User talk:Ceyockey/archive4

Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)
What's the point of putting a redirect at a title that has zero incoming links (save for its inclusion on two automated lists of prod pages and disambig pages, respectively) and that nobody will ever spontaneously try to visit? Propaniac 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To say that disambig pages are not supposed to have incoming links is completely inaccurate. A disambig page with "(disambiguation)" in the title must be linked from another article, or it is very, VERY unlikely that anybody will ever visit that page. Links to disambig pages are typically placed at the top of the article most commonly associated with that term; these are called hatnotes. For example, if I enter "sheep" in the search box, I am redirected to the article Domestic sheep, because that's probably what I'm looking for. But there is a link at the top of that article to Sheep (disambiguation) (as well as Lamb (disambiguation)) in case, for example, what I'm actually looking for is the sheep zodiac sign, which is at Sheep (zodiac). If there were no links to that disambiguation page, the only way I would ever access it is to type "Sheep (disambiguation)" in the search box, which the vast majority of WP users would never think to do, or to do a search for "sheep", which circumvents the point of having a disambig page for the term in the first place. It's for this same reason--that there is no reasonable means by which someone could be expected to access anything at the title "[X] (disambiguation)" without an internal link to that title--that placing a redirect at such a title is pointless.


 * Specifically, there was no point in adding a link to this particular disambig page at the top of the Euclides da Cunha article because there was only one other existing article that could maybe be confused with it, and thus as most there should be a link to that one article and not to a disambig page that links only to that article. As I explained in the prod reasoning.


 * You might want to withhold both your disruptive edits and your condescending little remarks--why, yes, I CAN read through strikethroughs--until you understand the basic principles of how Wikipedia is navigated. Propaniac 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the top of WP:DAB, which you so kindly linked me to:

There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic.
 * Emphasis added, since you seem to require it. I'm genuinely boggled at your inability to acknowledge this, and how you've managed to transfer your misunderstandings about disambig pages to redirects. I probably will nominate the redirect at RFD, since I'd be curious about what kind of benefit they may be able to find for someone who types "Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)" into the Wikipedia search box while looking for the article located at Euclides da Cunha. Even if they manage to find some possible case that could technically exist in which this would happen, I personally feel that this benefit is outweighed by the drawback of adding yet another stupid, illogical thing to the world. Regardless, I doubt there's any need for us to converse any further. If you want to give me another link to a WP policy that indicates in the first sentence precisely that I am right and you are wrong, or if you want to call me uninformed again while advertising your own weak grasp of the concepts, I'll assume you're trolling. Propaniac 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't realize this, but striking out a comment so that it reads as "You should know that--oh, wait, but you don't" doesn't come across as any less nasty than leaving the original sarcastic comment untouched. It's true I didn't scrutinize the edit history on my Talk page to deduce your intentions.
 * The reason I didn't edit the affected pages myself is because there is no point in the disambig page existing at all, given that there are only two existing articles that could possibly need disambiguation (and it's still not clear that the municipality ending with Paulista would reasonably be confused with the author's article). Since there's only two, and the author is obviously going to be the more common target, a hatnote going to the only other article is adequate. I mentioned that there were no links going to the disambig page not because I thought the existence of such links would make the disambig page viable, but as supporting evidence that the page was useless, ignored and likely only existed because nobody was aware of it.
 * As I said above, I come from the school of thought that if something is stupid and impractical, it should be deleted whether or not it actually incurs negative impact by existing, and a disambig page that nobody needs and nobody could reasonably be expected to visit (without deliberately directing people there unnecessarily, as in the current hatnote) is both. If you fundamentally disagree, we're at an impasse, and I'd be happy to take the thing to AFD (where, I think, people may tend to be more practical than RFD). If it's voted to be kept there, that's fine. Propaniac 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I genuinely appreciate the RFD link you left, although I still don't think it's precisely relevant since that redirect was the result of a page move (and the redirect still went to a disambig page). After being off WP for a few days due to work, I really don't care that much anymore, but for the sake of completeness I am planning to throw the thing up on AFD and then they can do with it whatever they want. Probably it'll become a redirect again, and nobody will ever, ever, ever, ever gain any practical use out of it, but whatever. Propaniac 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD/AfD
Hi,

Disambiguation pages typically go to AfD, since they're in the main namespace. In this case, I've just redirected. If one is in doubt about deleting a disamb., redirecting is the thing to do: anyone who desires deletion will then end up at RfD, which sees its fair share of pages ending in (disambiguation) also. I closed the debate because I didn't want it to devolve into a five-day discourse on procedure. When regulars see a type of page that they are unaccustomed to, it can cause heads to explode! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Health effects of homogenized milk article
You denied the deletion nomination stating that there was no reason given. I stated my reaon on the Talk:Health effects of homogenized milk page. If this is not the proper procedure, please let me know what I should have done, as I've only been editing for 2 months and am not experienced with deletions. Thank you OccamzRazor 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You were so helpful in educating me about the PROD process, I wanted to ask if you could help me understand what's going on with another editor suggesting that I have some sort of COI with the articles I edit (I don't even know the general topic he is talking about). He has also accused me of doing a malicious stealth attack on you on my talk page.  I'd really like to understand what it is about my editing that makes him so convinced that I am not acting in  good faith. You can see the bizarre exchange here .If you have time, any comment or advice about how best to handle this situation would be appreciated.  Thank you OccamzRazor 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian political parties
I'm sorry, but why did you merge them? They are separate political parties, parliamentary. --PaxEquilibrium 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Khazar Ibrahim
I contest the Prod. I was not even notified. Being a "press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan" is enough to make a person notable. -- Cat chi? 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * you provided a comment on my talk page - permalink version
 * This article was listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan by me; I strongly prefer to notify groups with knowledge and interest rather than individuals. As a matter of my personal opinion, I have little sympathy for people who decry the fact that they were not personally notified when an article that they are interested in (or began) is being considered for deletion.  However, that does not mean I won't act on your request.  I will undelete the article and take take it to WP:AFD based on your contesting the PROD ... I'm also of the opinion that the 5-day period shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule, that time doesn't run out to contest (well - if a year passes ... perhaps then ... reason comes into play then). If you do not have the article on your watchlist, please add it; if you have it, but were away or not in a position to contest previously, I understand. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I deal with far too many articles. My watchlist for the most part is useless for me. It is generally accepted an extra step of good faith and civility to notify the creator. This is typicaly expected from the nominator. prodwarning exists for a reason (it is displayed on the prod template itself as well). All that aside, I see 2,400 hits on Google establishing notability (IMHO). Mind you this is the English spelling. I do not know the spelling in the Azerbaijani language or in Cyrillic script (used in Azerbaijan). I am not really interested in expanding the article as I know very little about the man or Azerbaijan. I merely encountered his name while writing Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari. He made a statement behalf of the Azerbaijani government in response to the 21 October PKK attacks. I created a stub for him in the hope that it would be eventually expanded. -- Cat chi? 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA
The restoration of JAMAA was done purely because other agreed that it should be restored after reputable and independent third-party sources had been added. The article now indeed meets that requirement. Also, hours had gone by and the Deletion review was given very little attention by administrators. Rhythmnation2004 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note on your declined speedy delete of Divertissant
The reason I tagged it as A7 was that it appeared (other than the first sentence) to be an article about a Final Fantasy XI clan, which I believed qualified it for the "group", "club", or "organization" clause of WP:CSD. The prod is fine too, of course, although I'd recommend speedying it if the previous content is re-added. JavaTenor 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bootstrapping (science fiction)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bootstrapping (science fiction), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Thanks for letting me know, I didn't know about it until today. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

David Ginty - notability? COI?
Could you have a look at David Ginty? It appears to me to be a likely COI, as well as an article of doubtful notability, and the references seem weak. He might be a step above the average professor, but not much of one, and I don't see much evidence of what he's actually done. I thought I should seek out another opinion before going to AFD or deciding to leave it alone. Many thanks, Mwanner | Talk 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

response at User talk:Mwanner --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input-- I think my hackles tend to rise when I sense self-authorship, and I get overly suspicious. I think that, based on your input, I will remove the notability tag, and let the matter stand.  Thanks again, Mwanner | Talk 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Youth Parliamentary Elections
I think the best solution to the problem is to merge the 2008 Youth Parliamentary Elections page with the New Youth Parliament page...Let it be so! -cerl7011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerl 7011 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Thanks for closing the AfD on نامی پتگر. You suggested there that PROD could have been used for it; would PROD be the best route for the other articles we have at WP:PNT? -Yupik (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation! We've had quite a heavy backlog at WP:PNT lately, so any way of getting the articles deleted when no one steps forward to translate them is fine by me. Most of them I put up for speedy, as they are usually junk, but quite a few still hang around, especially translations of songs on albums. If you happen to know anyone who is enough of a masochist to want to proofread some of the texts, we have quite a selection of those, too. -Yupik (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Top Model
Glad someone else is looking at 's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. Not only is it someone else's call-out order, the names are totally different! That is why I marked it as fiction. It also has a strange similarity to HNTTMM which I believe was also fiction. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

R from surname
Your work on the template is probably correct, but it really messed me up. I was doing a lot of work subcategorizing Category:Surnames, trying to empty the cat, and this really pushed me back. What can be done? Is it possible to edit the template that allows it to be subcategorized? All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you didn't understand what I was saying it is probably my bad, I don't explain myself well. If you look at Category:Surnames you will see the "cattrim" template requesting that the "This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large..." Well I was doing just that: depopulating the category by trying to subcategorize the surnames that were included in Category:Surnames. For example, if McQueen was categorized as Category:Surnames, I changed the cat to Category:Irish surnames. The new template doesn't give me a way to go into the template and subcategorize the surname.


 * I noticed that you started a discission on the talk page of the template, but in all honesty I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. Template programming is not, at the least, my expertise. All the best,  --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you reverted your edit. But shouldn't that mean that the Category:Surnames should revert back to its original form? --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's an "edit cycle" ?--Brewcrewer (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, I was kind if hoping that you would leave the redirects in Category:Surnames but have the template allow me to subcategorize. If that can't be done, I don't think that you should revert your edit. It is probably more important that the redirects have some sort of surname cat on them then for the Category:Surnames to be emptier. I am sorry if I am driving you crazy with this issue. This is unfamiliar territory for me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo Hoo! I tried one and it worked. Great job! --Brewcrewer (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dillen
Cool, where'd you find that? I knew it was out there somewhere. Cheers,  Dloh cierekim'''  01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I meant the source. I felt like he was notable. Also, I was trying to get rid of some tennis redlinks and had trouble finding sources. Cheers,  Dloh cierekim'''  01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  Dloh cierekim'''  01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliya Jasmine Sovani
Why does the Aliya_Jasmine Sovani page keep getting deleted??? I never receieved any warning this time. Jamierush (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie

Quechev
As there are absolutely no sources, it seems very probable this is a hoax: is it worth passing it to Wiktionary? I suppose they would do their own checks before putting it in, but it seems like giving them unnecessary trouble. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Prod2 tags
Ahoy. Just so you know, prod2 tags should not be substituted. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DelSort for Oregon
Hi, I saw you seconded a prod of mine (Grassland Oregon) and so I looked at your contribs and saw you have a subpage that keeps track of deletion sorting stuff. So I just thought I'd let you know that I've started maintaining the one for Oregon and have also linked it to WP:ORE's front page, and at least one other person from the project is helping keep the page updated, while several others check it regularly, judging by their participation in deletion discussions. I've also expanded the page a bit an am using it to keep track of Oregon-related proposed mergers to help clear the backlog there. Hope that helps, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a plane on a conveyor belt.
You speedily deleted this article for because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. I question this decision because the new article specifically provided what the previous talk page required for a future consideration for a posting of this article, specifically Notariety. The new nomination for deletion was for a completely different reason, and was currently being discussed how to fix it. Per suggestion from Baccayak4H I would like the previous article restored and moved to my own talk page for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sao123 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of 'Jacques Dallaire'
Hi, I'm just curious as to why did you delete this? I hereby request that it be re-instated, or that you at least provide account for your deleting of such. Dr. Dallaire is a poineer in human performance and has contributed much to the NASCAR and F1 communities over his long career. Please advise and thank you. redfive77 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prussian Blue
Why the merge of this album in particular? The article seems awkward having a discography and one album merged directly into it. Was the merge a result of a discussion? the_undertow talk  01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just talking about continuity - either all merged or none. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to put the article back. the_undertow talk  01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider citation if I decide to restore the article. I'm just not a big fan of redirecting articles without discussion. I appreciate the good faith reminder about deletion process and WP:V, but I just wanted to let you know I have a 'lil experience here. :P the_undertow talk  04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your subtitles are making my talk page look pretty official - I like that. PROD is a strange place to be - like articles lose their value if they are not tended to. I've never deleted a prodded article - not my thing. I think what you did was fine. I didn't realize you were under the gun of a PROD, which certainly changes my opinion on redirects without discussion. I'm trying to source the article, but the only RS is one in German. the_undertow talk  04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fingerboard AfD
Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl
Alright, I was just following this passage at WP:PROD: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). I wasn't aware of WP:CSD, so thanks for letting me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT
Hi Ceyockey, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is   rather than  or , using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, mattbr 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I was just about to fix them. The template provides the same functionality as the magic word, so it still works as intended, but just creates an uneeded dependency on a template. It shouldn't really exist, but it does. Cheers, mattbr 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Stop
Why did you re-delete the article I restored and PRODDED. There is an assertion of notability. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Once an article is speedy deleted (which this one was) it is not appropriate to then recreate and relabel the article for Proposed deletion. If an article is put on the PROD path beforehand, that's fine, but not after the article is already deleted.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, where was the assertion of notability? I didn't see a holdon tag or anything raised on the article's talk page before I deleted it.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no once deleted, forever deleted. What I object to is you not following the PROD guidelines. As it specifically states at Proposed deletion, articles that "Have previously been undeleted" are not candidates for PROD. So once you undeleted the article, you should not have placed the PROD template on it. Anyway, are you opposing the deletion? If so, then the article is again not a candidate for Proposed deletion and should be immediately brought up to Articles for deletion. I'd support recreating the article for an AfD. Otherwise, if you don't object to the article's deletion, I stand by the fact that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. So do you want to do an AFD on it? --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not trying to start a fight over this, but as it states at PROD "Appropriate alternatives such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence" over PROD. But I'm happy to bring this article up for an AfD if you want.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this issue out for other people to comment on. Getting a consensus on the issue will clear up the murkiness around the issue. BTW, after looking at the edit times on the article it appears you sent it back to PROD at the same time I was examining it for speedy delete. Since I didn't refresh my cache at that point, I didn't realize you had changed it to PROD. Hope there's no hard feelings here b/c I think the whole situation was a simple disagreement over procedure. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the issue. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)