User talk:Eluchil404/Archive4

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

request
can you please use edit summaries instead of simply reverting? It would help other editors understand why you're doing things. Thanks, and cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about the rollbacks of User:RealAfghan112 who I just blocked as a sock of a banned user. While I do understand the desire for explanatory summaries (and do try to generally use them) I thought that rollback was the accepted tool for reverting the contributions of banned user? Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I understand. Kingturtle (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad
Many thanks for your note.Actually I have seen that page but that was a discussion that took place over 2 years ago and the problem remains the same-there appear to be two individuals one Ashoka Prasad who has been a subject of censure and the other with the above mentioned name.I should have thought holding an Honorary degree from an old University like Natal was enough to warrant notability as would an entry in The International Who's Who but I guess we would have to do something about the policy on identical names.I agree having a blog as a reference was not exactly the best idea-indeed it should not have been there as it contains some unreliable information but this does not negate that the subject is

a.author of a book,Biological Basis and Therapy of Neuroses b.holds an Honorary Doctorate from Natal c.has a syndrome named after him d.is with American Academy of Arts and Sciences(born in 1945 as International Who's Who says e.worked fro his PhD from Balliol and DSc from St.Andrews

All this information is found in the International Who's Who entry.

Regards, (Delhite (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I am appending the relevant page from International Who's Who

which you may know is the most authoritative source of living notables.

May I suggest that in order to determine the notability of the living one can always refer to this volume.Not that absence of an entry here would preclude notability but presence here would necessarily confirm it.

Regards(Delhite (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

For some reason, I cannot place this on the page!Is there a special technique?

Soory for troubling you.

(Delhite (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Sir

I tried to pce this argument in the discussion column but as I do not make many edits,am unsure how to place it there .I tried editin the dletion review page without any success and ended up creating a new page in error.I wonder if you coudl assist.Thanks

(Delhite (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Overturn

I have looked at all the logs and first of all woudl like to say that I support no one!But it appears to me that it would be important to dwell on two issues:

1.whether ther are two different individuals withe the same name

2.if so, whether the person in question is notable enough

I woudl humbly submit that the more I look at the logs the stronger the feeling that while there was always some confusion as to the resolution of this issue,most who voted did so without convincingly ascertaining it-which I submit was sine qua non!Most voted believing we were dealing with one dindividual which I what i think prompted them to vote the way they did!

I shlll deal with the first issue here:

Indians woudl know that while Ashok is a very common name Jahnavi is extremely uncommon!I shall list two Ashok Prasad's bothe medical practitioners here.





You would note both are politically connected and while one is controversial the other is not!I happen to remember that Mahabir Prasad's son in law was a medic who was murdered and there was a national outcry!

I have read the International who's who



entry on Ashok Prasad in my libarary.I woudl like to pont out that my libararay contains the 2005 volume and not the latest and he finds an entry there-therefore he has an antry in teh 20005 issue and maybe the ones before and NOT only in the latest issue where of course he is there



Hie entry reads that he is teh son of late Judge Jahnavi Prasad.I woudl endorse that teh offending blog should not have found a place as a reference as it contains information that is not in the volume itself!Howvere it does confirm he holds an honorary doctorate from Natal in 2000.And Natal is one of the most respected Universities in South Africa.

I woudl also like to invite everyone to go through the International Who's Who site.It says that entries are posssible only after thorough research by a dedicated team of researchers and are continually under review.The volume has gone through more than 70 editions and is generally regarded the most valuable source of notable living!

While it is possible that there may be editorial lapses there but I woudl sublit it is unlikely-and we do not have any evidence!Besides the volume forward says that teh entries are continually under review!

And it wudl appear unlikely that Top 1000 Scientists ,a book prepared by a noted UK archeologist and a top science historian

(Rochester University website)

and published by a top Asian publishing house

which has published bestsellers like Wings of Fire by President Abdul Kalam (and not an obscure publishing house in India as Colin says)would be prey to the same problems-it is likely but improbable that is what I would say!!

In short the questions remain unanswered and in teh interest of faor play,I think the deletion should be overturned!I am personally inclined to believe that we are dealing with two different individuals and one of them seems to have b notoriety on his side while other according to reliable sources seems to be notable enough to merit an Honorary doctorate and place in Int.Who's Who for at least lat 3 years.

(Delhite (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

The Medic Droid
You closed the DRV for The Medic Droid (band) and deleted the article, but overlooked the song that was included in the AfD, Fer Sure. Not sure if that was an oversight or on purpose but I thought I'd point it out. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation of closing DRV on "Barack Obama media controversy‎" as Endorse Deletion
By my count the DRV "vote" was 11-4 to endorse the deletion, which was an improvement on the 21-5 "vote" to merge or delete vs. keep at AfD, but still a considerable plurality. Still, I would appreciate your telling me which argument to endorse deletion you found convincing. Thank you in advance for your attention to this question. Andyvphil (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The default outcome to a DRV is endorse and I just don't see a consensus to overturn in the DRV comments. DGG probably makes the most cogent argument when he says that a seperate article on these issues given them undue weight.  In general though, no policy demands that an article be kept against consensus though a few may call for its deletion (e.g. BLP or copyright), thus even relatively weak arguments weigh against the article as long as they are not completely unreasonable or factually incorrect.  Your arguments likewise were reasonable and well put, but there failure to attract more support means that I can't find a consensus to overturn.  Eluchil404 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be conflating two issues: (a) Whether the article should be restored because a rough consensus exists that it should be restored. (b) Whether the deletion should be endorsed, because a rough consensus exists that it should be endorsed. A third possibility exists: that the DRV should not be closed because no consensus exists. Is there policy requiring you close by a date certain?
 * Second, did you in fact decide that DGG's argument (I'm relying on your summary to supply this characterization; haven't gone back to look), that the existance of a summary spinout of an article section might be an undue weight violation, was a stronger argument than my argument that the closing admin had effectively admitted to a policy violation? WP:DRV says quite clearly (box at top of page) the "Principal purpose" of DRV includes "2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly...". The only of the "purposes" that relates to reconsidering the AfD is if there is an assertion of "significant new information", which was not the basis of my appeal.Andyvphil (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Halllooo? Anybody home? I haven't checked to see if you've been editing. If you have I'd like to remind you of the transparency requirements for admin actions. If you haven't been on line, never mind. We've all got a life, I hope. Andyvphil (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing very lightly the last few days and haven't felt up to composing a proper reply to your questions. I am indeed conflating the two questions. There is no tradition of a "No Consensus" close at DRV so even if I had felt the arguments to be in exact equipoise (rather than slightly tilted toward endorse) I would have used the summary deletion endorsed, since that is the practical outcome of a no consensus DRV, particularly in cases such as this where BLP is alleged; see Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. DRV's run for 5 days, many obvious ones are closed short of that time and more difficult ones are left for longer, however, they are not left to run indefinitely. In this case, I judged that the debate had run it's course and was unlikely to garner further comments and very unlikely indeed to fresh comments that might produce an alternate consensus. Even after carefull rereading of your comments, I do not understand your claim that "the closing admin had effectively admitted to a policy violation". I only see argument claiming that the article in question was compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and should have been kept on that basis. But our guidelines and even, to a large extent, our policies are descriptive not proscriptive. Even though you believe that the article is in compliance with all applicable guidelines it can still be deleted if a consensus exists that it is inappropriate. Wikipedia policies are somewhat vague by design with particular applications determined by consensus. Thus the arguments that the page violated the spirit if not necessarily the letter of WP:NOT and WP:BLP are valid and must be weighed. Your argument that the delete votes in the AfD were without basis in policy (and thus that a close based on them should be overturned) was not accepted by a consensus at DRV and thus the closure was sustained. I hope this answers your questions, but know that it will be somewhat unsatisfactory. I understand the frustration of being overruled at DRV. My own first experience with it was being unanimously told that my challenge to an AfD closure was groundless. I also want to add that your nomination was in no way out of order and that it did state a claim on which relief could have been granted had a consensus below agreed with it. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. But I'm puzzled that you didn't "see" my claim that "the closing admin had effectively admitted to a policy violation". The very first sentence I wrote was "I request that the AfD be reopened and the article restored on the grounds that the closing administrator misinterpreted policy and failed to fulfill his responsibility to personally evaluate the strength of argument in favor of his action." The policies I then quote says the admin volunteering to close the AfD must "weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached" and "you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves... If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable." (If there's anything "somewhat vague" about this, it's not apparent to me.) I then pointed to where the closing admin admitted he had relied on the "vote" not being close to skip this "only... acceptable" approach ("First, the consensus has determined that the content is a WP:POVFORK, which according to the guideline, should be deleted. I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself nor I really care... if the arguments against the POVFORK was strong, then the amount of users disagreeing with that statement should be strong as well, which would result in a more divided opionions. However, this was not the case in this AfD, as the large majority of the users suggested that the content was a POVFORK. Which hints that the strength of argument against the fact that POVFORK is not very strong or convincing, therefore that's how I arrived at the consensus being that the content is a POVFORK. Yamamoto Ichiro"). Now... you "only see argument claiming that the article in question was compliant with Wikipedia policies"??? Huh? Andyvphil (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are claiming that the close violated the deletion policy by incorrectly weighing arguments. This is a rather novel way of presenting a claim.  More typically, DRV's say "Deleting the article is against policy because no reasons from WP:CSD apply" or "Deletion should be overturned because the admin misread consensus".  You argued that the article is not a POV fork and that therefore the arguments that it was one should have been discarded by the deleting admin.  Generally questions about whether or not a particular policy applies are decided by consensus not admin interpretation.   I certainly consider saying "a clear majority of the comments in the AfD argued for deletion as a POV fork; therefore the article is deleted as a POV fork" a proper close.  Unless you can show that the comments where based on incorrect information or made in bad faith, the close is likely to be sustained.  Part of assuming good faith is treating facially reasonable arguments by established Wikipedians as valid even if one disagrees with them.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, part of my disappointment with this experience is that the failure of so many editors to weigh in with "facially reasonable arguments" continued at the DRV level. This exchange is atypical only in that Guy didn't disappear until after his second comment:


 * Endorse deletion, correct per policy and per process. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I made a substantive argument that the deletion was out of policy. Is there some reason you don't think I deserve the courtesy of more than airy dismissal? Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "substantive argument" is arm-waving, whereas WP:BLP is policy. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -*sigh* Please quote something from BLP that this article violates. Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...but is absolutely typical in that it made no discernable argument, just an assertion linked only by assertion to a policy which was named but not quoted.
 * And now you've done exactly that. There is nothing, repeat nothing, in WP:AGF that says you should treat arguments you disagree with as "valid". In fact, it says exactly the opposite: "Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act as if their mistakes were deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project."
 * ...which makes it absolutely clear that you are allowed to continue to treat error as error.
 * Second, if I anywhere asserted that "...the article is not a POV fork and that therefore the arguments that it was one should have been discarded by the deleting admin", please show me where I said that. I am sure I argued, rather, that the "official policy" WP:CON states that it is not "acceptable" for the closing admin to fail to "carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves". Maybe Yamamoto Ichiro thought that AGF required him to treat all positions as valid so that he didn't have to be convinced that the arguments in favor of POVFORK were stronger than those against, so that all he needed to do was count noses, but I've quoted the policy that that violates. And I would appreciate an explanation of how you square "I certainly consider saying 'a clear majority of the comments in the AfD argued for deletion as a POV fork; therefore the article is deleted as a POV fork' a proper close" with the official policy WP:CON/WP:PRACTICAL. Is there a "facially reasonable" argument that WP:PRACTICAL doesn't mean what it says? Andyvphil (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld
Pretty difficult to assume good faith when JUST BEFORE Super Tuesday (you may have heard of it) there's this sudden rush to judgment to delete an ongoing "dirty tricks" article. This article was withdrawn from deletion shortly before this deletion was requested. I see a pattern of "oops - too many people noticed the deletion notice and we couldn't 'make' a consensus - let's try again in a week or so". First, one week is not nearly enough time for an article of this length - it's not some vanity stub someone created in five minutes. Second, if you're going to look at the supposed 'consensus', you might want to think about what 'merge' means - it's not a synonym for 'delete'. Pretty hard to merge after a deletion, huh? Third, basic good manners and common sense would be to at least invite Wikipedians who had worked on the article to comment, if one really wanted to determine if any 'consensus' is for real. You claim to be a Texan, so surely you know what 'kangaroo court' means? As I said after the deletion, after creating and/or updating articles for EVERY SINGLE current U.S. Senator and Rep, as well as EVERY SINGLE current British MP and MANY state senators and reps, I'm wondering what the game is here. I'm supposed to put a 'watch' on thousands of articles just in case someone might decide they don't 'like' a politician right before an election and deletes them? I take my contributions seriously, and this flippant attitude to destroying other Wikipedians' work based on nothing but "hey, I counted - tough!" is showing nothing but contempt. It's certainly NOT my definition of acting in good faith on your part.Flatterworld (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Randal Haworth
I would like to ask why you allowed deletion of a web page created on plastic surgeon "Randal Haworth", which was deleted in August of 2007. Dr. Haworth is a noteworthy person; a surgeon who was the star of the television series "The Swan" as well as an accomplished artist who has had multiple showings of his work at high end art galleries around the country.

It is relevant that the person who initiated deletion is a plastic surgeon, who obviously has personal animosity or jealousy towards Dr. Haworth. The discussion was hardly supportive of the deletion.

I consider it to be irresponsible to delete that entry; please restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkag (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to pass comment at Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland
Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth Offending Team/Glossary
You wrote:"I have closed the DRV on Youth Offending Team/Glossary as deletion endorsed per the consensus there. I will be happy to send you a copy of the deleted content for you own off-wikipedia use. Just tell me where (e.g. an email address) you would like it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veraguinne" Thanks, but RHaworth already transferred it to Wikia for me.--SJB (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore Article
Digital Paint: Paintball 2 has recently satisfied the general notability criteria (WP:N) by being featured in the PC Gamer UK magazine, as seen here. In several weeks, it will be on the magazine's main site, which will provide further proof of publication. Could this article please be restored? If not, what steps do I need to take for it to be possible?

I apologize if this isn't the correct place to request its restoration, here is the original deletion review. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.165.19 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin Walker recreation
Can you let me have the original article, and the material I wrote for the for deletion review? Thanks, Sam Weller (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Digital Paint: Paintball 2
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Digital Paint: Paintball 2. 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. 75.13.160.9 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Twin Peaks characters
Hi there. Saw your merge suggestion for a list of twin peaks characters article and think it's a great idea. Some of the characters have trivial entries and it would be good to consolidate. No one has created a talk page that I've noticed to discuss this. Have you seen any discussion elsewhere? I'd suggest you just create the article now or I'm happy to help. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and make the consolidation unless I hear from ya soon. But if you'd prefer to do the work just let me know. Best to you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. 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. DarkAudit (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of BtTF timeline
Hello, User:Sceptre and I are interpreting your closure of the deletion review of Back to the Future timeline differently. Could you please read the discussion on our talk pages and clarify if your intent was "merge" or "merge after discussion" or something else? thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hobit (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hel (band)
Hi! I wanted to drop you a brief note thanking you for moving Hel (band) from my userspace back to mainspace. I would have done it myself, but got tied up with a few things in real life. I honestly don't understand why the article got deleted in the first place; the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC standards and the article was sourced. Anyhow, thanks greatly! Heather (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kianna Dior page
You deleted the article for poronographic actress Kianna Dior for notability requirements and I believe you are in error. She has been nominated for and won numerous awards (AVN) and as been guested on the Howard Stern show on numerous occassions. I currently cannot get actual links since I am at work, but will provide such proof when I get home.

What would be the criteria for getting the page un-deleted? Would the archive of the page still be there? Turtleneck man (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008
John Carter (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vampire Resurrection
Thank you for restoring those White Wolfs Vampire: The Masquerade-related articles. I worked hard on the Followers of Set article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You vote is needed on the Articles for deletion/Followers of Set page. --Loremaster (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to have the Kelly_Bailey_(composer) offwiki
I understand why this page was deleted, and it's ok. But is it possible to receive by email the last version of the Kelly_Bailey_(composer) wikipage? I would really appreciate. Thank you, my email is claude "dot" fortier "at" gmail "dot" com. 24.230.201.196 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008
The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vatta's War
Do you have any problem with me reconstituting it into the books' individual articles? It comes out quite awkward to read, with all the infoboxes designed for individual articles. Ironholds 05:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008
The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot  (owner)  00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for M.I.A. (band)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of M.I.A. (band). 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.