User talk:IanManka/Archive/15

First off, 48 hours for a first time offense? Secondly, to you really think it was necessary to act on a report that was filed 4 days ago? Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. John Reaves (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that they are unblocked. You may want to see the relevant discussions here and here where your block length and the age of the report have been discussed. I also find it concerning that you didn't sign or make any notice of a block being placed at WP:AN/3RR.  And on a minor note, you told the user you blocked to ask any questions on your talk page, which they can't really do considering they are blocked. John Reaves (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Library of Congress Classification deletions
(Merging comments) The votes was only on the BS schedule, but I can understand that if you felt the consensus was to delete BS that it would also be to delete the of the BA, BB, etc. But there was no discussion of the advisability of deleting the master B schedule. Could you explain your rationale? DGG 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, IanManka! I recently came across this AfD and wanted to ask you about your reasoning. How did you get from deleting one set of subclass pages to deleting "all other articles beginning with "Library of Congress Classification"? I'm not sure that there was consensus for this decision. As you can tell from my comment on the talk page, if I had seen this AfD before it closed I certainly would have voted to keep -- the LoC pages provide a great unusual way to browse Wikipedia content, and they are listed as such on a half-dozen structural pages, such as WP:CONTENTS. They aren't listcruft, at least not as I understand the term. Anyway, I think at least some of the AfD commentary was only focussed on the subclass pages, and NOT the higher-level class pages. I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks for your time! -- phoebe/ (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note this is the same issue that DGG brings up in his comment "B Schedule" above. phoebe/ (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Extending Phoebe's question what was on the other main pages for the other letters A, C through Z --was there substantial content? i cannot see it now? DGG 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I urge, is that you restore those main single-letter pages now, since they had not been discussed, leaving the more specific ones for further consideration and a possible deletion review. DGG 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, do I feel like an idiot. I totally misread what was meant by "subclass." I went overboard seeing the same type of pages in the other subclasses, and thought they were similar in nature and about the same amount of content. In the meantime, I'm going to undelete all the pages I deleted without consensus. Again, I'm sorry about this whole mess, and I hope you'll accept my apology. A more detailed explanation will be posted here after I re-review all of my deletions. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When closing the AfD, the nomination indicated for the deletion of "the entire class of similar articles." At first, I took this to mean the Class B, subclass B articles. I took action to delete all of these. After deleting these, I thought that Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion was nothing more than just a directory of the subclasses (which I now realize that there are links that lead to actual articles, not just the subpages). I then proceeded to delete the Class B article.
 * Extensive Reflection

Then, upon further reflection on the AfD discussion, I first realized what the nominator suggested: "the entire class of similiar articles." I reviewed some of the articles of the subclass-level type (like Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DF -- History of Greece), and agreed that these were no more than "taking something from some database and compulsively stuffing it into Wikipedia" as one editor wrote on the AfD. I then decided to delete all subclass articles, as I felt that: (1) it was the original wishes of the nominator and other comments on the AfD and (2) the subclass articles (like the one linked above) were nothing more than some cut-n-pasting of the directory (no wikilinks, for example), and should be deleted. I proceeded to delete the subclasses, which eventually led to the same realization I came to on the Class B article, which led to the deletion of all LOC Class articles.

Then the above comments were lodged, and I took the following actions:
 * 1) I undeleted all articles that were perhaps unmerited in deletion. These articles were basically all that were not in the Class B LOC directory articles. I also undeleted the Class B article.
 * 2) I reviewed the AfD a second time.
 * 3) I reviewed the comments left on the AfD talk page.
 * 4) I reviewed how the Dewey Decimal System article has been set up.
 * 5) I posted the aforementioned explanation.

And from here, I wish to list my views on the whole set of pages.

In my opinion, the whole set of pages are a mess. I see the following flaws in the setup of these articles:
 * Personal Commentary
 * 1) The page titles are excessively long, and appear to be copied out of the Library of Congress (hereafter LoC) directory. This could be a good thing, but I don't foresee anyone to type in a similar title unless they were also copying out of the LoC directory. I would suggest (if these articles were to continue to exist) a simpler structure: "Library of Congress Classification: Class, subclass ". The lead sentence of the article would read: "Library of Congress Classification: Class , subclass , formally known as Library of Congress Classification: Class , subclass --  ...."
 * 2) The List of Dewey Decimal classes is far superior to the messed-up system we currently have. This may owe to the fact that it is "much simpler", and "constantly revised" (see Dewey Decimal Classification). The Dewey Decimal classes list is rather manageable: despite listing 1,000 topics, it weighs in at about 46K, which is a little longer than some other articles. It lists the top two subclasses, linking where necessary and appropriate to other articles of interest. The LoC system requires the user to click through further subpages to get to the desired content: other articles of interest. The Dewey System refers users to articles of interest without having users trudge through two Wikipedia articles. Also of note is that to navigate deeper in the classification system, one must realize to click on a pair of hyperlinked letters -- very difficult for casual users. This is why Wikipedia discourages the use of linking the "$" sign, preferring instead to have editors link "US$" so that users have a better chance to click on it.
 * 3) I feel that these topics would be best achieved with a category system: all topics that have some part in the LoC categorization system would be placed in these categories, allowing for the "exploring Wikipedia" taste that some users (mainly the two listed above) would appreciate. Structure would be set up as follows:
 * Category:Library of Congress classification (contained in this category: parent article, "List of classes" article, Class categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Class A (contained in this category: Subclass categories, relevant topics related to subclass categories -- in this example, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AC (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories and topic category -- in this example, encyclopedias )
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AE (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AG (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AI (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AM (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories -- in this example, museology)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AN (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AP (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AS (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AY (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AZ (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
 * 1) If that were to fail, I suggest the creation of List of Library of Congress classes, similar to the Dewey Decimal Classes article. The article would be similar to the aforementioned article in format. There would be no use for Class pages, nor Class, Subclass pages -- all would be contained on the List of classes page. No further detail should be required, as these are contained within categories.

I think that about covers it. Hopefully I've cleared some things up that needed clearing up, and given some of my insight on how these pages should be molded in the future. I hope people will read my comments and reflect on them. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your lengthy explanation, apology, and undeletion -- I really appreciate it. I think that you are right that the pages could be (and should be) cleaned up.. the category idea is intriguing, though I might lean towards the "list of LC classes" page idea. I agree that the names of the articles are basically useless; this is only good for browsing.


 * The thing that the LoC class system is supposed to do is provide a mirror of human knowledge, much like the Britannica's Propaedia. The interesting thing about this set of articles is it tried to physically mirror this setup. However, too much mirroring and we really are reproducing information that's elsewhere, and WP is not an indiscriminate collection. So I think there's a fine line. Personally, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the upper level class pages (A, B, C, etc) and not the subclass pages... but this might be something best discussed on the article talk page. At any rate, thank you again for your detailed thinking about this! -- phoebe/ (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd almost like to send the rest of the articles to AfD, just to see how it would turn out and what other users think, but I really don't want to mess with yet another deletion. That would be my bet on where it would be the best place to discuss this. The talk pages would be an interesting thing, but I don't foresee many people visiting there. Another place to bring this discussion up would perhaps be the Village Pump. You are welcome for my detailed analysis. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Hamilton
Hey Manka,

in case you are interested, I posted a couple of links for a clip of Tom Hamltion(WTAM/Cleveland Indians broadcaster) home run call, I'm not sure if it is legal or not but you can check it out for yourself. I posted them under Hamlton's discussion page.

Tim New wiki member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timothyparryjr (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Article considered for deletion: Chris_Hewitt and Tractor_(Band)
I have started the cleanup of these pages, I also removed the notability notice as it has been there since December 2006 and is now irrelevant since the decision was to keep the articles.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (e-mail address removed) as I will probably be able to get hold of any information that is required to clarify/reference the subject. I will be starting to reference the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hewitt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Screechlab (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Scream 4
I think you meant protect. Someone has re-created the page. Megapixie 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
Ian - Thanks. I don't need a wikipedia lesson. The first message on my talk page was not legitimate because the edit it referenced was completely within reason and certainly not vandalism...and your message about the AFD has been seen by me and I no longer need the message there. Thanks for your concern. EagleFan 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mark Lind
Can I ask why the AfD was closed as "no consensus"? The only keep vote reasoning was WP:ILIKEIT from SPAs. THF 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not just relist? //THF 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your much-appreciated forthrightness.
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mark Lind. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. THF 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid CHICOTW
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Onspex
I have rewrote the content for Onspex. I hope it is ok to keep live. Thank-you for your advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csainter (talk • contribs)

Obtree
I have to disagree technically: the template says that the article can be speedy deleted, except for recreation: I nominated it not as recreation, but because it is an advertisement, spam. You can disagree with that judgment of course (and I won't complain, judging speedies is often a personal interpretation anyway), but to refuse the speedy because the article can not be speedied is incorrect. 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Fram 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft
Hi their, I was wondering if you could address the question I brought up in Talk:2006 NFL Draft. Thanks Chaldean 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly
Can I ask for some additional clarification and expansion on your closing of this Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Schlafly. I might be able to understand a no consensus default to keep, but to declare it as a consensus for keep doesn't seem right, there were not really more keep comments then delete, and I do not think that we have any chance of verifiability on this. Verifiability is suppose to supersede other issues right? This is a biography of a living person, with only trivial primary sources to write with. I just don't understand. Tmtoulouse 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the nomination not count than towards a vote for delete? Tmtoulouse 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know its not a vote :). One of my comments on the AFD was to ask the closing admin to look beyond the slight majority of keep votes and look at the arguments because it is not a vote. My main issue was a lack of non-trivial secondary sources. But I will drop the issue of deletion and see about building the article. If we can find the sources then I was wrong and can be happy, if we just hit a brick wall I will renominate later. Thanks for your time, I don't mean to seem contrary, I am still very new to wikipedia and just trying to understand better. Tmtoulouse 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mundana Quartet
I'd strongly suggesting relisting this; it got very few votes - and it was deleted from Polish Wikipedia (in a vote with over 20 people). Also look at the "reasons" for keep and general discussion...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tnx for reviewing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Draft Picks
Please update the 2007 draft picks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.67.250 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Seeing how you were active on the 2007 NFL Draft page, I was wondering your opinion on the issue of creating pages on players drafted. A bunch of seventh and sixth round picks, maybe other rounds as well, have 1 or 2 sentence articles that mention who they were drafted by and what college they went to. In my opinion, these articles should be deleted, unless of course someone wants to add more information. The likelihood is that is many of the late round picks will not play in the NFL and will be not notable. What's your opinion on these articles? Pepsidrinka 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

clarification
You have blocked User:125.164.164.141, and then when notifiing the user of the block, you said If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page, which the IP cannot do, being blocked(The only page a blocked user can edit is their own talk page, provided it's not protected.) I think you meant to say their talk page, but it just didn't come out like that, and I would be confused.--U.S.A. cubed 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the signature explanation clears up everything. I don't see a need to change your signature, but it may be a good idea to now explain that to the user, and I think everything will be fine.--U.S.A. cubed 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided explain to the IP. If you would like to add anything, that's fine.--U.S.A. cubed 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat Up a White Kid Day
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beat Up a White Kid Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corvus cornix 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be an ID warning box for this sort of page. "Warning: politically charged contents whose significance is disputed," something like that. When the impact of a wiki article carries as much or more social impact than the few newspaper articles on the subject, and particularly when the article can perpetuate hate crimes, there is a problem. I know the delete/keep discussion can be debated and debated and debated, but at least if the page stands it should have an ID warning box. (I think the page is disgusting, but that's an aside) MotherFunctor 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD ShareASale
I have some questions about your decision for the AfD debate for the article ShareASale. Actually only one, Why?

1. Notability was clearly established in the AfD debate

2. COI accusations were not warranted, which was also established in the AfD debate. The article was created by a user who meets the COI criteria. I did inform the user of this and strongle discouraged him to continue to make edits on the article. Since I contributed in the past to the same subject and the creation of an article for ShareASale was on my to-do list (can be verified by going the edit log of my userpage where it clearly shows that I added it to my to-do list long before the article was actually created). Any accusation that I meet the criteria for COI in this matter in very far fetched. I made clear what my relationship with the company is and what it is not.

3. User:Anthony Appleyard did not provide much arguments during the discussion. I provided multiple references that shows that WP:CORP is met. I asked him also to clarify his vague statement "looks like an advertisement to me". I also recommended that he might want to change any parts of the article that are "advertisement".

4. I question the comments by User:Dimitrii and believe that he is a sockpuppet by looking at his contribution history which consists only of AfD debate comments, Mass Replace "Celtic" to "Celt" in numerous articles, Disambiguate "Celtic" to "Celtic xxxx", Disambiguate "John Warren" to "John Warren xxxx", Disambiguate "Fredericksburg to "Fredericksburg xxxx" and Disambiguate "Cimmeria" to "Cimmeria xxxx" plus a few minor edits, which include the rv of spam. This was pretty much all what this user contributed to Wikipedia during the last 15 months. The comments made in the debate were as vague as the statements made by User:Anthony Appleyard.

And just FYI Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shareasale. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Regards --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In The Past Toys
Hello fellow member. I recently created a page entitled "In The Past Toys" and it was deleted without much effort to fix errors. The page was not intended to be an advert. As such, it had lots of information on the company. The only reason that the people who proposed it to deletion was because it was linked to the incorrect pages. It was belonging to a section entirely that consisted of action figure and historical figurines. It was a normal page just like the other 40 or so company pages that were designed for companies. Please tell me what steps need to be taken to revive the page and keep it from being deleted. Again, there was absolutely no signs of advertising on the page. Thanks again. - Brendan Filone 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft - FL candidate
Hi., i nominated the article where you made significant contributions - 2007 NFL Draft as a "Featured list" candidate. Please leave a comment FLC-2007 NFL Draft. Thanks. Kalyan 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (merged two different headings) If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hi., i made modifications to the page and provided detailed comments on the talk page. Pls let me know your responses. Kalyan 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you would withdraw your objections if the "Notable undrafted players" section was removed. Thanks. Kalyan 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi., the 2007 NFL Draft has cleared all objections from others and pending your sign-off only. I have addresed your opposition to "Notable undrafted players" section and commented it out. Hence please revisit your opinion on the FLC and let us close it. Kalyan 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Boston Mariners
I recently discovered that you deleted the page I created for the Boston Mariners, a team in the Boston Men's Baseball League (an amateur Boston-based baseball league). The stated reason was "non-notable baseball team". Pretty subjective, wouldn't you say? I just think it's kind of ridiculous for you to delete the Mariners page, especially after considerable time was put in to creating it. There are a ton of random articles in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that the Mariners page is any less important than your tiddly-winks team page. Stop censoring content, especially when it's clear that considerable time was put in to its creation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkenglander (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Is it possible to retrieve deleted content
Hi IanManka. I was contributing some content to an article last month (Shetlink) which I see you deleted. Is it possible to retrieve any of this deleted content, as I'd spent a considerable amount of time researching material for the article. I have no idea if this is possible because I'm not very experienced at editing Wikis. Thanks in advance

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prroudfoot (talk • contribs).