User talk:Jerry/Archive 3

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: 7 of 9; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Request from a user for full text of deleted article. (Request honored).'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Manimal (band)
I understand why the article was deleted but could you please email me a copy of the full text? I will not try to re post the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manumental (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your request, the contents of the article have been restored to your user space, at: User:Manumental/Manimal (band).  JERRY talk contribs 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: 7 of 9; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion over the denied prod for American Chillers.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Denied prod for American Chillers
Hello, I have denied the prod for this article because I did not find it was a clear-cut case of spam. I am not saying that the article should not ultimately be deleted, I am just saying that prod's are reserved for non-controversial and easy deletions where the article in question clearly meets the deletion criteria specified. I would rather see this article undergo a discussion at AfD. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. In your edit summary you said it "does not steer readers to a place of purchase" yet the page offers a link to americanchillers.com which in turn offers "Click here to order American Chillers books, shirts, hats, and more". However, I do see how you can still view this as not clear-cut. I'll think on it and AfD it, or not, tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the path to purchase that you describe, but it was "3 clicks" away, which puts it in a gray area, in my mind. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: 7 of 9; font-weight:normal;" |*Adminship announcements, comments on several RFA's
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Thanks for supporting my RFA
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats Jerry! -- Menti  fisto  00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My congratulations also. I would not have made a solitary oppose if I'd checked the time more carefully. If you care to look at my comment, feel free: there are usually reasons why articles attract piles of tags; and at least some of the time it means they are not useful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done you!  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you, sir! The admin `bit could not have been bestowed to a better editor!  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship: I'm glad it worked out for you! Enjoy the mop and bucket. Happy editing! JW.. &#91; T .. C  &#93;  18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requests for adminship/Elonka 3... Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, 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 it's the holiday and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great holiday season, --Elonka 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: 7 of 9; font-weight:normal;" |*A disappointed wikipedia editor venting about an article that was speedy deleted. (Poor fella).
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Hogshead
Template removed. (I speedy deleted the article Henry Hogshead under rationale CSD#A7)
 * 269,000 fans and your going "geez I don't get it."
 * Have a great holiday Jerry, stick with the bird images, and articles on toast. gonz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gozo1320 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I realize it can be frustrating when somebody deletes an article that you have worked hard on. Please understand that mistakes do occasionally happen, and there is a process for dealing with it.  If you truly feel that my deletion was improper, please have a look over the deletion criteria that I cited and make sure you can make a case that it indeed meets our notability criteria, then feel free to list the article at WP:DRV.  JERRY talk contribs 06:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in images of birds, or articles on toast, heres a couple links for ya. JERRY talk contribs 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: very-berry; font-weight:normal;" |A discussion about a denied prod.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Denied prod for Eeyore (song)
Hello I have denied the prod for this article, because it has been around since 2005 with dozens of contributors, had an assessment on 4 wikiprojects, and slipknot is non-notable? really? Feel free to list at AfD. JERRY talk contribs 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying Slipknot is non notable. I was saying the song is non notable. And I will list it on AfD. Thundermaster TRUC 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AfD seems a better avenue than prod for an article that has been around for so long and with so many contributors. JERRY talk contribs 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is currently undergoing an AfD. See Articles for deletion/Eeyore (song) JERRY talk contribs 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: cheese; font-weight:normal;" |*Discussions about WP:AIV procedures for deleted contribs and timestamping
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |some text here
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |some text here

AIV comments
Hi Jerry. A lot of users often make edits to articles that are later deleted, and these edits don't show up in Special:Contributions, however, they do show up in Special:DeletedContributions, but they can only be seen by administrators. So basically, a user may have made a lot of edits that are later deleted and don't show up in the normal way, but it doesn't mean they're not active. Just a friendly reminder. Cheers,  Spebi  23:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, can you be specific? The last two I listed I did check the deleted contribs.  I think there were two earlier where I didn't... If you mean them, yeah,  I am new!  First day with a mop.   Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm slightly confused, I didn't think you were an administrator for a moment :) Glad to see you are. I'm not really referring to a specific situation, just that sometimes a quick look at someone's deleted contributions can change "inactive" to "active". Congratulations, by the way :)  Spebi  23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Re this edit, please check your time computation methodology, I see contribs at and up to 7 minutes after the report. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You will need to explain that to me. (Unless you just want to point out that I DID make a math error, it was 4:53, not six hours.  I rounded and was off by an hour.)

- + ::Last edit was 6 hours before this report. JERRY talk contribs 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Continuous destructive vandalism. Persisting after final warning. JNW (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His last edit was:


 * 20:28, 15 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Piglet (Winnie the Pooh)‎ (→Kingdom Hearts)
 * There were no deleted edits by this IP.

JERRY talk contribs 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I GOT IT SORTED OUT
In my user preferences, I had the "time" setting set at -5 server offset. This put some time displays in my local timezone, including SPECIAL:CONTRIBS, but it did not update signatures and substed template output, like shown on AIV. I removed my tim e offset, and it all agrees now, indicating that you were indeed correct. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JERRY talk contribs 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I too live in -05:00 (-04:00 in the summer), and constantly have to take those numbers into account when making time computations on Wikimedia projects.  I am sometimes tempted to tell those projects I'm in UTC to avoid the bother. :)    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please exercise more caution and/or judgment when making reports at WP:AIV: Your recent report did not seem to be accurate. Please review it and be more careful in the future. JERRY talk contribs 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: yes; font-weight:normal;" |I issued a user a WP:3RR warning
 * My apologies on the inaccurate report. I clicked on a few of the offending IP address's edits and all were vandalisms, but I see that they did indeed make actual, constructive edits as well. I guess I've seen a few too many anonymous vandals that I jumped to conclusions. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Jdoty (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

3RR warning
Please review WP:3RR. Even when doing reverts of edits that are proper, as you did at Mormonism, you should not violate the 3RR rule. Instead, make a report at WP:AIV. Future violation of 3RR could result in a period of blocking. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that it didn't apply in a case like this. I stand corrected. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: whatever; font-weight:normal;" |A discussion surrounding a user's suspicion that images may be copyvio.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Please provide more information
You recently tagged Image:Armenia-jeepparade.jpg for speedy deletion with the comment "possible copyvio". Do you have reason to doubt the veracity of the original uploader's PD licensing? Please provide some rationale or evidence to support your claim. JERRY talk contribs 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That user has uploaded numerous images like this one Image:Poporoquimbaya.jpg which have been taken from other internet websites. It is also missing information when and where was it taken, what camera did he use and also a description. Check the section on his talkpage that says "Images"... and User:Daniel challenged him. A long time ago I tried to explain to him the problem with uploading these images but still he continues to do so. Read his talkpage.. cheers..--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 04:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can definately understand your concern, however this does not seem like a case for the speedy deletion process. Not that the image(s) should not be deleted, but this will require significant research and already involves an OTRS volunteer, at one point.  I think this would be best for IfD for the images, and possibly RFC for the user-uploader.  Unless you can identify the source of the supposedly copyrighted image(s), in the absence of a claim by another party, there is no compelling evidence that would justify speedy deletion.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: yellow-submarine; font-weight:normal;" |5 discussions about user blocking.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Username Issues
Below comments refer to :Block of UnDeAdOvErLoRd2 and denied block of Moqtada al Slakr/ 양승욱, and misc. about User:Deadlyfix, and User:YumYumCummings

I find your block of UnDeAdOvErLoRd2 inappropriate and not at all based on the username policy. Why do you feel this name was so destructive to Wikipedia that you needed to preemptively block it without discussion?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement "not at all based on the username policy" seems a bad faith way to start a discussion. I liken it to taking a 27" Aluminum Louisville Slugger (baseball bat) and smashing in all the teeth of somebody, and then saying "Hi, I'd like to have a calm discussion with you."  When you can make a less offensive approach, perhaps I will feel more inclined to reply. JERRY talk contribs 13:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see: Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Review
 * I'm sorry, and that is useful feedback, though a bit harshly stated in itself. I'll try to be less blunt when questioning username blocks. But then, admins making critical comments at each other is one thing which presumably we both can handle, while the newbie is unlikely to come back.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but I am a newbie admin, it was my first day on the job. I agree I will need to be more thick-skinned, and many of my actions will probably be questioned, and probably with less tact.  So no hard feelings, eh? JERRY talk contribs 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Violation of username policy because: Promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view; NAHID 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see the problem with this user name. Although it is similar to an arabic name of a person who is an influential religious and political figure in Iraq, this alone does not create any disruption, in my mind. JERRY talk contribs 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be interested about user, who had been blocked for same reason. Thank you--NAHID 08:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. User:Moqtada al Sadr was blocked because it is the name of a person who is an influential religious and political figure in Iraq.  Username is the relevant policy here, and it specifically states in the section "Real names": "you are not allowed to edit under the real name of a well-known living person".  This does not extend to "any usernames that are similar to the name of any famous person will be preemptively blocked".  I am afraid that "Muqtada al" is the first part of an amazingly large number of Muslim/ Arabic persons' names, and this policy interpretation you are promoting would result in undue disruption and discrimination.  If this individual engages in edits that appear to defame or impersonate the famous person whose name is similar to their username, then this can be dealt with, but preemptive action does not seem prudent in this case. JERRY talk contribs 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Deadlyfix: Hello. This user is indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, so I bet he will not comply at all with your request. Instead, I slapped an indefblocked template on his userpage and blanked out the rest. I hope this was the proper thing to do; if not feel free to correct. Regards.-- 12 N oo  n  2¢ 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks JERRY talk contribs 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-latin names are allowed:
 * Username not in English. Maser  ( Talk! ) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User is in the category: Usernames editors have expressed concern over. HBC AIV helperbot3 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the user name is not in violation of policy, see Username_policy. They are requested to modify their signatures, etc, but the name is not blockable on the basis of your nomination. JERRY talk contribs 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that, I didn't know that section of the username policy. Maser  ( Talk! ) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Please remove your part on their talk page, if you don't mind.  JERRY talk contribs 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:YumYumCummings: Hello Jerry. If you could see the text of the article the user created, The trisexuals, I think you'd understand my reason for reporting the username. Cheers! — Travis talk  02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but... the username itself is not compellingly contrary to policy, so his edits should be monitored and reverted as required, and the account may be eventually blocked, but not preemptively. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: banana-creme-pie; font-weight:normal;" |A discussion about ARBCOM elections.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

ArbCom election
Hi Jerry, and congratulations on your adminship. I'll apologize in advance if I'm falling afoul of etiquette, but I don't feel I'm canvassing, since you already voted, and I feel comfortable sharing my thoughts with you because you were so receptive to them in your RfA. I wanted to let you know that I made the following comment when I voted in supportof JoshuaZ's ArbCom candidacy, in case my positive personal experience is useful to you in considering whether to maintain your opposition:
 * 1) Support In my sole interaction with him, he tried to do the right thing at Justin Berry, but was overtaken by larger forces. In my view, it's important to try, even if we don't succeed, and, while I wish Joshua hadn't relented, I don't see his not holding his position as any bar to support.  He is uniquely sensitive to all sides of a conflict & willing to act decisively when needed, if possible.

Again, Jerry, I wish you all the best, and invite you to contact me if I can ever be of service. --Ssbohio (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your well-wishes. I do not think that your contacting me here is any breech of WP:CANVAS, as you are undoubtedly independant of the candidate, and there is a restriction to two lines for any comments (including replies) on the ArbCom election pages. Discussion is how we arrive at concensus!


 * I did, in fact, spend quite a long time considering JoshuaZ's candidacy. (I know that all of my votes on all of the candidates comes in a burst of about 3 minutes, but this was the result of a long period of study and reflection, and I had my votes pre-written in notepad, ready to paste-in). JoshuaZ's was by far the most difficult vote for me.  Such a valued and intelligent editor and administrator, and so eloquent. I am sure he has some skills that would make him an excellent asset to ArbCom.  In the end, I was concerned at how engaged he gets in the politics of wikipedia, and I am worried that the additional stress of ArbCom duties might push him beyond his limits to use good judgement and to remain unemotional.  As another editor put it: I wonder whether someone "worn down" by hundreds of posts at the Wikipedia-eng list is going to do well at the much noisier post of ArbCom.
 * Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 14:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: I like cardboard; font-weight:normal;" |A courtesy notice that I have a message on Wiktionary.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Message
I've left you a message at your Wiktionary talk-page. —Ruakh TALK 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: purple-prose; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on schools for deletion.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Schools
RE Katherine L. Albiani Middle School‎: Why is it improper to list a non-notable organization for speedy deletion?  Corvus cornix talk  04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Long-standing concensus is that this category does not apply to schools. JERRY talk contribs 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen any such consensus. Can you provide some links?   Corvus cornix  talk  05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that if any user other than the article author removed the csd template that the article can not be speedied? JERRY talk contribs 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, anybody can remove a speedy tag, but your reasoning didn't seem supported by facts, that's why I asked.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My take on this (unasked, but just visiting) is that we have never accepted CSD A7 for notability for schools, though often non-notable schools can be speedy-deleted on other grounds. I have no hesitation in deleting a one line article about a primary or middle school as empty, after first checking it wasnt vandalised. CSD A7 is limited to the types of things listed.  DGG (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * what I did come here for is to wish you a successful adminship--in spite of what must have seemed like persistent questioning on my part. DGG (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never took any offense at your questions or comments in my RFA or in the email you sent me.  I particularly appreciated the consideration you showed by voting later.  I also appreciate your opinion on the above issue.  As a new administrator I have to depend on experienced users and admins to let me know when I am wrong, and when I am right.  I really do try to do the right thing.  JERRY talk contribs 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerry, I'm not aware of any significant support for the idea that all schools are notable. What I think cab be established is that it is convenient to consider all high schools as notable. The acceptability of this varies from month to month, and i think with consistent rational support it can be established. But there simply isn't enough about most middle schools to warrant an article, and the default of merge to district will simplify the discussions tremendously. Please go back over the various schools proposals and you will see the advantage of trying to maintain a moderate position. Where there are sharp division, like on schools, compromise is the best solution. You don't have to agree with me of course, but please consider it again. DGG (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you on this. My real objection to this delete was that it seemed to have been started for an invalid reason.  The article was of very poor quality, with numerous misspellings, capitalization errors, punctuation problems, and lacked proper wikified format.  It was basically just a run-on sentence that looked like it was written by a child.  I have a real problem with people marking articles as speedy delete for the above reason... I prefer people to use the edit button, lead by example, and exercise patience with newbies and editors with lower skill-levels than themselves.  Then in the AFD, a few editors made it a venue to criticize other editors instead of discussing the issues with the notability in the article.  Then one editor made statements that were simply untrue about the references, but he back-pedalled off that position when asked for specifics.  I do agree that it would be best for the project if we started to gain some consistency to set precedent for these articles and not have the drama of an entrenched AFD like this one every time a school article is created.  I like your suggestion, and I believe it is the best outcome, so I will change my !vote on the AfD accordingly.  Thank-you for contacting me on this issue. JERRY talk contribs 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The  policy discussion has gotten reactivated lately, and is at  Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools). See you there. DGG (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: purple-people-eater; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on image I deleted several times.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

The BCA Emblem
I think I have finally figured out how to describe the file, it is now under the correct terms, so please quit deleting it ^.^ Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdude (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: eggs dont roll well; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on schools for deletion.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Speedy Deletion
Thank you for notifying me. I believe the reason that my article was marked was because I clicked save as soon as I started (the last 3 attempts had not worked for various reasons and I did not want to go through it all again). The message said that I could repost it as long as I added more information, which I did.

The problem now is that the page is now just a link to Rousseau's Social Contract, and only a link - all that was added to the page has disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Que? (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: oatmeal; font-weight:normal;" |I'm not really sure what this is about.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

db-userreq|rationale=User:BKLisenbee
I was adding the below but seems resolved. We passed in mid edit.

"db-userreq|rationale=User:BKLisenbee has been involved in on going edit wars and character assassination. This notification arises after refusing to mediate. See Admin User:FayssalF/JK Deleting the page now will not serve the common good as he refuses to mediate and this page contains important info and user comments re. an ongoing situation. Not to mention his 17 socks see socks See If he wishes to retire that would be different. Seek the advice of mediating admins.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)" Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: garlic; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on AfD for Moon Tower.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Moon Tower
meh, I'm not sure it matters. It looks like you closed the Afd correctly, so it'll just eventually go to the big Afd archive in the sky. I usually feel like once an Afd is created, it sort of shouldn't be deleted. I think it would be justifiable in this case, but why bother? Cheers. Dina (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: kneecap; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on speedy deletion category CSD#G1 not being appropriate for images.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Speedy Deletion requests of images under CSD#G1
Hello, please review the category WP:CSD, it does not apply to images. Please either use one of the image categories or Template:db-reason. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, alright, thanks. I didn't realize that. --Dan Leveille TALK 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: watermelon; font-weight:normal;" |Discussions on a userspace error (inadvertant translusion of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion).
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

thanks
thanks for catching my user page category snafu - it's late. --Lquilter (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem... didn't want someone to delete it who was also having a late night. :)JERRY talk contribs 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: admiral; font-weight:normal;" |Discussion with 2 users about retagging CSD's
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Inappropriate retagging articles for speedy deletion
Hello, please do not retag articles that have been previously tagged and untagged by editors other than the article creators. Please give a read over WP:CSD. Your concerns may certainly indeed be valid, so I would encourage you to refer them to WP:AFD. JERRY talk contribs 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see the tag. andy (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You retagged DWRD. Please check history before tagging. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got the point already. andy (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK it didn't look to me like you did:
 * 01:04, 23 December 2007 Andyjsmith (Talk | contribs | block) (700 bytes) (delete as NN) (undo)
 * JERRY talk contribs 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD. You are not allowed to retag something for speedy deletion if a previous speedy deletion tag has been removed by somebody other than the editor who wrote the article. As well, articles as full and long-standing as T-mobile would never be speedy deleted, but rather should be sent through WP:AFD. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jerry thank you for your input, however i have been monitoring this article for awhile and although i have highlighted blatent advertising on the T-Mobile article, this has not been dealt with by the author. Examples of this were on the T-Mobile USA section (which has been since removed), T-Mobile Montenegro, and T-Mobile UK (blatently highlighting product pricing) which is against the rules of Wikipedia. Unless this is dealt with a new article will need to be produced for the T-Mobile International Group of companies. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathesize with your concern. However it is very important to not retag articles for speedy deletion.  Please use the WP:AFD and/ or WP:RFC processes instead. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: bowling; font-weight:normal;" |Discussion with user about deleted article on road hockey
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

from email re:CSD for St. Francis Parking Lot Hockey
(from email) Hi Jerry,

I'm extremely disappointed to see that our Wikipedia article "St. Francis Parking Lot Hockey" was deleted from the Website. The article took a long time to compile and is, contrary to opinion, historically significant to the area of the world in which I live. Also, it is an important example of the success of the game of street hockey, a subject that has its own Wikipedia article, albeit a short one.

If at all possible, I'd like to see one of the following things happen:


 * 1) The article returned to the Wikipedia Website
 * 2) A copy of the article sent to me so that I might make improvements that help it meet your criteria

Thanks for your time, (name removed for privacy)


 * Hello (name removed for privacy),
 * Believe me, I completely sympathize with your frustration over the article, that you put so much effort in, being deleted. I also agree with your assessment that the article was interesting and historically significant, at least regionally and to enthusiasts of the road hockey sport.  In fact, of all the articles I've deleted on wikipedia in my brief tenure as administrator, this one was by far the most regrettable, as I really enjoyed reading it.


 * It is my opinion, however, that the article was contrary to our notability policy, and also our policy on sourcing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCE). You see, wikipedia is not a primary source of information, it is an encyclopedia, which is a secondary source.  This is the prime directive for the project.  This means that we must be able to attribute everything in wikipedia to a reliable, neutral, verifiable source.  And the policy for notability is too complicated to state fully in this email, but if you go to WP:N (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N), you will find the details necessary to understand whether your article will be able to pass the notability requirements.


 * I would be more than happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted article, under one provision, that you agree to not attempt to recreate the article without addressing the concerns above. If you agree, just leave me a message on my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerry&action=edit&section=new) and I will create the article in your user space.  You will have to be a registered user.


 * Alternatively, if you feel that my deletion was in error, and that after reading the policies I identified above that your article should have been okay, you can request a review by starting a request at DELREV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DELREV). I am a fairly new administrator, and mistakes do happen,  If this is the case, delrev will get input from other editors to review my deletion and possibly overturn it or give us more feedback on the interpretation of relevant policy.  You putting in a delrev will in no way irritate me or result in any repercussions for either of us,


 * Sincerely, JERRY talk contribs 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Please leave a copy of my deleted article "St. Francis Parking Lot Hockey" in my account space. My username is 'staceymoriarty'. I will attempt to address the sourcing issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.69.76 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 December 2007

(To: User:Staceymoriarty at User talk:Staceymoriarty) Re: Article archive request: Somebody, (presumably you), at ip address 142.163.69.76, has requested a local copy of the deleted article St. Francis Parking Lot Hockey. You will find this archive in your userspace, at User:Staceymoriarty/St. Francis Parking Lot Hockey. This copy is being provided with the understanding that it will not be used to recreate the content without addressing the issues for which it was deleted. These issues can be researched at the notability policy and the sourcing policy. If you did not make this request, or if you no longer need the page, please mark it for speedy deletion by editing it and placing the following on the page. Thank-you, JERRY talk contribs 14:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(from email) Hi again,

While I respect your opinion on sourcing, by the same rule, the article on street hockey (wikilinked by Jerry) posted on the Website doesn't appear to me to site any primary source that I can see. So in that case, this article has no more significance than mine.

I have sent a request for the article to be placed in my account to your talk page. I will try to address the issue of notability; however, if my article cannot pass the criteria, please explain to me how the above example does.

Thanks, (name removed for privacy)


 * I had to laugh. What a coincidence that you would have chosen as your example, an article that I have actually edited in the past.  I am sure that you did not know that, but just chose it because it was similar.  If you look over the history tab for Road hockey (what you apparently call street hockey, eh?), you will see that at no time in the article's history has anyone ever nominated it for deletion.  Since it has never been nominated, it has not been as scrutinized as your article was.  Anybody can tag an article for deletion using the CSD or PROD processes.  And any editor may initiate an AFD deletion debate, as well.  For road hockey this has not happened yet.


 * You will see though, that on one occasion there was some expressed concern. An editor did tag the article on 10JAN2007 for having a section with unsourced statements in it.  This was not without much fuss and argument.  But since the other editor failed to add sourcing, the same editor who tagged it removed the unsourced section on 22JAN2007.  (That editor was User:Jerry, by the way... yup that's me.) JERRY talk contribs 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: cardinal-puff; font-weight:normal;" |Discussion with users about an article and stuff
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:Bigboytony and P. Bze
Re: P Bze:Since you deleted my page can you show me what to do next time? you can email me at anthonylindseyjr@yahoo.com (Bigboytony (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, provided that you first read WP:Notability, and WP:BAND. I believe that most questions about why articles are deleted under WP:CSD can be answered at the above two wikilinked pages.  JERRY talk contribs 02:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips i would enjoy it if you went and took a look at the new page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_Bze (Bigboytony (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I see that it was similarly deleted by another administrator. Please re-read the policies I outlined to you.  They are really very clear as to what can be in wikipedia, and what can not. You may choose to instead edit an article on the music genre and make a small entry about the subject.  Such an entry would require a source per WP:SOURCE, but might not be judged as hard on notability if it relates to the genre. JERRY talk contribs 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your help!!! may i ask what is the code for your - This user is ONLINE - thing? (Bigboytony (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

that sounds fine with me if you did it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboytony (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RE User:Bigboytony/P_Bze: with out the References being added can you tell me what you think? (Bigboytony (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Have a look... I removed some puffery and violations of WP:CRYSTAL, as well as marked some places where you would definately need to provide a reliable source per WP:SOURCE. I also saw a contradiction in the infobox versus the text in the article.  Please note that the sunjects own myspace page would be an example of a horrible source, and myspace pages in general are also.  Blogs, journals, and personal webpages won't work either.  Look for newspaper, magazine, editorials, books, movies, documentary films shown on television... things like that.  Also you have not yet provided context for notability, but this will unddoubtedly come as you find the kind of sources I mentioned.


 * By the way, did you try the User online/ offline thing yet? Does it work?  JERRY talk contribs 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it works: will i thank it dose. dose it automatically change its Status? o ya thanks for the help pleases keep it coming!!! (Bigboytony (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC))


 * No, read the bit above about bypassing your browser's cache, and expect to see new buttons for you to control the status. JERRY talk contribs 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: ID10T; font-weight:normal;" | Lengthy and unpleasant discussion on csd tagging userspace pagesSee also:AN
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

CSD
''Please do not nominate user space pages for speedy deletion unless they are violations of WP:BLP. The correct process for deletion of pages in another editors user space is WP:MFD.''

Wrong. WP:CSD -- and that "G" as in "General"; i.e., ALL pages:

''Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.''

See also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this -- all from scan of the deletion logs for the last 24 hours. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When reading policies, do not read only the parts you like and ignore the rest. CSD#G11 includes the requirement and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic, this is not an optional requirement (would start with "or").  User space pages could never become encyclopedic.  Read WP:USERPAGE, which says: Details about you generally should not go in the main namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content.  It also tells What to do if you find someone else's user page being used inappropriately: "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. A personal image may be nominated for deletion at Images and media for deletion. If you are considering nominating a user page or personal image for deletion because it appears to be  used as a personal web page or a blog, please be aware that many editors will consider this a personal attack on themselves, because they may believe they own "my userpage". Be very careful not to scare a newbie away from Wikipedia, and try to assume good faith that they are merely trying to share information about themselves. Try to resolve the issue on the user's talk page first. Also note that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed (never fair use) tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed on a user's page in order to show the user's human side, but only if the page complies with other Wikipedia policies. Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits. And always remember that a user's user page being used as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion."


 * We allow alot of latitude in userspace because sometimes people start an article there that they know will not meet our requirements, they may collaborate with others and improve it significantly, and then post it to article space. Some of our best articles started that way.  If another administrator deleted userspace pages under CSD#G11, it was either their ignorance, or a special situation, such as a spam-only account that has been warned several times already.  All other userspace deletions (which do not violate WP:BLP) need to go through WP:MFD.


 * A quick scan of your last 20 edits reveals that at least two other adminsitrators agree with me, according to their edit summaries when they reverted your csd-tagging of userspace pages here, and here.JERRY talk contribs 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When reading policies, do not read only the parts you like and ignore the rest


 * Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about: A read of AN would be instructive.


 * A quick scan of your last 20 edits reveals that at least two other adminsitrators agree with me


 * That would, again, be wrong, since you're not looking at the deleted edits -- including for the pages that formed the basis for your original complaint, which you will note are already gone. Perhaps you overlooked the tagging of the following:


 * User:Festspielhausstp -
 * User:ZorbaCafespeak -
 * User:JKCHR -
 * User:My Typed Gay Rights -
 * User:Saul Of Tarsus (Philippine Musical Play) -
 * User:Ultragames101 -
 * User:Beach49home -
 * User:Vampedrecords - - twice
 * User:Ann G Limb - G Limb
 * User:Meechis World Version -
 * User:Clinical archives -
 * User:George92island -
 * User:Carlnemo -
 * User:Sigma infosolutions -
 * User:SAMK SRS -
 * User:Piano duo LP -
 * User:B.T.I. Comics -
 * User:OtakuCenter -
 * User:Pegasus Strip Club -
 * User:Booster - Adelaide Rock Band -
 * User:Hflemings -
 * User:Honda F.C -
 * User:Fuse Festival -
 * User:Fallen Sword Answers -
 * User:Growtallersupplments -
 * User:Flamingochillers -
 * User:Commercialscouts - - 3 times
 * User talk:Commercialscouts -
 * User:Floridabeach2 -
 * User:Florida5beach -
 * User:Beach11house -
 * User:Beach1property -
 * User:CapeSanBlasBeach -
 * User:Vacation2rental -
 * User:Georgebeachhouse -
 * User:Vacation2rental -


 * Everyone's wrong but you? Quite a privileged position to be in. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also that these are only from the last week. Your peculiar and wikilawyering interpretation of CSD criteria seems to be held only by you. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not attack me. I stated the relevant policy and how I interpreted it.  It is possible that the community concensus is different than mine.  I suggest we take up a WP:RFC to seek input from others.  Calling me names will not help the situation. JERRY talk contribs 15:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not "attacking" you, I am simply providing the evidence that you are, your wikilawyering defensivness aside, objectively and completely, wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. In the wrong. Completely out of step with the letter, practice, history -- and most importantly, the spirit of the actual policies.


 * I suggest we take up a WP:RFC to seek input


 * Why? Did you overlook the Noticeboard posting -- the one which EXPLICITLY addressed my tagging? AN.


 * And as for your "interpretation," I suggest you take it up with the following 21 admins, who've deleted user pages as spam over the last week. If I went back further, I'm sure I could come up with a more complete list:




 * The First Law of Holes applies here. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in participating in the WP:RFC, whcih is located at User:Jerry/RFC on CSD's for userpages. JERRY talk contribs 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in not wasting your time. Perhaps, instead, you could educate these 21 other poor misguided admins who've gone ahead and deleted user pages as spam over the last few months:




 * --221.114.141.220 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is difficult for me to have a discussion with you; I find you to be especially combattive and your comments are insulting. You seem to seek being proven right or me being proven wrong.  I seek niether; I just want to find out what community concensus is.  Examples of deletions do not work for me.  I would prefer to hear the reasoning behind the delrtions.  I would also prefer you to stop leaving me any messages on my talk page, and participate in the RFC or just let it go.  Your lengthy messages here are disrupting my use of my talk page and I do not want any more messages from you. JERRY talk contribs 16:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to hear the reasoning behind the delrtions


 * For the THIRD time: A read of AN would be instructive.


 * your comments are insulting


 * So you find copious evidence of you being completely out-of-step with policy, practice, guidelines, and plain common sense "insulting" and "disruptive"? Telling. Most people would find dozens of counter-examples to their claims would give them pause; your reaction to my countering your attempt to wield an Argument from Authority by citing a couple of admins by pointing out dozens of admins who actually do the acts is also somewhat -- strange. Do their acts stem from their "ignorance" (your exact term)? --221.114.141.220 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop means stop, buddy. STOP LEAVING ME MESSAGES ON THIS PAGE.  NO MORE. ZERO. JERRY talk contribs 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jerry--see the discussion at ANI referred to -- I have commented there. DGG (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: oil-painting; font-weight:normal;" |A user requested old pages in own userspace to be deleted.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Old userspace pages
In a recent speedy deletion request, you stated that the subject page was one of very few remaining pages from your old user space. However, I found many:
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Dialogue
 * User:Michiel Sikma/External links bugreport
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Final Fantasy III (J) tool-assisted speedrun
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Internet information management specifications
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Languages
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Mozilla Firefox search plugin for English Wikipedia bugfix
 * User:Michiel Sikma/My music
 * User:Michiel Sikma/New Main Page design suggestion
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Personal notepad
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Personal notepad/Sticky
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Post-it
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Post-it notes
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Replay Gaming ideas
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Sandbox
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Sandbox/to do
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Sticky note
 * User:Michiel Sikma/THEGAME project
 * User:Michiel Sikma/Wiki syntax
 * User:Michiel Sikma/cool links
 * User:Michiel Sikma/dumplog fastest ascention nethack
 * User:Michiel Sikma/monobook.css
 * User:Michiel Sikma/monobook.js
 * User:Michiel Sikma/post it
 * User:Michiel Sikma/to do

I performed the requested deletion, but I suggest you submit the rest or move them to your userspace. To save time, if you just want them all deleted, send me a message and I will do it. Move the ones you want to keep first, and I can delete the rest. JERRY talk contribs 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see! Wow, you found quite a lot of other pages. I don't even remember ever making that many. :) Thanks for locating them. It seems most of them aren't even related to Wikipedia. You can delete them all as far as I'm concerned. —msikma (user, talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. JERRY talk contribs 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: blue, no red!; font-weight:normal;" |A discussion more or less about flowers, frisbees and sportscars.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Hieracium species
Please see Category:Hieracium as well as List of Hieracium species. How long does it take you to cite references? When a person searches for a species of a flower, should they find cited information and the proper species? Thank you for your exceptional persistence and common sense while helping the wikiworld. -- Carol 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see your talk page for my reply. I do not understand your message above. JERRY talk contribs 00:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tags here mean nothing. do see Up His Nose for the level of respect I have for such things here. If you would like to apologize for tagging an article that is just a few minutes old, I will read it. -- Carol 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy-delete tag and replaced it with a tag that requests its context be explained. I am not a botanist ... I suspect that this article is about a plant. It would help if you could add some text to the beginning of the article to explain what this thing is so that non-technical persons (like me) can understand and appreciate its importance. Thanks and Happy Holidays. Truthanado (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Holidays --> If having a happy holiday for you is putting tags on pages that are a few minutes old and have referenced context -- please celebrate your holiday elsewhere.  -- Carol 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Carol, it has been my experience that Brewcrewer acts in the best interest of wikipedia, and generally follows concensus. Everyone makes mistakes, so please consider that this user may have legitamately thought the right thing was being done.  Your tone sounds like an admonishment when your mind is made up that somebody was up to no good, which certainly isn't assuming good faith.


 * As well, the person you just bit was not the person who tagged the article, but somebody who removed the tag and asked you nicely to improve the article for a legitamate concern. You may consider apologizing to Truthnado.


 * No biting here. I am not deleting things within minutes.  I asked about concensus.  I expanded a sentence that Truthnado wrote and I would really appreciate that the three of you go play somewhere else for a while.  I am thinking that the road would be a good place but that is rude and I would never actually write that. -- Carol 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now for what I really came here for... you left me a note on my talk page under the header "deletion", I must apologize but I do not understand what you were asking me.  Did I delete something that you think I shouldn't have?  Please let me know.  I DO make mistakes, and I would like to correct them if I know about them. JERRY talk contribs 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I had two wiki users delete pages. One deleted it within 2 or 3 minutes after it was created.  Concensus?  I just saw once again the movie Blade Runner where there is that one character who "makes new friends" genetically instead of finding actual existing people.  I mention this now because I am curious where the 'concensus' you mention here is?  Sorry about my broken signature.  I tried to quickly put a couple of things on my user page and that is what happened. -- Carol 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at About the Sandbox, in particular the section about user sandbox. I use a sandbox whenever I create an article. I can make as many changes as I want in it and no one bothers it (those are the Wiki rules), until I am satisfied that it is ready for release. Then I create the article with its actual title and copy/paste from my sandbox to the article. You see, once an article is in main Wikispace, it belongs to the Wiki community and the several hundred Wiki patrolers will do their jobs and check that it complies with Wiki policy. Using a sandbox avoids the kinds of problems you recently had. Your sandbox would be User:CarolSpears/Sandbox which you can easily create by clicking on the red link in this sentence. Truthanado (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. Interesting admin task -- deleting pages that are less than a few minutes old.  I am not interested in sorting through 'policy' about that.  I am interested in how that is considered a useful admin task though.  My government teacher imparted this one thought to me -- just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. -- Carol 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (I'm going to go ahead and use the broken signature here since it already is the talk page for my user page.


 * Your government teacher makes a good point. Let me explain why new articles are reviewed quickly. Hundreds of articles are created every day by Wiki users. Although most of them are worthwhile, some are not ... spam, nonsense, personal attacks, advertisements, and other scruff that has no place on Wikipedia. Most of the junk gets caught quickly by the dedicated patrolers, using Wiki guidelines. We try to do our best so that junk articles are not part of Wikipedia. Sometimes a mistake is made (this article). That is why there is a procedure for handling that. Note that the patroler does not delete the article (in fact, most patrolers don't have the privilege to delete articles, only admins can do that); patrolers tag articles that they think are candidates for deletion, and at least one admin then reviews it before deleting it. In this case, I (as a patroler) caught the error and removed the tag. If I hadn't done that, you could have added the tag. The system worked in this case ... this article did not get deleted. You might want to take a look at WP:OWN ... remember that no one owns articles, we all work on them together in a collaboration. Truthanado (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag seemed to be a placebo, or perhaps snake oil when I tried to use it.  The  tag, the first and only time that I attempted to use this to determine what the problem was or to provoke a discussion which would help me to understand, I learned that it is an ineffective tag.  The education I could and did glean from that experience is that this tag does not do what is promised.


 * About the mechanics of wiki. If a page says it is no longer there and asks if I would like to read the logs of the discussion that prompted its deletion then it is no longer there? It has been deleted? And, completely without sarcasm and also because I believe that you believe in the tags you are suggesting and I was glad to see that you had added a 'description' to the page I had written, I really appreciate that you are taking this time to tell me how the wiki experience works from your POV and experience.  That is honest from me.  There was the suggestion that I apologize to you, but I did not remember causing the need to do this.  I remember being glad that you were being non-aggressive and productive in that weird few moments out of several quiet ones here at the english wikipedia.  Not the kind of thing I usually apologize for.  Gratitude though, a lot of gratitude. -- Carol 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(tab reset) I am still confused. What do you expect from me? How am I involved in this at all, except being dragged in and (not) told to go play in the street? Do you want me to do or undo anything? Or can I just safely archive your comment on my user page and ignore it? JERRY talk contribs 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I used the link in the history of one of the tagged for deletion pages to get to User Talk:Jerry to leave that message. I have no evidence that anything that I would like or want matters.  'Go play in the road' was in my life one of those funny things that adults and then people used to say to me affectionately when I was bothering them -- it is difficult to impart that affection via text.  You know the safety much better than I do and it is your talk page.  I think you should go play in the road.  And be a good person while you use Jerry as a name.  I once told a great Jerry not to buy a little red sports car unless he also added to the cost of driving it one speeding ticket per week or so because he would have been a ticket magnet like that.  Perhaps, depending on your mentality at the moment, 'go get a frisbee' would be a better suggestion than to go play in the road, but I am only suggesting this because I really miss my family.  Thanks for the attention? -- Carol 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, I get it now. btw, my sportscar was blue.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: junk-food=good; font-weight:normal;" |A courtesy notification about am AFD
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

AFD created for CSD tag that you removed
Just to let you know that an AFD has been created for James Allen (internet personality). Feel free to leave your opinion here. Cheers, meshach (talk) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: background-noise; font-weight:normal;" |A question about category deletions
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Why have you deleted the pages for roles in musicals?
I noticed that you deleted the links to these pages off of the voice type pages. Those lists were birthed out of these particular voice type pages under much discussion and debate. I don't think that was a wise decission on your part and a very hasty one since you did not discuss it on the talk pages first.Nrswanson (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, please assume good faith. You were aparently not aware of the AFD where all of the List of (range) roles in musicals articles were discussed and concensus was formed for their deletion.  The main objection to these articles was a general lack of objectivity for which article a particular role would be in, as persons from various voice ranges would be cast in the same part for a different performance of the same piece.  Please understand that while I do have expertise in this field, I was not a participant in the discussion, I was the just the adminsitrator who closed the debate based on the comments of those who participated, and carried-out the decided action.  Please have a read over the debate (linked above) to see more details as to the rationale for deletion.  If after reading the debate you feel that my determination for concensus was incorrect, you may request an appeal of the decision at DELREV.  Please note however, that DELREV is not a venue to further argue the merits of the articles, but rather just the closing decision.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 13:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: dontbitethenewbies; font-weight:normal;" |A question about something???
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

From email... "why was my page deleted?"
In a message dated 12/23/2007 11:50:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, (name removed)@hotmail.com writes: Hello I was creating a page for a rider in our association and I don't realize why the page was deleted? I provided valid and legitimate external links and references? What were the exact reasons for the page deletion?


 * You will need to be much more specific as I delete a lot of articles on a daily basis. If you look at the pages history by typing in the article name in the search box and clicking "go" it will bring you to a screen that says "warning" you are about to create an article that has been deleted... it then shows you my deletion rationale.


 * Alternatively, if you let me know the name of the article, I can look it up for you. If you do not remember the name of the article, and there is no warning on your wikipedia talk page (there may not be one if you edit while not logged-in and your ISP changes your IP address each time you dial up), then you can go to the top of my talk page here, and near the top you will see:  Click on "deletions" and scroll through those.. this will also give an abbreviated reason for deletion. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: junk-food=good; font-weight:normal;" |A courtesy notification about closing discussion errors I've made
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Closing discussions
Please substitute the pair of templates that correspond with the specific process: AfD, TfD, etc. –Pomte 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the heads-up. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: schools_rule; font-weight:normal;" |conversations (and a barnstar!) about school article saved from AFD
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School
Hi, great work. Can I suggest adding the 3 alumni with sources that I identified, next? TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry... I was busy adding stuff.... what do you have on the alums? JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Listed with sources high up on the AfD page. Sorry for the delay - was offline. TerriersFan (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't fixed it myself to avoid an edit conflict but if you put the access date in the format accessdate = 2007-12-24 it will blue link it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will fix them, thanks.JERRY talk contribs 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I would be pretty disappointed now if it got deleted.  Fortunatley, the more recent comments seem to indicate that it will not. JERRY talk contribs 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; it's good to have another person on board who is prepared to rescue school pages. Great work! TerriersFan (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: syntax-green; font-weight:normal;" |pleasant discussion with another admin about speedy deletion policy and csd template syntax
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Speedy delete
I just deleted Bristol Entertainment after seeing that you sought to speedy delete it. Just wanted to let you know that your template,, is not an actual template; I wouldn't have seen it if I'd not been recentchanges patrolling. Thanks for tagging it! Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, actually in between when you saw the article and you deleted it, I had re-edited it and changed the db-n to db-band. Thanks for letting me know, though  By the way... what is the protocol?  As an admin, should I have just deleted it, or is it preferred to tag it and let a second admin look it over?  I am an n00b admin. JERRY talk contribs 02:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) I've only been an administrator for a month or two, and I'm not superbusy with administrator actions myself. There's nothing wrong with deleting it yourself; there are times in which you shouldn't use admin tools, such as when you're involved in a dispute, but this isn't one of them.  Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: its_mine!; font-weight:normal;" |An urgent request from a user to help her prevent deletion of HER article
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Help!
Kazumi Tanaka has been put up for deletion! Help me save my article!Kitty53 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A "Hatnote" syntax lesson. I didn't even know that term existed! I call 'em "dablinks".'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Montgomery County hatnotes
Just wanted to let you know: instead of placing templates such as:

you can make it easier on yourself and more grammatically correct by typing:

or similar, for whatever kind of article you're placing hatnotes on. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is better. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Some editors give kudos to me for some mind-numbing maintenance work I recently did. And another Admin joined the fun!'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

True maintenance work
Thank you very much for working on those old /delete and /temp subpages. Your work is fantastic and much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thank-you. It's tedious and mind-numbing as all get-out, though.  But I figure as one of the newest admins... might as well. JERRY talk contribs 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Old deletion discussions - Your wish is my command :-D Congrats on the mop! east. 718 at 04:37, December 27, 2007
 * Wow, somebody got a bot on the task! I see red! :) JERRY talk contribs 04:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A friendly discussion about CSD I denied for some copyright violation pictures. (I had good reason).'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Rooney and Zidane pics
I'm kinda puzzled by the "claim lacks evidenciary proof" edit summary left for Image:Rooney sent off.jpg and Image:Zidane sent off.JPG. The policy for images that are obviously from news/photo agencies and without fair use rationale has been to delete them without the standard discussion/waiting period, since they're highly unlikely to qualify as free use or fair use. Now, those images are clearly photo agency images, unless we're willing to believe that our uploader shot those pictures at the same exact time, at the same exact place, with the same exact camera setting (I'm not). Now, you seem to be looking for evidentiary proof rather than, you know, proof that these images are obvious copyright violations. The fact that the uploaded photos are identical to agency photos should be sufficient reason to delete them for blatant copyright infringement, even if the uploader didn't get the photos from the sites I cited, or whatever other evidence you're looking for. It's not that big a deal since the batch PUI should take care of it, but I wanted to get them out of the way, and the summary is unclear. --76.117.210.109 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the opportunity to explain my position on these specific cases. I saw no evidence that the images were actually copyrighted by a party other than the uploader.  The image uploader put the license tag on the image page that would be appropriate for an image that he or she took themselves.  There was no data on the image talk page, nor in the template that said why the tagger thought the images were copyrighted property of another party.  An example of evidenciary proof would be "Image is on the getty images site at http://..." or "image appears on an associated press article on news.aol.com at url..." or "image has a watermark in the lower left corner that indicates that JoJo MoMo copyrighted it..."  I saw nothing like this except "this image appears to be copyrighted".  So, in my way of thinking, just because it is a terriffic picture, alone, does not mean that the veracity of the image uploder's claim should be questioned. I had no way to know "the fact that the uploaded photos are identical to agency photos".  I start from assuming good faith, and it requires some evidence to sway me away from that position.  Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see why there was confusion - I left the URLs for where the images were used and credited in the in the edit summary. Thanks for the response. 76.117.210.109 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about under construction articles, and excessive article tagging.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Underconstruction
Please do not remove the tag from articles that appear to be in the process of being actively edited-- see Template talk:Underconstruction for the intended use. it protects the article against attempts for deletion. The conventional period is a week. DGG (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for informing me of the requirement for this tag. I have always been a firm believer in User:Shanes/Why tags are evil, and was unaware of the requirement that you specify.  In the past I have gone through and removed these tags from all articles where the tag was there with no active editing for >3 months, and the number was extraordinary!  So I feel this tag is often abused, and really quite unnecessary on the article itself.  I am sure admins read talk pages before deleting, so I always thought that was a better place for this type of editor-only communication.  But I will comply with your request. JERRY talk contribs 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John Jackson (footballer)
 * i think you may have misunderstood slightly. After 3 months with no action, certainly remove the tag! and if you can leave a note for the guy who placed it reminding him to work on the article. But it should stay for at least a week. The article Military railways about which i was talking had been in place only since yesterday. With a little more experience as an administrator you will learn not to assume too much about the perfect carefulness of all your fellow administrators, especially when they succumb to the human tendency to work a little too fast or when they are a little tired. --and there are also ordinary editors too who could place a tag and send it to an unnecessary AfD. Tags in general, that's another question--for later. You are quite right that the tag is often used wrong--and i myself am sometimes guilty of not exactly abusing it, but forgetting about going back to the article. DGG (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As always, pleasant to chat with you. JERRY talk contribs 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have a look over Yossi Lazaroff as well as it's talk page. This seems a clear WP:CSD, and is composed solely of quotes from the subject.  Does the  give this article a 7-day free pass? JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * there are a number of errors  in the page history:  for one thing,  a G4 was placed on it, but that can only be used after an XfD, not a previous speedy.  Second, it is not a A7, a person might reasonably think that being head of a Chabad house at a really major university was notability. Its at the least a good faith claim of notability, so it should not have been a speedy. Being a string of quotations is a matter of context or content, not A7: but it isnt really a pure string of quotations without an attempt to work them into an article. So it can only be deleted via AfD, but if someone places an Afd they can if they choose ignore the noconstruction sign--it is a request, not a prohibition.
 * However, the key consideration to me is that the article has only just been started. When iI came here there was often a 1 or 2 day backlog at CSD, and people in practice had time to fix up articles before they got deleted. That's not the case now, except very rarely. there is a great deal of resentment by ordinary editors over the speed of deletion of incomplete articles. I think this is reasonable, actually. The difficult is that we really must delete the pure junk immediately or run the risk of missing it, and it is hard to tell the difference between junk that will never by upgraded and an empty article that might be. So I think the best practice is to give a considerable amount of tolerance to any article being worked on in good faith, or any new article that has any possibilities, and go to the trouble of keeping track and deleting it later. Not everyone agrees with me, and each admin must decide for himself--in general it is the long-established people who have the least patience.
 * there's an additional consideration, which is to check the contribution history. This is an established editor working in his psecial field. Not all of his articles have survived AfD, but many of them have. I have commented to this effect at the Afd. DGG (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again I am impressed at how well you can explain things in such a manner as to make it easy for me to understand your rationale. That's so much better than "per WP:CDJhHDUDDH", and actually shows that you put some thought into it, and that you took the time to consider whether it should be an exception to a rule, and if it was covered by a rule at all.  I can learn alot from you, if you have the patience.  Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A fellow admin telling me where to find a cool set of tools.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Re: Query request
There's a tool on the Toolserver that can do exactly that: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~agony/orphantalk/index.php?l=en. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion about bot syntax errors while adding category talk pages
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Possible bot errors in adding category talk pages
Hello, while reviewing orphan talk pages, I noticed a number of new additions that your bot had made. They seem to be in the wrong namespace, and probably need to be deleted, and you may also want to go back and requeue the job to add them under the correct syntax.

The proper talk page for Category:Blah is Category talk:Blah, not Talk:Category:Blah, which is a talk page for an implausible article namespace page. Below is a list, for your convenience:

If you agree, message me and I will delete these pages. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(list deleted)


 * Response regarding Bot: Oh, wow, that was a stupid mistake...yes, you are correct. I modified the code to check for category pages but forgot to change where the message was posted to. All edits the bot has made today need to be reverted. Thanks for catching that, and I'm extremely sorry for the inconvenience. Paiev Discuss! 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, just thought you should know before more of a mess got made. I took care of them.  JERRY talk contribs 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A mild disagreement over how to proceed when a userspace page is identified as obvious spam
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Spam pages
Please do not readd csd tags if a user other than the creator of the page removes it, even if the person who removed the tag is wrong. Please utilize the XfD processes instead. JERRY talk contribs 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, spam criteria apply to ALL pages, regardless of the prefix stuck in front: that's why the criteria is listed under General criteria, not Article. Not to mention
 * (examples removed)
 * If you want, I can easily come up with several hundred more examples that I've tagged over the last year or so alone. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, no, I do not need you to provide me with examples. I am an advanced user and can find my own examples, thanks.  But you see, in userspace pages, there is sometimes a different approach that is required.  Please read WP:userpage.  Since this user has contributed to wikipedia in a beneficial way, to delete his autobiographical userpage under speedy deletion criteria would be unfriendly.  Some professionals participate on wikipedia and provide a beneficial service to the community by serving as a subject matter expert in thier field.  This is a good thing.  Since the user is in good standing, we should follow the procedure in WP:USERPAGE, and kindly ask him/her to tone down the advertishness of their userpage a bit.  They would probably comply if we ask nicely.  If they don't, and the page is so overtly spam, then we could use the WP:MFD process.  CSD would be okay if this was a single-purpose account, or if their only contribution was a fly-by creation of a userpage.  So to reiterate, please do not re-tag pages when somebody other than the creator has removed the tag, EVEN IF they are wrong. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  I am an advanced user and can find my own examples, thanks
 * For an "advanced user", you don't seem to have a strong grasp of actual policy. The user's only other contribution was in March -- which does NOT by any stretch of the imagination qualify him as "an editor in good standing". And, valid or not, that single edit is not a pass on the VERY clear spam criteria at WP:CSD. As such, it gets tagged like any other spam page. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to exhale. The immediate heat death of the universe is not imminent.  An MFD has been started, so this process will be the way forward.  You and I do not need to be in conflict over this, and I do not need to respond to the rest of your comment above.  JERRY talk contribs 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice would be not give supercilious lectures about the plain English of policies you're not willing to read, to indulge in pointless bureaucracy for it's own sake, nor, when offered fact- and reality-based challenges to your actions, to offer astonishingly patronizing "advice" about others. If you enforce policy instead of making it more difficult to do so, perhaps you'll have less conflict, then. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We are done talking now. Go away. JERRY talk contribs 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion with a new user about a deleted list page and the special requirements for list-type article pages.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Page deletion question
Hi,

I recently created the page List of summer schools and you appear to have speedily deleted it, giving the reason that it was a test. It was not a test, though I am a newbie and don't know all that much about inclusion criteria for lists. Can you please elucidate as to your reasons for deletion so that I don't make that mistake again? Thanks, Aseld (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, sure, and welcome to wikipedia. I made the assumption that it was a test, because the page only contained a single school, but perported to be a list (presumably of all such schools).  Since I know that if this list did grow to full inclusion, it would quickly become unwieldly and of little use to any reader, as there was no reasonable constraints to define what limited group of schools would be included.  It seemed like any school anywhere in the world, no matter how big or small, if they were open for at least a single day in a single summer, would be listed.  This kind of list never works very well, so I assumed you were just trying out the editor interface, and hit save by accident.  Feel free to recreate it, but you might want to go over some of the other lists at WikiProject Schools to see how they approach these issues on school lists.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the speedy reply. I intended to create the page first and then add all of the notable summer schools that I could find to it. I also intended the list to be of courses that are specifically summer schools, i.e., run during the summer holidays and at no other time, and I didn't think there would be all that many of them. However, I'll bow to your superior experience, of course :). Again, thanks for the fast reply. --Aseld (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, please do not bow down. Feel free to create the list as you described it.  But you may want to make a talk page for it first, and define what schools should be included.  Making such a list requires somebody to maintain it... so especially if you are willing to check-in on it every so often, please do recreate it.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*On AfD closing details for a co-nomme'd discussion.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Please finish the closing on the Utah_Preparatory_Academy AfD
You may have missed it, but there was a second article co-nom'd in this AfD. Your closing comment does not address the second article, and it does still exist. I expect you intended to close as Delete both. JERRY talk contribs 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Utah_Preparatory_Academy&action=edit&section=1
 * Thanks. I've deleted it. Sorry for the confusion. Keilana talk(recall) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about a blocked user
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:Nationalgalleryadmin
Does not appear that he is going to change it, may be time for a block. Tiptoety talk 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC) {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Will probably be mentioned many more times in the future... remember that time you... (I crashed wikipedia while merging Michael Jackson articles).'''
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

The incident
Hi, I wouldn't even bother trying to restore Michael Jackson - it's got far to many edits for a normal admin to do it without crashing the database so I've asked a developer to do it for you.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had no idea about any size limit. I've been trying for the past 10 minutes with no success.  It looks like I have been crashing a server when I try. JERRY talk contribs 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I really screwed the pooch. How long do you think it will take for a devo to unscrew? JERRY talk contribs 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're currently working on it - it was a good and proper screw up I've got to say! And they say no admin actions can't be reversed........ :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never been accused of doing anything small. :P JERRY talk contribs 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The repercussions
RE:Michael Jackson; You just deleted the Michael Jackson page when you moved the finances of Michael Jackson article on top of it. Please fix this up ASAP. Merges are not conducted like that. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, posted before I saw the above. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The procedure I have been following with good success for merging up to now is:


 * copy the source code for the smaller article into notepad,
 * edit the source code as required to keep only the content to be merged, including references
 * record the diff information for the current version of the larger article
 * delete the larger article
 * move the smaller article to the larger article name, do not move it's talk page
 * delete redirects at smaller article, if applicable, and if you do, also delete it's talk page
 * restore the deleted edits at the larger article
 * go into the history and restore the version for the appropriate diff as recorded above
 * edit the article and insert the source code that was saved (and edited) earlier.
 * This usually takes less than a minute and works great. I was unaware of a size limit. JERRY talk contribs 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merges aren't performed like that, a simple cut and paste and conversion of the source into a redirect will suffice. If you need any help with anything, please don't hesitate to find me on my talk page or IRC. east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 01:54, January 2, 2008
 * Agree with east718. A merge result at an afd does not mean histmerge the articles. It means incorporate the text of one into the other, preferably by copying and pasting with an edit. Just make sure to link to the article you're pasting in from in the edit summary, for attribution purposes. Picaroon (t) 02:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks guys. I get the point now. JERRY talk contribs 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement
Regarding my crashing wikipedia repeatedly for 10 minutes, an event you aptly referred-to as the MJ-thingy, you probably have no idea how sick I felt... I could have vomited.... thankfully Ryan Postlethwaite came to my rescue and summoned a developer with magic pixie dust. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. JERRY talk contribs 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*On AfD closing syntax.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Closing AfDs
Hi Jerry, when you close AfDs the closing top template goes above the heading not below it. Thanks, --Stephen 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realized that earlier today, and I thought I had already gone back and corrected them all, but I must have missed at least one, obviously.  But thanks for letting me know. JERRY talk contribs 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''An editor seeks more information relative to the deletion of an article (s)he created. I copied the source code of the article to her/his user space.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ratopolis
Recently I created a page on a movie Ratopolis (1973) and it was deleted right after I corrected some of the the issues with the page without any further discussion. the reason given was CSD A7 Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject. I believe that the summery of the movie indicated the importance of the subject. Could you look into this for me and let me know? Septagram (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, please see User:Septagram/Ratopolis. You can improve the article in this offline location and then move it to the article namespace, after the sourcing and notability issues are fully sorted out.  You may choose to seek the input of another editor before putting it back up.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 13:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''2 automated messages about image problems by betacommandbot. I don't know what the big deal is about his messages. I have no problem with them, even though they are often left in error, as was the case here.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Forgednote.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forgednote.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for informing me of the tag. This does seem like a tagging error on your part, however, as the image is public domain.  Even though I filled-in the fair use rationale template, this does not nullify the pd-license.  But it is not a big deal, as another editor has already removed the tag. JERRY talk contribs 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mccoy logo.jpg: Thanks for uploading Image:Mccoy logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me that the image was tagged. While fair use rationale was provided at the time the image was uploaded, it was formatted as freeform text, and I realize it is easier for a bot to understand a template.  So I replaced the freeform text fair use rationale with the templatized version, and removed your csd tag. JERRY talk contribs 04:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A heads-up from a fellow admin about a persistent anon reverter at Bocce.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

The links you added to bocce
An anonymous editor, 76.199.106.1 is trying to remove the links to Bocce.org you added to the bocce article without explanation. I don't see anything wrong with them ... sure they have an online store but they have good information. It's strange that the user has made no comment so far ... what should be done about it if he/she continues to revert? My edit warring probably wasn't a good thing either ... Graham 87 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RE Bocce; Thanks for the heads-up on the reverts by the anon. I am unsure what his motivation is.  Some folks take too much ownership in articles or are closely related to the other links in the article, and maybe that explains it.  I am surprised to see her/him remove the alternate name bocci though.... there's plenty of sources to support it.  Oh well... maybe they've moved on.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok - this is weird. I was actually thinking of semi-protecting the article or blocking the user to get them to communicate ... but I have never seen that actually work. Graham 87 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Links which have something to sell or those which are riddled with misinformation, will be deleted. Specifically, bocce.org has plenty to sell and is full of misinformation.  The biggest example is that it claims to be "the preeminent international organization for the sport of bocce."  That is entirely false and misleading, like much of the site's content.  The other sites in the links section already state the rules and history and are not trying to sell any products.  These quality sites are also packed with other resourceful information such as photos, videos, and press releases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.106.1 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, about the bocce.org site, I reviewed the site further to find even more flaws and misinformation. In fact, I have a laundry list compiled of all the inaccuracies, which hopefully I won't need to divulge since it will likely further waste our time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.106.1 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A notice from a fellow admin about a new proposal at WP:AFD.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
Hi, I wonder if you would share your views here, please. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I did. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A question about image removal from an article and it's subsequent speedy deletion
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Removing image from article about Victor Tapu
Hi, I noticed that you removed the self-portrait from Victor Ţapu article. I think that the image nicely completed the article and was also relevant, as it gives an idea about the artist's work.

Please let me know what is needed in order to keep the image.

Regards, Iulian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulianm (talk • contribs)


 * Please review WP:CSD. JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Just looking out for a buddy.
 * }
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Re: You deleted User:Ryanpostlethwaite
I do not see a user request in the deleted history. This is linked in his signature in alot of places. Did he request the deletion? Seems if his page is elsewhere, the redirect to his current page would be more proper. Now his old signatures link to a dead-end page. JERRY talk contribs 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan deleted his userpage yesterday and has now restored it, so I restored the previously broken redirect. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 23:37, January 4, 2008
 * OK thanks. JERRY talk contribs 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (to east718) I'm not sure how you found the redirect so quickly, but I would really appreciate it if in the future you asked me first - the redirect from my old signature linked to my new renamed account, not just a page. Thanks,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Recognition by another editor and a discussion about his RFA.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Thanks a lot, Jerry!
Earlier today I made my first request for Adminship. I retracted shortly after proposing it when everybody said they would love to have me as an admin, but I needed more experiece with admin-like work, and to come back in a few months. Your tireless contributions made the first few hours of my new experience-gathering worthwile and rewarding. If this doesn't give you experience, what does? <FONT STYLE="italic" COLOR="#008B8B">Sean</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>talk 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the recognition. Also thanks for keeping a positive attitude after an RFA that didn't launch as you would have wanted it to.  As a newbiee admin, I can still recall the feelings I had as I read other-than-positive feedback about me on my RFA.  I salute your resolve to gain experience and forge ahead.  Please inform me the next time your name is up at RFA, it will not be considered canvassing because I am asking you to tell me.  - Jerry


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion with user WP:CSD-tagging user boxes that he has offerred to other users for their use. His action put numerous users' user-pages into the category candidates for speedy deletion. All is OK now.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Userboxes
Have you checked the what links here on those pages? They are transcluded on other users pages... did you notify them?JERRY talk contribs 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my Gosh, no. I totally forgot all about that. I am so sorry. Eeeeek. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... please fix the mess asap... you've got a bunch of user's pages listed at CSD via transclusion. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the Userboxes. :) Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I restored the userboxes. If there's still a problem let me know. I was just clearing out my namespace and got caught up. I didn't think about others using my templates. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 07:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

RE: Categories
I initiated the discussion for Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe and Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies as well as later putting them up for deletion, because no one was discussing redirecting them. Can you just delete them? Also, please note the recent actions of the user Suedois, who has been engaged in an uncivil dispute with me. If I had not Afd'd an article which interested him, he would not have repopulated the Hungarian and Bohemian categories (he has been stalking my contributions). Charles 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. WP:CFD states: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". Further, WP:CSD states: "should not be used for categories being discussed on Categories for discussion".  So deletion of these cats would be outside of process.  Please continue the discussion at CFD, or ask an administrator who has closed recent discussions there to relist it.  As for the other editor, I have not investigated what you said, but it sounds like you may wish to refer this issue to WP:AN or WP:RFC, or possibly even WP:AIV, if their edits could be considered vandalism.  Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already been to AN/I. I think the admin who dealt with it was on her morning shift because she wasn't particularly helpful in the matter. But that's a separate issue. The category was already empty when CFD was started. I got advice from an admin way earlier (like a week or so ago) about these categories and it seems it's led to a confusing situation. Why would they be relisted for discussion though? Discussion has gone nowhere. Can't I just remove the discussion listing since I nominated it and no one has commented? And then remove the tag on the category page? Charles 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After 5 days, a CFD discussion can be closed as No concensus; not enough participation instead of being relisted. At that point, you could tag the category as empty WP:CSD, and if it remains empty for >4 days, it can be deleted.  But if another editor places an article in the category, then you would need to relist it at CFD, and hope for more participation. Do feel free to consult another administrator, particularly one who has recently closed CFD discussions, they may have a different opinion than me, or may see fit to make this case an exception.  JERRY talk contribs 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School
Hi, I wonder if you would revisit Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School please? The article is still rubbish but an amazing range of sources has been found by DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, you know I am normally all for keeping most schools, but in this case, many of the further reading articles that I checked just trivially mention this specific school. Such articles about the budget for the district, for example.  Others are about a field trip location and mention that students came from the school.  What I look for in a source being used for notabilty is that the subject of the article is the subject of the source cited.  I did not take the time to read each one, so it is possible that the volume of links there is obfuscating some that would meet my criteria.  If the list was pared-down to only such references, I would be willing to revisit it. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that; thanks for looking. TerriersFan (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Category:People of former Portuguese colonies
Hi, Jerry. I created that category but replaced it with another. In such situations, when it's a self-created category, what's the best way for me to have them deleted? SamEV (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted Category:People of former Portuguese colonies 3 hours ago; do you mean undeleted? Or do you meanCategory:People of the former Portuguese colonies?  And if so, why do you want it deleted?  JERRY talk contribs 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't check. Yes, I wanted it deleted, as I do others I created but which I then decided I had accidentally misnamed. Do I nominate them for speedy deletion, or is there a different procedure you recommend? SamEV (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would create the new category pages, depopulate the former categories while populating the new categories. Then once the former categories are empty, I would nominate them for speedy deletion under crtieria WP:CSD. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. No, I don't mean Category:People of the former Portuguese colonies. But I see that the others have either been deleted or tagged already. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

I Disagree
On Image:Realtimecrimecenterofficial.gif he licenses it as his own work. the correct license would be a fair-use license. Of course I'm no expert on licensing  Comp whiz  II  04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided, not plausible reason to doubt the veracity of the uploader that this is in fact entirely his own work. If provided with some webpage, or claim by another party that this is their work, then perhaps the tag would be appropriate.  Until then I assume good faith. JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. Sorry About that.  Comp whiz  II  14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Speedy delete
On Image talk:Tiesto elements of life tour.jpg the only text is "hi. tiesto . i love you. i am from iran," but you said that there was no reason to delete the article. Since this looks like random nonsense to me, I am just curious why? I am not saying that the page shouldn't exist in the future, but for the time being it seems fairly pointless to me. Thanks, Falconus p t   c 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, but it is a talk page, not an article, and there really is no criteria that requires this comment to be removed. It is harmless, and useless, both.  We make a point to not delete user comments on talk pages unless they cause disruption, violate WP:BLP, or otherwise fit criteria requiring removal. JERRY talk contribs 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Thanks, Falconus p  t   c 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Afd Boostrapping
I noticed you got involved in the AfD for Ron Paul legislation. I was wondering if you could provide advice on another Ron Paul related AfD:. The nominator and a few others say that when a subarticle is created and then voted to "delete" on AfD, that the content of that AfD should also be deleted and not allowed to be merged into the main article. In this case, the content details Paul's campaign developments, which are central to the whole article on his presidential campaign (other presidential articles all have a campaign developments section, which means it's supposed to be there). I've already merged the content in question back in (and cleaned it up, too), but several editors (such as tqbf) have threatened to delete it if the AfD ends with a vote of "deletion," which strikes me as counter-productive to making the presidential article a good one. Can you please advise me, or join in on the talk page to help moderate the disagreement? Thanks! Buspar (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not being very familiar with the subject of the articles in question, I can only speak to the wikipedia processes involved.
 * First, a minor clarification: in the case of the AFD for Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, as closing admin, I determined that the concensus was to keep the article. This determination was based on the number of !votes, the strength of agument, and applicability of policy, guideline, or precedent cited by each comment.  At no time did I personally review the article itself or come up with my own reasoning for whether the article should be deleted or not.  The closing admin (or non-admin) of an AFD must be an impartial nuetral party.  Therefore it would not be correct to say (as you did above) that I got involved in the AfD, (if you meant the actual discussion), as my involvement was limited, as I just stated, to closing the discussion.
 * In the case of the AFD for Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign_developments%2C_2008, I see that it was closed by a non-admin, User:Zetawoof. In his closing comments, he states it is to be (or already was) merged and redirected to the parent article, Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008.  Non-admin closures are reserved for non-controversial keep closes only, and merge/redirect in-fact both (and combined) are forms of keep.  As for non-controversial, this would require further analysis.
 * First of all, let me say that the bolded summary at the beginning of a !vote comment is the least important part there. This is the most widely misunderstood thing about XFD debate closures, imho.  The closer must analyze each comment, and make the determination as to whether it is made in good faith, whether the cited reason is applicable and valid, and whether the bolded lead recommendation actually matches the comment.  I could show you an example sometime, where every single !vote on an CFD was I agree, but each person actually meant that the recommendation of the nominator should not be done.  This gets very tricky sometimes.  Other times people say something like "Keep this band is really good and will be famous someday." or "Delete the article contains numerous spelling errors.''' the likes of which have to be ignored completey by the closer.
 * So in the AFD in question, I see the nominator states that the content should have been in the main article, but then says delete do not merge, which is contrary to the basis of his nom, as he stated it. He seems to say this as an appeal to punish somebody for not doing what he thinks was the right thing to do to begin with.  As closing admin, I would dismis his recommendation and only validate his reasoning, which was "The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing".  Which so far matches the closing by Zetawoof.
 * Buspar,Southern Texas provide sound precedent and reasonable arguments for merge, although seem to disagree with eachother somewhat; their comments are taken as agreement with my interpretation of the nom, again still ok with Zetawoof's closing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad says not worthy of a separate article; again still ok with Zetawoof's closing.  Xdenizen says delete as fancruft, and unexplained comment that does not address the concerns of the nominator, so it is duly ignored. SeanMD80 says merge.  Metropolitan90 says delete per nom.  But as I explained the nom's statement is interpreted as merge, and so therefore is this one. HelloAnnyong says delete as fancruft and that the parent article contains what is needed.  This does not seem to be a vote against merging, but one that clearly does not want a separate article.  Once again, Zetawoof's call seems ok here. Wasted Time R says "One campaign article is enough, no need for daughter articles", which is interpreted as merge.  Hnsampat makes an invalid comment about WP:NOT, and is ignored. Pilotbob says keep, which merge does cover. tqbf basically says that the separate article can't exist, that the parent article should cover the notable content, and that it shuld be edited for quality reasons.  Exactly what Zetawoof closed it as. PeteHurd says he agrees with tqbf, Wasted Time R, whose !votes were interpeted as merge, so he is a merge with lower weighting because he did not provide his own arguments.
 * So my determination is the the closing was correct, and non-controversial. The content that gets added to the parent article must be scrutinized in its own right, but can not be blanket thrown out because of the AFD. JERRY talk contribs 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bunch of thoughts:
 * I thought non-admin closures were reserved for unambiguous "keep". I respect that an experience editor can possibly read a legitimate "merge" from an AfD where the !votes overwhelmingly --- overwhelmingly --- favor delete. I dispute that anyone could call such a read "unambiguous". This AfD should have been closed by an admin.
 * My perception of Zettawoof's close is that it was done because User:Buspar had already merged the content into the main article, thus "mooting" the AfD. To my knowledge, the only thing that moots an AfD is a speedy delete. As a pure, "statutory" process matter, I believe this was handled incorrectly.
 * I caution further: Ron Paul is not the only WP subject that has this problem. Almost the exact same problem occurs with Pokemon cards and, more notoriously, "Family Guy" material. In all these cases, a notable topic becomes an anchor for a constellation of articles about marginalia, which left to fester devolves to WP:OR and fancruft. The logic employed here basically says that nothing can be pruned from WP's coverage of these subjects; a savvy Family Guy fan can simply merge "endangered" content somewhere else, "mooting" the debate.
 * Finally, you've misread the intent of my vote. I probably didn't write it well. Since I contribute to a lot of AfD debates, I'd love to know why my vote was ineffective. I felt I was clear about saying that the content should not be merged.
 * I'm not petulant enough to take this to DRV. My concern WRT Ron Paul is not about the candidacy directly, but rather the problems it's causing for the encyclopedia. The impact of this AfD closure, which resulted in a wholesale merger of content widely considered "cruft" into the main article, has had the effect of damaging an "important" article, for the sake of salvaging content from a marginal one. Too bad, I guess. But I'd like to know what I'm getting wrong about my analysis of this AfD.
 * Thanks in advance for your time. <font color="black" face="courier">--- tqbf 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to review this with you. You said: Delete --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- Let's examine the part that seems like valid reasoning: It seems that you are saying we need fewer articles for this content... hence a merge argument is assumed. I recognize that you also have concerns about the quality of the content, but that is never an issue for AFD, so it gets ignored. Pre-merge or Post-merge editing can easily fix those concerns. I took your statement on face value that you were concerned about the content having "metastasized into many other articles". Merging fixes that perceived problem. JERRY talk contribs 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is.
 * Interesting. So, in the future, I should make it clear when I think a "merge" is inappropriate, and provide reasoning for that? If so, lesson learned, and thanks.
 * Exactly. JERRY talk contribs 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can take your time with one further concern; I also wrote:
 * Content that can't possibly make sense without continuous updates (such as a "list of 2008 events" that ends at January 5th) is inherently unencyclopedic: you're writing a newpaper (or worse, an almanac), not an encyclopedia article. I think everyone working in good faith here realizes that even if Jupiter aligns with Pluto and Paul is elected, virtually all of this content will be jettisoned. Let's take it, and the notion that Wikipedia should carry up-to-the-moment news of campaigns, and kill it off while it's easy. 
 * Setting aside the caustic tone I used here: is the argument valid? The "main" Paul article already had a summary of notable campaign events; the purpose of this article was to break out the campaign in much finer detail, and was rapidly devolving into an up-to-the-moment news resource citing every (positive) appearance of Paul in the news. My read of a "merge" closure is as an endorsement for this type of content. I feel like I must be misunderstanding some aspect of WP:ISNOT, and in your analysis with Buspar, you specifically called out someone else's appeal to ISNOT#NEWS as invalid. What am I missing?
 * Thanks again for your time. I'm not challenging the closure (again I think it was a mistake for Zettawoof to close, but I concede that an admin closure would have gone the same way). I just want to get better at AfD. <font color="black" face="courier">--- tqbf 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not intended to say that things covered in the news can't go in wikipedia until after a long time has passed. It is just saying that immediate coverage in the news is not by itself evidence of notability.  Where the subject is clearly notable, and the event is clearly significant (as was asserted by yourself and several other editors who participated in the AFD), then the notnews does not apply.  If there was some particular nuance that did apply, then the person should have explained it... a simply *Delete per WP:NOT, absent any explanation is to be ignored, if it is contrary to what everyone else said.  As for your comment you just copied above... it was too flowery for me to understand what you were getting at.  You may choose to write AFD comments such that they would be easily understood by those who know nothing about the actual subject of the article, because normally that is who will be closing the debate.  References to Pluto jupiter and jettisoning almanacs was just too much for me to decipher, so it was easy to ignore, especially where you had made a comment I did understand elsewhere in the debate.  If I was the closing admin, I may have taken the time to ask what you meant, if the closing was a close call, but don't count on that when AFD has a backlog. JERRY talk contribs 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Extremely helpful. Thank you! <font color="black" face="courier">--- tqbf 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

From my email
In a message dated 1/5/2008 9:17:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: After reviewing the article it is clear that your post was changed, but it was not by me, the anon. It looks like it was done by a different anon.
 * One of the benefits of being logged-in is that such an error can't be made. It does not seem plausible what you are saying, however, as your IP address was the same as that used in the comment left before and after the change.  Unless you were in some situation where you are using a proxy server, such as at a school or hotel, and somebody near you thought it would be funny to jump in and make the change, but I think you'd have to admit that this is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe.JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In a message dated 1/6/2008 2:13:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes:
 * I didn't even realize that it had been changed until you mentioned it. Then I went and looked and sure enough it had been changed. I was doing my editing around a group of friends who thought this whole thing was comical.  Today, I went back and asked a few of them what they could have done, and sure enough they admitted to making the change, from a different computer on the same wireless network, when I left the room for a while.  Their little joke is not so funny and I have scolded them about it.  So I apologize on their behalf; because they surely won't apologize as they think it is all very funny.  I wouldn't do that, its not my style.
 * Fair enough. While we are communicating somewhat amicably, would you consider working with me to get the Bocce article to a state that we could both live with?  For a start I don't mind if any and all references to the bocce.org site are not in the article.  However, I feel rather disinclined to yield on the point of the alternate names for the sport, as they are in quite widespread use.  Perhaps we could work on a version in an offline location such as Bocce/temp, and see what we can co-create before putting it in the article?  Let me know if this sounds agreeable to you.JERRY talk contribs 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In a message dated 1/5/2008 9:08:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes:

''Jerry, First and foremost, I'm not emailing you here to harass you. I am the anon, now user Bocceman. You seem to be more adept at Wiki than me so what do you say we take this to arbitration? Also why lock the page right after you changed it? Initially you are the one who made the controversial change. We should revert the article to the way it was before the controversy started and then lock it for arbitration. Essentially you're doing what you accuse me of; slanting the page to my own view. We disagree, but I made some valid points that others might agree with in arbitration. What do you say? - _Name_Censored_
 * Since I received this message out of chronological order (my spam filter got it) I assume that I don't need to respond, as I have already replied to address your concerns. JERRY talk contribs 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In a message dated 1/10/2008 1:47:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes: Jerry, The idea of collaborating on a bocce article is a good one. I know much about bocce; and you seem to know a lot about writing and editing wiki articles. I just need some time to wrap my head around the idea. I'm really busy with life (like everybody), so we would have to take our time. But I imagine this is a lengthy process anyway. The sport is old and the accurate histories and such are often written in French and Italian.
 * Great! I look forward to collaborating with you! I am glad we have been able to turn around a conflict into a mutually beneficial outcome without the drama of an official dispute resolution process.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In a message dated 1/10/2008 8:10:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p_censored_y@yahoo.com writes:

Ditto!
 * }

Why was the article I created J0HNNY deleted
Jerry, I dont see why the page J0HNNY is not of significance, it pairs up to what is already on Wikipedia, meaning other artists that have this artist featured. Please explain further what I need to do to get this information that is viable to get posted on wikipedia. get back to me as soon as possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love438 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see User:Love438/J0HNNY - I deleted this article because it does not assert the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Please review that, and improve the article in your userspace, if you think it can meet WP:BAND.  If you thinki my deletion wass hasty and you think the article clearly does already meet the requirements, please elt me kmow or refer the matter to WP:DELREV. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You violated the agreement about undeletion of articles by recreating the article in mainspace without addressing the concerns. I have therefore deleted the offline copy.  Please do not recreate the article again without addressing the concerns, or YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Consider this a FINAL WARNING. JERRY talk contribs 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you for the heads up, and instruction - ok thanks for the speedy reply i will carefully read over what you gave me, wikipedia, has alot of rules and regulations, a bit much to read through but thanks for pointing me in the right direction ill try to get this all coveed so hopefully it goes up the proper way. -Love438 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love438 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

note: the article was recreated again by the user a few minutes later

J0HNNY,
I won't take it as wheel-warring if you want to delete the article. I give you my permission to do what you want with it. Probably best to leave it to another admin. I have tried clearing it up, but it is bad and sources are lacking. Have fun ;) They call this passing the buck in some countries ;) Woody (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't have a real emotional attachment to the article either way. I just don't appreciate an editor abusing my undeletion policy to recreate deleted content, so he has been accordingly blocked. I will not edit or delete the article again. JERRY talk contribs 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the editor does seem to be stretching his luck somewhat. I have added in a couple of "references" for what it is worth. The editor specifically asked for an AFD, so I made one simply to avoid constant deletion and probably salting of the article. (and subsequent aggravation to be honest.) We will let the afd cogs turn and see what comes out of it. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Good Thing and Bad Thing
I restored Good Thing and Bad Thing‎. I don't believe CSD A3 applies in this case. If you disagree, please feel free to nominate it for AfD. - jc37 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will leave it alone, but I have only rarely seen something less encyclopedic than that. Maybe I just don't get the inside joke associated with it?  I see people leaving the comment A BAD THING and A GOOD THING alot lately, so maybe I just have my head in the sand or up my %^&? JERRY talk contribs 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria
"!Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored." Do you think you could take the trouble to explain why? -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's really no trouble at all, Mattinbgn. WP:AFD is the wrong process for content improvement, the correct process is WP:EDIT.  There is no need to delete the page history to change the content of the page, unless it is a WP:BLP or WP:CV violation.  Any editor may use the edit button without an AFD to improve the article.  If the subject was notable enough for a rewritten article, then it is notable, and therefore not a candidate for deletion.  So those !votes, you see, were self-contradictory, and therefore ignored.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree and will take to WP:DRV. There is no content in the existing article worth saving, and no reason to believe that anyone is going to rewrite in the immediate future.  A delete and rewrite does not mean delete and rewrite immediately, it means this article is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia but there is no prejudice against a rewrite should someone care to do so in the future.
 * Stubbing the article at this stage would leave "North Central Victoria is a region in the northern part of Central Victoria." This would be subject to speedy deletion under criterion A3. Thanks for the prompt explanation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with putting this up at DELREV. I doubt we'd come to some mutual conclusion here. JERRY talk contribs 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of North Central Victoria. 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. Mattinbgn\talk 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so short earlier. I must admit I was surprised by the decision and its basis but I should have been a little more civil. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed nothing out of the ordinary, no worries here, mate. I understand your concerns, and now that the article is stubbified, I may even agree with the need to delete it.  But the article was not that way at the time of closing, so a WP:CSD would be my preference over having my closing decision reversed.  I would even agree to carrying out said deletion if the delrev were to be withdrawn. offer retracted due to article improvement. JERRY talk contribs 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I will withdraw but not for deletion. User:Euryalus has done a sterling job of writing a passable stub. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that myself. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School
Hi, I notice that you have added a scroll to the reflist of Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School. I have much sympathy with this since I added a similar one to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Unfortunately the policy wonks spotted it and got the policy changed to outlaw it see here. Naturally, I am not going to change anything but thought you might like to know. TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They have alot of work to do then... see Michael Jackson. I am sure they will change their mind when editors complain that stubs with 28 fully-documented references have 1/2 inch of content and 19 inches of references.  But first they will probably try some lame measure to limit the size or number of references, or the full use of the cite web templates for stubs.... an unmanageable task.... then they will decide to tell everyone to use discretion and scroll them again.  In the meantime I will let them deal with it, it is their mess. JERRY talk contribs 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Barnstar of Recovery
Ha! Thank you. I actually made the edits after you closed the North Central Victoria AfD in which I supported deletion. Seeing as the decision went against me I thought I may as well swallow my pride and improve the article. I still don't think it is viable as a regional descriptor but let's see what can be made of it. Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

Correctness
Whyy Yes you are correct —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoJo15 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * }

Social networking?
To get a site listed in this social network you need to make a contribution as a writer? This site is worth listing as it is a not for profit site trying to do good. http://www.handmessages.com Why do I need help? -A--Pinkpig3144 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)amelia
 * Please have a read over WP:WEB. I think your questions will be answered there. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Querying your close of Articles for deletion/Courier (comics)
Hi Jerry, You closed the AfD as no consensus. I believe your decision is not the obvious one. Could you please explain your decision, perhaps on the AfD talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss this before going to DELREV. I do make every attempt to be fair and impartial in my closing decisions.  What I saw was one editor state that the article was needing to be deleted, one editor agreed with them, and one editor stated that the article should be merged, citing objections to the criteria raised by the nom.  Two other editors then added a merge/redirect, but one of them suggested the reason was that the subject was not notable.


 * So it was a very close call. If all of the merge !votes were counted with equal weight, then the decision would have been merge/redirect, which is a form of keep.  Any editor may merge content and redirect one article page to another.  But I decided to provide a little less weight to one of the merge/redirect !votes, because his reasoning seemed more akin with a delete vote.  So I declared it no concensus.  I really don't see what the matter is, though, because no concensus is also a keep, and in no way prevents any editor from merging and redirecting.  Basically the one thing that was clear to me was that delete was not the proper outcome, and I had to split hairs to decide exactly which name to give my keep decision. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious as to your thinking behind your close in this debate. Hiding T 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Keep, no concensus, and merge are all mostly the same outcome, in that the article history does not need to be deleted, just somebody might have to edit the article to push some content over to another article and make a redirect or stubbify the original.  These actions do not require an AFD at all, and when an AFD that originally started as a delete effort ends this way it is really just a way of saying "no, we are not going to delete it".  So it is usually not very important to agonize over distinguishing between them, especially if the !vote level was low, especially after a relist, and there was a dead-even split decision about it.  The only real thing to worry about is whether to delete or not.  On that line, I offer the following:


 * SatyrTN suggested deletion, noting that the article Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION.
 * Hiding T (you) said that there was a suitable merge candidate out there, which is an objection to delete.
 * Kww said Delete. Non-notable, no real-world information, which is an objection to merge.
 * BOZ said Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics)
 * SmokeyJoe said Merge and  Redirect into Gambit (comics). but then he made a comment that the content was not notable, which is really a delete vote.
 * So I counted 2 deletes, 2 merges, and one delete disguised as a merge/ merge disguised as a delete. I determined that there was not enough concensus to delete the article, and that a "no concensus" close would allow editors to merge and redirect as they see fit.  I realize that I could have as easily clsoed as Merge/Redirect, and this may have seemed more proper... but as I explained at the top, this is really the same outcome, a default keep.  So since you first suggested it, I would encourage you to do so, as this is in perfect keeping with my closing. JERRY talk contribs 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

DRV
There is no way consensus could be determined from that AfD, which was closed very rapidly. So, if you still think the article should/could be deleted by afd, just start another one. Viridae Talk 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. My concern was that the participation by the editor who provided a rational argument for deletion would be discounted, unless said editor came to the new AFD.  I would have just preferred to undo the close and relist the existing discussion, but I could not find any precedent for this being acceptable.  But now that you pointed out that it would not be possible to determine outcome concensus from such low participation, and having re-read delrev, I do agree with the closing.  Objection withdrawn. JERRY talk contribs 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured that was what might have been the issue, but there is not much point in re-opening the afd, because the nom withdrew it. However feel free to contact the person !voting delete and suggest they open a new afd, or participate in one you open. Viridae Talk 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will contact the delete participator and suggest he nominate it again and offer my assistance in doing so. I don't have a strong opinion about the article in question, nor enough interest in nor sufficient knowledge of the subject to sponsor an AFD myself. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pilot (CSI)
Hello, I have determined that the referenced AFD was closed out-of-process, and I encourage you to create a new nomination. Although the nominator changed his mind and withdrew the nomination, this is not suitable grounds to close the debate, as another editor (you) had already !voted delete, and provided valid rationale to back your !vote. My personal opinion of the remaining !votes there was that they were very weak, and the only policy they cited which had relevance was WP:IAR, which does not often trump clear policy and guidelines for notability. If you decide to renominate these articles but require assistance to do so, please do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. I am here to help! JERRY talk contribs 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was a bit surprised that the nominator backed down so quickly. I am away for a couple of days and will think about it: it might be worth the effort, to try and establish that WP:NOT actually means something, though I flinch rather at the thoght of the eight further series... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

Edit
Hey, what's up with this edit? -- E n d l es s D a n  14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can you please reply on my talk page? Thanks! -- E n d l es s D a n  14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: null edit to your user page - Your page was transcluded into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. There was no apparent reason why this happeded.  Sometimes this can happen if a user accidentally edits one of the templates that you have on your page then subseqeuntly fixes that error.  Some pages just get "stuck" in the category.  Purging the server cache does not fix the problem, as it is a database error, not a server error. The only fix for it is to perform an edit to the page.  In such cases I perform a "null" edit, which means the resulting parsed page does not change, but it does get recompiled.  This always works to remove the page from the category.  If you look at my edit summary, I usually explain it fairly well; eg: "null edit to remove from candidates for speedy deletion". Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. -- E n d l es s D a n  15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. JERRY talk contribs 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question via email relative to my speedy deletion of an article, which resulted in a user accusing me of racism.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Article deleted, why
In a message dated 1/5/2008 2:00:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, m_Censored_s@yahoo.com writes: If you are writing an article about a book, which is a press release, who would it be considered Blatent Advertising? What is the standard for writing about a novel that has been talked about amongst several college communities? Please explain a little nicer than the way BLATENT ADVERTISING was posted (that's pretty harsh and uncivil, especially if I am new at this). Sincerly, _Censored_Censored_


 * Hello _Censored_, It would be helpful if you told me the article name so I could look at the logs, review the deleted history, etc. As for your concerns you listed, I really don't understand what you are saying, no offense intended, but I am guessing that English is not your primary language.  It sounds like you are saying that you are trying to use wikipedia as a press release.  This is certainly blatant advertising.  If you mean something different, then please accept my apology and try to explain it again.  But again, please include the article name. JERRY talk contribs 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In a message dated 1/10/2008 1:27:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

From: mayhousepress@yahoo.com To: Jerryopennap@aol.com Sent: 1/10/2008 1:27:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time m_Censored_s@yahoo.com writes: That was a pretty racial comment and assumption! Did you figure that I was a foreigner because of the name or the misinterpretation? Wow! I feel I no longer need to be associated with a company who presumes that I am a foreigner. That is exceedingly racial. English is my first language sir, born and reared in California. I majored in English with a Minor in Journalism from Cal State San Bernardino. To imply that I am a foreigner and in a racial tone is something that needs to be looked at by Wikipedia Executives. After reading further on Wikipedia, having no one respond promptly to accept the corrected changes that were made, and dealing with the continued rudeness, I wish no longer to associate myself with Wikipedia news as a contributor. Due to the fact that I was upset and unaware of the standards for WikiNews, I will say that out of the anger there were several misspells. The note should have read as followed: If you are writing a Wikiarticle in regards to a novel, which happens to be a press release for said novel, why would it be considered "Blatant Advertising?" What is the standard for writing a column for a novel that is on several HBCU's (Historically Black College Universities) "must read list” and the "most talked about novel? It would be nice if the explanation was not as harsh, especially to new writers for WikiNews. Well, a couple important things I need to tell you: First, Wikinews.com has no relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation, so you appear to be on the wrong website altogether, which may explain why your expectations are different than wikipedia's policies. Second, I in no way intended to malign you nor use any racial comment. I disagree with your contention that my comment was racial I niether used any racial slurs nor epithets, and I did not suggest you were in any particular race nor did I say anything about if you were. I was making a good faith assumption that the reason your message was so incoherant was that you were possibly struggling to use my language. I can see from your reply that this was not the case, but rather you seem to have particular difficulty communicating in written medium, especially when you are angry. I must say I still do not understand what you are trying to say. There are two possible interpretations of your statement that I have been able to surmise, after great consideration. Both of them are nonsense. On the one hand you could be saying that you wrote an article about a book, and that book was a press release. I have never heard of that. A press release is normally a single page in length, and is broadcast as a message, never referred-to as a book. The other possible interpretation that I came up with is that you wrote an article about a book, and the article, itself, is a press release. This is problematic from numerous standpoints: As for your wanting to address your perceived grievance against me, you do have a few avenues for persuing this. You may contact wikimedia foundation using one of the suggestions found at Contact us. Or you may submit a new Request for comment to have the community review my behavior. This and other options available to you are explained at Dispute resolution. JERRY talk contribs 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles must be written by people who are not related to the subject of the article (See: List of bad article ideas, Neutral point of view, and Conflict of interest).
 * Wikipedia is not a news agency (See: NOT).
 * Wikipedia articles must be about subjects that are notable, notable being defined as having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See: Notability).
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Articles must be attributable to verifiable, credible, reliable, primary sources that are not related to the subject or author of the article. (See: No original research).
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question via email relative to my deletion of WWE_Jakks_Classic_Superstars_Action_Figures, which resulted in a DELREV being submitted.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion of WWE_Jakks_Classic_Superstars_Action_Figures
In a message dated 1/8/2008 4:25:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, j_Censored_o@optonline.net writes: Hello Jerry, My name is _Censored_Censored_ and I am writing to further understand why you went forward with the deletion of: WWE_Jakks_Classic_Superstars_Action_Figures. I found it to be a tadd rediculous for anyone to find this page worthy of deletion. Not only is this page a viable and fruitful source of information for collections, it also contains a lot of info about the evolution of Jakks's WWE figure lines in general. WWE CLASSIC SUPERSTARS figure line is currently the number one selling toy series from Jakks and Number 2 I believe overall in the industry. This series alone as transformed WWE collecting and has revitalized a once failing product. I believe it would be a great service to many collections, researches and fans a like- if you reconsidered re-instating this page to wikipedia. Professionally, _Censored_Censored_


 * Hello _Censored_, the first thing you could do to help yourself understand this situation would be to read a few guidelines that I'll provide for you below. But first, I'd like to clarify what my involvement was in this deletion.


 * As a Wikipedia administrator, I reviewed the deletion debate at Articles for deletion, upon the expiration of it's 5-day comment period. Having reviewed the comments and recommendations, I evaluated what the rough concensus was.  Determining rough concensus is not a vote-count. Instead, the procedure described at Deletion guidelines for administrators is used.  As the administrator closing the debate, at no time do I scrutinize the actual article or formulate my own opinion of it's merit.  I rely solely on the arguments made by those who participated in the AFD, including the policy/ guideline/ precedent they cite.


 * A few policies you should read-up on are:
 * WP:N, the general notability policy.
 * WP:NOT, what wikipedia is not.
 * WP:DELETION, the deletion policy.


 * In addition, if you feel that my closing of the debate was inappropriate for any reason, you may request a review at WP:DELREV. JERRY talk contribs 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question via email relative to my AFD-closing and subsequent deletion of The Landing Mall.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

The Landing Mall
I think you closed the deletion discussion prematurely, as there were only three votes, and there was no consensus. I made a valid point on why it should've been kept, yet only two delete votes with little explanation superseded me :S --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for contacting me about the closing of the article deletion debate for The Landing Mall. I appreciate your concerns and good faith attempt to amicably discuss the situation.
 * I hear what you are saying, but I do disagree with your reasoning and your estimation of the rough concensus. You apparently discounted the !vote of the nominator; which makes 3, not 2 editors who recommended deletion.  Their cited rationale was consistent with policy/ guideline/ precedent.  Your sole keep !vote had the rationale "regional shopping centres are generally notable", which is not per any policy nor guideline I am aware of, and certainly not precedent, based on the numerous almost unanimous recent deletion debates for other articles about regional shopping centres.  As for premature, the debate was closed nearly nine days after it was started, where the policy states the length should usually be 5 days.
 * I was confident that no matter how long the debate continued, the outcome would not have changed, so I chose not to relist it, and closed it according to the rough concensus that I determined existed. If you still disagree, you may choose to open a review request at WP:DELREV.
 * Thank-you, JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user explained why a category at CSD was actually empty, (although it contained a project talk page) so I deleted it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Category Sudetenland
Actually it is empty, it contains only a wikiproject talk which is for being in the category invalid.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I deleted it.JERRY talk contribs 12:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user noticed my error in the closing tag for an AFD, and I was a little numb about it at first, but I finally got it :) 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dark data AfD
Hi Jerry. I notice that you have closed the Dark data AfD as "delete", or at least that's what the edit tag says. The actual AfD page, though, seems to leave the matter up in the air. You might want to take a look at it. Tim Ross 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFD has the proper closing tags on it. As for the determination of concensus:

Valid Delete !votes:
 * 1) Carrados nominated the deletion, stating it is a non-notable neologism.
 * 2) Lesser Shadow supported deletion, as the term was a one-liner.
 * 3) TheBilly TheBilly calls for deletion because it is a neologism and just a definition.
 * 4) Rustam calls for delete as unreferenced new term, and states it is not acceptable for wiktionary.
 * 5) bikeable calls for deletion without prejudice, as a neologism with no momentum.
 * 6) Pavel Vozenilek calls for delete as neologism.

Valid Keep !votes: (none)

Neutral !votes
 * 1) UltraExactZZ found one source, and then noted that the term is used a second time with a completely different meaning. His !vote was neutral.
 * 2) Tim Ross makes a neutral !vote and adds references, and suggests the article should be kept because it will be recreated if it is deleted.

Invalidated !votes:
 * 1) TheBilly !voted twice, weak keep had poor arguments if x then y and give it a chance
 * 2) Joseanne !votes keep based on Tim Ross's statement about recreation.

I saw clear concensus to delete. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Jerry. I guess I wasn't very clear (above). I have no argument with your decision to close/delete. Quite reasonable. I was just trying to point out that there is a problem with the actual page Articles for deletion/Dark data. At least on my browser, the final line is "The result was", followed by nothing at all. Tim Ross  13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I think it is a browser issue, although I am uncertain what kind of error it would be. Do you have a monobook script to provide icons on closing decisions and !votes?  If so, then you may want to verify the script allows for capitalized and uncapitalized summary terms.  Please go into "edit this page" on the AFD in question, and you should see the following:

}} which should look like this: (You may or may not have the "X" icon, depending on if you use a monobook script to add icons or not.) JERRY talk contribs 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * NEVERMIND

I found the error. I had used the top closing template at the bottom as well. I fixed it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JERRY talk contribs 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A templatized delrev notice for an AFD I closed; note that once again, this nominator made no effort to discuss this with me first .
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

DELREV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carl Wheezer. 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. Note: This delrev was closed as nomination withdrawn in its first day. This emphasizes the need to follow the steps outlined at WP:DELREV, including discussing the objection with the closing admin BEFORE submitting a DELREV.
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Two conversations about an unfortunate WP:BITE-case that I reported at WP:AN/I.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

re:What is the basis for claiming that User:Eonon is banned?
I apologise when I made a cock-up of a CSD tag, I pressed banned on the TW button when I though that it means that it had to be deleted because it was a created by a user that is now banned. I feel afterward that I pressed the wrong tag and didn't know what to do with it, plus I didn't feel I am in a position to remove the tag. Willirennen (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerry, if you see I've obviously made a mistake (I usually edit very fatigued), just please undo it. :-) <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 01:32, January 12, 2008
 * I have no problem with that, but as you will see, my complaint about this situation was more of a systemic one. Your involvement was small and understandable. JERRY talk contribs 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thread at AN/I
This diff - - I wanted to post that, but I would just get shot down in flames if I did. For what it's worth, I don't feel you are being "too sensitive", and you asked some very good questions that need answering. DuncanHill (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support! I understand your hesistance to jump in at this point in the discussion, but perhaps you'll watchlist it?  Safety in numbers, and all that... it is possible that some sane people will come along and comment.  JERRY talk contribs 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist - and there are plenty of sane people about, it's just not always easy to find them! DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Rudget is admin!
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Rudget!
<div style="background-color: white; border: #5B92E5 solid 2px; margin-bottom:.5em; padding: 5px; font-family: trebuchet ms, sans-serif;"> Dear Jerry, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about my comments after an AfD, which ultimately I ended under my talk page rule #5.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

re: Dark data AfD
I've replied to your comment on User:Tim Ross's talk page. I've requested that you strike out your mistake because it's a factual inaccuracy about me (I didn't do it myself because users generally shouldn't edit the comments of others). I simply put my comment under all the rest because that section is a mess and there's no good place to insert a reply indented with : or * (I hope you won't find that too confusing) &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I do not agree. Here is my research on the matter: Contribution history for Articles for deletion/Dark_data by : JERRY talk contribs 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Jerry, Please don't make false statements about me. I did not vote twice. I made one vote, and I replied to other people's comments. You must be confused by my response to "Darn... Don't most articles start as a one liner". Please strike out your mistake with. Although it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, if you had correctly read the comments you would have seen my only vote was "weak keep"
 * this diff
 * An article about a phrase has to be more than a definition otherwise it should be deleted per WP:NOT, and in this case, WP:NEO
 * this diff
 * Weak keep This term immediately brings to mind another...
 * this diff
 * Here's a reference...

As far as my "poor arguments", I have no idea what you're talking about there. There is no mandate that neologisms are forbidden, only that they must be notable and be more than a definition and etymology. Reducing my argument to "if x, then y" is a straw man argument (a poor argument; a non-argument, in fact! It's a fallacy). My argument was that evidence of notability probably could be found comparable to the neologism "dark fiber". It turned out that no evidence of notability was found, and so it was deleted. If I wanted to say "keep per dark fiber", then I would have said "keep per dark fiber". My only point in mentioning that was to remind everyone that tacking something like "dark" onto a word is not uncommon (English is flexible this way), and it suggests to me that it may be a legitimate term for which sources can be found. If an article does seem to have room for improvement, then it CAN be kept. There was nothing invalid about my arugment, there was merely a strong opinion that notability could not be established. "Give it a chance" is not an invalid request (if notability is not doubted) and it's the reason we have stubs. If you're going to disparage other people's arguments, I recommend you take better care to understand them - especially as an administrator &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TheBilly, an If X then Y or X:Y argument is like "if we have an article about cows, then we must have an article about horses" or "if we delete the article about Battlestar Galactica, then we must delete the article about Star Wars." Such arguments are nothing more than a waste of bits, and are completely ignored by me when I evaluate an AfD to determine rough concensus prior to closing a debate.  Your phrase "This term immediately brings to mind another neologism, dark fiber", was interpreted as such.  Since you never explained this phrase further, I don't know how you would have expected me to interpret it.  You should make your comments in an AfD very clear and keep in mind that the admin closing the debate probably knows very little about the subject of the article or any related articles.  Admins who are very familiar with the subject probably would participate in the debate, not close it. JERRY talk contribs 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of opinion, so you weren't asked to agree or disagree. I'm explaining why you are wrong, and asking you to correct your mistake.
 * She said: "Could you explain why you would consider it a neologism".
 * I responded: "Because it's a recently coined term not yet in the dictionary" (etc).
 * This "Joseane" didn't indent her comment, but the comment under hers (mine) is still obviously a reply to it.
 * There's only one vote from me there. In AfD, we bold our votes. I bolded my vote. I don't see how you can continue to argue otherwise. The only reason you should continue to argue that I voted twice is if you think I'm blatantly lying and trying to deceive you (which would not be assuming good faith). I know how many votes I made because I'm me. &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are obviously having difficulty understanding this process, and I do not feel like discussing it with you any further, as you have become slightly uncivil. Please ask other people for assistance if you still want it, as I am ending this thread here. JERRY talk contribs 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A question about a DELREV that ended in an unusual way (the DELREV did, not this conversation).
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures
I was wondering what the new information was that lead to you undeleting and reopening the AfD you closed? I've looked through the AfD, Deletion review and the article and its talk page and nothing really jumps out at me. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

In the DELREV, two people left comments that concerned me that deletion might not be the long term correct thing for this article, (although I think I did the best job possible at evaluating the AFD and did close it properly): Therefore under the Deletion Policy caveat: if there is any doubt do not delete, I chose to relist it. I also voluntarily recused myself from closing it again. JERRY talk contribs 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) November '98 copy of Lee's Toy Review magazine with a Jakks WWF figure as the main cover story
 * 2) relist on the basis of new information

AfD question

 * Thanks for the quick response. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Willirennen's Voluntary Mentoring Agreement.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Willirennen's Voluntary Mentoring Agreement
Replying to Do you accept me as your mentor? on WP:ANI I will, what do i have to do next. Willirennen (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's use a subpage in your user talk space, like User talk:Willirennen/Mentor. I will start the page. JERRY talk contribs 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have signed it, but what do I do with vandals and where do I report them to as I am bound not to let them off lightly. Willirennen (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the subpage, let's keep all correspondence on this issue there. JERRY talk contribs 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The mentioned subpage is transcluded below for my convenience.


 * }

When Jonny Met Sharky
So you deleted this article for the sake of one day? you can you put it back up as it was. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I think you may misunderstand my involvement in this process. I was the administrator who closed the deletion debate about this article, determined the rough concensus of that discussion, and carried-out the prescribed deletion as per that concensus.  This was not done based on my own subjective analysis of the article, or its subject; but rather was based on the assertions and recommendations of those who participated in the debate.  If you believe that I incorrectly assessed the rough concensus, you may initiate a deletion review.  Also note that I speedy-deleted the article a moment ago, under the criteria Recreated XfD content, as the article still lacks any sources and did not assert notability per WP:N.JERRY talk contribs 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

AfD Closing of the Poker psychology article
I read in the deletion policies that I should discuss a closing to an AfD that I disagree with on the closing admin's talk page before taking something to review. I don't understand how a single editor's opinion of redirect constitutes a consensus to redirect when six other editors are of the opinion that the article should be kept. I understand that an AfD isn't a vote, but since only one editor seemed to be of the opinion that a redirect was appropriate, it seems like this outcome is in error. I don't doubt your good intentions, but I'd ask you to reconsider. As it stands now, the stub cannot even be expanded because a redirect has been put in place. And since at least two entire books have been written on the specific subject of psychology in poker, it certainly seems notable enough and covered well enough to warrant expansion.

Having read the discussion, I would think the appropriate outcome would be no consensus and a default to keep as a result of that.

I've added your talk page to my watchlist so that I'll see your comments when you reply here. Thanks. Rray (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (AfD)
 * I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to review my closing decision and for explaining your concerns in a constructive and civil manner. I assure you that I will thoroughly review my decision and provide an explanation, and take remedial action if I feel it is warranted.  I do make mistakes, and I want to correct them when I am aware of it. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 12:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The nominator used invalid rationale that it was nonsense, and that it had not been edited since 2002. Both statements are both false and not valid deletion criteria. His !vote is nullified.

The Billy calls for delete, and explains that it is not nonsense but is unencyclopedic and original research.

2005 initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep.

Sirex initially calls for delete, then after it was stubbified, calls for keep.

Lankiveil calls for delete because it is a short essay from which a proper article can not be created, although he feels the subject is legitamite.

Rray calls for stubbification and keep.

Uncle G gets angry that people are expecting a valid outcome of an AfD is to direct the closing admin to edit the article in a certain way. He makes a very valid point that all the edits that there appears to be forming concensus for, can all be done by anyone without the need for an AfD.

CubeLurker says delete as OR, then changes to neutral after stubbification.

.============= at this point the article content is drastically different ================= colonel warden Keep !vote

pmedema Keep !vote

lessthanclippers Keep !vote

sirex Keep !vote

TheBilly introduces a new argument and points out that the article appears to be a combination of ideas from three already existing and already sourced articles.

PKT calls for delete.

Uncle G points out that the new article has sources, and suggests merge.

WPSize calls for Redirect. (This implies merge valid content first)

Pmedema objects to MErge

Surtel says delete, but makes a valid merge comment.

Teleomatic says delete, but makes a valid merge comment.

Gavin Collins makes an invalid suggestion including request to delete. He is ignored.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So all of the votes at the top were given little or no weight, because they were focussed on article content amd the content changed enough that their points were moot.

4 keep !votes then arrived, but were countered by an overwhelmingly sound suggestion to merge. Only one of these !voters replied in objection.

We then get 4 merge !votes, and 1 delete.

I determined, based on the arguments made, that several of the !votes for keep and delete would have their concerns met by the proposed merge. That and the fact that half of the existing !votes were directly merge, lead me to conclude that merge was the proper outcome. I do stand by that decision and admit that it is not the most clear-cut of debates. Some of them are tough calls, and this one may well get overturned in DELREV, so I support you if you choose to take it there. JERRY talk contribs 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. I understand your reasoning better now, but I still disagree with the final outcome. It seems as if it's now impossible to create an article about the subject, although I suppose someone could do an end run and create an article at Psychology of poker. I've never brought anything to a deletion review before, but I think a default keep is a more appropriate and better solution than the redirect that's been done now. At least two entire books have been written on the subject of poker psychology.


 * I'd ask that you change the outcome to no consensus and default to keep with the understanding that I'll work on expanding the article. I only have one of the two books on the subject, but I'll order the other one on Amazon today. I don't think anyone who suggested merge will be unable to live with the outcome of a "no consensus to delete, default keep" outcome.


 * Seems to me that taking this to a deletion review will probably result in an overturn anyway, and you and I probably both have better things to do than playing bureaucracy games together. :) Thanks again for discussing this with me. Rray (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, what you are suggesting does not require a change to the AfD at all. Since merge is a form of keep, as is no concensus.  The redirect was made because of an editing decision, for which there was concensus; such an editing concensus does not need to occur at an AfD (as Uncle G went to great effort to emphasize at the AfD).  What your suggestion would require, though, would be unprotection.  I only protected the article because another editor restored the content to as it was before the AfD, even though my edit summary makes it clear that the action was taken as a result of ther AfD discussion.  If this editor disagreed with the closing of the AfD, they should have discussed it with me, as you have.  I am willing to make a deal with you, if you agree to it; create the article first in your user space, then once it is at least a satisfactory stub, let me know and I will move it for you across the namespaces, and then unprotect it. Would this be acceptable? JERRY talk contribs 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on my talk page today, but I don't have time to mess with it. I still think your actions as the closing admin were incorrect, and I think unprotecting the page so that the article can be worked on is the right thing to do. There was not a clear consensus to merge that article, and I've explained, both in the AfD and on your talk page, that two entire books have been written on the subject. But I don't even have enough time or interest to even bring it to a deletion review. Good luck with your efforts at improving the Wikipedia. I'm taking some time off though. :) Rray (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok with me that we part company for now, still in peaceful disagreement. I firmly believe that whether my actions were "right" or not, the power is in the hands of the editors to recreate an article and demonstrate that it will not violate the concerns of the closed AFD. This seems a perfectly valid way forward that will not be an inconvenience for anyone concerned. While I do think my actions were right, I also believe it is not important to debate it or prove it, as the recommendation I made is so easy to do, and will certainly result in everyone getting their way. It's an eat cake and still have cake solution. So let them eat cake. JERRY talk contribs 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The wrong way to start a discussion
Your action was inappropriate since you ignored consensus and came up with an obtuse solution. Also, please read WP:DRV, "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." I did create a sourced and complete new stub, which will be expanded. You again acted inappropriately in deleting the new article without discussion. Please revert your inappropriate edit and save us any more of this lawyering silliness. The article is properly cited, states its importance, and was supported in a less complete form by a very wide consensus. Please in the future be rspectful of editors and don't create busy work. It's not nice. Please go ahead and revert your edit. If you don't like the article, put it up for AFD if you want, where the consensus again with no doubt support it. 2005 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rray's comment above is an example that you should aspire to follow, 2005, yours just says I am a big poo-poo head, and I am rather disinclined to give yours a second look. I will look into Rray's concerns and respond accordingly, but yours will be ignored unless you can come up with a nonconfrontational way to restart the discussion. JERRY talk contribs 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. No one said you were a poopoo or anything else. What you did however was not nice, and not respectful of the actions of other editors, both in the afd and much more importantly in very inappropriately deleting and locking a perfectly valid, referenced article.  You should reflect on that, undo your edits, and then we can move on without further time wasted. 2005 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are telling ME to be civil?!?! Now that's a hoot.  And then you go and bash in my teeth a second time?  Just go away. JERRY talk contribs 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

'''User Jerry has invoked his talk page rule #5, and ended this thread. Do not continue this thread here.'''
 * }

Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama
I see only three deletes, one redirect, one neutral, two merges, and two keeps. I think this is no consensus at best. Torc2 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! But that's why I left the long comment after the closing summary.... there are 5 deletes..... look again.... I could point them out to you, but what fun would that be.... think of it like one of those Where's Waldo games, they are there. JERRY talk contribs 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgesurreal777 (nom), Cheeser1, and TheBilly. That's it.  Stardust8212 indirectly votes redirect, but also supports merger if sourced (which JoshuaZ claims to have).  Even if we count Astroview's redirect vote, it's still basically 4 votes to get rid of the information to 4 votes to keep the information in some form. Torc2 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, Stardust8212 says "As such I'd support deleting this in favor of a redirect to the List of page." Which is not an indirect vote to redirect at all... it's a clear delete. Since Torc2 (yes, I realize that's you) struckthrough his/her original keep !vote and added "I'd agree with that." below Stardust8212's comment, it was taken as a delete as well.  Probably not what you meant, based on your objection here, but what's an admin to do?  It's what you said. JERRY talk contribs 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "I agree with that" was a response to the portion "Assuming there are sources for such information I think it would likely serve wikipedia better as an introductory section to the "List of..." page." I clearly voted 'neutral.  Regardless of whether you do something questionable like count my own vote against the AfD even though I explicitly voted neutral, that's still 6-4, which is clearly no consensus.  "What's an admin to do?"  Relist the AfD for starters. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct outcome occurred. If your !vote was neutral, then why are you so vocal about the outcome? Neutral means "I couldn't care less either way". You seem to be ambivalent about your !vote. It's difficult for me to understand that. If you were truly neutral, then why not just walk away from this and not care about the outcome? JERRY talk contribs 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I think the outcome was wrong - I don't think I need a reason beyond that? I don't see a compelling reason to delete it, but I don't see a real strong reason to vote keep on it either, and I wasn't sure which way it should be merged.  I think it should have been kept by default, but I couldn't just cast a vote for "no consensus", and "neutral" doesn't mean "I don't care".  I also think the people voting 'delete' are way too strict in their interpretations of the guidelines and essays they cite, and I'm just not swayed by their arguments.  That said, I'm speaking up about it because it seems like a clear no-consensus outcome to me. Torc2 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see that logic going very far in a DELREV, it seems like you are more interested in the menutia of process than practicality, and I can't get really caught-up in that right now. Better-worded debate comments and more clearly-stated rationale might have made the outcome of this different, but as a human interpreting what was written there, I think I got it as right as could be expected.  When someone says they agree with the comment above it, and the comment above it says delete, I have to ignore the previous time they said they were neutral and count that as a delete. (Truth told, I ignore the neutrals altogether anyway, unless they offer some whole new insight into the discussion, backed solidly by policy).  So my decision stands. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't typically like to jump into other peoples conversations but in this case... Jerry, your interpretation of my statement was correct. The current version of the article has nothing in it which I would consider useful or meaningful to merge so I saw no reason to redirect or merge what was there thus my statement on the order of deleting and redirecting. I think JoshuaZ's source is good and I was aware of it and chose not to change my !2vote because I think starting from scratch with that source would be a better approach. I guess a redirect with a history isn't so bad but hopefully someone won't decide to just merge the whole kit and kaboodle and call it a "lead". Bleh. Anyway, if I'd known about the DRV I would have endorsed the closure. Stardust8212 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Robots in Futurama
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robots in Futurama. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Torc2 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robots in Futurama
I must respectfully disagree with your close of this AfD. In particular, did you note that there was at least one reliable source that was completely about this topic and that there were others that discussed it to a non-trivial extent? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did see that, but I also saw the article described as better handled in the list format, which already existed. The article, as such, was redundant, and in article format invited original research.  The list seemed like the way to go, according to the participants, with no content to merge.JERRY talk contribs 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er yes, I don't know if you've taken a look at the article in question, but it appears(I haven't gotten ahold of the whole thing yet. Stupid paywall) to be talking about the cultural implications and crticism from the Robots in Futurama. That's something that can be reasonably in an article Robots in Futurama but not in a list. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on that (being new information), I would have no objection to the creation of a new article, which I do not think requires the undeletion of the contribution history (in other words overturning my closure) of the previous one. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Request to transwiki a kept AFD target. I am unfamiliar with transwiki procedures and was unable to answer the qustion.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Gallery of Flags of the American Revolution
Per my reasoning on this page, would you consider allowing a transwiki and a soft redirect for this page? Please see my reasoning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret that I am woefully unfamiliar with the transwiki concept. Does such an action require an AfD?  Please educate me.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question about merge being a form of keep closure.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Accidents Sketch
You had it right the first time: two deletes and a merge looks like a consensus to delete to me. After a merge, the original article is usually deleted, with perhaps a redirect.Kww (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, after a merge a redirect is created with the history preserved for continuity of the GFDL license attribution of the contributors. Merge is a keep closure.  The nom was also not calling for delete, but was protesting a prod and wanted input from others, so it was a 2:2 split after being relisted.  That's clear no consensus in my book. JERRY talk contribs 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the nominator as voting delete, but I agree it's ambiguous. I've asked him directly.Kww (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He responded with merge. I'll flip my delete to merge to create a consensus ... I always think that merge is a reasonable action to take on a delete vote, and am a bit surprised that you view merges as keeps.Kww (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things for you to read over: Merge, Keep, and No consensus are all a form of keep. Redirect can be a keep or delete, depending on the context of the redirect action. And delete is a delete, obviously. JERRY talk contribs 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD, especially where it says "Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge."
 * WP:MERGE, especially where it says "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from."
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Compliment from fellow admin for citing WP:HEY in afd closing edit summary.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

WP:HEY
Thanks for linking to WP:HEY here... hadn't read that one yet. Definitely seen that come up in AfDs, good to give a name to it. Makes it a little easier to explain the concept, too. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'm surprised to see someone actually reads edit summaries. I debated for a bit whether to put it in the actual AfD, but it seemed a marginal case, so I didn't... didn't want to overuse it.  I've improved many articles (all about schools) that were at AfD with numerous (>10) delete votes and few if any keeps, and the result turned around after article improvement.  That's where I learned about the WP:HEY thing.  I think it's nice to recognize an editor who saves an article. JERRY talk contribs 21:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Discussion continued from an AFD, where 2 editors objected to my comment. See WP:DEMAND.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

AfD comments
Re: Articles for deletion/RHEMA Bible Training Center. It _is_ Saturday night, perhaps not the best time for initiating a potentially heated discussion. Shall we just say that both of our comments were inappropriate for AfD and delete them? Of course, if you'd genuinely like to discuss the issue, I'm sure there's an appropriate venue to do it. :) Tevildo (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean delete my reply to your comment or my initial comment upon relisting that you replied to? My original comment is a rather standard comment that administrators leave when the AFD debate seems to be reaching consensus that some admin out there should go do alot of work and research, then choose an article to merge with and then determine which content to merge and then do those edits.  Inevitably, this would result in all kinds of talk page discussion because he would probably get it all wrong on the first pass.  The correct admin to close a discussion is one that does not have a strong opinion on the subject of the article.  If an admin knows enough about the article subject to do all those actions requested, he or she should participate in the Afd, NOT close it. JERRY talk contribs 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, to start with, I've never seen that sort of comment after a relist (as opposed to a close), and - as you may have gathered - I felt that you could have expressed yourself in a rather less forceful manner. Your comment might also be interpreted as an indication that "Merge" is not a valid AfD opinion, which would seem to be contradicted by the majority of debates.  True, doing a merge requires more work than doing a delete; however (and this is _my_ point), it's not what I would call a major task.  If there's a clear consensus to merge to a well-defined article, then that process should be within the capabilities of most editors, let alone admins; if there isn't a clear consensus (which, I agree, there doesn't seem to be as yet on this particular AfD), then I would have assumed the correct procedure would be for an admin to merely re-list the article until such a consensus is reached.  I would agree - if this is the point you're making - that someone who thinks an article should be merged shouldn't nominate it for AfD instead.  However, that's not what happened here.  The original nominator wanted the article to be deleted; the subsequent commenters, myself included, felt that a merge was a more appropriate means of dealing with the article.  I wouldn't say myself that this was in any way an abuse of the AfD process. Tevildo (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to retract a portion of my above comment, because it is a misrepresentation, or exaggeration, of what I believe to be true. I said "My original comment is a rather standard comment".  I do not actually believe that; otherwise there would be some essay and/or template I could point you to.  But I have seen it said many times, possibly by a minority of admins.  I do, however, believe it is 100% accurate and an approprite if not essential thing to say in such a case. JERRY talk contribs 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been no abuse of AfD process here. The problem is that many editors glance at relisted AfD's, see a bunch of editors who all seemed to agree with eachother before the relist and pile-on more agreement !votes, sometimes rediculing the relisting admin. The AFD could not be closed as merge, because there was no consensus as to where the content would be merged, and what content would be merged. It is a fairly sizeable article. My comment was not intended as a scolding of the previous commenters, as I feel they were on the right track, but rather was a preemptive strike against pile-on !votes that would not help consensus get reached. I do believe that editors have a responsibility to do the merge themselves, except in straight-forward cases, like where an entire article will become a new section in another article. To say "Take the encyclopedic content, reformat it in a neutral point of view, and merge it with an appropriate article", is just an unreasonable recommendation to put on the closing admin. JERRY talk contribs 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerry, I share your feeling of impatience at the time wasted at AfD formany of these that could and should be settled otherwise, but there are friendlier ways to word this. anyway, closing with a merge as a compromise is a reasonable thing to do. It might be appropriate to criticise a nom who brings something to afd and suggests a merge, but it is not reasonable to criticize people who join the discussion and suggest a merge rather than a delete. It's not as if you have to do the merge yourself if you close--you can say "Keep, and discuss the merge on the talk page." or even "Close, recommend considering a merge" It is anyhow quite appropriate to ask an admin for help in performing a merge, and is in fact recommended in many cases by WP:MERGE. I'd suggest you go back to some of the AfDs and modify or even strike your comments there. DGG (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a comment I left another editor after a lengthy conversation on the subject:
 * I agree that there has been no abuse of AfD process here. The problem is that many editors glance at relisted AfD's, see a bunch of editors who all seemed to agree with eachother before the relist and pile-on more agreement !votes, sometimes rediculing the relisting admin. The AFD could not be closed as merge, because there was no consensus as to where the content would be merged, and what content would be merged. It is a fairly sizeable article. My comment was not intended as a scolding of the previous commenters, as I feel they were on the right track, but rather was a preemptive strike against pile-on !votes that would not help consensus get reached. I do believe that editors have a responsibility to do the merge themselves, except in straight-forward cases, like where an entire article will become a new section in another article. To say "Take the encyclopedic content, reformat it in a neutral point of view, and merge it with an appropriate article", is just an unreasonable recommendation to put on the closing admin. JERRY talk contribs 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think my comment lacked tact. I have re-read it, and it seems perfectly civil and to the point.  I sincerely believe that editors should either perform the edit themselves or be much more specific with their rcommendation.  Just a "merge" with a justification for WHY without any WHAT or WHERE, followed by numerous I AGREE's, is not using the process for its intended purpose.  By relisting it and making the suggestion that I did, I am hoping that other editors will come along and either do the edit themselves, or be more specific so that consensus can be reached.  I guess I could just close the debate as merge and say "action to be taken by others", but I was going for the "teach fishing" instead of "giving out fish" concept, or if you don't like concealed biblical references, I was going for the jelly-of-the-month-club solution, you know, the gift that keeps on giving.  3 Guesses where that's from. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question from an editor on hoe to get consensus on merging articles
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Recommendation on similar process to AFD's for merging articles
Hi Jerry, thanks very much for your comment on Articles for deletion/Udo's Choice Food Pyramids. In a completely unrelated process question, is there a process similar to an AFD for broader input on merging articles? I know about the merge template but that only seems to generate input from people who have the article on their watchlist. The reason I ask is that there are four articles that I want to generate broader input for a merger into 1 yet to be created article. Would you know what the best process is for doing this? Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know of a specific process to seek input for a merge proposal. Of course if the merge is one side of an editing dispute, then WP:RFC is a good choice, but this would not seem to apply in your mentioned case.  Village pump (miscellaneous) is a non-descript venue for seeking broad input from the community.  I hope this helps. JERRY talk contribs 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Templated notification of an unnecessary DELREV without prior discussion.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion Review for Template:Progress spacecraft/Launch
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Progress spacecraft/Launch. 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. - I originally nominated this page for speedy deletion under G6, which you closed. I have since withdrawn that nomination in light of new practices with regard to these templates, which I am attempting to retrospectively apply to two deleted templates, which may be useful under the new system. If you are interested in any way, please see this page. Thanks. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Request fulfilled. In the future it is not necessary (and undesirable) to submit a delrev before conversing with the deletion admin. A non-controversial request such as this does not require a delrev. JERRY talk contribs 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I only used delrev this time because the lines of authority were unclear (two deleting admins for two pages). Thanks for completing the request, and moving the pages. Now the templates are in their correct locations, I'll go ahead and nominate the redirects for deletion again under G6. Sorry for the confusion. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Question from a user about my deletion of an article. I referred them to the DELREV that endorsed the closure. They opened another DELREV. (sigh).'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Your deletion of Maurizio Giuliano
Hi Jerry. I am not sure where I should post a message to you, so I will post it here. I only access wikipedia every couple of months, so apologies for not noticing this earlier.

I see that although there was no consensus to delete the article, this is the decision taken. I am surprised. In particular:
 * I can confirm that Maurizio Giuliano whom I know personally is in the Guinness Book of World Records, 2006 edition, page 126 on UK edition. I can send you the scanned copy of the page.
 * Regarding his books, there are plenty of reviews not related to the subject, such as in US and Spanish media, most available online.
 * Regarding his status as a UN official, this was not even mentioned in the article. So I don't understand why someone would discuss about information which was not even there...

I hope you can let me know your views, as I think the case should be reopened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found that there was consensus to delete. This AfD has already been contested at DELREV, and the deletion has been endorsed.  See the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Maurizio Giuliano
Thanks Jerry for the prompt reply. I am sorry I am not sure what is the correct way to send messages other than the talk page.

Anyway, yes I can see that the issue was debated, but I have two concerns: - There seems to be one user who has targeted the article (or its subject) in an almost obsessive way. This is clear, for example, from the fact that that particular user disputes the subject's notability as a UN official - not relevant, since the article did not even mention his status as a UN official, but only as an author and a Guinness record holder ! Does this not suggest that there was some kind of almost personal animosity ? - There may have been lack of due process, with the same user insisting on the same arguments, most of which are flawed (i.e. he IS in the Guiness Book and this can be proven, and he IS an author with third-party published reviews which are NOT self-published materials).

I honestly think the case should be reopened. Is there a higher authority that can be appealed to ?

Cheers,

--CCorward —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You could open a new DELREV. See WP:DELREV. JERRY talk contribs 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Notification of an unnecessary DELREV without prior discussion.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Alesana
Hi Jerry, you closed the AfD on this article. I am making the case that the article should be restored in a revised version at WP:DRV; your comments are welcome. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Alesana
First, let me apologize if I am formatting this comment incorrectly; your talk page is a bit confusing. Second, I wanted to clarify why I went to DRV. Simply contacting the admin after an A7 is something I do all the time. However, at an AfD, there has been a community consensus to delete; it is my understanding that, in the face of this (particularly given that it closed yesterday), it is not simply sufficient to contact the deleting admin. In order to keep from having the article speedied without comment as a G4, I would hedge my bets and ask the community for consensus to re-create the article. In any case, I didn't mean to seem as if I were wasting your time with a frivolous request. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your intentions. However, I can not see how a DELREV could bring about any resolution to your concerns.  As I described, a talk page note stating something to the effect of: "This article is not a substantial recreation of the previously deleted content, and it addresses the concerns voiced about the previous version in the following ways:..." would probably do the trick.  If an admin then deleted the page without reading the talk page, then a quick note to him/ her might make them blush and quickly undo the deletion with an apology.  Once that happened, you'd be fairly well guaranteed that it would not be speedy deleted again, as this previous delete and undelete information is right on the delete page that admins use when deleting things.
 * My objection to the delrev was not just as a waste of time, but rather as a potential tarnishing of my deletion record. My goal is to do enough research and consider xfd's wisely, so that I will not have to have an overturned DELREV on my record. To that end, if somebody contacts me BEFORE filing a delrev, I am fairly well motivated to honor their request if it is reasonable, therefore avoiding a DELREV altogether.  So when somebody goes directly to DELREV, I feel rather disenfranchised.  And since your request was actually in itself quite reasonable, I thought that everyone would just say "yeah, lets overturn it", resulting in me having egg on my face needlessly. JERRY talk contribs 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. That's fair, and I'll take it into consideration in the future. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Notification of a PROD for an article I contributed to a long time ago. I deleted the article.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Clair Maxwell mysteries
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clair Maxwell mysteries, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Clair Maxwell mysteries. Jfire (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. JERRY talk contribs 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Pleasant dialogue about an AFD which I am opposing
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dapto High
Hi - it is really great to see somebody adding some content. One of the things you added was "Australia top schools list". I would be really surprised. Most of the lists I have seen are by State - ie it would be New South Wales only - in which case 509 is a long way down. Do you have a link for that reference? This is a link to a reproduction of a 2006 list - NSW only and only of the top 200. I have found the 2007 list reproduced - Dapto High is number 602 in NSW - out of a total of 673 schools whose students sat the HSC. The original list was from the Sydney Morning Herald - > Dapto High School Total Credits 5 // Yr 12 Students 87 // Total Attempts 443 // 2007 Success Rate 1.13% //2006 Total Credits 6 //2006 Attempts 472 // 2006 Success rate 1%. This say compares with the number one ranked school in the state James Ruse High: Total Credits 804 // Yr 12 Students 167 // Total Attempts 1093 // 2007 Success Rate 74% //2006 Total Credits 737 //2006 Attempts 1133 // 2006 Success rate 65%.
 * I have to say that I do not understand any of that, and that my addition to the article is therefore probably flawed. If you remove it, please also remove the rank number from the infobox. I'm from the US, and we rank schools very diffeently here, probably.  I think the 509 was credits, but I don't know now what that means. JERRY talk contribs 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * does my amendment make sense to a foreigner now? If not I will work harder on the explanation in the article. --Matilda talk 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so, it says the school is not only not prominently rated, but it (to use a brash American phrase) totally sucks. Thanks for correcting my error. JERRY talk contribs 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the things you have found make the school notable, other than the alumni, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. School arson for instance is unfortunately not so infrequent in Australia.  The school to work program - nice (especially given the HSC results) but wouldn't normally give grounds for notability in my view - each of the 673 high schools in NSW will surely be doing something for students.--Matilda talk 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you might be missing is the declaration by Jimbo Wales that high school articles pass notability if the articles are more than a mere directory listing and containing sufficient encyclopedic information to make them at least a good stub. Under that criteria, wouldn't you agree that the article gets a pass? JERRY talk contribs 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * at the time of listing it was a stub that merely could have been described as a directory listing. However, I agree you have added content and with pleasure I give you a pass :-) --Matilda talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Reply from a user I warned about recreating a deleted article immediately after an AfD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Song Destinations
Sorry about that. I thought that you just decided on that. I did not know that a decision on the topic was reached. I did the article just to Wikify Song (airline). I thought it would be the same as swomething like United Airlines destinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane nerd (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A bot message about fair use rationale required on image, and my reply that I did it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pon farr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pon farr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Template:non-free use rationale added, your concern tag has been removed. JERRY talk contribs 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A question about an AFD I closed, a statement that it's going to AN/I and a delrev template from a user all without waiting for me to respond. This is perhaps the most frustrating editor I have ever met on Wikipedia.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff
Can you explain your comment "no valid arguments were made on either side" in closing Articles for deletion/Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff? As you can now see, your actions have produced a major innacuracy in List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom whereby the desired result of POV pushing of all things Cardiff by User:Welshleprechaun has been achieved. The main list article has the header ''This article is a list of the past, present, planned or abandoned implementations of guided bus systems or bus rapid transit schemes in the United Kingdom. Also included are notable segregated busways and next generation low floor trolleybus systems. Not covered by this list are implementations of bus priority, bus lanes or instances of local authority bus company Quality Contracts, where these do not involve guidance elements, significant segregation from the public highway, or other bus rapid transit features. ''. So how can you now explain the addition of Cardiff? How are we to proceed now then if Afd was "the wrong venue to discuss article content or proper article name" when it is my assertion that the article name and existence was completely spurious, and only done to achieve inclusion in the main list. By your actions you have basically completely changed the point of that list, what is to stop anyone now adding any arbitrary operator of bendy buses and bus lanes? Do you actually know what the content of the article relates to?. Did you actually read the talk page on Cardiff BRT? MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact it was 3-1 for deletion with only Welshleprechaun oppsing deletion/renaming, therefore I'm posting this on ANI as an incorrect application of no consensus MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff. 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.
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user asking for help with sorting out a problem in his user space caused by some accidental move errors.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Help with talk page
I need your help with a problem I've got. When I was reorganizing my archives, I accidentally moved my main talk page into an archive when I didn't want to. Now I can't move what's in that archive back to my main talk page. I need to do this because I was reorganizing another archive to take the place of the archive I accidentally moved my main talk page to. In other words, it's all a mess. Basically, I need User_talk:Wlmaltby3/Archive4 moved back to my main talk space, and the "Archive4" page deleted, so I can finish reorganizing my archives the proper way (or as proper as they can be at this point, I realized I've totally screwed up my archives like no other). Thanks for your help. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 13:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. JERRY talk contribs 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: My request
Thanks so much! That's exactly what I needed. Next time I'll be more careful before I go messing things up. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad I was able to help. And you couldn't make more of a mess than I have in the past.  I once deleted Michael Jackson in an attempt to merge page histories with another spin-off article that was to be remerged with it.  When I tried to undelete it, it overwhelmed the database servers and crashed wikipedia.  I thought it was just my internet connection timing out, so I did it 10 times in a row over about 12 minutes before somebody was able to contact me and tell me to stop.  So you have a long way to go to make a mess on the Jerry scale. JERRY talk contribs 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Another editor was like one step ahead of me on the closings of two delrev's, and after I typed-up the whole closing deal, I got edit conflict, and it happened again a second time in a row. So it seemed like a good time to have a fun little conversation with my fellow admin.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Sorry about that... :)
Hi, My morning editing hour is always a fairly random time, and recently its been too late for me to close much of anything at DRV. You've been doing an excellent job, though. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion with an editor about collaboration on a project space essay. WP:DEMAND.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Collaboration requested on WP:DEMAND
I envision this project namespace essay someday becoming a guideline. To that end I am requesting collaboration from some respected members who have demonstrated some enthusiasm for the subject. Your essay User:Mangojuice/Slave is remarkably similar, as was pointed-out to me recently by another editor. Would you be willing to merge/copy the content of your essay there and to help expand and refine WP:DEMAND as necessary to be suitable to propose it for guideline status? JERRY talk contribs 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm game. I've tried revising User:Mangojuice/Slave a couple times because I have complex opinions about merge votes at AfD.  I dislike them for several reasons, only one of which is the seeming expectation that the closing admin (or just someone else) do the work.  I think WP:DEMAND gets it wrong, though, because policy (WP:AFD?  Not sure) discourages editors from merging content up for deletion elsewhere before the debate is over.  I would instead recommend that if you see how to merge something and are willing to do the work, you should explicitly volunteer, and if you're not willing to do the work, recommend a redirect.  My other reasons for not liking merge votes are that (1) they often create baffling or inappropriate redirects that are hard to get rid of, (2) they don't contribute to the debate because they barely ever include any policy-based reasoning, and (3) I don't like the idea that the content of another article (the merge target) is very often debated without even a note to the editors of that article, or any concern for what is best for that article.  Mango juice talk 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Merging is an editorial debate, not a deletion debate.  The results of XfD should be Delete or Keep.  The current different flavors of keep are sheerly maddening to me.  I have had two delrev's in the past week that were contention over the flavor of keep.  In one case an editor is quite upset that I closed a debate as "No Consensus (default keep)", when he is certain that the result should have been "keep".  Of course this is far from the subject of the WP:DEMAND, and probably off course from the subject of our discussion here, but it is actually related.  In the discussion itself, several editors expressed delete, and many more expressed keep.  But another large contingent expressed many of those maddening other !votes, like "Merge and delete then redirect, or keep" (yes, that is an actual !vote!) or "merge appropriate content to an appropriate target page" or remove inflammatory POV content and stubbify", or "remove unsourced information and expand".  One WP:BUNDLE AFD recently had over 20 articles in it, and everyone seemed quite content to !vote "merge important content with parent article".  Imagine how long it takes just to remove the afd notice, and place the oldafdfull on the talk pages, now imagine how long it would take an otherwise unconcerned admin to ascertain just what content (in this case about Bearenstain Bears) in each article should be kept, and just where to merge it to in the BB article.  One AFD I read last night had a comment in it: "note to the closing admin: do not forget to add the references listed in this discussion in the article after closing this discussion".  Imagine that, with a 4 day backlog at AFD this past weekend, I gotta say that it's rediculous.  I have been closing such discussions as no consensus lately, and then having to argue the point at DELREV ad nauseum.  It would be real nice to have a project namespace guideline to stop this kind of stuff before it happens.  I like your idea of users volunteering to do the complicated stuff and helping the debate reach consensus for that.  That would work, imho. JERRY talk contribs 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An editor pointing out that a reopened AFD, as the result of an overturn at DELREV did not have a valid wikilink to the delrev in question.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/MyHeritage
Hi Jerry, I see you've re-opened the AfD on MyHeritage, noting that the close was overturned at DRV. Unfortunately the link you gave to the DRV (Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23) does not lead to the DRV debate. Could you point me to the correct debate? Thanks, Gwernol 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. no problem, it was bundled with Chris Redfield. The "link_page#section" format of wikilinks does not work well with collapsed sections, but if you hover over the link you should be able to see the target section name.  Perhaps a comment added to the afd would assist other editors like you who want to review the delrev. I will add one. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. A comment making it explicit would be helpful. The words "MyHeritage" don't appear anywhere on the DRV since the link to it is a diff not a wikilink. So its doubly hard to see where the review is. Having read through the Chris Redfield DRV, I can now see what happened with the MyHeritage AfD. Thanks for the swift response, Gwernol 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Thanks for helping me get it to where it was more clear for others. JERRY talk contribs 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A request for me to reconsider my !vote on a DELREV
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

BTTF DRV
It may be that your comment in this DRV was based on the first AFD rather than the second. Please review the second AFD if that's the case to see if your opinion is any different. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion with an editor asking how to do non-admin closes, which resulted in me creating WP:NAC. Then a discussion with another editor about adding the essay to WP:EIW.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

AFDs
Could you give me some specific guidelines on what AFDs a non-admin should close (and what not) and how? <font color="#00dc64">Chetblong Talk<font color="#FF8888">Sign 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I replied with articulated instructions which were subsequently moved to a project essay at WP:NADC.) JERRY talk contribs 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have closed an AFD found here, tell me if it fits your guidelines. -- <font color="#00dc64">Chetblong Talk<font color="#FF8888">Sign 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite appropriately and quite perfectly. Good Job! By the way I have permanantized the instructions I gave above, at User:Jerry/NAC, in case you want to refer to it again or provide it to others in the future. JERRY talk contribs 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and the instructions! If I ever need any assistance regarding XFDs again I'll ask you first. Many thanks! <font color="#00dc64">Chetblong Talk<font color="#FF8888">Sign 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. JERRY talk contribs 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User essay appropriate for the index?
In response to a recent request by a user, I typed up instructions for non-admin closures of deletion debates. I have put this material into a userspace essay at User:Jerry/NAC. I tried to find something on this subject, but the search feature of the site came up empty, and I did not find it in your editor index or in the deltion policy or it's linked pages. Do you think that it belongs in the index? Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Having gone through exactly the same situation myself, two months ago - looking for guidance on doing a speedy keep and not finding it - I think the essay is quite valuable. I've made some changes that I hope improve it. At this point I suggest:


 * Moving the essay to projectspace. If it were more personal in nature, I'd say keep it in userspace, but it's not really.
 * Post a note at WP:VPP saying that you've written an essay on the subject, and would appreciate comments and improvements.


 * I was going to suggest that you ask other editors if this should be a guideline, but on second thought I think you should simply put it up as an essay and see how others react. If consensus develops to make it a guideline, so be it. There may also be consensus to merge it into an existing guideline; if so, getting the new information into an existing guideline will still be a positive accomplishment.


 * And yes, I'll definitely add it to the Index, once it's in projectspace. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I have moved the essay to Non-admin closure, with shortcut WP:NADC (WP:NAC already exists for an implausible redirect to the community portal, but since two users are currently using it in their userspace, I have asked them if I can usurp the shortcut.) This has been posted at WP:VPP, as you suggested. JERRY talk contribs 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion I had with a well-intentioned user who was not relisting AFD's properly.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Relisting AFD's
Hello, thanks for recently helping clear the backlog at AFD by relisting 2 AFD's: Articles for deletion/Talbert W. Swan, II, and Articles for deletion/Containerart. In the future, please complete the process, by commenting-out the entry on the original log page and retranscluding the discussion on the current log page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) --

Ah, my apologies. What do you mean by commenting it out on the original log? Cheers, <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

-- IF you go to the log page for the date that it is listed on, and edit the page, find the entry which looks like: .

Edit this to read: .

Then go to WP:AFD and click on "add new entry" and place the transclusion at the top of the current log: .

Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I was doing the second step but not the first. Thanks for the help! Cheers, <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I better go bck and check then, I probably relisted it twice on the current log then. JERRY talk contribs 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I recall I've always put them in the current log. For those two, looks like I did;, . Also, I noticed you have your email right on your talk page; might I suggest making it into the format of jerREMOVECAPITALIZEDTEXTry@lavoie.com or something? That way any automated spam bots trolling google won't stumble upon it, or at least won't be able to use it. Cheers, <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, by the time I noticed it, it was on the following day's log, so I had added them to that log. It would probably not have been a big deal, as once closed they would have been removed from both, but I went ahead and removed it from the newer log page.  As for my email, thanks for the tip, but I have this address published all over the web, and it's not really a problem for me, as it is my actual name, as well. (Jerry Lavoie). I do get alot of spam and spoof emails, but I actually think they are funny.  If I ever needed viagra, I could use the money from nigeria or work from home for google for no money down to get it... LMAO. JERRY talk contribs 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've got a distant cousin of royal blood with billions of dollars in off-shore banks who needs a few hundred dollars to access said off-shore accounts, too? :) Oh well, sorry about any mixups my incomplete relisting caused! I'll be more careful in the future. Cheers, <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. JERRY talk contribs 06:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Another 2 DELREV's which started without discussion. Apparently I am the only one who objects to this. I have been described as a trendsetter!'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion review notice
Hi. I've contested your closure of the Benson AfD. Please comment at Deletion_review. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Way to go for discuss first, then list if discussion fails. Hooray for you and your application of WP:IAR. JERRY talk contribs 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, no IAR was intended. I don't bring up delrevs very often, and now I recall having made that same mistake in an earlier instance. If you would be so kind as to engage in a discussion, I'll be glad to remove the nomination for the duration, or add whatever note is appropriate to the delrev. You've probably already read over my concern with your closure. Why do you think that the no consensus/default to keep close was appropriate? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is probably best to continue the discussion at DELREV, so as not to fragment or duplicate efforts. The DELREV will obviously need to be carried to resolution now that others have commented on it. No ill feelings here, as you admitted it was an unintentional error. JERRY talk contribs 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for understanding. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Swiss Olympiad in Informatics
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Swiss Olympiad in Informatics. 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. --Petar Marjanovic 09:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A request to provide a copy of a deleted article, that was granted.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:CordeliaHenrietta/CaimanFu
Whilst I appreciate your effort in restoring this for me, this violates the GFDL. Please restore the history. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The action you now request requires the deletion to be overturned at DELREV. Please initiate a new DELREV specifically requesting the deletion be overturned, citing valid reasons why you think this should occur. If you just want to know the contribution history, I will copy and paste it below for you. GFDL attribution requirements can be met by entering this information on the talk page of the article and placing a statement in the first edit summary on the mainspace page such as "GFDL attribution continuation statement: contribution history for previously-deleted content shown on talk page". Alternatively, you could create a new article in your userspace that does not have the same problems that the original article did, then ask an administrator to cross-namespace move it on top of the deleted page, and then undelete the page history without restoring the previous content. Lots of options there for you!

JERRY talk contribs 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 22:47, 11 April 2007 not really a stub anymore... + categories
 * 19:57, 11 April 2007 photo
 * 10:37, 11 April 2007 founded by
 * 13:57, 2 April 2007 Replacing "Infobox band" with "Infobox musical artist" per WP:MUSICIAN, Disambiguate
 * 13:40, 2 April 2007 cat
 * 13:24, 2 April 2007 infobox
 * 13:03, 2 April 2007 Quebecois instead of Canadian - French
 * 13:02, 2 April 2007 second album with source
 * 12:59, 2 April 2007 a source - dont speedydel please, more to come
 * 2:42, 2 April 2007 official website
 * 12:42, 2 April 2007 creating stub


 * Thanks for the attempted assistance, but restoration anywhere, whether it be in a user subpage or an article in the namespace requires the attribution to be provided regardless of whether we intend to keep the article or not. Thanks for providing that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CordeliaHenrietta (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Temporary restoration to userspace for the purposes under which you made the request are fairly common and since no search engines catalog the content it is fairly uncontroversial. If you felt that granting the request you made would violate GFDL, then why did you make the request? Was your expectation that the actual article would be restored without discussion so that you could look at it? JERRY talk contribs 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my expectation was that it would be restored to my userspace with history or with the attribution on the talk page. Why are you archiving the discussion after you asked me a question? CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Question and a comment about Scientology AFD's
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Scientology filmography
I see you closed this article as "keep", and I have no problem with that. But the entire article is unsourced, and has been for years. Do you have any problem with cutting out the unsourced stuff, and making a note w/DIFF of that action on the talk page? If another editor wants to come along and put it back, they'll have the old page history, providing they can add secondary sources to back stuff up. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consult ARBCOM before doing that. Look at the notice at the top of the talk page.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I sent off a note to, who is familiar with the Arbcomm case, Requests for arbitration/COFS. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Note: editor comments about editors were ignored. "
Thank you very much for making these important notes in your AfD closure comments. Much appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I found the lot of those AFD's to be a disgraceful mess.  The whole top half was an argument about whether you had sufficient indepth subject matter expertise on the subject of the article.  I've never heard of such balderdash. You made lucid credible arguments based on wikipedia policy and they had nothing so they resorted to mudslinging.  Kinda surprising, considering some of them are admins. Oh, well... JERRY talk contribs 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Randomness
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Springer?
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! 69.143.226.129 (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. People like Jerry Springer quite a bit in Mt. Laurel, do they? JERRY talk contribs 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A helpful editor pointing out an opportunity to improve Non-admin closure
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Re Non-admin closure
Under "Edit the AfD page", I think you need to mention that the closer should delete the line (where X is the deletion category). If this isn't done, the closed AfD remains listed in one or more categories of open AfDs. It looks pretty obvious, but I've forgotten to do it on occasion. Deor (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very excellent point. Thank-you for pointing this out. JERRY talk contribs 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Some discussion about a couple AfD's
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Underdog Records AFD
I created this AFD on the 24th, it has had 1 other comment, could you perhaps relist for more discussion, I feel it will be deleted fairly comfortably. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will review it shortly. JERRY talk contribs 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. JERRY talk contribs 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks dude. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ps: Jerry, I've replied to the shrek afd c you've made, again I apologise.
 * In Articles for deletion/Big Bad Wolf (Shrek), I rolled-up our dialogue in one of the hide/show boxes like I use on my talk page. JERRY talk contribs 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed, thats fine, I was thinking about moving the whole conversation to your talk page, but this is probably the best solution/ -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Reply from a user whom I had asked to modify his unacceptable signature
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Signature
Fixed. --Mr_Kc (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Some discussion about a DELREV that I participated in
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Moshpit DRV
Fyi, deletion review is the correct forum for a review if new info has come to light. Per the intro:
 * "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article."

I'm generally in favor that people just create a new stub using the new information and request history undeletion rather than start a review but the consensus view on this is that reviewing a prior deletion under new info is the way to go. Cheers, trialsanderrors (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hesitantly agree with the following proviso: If and only if the text of the deleted article is to be restored and incorporated into the new article. In this case, based on the comments of the requester, that does not seem prudent or necessary. JERRY talk contribs 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this means. Do you think the original article was a copyvio? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmmmmmm... not sure why you asked that question. The short (but probably useless) answer is "no".  We are apparently experiencing wavelength dissonance.  Can you ask that question some different way, so that I might understand where you are coming from a little better? JERRY talk contribs 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, my understanding of your answer above is that you don't consider it prudent to restore the edit history of the article because of something the nominator said. I'm not sure where that comes from. Assuming the nominator were to write a new article like you advised, we only keep the edit history deleted if it contains harmful material, for instance copyvio or unsourced negative material. I only gave the article a quick look, but I don't see anything we need to keep under wraps, and it's probably a good start to a feasible article if the core claims can be sourced. Again, if you think that we should not consider review nominations based on new info, you should bring that up on WT:DRV, where I might support you, but I have proposed that various times during reviews and the consensus has always been that yes, if the nomination contains a claim of new info, we discuss it. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Okay, I see what our difference in opinion is, now. I don't see anywhere in the WP:Deletion review procedure or WP:Deletion policy where it says it is within the remit of delrev to overturn an AFD closing in the case that a new, different article with the same page name and same subject has been written and this new article passes the inclusion criteria. Since the nominator/requester stated that the new article was not written in such a way that any of the content (or specifically the text) from the old article have been included in this new article, then GFDL attribution continuation requirements do not require the page history to be restored. The old article has nothing to do with the new article, except that they happen to have the same pagename and happen to be on the same subject. There was no argument to overturn the AFD close and deletion itself, and the text of the old article was not used, so a delrev was procedurally unnecessary, because the page location was not salted. (Even salted locations do not require delrev, in most cases, unless the salting itself was specifically part of the AfD consensus.) JERRY talk contribs 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Newsflash: Jerry was wrong! From the deletion review procedure: History-only undeletion:Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page. Okay, I guess that sums it up. I do not agree with it, but that is apparently how it is done.JERRY talk contribs 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you interpreted the nomination as a permission to write a new article, while I read it as a nomination for a review of the original deletion because of new source(s). Generally, unless the article is salted, editors don't need permission to write a new article (we seem to agree on this). But they can also file a nomination for review. That's done as a precaution to make sure the new article isn't deleted under G4 (in which case it would end up on DRV anyway). Generally, we have handled such cases in two ways: If there is immediate agreement that the new sources look good, we close early and restore the article. If the new sources are deemed insufficient (majority of the cases), we let the first nomination run for the full five days and close all future nominations early unless they contain significant new information. Regarding WP:DP, extremely few of the established practices at DRV are actually written down as Deletion Policy (the old WP:UNDEL was a bit longer). That's why it's important for DRV closer to stick around the discussion and check WT:DRV frequently to get a "feel" for the mechanics. You can also check with User:Xoloz (currently inactive), User:GRBerry or me if there are questions about procedure. It seems like all three of us are looking to move on to other things, so it's good to see that there is a new crop of closers active at DRV. Take care, trialsanderrors (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Willirennen asking about user warnings and image tagging
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

CSD for incorrectly licensed photos, plus many others
What CSD should this user get for incorrect licensing on this plus others, image as they are incorrectly licensed and are copyright owned, more of it on the creator's talk page. For that one I brought up, as said there, that is a obviously a press release photo as said on his talk page and personally I don't know if he got permission to do so, therefore they will be contacted via flickr. Willirennen (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The images would get:, the user would get: IMAGENAME

JERRY talk contribs 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and this user for use of inappropriate and offensive words on the |talk section of that article, what warning should he get for that. Willirennen (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would delete his comment, and give him a warning like: Talk:Spinner (wheel)

JERRY talk contribs 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user made a stereotyping/profiling statement about me and I tried to discuss it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

From Articles for deletion/DJ River and User talk:Precious Roy

 * Keep the applicable notability guideline is WP:BAND, and subject meets the following criteria:
 * "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."
 * JERRY talk contribs 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you referring to the internet radio station of questionable notability? Definitely not a "major radio network". Additionally, claim of frequent play on that website is not sourced. Precious Roy (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What?' Digitally Imported has over 60,000 concurrent listeners. How is that not major? As for sources for play on DI.FM, did you look? here, here, here, here. And for another internet radio network, last.fm: here and here.  Remember he is a self-described internet-only DJ.... logically, if you acknowledge the possibility that there could exist a notable internet-only DJ, you have to admit that you could not find sources documenting regular "airplay" (bitplay?) for such DJ that were not on or about internet radio websites. JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I went to the DI website and found no search capability. And that "60,000 listeners" figure is according to the station itself, not a third-party source like Arbitron. I can't follow the logic of your last sentence but I know how admins like you are so I'll just leave now. Precious Roy (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't clump me in
Your comment "I know how admins like you are" concerns me. I would be willing to explain my rationale for the statement I made in the AFD in a non-confrontational manner, if you indeed are interested in finding out what I meant. Just drop me a note on my talk page sometime if you want to discuss it. Please don't clump me in with whoever those other admins are that I am supposedly like. I am my own unique person, with my own defects and flaws. JERRY talk contribs 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Precious Roy deleted this comment from his user talk page, leaving edit summary "don't bother". here.
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Positive remarks from 4 users about my AfD closings, and a BARNSTAR! As well as some extended dialogue about the philosophy of AfD's.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Your AfD closures (positive message)
Dear Jerry, I just want to say that I greatly respect the way you close AfDs. Leaving the rationale and summary on the talk page shows a serious effort and consideration went into the decision and makes the need for deletion reviews far less necessary. So, kudos to you! Bravo! Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. You will note, however, that I only take the time to provide such extended rationale in cases where I think the outcome could be questioned.  In the straight-forward typical afd's I do not.  This was something I learned the hard way, from my first month as admin, where I received 11 Deletion reviews.  Although most of those reviews were closed as closing endorsed, it created far too much unnecessary wikidrama.  It was very kind of you to recognize this effort, as it is certainly much more time-consuming to do, and it does open up more opportunities for people to poke holes in the smaller details of my logic, but overall, as you say, I think it is the prudent thing to do.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and again, I appreciate seeing a thorough explanation as too often the results are posted and its not clear who the closer came to his/her decision. Keep up the good work!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that! And give you this...

You closed a few AfD's I nominated, and absolutly agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouillesn sentiment. I too very much respect the way you closed those AfDs.--Hu12 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * awww shucks... ... Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly earned it!! your welcome ;)--Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD summary
Hi Jerry - I'm impressed by the thoroughness of the AfD summary on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/St Margaret's College, Otago - it's something I'd like to see on all no consensus closures, though it sounds like a lot of work. One suggestion with it, though - take all the header levels down one step. That way if anyone goes to edit the talk page by clicking on "+" it won't create a sublevel of the summary. BTW, I agree with your summary - the split was close to 50/50, with good arguments both for and against deleting. I don't think consensus would have been likely. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assume you mean to start with double equals instead of single equals?  I was doing it the other way because I don't like the appearance (extra boldness) of the triple equals, but you have a good point about the plus button.  I'll do that. JERRY talk contribs 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Makuta
Hello Jerry, Two things. I wanted to agree that your AfD discussions (when you do them) are very helpful. However, I've got a concerns about them in general. Per WP:DEL there are only a few valid reasons for deletion. Usually in AfD that's notability. As I read DEL#REASON the state of the article isn't a valid reason for deletion (baring a hoax, copyright violation etc.) Your AfD summary for Makuta seemed to have all sorts of issues with the article that don't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. Of: * Original research * non-notable * No real world context * only primary sources * sources added only prove notability of the fictional work, not this character in a real-world context * fails WP:FICTION * non-encyclopedic Only non-notable should be playing a role in the AfD as I understand it (per WP:DEL)  Could you comment? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I'd say you're too far off the map to give you directions from there. Please go read the link you provided me in your comment above, particularly note where a dozen or more reasons are listed, and preceeded by "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". (emphasis added).  One could boil down all of the various reasons people give and in some way come out with only the 5 pillars.  But when sorting through deletion arguments and tossing them in a valid bin and an invalid bin, it is convenient to keep them somewhat identifiable to the original text.  I put them in my own words, usually, for a couple of reasons: 1) to demonstrate how I interpreted what was said 2) to provide a method to match it to a policy, precedent or guideline, 3) to shorten them to reduce the size of my summary, and 4) to avoid the need to duplicately list similar comments from several editors.


 * specifically, in this case, I'll elaborate why those comments were deemed to be valid, in my eyes:
 * Original research
 * WP:NOT, WP:NOR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." (does not publish = delete)
 * non-notable
 * WP:N
 * No real world context
 * WP:NOT, WP:FICTION
 * only primary sources
 * WP:RS, WP:V, WP:PSTS
 * sources added only prove notability of the fictional work, not this character in a real-world context
 * WP:FICTION
 * fails WP:FICTION
 * non-encyclopedic
 * WP:NOT


 * I hope that helps. JERRY talk contribs 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It does help me understand your reasoning, but I'm now confused. If a topic is notable, but the article is poor, are you claiming the right step is to delete rather than fix it?  WP:IMPERFECT indicates that we shouldn't expect perfection, and I don't see anything that indicates an article should be deleted for being poorly written.  Turned into a stub, if it's really bad.  But that's about it.  Hobit (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not that the article quality is poor, it's that the subject of the article is patently unsuitable for wikipedia, and it is deemed that it is not possible to improve the article to a point that it would be acceptable. A comment on quality issues would be like "article does not have any sources in it right now, and I can't be arsed to look for any".  But "article does not have any sources to provide context for notability, and I have searched for some for several hours, but found none, and so I believe there are none to be found" is very different. JERRY talk contribs 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so as I understand this, it comes down to reliable independent secondary sources. The rest is unimportant.  WP:PLOT should play no role here, and WP:FICT defers to WP:N on issues of notability.  I'm raising this issue in a few other places (not _this_ afd which frankly I care little about, just the general issue) just to see if I can figure out what we are really basing AfDs on.  You are one of the best closing AfDs in my opinion, and if you are considering things like content (WP:PLOT, WP:FICTION about real-world content) then I suspect lots of people are.  I don't believe that's the intent of AfD.  But I'm relatively new here...  Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. The content issues are considered, but never as a snapshot of the article as it currently is written. The potential for an article on a specific subject to have content that would be acceptable is the question.  Say I wrote an article about my garden... it would probably go to AfD, where people would argue that it has no acceptable sources.  But undoubtedly, the issue would come up that my garden is not special in any way, and would be very highly unlikley to garner the kind of attention that would yield such sources.  Now I might argue that my garden is very important, as it is the most prominent feature in my back yard, that I like it, and that there are articles about other gardens on wikipedia, like Cypress Gardens. and the Garden of Eden.  You can imagine how the discussion would go.... all those arguments that would inevitably be made (pretty much the same as those made for the article we were discussing earlier), would lend credibility to the idea that my garden would likely never warrant an article, which puts more emphasis on the current sourcing issues.  But if I demonstrate that my garden is somehow fascinating, like it has a plant that feeds on human blood and I can convince people that it is the kind of subject that certainly must or undoubtedly will soon have sources, then the notability might be more easily assumed than can currently be proven. JERRY talk contribs 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are now on the same page. However, on this AfD I think you considered "as valid" things that were actually about article content.  Just my opinion, and I think the outcome would likely be the same....  Hobit (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear:

* Original research * No real world context * only primary sources * sources added only prove notability of the fictional work, not this character in a real-world context * fails WP:FICTION
 * All are about the article (unless WP:FICT is about WP:N rather than something else) as I read them. Again, thanks for the discussion!  Hobit (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, anytime. It should console you to know that the only keep argument I called valid was the one that you made :) JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user discussing a userfied article he has been improving.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

InDepenDance Day
I have editted it. please tell others Soccermeko (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at it, and marked several maintenance concerns. Some of the marks are invisible comments; (can only be viewed in edit mode).  You may want to address these concerns.  JERRY talk contribs 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user reporting the recreation of a page I deleted after closing an AFD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Kolath
I just found an article while doing new page patrol which is called Kolath Family. Is this a recreation of Kolath which was deleted by you after an AfD discussion? <b style="color:green; font-family:Vladimir Script;">Sting au</b>  Buzz Me...   04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll investigate it. Thanks for the report. JERRY talk contribs 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, word-for-word, bit-for-bit repost. Thanks again.  I have dealt with it. JERRY talk contribs 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user asking a question about a page I deleted after closing an AFD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Winsock packet editor
I'm wondering what I have to change in my article to have it re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.233.237 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have a read over Notability, and if it is still not clear, perhaps ask the people who participated in the deletion debate. If you still have questions after doing that, then feel free to ask me. JERRY talk contribs 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''I asked a user to tone down some provocative statements on his user page about another editor, as a result of an email complaint that I received. The emailer is not necessarily in the right, but I recommended this long-time user to not leave food out.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Feeding the troll...
...is not the purpose of that paragraph. That banned editor continually made serious accusations against me (abuse, stalking, etc.) which is why I started documenting her disruptive edits. She persists in making accusations so I put the link on my userpage for any admins/office folks who come by to investigate me (which they have). I have done nothing wrong, not even stooped to name-calling in spite all of Tweety21's harassment; I should be allowed to have a pointer from my userpage. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to visit my userpage, if you've been emailed by Tweety21, she filed yet another OTRS, or if you were just poking around. I would appreciate it if you reverted your edit. If you want to talk to more seasoned admins who are familiar with Tweety21, try Yamla (admin who's been most involved) or Guy (who's been handling her OTRS tickets). Precious Roy (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not have that additional information available to me, and yes, I was contacted via email with a complaint about you. But none-the-less, it is quite unusual to have another editor's username displayed on one's userpage with a link to a complete history of their unfavorable edits and warnings.  Perhaps you could just put a link that says something to the effect of "Another editor has filed numerous false reports about me; admins please review a history of this at (link some project page here)."  Would you consider that?  JERRY talk contribs 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! I knew it. She emailed you because I got in a huff at the DJ River AfD. (Not the first time she's done something like this, either.) Yeah, if I have to remove all snark from the link, I'll do it. Precious Roy (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How's that? Precious Roy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it absolutely essential to include the username? How about "If an editor has complained..." JERRY talk contribs 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll do. Precious Roy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compromising. JERRY talk contribs 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you changed the "them" back to "her", which I realize you probably did to make it clear that it is not more than one user, so please try to live with "that user" (current wording). The less specific, the less baitful it is to the actual user. JERRY talk contribs 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user discussing their opinion on my rationale on the closing of an AFD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Hajj Amin Elahi AfD
I notice that one of the valid keep reasons, was the ' assertion of valid Kurdish references'. Now, while I'm not one to delete for lack of English language sources, to the contrary. But where no English language sources can be found, the ones that are given are plainly false, and the single website borders on self-promotion, it seems to me that at least one Kurdish language source asserting notability should be provided. Octavion History repeatedly made the claim that sources abounded, but when challenged, repeatedly failed to do so. As a result, we have no way of knowing whether or not this person is completely non-notable. The balance of proof is clearly on the contributor (WP:PROVEIT), and the policy strongly suggests that this article should be deleted. Cheers Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually completely ignored all of octavian history's comments altogether. In fact I copied the entire debate locally, and deleted them before considering the consensus, as well as those of the SPA/SOCKS.  The fact that two other wikipedians made the same assertion was not something I could ignore.  As closing administrator it is my job to distill the input of the participants, filter it, and product a concentrated output.  At no time do I synthesize my own opinion of the article, except as a means to gauge the good faith and factual nature of the comments made.  For example if somebody says there are no sources cited, and I look at the article and see 5 sources cited, then I must discount their comment.  But I do not look at the article, see 5 sources and say to myself... "that must be notable".  I just take the input provided and make determination of rough consensus.   I think I got it right. JERRY talk contribs 23:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that all makes sense, and given the reasoning, I think you did get it right. I didn't want to contest the deletion, just get an understanding of why it closed as no consensus. That said, (as per Jimbo's comments), I do think that there needs to be a greater weight on providing sources, and content for which no sources of a suitable nature can be found should be deleted. Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am always happy to discuss my closings here on my talkpage. And I don't mind delrev's that are initiated after such a discussion.  Thanks for giving me the chance to explain my rationale. JERRY talk contribs 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user describing his opinion about a comment I made at an AFD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Westside Christian College
Oh I'm sorry, Jerry, but this does not mean that Mr. Wales considers that all schools are notable. It says that good articles on schools should be tolerated; note the context " I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website" It does your cause no credit that you would, seemingly deliberately, twist that passage to claim it says "I thought you were aware of the hall pass that User:Jimbo has given all high schools". Secondly, while Mr. Wales has a fair amount of say in what happens here, mining through every utterance of his to find quotes that serve your purpose demonstrates little. If Jimbo wants to change WP:N then let him. Until that stage his delphic-like contributions on off-wiki mailing lists remain purely obiter. I would have replied at the AfD but it has been inexplicably closed as keep' despite there clearly being on consensus. I would take it to DRV but given the strength of the "all schools are notable" push it would likely be upheld. But congratulations, another crufty, unencyclopedic vandalism target has been kept, a win for Wikipedia. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a high school article that is more than a mere directory listing be deleted. But there is clearly no consensus, or precedent, as you say.  Until EVERY high school article has, say, 3 or 4 AfD's, we won't be able to gauge how these things are likely to go.  It's a super use of our time to debate each one for fear of acknowledging some edgy proposed guideline as being in fact spot-on.  Good job on your logic skills. JERRY talk contribs 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Two unrelated conversations with 2 users about the same article. One an editing dispute witha third party, and the other a speedy close request for it's AfD.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Kambrya College
Can you suggest a way through the 'neutrality tag' dispute, as a fresh eye, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kambrya College
Hi Jerry, I have once again withdrawn my AFD for the school, could you close? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about ARBCOM's recent temporary injunction regarding television series fictional characters and episodes.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Note on character and episode AfDs
Dear Jerry, since I see you in various character and episode AfD closure, the following may interest you: Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. But... I really do not understand what that is.  I do not have any experience with ARBCOM at this time.  From my quick attempt to make sense of it, it seems to me that this is an incident that involves a specified list of editors, and not the wikipedia editing community at large.  It also seems to relate only to either a specific list of article topics or more broadly to all television fictional character and episode articles.  It was unclear tome whether all of this is just in proposal stage or if there are any new rules/guidelines to follow.  It was unclear to  me whether any of this applies to administrators taking actions as a result of consensus-forming processes like AFD's.  To the best of my knowledge, I have not in any way been identified as an involved party.  So in a nutshell, I don't know what to do with that. JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a Wikipedia wide ban, binding on us all. The issue of what to do with AFDs that are already in progress has come up several times, but has never been answered. I wouldn't rush in to close an AFD one way or the other until someone has clarified it.Kww (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A helpful non-admin asking how to best help with dispositioning AFD's on the backlog.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Relisting AfDs
You are saying that I missed the step of removing it from the January 26 log, correct? Looking at my contributions, it would indeed seem that I did not so, despite that I remember having the page open. I edit in multiple tabs so I guess it is possible that I just never saved the page. At any rate, thanks for pointing it out and fixing up by sloppiness. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk  05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contribs, I see this is what happened. And seeing as I did not remove from the old log, you added to the new one, despite it being there already. At any rate, I removed it so it is no longer transcluded twice. SorryGuy Talk  05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A-ha... double transclusion... looks like sloppiness on my part as well.... thanks for cleaning that up. JERRY talk contribs 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime. However, I do have a question about relisting AfDs. When AfD is backlogged in the manner which it is right now, is it best to relist any nomination where consensus is pretty obviously not established (no discussion at all, or maybe one person's opinion in addition to the nom) or is it better to wait until it is the oldest date in the backlog? Thanks, SorryGuy Talk  03:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are obviously asking me for my unqualified opinion, so I'll respond as such. I think that working off the oldest log page is the best use of MY time.  What's left there are usually debates that it seems nobody else wants to touch.... probably not real clear cases of consensus, or where consensus is drastically different than the raw count.  These require about an hour each, as I need to make an extended rationale document in order to avoid weeks of frivolous DRV's.  Since few admins want to close these, the log pages stack up.  I choose to dive into them. If by the time I get to this page all of the obvious relists are already done by helpful non-admins, it would save me loads of time.  As you may know, it takes over a minute to load and then again to save the transcluded log pages to relist... for me that's about 6 minutes of waiting on the page to load for each relist.  So if you were to go after the ones on the oldest log page, I think it would benefit me.  But what might be more important than benefitting me, (although it hard to imagine anything in this category :) ) would be allowing the 5-day-ers a few more days for participation before relisting, to give them only 6 or 7 days, as opposed to an unnecessary 5 additional days in some cases.  Was that the answer you sought? JERRY talk contribs 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is pretty much the answer I was looking for. As you said, I know there isn't really any policy in regards to it, so I figured I would just ask you seeing as we had an active conversation. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk  04:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user demanding that I undelete his article regardless of consensus.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Winsock Packet Editor
I doubt people are even looking at that deletion page for WPE, so I don't think posting there will do any good. I just want my article restored; the content is valid, and I linked to my site which verifies the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyok (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Same as user:
 * That's not the way we do things around here. A discussion was held to determine if the article met our criteria.  After 5 days, the consensus of the people who participated in that discussion was determined.  Evidently, it was decided that your article needed to be deleted.  Since you had initially asked me what changes you would have to make in order to have your article in wikipedia, I had suggested that you read the discussion (linked above), and if it still was not clear, that you could ask some of those editors to explain their comments to you.  Now you say you don't want to talk to them, you just want me to undelete it.  Well, I can't do that.  But if you think my closing decision was wrong, (after reading the deletion discussion), you may initiate a discussion at WP:DRV to have the closing reviewed.  If folks agree with you that the article ought to be undeleted, then that is what will happen.  Without this process, it can not happen. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A curt conversation with a sockpuppet of an SPA spam account.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

???
what?? I don't understand what you are talking about??

Can't you see that it was edited like seconds after it....I went to this other article up for deletion review and your name was there...to see the template for normal replies for the reviews....if I meant to copy your page I would keep it....I don't even use wiki much at all...

So your comment is revenge? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sykvester (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this: I am accusing you of being a sockpuppet of a single-purpose account, whose intent is to use wikipedia as a spam vehicle to promote your website. So there really isn't much to discuss, is there? JERRY talk contribs 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh my bad, completely misunderstood the whole thing on my part :P And no, this is not my game, I'm just a player on it but tried to make a wiki for it back then. Sykvester (talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A question from an article creator about an AFD I closed as delete.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

BoyBand
Jerry, BoyBand is not a 'hoax' as you refer to it as - if you google it, you will see BoyBand on the E4 (channel 4 UK) website - futhermore, Their new MySpace is just taking off and again, is no hoax - the deletion of the page was wrong - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontihaben (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This deleted page will be reported on the grounds it is un-necessary and wrong to delete valid pages, removing wanted information from the public, and not abiding with the Wikipedia notion of free encyclopedia information - deletion of a valid entry is discrimination against information that may not be in interest of yourself, and you therefore assume that if not on the internet (which it is if you google it), it is not valid information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontihaben (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see: Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_5. JERRY talk contribs 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion has been endorsed at deletion review. I am not sure to whom or where you were going to "report" this, but if you do, please advise me so I can participate in that discussion.  Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 14:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A question from an AFD nominator about an AFD I closed as invalid nomination.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lochness (song)
What wasn't valid about my reason for nomination? It's a song whose only tenuous claim to fame is that it's really long. It's not popular or anything, just... long. What's invalid about nominating it for deletion based on lack of notability? Howa0082 (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said "This is just some song off Angel of Retribution, not released as a single nor generating controversy or acclaim. It's apparently Priest's longest song, but how is that notable? Will we have an article about the longest-running song by every band ever? Toss it!"


 * which breaks down to:
 * just a song off an album by a notable band
 * not released as a single
 * not generating controversy or acclaim
 * being the longest song by a notable band does not establish notability
 * if we allow this one we will have to allow an article about the longest/shortest song by every notable band


 * None of that says "this song fails WP:BAND" or "non-notable song per WP:N"


 * The notability guideline for this would be MUSIC, which if you cited it would be considered a valid argument. Even without citing it, if the language of your nomination matched the criteria of the guideline, I would have accepted it.  However, the song has been the subject of multiple indepependent reviews, both positive and negative, two examples are below:

on the 13 minute epic "Lochness". A song as overblown and bloated as the fabled beast it sings about, "Lochness" is one of the most ridiculous songs the band has ever recorded. Priest has been known to dish out some world-class cheese in the past (to this day, "United" makes this writer cringe), but this song perilously walks the tightrope between Manowar style ridiculousness and embarrassing self-parody. When Halford sells the line, "Loch Ness, confess your terror of the deep," it's amazing he's able to keep a straight face, because we certainly can't. "Lochness" is indeed a speed bump of the hefty variety, but mercifully, it's at the end of the album, so fans can give it a cursory first listen, shake their heads in amazement, and go back to enjoying the first eight tracks, which deliver in a big, big way. - POP MATTERS

what a track! Heavy and doom-ish like you’ve never heard Judas Priest play before! And you know what? This rocks! It’s got the classic Heavy Metal vibe twisted with a really mid-tempo doom-ish feeling. The guitars drag you into the legend of the monster of Lochness while Halford tells the tale..."Lochness, confess, you’re terror of the deep..." ... A guaranteed classic despite the long playing time. An "imperial" masterpiece by the Gods of Metal! - METAL TEMPLE


 * I suggest that if you still feel this article stands a good chance of being deleted, that you add the references I listed to the article, and then renominate it in about a week or so. This time, use the specific language of the guideline I recommended above, and make a coherant argument devoid of subjective opinion and classic "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".  This time please complete the listing properly, and consider adding it to a relevant deletion sorting category to generate a little traffic to the AFD. JERRY talk contribs 13:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I didn't realize I needed to particularly quote stuff in arguments. Thanks, man. I'll take this under advisement. Howa0082 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NP THX JERRY talk contribs 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A new administrator asking for feedback on recent AfD closings.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Let me know
Hi Jerry, I've been watching the Arbcom case as it relates to AfD closures for fictional episodes, characters, etc. and I've been hesitant to close anything without a definitive "this Halt is for concerned parties, not for uninvolved editors". I also close out stuff in WP:AFDO and seem to enjoy it. I've noticed your name mixed in there and I have yet to disagree with a single close of yours that I've seen you do. Anyway, two requests. 1. If you hear anything else regarding the closing of AfDs as merge or delete that are pre Feb. 3rd, would you let me know? 2. (This may take time so feel free to say "Go away, I'm busy"). Would you look through my contribs (specifically recently closed old AfDs) to be sure I'm not way off base? I've only been questioned once, never DRV'ed, but I would like to stay working in the deletion discussions and will only do so if others' feel I add value. Specifically, I've closed a couple of debates with only a handful (2 or 3) of responses as either keep or delete in lieu of relisting (mainly because of the ridiculous and growing backlog). Any advice you could give would be much appreciated! I'm watchlisting your talk, feel free to reply here or on my talk if you prefer. Thanks, <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Keeper. Thanks for the kind words and confidence.  I should disclaim, however, that I am still an admin newbiee, myself... I was promoted on 18 December 2007, so take my advice/ criticism with a big grain of salt.  I have reviewed your closings as you requested, and I do have some concerns.  Most of my concerns are about your earlier closings.  You might notice that I typically work off the oldest backlogged logpage, and rarely close discussions early.  Many of your first several closings were early, some within hours, some where it looked to me that a different outcome was possible or even likely.

On one closing, I think you got the decision backwards. I think we should discuss that one further and perhaps you will overturn/ relist it. On several, I think a better course would have been to relist.

Overall you are doing a great job. I have some minor concerns about your wording on some closings... particularly where you close as weak keep. I also think some of your closings employ a little more humor than might be appropriate. Remember the big grain of salt I mentioned above!

Here is a specific analysis:

Speedy delete

 * Articles for deletion/How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Assembly Edition)
 * Articles for deletion/Glacier capital fund
 * Articles for deletion/Dobby & The House Elves
 * Articles for deletion/Pirates Records
 * Articles for deletion/Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
 * Articles for deletion/The hide
 * Articles for deletion/Tom Rannachan
 * Articles for deletion/Oliver Hayes Dean

Early closure as delete (snow)

 * Articles for deletion/John Forbes (actor)
 * Articles for deletion/The RealCycle Network
 * I would not have closed early at this point... I use 6 !votes in addition to nom as minimum criteria (Jerry)
 * Looking back, I agree. It was too soon (Keeper)

Delete

 * Articles for deletion/Tion Hegemony
 * I would have relisted this one; nobody said they looked for sources
 * Articles for deletion/One Breath at a Time, Inc.
 * Articles for deletion/Ars Regendi
 * Articles for deletion/Strong collaboration
 * Articles for deletion/Pipiskin
 * Articles for deletion/B. Scott
 * Articles for deletion/Piraka
 * I would have relisted this; one keep !vote started with Delete this happens alot for some reason. I saw raw !vote count as 2/2 at closing.
 * Articles for deletion/Trading Post Magazine
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion
 * wrong closing decision -- clearly a merge, which is a keep -- gfdl requires old page to be kept (jerry)
 * Hmm. Not sure what my rational was there, what do you think would be a good "next step?".  I could simply overturn the deletion, or do think DRV would be better?  (keeper)


 * Articles for deletion/Tom Vogt (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism
 * Articles for deletion/Kamal Karna Roy
 * Articles for deletion/Free Lebanese Armenian Movement
 * Articles for deletion/Kenneth W. Hagin
 * Articles for deletion/J. E. Sherrill
 * Articles for deletion/Princess (film)
 * Articles for deletion/Vladimir Riazanov
 * Articles for deletion/Karsus
 * Articles for deletion/Actors who died in their 20s
 * Articles for deletion/The Turnbuckle
 * Articles for deletion/FR8
 * Articles for deletion/List of modern deathrock bands
 * Articles for deletion/Pål Johan Karlsen (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of bands from Las Vegas
 * Articles for deletion/The Dead Walk Diaries
 * Articles for deletion/St. Lawrence Carbonization Plant
 * Articles for deletion/The Entertainers (NUFC)
 * Articles for deletion/Bulimaw
 * Articles for deletion/Obsil
 * Articles for deletion/Michael Beardsley
 * Articles for deletion/Mary Queen of Scots (film)
 * Articles for deletion/Sajav
 * Articles for deletion/Joe Pulizzi

Speedy keep (snow)

 * Articles for deletion/2008 Italian political crisis
 * early close after 3 hours seems premature; an outcome of merge/redirect seems likely if left to go longer
 * Yeah, this was a weird one. It was closed early as the result of an AN/I discussion.  The article was linked from the mainpage, and was brought to admin's attention there.  The general feeling from the ANI discussion is that articles on the mainpage should not have a deletion notice on the lead of the article. (Along the lines of put your best foot forward...)  So it was really a procedural close more than a decision to keep, persay.  I agree that the article should/could have ended up being merged and redirect.  I will definitely articulate that better if/when it occurs again, and not use the term "snow".

Keep

 * Articles for deletion/Sometimes I
 * Articles for deletion/The Natural Edge Project
 * I would have relisted this; the sources provided late in the discussion were not accepted as valid for notability, just provided to refute one statement in the nom.
 * Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo
 * Articles for deletion/Air pollution dispersion modeling books
 * Articles for deletion/Glasgow Rowing Club
 * Articles for deletion/Salzburg Forum
 * Articles for deletion/Red Sulphur Springs Hotel
 * Articles for deletion/San Soo
 * Articles for deletion/Mufti Mukarram Ahmad
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod)
 * Articles for deletion/Arthur Schafer
 * Articles for deletion/Alderman quilley
 * Articles for deletion/Psychohistory
 * Articles for deletion/London Underground statistics
 * Articles for deletion/Nokia 6080
 * Articles for deletion/Jean Calvignac
 * Articles for deletion/Generation Z 2
 * I would not use closing decision "weak keep"
 * Articles for deletion/Wings of Legacy
 * Articles for deletion/Nampa Gateway Center
 * failed to sign closing statement... closed by anonymous.
 * Articles for deletion/List of cult and new religious movement researchers (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Donna Eden
 * I would not use closing decision "weak keep"
 * Articles for deletion/Katran (Myst)
 * Articles for deletion/Alice Sinclair
 * Articles for deletion/Dan Kimball
 * Articles for deletion/Roel Sterckx
 * Articles for deletion/Resistance is futile
 * Articles for deletion/Predator technology
 * Articles for deletion/Robert Blake (folk singer)
 * Articles for deletion/Eurotrash (term)
 * Articles for deletion/Ahmed El Esseily (2nd nomination
 * the discussion page should be move/renamed due to the obvious typo, the oldafdfull you added to the article talk page has the wrong discussion (first one) linked; these issue will help people find the AFD in the future.

Merge/ Redirect

 * Articles for deletion/Christian newspapers
 * Articles for deletion/She'll Be Right Records
 * technique difference: I keep article and tell others to merge/redirect as they see fit.
 * Articles for deletion/Succubus (comics)
 * Articles for deletion/Stacy Ann Peterson
 * Articles for deletion/The Redwall Graphic Novel
 * Articles for deletion/Dictum de omni
 * Articles for deletion/Cultural references of Chuck (TV series)
 * Articles for deletion/Pitt Med magazine
 * Articles for deletion/Abnak Label

JERRY talk contribs 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WOW! This is way more specific than I could have ever hoped for, but it's exactly what I wanted.  I have some things to fix today!  I really appreciate your thoroughness here, certainly above and beyond your call of duty.  I have created a new temporary subpage in my userspace to address these so as not to clutter your talkpage with each individual AfD.  I will address your concerns, rectify what needs recting [sic], and I'll post here again when I have updated that page.  And I won't close any new ones until these are addressed.  Again, WOW, and thanks -- <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've fixed the easy ones (and marked them as such).  Couple of questions.  I haven't done anything with the ones that you've stated you would have "relisted".  Do you think I should now go and relist them?  I'm of the nature that since none of them have been contested, let em be.  The one you've stated was "wrong" above - I agree with your assessment.  What do you feel would be the logical next step?  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the "relist" ones, I would just leave them be... as you say, nobody contested them, so it's probably the way it would have turned out after a relist... but the other (cold fusion) one I would overturn your closing and restore the aticle. I'd then relist it with a comment like "Procedural noimination, a user has contested the closing decision and as closing administrator I decided to relist this for more input." That would do the trick.  You could then copy my comment above as the first comment in the AfD below the nom, or I can put it there.  This is the standard practice for those occasions that a user has a discussion with you bfore delrev and you agree with them at least enough to relist it.  As a long time has passed, it would probably not be proper to just flip the decision without a relist, however, as the concerned editors undoubtedly stopped watching the page, and may have new or renewed interest in how the decision is made.


 * I hope you don't think my feedback was too critical... I assume you asked for it becuase you wanted it. I generally don't give that kind of feedback unsolicited.  I do think you are doing a great job, and I do note that most of my concerns stemmed from your earliest closures.  In each grouping above they are in date order, oldest at the top, so you can see at the bottoms of most of the headings I agreed with most of your closures.  I sometimes am too honest for what people actually want to hear... so please do not take offense. JERRY talk contribs 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good gravy, no way am I offended! First, I asked for your input, with the hopes that you would say "Great Job" or "keep up the good work".  I secretly also hoped that you would take the time to go through my contribs and do exactly what you did.  If I were a barnstar givin' kind of guy, I'd probably give you three for your extended efforts!  Thanks a ton for your input.  I'll relist the cold fusion one first thing in the morning and I'll post a link to your talk.  I will also notify the !voters in the last AfD that seemed to have a strong opinion one way or the other.  Again, I sincrely appreciate your thoughtfulness and detail.  Cheers, I'm off for the night - <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. I've relisted Timeline of cold fusion and notified every editor that expressed an opinion there.  Feel free to add any comments you feel belong at the AfD located here.  Thanks again for everything Jerry!  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  17:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Conversations with 2 users about a deletion debate and associated DELREV.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina
Hi Jerry, I'm not sure how you got a delete out of that one as it looked a lot more like a no consensus. Plus, we're still addressing at the arbitration case to what extent character articles are affected by the injunction and while discussions at AfD seem to be okay to continue, deleting the article and closing the discussions don't seem to be something everyone is in agreement on. Thus, I strongly urge you to reconsider closing that article for now and I thought I would mention it to you first before I bring the matter to deletion review. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is not covered by that ARBCOM case, as it very specifically says "television fictional characters and episodes". The subject of this article is a game character that to my understanding has never been part of any television production, aside from possibly appearing in commercial advertisements for the associated game.  So reconsideration is complete, and I urge you to seek further input via WP:DRV, as you deem appropriate. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do. Thanks for the reply.  By the way, while I am admittedly disappointed in this action, I hope that you will not take it personally as I have said before, I normally have a great deal of respect for your closures and efforts.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I know you are doing what you think is best. JERRY talk contribs 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to read that. By the way, I revised the numbers in my overturn rationale to 5-5 (instad of the original 4-4; I'm grading midterms now, so my focus is a little here and there) based on your response.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The protocol is to strikethrough your original text if you correct/ change it, if another editor has commented on it, or if you are clearly changing your mind. In this case I had already commented on the 4:4 count, so my comments did not make sense after your change.  So I put your "4"'s back, appropriately struckthrough. JERRY talk contribs 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. By the way, I hope in bringing that to deletion review it does not somehow reflect negatively on you as that is certainly not my intention.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all... after all, I did suggest it. I think anytime we get broad input from the community where initially a small number of editors are in disagreement, that we can amicably work through it.  Just because our opinions differ on this AFD does  not mean that our esteem for eachother has to be anything but the highest.  If the community consensus is that this article should not have been deleted, then I will be the first person to earnestly want it undeleted. Thanks again for taking an interest in the project and for being civil and having the courtesy to discuss this with me before submitting the delrev. I go to bed now. JERRY talk contribs 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate it when editors can disagree in a civil and constructive manner. Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Zafina
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zafina. 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. <font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the result about Zafina's article was delete. But I'd like to know what is the criteria about this. Because there was a draw there. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read (and participate in, if you choose) the deletion review. I prefer not to duplicate the conversation here. JERRY talk contribs 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks for the attention Jerry. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A question from a fellow administrator about a protected blank project space page.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wikicide
I see you created this with the content "null page to prevent associated talk page from appearing as a CSD#G8 candidate" - Where is this automatic listing of CSD#G8 candidates that this page is intended to influence? —Random832 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a major cleanup of the old deletion debate pages, before the current AFD format. In the old days we used to just make a subpage like Foo/Temp, and the deletion debate happened there.  This quickly became chaos, and so a centrally-managed venue called VFD was created, which quickly became chaos, and then the existing AFD venue, where the logpage and debate both occur in project namespace was created.


 * Well, in a recent subpage cleanup effort, all those orphan pages got tagged for deletion.... so I moved most of them (many hundreds!!!) to the AFD archive in the sky, by moving them to Articles for deletion/foo, but in some cases the page was in project namespace already... MFD's are not done in a format that provided an easy way to make an archive page, so initially I did not know what to do about it so I just protected the associated blank project space page to prevent deletion of it's talk page.


 * You see, Bots generate lists of orphan talk pages and tag them for deletion every once in a while. We can't have our archived deletion debates getting deleted, so I figured by making the mainspace page a blank one that the bots would not tag, then it would be ok.  Not sure how you found the page, but if you want to actually put an essay or whatever there, we'll just have to do something else with that old talk page (which is actually an XFD page).  Maybe we should just move it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikicide? it still won't get found that way though, unless somebody actually knows to look for it.  So I dunno.  What do you think? JERRY talk contribs 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An amicable discussion about content at an article.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

What is your objection to my edits at Schizophrenics Anonymous?
Hi. I made an effort to improve the article Schizophrenics Anonymous, which is the subject of an AfD discussion, but you rolled back my edits, indicating that you consider them to be vandalism. Would you give me the courtesy of explaining your actions? See Talk:Schizophrenics Anonymous. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * hmmmm. I never said vandalism.  You reverted my edits to the article after I made an effort to improve it while it was at AfD.  There is no mention in the references provided that it is a 12-step program.  This appears to be somebody's own research.  And the founder of the organization along with her diagnosis is not encyclopedic.  We do not have a valid reason to include this detail of a living person's life in our article that I could see.  The 6 steps of the program sounded very advertish, and did nothing to claim notability. JERRY talk contribs 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, indeed. I saw your first edits there as (in part) reverting my earlier attempt to improve the article by adding independently sourced content (with a reference) about the organization. I supported your decision to remove the list of the 6 steps as a possible copy-vio, but (as discussed at Talk:Schizophrenics Anonymous and in my edit summaries) I felt that the details about the history (including the founder's name) were important parts of the organization's story.


 * Regarding my perception that your rollback of my edit indicated that my edit was vandalism, I based that interpretation on WP:Rollback, which indicates that the rollback feature is only to be used for vandalism and similarly clear-cut situations.


 * Regarding calling SA a 12-step program, that's not original research. "12-step program" is essentially a generic noun that is clearly applicable to SA. It's similar to identifying a school for 3- and 4-year-olds as a "nursery school" or "preschool", even if the school calls itself "Paragon Children's Academy" and does not use the words "nursery school" or "preschool" to describe itself. Among people who are even mildly familiar with these programs as professionals or as participants (I am not in either category, but I've heard about them from people in both categories), it would be "common knowledge" that the wording of the SA 6 steps (this is some of the text that you deleted) closely mirrors the wording of the AA 12 steps. In any event, Recovery World (one of the cited references) includes SA on a list of 12-step programs (that's a pretty junky page that I would not feel good about citing in Wikipedia) and SA's own website describes the SA meeting format in terms of the AA meeting format and the AA 12 steps. Also see  and , and the lists of 12-step programs at  and [] . Since SA's program does not actually employ 12 steps, I could see reasons for taking "12 step program" out of the noun cluster in the lead, but the text of the article definitely should acknowledge that the program is based on a 12-step model. The article Self-help groups for mental health, which is one of the two "See also" links to  that I added (and that you removed), helps to explain the typology of self-help groups.


 * As for identifying the name of the founder, it is very common for articles about organizations to name the founder as a key part of the organization's history. There clearly are no WP:BLP issues with naming her. I found her name on http://www.nami.org/, which is a responsible organization that would not use a living person's name without permission. Furthermore, as I noted on the article talk page, she founded SA after "coming out of the closet" as a schizophrenic on national TV. AFAICT, she is not notable for anything in addition to going public with her illness and founding SA, so WP would not have a separate article about her, but there's plenty of reason to name her in connection with the organization she founded.


 * --Orlady (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The essay you cited about rollback is a new one that was written to describe a new feature available to non-admins. Although I do see that it includes in its scope the use of rollback by admins, there has been no suggestion made to admins that they should read or follow that essays "how-to" recommendations.  Rollback is just a simple way to revert several consecutive edits by the same user.  And the essay says "usually vandalism", not "exclusivey vandalism".  Even before I was an administrator, I had rollback in my monobook user scripting, so my use of rollback has far preceeded this new essay.


 * Well, I guess I was naive for thinking that the same basic rules of engagement apply to administrators and non-admins. I have been bending over backwards and not using rollback in instances that I believe to be vandalism, but where I think there is even a small possibility that my actions could be misunderstood, such as this diff. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "obvious" applicability of 12-step programs to this organization is own-research.


 * The talkpage discussions you describe did not exist at the time I edited this article. The talkpage merely contained some statement by the supposed author of the article and how he has a vendetta against 12-step programs.


 * I agree that the talkpage discussion did not exist then. I posted there immediately before posting here, as it is my understanding that article talk pages (not a user talk page) are the appropriate place to discuss differences of opinion on article content. Previously, I had used edit summaries to describe my actions and as much of my reasoning as I could fit into a summary. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be okay to include the founders name, but to include her psychological diagnosis and year of same is a BLP issue, unless sources by RS and essentially notable.

JERRY talk contribs 14:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was (and continue to be) under the impression that I had cited an RS source for this information. This is a person who has devoted more than 20 years of her life to speaking publicly about schizophrenia. Seeing the contentiousness of this matter, I have found additional RS sources that I believe thoroughly support its notability. See my sandbox version of this article at User:Orlady/Stuff I'm working on/SA. Let's continue this discussion on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The version currently in your sandbox seems okay to me. I am unable to open reference #1, however, becuase it crashes my computer every time I try.  But I assume it has the context you footnoted.  If you move your version to the mainspace (without overwriting the AFD template, of course), I will not disturb it. JERRY talk contribs 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the re-review, and thanks for the alert on the reference. That's an [expletive deleted] Powerpoint presentation; it had better be labeled as such. One slide has a photo of Verbanic and text saying Joanne Verbanic / Founder of Schizophrenics Anonymous / 1970 diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia / 1985 with Mental Health Association in Michigan Founded Schizophrenics Anonymous / Motivated to erase stigma / “The stigma is harder to deal with than the illness itself.” / Spokesperson at Mental Health conferences, universities, schools, clubs, TV, radio in an effort to educate the public. Another slide says: Similarities and Differences with 12-Step Programs / Initially based on 12 Steps of AA / Self-help only—not advocacy or group therapy / Not billable to insurance / Not “behavior based”—can do everything “right” and still have schizophrenia / 6 Steps can be done in any order --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) That's great. If you use one of the php-cite templates (eg. Template:cite-web) that employs the "quotation" line, you can put that text in it and save people from the crash issue if they, like me, do not have PPT rendering software installed. JERRY talk contribs 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! I incorporated the content in the live article and added quotations.
 * FWIW, although I have the software, I often use the Google cache to view the text content of online PPT and Word files. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am pleased that we seem to be closing this discussion as friends, as opposed to what some may have predicted would have been an entrenched battle with a defined loser. It's been a pleasure working with you, and proving once again that the bold-revert-discuss cycle works. JERRY talk contribs 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that every discussion here could conclude amicably. (However, it's not over yet at Talk:Schizophrenics Anonymous.) --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An amicable discussion about a new template I made for the arbcom thing.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Re: FICTWARN
I was thinking that an ambox might look better. Here's what I kitbashed together

Thoughts? -- RoninBK T C 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is good. I prefer to use a non-substed template, however, as the "what links here" special page for the template would tell us everywhere such a template is in use.  So how about put your version on top of Template:FICTWARN, and then move it to the top of the few afd's it is in right now.  (You might replace the current transclusion with some parenthetical thing like (template moved to top) so the comments about it make sense to those who follow. JERRY talk contribs 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't subst, I cut&pasted the raw wikicode here from the personal sandbox I used to code it up. I'm merely a highly opinionated non-admin, so I can't edit FICTWARN, nor would I refactor AfD pages without input from an Admin. (By the way, I'm watching this page, go ahead and reply here) -- RoninBK T C 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you substed it... I was just saying that I don't think people should just use the ambox... because of the what links here thing. I will make the change to the template now. And hey! I thought you were an admin!! JERRY talk contribs 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered, but I don't believe I have nearly the edit history to survive an RfA nomination. I'd consider it if nominated, but I'm not directly angling for the mop just yet. -- RoninBK T C 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A friendly reminder from a user about an incomplete AfD closing.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Guy_Aoki
Hi! You were the closing admin for Articles_for_deletion/Guy_Aoki, which was closed as keep. However I noticed on his page that it still says it's up for AfD. I was going to remove the banner since it refers to the old AfD (no edits since 1/6/08) but part says admin use only so I didn't want to touch it. Travellingcari (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fixed it. JERRY talk contribs 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A new admin replying about some minor issues with his AfD relists.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

RE: admin close
Oh God, and I got the other ones... sigh. Sorry about that. Still adapting. Cheers, <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate.. I just always remind people. JERRY talk contribs 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An unclassifiable issue.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Tweety21
In case you get more emails from [xe], see this (and the previous edit) by Guy; apparently there is a protocol now. And feel free to investigate further (contact the office or whatever); I'm not the one trying to hide anything here. Precious Roy (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about orphanbot listgen and deletion of user talk page history for oversight removal of unlawful content.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

talk page history
Please do not "reset" your talk page by deleting it; I had not yet read your reply to my message, and would have been unable to find it if I were not an admin (You did archive it, but I had difficulty even finding your pages again, since the way I find user talk pages I have left a comment on and not received a reply on my talk page is by looking at my own contributions in the user talk namespace).

But anyway, your response didn't address my actual question, which was to ask where this "list of G8 candidates" that you're preventing the page from showing up on is located. You said "You see, Bots generate lists of orphan talk pages and tag them for deletion every once in a while.", but I have never seen such a bot in operation, nor have I seen a massive number of talk pages show up on CAT:CSD at one time, so these lists are evidently somewhere off-wiki (which, again, I would like an actual link to where these lists go, rather than a simple statement that they exist) —Random832 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page history was deleted because there was information there left by another user regarding a current OTRS case that I do not want to be in any way involved with, and am not, so far, at all involved with. I will gladly go into more detail via email or some other forum to explain that, but not here.
 * I had the page history minus the problematic edits restored now. JERRY talk contribs 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the last week of December 2007, as a result of a bot cleanup effort, all orphan talk pages were listed for deletion. I think this was done on a toolserver list, not on-wiki, but I would have to do alot of research to find that.  What exactly is the point of this line of questioning?  If you want to unprotect the page and do anything else with the deletion discussion, be my guest.  I do not understand the reason for these questions. JERRY talk contribs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I was hoping you knew offhand where that toolserver list is. I don't see what's so confusing. —Random832 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if we are arguing or not. This is a strange conversation.  It sounded like you were accusing me of being up to no good with my edit to that project space page and my temporary deletion of my talk page history.   Perhaps I started on the defensive and not assuming good faith enough.  If so, I am sorry.  It looks like the toolserver tool that can generate such a list is here.  This is not the list I was working off of back in December, but it seems to make the same data. JERRY talk contribs 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about my speedy deletion of an orphan template talk page that a user was using in his user space.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Your deletion
Hey Jerry, I see you deleted the text I placed into my template. Please don't do that again. There was no reason for it. The text in question was placed into a discussion area for a template that appears on my page Look at the bottom - "Real Wiki Editors" I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it was on a non-existant page, however, I am placing it back on. Please AGF next time and CONTACT the author of the template your working with. (I'm not yelling at you - I promise :) )

Thanks KoshVorlon <B> ".. We are ALL Kosh..." </B> 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please generate a page name. JERRY talk contribs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about my speedy deletion of Template talk:Official Wiki Editor, I did that because there is no corresponding Template:Official Wiki Editor, and the logs indicate that there never was such a template at any time in history. Project space talk pages are not a place for random text or user space comments.... they are for discussion about their corresponding project space page.  Please review WP:CSD. JERRY talk contribs 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerry - click on the link I left for you and look at the bottom of the page,

the template is there. Contact me before deleting that text please!. Thanks KoshVorlon <B> ".. We are ALL Kosh..." </B> 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * take a look at the following link:

Template:Official Wiki Editor Now, what color is it? So does the template exist? JERRY talk contribs 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, Jerry, but your page is still watchlisted from our most recent conversation. I think the general misunderstanding can be viewed here. It's in userspace, and not named template:Official Wiki Editor. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, so the talk page should be cross-namespace moved to accompany it's template. I will do that. JERRY talk contribs 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about my having added the FICTWARN template on an AfD for a list-article that included some fictional television characters.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/List of fictional barefoot characters and FICTWARN
The article nominated for deletion is merely a list which may (or may not) include characters involved in the injunction, but is not about the characters. Under your reasoning, any article which includes a link to a fictional character involved would fall under the injunction, which is clearly not the intent of the injunction. Please remove the FICTWARN tag. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without clear guidance from ARBCOM on the issue, it is better to cast a wide net, I think. I am reluctant to remove the template.  JERRY talk contribs 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user requesting cross-namespace move of an article that had been deleted at AfD, then improved in userspace.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

To restore article of Maurizio Giuliano
12-Feb-2008: Hello, Jerry. User:Wikid77 here. I see that you were assigned to delete the article "Maurizio Giuliano" (in January), and I think, along with User:CCorward, that we are ready re-create that article with added sources to verify notability. Do you sense any other restrictions, or can we just copy the updated version into the empty article "Maurizio Giuliano"? I will check back here after a while. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast, thanks a lot Jerry ! --CCorward (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. JERRY talk contribs 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A mentoring question from Willirennen.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

In regards to an edit war
Considering a bit I have left on the mentoring page a while ago has not being answered, since it is off your watchlist. I am posting in regards to an edit warring in the Panerai article. Considering this user's edit history consists of cruft edits which is not considered relevant to this site, once these are removed, the user goes and revert any changes. So the question is, what warning shall I award him as I think it is now a time he receive a warning, that it is a single purpose account. Willirennen (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So far it just looks like the normal bold-revert-discuss edit cycle in the works. If I were you, I would not issue any warning, but continue to engage in a civil discussion and attempt to reach a compromise in the article talk.  If the user violates 3RR, report it.  If the discussions go nowhere, try opening up a WP:RFC section on the page.  Where you have been involved in the edits described, it is unlikely that this user would accept a warning from you in good faith. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I don't believed that the debate will ever be resolved, I have attempted to apply WP:RFC/ECON onto the Talk:Panerai article, but nothing appears on it yet, so what have I done wrong. Willirennen (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A reply from an admin who I reminded about something.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

re: "Mild as May"
D'oh! Thanks for catching that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. JERRY talk contribs 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A bot notice about a fair use image
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BennyHill.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BennyHill.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fair use rationale was there, but apparently the bot code can only see it if it is in a template. I added the template to appease the bot, and removed the di-tag. JERRY talk contribs 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion about an AfD I closed. This wound out going to DELREV'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Nial Djuliarso
The article Nial Djuliarso has been deleted again. I am tired of having to explain that Nial Djuliarso is a prominent musician in Indonesia. I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son). The AFD has been discussed many times, it has been contested and approved to be reinstated. Please explain why Nial Djuliarso is deleted again on January 23. Chaerani (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you review the page logs:
 * 02:27, 23 January 2008 Jerry (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (AFD: Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion) (Restore)
 * 06:22, 10 January 2008 Stormie (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (28 revisions restored: Contested PROD: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 10)
 * 03:26, 10 September 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable musician.) (Restore)
 * --- You will see that what happenned is that an editor placed a prod notice on the article, which means that they felt the article was a very clear candidate for deletion, and that deletion would likely be non-controversial. They should have placed a warning template on the creator's talk page, as well.  After 5 days this prod notice was not removed, per the instructions on the template, so it was then assumed that deletion was indeed non-controversial.  Therefore Coredesat deleted the article after a likely quick, undetailed review.
 * --- Somebody went to deletion review and questioned the deletion. Our policy in such a case, (where the deletion was the result of an expired prod), is to immediately restore the article without any detailed review of its merit.  Therefore Stormie did in fact restore the article.
 * --- As is typical in such a case, it was subsequently nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. In this process, the article received a thorough review by a wide range of editors, who offerred their comments and recommendations.  After at least 5 days an administrator determined the rough consensus of those who participated in the discussion.  As closing administrator I determined that the consensus was to delete the article.  My own subjective evaluation of this article was not any part of this determination.  I merely distilled, filtered and consentrated the input from the debate participants.  That you were unavailable to participate in the AfD is unfortunate, but does not influence my decision to defer any further undeletion discussion  to deletion review.JERRY talk contribs 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I wonder if you could send me the link to the latest AFD discussion that I have missed, that have caused you to delete the article. I am now appealing at DR. Thank you. Chaerani (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only AfD for this article is here: Articles for deletion/Nial Djuliarso, JERRY talk contribs 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A review request from a user about a userfied version of a previously-deleted article.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

InDepenDance Day
how this now. User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day Soccermeko (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added my comments to the page in red. JERRY talk contribs 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A conversation about an AFD someone else closed, and Template:FICTWARN. This wound up going to DELREV and ARBCOM/RFC.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

FICTWARN
Hi - it says exactly the same thing in a different way. As it stands, that template is misleading, especially for new editors. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC) How is it less confusing to change the explicit listing of the only three prohibited outcomes with a spongy phrase like that? The ARBCOM injunction was clear.... do not delete, do not redirect, do not merge. It does not say do not edit, do not close discussions as no consensus, etc.... The wording is not confusing and does not need to be changed. What is wrong with it the way it is? JERRY talk contribs 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Although discussion is encouraged, this AFD may not be closed with an outcome that modifies the current state of the article, until the injunction is lifted or modified." ? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that it insinuates that there is an ArbCom ruling that these articles shouldn't be Deleted, Merged or Redirected at all. Yes, I know that isn't what it says, but it's definitely not clear.  Why can't these AfDs just be closed and then re-opened after the RfAR ruling (per Phil's comment below)?. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That template is inconsistent with my interpretation of the arbcom injunction, which is not a call to create a backlog of debates to be closed out when a remedy passes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It also does not say that we should ignore consensus-forming processes. The intent of the injunction, by it's very name "temporary halt" is to post-pone activities until further guidance is provided.  This template was a remedy to the problem created by the injunction, and has been done on most of the rest.  I will create a deletion review to decide the matter as a community. JERRY talk contribs 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jerry. I responded to you on the Request for Comment. I hope this clears my previous comment up and I apologize for any confusion. Redfarmer (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Pirani Ameena Begum AfD
Dear Jerry, I see that you closed this AfD as keep, but surprisingly, you didn't give any motivation as I think is usual when closing an AfD. Given that there were no real arguments given for the keep position (no notability other than being someone's spouse) I would appreciate if you could explain the logic behinf this decision to me. Thanks, --Crusio (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmm... are you reading the same page I closed? Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum? The consensus seemed quite clear to me. Please look over my extended closing comments. JERRY talk contribs 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes we are. Your extended closing arguments were not yet posted when I asked the above question. Having read them now, I follow your reasoning, but don't really agree. An AfD, I thought, is not a vote, but the closing admin goes about the arguments. Although I did not specifically state, no sources on Pirani Ameena Begum are readily available. Almost all that were added to the article during the AfD are not about this person, but about her daughter and husband. The only claims to notability are that she was the spouse of an important person, had a notable daughter, and published some poems. Most are apparently lost (their one-time existence is not really contested, I think), but nevertheless, just publishing some poems does not make somebody notable. The references added during the AfD that DID concern Pirani Ameena Begum are a short article in a Sufi magazine from 1915 and a 3 page (!) article from 1988 in a Canadian journal. Apparently I failed in my due diligence, I apologize for not unearthing these references myself.... Nevertheless, I don't think they establish notability.


 * My take on this AfD is that no valid arguments for keep were given. Why on earth I am being accused of violating WP:BIAS really escapes me, as I already (but apparently unsuccessfully) tried to explain in the AfD. I never argued that a spouse cannot be notable, I only argue that just BEING a spouse, is not notable. --Crusio (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why you are still not acknowledging that she was the first female sheikh? This establishes notability in its own right, does it not?  Those who participated in the debate certainly did think so.  Perhaps you do not believe that it is actually true, which is another matter.  Nobody said the factual accuracy of the article was in question, they just said there was no valid context for her notability. If we take it as a given that she actually was the first ever female sheikh, then I think we would arrive at the conclusion: "hmmm... that's rather notable."   Like even the worst female president of the United States who quits after 11 minutes in office then goes into seclusion, would still be notable just for being the first female president.  As would the first female Pope, or the first female Starting Quarterback in a superbowl.  As is the first female US serial killer, the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, or the first female director of Indian cinema, and Harvard's first female President, or the First Female Episcopal Presiding Bishop, and the first female commander of the international space station, or even the first female Palestinian suicide bomber.  Then there's the articles we don't have yet, like Tanya Segal; Poland's first female Rabbi, Zheng Zhenxiang; China's first female archaeologist, and Fatima Narseed, the first female Iraqi Policewoman. JERRY talk contribs 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are not looking at the same article after all. The word "sheikh" is not to be found at all in the article on Pirani Ameena Begum that appears on my screen. --Crusio (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We were discussing the AfD, not the article. Might seem the same to you, but to me it is a world of difference.  Look over the actual AfD, particularly here and here. JERRY talk contribs 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying that this keep is based on an unsourced statement made in the AfD. --Crusio (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the version of the article that was put up for AfD did say right in it "Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Shaikh - Pirani on the West. Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." Presumably as the nominator of this AfD you would have read the article before nominating it, no? JERRY talk contribs 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see it now, it's spelled "shaikh". Yes, I did see this originally when I read the article befor nominating it, thanks for asking. As that was quite a while ago, I didn't remember, please forgive my poor inadequate memory. But this claim to notability is unsourced. It has remained unsourced for the duration of the AfD (which was relisted to get more discussion). It is my understanding that an unsourced claim for notability is a barrier to a speedy delete, but not to a prod and even less relevant in an AfD. If there had been sources for this, the article creator (who added several references to the article on the subject's husband and daughter) could have added them, but he didn't. I maintain that the persons voting "delete" did so based on arguments. The people that voted keep, did not give any arguments at all ("Definitely notable/worthy of note", for example). How about WP:JUSTAVOTE? Only DGG voted "weak keep" and gave some arguments. And while we are splitting straws, not even the article claims that she was the first female sheikh. It claims she was one of the first female Sufi sheiks. The summary of arguments that you listed on the talk page of the AfD after I asked for your rationale for closing this AfD as keep is rather careless, too. It lists several "invalid delete arguments" that were never given as a reason for delete (previous prod, the fact that the poems are lost, etc). Why saying that "only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable" is evidence of WP:BIAS is not explained either (and rather insulting, I feel). Well, I have wasted enough time with this. I hope you'll be more careful when closing AfDs in future. --Crusio (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly unlikely that I will be more careful in the future with respect to closing AfD's. I feel that the correct decision was made.  What I do assume is that you did not read the books that were given as references in the article.  I assume that the creator of the article did. Nobody said "I read those books, and they do not provide context for statement X and statement Y."  If they said that, then their "this is just non notable" arguments might have stood the sniff test.  As you said, too much time has been wasted here, and I would encourage you to submit a WP:DELREV if you wish to further discuss this, as it will give a broader opinion than our little back-and-forth here has given so far.  If you need assistance in submitting the delrev, please let me know, I can even do it for you if you want me to. PS: I did add a reference to backup the sheikh claim, but it is a book that I did not read.  It was on somebody's personal angelfire webpage with a nice little write-up about it, and this person referenced the book as providing this context.  I know I can not add the angelfire webpage, but I added the reference for somebody who has access to it to determine later.  There is enough benefit of doubt for this one to keep, I would say. JERRY talk contribs 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A user telling me I did a good job.... damn near a barnstar.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Your work rescuing St. Lucie West Centennial High School is much appreciated
The current page is unrecognizable as the same article Operationquietnoise created as self-described intoxicated folly. You and others have certainly demonstrated the value of the edit button. Bully! BusterD (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you! JERRY talk contribs 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Johnny Ca$h
Jerry, why did you delete Johnny Ca$h 10 editors voted keep and only 8 voted delete. The article had sources, links and the whole 9. I and 9 other editors feel the article is notable. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you make any effort whatsoever, even the slighest click of your mouse, to read the entire page I created to explain my rationale??? JERRY talk contribs 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, Jerry I understand your deletion but damn I wish Ca$h still had an article. Will you reconsider? I'm just playin. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user letting me know they complete the merge per my AfD closure.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

done
I've merged Martiniano Ferreira Botelho according to your closing of the Afd. thanks for helping in the solution. DGG (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank- you . Your ability to interpret Portuguese came in rather handy! JERRY talk contribs 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion of Tunnel Rats article.
Four delete, three keep, one merge. Given the nature of the article in question, I do not believe one vote in lead for deletion is really grounds for deletion. The organisation in question is currently dealing with the Australian government in various issues which were headline matters. I was working to attempt to add citations to the article shortly before it was deleted. Is there any chance of an undelete, or what is the process to request undeletion so I may continue bringing the article up to wiki standards? Jachin (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the article:

(AfD)
 * Please see my detailed closing rationale at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Tunnel Rats.
 * JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Critical pedagogy in regard to WP:NAC activities.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Critical pedagogy request in regard to WP:NAC activities
What an interesting house you live in these days. Since you're such an all around nice fellow toward schools, perhaps I could bend your ear a bit in regards to pedagogy. I've been dipping my toe in AfD procedures more than just voting, did a couple of non-admin closes, and some sorting. I'd appreciate direction and correction if needed. I'm doing the Deletion process section reading, and then applying stuff as I see it. Will be dipping deeper this week. Just learning more. Any attention you offer is appreciated. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm watching your contribs this evening. As it regards AfD, I can already see an inherent weakness in me: I like stuff. Want to save it and include it. Need to read a whole bunch of these before I can be more heartless and more dispassionate. Of course, when I say heartless, I mean that in the nicest possible way. Nice efficient work, yours. Do you set daily goals, numbers or edit-wise? BusterD (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * UGGGH! I just typed-up a 20 minute reply which was brilliant, and I went to sign it after correcting all the spelling and format errors, and I hit shift+esc in stead of tilde!!!!!!  I will retype it in a few minutes... standby. JERRY talk contribs 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DISCLAIMER: The following feedback is being provided as the result of a direct request from the user who requested it. If you are a visitor to this page, please consider making any follow-on comments about this feedback on the users talkpage, and not here.  I have not asked for feedback from third parties on this feedback.  When I am asked for candid feedback, I do provide it candidly.  No sugar-coating available.  Please do not take my feedback too much to heart.  I am one editor/admin only, and my opinions have no special place of importance, and do not necessarily reflect community consensus, policy, guideline, or precedent.

I have reviewed your participation in the Articles for deletion venue. I did a database dump of the pages that you have edited, and made a link page at User:Jerry/BusterD. There are 92 unique AfD pages that you have edited, some with multiple edits. Your edits range from participation, to listing error correction, to deletion sorting, to non-admin closure.

I have noticed a distinct pattern to the pages where you have participated (!voted):
 * You primarily participate in debates that are unanimous. You rarely participate contrary to the existing consensus, rarely vote early, and rarely vote on close-call or split !vote debates.
 * You often !vote quite late, and your comments are often the last one in the debate before it is closed. While this could be explained if you use the old deletion page as a navigation tool, it could also indicate that you seek the safety of numbers and are reluctant to make waves.
 * You often do not provide your own explicitly stated rationale for your !vote. You often, instead, provide a "per nom", "per above" or "per user x" as the sole justification for your !vote.  This is understandable in the context that your votes are late and on unanimous debates where ample rationale is already stated, but it could be deemed that you are reluctant to formulate your own rationale.

Taken together, I'd say you do not want to make waves. You are probably what I call a "blender". This is a very good thing for collaboration, and very good for the community as a whole. But it might hinder the perception that others have of your capabilities to make tough calls and make unpopular decisions. If you have aspirations of becoming an administrator, participation in AfD's that only matches the pattern I describe above might be held against you.

I think you should review WP:NAC if you have not already seen it. It shows some other ways you can be helpful at AfD. We often have a 4-day or more backlog, so any help we can get is appreciated. If you have any specific questions or want feedback on specific AfD's or if you want to rant because you think I am totally out-to-lunch on this, or whatever, please do not hesistate to reply. And please again, do not take offense at my frank comments.... that is my trademark. JERRY talk contribs 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I ache for frank comments, so we'll get along even when we disagree. I would agree 99 44/100% with your above assessment. I would only edit your copy to add this preface: "Up to this point, ..." and then say everything you've just said. At this moment, I've wanted to understand the process as it exists, not bend it to my own opinion. Note that my very first edit at AfD was an article rescue (Take Point/Walk Point), and I'm trying to rescue George M. Stone during tonight's watching. I've just been choosing easy AfDs to get my feet wet. I have very strong opinions on the subject of Al Gore III, and based on history am unlikely to be on the prevailing side in that dispute. But you are reading MY edits, I'll admit. BusterD (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are interested, willing and able to learn more and temper your stronger opinions with self-restraint, and that you seek to understand what the situation is, before you trounce about in it. All of these things are very desirable qualities. I think that as you continue to study the deletion process and the related policies you will undoubtedly have a very different collection of AfD participation history under your belt in the near future.  I am glad that you did not take offense. JERRY talk contribs 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you just were saying I was usually taking the majority path, when you personally nommed Al Gore III and I just lost my save on G.M. Stone? As you say, my editing pattern is likely to NOT resemble what you've described soon. This is a bit exciting, though. More urgency than in some areas. Am working my way through the Deletion process articles this week, while I'm watching here. BusterD (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Gore3... I wish it were valid to take the reactions of all the people on the article talk page as some sort of consensus. I also in some cases wish we were allowed to WP:Canvas... this is a case where the majority of people who have bothered to write up their opinion have said delete it... but they don't go to AfD for some reason.  I think people do not want to participate in what they think will be a losing battle. The battle is worth the effort, though... if for no other reason to spread the knowledge of the policies.  People do go back and read old AfD's. JERRY talk contribs 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I suspect your accurate assessment of my early AfD behavior would closely mirror an assessment of my still early RfA behaviors. Fair characterization of my career on the pedia. One thing I learned early around here is look around carefully before you edit boldly. I posted a well-considered intro to a very well-read page, and I watched my work fly apart in minutes. Taught me proper respect for the sandbox. It's why I recommend stub editing to newbies. Safe zones. But in order to get good at any of these grimy plumbing tasks, one really needs to talk to someone greasy, so-to-speak. BTW, is it incorrect to post an underconstruction template to an article under AfD? BusterD (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That question triggers my soapbox tendencies. I will say "no" in the interest of being literal, but I plead with you to read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil.  Because in my own minority opinion, "under construction" tags are pretty much the most evil of tags. JERRY talk contribs 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I use the underconstruction template is when I'm forced to work on a live page in a malformed condition. And I guess it's been a while since I did that. But the idea of saying "hangon, I'm trying something" in a process situation requires a clear signal. I'm of the opinion that soccer is a good sport for training wikipedia editors; one graduates from insecure herd-ball kids into a mature group of skilled independents who communicate in a sophisticated and transparent way. BusterD (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good analogy. I would recommend the "rescue" template instead, though, because you don't actually want to prevent others from editing, right, you just want to convey that work is in progress, I assume.  TO ask people to not edit it while it is at AfD would probably not be acceptable, because people could game with that. JERRY talk contribs 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: AGIII, I've been learning the lesson of what a mind-numbing argument it is to make issue of the article's multiple unsuccessful AfDs. I used the same argument in a previous AfD on the subject (albeit as a qualifier). I'm certain I used a more lovely illustration than expectoration. I'll even go so far as saying in many ways, utilizing the "X unsuccessful AfDs" argument is tacit admission of inherent bias (toward project correctness) perhaps suggesting a need for recusal. It would be nice if we could all agree to act in a disinterested manner, but unfortunately, we're dealing with human beings. This article (like many others) is a charged pole, and we are merely ions gathering around the energy field. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, that. JERRY talk contribs 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking another question or two on the subject of this new AfD. Today, I find myself directly involved in an article I adopted while watching speedy deletions 48 hours ago. So while I stand by my work on the page, I'm wondering whether I shouldn't have recused myself, because I feel some loyalty to my work, perhaps an undue attachment in this case. Heck, I threw down a gauntlet in front of User:Doc glasgow pretty much daring him to nominate the article for deletion, mostly because it appeared that he had applied redirects against page consensus. Mostly I was surprised and disappointed, because since last year I've grown to recognize Doc as a community leader. He demonstrated his value to the community when he did actually nominate the article for deletion. Turns out I didn't see the consensus for redirection as it appeared in talk on another page. Strange. So without dealing with the issues of this particular AfD, my question is: how does User:Jerry deal with his own personal bias in deletion discussions? Personal bias as it relates to frequent AfD contributors? You work a bunch of 'em, and vote in all the others; you must have had some hard personal calls. BusterD (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I don't think I have had the occasion as yet to have an article I created or significantly contributed to PRIOR to AfD nomination become nominated.  I have had a few speedy-deleted, but that was during my earlier editing, and I did not understand the purpose of the project itself.  To tell the truth, some of my earlier article creations are still out there, but if they got nominated today, I would probably be inclined to vote delete, based on what I have learned.  But let's take a scenarion like yours, and see what I think I would do.


 * Today, I doubt I would create an article that I was not 100% certain met the inclusion criteria. And I doubt that I would fail to provide ample incontrovertible references to demonstrate that to others.  I don't say this to suggest that my articles would not get nominated, but rather to provide a glimpse of what my mindset would be...  It would probably be some form of "It's MY article, dammit, and I KNOW the inclusion criteria, so leave it alone, I know what I am doing!"


 * But let's say I had a real life reason to learn alot about Foo's. I met the inventor of Foo's on an airplane and talked with him for 4 hours.  I found Foo's fascinating.  I took notes.  When I got to my hotel room, I turned on the television, and I saw a documentary on the historical significance of Foo's.  And the magazine I picked up in the lobby had a cover feature article called "The 10 Best and worst Foo's of the 20th century".  I look on wikipedia, and I see a very small stub that says "A foo is a thing.  Some are small." and nothing else.  I look in the history and see nothing there as far as deleted content or previous versions.  I'm amazed, so I set out to make my first FA-candidate.  I edit away.  3 simultaneous google searches, 2 copies of notepad open, typing away. I forget to eat supper..... type type type.  I add tables, charts, diagrams and pictures.  When I am done, I make some entry on the talk page and go back for one last peek at my creation.


 * Sonabitch! Somebody has put an AfD template on the page! So now, you ask, what would I do? hmmmm....


 * I would read the AfD nomination statement. I'd make sure I understood what their complaint was.  They might have said said "We don't need Foo's because we already have a good article called Foos, and this article is just the sinhular form of that subject."  Gosh would I blush!  But I'd be glad I read the AfD nomination before I started calling this guy a troll and accuse him of unbridled deletionism.


 * So let's say he just says this: "This article is pure foo-cruft. Foo's are an inherantly non-notable neologism that will be soon forgotten.  Article suffers from severe recentism, and is nonencyclopedic.  Reads like press-release and I suspect it is a copyright violation.  Article consists solely of own research and has no reliable sources provided to verify the content."


 * Now what would I do?


 * Well, I'd call him a deletionist troll. No, just kidding!  I would probably do this:


 * Keep (as major contributor). This article is certainly not a copyright violation, please assume good faith, user:nominator.  I am not some single purpose spam account, I am a long-standing contributor with several thousand mainspace edits.  While I appreciate your concerns, and agree that cruft and PR-material, especially if copyvio, must be eliminated, I think these concerns do not apply here.  Foo's are certainly notable.  Foo's were the feature of a documentary on ReallyImportant TV channel, and have been written about in magazines, books, and newspapers.  I provided several sources, and can provide many more. The subject of this article meets the notability guideline at Notability (foo-like things), in that they have foo-like quality a, foo-like quality b, and have foo-like quality c. (sign)


 * And I would then observe the debate unfold. I would probably feel very motivated to counter-comment every delete comment, and to "hurrah" every keep, but I would try not to.  I would try to just let my initial comment stand on it's own, and hope that other editors would come along and agree with me.  Although I would reply to any replies to my comment, and may answer any questions that people directly ask.  I may also jump in woth a follow-on comment after any grossly-inacccurate comments like "I think Foo's has been speedy deleted before a couple times", or "there is a general consensus that any articles about foo's can not exist on wikipedia".


 * Yup, that's probably what I would do. I hope. JERRY talk contribs 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. It occurs to me that I've never been rudely surprised with a notice of deletion on my talk, ever (okay, one image thing which I corrected right away). Truth is, I've been trying to take everything very lightly this week, knowing I might reveal personal bias at some point. Had a bit of an easy first broken heart with George M. Stone, made a co-speedysave with User:Bedford on Tom Jurich, and was surprised to see Al Gore III up again. In the last case, I've grown to believe the best way to honor the pedia is to build the article up with good biographical material, since deletion seems unlikely (I'd even taken the page off my watchlist a few months ago). A good week for a "blender." BusterD (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*On the philosophy of redirection and history deletion.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

AfD
If the outcome of a deletion debate is redirection, why would you delete it first and then recreate the page as a redirect, i.e. losing the page history? I don't particularly mind, just slightly curious! MSGJ (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A redirect outcome says that the article content or subject is inherantly inappropriate for wikipedia, but that the search term may be useful for a reader to find an existing article. This is very much different from "Merge", where ANY content in the article are useable.  If the contents are unacceptable and unmergeable, then I delete first, then create the redirect. If at some point in the future (or even immediately) an editor thnks there is a chance that they can create a new article at the pagename which could satisfy the concerns of the XfD, then administrators can temporarily undelete the page, move it to the user's userspace, then redelete the resulting redirect.  This would allow the user to make his/her good faith improvements while maintaining the gfdl contribution attribution.  Is that the answer you needed? JERRY talk contribs 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's helpful but not completely clear! I should say that I am referring to the ridiculously long-named HSH Princess (Reichsfurstin) Donna Anna Francesca Squarciafico Pinelli Ravaschieri Fieschi Pignatelli, 6th Princess of Belmonte. In this case there was virtually no content so it doesn't make a lot of difference whether you delete first as there is nothing potentially useful in the page history. However I think I read somewhere in the instructions for AfD that if you want the page deleted first then you should vote delete and redirect. This would suggest that deleting and redirecting is not the usual course of action but something that is possible if consensus specifically demands it. Or perhaps I am missing something here. MSGJ (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you read what, but the only place that addresses this with any authority that I am aware of is Deletion guidelines for administrators, which does not directly state how to proceed. (It could use some improving; I'll probably work on it soon.) But if you read it over and understand what each action described is intended to do, you will note that we redirect without deleting in certain special cases only, where this is done "in order to preserve the history (as this may be required for the GFDL)." When the content of the article will never be used anywhere else, then there is no attribution to GFDL that is required, so it is deleted. There are 9 potential outcomes from an AfD; Generally speaking if the article content and/or history are kept, so is the talk page, but it will be removed from wikiprojects. When an article is deleted, the associated talk page is also deleted, even if the article page is then immediately made into a redirect, as the comments there have nothing to do with the redirect, but rather pertain to the old content. There are exceptions, including if the talk page contains violating material according to WP:BLP or other WP:OFFICE decisions, or if the talk page contains a substantial consensus-forming process on it (such as old VFD's, RFC's, or Merge proposals).
 * Outcomes where the article and contribution history will be deleted:
 * Delete
 * Redirect with no move/merge of content
 * Outcomes where the article and/or contribution history will be kept:
 * Keep
 * Merge
 * Move/Rename
 * No Consensus
 * Relist
 * Procedurally close as void
 * Redact (edit out specific content)

Does that clear it up at all? JERRY talk contribs 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you. I've found where I read this. It's on Guide_to_deletion. On redirect it says this:
 * Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect.
 * But perhaps this doesn't represent policy anymore. Anyway, if you do try to improve Deletion guidelines for administrators you might try to take this page into account! Cheers, MSGJ (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Another out-of-process DRV, which I refused to participate in on grounds that requester made zero effort to talk with me first (something they have no remorse about).
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion Review for Matthew Halischuk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthew Halischuk. 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. Editorofthewiki 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You failed to follow the instructions provided at WP:DRV; specifically you made no attempt whatsoever to have a discussion with me prior to filing the delrev. You also failed to observe the reminder provided at the header of my talk page (^^^ LOOK UP ^^^) or look User talk:Jerry.  Therefore I have refused to participate in the delrev, and have made a comment to that effect on the page.  A good faith reaction on your part would be to endorse my speedy close request at the DRV and then come back here and have a chat with me about the AfD, at which time I will be more than happy to discuss it with you and entertain the idea of overturning my closure if you have a convincing point to make about it.  Otherwise the delrev will run its course with others participating and it will go as it goes. JERRY talk contribs 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added an additional comment, but really it amounts to a Meh?. We'll see what happens. You are probably the best AfD closer that I've seen and I'm more than happy to support your actions. Cheers, <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Another request to review a userfied article that has not actually been improved yet.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

InDepenDance Day
how about now. Soccermeko (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is still not working for me. There are several basic problems with this article.  It's frustrating to continuously list them, when these concerns do not get fixed from one review request to another.  I assume the problem is that you do not understand some of the feedback I and others have given.  If this is the case, please ask questions.  The assesment of the article will not just change on its own over time without these things being fixed:


 * No assertion of notability per Notability (music)
 * No reliable sources
 * No inline citations
 * Mixtape is a broad term, and it is not clear in what context the term is used in this article

JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''Discusion about a CfD delrev that I decently closed.... these are tricky!'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

DRV for Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida
I closed this DRV in your favor, but I do not have familiarity with triggering the bots. Would you please take care of that part? Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for closing and the notice. I could add this for the bot, but this might be a conflict.  So here are the steps if you don't mind doing this.

; Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_14 * Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida
 * 1) Edit here and add these lines:

Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, and drv updated. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've notified Vegaswikian already, so he may put things through on his own - but quickly after the AFD was triggered, there was a new category created to replace it. Just a heads-up in case it's something you want to look into. (it's Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida, if that matters.) SpikeJones (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am actually not very familiar with the ins-and-outs of categorization... if it were up to me we would delete all of the categories in wikipedia. I think they are all useless and cause too much infighting.  But there probably is some really good and beneficial and even critical purpose that they serve which I am just not familiar with.  As for these specific category issues, I can not take a position or offer to review and intervene, because I am ignorant about the matter at hand.  My only involvement was determining the consensus at Deletion Review, and reverting one deletion.  I think Vegaswikian is in a much better position to comment and act, as (s)he seems to understand the subject and has an opinion on it.  Sorry. JERRY talk contribs 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Discussion about an article I deleted.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Johns (singer)
Although I !voted delete on the AfD, now that he's on appearing American Idol and seems to have a following, what do you think about either undeleting or having a DRV discussion about it? <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Restoring the article without significant work done to it to demonstrate that it now addresses the concerns from this 5-week old AfD would be an out-of-process action. Therefore I can not consider doing that.  I have no objection, however, to userfying the deleted content and history to a user's userspace, as long as they agree to a few terms first:

I am certain this will not stand a snowball's chance at DRV, but I have no objection to you submitting it there. JERRY talk contribs 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They will not cut-and-paste content from it without proper GFDL attribution continuation
 * They will not cross-namespace move the page themselves, but will rather ask an administrator to review it and move it
 * They will not keep it in their userspace as a shrine, or "maybe someday I'll do something with this" page; but will instead activley work to improve it soon.
 * They will inform me if they decide to abandon it, so it can be properly redeleted
 * All right, well, I'll wait for a week or two to see if more develops. :)  <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A discussion abut subpages. Reminds me of one I had a long time ago, but then it was me asking the question.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Subpages
Jerry, On the Afd WP:Articles for deletion/UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage where I suggested a subpage, thanks for the link to WP:SUBPAGE. I have done a little more digging on my own and also found the WP:Article Size guideline, which really helped me to understand the issues at hand; and, I have commented about it on my talk page for future, new editors. Thanks again. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a legacy issue which may be difficult for newer users to understand. "In the olden days", we used to create the encyclopedia as a navigatable resource, with main articles and subpages related to them.  We thought that the reader would start out reading the basic article for a subject, and then decide if they wanted to read more details... the entire encyclopedia was arranged in a "page" and "page/subpage" and "page/subpage/sub-subpage" format.  This quickly proved unmanageable, however, as editors were in constant conflict over the hierarchy of the pages, and the feedback that WMF got from readers was that this was actually a difficult way for them to quickly navigate to detailed information.  Now categories serve this original purpose but allow maximum flexibility, because "puppies" can be in a subcategory below "dogs", and also in an unrelaeted category below "pets", and so on.  So subpages are taboo.  This does not mean that large articles can not have a section removed and made into it's own page, if this section is overpowering the main article or if the main article contains many very large sections.  However, we must be careful not to split out a section just because it contradicts the rest of the article, is written in a different pont of view, or because it causes editor conflicts.  Similarly we never take a section prone to editor conflict and create two or more separate pages to allow each to slant a different way.  See Content forking.  Does this help at all? JERRY talk contribs 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Thanks again. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about a TfD for Template:Recap.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Recap

 * Jerry, thank you for the comments on the TfD for the Recap template. You absolutely hit the nail on the head with more lucidity and eloquence and rationale than anyone else in the discussion. What you said was exactly true and everyone should take note of that. I had hesitated to bring up the list of names issue as I felt that if it were re-inserted, people would move back toward a delete mentality. I have a copy of it locally saved that I fully intend to put up in my userspace that has the names and a few other tweaks I've made since this whole WikiDrama began. Among them is limiting the number of rationales (I think that no more than 5 should be listable, because if there seriously are more than 5 core issues, we have bigger problems and the template would only muddy the waters) and adding more instructions.
 * Anyway, I appreciate your words of support for the template and clear and convincing argument in favor of keeping it.
 * Finally, if you happen to have any other thoughts on the matter, please let me know so that I may continue to improve the template. THANK YOU!!! <small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">  • VigilancePrime    •     •     •   06:23 (UTC)  23 Feb '08

There is an incredible coincidence involved with my even finding that TfD. You may note that TfD is a venue I do not often participate in. Out of sheer curiosity, I wondered if the template was used anywhere, so I went to the Special:What links here page, and saw the TfD listed.... so I folowed the link. I was amazed that it was almost through its entire 5 day listing and I had not seen it yet. A testament to your integrity, as I am sure you wanted to canvas me. I hope it gets kept, because I do think it can be a useful tool. Good job and good luck! JERRY talk contribs 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A request for my opinion.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

interpretation
As someone less involved than I, could you comment at Articles for deletion/Masada (Honorverse)DGG (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to put my best foot forward with an impartial comment. My policy is to not explicitly !vote, if I am asked to look at a deletion discussion, so I have not !voted.  I hope this meets your expectations and approval. JERRY talk contribs 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An editor asked me to review a deletion at AfD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

King Harold review
That you would side with someone who engages in personal attacks against me, does not argue with policy that is relevant to the discussion, and then call me paranoid? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but my userpage has been locked to prevent vandalism because people like this anon have been defacing it and following my AFD's in order to be uncivil as this person has been. Also, you have ignored my concerns of notability, of which none has been established. In addition, all but one other person thought this anon was correct and merited its own article. I urge you strongly to reverse this decision. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Declined
 * User:DRosenbach has 3054 edits to 1286 unique pages; 1973 edits to mainspace, dating back to 21 July 2005. This user said keep.
 * User:216.37.86.10 has 118 edits, dating back to 2 March 2006, and is by no means a single-purpose account. I have no evidence before me that this user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, so this user has rights to voice an opinion with equal weighting in AfD's.  This user said keep.
 * User:saberwyn and User:Ig8887 said merge.
 * User:Pistachio said delete or merge.
 * User:Astrotrain and User:Bearian said to Keep. (The former with no rationale.)

JERRY talk contribs 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your incivility is a concern for me:
 * Your hilarious
 * you are wasting our time
 * go find something productive to do
 * are you User:Blueanode? Cause I thought he had been blocked....perhaps I should go check on this, after all, it would be just like his usual cowardly ways of attacking people behind anonymous IP's with insults and no rational argument

JERRY talk contribs 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''An user made a frivolous report against me to An/I. :( '''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

A user has requested a review of your conduct at WP:AN/I
You can go ahead and present your side of the story Mandsford (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''An editor templated me about a drv, then saw my talk page notice and removed it so we could discuss it first. HOORAY! It went to drv anyway, but I am ok with that.'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion Review for Kick in the Ass
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kick in the Ass. 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. I have requested this for review for two reasons. 1) It is academic theory by famous business philosopher Frederick Herzberg. 2) There was not a clear consensus. 3) The delete votes were ALL due to their belief that it was made up which it is clearly not, also it AFD's are meant to be a dicussion not a vote. Englishrose (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I am sorry that I did not speak to you first. I don't have many of my articles deleted...in fact it's years since I had a deletion review so I am unfamiliar with the process and thought it was a nessecity to file a deletion review. It's almost 12pm here and I was tired. Englishrose (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed :). Englishrose (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * <tt>(</tt>restore<tt>&#124;</tt> cache <tt>&#124;</tt>AfD<tt>)</tt>

In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for allowing me an opportunity to look over this discussion prior to a long drawn out drv has already started. I appreciate that you closed the drv and decided to discuss it here first.  You may note that I reverted your deletion and closed the original drv as per requestor.  It is best not to delete things from consensus-forming pages, as we try to be as transparent as possible in these venues.
 * The raw !vote count in the AfD was actually 4-2 (people often forget to count the nominator). But it really isn't about the count, anyway.  The issues here are simple... we do have a clear guideline for neologism notability.  This guideline was cited in the argument.  The sources provided use the term, but do not describe it or critically discuss the term itself.  The article reads like original research.  This is probably because in order to write about this term one must do their own research, because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the term.  I do not think a deletion review of this AfD stands much of a chance of receiving support to overturn my close, but you are welcome to open one if you choose to do so.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion of a bizarre user page CSD tag.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

G4 on User:LakeOswego was not a mistake
If you look at the edit history of that page, it's a repeat recreation of a page canvassing for votes to keep a deleted article. It has been deleted for the same reason twice already, by User:Accounting4Taste and User:The Rambling Man. This is a case of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry, involving a fringe author with a bad case of "The Truth", and his eager followers determined to protect said Truth. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  05:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand, but I'll leave it alone.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like another admin also thought the same way I did and reverted you again. I suggest you have a read over their and my edit summary comments... I think you were a little out-to-lunch on this one, Mike.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just tired or stressed-out or something.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Discussion about the closing of an AFD for an article where an official blog was used as a source.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Closed afd, AM (band)
hello Jerry. discussion here: four for delete, two for keep, you closed as delete. Calling that a consensus seems a stretch, and what's more I thought my arguments for keep were clear, reasonable, and unrefuted at close. How is it you disagree? :) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many newspapers host a blog site. The blog site is where unverified information can be posted, and normally does not even have any moderator control to prevent cruft, hoax, exaggerated, or blatently false information from being printed there.  Blogs are not allowed as sources on wikipedia for this reason.  Even if the blogger's identity is known, and we have reason to think they have an important truth to tell.  The participants in the discussion who recommended deletion were all in agreement that the article lacked verifiable reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 12:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument was about notability, no one argued that the sources added up to being unverifiable, or indeed unreliable, only that the coverage was trivial. You are entirely and shockingly wrong about blogs and wikipedia, we evaluate them on a case by case basis, and your non sequiturs about blogs are completely inappropriate (to the extent that I am taken aback by them) in this case, as I explained at the discussion. The LA Times blog is run by LA Times journalists, in their capacity as LA Times journalists. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're wrong on all counts. Please see WP:SPS for the official policy on blogs.  And the discussion did say that there were no reliable sources to support notablility.  You might be better off to raise your further concerns at WP:DRV.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...SPS stands for self-published sources. Hence blogs, on occasions when they can be said to be self-published, are largely unsuitable. If you think the LA Times comes under SPS you have the wrong end of the stick entirely. The discussion said lots of things,  which was my original point. Reliability was not a factor. "Not enough coverage" or a view of what constitutes "trivial coverage" was. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, NO, NO.... LA Times is not an unreliable source, their blog is. Just like any other blog, the information there is disclaimed by the editorial staff of the paper as non-verified, and they specifically state that they do not assume any responsibility to correct errors or omissions.  Almost all major newspapers and magazines have a blog.... the blog is almost always not a reliable source.  The paper with which it is associated is a reliable source, and if this information can be found within the LA Times proper, then it would be more than adequate.   Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About the Blogger: Kevin Bronson. Kevin Bronson has covered emerging and indie music since 2002 in his weekly Buzz Bands column in the Calendar Weekend section of the L.A. Times.  Name and subtitle of "blog":Buzz Bands: Kevin Bronson on the music scene in Los Angeles and beyond. Clearly you'd be more comfortable if websites of major media called these columns, but columns are very untrendy names to call things when you're being all hip and online. Consensus has been that SPS does not mean what you take it to mean, with for instance Sarno's Webscout LA Times "blog" and the LA Weekly's Style Council "blog" going towards notability in previous discussions. The focus was on reliability, authorship, closed access thereof, and strength of connection with the newspaper. If they are written by journalists for the newspaper, in their capacity as journalists for the newspaper, everyone, in my experience, generally fails to see how they cannot be said to go towards notability. SPS is especially for the blogspot, wordpress type of blog with which anyone can set them themselves up, though we rightly examine every source that may be presented for merit or lack thereof.
 * "Just like any other blog, the information there is disclaimed by the editorial staff of the paper as non-verified" The LA Times may indeed trust their journalists as I contend that we can. Link? "they specifically state that they do not assume any responsibility to correct errors or omissions [about their blogs, as distinct from general content]". Link?
 * Again, the argument was whether or not the sources went to notability per WP:Music. WP:Music gives indications of what might not constitute notability that are far below what we had here. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * everyone, in my experience, generally fails to see...lol, well not in this case, obv. but i think the amount of vanity/cruft in band submissions can make people harder to please than is strictly-speaking fair. Hence four to two and closed as delete despite the arguments. ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"latimes.com cannot and does not monitor or manage all User Content, and does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of User Content...bulletin board, forum, blogspace, message or chat area" LA Times disclaimer  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's a general disclaimer about content generated by mugs like you and me in comment sections and the like. Oh well, forget it. Thanks for the conversation. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

why the italics?
Since you didn't change your position it looks a little like... sarcasm? Or have you come around? Despite your being wrong of a different view, you are doubtless busier than I; so I appreciate and am grateful therefore for your engagement to that point in any case. Hence I have exquisitely crafted: * — The Low Budget But Sincere IP Barnstar of Talk Page Conversation

86.44.6.14 (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was neither sarcasm nor surrender... it was a summarization of the conversation in a small amount of space, and italicizd to show that we were not in agreement over that status. The italics indicate that the statement's accuracy was called into question, and still that way at the end of the discussion.  I think that is a fair characterization of our conversation.  I appreciate that we were able to discuss that in a civil manner, albeit we did no wind out in agreement.  It is not a realistic persuit to expect that all conversations will result in one party changing their mind.  But it is good to discuss it and good to part as friends.  So as they say "its all good".  And thanks for the barnstar.... I like that!  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jerry. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*An editor discussing their disappointment about a deleted article.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Did you not read it?
Did you not read the article "S&M Production Company"'s talk page? I was stating my case about why the article shouldn't be deleted. Or was that just not good enough....Never mind, forget about it. I mean its already deleted anyway. Saxisai (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am reading you telling me to nevermind and forget about your post. I will comply.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's basically what I am telling you to do, because unless I make the article again, it's going to stay deleted and there's nothing I can do about it...I'll take my article and place it somewhere it belongs, Data Crystal.Saxisai (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, that's not true. You have options.  I could undelete it to your userspace so that you could work on it undisturbed, and then if you manage to get it up to standards we could discuss moving it back to mainspace.  You could also go to WP:DRV and request that my deletion be reviewed and possibly overturned.  Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Courtesy notification from another admin about a delrev of my closure of an AfD.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Kick in the ass
Your close of this article is being discussed at Deletion review/Log/2008 February 25. Thought you might want to comment.DGG (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The user did discuss the closing with me, and I told them they could list it at DRV if they wanted to.   Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A freindly reminder not to mess up AFDO.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Archiving old AfDs
Hi. I note that you removed these completed AfDs on the 24th and just wanted to remind you that when they are removed from old, they need to be listed at Archived delete debates. The two days in question have now been put in place, so no problems, but this is just a reminder for future use. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks, yeah I had no idea about that. I don't normally get into that detail on the AFD/Old page, but I was hunting some unclosed afd's because I found a discrepancy in the dump.  I will keep it in mind next time.  The good part is I did find an unclosed and unrelisted AFD from the 11th, which I took care of.  How does that happen, anyway?  Didn't any of the participants wonder why it was still open?  Oh, well...  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd think! Once in a while a very cold AfD seems to show up at ANI. Must be how that happens. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Gore saga, part 1.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wonders never cease
Thanks for nominating Al Gore III for deletion. I'd wikilink it, but there's nothing now at that pagespace. There may be a tiny bit of controversy with the close, since by numbers consensus was somewhat mixed. Closing admin went to the trouble of posting rationale, which made sense under the circumstances. It appears the "this issue has been decided in a previous AfD proceeding" argument doesn't seem to carry as much weight compared with other arguments, at least by this measurement. I can honestly say: Wow! BusterD (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, as I probably forgot to mention, (tongue in cheek), consensus can change.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and it can change again, of course. What we really need is a way of reinstating just as easy as that of re-nominating for deletion--the addition and removal processes should be symmetrical. I'd support a proposal requiring deletion review for a second nomination after a keep, just as for a reinsertion after a delete. that an 8th nom was made is an abuse of process--it does not reflect change in consensus as much as random change in participation. But then, I dont myself care about the genral class of topics enough to do the work to make a decent article out of it.  DGG (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We do quite often disagree, DGG. I am glad we seem to manage to remain friends through it all. Extraordinary, I'd say.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Yet another request to review InDepenDance Day from SoccerMeko.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

InDepenDance Day
is it good enough now. Soccermeko (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is still not working for me. There are several basic problems with this article.  It's frustrating to continuously list them, when these concerns do not get fixed from one review request to another.  I assume the problem is that you do not understand some of the feedback I and others have given.  If this is the case, please ask questions.  The assesment of the article will not just change on its own over time without these things being fixed:


 * No assertion of notability per Notability (music)
 * No reliable sources
 * No inline citations
 * Mixtape is a broad term, and it is not clear in what context the term is used in this article  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Several comments about the Gore saga.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Al Gore deletion
I noticed that the Al Gore III article finally was deleted, but I was also wondering if Chelsea Clinton would also be a candidate for deletion. I don't know if she is notable or not, but that would be for you to decide. Undeath (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, she has stand-alone notability (although it undoubtedly stems from her parentage) in that she was the cover story in people magazine, she speaks on her mother's campaign, she assumed duties at the end of her father's presidency as official White House Hostess, and the article is very balanced. This one would not, and should not sucessfully get deleted at AfD.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I have one more question. What about Jeff Dwire. He was only the third husband of Bill's mom. I don't know how that would be notable. What is your input? Undeath (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jerry. There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to delete the Chelsea Clinton article.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Jeff Dwire.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Found one more, Roger Clinton, Sr.. I'm showing you these because I don't really know if I should list them or not. I would probably list this one under the same reasons as Jeff Dwire, but I think that you might have a better take on it. Undeath (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A marginal case that squeeks by based on "Bill took the surname Clinton. A prominent figure in Bill's life, the latter would refer to him as "Daddy" in his presidential memoir". I maintenance-tagged an unreferenced negative statement, but other than that, the article should remain.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Not just one, but TWO Barnstars.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Barnstar

 * Thank-you!  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

 * Thanks!  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*'''A very nice request to undo my deletion of an article after an AfD... request was granted. SEE: NO NEED FOR DRV'''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Robert H. Miller
I realize that the original version of Robert H. Miller was a copyvio, but I had tried to edit it to eliminate that coppyvio. There are only so many ways one can rewrite someone's CV as a basis for an article. Could you please consider restoring the article and removing any text that is still a problem? --Eastmain (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks,  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Request for advice about a new wikiproject.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Help please
I recently was invited to join a strange wikiproject that doesn't really seem to be a real wikiproject. It's on a user page and this user seems to be inviting every random person he comes across. It seems like a harmless juvenile sort of thing to do but I personally think such behavior is counter productive to what wikipedia is and what it is trying to do. The page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Creamy3/Creamy_Army

I contacted you as an administrator because I wasn't sure what to do about something like this. You can't nominate a user page for an AFD. Thanks for your help.Nrswanson (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm, I don't really know what to make of it. But I can't see any rule, per se, that it has violated at this point.  If it becomes a social network, in particular for off-wiki or non-wiki-related purposes, then it could be nominated for deletion at the MFD venue.  It would also be inappropriate if this cabal of people were to disrupt wikipedia processes by acting as a mass of meat puppets.  But at this point in it's infancy, we probably should assume good faith, and consider that the wikiproject may actually attempt to foster collaborative improvement to wikipedia.  To that end, I suppose it does no harm, although it may seem somewhat confusing to those of us who are substantially less creamy.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. LOL. I agree, although it might be good if someone kept an eye on them every now and then.Nrswanson (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A user discussion about my speedy closure of a DRV as redundant.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully why you closed my DRV for Mohammad al-Amin?

You called it redundant.

Yes, the article was userified.

I believe the DRV policy states that one of the purposes of userification is for non-admins to look at the deleted article, so they can decide whether they want to request full a review of the article with full restoration in mind. Does that match your understanding? That is what I thought I was requesting.

I believe my request was fully compliant with policy. Have I got that wrong?

Is there some aspect of my request that you felt was problematic -- besides thinking it was redundant?

If you have a concern based on User:Kesh's assertion that my request was troubling, and that I had not tried to contact the closing admin first -- Kesh was off-base. I did try to contact the closing admin. here and here.

I saw your note to those who have a concern over your conclusion of afd leave you a note, and give you a day to reply. I think that is a very reasonable request. I think that shows an admirable willingness to consider the possibility that you may have made a mistake. I wish the rest of us could count on this kind of maturity from all adminstrators.

If you had no other objections to my DRV request what do you suggest I do about requesting full restoration? Geo Swan (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed by your question. I closed the DRV because there was already an open DRV for that AfD/article.  We normally do not have more than one DRV open at the same time for the same AfD/article.  I noted that the article was in-fact userfied to your user space, so I was certain that you would be satisfied at that point, and that both DRV's would be soon closed, and that you would then take on the task of ensuring the concerns raised in the AfD would be corrected, by editing the userfied article, adding sources, balancing content, removing POV, or what-have-you.  After such an improvement, no DRV is required, you could just ask any administrator to review it and cross-namespace move the article back to mainspace.  If there was any hesitation on the part of the reviewing admin, he/she would probably either open a DRV or recommend that you do so.  The latter probably implying that they did not expect it would pass.  For you to request a userfication in one DRV, and while that one is still open and is still discussing the merits of the article, and to open anot her one, is just very abnormal, and quite unnecessary in a venue that already has an enormous backlog.  (look how mnay DRV's are WAY past their 5-day review period but are still open).  Please in the future make all of your requests in one drv, or request that one drv be closed before opening another, and consider not using drv where a drv is not actually required, as I described above. Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote the above reply this morning before I had any coffee, and now several hours later, I read it and think it could be interpreted as a scolding. I certainly did not mean that... I am just apparently more direct when I am tired.  I was just trying to say that I was surprised to see that you were the same editor who requested both DRV's, as I had not noticed that the first time.  I also was telling you that if you have improved the article and/or are certain that it addresses the concerns for which it was deleted, that you may not need a drv to have it restored.  You can ask any admin, particularly one who was familiar with the concerns, (for example I would recommend USER:DGG for this one) to review it and cross-namepsace move it if they feel it is appropriate.  If they do not think it is appropriate they will undoubtedly give you more feedback and offer to review it again after you correct certain things, or will tell you it might be a lost cause. If the latter is true, and you disagree, then a new DRV might be the appropriate route.  And thanks for noticing and favorably commenting on my policy about deletions and reviews.  I do certainly acknowledge that I occasionally make mistakes, and I also take deletion reviews very seriously.  I log them on my count/logs page.  I would rather have a chance to fix my own boo-boo or explain to somebody how they are not interpreting a policy or guideline the way I think consensus has formed on it, to amicably resolve the issue without the need to drag other editors into it.  I also wish that more admins had such an attitude, but I note that most that I am aware of do in fact seem to work this way.  There are notable, disappointing exceptions, and I just shrug my shoulders when I see it, or occasionally speak up and trout slap them.  Thanks, and I hope this answer is less grouchy than my last.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * well I am here for other reasons, but i will indeed look at it; I'll follow up on your user page. But I should not be the one to restore it--Jerry, I have consistently been a strong supporter of GeoSwan on these articles, so that it would be a conflict of interest. If it's improved enough, I'll make a recommendation to you about it for you to decide as the closing admin. You can more realistically evaluate whether it would have any chance of being actually kept if reinserted. What I came here to say is related, but in the other direction, where Jerry and I both objected to a speedy at Deletion review, at  the David Lockhead DR. --an excellent concise rationale, Jerry -- and what shall we do about it?  Using AfD criteria at speedy is getting beyond the stage where individual comments at individual DRs are being effective. DGG (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A long, but fruitless discussion about deletion reform.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

On deletion
well I am here for other reasons, but i will indeed look at it; I'll follow up on your user page. But I should not be the one to restore it--Jerry, I have consistently been a strong supporter of GeoSwan on these articles, so that it would be a conflict of interest. If it's improved enough, I'll make a recommendation to you about it for you to decide as the closing admin. You can more realistically evaluate whether it would have any chance of being actually kept if reinserted. What I came here to say is related, but in the other direction, where Jerry and I both objected to a speedy at Deletion review, at the David Lockhead DR. --an excellent concise rationale, Jerry -- and what shall we do about it? Using AfD criteria at speedy is getting beyond the stage where individual comments at individual DRs are being effective. DGG (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, it's funny, I was just reading your user page (for the first time) just now, because it is easier for me to type User:name, than User talk:name, and then hit the talkpage link at the top, and I became very interested in your user page.... very well done, and very good insight into your WP intentions and general rationale... makes me want to go rewrite mine. Anyways, I was about to leave you a message almost exactly like the one you just left me, when the orange "you have a new message" box popped up on my screen.  How's that for unlikely timing?  This does indeed need to be elevated... but I don't exactly know how... We might consult John Broughton... he seems to know how to get many things done.  I do know that as well-intentioned as RFC is, it is a usually disappointing effort to make one.  They tend to draw a few passers-by and then fizzle-out and stagnate. This issue requires the use of a better tool than that, I think.  But what?  I don't know.  Perhaps just start editing the CSD policy??? that would at least generate some "interest", wouldn't it?  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how I keep bumping into you two. I promise I'm not a stalker, just an incessant watchlister... DGG and Jerry, I've read your discourse here with much interest.  (as an aside, DGG's user page is one of my favs too and Jerry - your talkpage is one of my favs:-) Anyway, you both know that I'm a relatively new admin and that I enjoy the delete/keep/undelete/afd/csd work very much and I hope I'm learning things and always improving. I've yet to have an AfD closing brought to Delrev (although confident in my decision with AG3, it was by far my most controversial close, but even that seems to have stayed quiet for now).  I know I've asked both of you in the last few weeks to review my CSDs (DGG) and AFD (Jerry) closings and I hold both of you in high regard.  All grovelling aside, could you please let me know if/when/where any such discussion that you've proposed here actually happens?. I'd love to participate.   User:Keeper76 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeper76, The work would be more enjoyable if it were more rational, and not a matter of gathering shifting support and going back to debating principles incessantly. In other words, if we actually had some sort of way of following precedent, so people could tell what would be accepted and what would not. As for Gore III, I decided not to take it to deletion review only because I decided that a/its not worth fighting about, and b/ it might be better to wait until some more stories about him accumulated so the article could be enlarged & improved--and also I have no desire to work myself on topics like this. Someone will restore it sooner or later. You should have closed again as no consensus, IMHO.  DGG (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the issue, I agree that an RfC on individuals isnt the way to go. I think changing the rules is fine, but what shall we change them to. ? DGG (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about editing WP:CSD to read:
 * "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. assert the importance of its subject in any substantial way.  Merely stating that the subject is important for some specific reason is enough to pass this criteria, even if there is a subject-specific notability guideline which suggests the article might not be notable.  This criteria is purposefully distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, or professors, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
 *  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It will help a little, if its read, or when its quoted, but not if its ignored. Still definitely worth doing, but we need to think about the language.
 * "substantial" is making a very stringent requirement for the article. I think you mean "plausible".
 * "assert" by itself has been misused widely in the past to require that the article say literally "X is important because ", rather than give information that indicates that X is important. Stating has the same problem, perhaps even worse. I suggest "indicate or assert" to replace both assert and stating
 * not just "subject-specific" notabiity, remove that phrase.
 * I think adding professors, though a good idea, would best be a separate discussion.
 * I still want to narrow "organisations", but that's also for another time.
 * Other article types are also not....
 * and I recommend my earlier wording of this from my talk page, either in addition, in partial replacement, or even assaying it all sufficiently:  An article may be deleted under criterion A7 only if it contains nothing that any reasonable person would think amounts to suitability for an encyclopedia, not just that it will probably not be accepted in Wikipedia.

We still need to think what to actually do, as well as say.DGG (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. assert or indicate, any possible importance of its subject.  Merely stating that the subject is important for some relevant specific reason is enough to pass this criteria, even if there is a notability guideline which suggests the article might not actually be notable.  This criteria is purposefully distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, or professors, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
 * OK so removing professors, we would have then:
 * "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. assert or indicate, any possible importance of its subject.  Merely stating that the subject is important for some relevant specific reason is enough to pass this criteria, even if there is a notability guideline which suggests the article might not actually be notable.  This criteria is purposefully distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
 * I can't see adding your other bit without addressing it's paradoxical nature. We would either have to assume that the editor who wrote the article was unreasonable (which would be a pretty bad faith assumption), or we would have to accept the fact that they put it there as sufficient to pass speedy.  So admins would either get accused of not WP:AGF or violating WP:CSD if they ever used it.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * well, frankly, most of the really necessary CSD A7 deletions are either people who do not realise the nature of the encyclopedia, or are wildly optimistic about what they can get inserted here--and a substantial number are actually not in good faith. eg the first one i just looked at Robin schlotz "A male opera singer, capable of doing fast coloratura and sings "Queen of the Night" video available on youtube." No reasonable person could think that notable. Yet it's in good faith-it is not the "John is the sexiest person in my class" type of stuff. DGG (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point, but being an engineer, when creating something, I don't spend as much time thinking about how I think people *should* use it, I spend more time thinking about how people will *misuse* it; and I try to make it the least harmful *when* they do. That's a bit pessimistic or even cynical, I guess... but its part of the trade. After somebody misuses this, and it becomes a *big deal*, and then how would *we* as the creators of it, be blamed by *both sides* of the ensuing conflict? In the case of your wording, under my way of thinking; it does not get a 'ready for production' stamp yet.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * to a certain extent, wording will have to go by experiment--and if it wasnt clear to you then it isnt clear enough yet. DGG (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But I have done some more thinking on this.  I think that there should be some leeway for administrators to A7-delete articles that only make statements of importance that are known by overwhelming precedent or experienced judgement to be obviously deletable.  This will be very tricky to word for understanding and to prevent instruction creep.  But for example, if somebody said that a person was the tallest person in their high school class, that might seem extraordinary to that editor, but not a claim to notability that any experienced admin would accept, I should think.  Of course a silly example is easy to classify.  How about the first indie record label in Rhode Island?  How about the person who ate the most hot dogs at the Pawtucket County fair three years in a row?  How about the Priest who performed the most marriages on a certain riverboat..... I think that this can be a very gray area.  Do we want to tie the hands of admins too much???  I think it was easy for me to criticize an admin who makes a statement like "I deleted it because I think it would not have survived an AfD" when another editor says "but the article was only 7 minutes old and I had spent all 4 of the minutes it was tagged as speedy putting a hangon on the article and writing a list of sources I had on the article talk page."  The solution to this problem is maybe no so much the wording of the A7 standard, but maybe the lackadaisical attitude toward speedy deletion and/ or complete misunderstanding of the deletion process itself and how it affects our commitment to consensus, that certain admins apparently have.  Perhaps our efforts to make the perfect wording here will only bring about criticism from others; because no matter how we word it, it is going to have some perceived or real new weaknesses.  And in the end, we still will undoubtedly have all those pesky admins who will continue to ignore the rules and just roll around like loose cannons on deck, anyway.  I do not have the answer, but I am very interested in seeing an improvement.  Perhaps a wider discussion is needed.  Do you think asking a few other experienced wikipedians (like Ryan Postelwaite, Shanes, FuturePerfect, and John Broughton, for example) would help us form a small tiger-team and brainstoem the issue?  Would that be a good idea?  I bet somebody has better ideas than I do on this. But I fear that if we just trounce into a very wide discussion venue like village pump, or WP Talk:CSD, with no plan in hand or even a lay of the land, then we will undoubtedly open up yet another polarized battle that may make the WP100, but will not probably resolve anything.   Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) I'm blushing. And you know what? That is my very first barnstar. Ever. (Probably because I don't give them out very often, something about giving in order to receive I suppose. Or maybe because I haven't deserved one yet ;-). Anywho, thanks Jerry, I'm very humbled. I'd like to thank the academy, my mom, God, and the academy. And God. And my mom. OH, and Jerry! <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (the sort of thing) reasonable people like us are up against: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * That is a bit of a sticky wicket. It's may be so difficult (to get the point across to people with such opposite philosophical views), that a community consensus will be required.  But the ducks must be lined up correctly before that is even attempted, or else it will be eggs on faces.  How many more metaphors can I find to spit this out?  I dunno. I usually use similes, so I though I'd toss it up a bit.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group
(copied from User talk:DGG)

Hello DGG. Along the lines of the ongoing discussion we have been having on my talk page, I have created a project page that I would like to use to provide a discussion space for a small group of concerned editors to try to fix the deletion problems. Please accept my invitation to join, and please help decide who else we should invite. I was thinking around 6 to 10 people would be a good size, at least intially. I think that the people should know deletion very well, and be aware of deletion reviews and the underlying factors that make them necessary. I do not think that they would necessarily have to be current or former administrators, but the people who I imagine would likely provide the most insight into the problem would probably be admins or editors with a significant presence in AfD and DRV. Please see Deletion reform study group. My first crack at a definition and desfription are there, please feel free to discuss needed changes... nothing is set in stone, and I would like this to be a very collaborative effort. Thanks,  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * before deciding to organize an invitation only group on WP, please read the history of Esperanza. I think this all happened before you joined WP; I had just come to WP at the time it was closing down. DGG (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank-you. When I first got here, there was a bunch of wikidrama about green "e"'s in people's signature... but I had no idea what it was about... I suppose it is this.  I can see the concern with it, but my intention was not to exclude others, just to try to keep the rotating door from having people waltz-in without knowing the purpose for the discussion and causing distractions and drama.  I suppose it could just be open... but my expectation is it will involve alot of discussion about how we shuldn't do whatever it is we haven't decided to do yet, and less about doing it.  I will reword it as open.  Can we at least minimize the advertising and purposely invite a few people? Actually, first, are you even interested in doing something like this?  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I'm jumping in here, but could I add that I think this is a bad idea. We just had the experience with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c of what happens when people create non-standard pages in the projectspace with a goal of deciding something.  Motto of the day @ Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive175 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group shows what happens when users try to limit those who decide, without the entire community's consensus on who should decide, like WP:ARBCOM or WP:Featured Articles.  Below are some similar examples of self-selecting groups or projects that went outside the standard processes and got dinged for it.
 * IMO, the standard process would be to start a page such as Deletion debates/Deletion policy reform and list it as a Requests for comment/Policies. It should be linked to Centralized discussion, WT:AFD, Village pump (policy) and WP:AN.  If your thinking of WORKINGGROUP as the model, that is a group formed by arbcom to advise it on user conduct matters and wouldn't apply for several reasons.  I really think if this done through "at least minimize the advertising and purposely invite a few people", it will immediately violate WP:CANVASS and probably go up to MFD within a day of someone spotting it and mentioning it on ANI.  That or users will come in and through consensus, change it to something similar to an RFC (as was done with WP:ANB).  But this is just my $0.02, so I'll leave it to your judgement on how best to proceed.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance
 * Association of Members' Advocates
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiPoints
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiStandards
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/Single Letter Group
 *  MBisanz  talk 06:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand the purpose for it. It is certainly not intended to decide anything.  It is intended as a place to pre-chew and pre-digest a variety of ideas and filter and process them into an appealing product that can then be offerred for the community to decide in a standard existing venue.  It is intended to remove the emotion, bias, and chaos from the initial phases of the disucssion, and to keep the end-goal out of the way of the process while it is in its infancy.  My hope is that it will be a rational objective look at the deletion processes, will identify opportunities for improvement, refine many possible ideas into a proposal that stands a chance of being accepted, and is implementable, and has a liklihood of suceeding at some definate goal, all while not creating new problems that are worse.  Prior to proposing anything, a logical plan would be in place already to follow its progress and determine its effectiveness.  So, to sum up, it is a brainstorming group intended to take a very structured approach to developing potential proposals.  I see no corrolary whatsover to the examples you provided or to the problems you mentioned.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerry, its not only what it is; its also what it would appear to be. I feat that having this group as suggested would prejudice any proposals it might make. DGG (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well let me just say that it is terribly frustrating to me to try to get anything done on WP that is rational and devoid of useless drama and overemotional reaction, as well as drop by naysayers who do not understand or care what the discussion is about. (No, I am not referring the the above user in any way). I wa hoping that a solid group of wikipedians who had experience with the processes could put their collective heads together and actually do something in a logical fashion.  It seems people want to rush everything half-assed to a vote before anyone even understands the actual problem.  I will drop the whole idea and just move on to more productive, less frustrating persuits.  Heck, I might even edit some articles!  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What MBisanz says is one way of doing it. I was going to suggest simply letting one of the existing discussions develop. See a little above my reply to another question from MB--my view about multiple discussions. We have about 4 or 5 places for these discussions already on VP and the talk pages for the various processes. The problem with these is that they   get used for complaints about particular articles.
 * The actual problem is not in my opinion the deletion process, it's the disagreement over WP:N. If different people want to go different places, it's hard to get rational procedures for just how to get somewhere. The deletion processes now are oriented towards deletion. Those who are oriented towards deletion in general will want to keep them as close to the present as possible. Myself, as a practical matter, I find it convenient that we have inconsistent rules, for it permits arguing using whatever fits the purpose & it's always possible to find something. There's an opportunity to win by being the better at the argument. Those who prefer to appeal to the pathos or distinctiveness  of an individual case prefer using IAR, a method I dislike because it's totally inconsistent.  Read the NYRB article above also; its written by a inclusionist researcher who can get around any process by always finding material.
 * WP:WORKING GROUP can succeed, because there's something 90% of the people here will agree on. The chauvinist warriors are all of them put together in a clear minority, and the rest of us want to stop the disproportionate harm they do. We know what we want to do. We'll find a way to do it.
 * Myself, I am not actually an inclusionist. I want quality, which I define as including uniformly good coverage. I came here to improve the quality & extent of academic coverage, and i realised that I would only get it by letting everyone have their own hobby fully represented,--for that's how most WPedians would always regard the topics I'm interested it. I want a long article on every pope, and on every protein, and every chapter if not verse of the bible, and every character in classic fiction, & every medieval magnate. If it means getting the porn stars & the pokemon, I'll put up with that. Perhaps 30%-60% of the people here would agree with me, and that's not enough.
 * There's an even more basic problem: our focus on the article. One benefit of hypertext was supposed to free us from that. But having an article represents perceived importance--and article title are ranked much more heavily than text in google.
 * So this gets us to making small improvements around the edges. Even that is hard. Some deletionists actually oppose notification of authors & workgroups, and other elements of basic fairness, because it might encourage more borderline articles to stay in.
 * The discussions of bots has given me an idea though. The deletion process is a compromise between getting the junk out, & not discarding potentially good articles. The problem with the junk is that if you dont catch it right away, it stays there--and patrolled revisions has done only a little bit to help this. The longer I'm an admin, the more I focus on the junk being submitted--and as you can see from my page I am beginning to get complaints over throwing out too much at CSD. Its an inevitable progression. If we had a reliable way of looking at everything a second time 1 week later, we could deal with the empty articles then. A bot could do that.
 * For the moment, I think one of the suggestions of your page is a good and reasonable one: statistics. I have some, but they are very tedious to collect if you want to substantiate them, rather than just count. I have considerable RL experience with this. I'll discuss this in a day or two, if someone wants to start a page on deletion statistics. DGG (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in offering my input. I am not a regular patroller of these fora.  But I have participated in something like 100 discussions.  And it is my impression that my familiarity with the policy issues is at least comparable to the average administrator.


 * Moreover, I have been trying to engage various respondents in these fora with my ideas as to some necessary reforms for ages now, without finding any real interest in considering the issues at stake.


 * There are some policy ambiguities I would like to see addressed. But, over and above those issues I am concerned  that while the wikipedia aims for a culture of civility and collegiality, it seems to me a subculture has grown up in the deletion fora diametrically opposed to this.  It seems to me that breaches of WP:CIV and related policies are so routine that they pass without comment, or even possibly without notice.  Unfortunately, among the worst offenders have been some long time administrators.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about wikiphilosophy and the panic of the masses when the status quo is shaken.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Why WP:PRX must be deleted
Thanks for your sane comments at. To understand what is going on, first of all, you should know that the MfD began with a distorted view of what WP:PRX was proposing. It wasn't proposing voting or any changes to policy or, in fact, any changes at all, but was only discussing what users might be able to do, without any changes or necessary community permission, as a possible experiment. This experiment, with some very, very simple steps, creates a communications network; that network could indeed be used for voting, and is off-wiki proposed for political implications as voting, where the "proxies" are, in fact, doing proxy voting. But we don't vote here, at least not usually. (There is a lot of self-deception about that, but what is more accurate is that we do run polls, and the servants who close them do sometimes consider the "!votes.')

(Ironically, here a closing User:Kim Bruning looked only at policy and fact and closed, and participants who wanted the !votes to count went for DRV, which, again, made no outward sense. It makes sense, however, if they want to "punish" the closer by appealing. -- the remedy for an improper close of Keep is renomination, not Deletion Review, which was created to appeal Deletions, not Keeps.)

Given that deceptive introduction, as is common with deletion arguments and !votes, many editors AGF on what the nominator is saying, assuming that it is likely true, and, quite often, any attempt to note that the process is being founded on errors will be seen as merely political puffery and will be ignored. After having read the introduction, editors looking at the deletion target -- if they get that far -- will read it through their now-tinted glasses, and see the tint that was projected, perhaps even more than what the proposal actually says. Again and again, it said, this is not about voting. An example of an AfD vote was, unfortunately, presented by Absidy, but ... no suggestion at all was made that the outcome would depend on the vote. If votes don't count, proxy expansions would not count. At all. One single argument can be controlling. That's essential to Wikipedia process, and I would strongly oppose any change to that.

What was proposed, boiled down, and what was actually done, was that a proxy file format was developed and a central proxy table that transcludes designated proxy files was created. There were actually two such formats created, one dependent upon central templaces and one not. The proposed deletion only targets the first, not the second. How these were to be used was not part of the proposal, as far as action was concered. We could say, I suppose, that the implicit proposal was that those interested in this idea and what might possibly come out of it would use the tools, and those not, not. From my experience, mostly not. So why the flap?

Well, suppose it works. Rule 0 violations become possible. The de facto power structure of Wikipedia could be destabilized. In fact, it wouldn't, but those who get this far, generally, don't understand that. Rather, the power structure will shift in a very orderly fashion, without harm. Rule 0 violations, though, can't be directly sanctioned, except possibly as trolling. (If it makes people upset, then, isn't it reasonable to assume that this was deliberate?) From this point of view, the proposal itself is disruptive, and must be deleted. However, that can't be said directly. Rule 0 prohibits this. So what we get is ad hominem arguments: we must delete this because it was proposed by sock puppets (false, blatantly, once one actually looks at the evidence), or because it was proposed for some nefarious purpose (AGF, anyone? this is also preposterous). Rule 0 is based on a belief that the masses cannot be trusted, and if demagogues are allowed to influence them, the fabric of society will be destroyed, and so extreme measures are warranted. It is a very old error, and it destroys societies which are not able to tolerate the presence of Rule 0 violators, because they become unable to adapt. Rule 0 is the status quo, and is purely conservative, resisting all possibility of change. It's actually very useful, but ... if it is controlling, if Rule 0 violators are punished, instead of merely being contained, it's deadly.

Anyway, I have no idea how this will turn out. And as far as all the charges that we are trying to use Wikipedia to promote an outside cause, well, if I wanted to do that, I'd be trolling (not arguing) for deletion. Easy enough. In fact, all it would take is not-giving the community a not-finger. Absidy is young, and went for the direct path.

Thanks again. Your sanity is noted. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rarely read, and certainly never written, anything as clear and intelligent as your Rule 0 essay. I appreciate that you are taking the slow calm rational path in spite of your vision of a chaotic and irrational process unfolding.  I too am taking the slow path over this and several other similarly maddening recent central discussions or attempts at such.
 * Just to potentially arm you with some information that you may be lacking, however, I would refer you to Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure, where Kim Bruning's rationale on other matters is evident. Perhaps it is the perception that others have had of him in his actions that helped to bias their opinions on this AfD closing.  I know that I was initially prepared to disagree with him before I read the page, based only on my experience that he has radical ideas that seem absurd at times.  My own bias, I know.... but I put it aside long enough to see that he was right in this case.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought it was good myself. Perhaps it might be easier to understand what I'm doing if I say that I've been studying and considering something very much like the Wikipedia environment for more than thirty years, and that I came across the elements that have become FA/DP democracy this twenty years ago. A few years ago (2003?) I began actively promoting this as a generic organizational solution, applicable for non-coercive peer associations that depend on voluntary contributions. For a few years, it was as if I were a voice the wilderness, but about two years ago, somebody paid enough attention to it to actually understand the implications, that this actually could make political (legal structure) change unnecessary, and then it has started to snowball; but starting very small, it's still very small. It helps that the core ideas have independently been developed in numerous places around the world. In any case, even though I really only started to look closely at Wikipedia last September, the policies were all familiar, they were pretty much what I'd anticipated. However, actual practice is different, in ways that are predictable given the "control structure." Which is a classic anarchist control structure that gives exceptional power to a certain narrow group, the heavy participants. This was probably moderated at one time by Jimbo's participation, and by other characteristics that are also normal. However, as the scale increases, my theory would predict that the problems will also increase. The opposition we encountered is totally predictable, and, therefore, isn't a setback at all. It's just part of the plan. That will sound sinister to some who read this, except that this plan is fail-safe. It does nothing unless it's accepted by consensus. That's part of the vision. What appears as consensus on Wikipedia is usually reflective of real consensus -- it would have collapsed long ago if not for that -- but as scale increases, the deviation from real consensus will grow, unless means are provided to actually develop and measure large-scale consensus, rapidly and efficiently. The opponents of the proposal, ironically, are opposed to voting as a means of making decisions and imagined that this is what the proposal would have done. Yet they used words like "quorum" as if they applied to present process, and they were outraged when a result wasn't what a strong majority of those voting wanted. This kind of thing drives someone like Absidy nuts, so nuts that he committed wiki-suicide in his own unique and creative way. But, in fact, it is just the environment we must work with. It's not personal. Yes, this was an experiment, but a somewhat different one than Absidy imagined. And far more interested. The reality of the proposal will continue (it's actually unstoppable, in my opinion), as only unnecessary details were "rejected" or even "deleted." Deletion probably facilitates the process, for various reasons. It's quite a fascinating situation, and I regret that it obviously upsets so many editors, but that "disruption" certainly is not intended, and to avoid it would require freezing the project into a dysfunctional state. Hence, Rule 1 applies, and Rule 1 actually trumps Rule 0. --Abd (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about subject-specific notability guidelines not being exclusion criteria.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

AfD close of Alex Kramer (presenter)
Hello - haven't got a problem with the result of the AfD. I'm curious about your comments regarding my support for deletion, which implied that I wasn't following established criteria. The criteria I listed, including the possibility of having made an innovative contribution to media, are essentially copy-and-paste from WP:BIO under the "Entertainer" section, which covers TV personalities such as Alex Kramer. Can you explain to me, therefore, how what I said has nothing to do with establishing notability, so that I can improve my participation in the future? Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a common misconception, it seems, that the items listed in subject-specific notability guidelines creates some checklist which must be passed for determination of notability. It actually is not so.  In the case you cited, that comes from the "additional criteria" section of WP:BIO, which is intended to provide, as a convenience, some guidelines to allow for quick determination in the absence of clear evidence of notability from either the basic criteria section or the general notability guideline.  In other words, while a person who has made a innovative contribution to their field would likely be considered notable even if sources were not currently in hand, the converse would not be true: it would not be true to say "hey, we might have sources, but this person did not make an innovative contribution to their field, so they are not notable."  Please see the heading of the section that you cited: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."  I hope this helps explain what I was saying.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So the subject-specific guidelines are essentially additional inclusion criteria, but not exclusion criteria.  Thank you:  that should help me interprete policy better  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A notification about the concern tagging of an image that I uploaded.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Better source request for Image:KMSN.png
Thanks for uploading Image:KMSN.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. <font color="CEBE70">MECU ≈ talk 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the explicit URL information to the image description page, and removed your concern template. Thanks,  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A barnstar :)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Barnstar

 * Thanks!  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Al Gore III.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Al Gore III
Jerry, your compelling arguments are most of the reason why I voted to delete. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on Articles for deletion/Glenn Murphy, Jr. (2nd nomination). Mrprada911 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline
I noticed that you put a warning up at the AfD saying that no matter the decision, nothing could be done till the injunction was lifted. Well, I contested that this was part of the injunction, and when DGG requested a comment on whether this was a violation, the response was that it was not.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Two editors made weak comments that it might not be. Niether seemed convinced and certainly niether were convincing.  Was by no means consensus.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * fyi, injuctio has just now been lifted.DGG (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. As you may nhave noticed, I have not been around much, as I am travelling this month.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/TEAM (company).
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/TEAM (company)
Hey Jerry, I noticed that you deleted the TEAM article. I understand the arguments for deleting the page, though I am of the opinion that the article as it appeared was not ad-like. Regardless, I spent many hours writing the text on that page, and I was wondering if there was some way that [mailto:trevor(at)bekolay.org I] could get a copy of the article's history? Wikipedia may not want the article, but I'd like to have have it to post on personal websites and the like. Keep up the great work! Your position is not an easy one, and I'm very grateful that you give your time to improve Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Bekolay (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have userfied the article to User:Trevor Bekolay/TEAM (company). Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Trevor Talk  17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Ryan Fischer.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ryan Fischer
Is Ryan Fischer notable enough? It's going to need secondary sources for sure, but I'm wondering if I was too hasty to tag it. - Warthog Demon  00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the CSD tag and suggest AFD. Notability was asserted, but not likely to survive AFD without additional sourcing.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rats. It's already been deleted or else I would have. Oh well, happy editing! - Warthog Demon  00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. It was a very marginal case.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about .
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Deletion review/Log/2008 March 8
Thanks for your closure of the deletion review for Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg. Re your comment on "this really is just about one image [and] a rather unimportant one at that": yes, it is, but the motives for deleting/retaining it (which, for the sake of not igniting any new debates, I will not go into) are not trivial. Even the closing admin of the former deletion review had sensed "a large undercurrent [...] that is not actually about our NFCC policy". Re the retagging for speedy deletion: I had raised that question specifically because the review you just closed was started as a result of such a speedy deletion. My interpretation of WP:SPEEDY, as I argued on the image talk page, is that policy prohibits such a retagging except in the case of "newly discovered copyright infringements", thus my note. Ayla (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did read the talk page before closing the drv, and I did see the whole conversation where you bolded the phrase including the word "new". So I was aware of why you requested that.  I just don't think the closing admin at DRV can issue an edict, so I provided my opinion in the form of a suggestion, which may have the same effect.  Since I also protected the image page, it would require an admin to tag it as speedy anyway, and to do so they would have to see my protection edit summary which will inform them of the discussions.  So I think it will be okay now.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should do the trick. And there are plenty of links to the discussions on the talk page now (unlike when the original deletion was performed). Thanks! Ayla (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*Several people wishing me a Happy Birthday.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Happy Birthday
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FROM YOUR FRIEND:
 * You're welcome and thanks for signing my autograph book. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Nadir D Steinmetz 12:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination).
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination)
Happy Birthday Jerry! And thank you for your previous help to keep the article Myrzakulov equations. Now I have some new problems from some users ... . So I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn 92.46.65.69 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the birthday greeting. I can not close the second AfD due to my own policy about such things, but I did participate in the discussion.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about some java code in my talk page.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Nice code
That floaty thing that obscures the bottom-left corner...I hope you don't mind if I utterly filch it.  Two One <font color="#990000">Six Five Five  τʃ 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and happy birthday!  Two One <font color="#990000">Six Five Five  τʃ 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the birthday greeting, and enjoy the floaty-box.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 18:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Moties.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Moties
I've seen no one has yet merged Moties with the source book. I would prefer not to do it, but is the result of the voting compulsory? I'd rather merge it than delete it... So, would you like me to do it? --Damifb (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank-you for following-up on this. I just redirected it.  You may still merge content if you want to... it is in the page history still.  I was unable to do the merge myself, because there were no references, and it all looks like original research, and I have no interest in or knowledge of the subject.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerry, I just did the mergig myself, since it appears that User Damifb was blocked indefinely. I'm a S-F fan, and I read the book myself and it is all in the book, it's not original research. My only concern is if it's too long, although I cuted off many plot parts as indicated in the voting process. What do you think?--Miotroyo (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks okay to me... overall the article is probably too long now, but to suggest to fork out the moties section would be kinda awkward since it just got merged back in due to the AFD. I think it ought to be trimmed-down some more, but I do not have any real interest in the subject, so I'd leave that up to the editors, like yourself, who collaborate on such articles to sort out.  Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Scientology 8-8008.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Scientology 8-8008
May I ask for your reasoning behind this closure as a Delete rather than a No Consensus? Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please see the AFD Talk page.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: crown-royal-bag; font-weight:normal;" |*A discussion about Articles for deletion/Roman Harris.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles for deletion/Roman Harris
You recently closed the above deletion discussion and deleted the page, the AfD was for more than one article and the articles were listed below. I don't know if you realised this because you only deleted the actual article that the discussion was taking place on. Do you understand what i mean? Thanks Printer222 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder, I finished the job now.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }