hat whenever you are done merging it. Remember to always be bold! MBisanz talk 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:Merge and delete is possible, merges almost always result in redirects. Regarding the tag, an editor may replace it with the parameter-compatible {{afd-merged-from}} once the merge is completed, or AnomieBOT will detect the redirect and update the tag automatically. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why

I just want to upload a album cover to A Day To Remember's new album Homesick and no one will let me. shannon.holliday21 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to be auto-confirmed to upload images. Please see WP:IFU to request an image be uploaded. MBisanz talk 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

I don't want to take up too much more of your time as I know you stay fairly busy, but I wanted to check with you on one more thing about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idle RPG AfD stuff.

Were you aware of this [1] [2] and this? [3]

If not, would these have affected your decision to close as Delete vs Relisting or closing as No Consensus?

Thanks again! Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of those exact things, but it wouldn't have triggered a relist since there was substantial debate from both sides on the AFD (ie. one side didn't slip a fast one by the other). MBisanz talk 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a "fast one" as you put it wasn't slipped by, even unintentionally. The reason is this [4] was only caught less then 24 hours before the AfD was closed. Because the person who nominated the article used an invalid category for the AfD categorization template, the AfD ended up in the Unsorted (Debate not yet sorted) category and got less attention than it should have or would have otherwise received had it been listed in the proper category from the start.
Also, the person who nominated the article not only failed to put the article name into the AfD template when attaching it to the article, they failed to notify the editors of the article of the AfD and add either a template or a small comment about the AfD on the article's talk page. Because the editors involved in creating this article were not notified, they were not given the opportunity to engage in the AfD discussion. (I personally only got involved and added proper citations to the article after someone else removed the {{prod}} template because it was obvious to me that the person who added the {{prod}} intended to send the article to AfD.)
I'm also concerned that it seems you did not take into account that the person who nominated the article for AfD eventually agreed that the article passed WP:V / WP:RS see [5] and [6]
It bothers me that the arguments that they brought up were eventually resolved, yet you did not seem to take the full discussion into account when you closed the AfD as Delete.
I'd really like your thoughts on this and I felt it would be appropriate to at least bring these to your attention and get you take on it before progressing to Deletion review stage. I can completely understand if a number of things were overlooked in the AfD discussion itself because even for me the dialog was getting to the point of TLDR. Tothwolf (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the deletion policy and notifying significant contributors is a courtesy, not a requirement of the AFD process. AFDs are a community discussion, so even though the nominator changed his mind, the community consensus was still to delete. And notification on the talk page of the article is not required, nor is deletion categorization a requirement of the deletion policy. MBisanz talk 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite how I interpreted the guideline docs, but you are correct in that they do not say it's mandatory. Ah well, we'll let DRV sort it out I guess. Thanks! Tothwolf (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does (s) mean?

In this history, what does the summary (s) for your edit mean? Is there an explanation of why the redirect was made soft? I checked the talk page, but it had been deleted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help with people who scrape the database for free content, we converted all the non-free image tags to being with Non-free, since the old tags are referenced in lots of conversations, but shouldn't be used as redirects, a softredirect lets us maintain the link for people reviewing old discussions, while ensuring compliance with the new taxonomy. MBisanz talk 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But it would have helped had you linked each soft redirect's edit summary to the discussion of this change. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

Hi. I moved an edited version of my rebuttal to the claim of Durova that I am running a sock back to my evidence section without the off-topic speculation. According to my read of the instructions that is the correct place to have that, not to mention that I am giving evidence, to wit my disavowal and another point. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for closing admin.

Good hello. An article for which you closed the deletion discussion as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Capricciosohas been recreated at Rob capriccioso. I've tagged it as a speedy G4 but would sure appreciate some oversight if you have a moment. Concern has also been expressed that the creator of the articles and the major editors may have COI and puppet issues. Any help you may be able to render is most welcome. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is a bit concerning, have you tried taking it to WP:COIN. MBisanz talk 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these guys are persistant and fast. Article was speedy deleted yesterday and has been recreated, again, at Rob Capriccioso. Maybe COIN is the right answer. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of AfD: Bristol Indymedia

Per WP:DRV, could I ask you - qua the closing admin - to take a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia? The nom was closed with a finding of no consensus, but it seems to me that there was a consensus to delete or redirect. There were four votes for that result; true, there was a week keep vote and a keep vote, but I don't think they defease the consensus, individually or in sum. The keep vote by user:Jezhotwells was predicated on his promise to provide one additional reliable source supporting notability; even if one more source would make all the difference, however, it was not tendered at any time in the five days between Jeremy's vote and the closing of the nomination. The week keep vote fares little better. user:JulesH offered a strong argument for keeping an article that had not been nominated: she observed that the organization had been involved in a potentially notable event, but such involvement is not a valid reason to keep an article about an organization. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the no consensus closure, FWIW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The key for me was that even after relist, new parties to the AFD disagreed on what to do with the article, for me that is the hallmark of an No Consensus close. MBisanz talk 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I'm afraid that doesn't satisfy me. You have previously noted that "[d]eletion discussions are not a vote," that you are "looking for a rough consensus as to what should be done," and that you "will weigh the quality of the arguments made by each side, and that weight may drastically shift the end result from what a numerical tally would indicate." just so: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Here, as I noted above, the arguments on the other side lacked any heft at all (one defended an article other than the one nominated, and the other appealed to a promised butress that never materialized). I could understand the result being no consensus based purely on the vote tally, but we agree, I think, that vote tally isn't the appropriate metric.
As I see it, there was consensus both before and after the relisting that the article's time was up; the only disagreement was whether the article should be deleted and the page redirected, or if both should be interred. That does not, in my view, divide the consensus in any material respect, because it isn't credible that one who votes to delete the article would prefer the article being kept over redirection. If users have to start explicitly stating first and second preferences along the continuum, that should be debated and incorporated into the AFD guidelines. I really think that reconsideration is appropriate here. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, but would you mind clarifying whether your intent is to discuss this further here, or if I should raise at DRV at this point? I'm not a newbie to WP, but I am a newbie to this aspect of it, so some gentleness would be appreciated to the extent appropriate to the circumstances.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that there wasn't rough consensus rather assumes the answer, doesn't it? ;) At any rate, I'll put together a listing and post to DRV; when that's done, I'll message Juliancolton, too, since he wrote above to support your decision and may wish to do so again at the DRV so long as he knows it's there.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sindhi_ethnicity

Hi MBisanz!

Please could you explain to me how this discussion resulted in a redirect? I'm very confused about it.

Cheers, S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I closed the AFD [7] it had already been redirected. As the only AFD comments were Delete and Merge, my options were to leave it a redirect, a completed merge, or delete the redirect, I felt leaving the redirect best reflected the AFD consensus. MBisanz talk 00:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can understand that. I believe the page was (inappropriately) redirected and protected shortly after the AfD discussion began. -- I don't believe any content from the previous article was merged?--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the content is still under the redirect, so anyone can go there and pull it out to merge it. Further, on the continuum of deletion (see User:MBisanz/AfD), redirect would usually be the result of such a discussion, that someone did it before the close of the AFD is something more to take up with them then with the AFD closer (we just close the discussion, we don't actually edit the content). MBisanz talk 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Can I take that as approval to merge some of the useful content from the deleted article to Sindhi people? I think the consensus was that a lot of the deleted material was well-informed.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want with the content, its GFDL and AFD only decides the big picture stuff (retention, deletion, etc), and leaves the editorial decisions to the editors. MBisanz talk 02:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't, because Sindhi people is protected.  :) What I was asking was, could it be un-protected please? --S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed MBisanz talk 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--S Marshall Talk/Cont 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs and the "rescue" tag

Greetings, and thanks for all your work closing AfDs in the past while, it has not gone unnoticed. Just a quick note to ask if you could check for {{rescue}} tags on surviving articles when you are removing the AfD notice; you missed one out here at they tend to clutter the article rescue category. Cheers, Skomorokh 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't {{rescue}} managed by a wikiproject? I think it is more of a clean-up template that a project decides when to add or remove than an official part of the AFD process. MBisanz talk 01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only intended to be up as long as the article needs rescuing i.e. for the duration of the Afd. Yes, it's coordinated by us fine folks at the Article Rescue Squadron, but you'd be doing us a huge favour if you would backspace it away with the rest of the AfD topmatter when closing articles as kept. Cheers, Skomorokh 02:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the mouse

Knew it would be deleted. No problems. Respect your decisions always. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar (painter)

Hi Mbisanz,

I am the person who created the page for Eleazar (painter) - I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page, aren’t you? If so, can we please review this deletion? First of all, it’s necessary to say that I only understand a little English. Apart from that, I want you to know that Eleazar is a notable painter because he is known in Spain, specially Barcelona, and in other European countries like Switzerland (specially the canton of the Jura). I enclosure a selection of his Curriculum Vitae with his lasts exhibition. In addition, you have to know that Eleazar has been selected by the FIFA in representation of Spain for the exhibition that will take place on the occacion of the South Africa 2010 World Cup; a exhibition that will cross 32 countries around the world.

Solo Exhibitions: (Selectión) 2008 Imaginart-Gallery. “La Familia”. Barcelona / Ermita de Santa Margarida de Fontarnau. Osona

2007 Galería Carmen Torrallardona. Andorra / Antigua Capilla del Hospital de Sant Sadurní d’Anoia. “Sants i Martirs” / Galería Paqui Delgado “Diosas”. Sant Sadurni d’Anoia. Barcelona / Galería C’an Pinos. “Ellas”. Palma de Mallorca

2006 Galería Contrast Montcada. In Memoriam (Made in Spain). Barcelona

2005 Galería Multiplicidad. "El Quijote". Madrid / Galería Contrast. "Tontos, Bufones, Reyes y Princesas". Barcelona / Galería C.Torrallardona. "Estoy todo el tiempo pensando en mis cosas". Andorra / Galería Courant d'Art. "Artistas Catalanes en el Jura". Chevenez. Suiza.

2004 Galería La Santa. Barcelona.

2003 Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. (Suiza).

2001 Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Conservatori Superior de Música del Liceu. Barcelona.

2000 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona / Galería Art Contrast . Barcelona.

1996 Galería Elite Art. Barcelona

1994 Galería Gloria de Prada. Barcelona.

1992 Galería Perfil. Barceloa

1986 Casa de Cultura de Los Llanos de Aridane (Canarias) / Caja de Ahorros de Santa Cruz de la Palma (Canarias).

1984 Librería Epsilon. Barcelona

1982 Casa de Cultura de Castelldefels. Barcelona

1979 Galería Melchor. Sevilla.

Groups Exhibitions (Selectión)

2008 Scope Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. London / Bridge Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. Berlín. / Galería Carme Espinet. Barcelona / Imaginart Gallery. Barcelona

2007 Capella de Sant Antoni. Torroella de Montgri. Girona / L’Oum Errebia. Azemmour. Marruecos

2006 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza / Galería Contrast. Barcelona

2005 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Centro Cultural de Burriana. Castellón / Casa de la Música. Villarreal / Diputación Provincial.Castellón.

2004 Art Forum Copenhagen 2004. Copenhagen / Galería Contrast. Barcelona / Galeria Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza

2003 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Artexpo: Galería Contrast. Feria de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona

2001 Univesitat Internacional de Catalunya. Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / New Art. Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Galería 98. Cadaqués. Girona / Pati Llimona. Ayuntament de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / Fundació Internacional Josep Carreras. (Lleida y Tremp) / Galería Art Contrast: “El Circo”. Barcelona.

1999 Galería Rrose Selavy: “Compact Art”. Barcelona / Galería Marc 3: “Quin te n’enduries al vint-i-ú?”. Barcelona / Galería Contrast: “Bestiari: Zoo 2000”. Barcelona.

1998 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona. 1995 Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Galería Gabarro Art. Sabadell / Teatre Villarroel. Barcelona.

1993 Premi Ricard Camí. Caixa de Tarrassa / Museu d’Art Modern de Tarragona.

1992 Palau Moia. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona / Galería Perfil. Barcelona / Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona / Premio Internacional de Pintura “Ybarra 1992”. EXPO 92. Sevilla / IX Premio “Francisco de Goya”. Centro Conde Duque. Madrid.

1984 XXIII Premi Dibuix Joan Miró. Barcelona / Salas de Cultura de la Caja de Ahorro de Navarra: Burlada, Estella, Sagüenza y Tudela / Paraninfo de la Universidad de Barcelona / Caixa d’Estalvis de la Caixa. Tárrega. Lleida

1983 Galería Ramón Sardá. Barcelona

1981 Colegio de Arquitectos y Aparejadores. Barcelona

1980 III Biennal de Pintura. Barcelona / Casa Batlló de Gaudí. Barcelona

Collections (Selectión)

•Colección Hoteles AC (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante, Murcia, Burgos, Badajoz, Córdoba, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Oporto y Milán) / Colección B.P.A. (Banca Privada de Andorra) / Colección Hoteles H10 (Roma) / Il.lustre Colegi d’Advocats de Barcelona / Laboratorios Janssen-Cilag. Madrid / Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Facultat de Psicología. Tarragona / Hercesa Inmobiliaria. Madrid / Clinica Delfos. Barcelona / Hoteles Quo. Villaviciosa de Odón. Madrid / Bellavista Raich & Asociados. Asesoramiento de Empresas y Consultoría. Barcelona / Accon S.L. Actuaris i Consultors Empresarials. Barcelona / Colección Grupo HG (Hoteles y Gestión). Barcelona, La Molina, Cerler, Sierra Nevada y Baleares / Colección Lluís Bassat. Bassat Ogilvy. Consejeros de Comunicación. Barcelona / Colección Antonio Catalán / Bufette Cuatrecasas. Abogados. Barcelona / Seguros Iberia. Barcelona / Caja de Ahorros de S/C de la Palma. Canarias / Creade. Consultora de Recursos Humanos. Barcelona / Colección Cavas Roura. Alella. Barcelona / Excmo. Ayuntament de Castelldefels. Barcelona / Excmo. Ayuntament de Sant sadurni d’Anoia. Barcelona / Colección Laura Allende / Colección Trow Revue d’Art. Suiza / KPMG. Auditoría, Asesoramiento Legal y Financiero / CIBC World Markets PLC. Londres / Colección Yves Riat. Suiza / Colección Pierre L’Hoest. EVS Broadcast. Liege (Bélgica) / Colección Martín Schlaff. Casinos de Austria

Finally, I want to excuse me about the incidents that happened with the Eleazar (painter) page because I’m a new Wikipedia user and I had problems for writing the article, the image files and for making the suitable references, all because of my poor level of English. If you think that the article can be improved, please let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleazar1954 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleazar (painter) that resulted in the article's deletion. You would need to talk to the people who commented in that discussion to see if there are new facts they did not take into consideration when commenting. MBisanz talk 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Eleazar (painter)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleazar (painter). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Eleazar1954 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orcas mergers

I saw you closed some of the AfD's for individual orcas with decisions to merge into Captive orcas. The article on Captive orcas in fact was created as a merge of all these individual articles, then I added some introductory content and compressed down the individual orca sections, dropping repetition and genealogy details which seemed a bit too much for Wikipedia. So I think the individual articles are already merged, just need to be changed into redirects. I did that for two of them, then wondered if I was moving too fast? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is fine. That is all editorial judgment stuff. AFD just sets the broad course and leaves the smaller decisions to discussion after. MBisanz talk 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About a redirect -> soft redirect

Can you shine a light on this edit? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk _soft_redirect" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:MBisanz#What_does_.28s.29_mean.3F. MBisanz talk 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Out of interest, is this a documented procedure, or just something which was worked out for this particular issue? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made it up at a WP:BRFA to solve a problem at the time, and then just hoped no one ever needed to change it. :) MBisanz talk 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I deflaged Fluxbot, don't need that flag now. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MBisanz talk 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kotava

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kotava. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Péter Gulácsi

Hi there. You deleted this article a while back as a result of an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Péter Gulácsi (2nd nomination)).

The article has now been (correctly) re-created as he has now played some professional top-level matches. However, the old version of the article contained a load (well some at least) of good sources and quotes that would enhance the new version. I was wondering whether this data was still available, and if so if you could restore it to my user space (User:Ged UK/Péter Gulácsi would be fine). I know that it's possible to restore stuff that's been deleted, but i don't know whether that is possible after an article has been restarted. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MBisanz talk 13:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, info merged into the new version. --Ged UK (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted against policy??

You are credited as having deleted 2008 Kenosha helicopter crash.

A reason for keep was cited as The reasons to keep this aren't too strong but it does meet the criteria under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Notability The crash was a helicopter owned by Midwestern Air Services, a charter company. The criteria to keep is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." If we want to modify the criteria, then that's a discussion that should occur on that WP page, not this AFD. So my gut feeling is to delete but my careful consideration of the criteria says it's a keep. Therefore, it's a keep

According to policy (and this was calmly and cooperatively discussed), the article could be kept, policy reconsidered, and the article later deleted after (if) policy is modified.

Help me understand why violation of policy was the preferred method. Was it possible that the shear number of votes made your decision?

Part of the reason to understand the process is that I want to create an article that will not be deleted. My proposed article is an aviation article and does meet the policy criteria to keep. However, if policy is violated, keeping is not a given.

Please do not merely say "fuck off, get off my back, pass the buck to deletion review". Discussion is more important that the fate of this Kenosha article which I was not interested in enough to edit myself. Chergles (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Kenosha helicopter crash was clear. An API fault caused my script to delete the article, but not post the AFD close. Another user noticed it and fixed it for me. However, the community interprets policy and admins interpret consensus. In this case the community found the article not to meet retention requirements and the consensus was to delete it. MBisanz talk 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there was a consensus to delete. Even I thought that it was approaching the point of delete, myself. However, policy seems to state that it was a keep because it was a chartered airline aircraft. I think we should follow policy and examine the policy. I am most interested in understanding policy rather than arguing about this particular article. However, isn't the correct thing to do is to hold open the AFD until the policy is clear (or keep it and renominate it if the policy is changed)?

Please don't say "go to deletion review" because that requires a lot of effort to defend the article. I'm not so sure I want to defend that particular article. It's almost like a lawyer defending an axe murderer.

Sometimes, policy is made with a specific example in mind and a new case doesn't fit the policy. Other times, people have a different opinion than the policy and want their opinion upheld. This may be the case that a keep fits policy and people have a different idea in mind (i.e. only big airlines, like British Airways and United Airlines count). Chergles (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We work on consensus, which means the community interprets policy as it see fits at the time being. AFDs cannot be held open while policy is debated and retention is not appropriate in the face of overwhelming consensus to delete. The reason we have AFD is because every situation may not fit perfectly into policy and it is up to the community to interpret how it applies to the article. MBisanz talk 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarkFD

Hello Matt. This 3RR case has mentioned a user who you blocked indef for socking last October. By his admission, MarkFD is actually Fronsdorf, who is still indef blocked. Does this imply that MarkFD should be blocked as well? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership University deletion

I have a question about the Leadership University (leaderu.com) deletion. 2 of the 3 votes to delete came before I located and added an article that appeared in the Christian Post. The article was entirely about Leadership University and would seem to satisfy the demand for notability from a third party source. Did you notice that? I only had time to go through about 200 of the 38,000 Web pages linking to leaderu.com and noticed that there are a number of published books that site leaderu.com in their references (including books on both sides of the intelligent design debate).--Sixtrojans (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&oldid=272173508"