User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 11

Thanks!
Thanks for taking a moment to look at the articles, and thanks for your comment. So, I will spare you the other paragraphs of my reply from the afd -- that became stale when it was closed? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hello Metro!

I came across a warning that you left at User talk:WadeSimMiser, accusing this editor of vandalism for marking an article for deletion.

Are you sure you want to be making such accusations? Vandalism (per: WP:VANDALISM) is a bad faith removal or change to content. Nominating/tagging an article for deletion does not meet this criteria. Further from the same guideline:
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. 

I'm not sure if there is a history here between you and this editor, or if this editor has a history of disruptive editing, but based on what I am seeing, you are making an accusation of bad faith, where there does not appear to be. If I am wrong, then accept my apologies. But if I am correct, you might think about reverting that warning, and striking up a conversation with the editor regarding what you consider inappropriate deletion tagging.

Just something to think about. Best of luck on future editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I should probably moderate that warning, and I will. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joshua L. Liebman
--Dravecky (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages
These user talk pages shouldn't be kept as a record. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp determined that Wikipedia wants to deny him of glory. Please delete those pages now. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done so now. I had heard of the "Hagger" vandal before but I didn't know of that MfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting those pages. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Hi Metropolitan90, I happen to see this article: [see here]. I don’t think this article meets notability. It only exists in one website, aside from the fact that it's a clear copycat of the annual Esquire Magazine award e.g. [here] and [here]. What do you think? If you think the same thing, please nominate the article for deletion.--Ped Admi (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In regard to the Global Beauties poll of the Sexiest Woman Alive, I agree with you that it does not appear to be notable. It appears to be just a poll conducted by a single web site whose results typically receive zero or one Google News hit at best. On the other hand, I see no connection to the Esquire (magazine) Sexiest Woman Alive, because Global Beauties appears to have been naming a Sexiest Woman Alive for longer than Esquire has, and the Global Beauties selection is based on a poll chosen from beauty pageant contestants while the Esquire selection is chosen by the editors from among Hollywood actresses. In regard to nominating it for Articles for deletion, I would encourage you to try doing the nomination yourself. You can find the instructions at Articles for deletion. When you give the reason for the nomination, I would recommend that you emphasize that the award is non-notable web content based on WP:WEB and has few Google News hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation
Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234 Arilang   talk 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)
User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

Please provide content:lead section and the rest. Arilang   talk 02:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Momma's Boys
Hi! Thanks for asking me about that! There's also an article (more like a stub) about a movie by the name of Mamma's Boys. I have to say that I found the film & the group before I found the page about the show. If you don't think it's (the three articles & a short definition of what a mamma's boy is) enough to make a deviation page, then that's cool. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * I may do something about this, such as creating a disambiguation page or just using hatnotes, if I get around to it and somebody else hasn't done it first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred Ajudua
Please take another look at Fred Ajudua and check the references. I am very uncomfortable about this one. I have tried to expand the article using only reliable sources - but they are very negative. If the accusations are true, he has defrauded people from several countries out of millions of dollars. The subject seems notable. But he seems to have gone on the run before any verdict was delivered. Does this violate any of the principles in BLP? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Joe O Reilly
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Joe O Reilly, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Joe O Reilly is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Joe O Reilly, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair eneough
then may i at least put my description of Malphas on his article page under the Heading "Malphas According to the Joy of Satan"?

Vovim Baghie - Samurai Of Malphas (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This question has also been reposted at WP:RSN, where I will leave it for other editors to comment. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president
I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild   'sup?   16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdrew my previous recommendation at Articles for deletion/Black president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New topics
I've replaced the long list of articles at the new topics page with an explanation of what the page was and how to use it. Take a look at it now and see what you think. My edits don't change the fact that the topics were new seven years ago, though. :-) Graham 87 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. I have changed to recommend that the page be kept as revised. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, Im not on here to argue about the deletion, dont worry. I was just wondered if you took care of the IPadress that was doing all the vandalising. the article and IP was 64.113.186.150. I cant stand vandals. Can you help me? Thanks anyways.D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another administrator blocked User:64.113.186.150 for three months. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was really hoping for a permanent block, but its better than nothing. :) D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Userboxes/Politics by country
Userboxes/Politics by country, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Userboxes/Politics by country during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup finals
Hi. I saw your closure of Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup finals, and I wanted to ask if you could reconsider. It seemed like a legitimate procedural discussion to determine if the article should exit. I look forward to your response. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Guide to deletion actually says "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." This suggests that my AfD is as valid as any other. AfD is a place for deletion discussions. All discussions should be allowed, whether or not the original nomination is a keep !vote. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to leave my decision as is for the following reasons: 1. As mentioned in the AfD nom, the nominator of the AfD had previously started a nomination to have the article become a featured list at Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals. The featured list candidacy is still ongoing, but the nominator stated that he would nominate the article at AfD "to get input from the community". However, even if the article went through a full five-day review at AfD and got a "keep" result, that would not necessarily have a significant bearing on the featured list candidacy, since articles have to meet higher standards to be featured compared to being kept. 2. The fact that one editor called the list a content fork, and content forks may deserve to be deleted, does not mean that this list needs to be nominated for deletion. The list could be justified as a "spinout". 3. I believe that the Guide to deletion is premised on the idea that someone nominating an article at AfD really wants the article to be deleted, not kept. Just asking for an article to be reviewed and discussed, without wanting deletion, is not something that ought to be brought to AfD. But I could be wrong. If you still want an AfD review of the article, please feel free to take my decision to deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think you may have been too hasty here. To close the discussion down after about an hour, when many of the contributors to the discussion at the FLC may have been in the middle of their night, seems to me like a little premature. As the whole content of this list is already at the main FIFA World Cup article my idea is to make the List a Redirect. Is that a valid discussion point at AfD? - fchd (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Metropolitan90. I just wanted to let you know that I have opened a deletion review of List of FIFA World Cup finals. I hope you take no offense in this. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I did say you should feel free to go to deletion review about this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. ''Do not remove speedy deletion templates. If you feel the page should not be deleted, add under the template and provide your reasoning on the talk page. Thanks.'' --  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above warning is not applicable, because it wasn't a page I created myself, or for that matter that I had anything to do with creating. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to remove speedy templates, it is irrelevant whether or not you created the article. Use the tag instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Mike (talk • contribs)
 * That's incorrect, actually. Anybody, except for the article creator, is allowed to decline speedy deletion candidates. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, guess I was wrong, sorry about that. --  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say thank you
Thank you. Arilang   talk 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi zhi bian and the Unification of All under Heaven
Hi! If you have time and if you're interested, could you take a look at the above article? It has made lots of progress since an earlier version of it was deleted and since the last time you looked at it. Your advice would be welcome on how to improve it further or on how to rename it, because the current title appears a little bulky. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have anything to contribute to the topic at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That infamous game
It seems that new administrators aren't learning about this. One just declined a speedy deletion of yet another article on this game (the 29th on the list). I've added a link to your list to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, to attempt to counter this deficiency. &#9786; I hope that this doesn't inconvenience you. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you happen to see any other iterations of the game crop up in the future, please feel free to add them to the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TFD
I have expanded the debate to bring in a larger audience for similar templates. Feel free to comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As indicated at Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 12, I wouldn't have recommended expanding the list of templates up for nomination at this stage of the debate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nainki
I declined the speedy deletion of User:Nainki because it was not clear how WP:CSD applied. If the deletion is indeed appropriate, please feel free to re-speedy the page with an explanation for the deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just found out that that user has been confirmed in a ckeckuser that the user account is a sock puppet (See the logs for more details) I'm going to ask the admin to put checkuser templates on the user and user talk pages. Never mind. Thanks. Techman224 Talk 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Source question
Hey. You weighed in on a question about sourcing for the Tucker Max article a day or so ago. I found some other sources that I'm unsure of the notability of. Would you have time to go back to the discussion and weigh in on them? Thanks. McJeff (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have anything more to add at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing IMDB

 * Moved from User talk:Ikip

I would appreciate it if you would explain why you think there is a consensus against the page Citing IMDB as indicated in this edit. Looking at the talk page I see no such consensus to reject the page. Furthermore, if the page is rejected, then the next question should be what kind of guideline we should have about citing IMDb. If you don't want Wikipedia to cite IMDb at all, then maybe you should try to build for a consensus that specifically says that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of the page, there have been several editors who have marked the page as rejected. My views on the page are changing. I strongly support the use of IMDb on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comanche Stallion
Harry Carey Jr. has had an amazing long career as an actor... some 53 years. This film, even if we cannot determine yet what hapened to its release, marks his very first and (self professed) very last as writer/director of a feature film. Crappy sources aside, I think that per WP:NF - Other evidence of notability: "2. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", this does kind of qualify as notable. And I had not even thought of it this way until Bongomatic added his boilerplate. Looking at it, I could see easily what he dismissed without considering all the angles. Would it serve for me to write these oldsters about their project?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can contact Carey or any of the others and get them to post on their websites or in some other publicly available source about what the status of the film is, I personally would be very interested to see what information they can provide. If we had a clear answer as to the film's status, that would possibly be enough for me to endorse either keeping the article or restoring it if it had been deleted by then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Just removing the proposed deletion tag on Concept algebra and Logic thinking automation wasn't helpful :/ I didn't realise you *could* state the reason in the tag template somewhere. Could you give me a pointer about what I should have put there instead? Cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See PROD. What you put on the page is reason . For example: insufficiently sourced, unclear claim to notability . --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
The notification is greatly appreciated

--Pedro Rivera

Page Deletion/ Help
Ento-Ag (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Hello, We are doing a project. I did not mean to have the edit I was trying to do on this page go live. I can't seem to change the link that is in the taxonomy box to the right on my group mate's user page to add a link to the person who described the species Carl Fredrik Fallén. I assumed it would only be live on my team mate's user page and not publicly visible. Sorry about that. Any suggestions on inserting the proper name and link under the species in that box? Thanks for your help and patience.
 * I will respond on your user page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

 * Hello. I'm sysop tr-wiki. And this user:Nikahsekerinettc has been blocked tr-Wiki. Thanks. Levent (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But they haven't been blocked on the English Wikipedia yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- IRP ☎ 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll Never Forget What You Did Last Summer
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I%27ll_Never_Forget_what_You_Did_Last_Summer T-95 (talk)
 * Thanks. Due to the fact that the word "what" was in lower case, it was not easy for me to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Imbd
I supported the imbd proposal, thanks for letting me know, and changing my !vote. Ikip (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Media Temple (second Nomination)
deletion of the AFD regarding the article Media Temple: Your give reason for this is not true! The nominator of the AFD process did not request its deletion!

Arrowhead (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the nominator (that is, you) did blank the AfD. Here is the complete edit history for the deleted page:


 * 1)  (diff) 06:27, March 19, 2009 . . Jeff G. (talk | contribs | block) (9 bytes) (Tagging page for speedy deletion, blanked or requested by creator (HG))
 * 2) (diff) 06:25, March 19, 2009 . . Ucla2009 (talk | contribs | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page)
 * 3) (diff) 06:22, March 19, 2009 . . Ucla2009 (talk | contribs | block) (68 bytes) (adding AFD for article Media Temple)

You can see from the above that you (User:Ucla2009) blanked what you had done three minutes after creating the AfD, and then User:Jeff G. tagged it for speedy deletion.

I figured that you had blanked the AfD because there was a problem with formatting it or because the word "Nomination" should not have been capitalized or something like that. At any rate, I see that you have re-created the AfD at Articles for deletion/Media Temple (second nomination). That one is correctly formatted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama
Sorry, but you made it worse than it was. Your newly re factoring of this page was discouraged before on ANI and by several editors [admins included] so you should've not jumped in by doing basically the same what two editors before did by mistake and lack of better knowledge.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So does this mean that if someone inappropriately refactors an AfD page, it is also inappropriate to un-refactor it back to the way it would be if not for the refactoring? I couldn't find anything on WP:ANI that says that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look. We already went to one change on this page that was unpleasant since we had to go thru what was changed. Your new change makes it even more difficult since the page grew quite a bit since then. You just shouldn't try to fix mistakes by doing the same even so your intentions where in good faith. Regarding ANI, did you read the whole thing here {which is in the the archive by now)?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the thread, and I still don't see what the problem with what I did is. If you disagree, please feel free to go back and revert back to how it was before I fixed it ... although I don't actually recommend doing that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't do that in no way since I would act against my own advise I gave you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate, this situation isn't likely to recur because hardly anybody ever makes the mistake of refactoring AfD discussions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian merge
Hello, you recently expressed an interest in merging the article for Chase Meridian. There is a proposal for this here. Ryan 4314  (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please help out?
I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but I generally prefer not to participate in surveys. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)