User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 12

Aljazeera
I can't find it please send the link.--10:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it.-- '''yousaf465'  10:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Trip (musician) songs
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with db-author.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is no longer needed, so I will tag it with db-author. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

League of Noble Peers
How do I create an AfD for The League of Noble Peers? I thought I accomplished that when I clicked on add entry here. The Wurdalak (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. The problem is that on your first try, you apparently missed steps I and II and just did step III, which won't work on its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Metropolitan90. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks.  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion requests
Ok! Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Metropolitan90. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cher at the Colosseum
Hi, please don't delete the venue on the Cher at the Colosseum page that i created, because it makes the page look untidy and messy. StephenN17 (talk)
 * I've commented on your talk page, because the venue columns are redundant. There needs to be a better way to format this information than having three columns with the same data on every line. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

University of the People
I was going to nominate University of the People for speedy deletion. It appears to be a scam operated by the president of Cramster corporation to sell cramsters to people who aren't even going to college. While a clever way to expand your customer base for cheat sheets. It is not a university accredited or even involving professors. It is not free $100 per class plus the $60 optional cramster and the $300 tutoring fee and the $300 registration fee makes it more expensive than you local fully accredited community college.

It is not a Free anything but it is certainly not the first free university. Free open University has around since 1998 with hundreds of students and is graduating its first Doctoral student next month. Free Open university is Free and not a scam. Wikipedia Speedy Delete Free Open University because after 11 years in operation with over 10,000 learners server and hundreds of students, it is not significant. Mean while dozens of bogus web sites that are not free and have no professors and no actual classes are listed on Wikipedia as Free Universities.

Free Open University is the only Open University on earth that we know of. We do not require any thing prior to enrolling. For that reason alone, we can never receive accreditation from any accrediting agency in the US even though they agree that our quality of education is superior to many accredited institutions. We are even known for not requiring learners to chose or specify a gender when enrolling. alas, we are not significant but every scamming lying cheating web site is? You Judge.Scottprovost (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe that University of the People should be deleted, I would recommend using the Articles for deletion process instead of speedy deletion. I have no personal opinion at this time whether the article ought to be deleted or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Temple Black
I note that you reinstalled the auto-redirect on the Shirley Temple Black page and removed the categories. I thank you for a speedy decision on the deletion request, and upon reflection I can see that there should be more preparation and discussion on the Shirley Temple Talk page. Just in case you missed the situation I've been through with that page, you might want to take a few seconds and check it out here. I would like to know your opinion about how the honorable Mrs. Black is represented on all those category lists under the "T's" as simply "Shirley Temple". Do you really believe it's right to represent her under her childstar name in the ambassador categories, the diplomats, the California republicans? Shouldn't she show up in many of those categories under her married name, her present name, Shirley Temple Black? (BTW, that lead modifier on the Shirley Temple page is a nice touch - sincerely.)   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just had a thought to remove the appropriate categories from the Shirley Temple page and install them on the Shirley Temple Black page. This way the subject will be mentioned in those appropriate categories by her full name, "Shirley Temple Black", and there will be no redundant listing of "Shirley Temple" in those categories. This would solve the redundancy problem; however, the "Shirley Temple Black" listings will all be italicized because they come from a Redirect page. Would this be acceptable? (I still think that the best possible solution would be to rename the "Shirley Temple" article to "Shirley Temple Black", and am considering opening a discussion about it on the Talk:Shirley Temple page.)   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. In case you're interested and would perhaps like to weigh in, you will find my humble proposal here.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   04:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any opposition on the Shirley Temple Talk page to renaming the article to Shirley Temple Black. May we go ahead with the deletion of the Shirley Temple Black redirect page so the renaming can be implemented? .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can request deletion of the redirect page by the ordinary method; any admin can do that for you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   07:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

T.V. serial
This is regarding a question that i had asked you earlier about using a serial for referencing a fact in an article. The serial i am talking about is Raja ShivChhatrapati which is telecast on Star Pravah (also see ). Kindly tell me if this serial can be used as a reference? Thanks Kesangh (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have access to this television program, nor am I familiar with the historical events it depicts, I don't think I can answer this question. I recommend that you first discuss that on the talk page of the article where you want to use the serial as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Metropolitan90
Would you do me a huge favor and monitor the Juggalo page. Ibranoff is continuing with his edit war. Thanks you. Oh, and he has also reported me as a vandal for readding the disclaimer after he removed it. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did comment on the Administrator's noticeboard regarding this issue. I can't guarantee that I will monitor the Juggalo page frequently, but I will try to take a look at it from time to time. By the way, you may want to consider registering a Wikipedia account; some editors may give your opinions more credibility if you have a registered account. It shouldn't necessarily be that way, but sometimes it is that way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This editor has repeatedly insulted and made accusations against opposing editors, does not understand or comprehend Wikipedia's policies, and removes any warning that is added to his talk page, in addition to removing comments from other talk pages. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Please take this discussion back to either WP:AN or WP:BLPN. It isn't going to get resolved here on my talk page, because it will take the consensus of the community to resolve it. You are already aware of my opinion about the underlying dispute from my comments at WP:BLPN. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comments
There is an ongoing dispute at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists over this article published by Forbes. Since I disagree with the sales figure within I decided to post it at the WP:RSN. I'd like to have your input on this. Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may comment there later, but I am not sure whether I will get involved with this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out?
On the 5th, I nominated the article Wolfpac for deletion based on lack of coverage. After some work had been done on the article, I withdrew my nomination the following day, but the deletion discussion has not been closed. Are you able to close it? If not, could you direct me to someone who can? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Before you try to have this closed, please note that TenPoundHammer and Niteshift36 had already recommended deletion. Since there are other delete recommendations pending, the fact that you as the nominator have withdrawn your nomination does not guarantee that the nomination can be automatically closed. I recommend that you contact TenPoundHammer and Niteshift36 and let them know that the article has been improved, and ask them if they are willing to withdraw their "delete" recommendations so that the article can be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of help please
Hi. I'm involved in a complex editing situation that concerns BLP issues. I'm working on the David Copperfield (illusionist) page, which I discovered written as a sort of promotional blurb a while ago. Copperfield's life is full of controversial issues that were not featured at all on the page. I began inserting them, starting with the grand jury investigation into rape allegations. I've faced resistance on many levels, ranging from Copperfield's lawyers (who also edit the page) and the owner of Copperfield's fanclub, to editors whom I class as stalkers and hangers-on (IOW editors who have opposed me before on some issue, lost, and now pursue me from page to page trying to hinder my edits). What makes this even more complex is that one of these editors has involved a controversial admin called Gwen Gale with whom he seems to be friendly. She slapped an indef ban on me for suggesting on a Talk page that I was merely thinking of inserting certain not-so-solidly sourced facts (because they are indeed facts). As other editors have remarked about this admin:


 * "You [Gwen Gale] were blocked many, many times before and was even restricted by ArbCom.... To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality."

This admin is now attempting to block me from inserting well sourced data on Copperfield, and even deletes discussion of it from the Talk page as a BLP violation diff. Although the data is very well sourced, she labels it a "smear". I asked Gwen Gale to allow another, uninvolved admin to give oversight and judgement to these edits, and she seems to have agreed. Would you be willing? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of edits to both David Copperfield (illusionist) and its talk page. Can you identify for me the key diffs -- where you added sourced information and another editor or Gwen Gale deleted it as an alleged BLP violation? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can do that, but maybe my recent exchange with her on my talk page will do more to explain why I need admin oversight for this one edit in particular. If that's not enough, let me know and I'll find more diffs. ► RATEL ◄ 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I want to insert into the Litigation section on the page David Copperfield (illusionist):

I think it is well sourced. Alternative sources are here:
 * Chicago Sun-Times
 * International Herald Tribune
 * Entertainment Weekly
 * The Guardian
 * The Observer
 * Magic Times
 * People Mag
 * Spokesman Review
 * Buffalo News
 * San Jose Mercury News
 * Indian Express
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 * Fort Worth Star Telegram
 * Contra Costa Times 1
 * Contra Costa Times 2
 * Las Vegas Sun
 * Modesto Bee
 * Fox (fact is mentioned)

I do really feel this is both notable, npov and not overweight. Would you agree? ► RATEL ◄ 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've put it to RfC, see here. Perhaps you could comment at the RFC please? ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls
The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Deletion review. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Would you have a look at the 3RR violations of User:IrishPatriots at Dublin? Despite discussions he keeps readding or reverting the same edits. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does appear that the editor has violated WP:3RR. He has been warned about this, so if he does one more revert that would constitute a third or greater reversion within the same 24-hour period, post a notice about it at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to review that page to see what formats of reports get a successful response. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User page indexing
Please note Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Difference
Whats the difference between being blocked and banned?--TheWave (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Angieyuneve
Reality checks:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Nakesha7c
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist

Also, spam is not supposed to be hidden away, spam is supposed to be deleted. Period/full-stop. Other admins appear to disagree with you about that. Note in particular what the last admin on that list has done. --Calton | Talk 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After seeing the context, I now believe you are right about this being a sockpuppet/spam situation, although one needs to be able to see that there were 30 or so usernames involved in this to understand that. Just a single user like that with a db-spam tag, which is all I had seen, was not enough to give me any context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lager edit war
There seems to be a low-grade, low-volume edit war in Lager. Could you (or some other admin) investigate? I don't want to interfere now, because I wrote an alternative lede and I think it would appear partisan. → (AllanBz &#9997;) 05:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit war seems to be slow enough that there is time to discuss the issues on the talk page. I recommend that you put a comment on the article's talk page stating what changes you want to make and why, and see what kind of reaction you get. If you don't get any reaction after a day or so, then try making the edits you suggested and refer to the talk page in your edit summary. If you get a negative reaction on the talk page, then see what you can do to reach a consensus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Angieyuneve
I was dropping by Calton's talk page to leave a message and saw your note. WP:CSD specifically includes all pages, and talk pages are mentioned elsewhere as included, and that's the way that G11 has generally been interpreted. If you'd like for us to make a change to the speedy deletion policy, discussions like that are always welcome at WT:CSD. Thanks. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect
I added a reference to Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. You may want to revisit the AfD discussion. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed before I had a chance to see this message, but I don't think there's anything further for me to do in regard to this article anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)