User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 13

your opinion please...
You changed a tag from USgovtPOV to plain old NPOV.

The instantiation of NPOV tells readers they should look to the talk page for an explanation of why the tag was placed. (The instantiation of USgovtPOV doesn't.)

A couple of years ago I asked, on WP:ANI, what obligation I had to advise those who placed tags that said the tag placer had explained themselves on the talk page that they had not placed that explanation. I was told I didn't have an obligation to inform the tag placer I was removing that tag, if 24 hours had passed -- and they hadn't gotten around to explaining the tag placement.

In this particular case, do you actually think the article lapses from WP:NPOV? Geo Swan (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should note that I was going to comment at the AfD for this page, and I probably still will, but my browser crashed while attempting to open one of the sources used on the article so I didn't get around to doing so yet. You are correct that if there is a general NPOV problem, it ought to be explained on the talk page. However, my edit summary indicated that my belief was that if there was an NPOV problem, it was not one where the U.S. government allegations were given excessive credence. After all, you created the first draft of this article (it had previously been a redirect), and my impression is that that you do not believe in the accuracy of much of what the U.S. government was alleging about these houses. See this page, where you say, Having read ... almost all the 20,000 pages the DoD has released I have grave doubts about the professionalism, and intellectual honesty of most of the work done by the intelligence analysts who have interrogated the USA's captives in the "war on terror". I have the same doubts about those who provided the first levels of analysis of that intelligence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, I note that USgovtPOV says, "This article may express the point of view of the United States government or may contain an unbalanced critical assessment." (Emphasis added.) I missed the italicized part before, so I think that I will replace the USgovtPOV template but with an explanation on the talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Browser crash -- I hate it when that happens. I use firefox now, which can usually recover most or all of my wikipedia edit windows when it restarts.
 * Greetings, I missed the comment above, hence I am replying out of order.
 * You are quoting my personal opinion -- something which doesn't belong in article space, either explicitly, or because it leaked through without my noticing it. I don't think you are saying you think I am trying to insert stealth editorializing into articles.  Have I got that right?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people think my style is too verbose. On these controversial topics paraphrasing can be controversial.  They can be read in all kinds of ways.  I have been in the position where challengers, coming from both sides of the question, have each challenged a passage where I struggled to paraphrase controversial material in a neutral fashion.  While having the passages challenged from both extremes satisfied me that it really was neutral it didn't seem to satisfy my challengers.  So I am more inclined now to quote the source, rather than try to paraphrase.  I figure direct quotes, used fairly, in an appropriate place, are less likely to be challenged.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks
I appreciate you making a civil and substantive comment to Articles_for_deletion/Suspect_guest_house,_Jalalabad.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the afd is scheduled to close soon I thought I would draw your attention to my reply to your concern over a lapse from NPOV. I thought I would let you know in case you had a further comment to make before the afd closed.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I am not sure whether I will post any further comments on that AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael D. Duvall DYK nomination
I have come up with two alternative hooks that don't have the same problem as the first one I proposed. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Darn. I'll find a stub or improve something else for DYK then. Thanks  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for source!
I understand your misgivings about the hook, so I guess the best thing to do is to let the community decide to use it, not put the article in DYK or find some other alternate hook. Ill work on incorporating your source. Someone else doesnt like one of my sources and I agree it could use improvement.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I amend the above... it may be best not to DYK the article at all. I seem to be having an "edit war" with User:Senor Cuete, who has an issue with the fact that I rewrote the article and one of my sources. While I understand his concern about the one source (which I used only for the most basic facts), I told him it is not reason to do a revert. How do I go about settling this? I dont think he will stop.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Articles for Deletion
I try to redirect the articles for deletion to the right pages to help close the discussion, as it's the right thing to do. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I thought you were doing in this edit back in June, and I closed the AfD discussion as "redirected by article creator" accordingly (see Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 and ). However, you changed your mind the very next day. In fact, it looks like you have redirected this article, then unredirected it, at least 35 times.  So I can't assume that when you redirected this article, you meant for it to stay redirected. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

John C. Cremony
Thanks for the tip on using that tool!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastland Mall (Bloomington, Illinois)
I think that it is unusual for a mall to be built in what was then the middle of nowhere; I've looked at countless others and found that often, they're part of an already-growing business district. Either way, I think that the hook is a good way of showing how Bloomington has grown over time. I've been there, and I can tell you that Veterans Parkway is solid business almost all the way through; it's interesting to me to think that at one time, all that was out there was a gas station, a mall and a Kmart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I thought a lot of malls were built in largely undeveloped parts of a metropolitan area, because they require a lot of land and land in a developed business district would be too expensive in the opinion of many developers. See, for example, Call of the Mall by Paco Underhill, especially chapters 2 through 5 (which doesn't specifically state this, but it certainly doesn't give the impression that malls are typically built within already-growing business districts). Also, there might have been other businesses on the same block with the gas station (the source just says that the gas station was on the corner), and the GE plant could have been a large factory taking up much of a block with hundreds of employees working there (I can't find any details about it). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that one of the tenants had been in operation in the town since 1892 any more interesting? Or that its Bergner's was the first new department store in the town in over 30 years? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection to either of the new ALT hooks you suggested. Thanks for taking another look at the hook. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rickyrab/Tempsandbox
On this one, I think is, um, playing with Twinkle here. He nominated one of his sandbox for deletion with the comment "don't delete this one yet, playing with Twinkle", then nominated that MfD page for AfD ... IMO this should fall comfortably within CSD G2 as a test page. Tim Song (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cainin krow
- I explained to you that I AM THE CREATOR not slip-n-slide records and i provided MORE content then the previous BIO i wrote for Cainin Krow, so i don't understand the issue here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal Flamez (talk • contribs)
 * 06:45, 20 October 2009 Metropolitan90 (talk | contribs) deleted "Cainin krow" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.slipnsliderecords.net/caininkrow/home.html)
 * The first problem is that it could be difficult for us to confirm that you (Immortal Flamez) are the same person who created the content found on another web site. The main way you could do that would be to put the permission notice on the other web site, not here. (See WP:DCM for other ways to grant permission to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia.) Even if the copyright problems were resolved, the biography would still need a rewrite to be put into Wikipedia style. The most recent version ended with the sentence: "There is no telling as to where this vocabulary beast will go with the power of time at his side, but there's no doubt that whatever he decides to do.....it's destined to be greatness." That is not really the kind of comment that one would normally find in an encyclopedia. My recommendation would be, if you want to re-create this article, to place it at the correctly capitalized Cainin Krow, and write it in encyclopedia style based on facts that can be found in independent reliable sources, not just his MySpace or his record company biography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

World sales and certifications for Madonna
Sorry I must have got confused. I am submitting it in Articles for deletion. Thanks  J W A D  talk 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Luqman Cheema
As you userfied this you may be interested in the discussion. pablo hablo. 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion closed before I saw your message, although I probably would not have gotten involved anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Allen4names/Takeo Watanabe
Thank you for deleting User talk:Allen4names/Takeo Watanabe. -- allen四names 07:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi - just wondering - were you aware of the prior AFD for Akron hammer? Thanks. 7 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed it when reviewing the speedy deletion nomination, in part because the title did not match the title of the article under review exactly. If I had known of the AfD, I might have chosen to leave the article for another admin to review instead. If you still believe it should be speedily deleted, please feel free to renominate the redirect for speedy deletion, and I will stay out of that review and allow any other admin to make the decision on whether it should be deleted or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I listed it in my edit summary because you are right, the name is slightly different so it doesn't automatically link. I'll hardcode the AFD this time and re-list if you don't mind because it looks like the same article to me.  Thanks.   7  06:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ...
For responding to the false attack on me in that AfD ! -- Kace7 (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Unificationists
I have done a considerable amount of work on the page List of Unificationists. It now has every single entry cited, with 31 sources used. Perhaps you would like to revisit your position at Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination)? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I did revisit my position. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Henry Baber
I added some references to Bob Henry Baber. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Bob Henry Baber. - Eastmain (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck my previous recommendation because the article has changed significantly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tu-116 deletion
I couldn't do a full job as the instructions became to complex. I have found that a lot when trying to do things using so-called HELP articles. Oh well I suppose they will get simplified eventually. I'd be grateful if you could complete the task.Petebutt (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am willing to do the nomination for you if you will provide the reason for deletion. Or you can do it yourself by following the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. The last time, you did steps I and III, but not step II (in which one posts the reason for deletion). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruin Dems.
Would you be willing to review the sources I've found on this issue. PBS mentions Bruin here...[] another newspaper [], [], [] []. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like several of those articles are reprints from the UCLA newspaper, the Daily Bruin. At this point, I am planning to keep my "delete" recommendation in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Worst Cooks in America
I was thinking of creating this article, but I saw it has been previously deleted by you. Before recreating, can you explain why it was deleted and tell me if I should create it again? Thanks. -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article Worst Cooks in America because it copied the wording of pages on the Food Network web site so closely as to be a copyright infringement. If you want to try to do a new version of the article, in your own words, I don't have a problem with that. It's possible some other person might try to have it deleted, but that is a risk you take with any article; just make the article as good as you can before you click "Save page". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I was just checking. -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 15:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion page for Jeff Atwood
The discussion page for Jeff Atwood, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Atwood, was deleted by you (as far as I know). I would like to add something to the discussion page, and I am not sure what to do.

E.g. it is alright to create a new one? Or should it never exist? Or should all or part of the old one be revived?

--Mortense (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and post your comments on Talk:Jeff Atwood (a page I did once delete back in 2008). The reason Talk:Jeff Atwood was deleted before was because the main article about him, Jeff Atwood, had also been deleted. But since the main article is back, the talk page can also exist now. We don't need to restore the previous version of the talk page, because the only previous version of the talk page (before deletion) was a request to have the main page Jeff Atwood kept. That is no longer relevant because the article is not currently being considered for deletion. In other words, just go ahead and treat the article as a normal article with a normal talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the explanation. I have now created a new Talk:Jeff Atwood. --Mortense (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American Republicans discussion on inclusion criteria post-AfD
Hi Metropolitan. I'm leaving you this message because you commented at Articles for deletion/List of African-American Republicans. There appears to have been consensus to clarify the scope of the list. I've started a discussion on the topic at Talk:List of African-American Republicans and would welcome any input you have. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism‎
Thanks for fixing that. Maurreen (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "eye eye"
It's not real. It's me. I don't mean "aye aye". I just need to let you know that the page IS deleted. I searched it to put a little hangon on my page. I'll read "My First article" again. ok? --RNelson5577 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Revengers (film)

 * Thanks. I am also surprised about the lack of an edit conflict, particularly in regard to this edit. My computer was running slowly and it took several minutes for me to type that in, during which time you were also making edits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too... I recently downgraded from Cable to DSL due to Time-Warner's fast rising fees. And believe me... in going from cable broadband to DSL, I feel the lack of speed and bandwidth.  I loved the cable broadband being nearly 20 times faster than DSL... and will have to simple put up with the slower speed, as it is still better than dialup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fashion designers
Hi, On List of films based on arts books, you removed my note to readers, citing WP:OWN.

But you understood my point, correct?

"I've written 100% of this article, but I don't know anything about this specific topic, so I encourage readers to fill in this section, because I can't."

How can I say this or encourage contributions without breaking WP:OWN?

WP:OWN is concerned about preventing collaboration, while I am hoping to promote collaboration. I would like an outside expert to participate.

Is there an approved technique for doing that? Is there a little notice box? Is that "This section requires expansion" box, is that the best thing to use in this case?

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about implying that you were violating WP:OWN. I would indeed recommend that you place Expand section tags at the appropriate places in the article. My concern was that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to indicate within the text the contributions of any one particular editor. Any recommendation that readers supply more information should be made in the institutional "voice" of Wikipedia itself, not on behalf of any one particular editor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating when you end up writing 100% of the thing, because nobody else wants to pitch in.
 * The article on Spy Books can get 40 or 50 hits a day, but nobody's added a row to its tables in 2 years.
 * I'm hoping to not see a repetition of that.
 * Ok, thanks. I'll try that little notice box, but to me, its tone is whiny rather than energizing.
 * Varlaam (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can find a notice that suits the article better, or you want to customize a notice using Template:Ambox, that's fine. Just make sure the notice is written from the perspective of Wikipedia rather than your individual perspective. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It turns out that Expand section takes an argument where you can get specific. Can't say I've seen that used elsewhere, but I've tried that now in a few places. Just hope it provokes a response from readers!
 * I'll take a look at your latest suggestion as well.
 * Thanks a lot, Varlaam (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies
As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Gao XingJian's Buying a Fishing Rod for My Grandfather
Turns out I had another objection to my own prod: the author of the play is a Nobel Prize winner. However, since we already have an article on the play, I've turned this page into a redirect. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

you had wondered about the editions of New Zealand and Australia being linked
Just to let you know I commented about this in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services; also note the article has been seriously revised. I'd appreciate your thoughts per the discussion if you have time. Smkolins (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)