User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 15

Four Songs From 'The Obscure' Nominee
Re articles based on promo singles such as Four Songs From 'The Obscure' Nominee. This was a white lable promo sent out for pr - NOT a release! db-a9 was added as the page does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Tom McRae has a page - this is not in question - please see WP:CSD (A9). Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. A9 says "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist." Therefore, if an artist's article does exist, the article about their musical recording cannot be speedily deleted under WP:CSD. A9 can only be applied if there is no article about the recording's artist (and if the article does not indicate the recording's importance or significance). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater
Do you know that he lied about his confrontation with a passenger about that flight, and that Salter has since refused to talk about the incident? patsw (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not know either of these items, but neither one affects his notability in an obvious way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SNAFU
Hello M, sorry for the blunder just now on User talk:SuperSonicSpeed/Archive, if CSD does not apply here then what does? I mean the account is a blocked sockpuppet of a BANNED editor →←. Per WP:DENY & WP:RBI, shouldn't we be removing all these garbage on sight, especially after they've long been blocked? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 19:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend taking the pages to WP:MFD instead. WP:CSD just does not apply because it's a user talk page that various other editors used to communicate with the person, even though he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. And I can't find any other speedy deletion criterion that could apply in this situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for pointing that out to me, have done nominating it on MfD. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

forum
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu! (2nd nomination)
Hi, I added some more links to pages showing the article's notability and was just wondering if you'd seen them. See this Newsweek article, this Gazeta Wyborcza list of articles including the phrase and this google news page on the frequency of the phrase being mentioned in the press. I also expanded the article itself a bit. Would these things convince you of the phrase's noteworthiness? Thanks for your time. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will take a look and then decide whether to reconsider my earlier recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sri sri aathkhelia bornaamghar
I am surprised that you don't want to delete this article. A simple search on google will show you that the term aathkhelia bornaamghar exists nowhere else on the web but now in wikipedia. For the benefit of the author, I assume it is a test page.

Shenhemu (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being able to find the subject on the web makes it hard to verify, perhaps non-notable or even a hoax, but none of those are the same as being a test page. If somebody posted something that looked like this:

$$Insert formula here$$Link title

Headline text

 * 1) REDIRECT Target page nameSubscript textItalic text

then I would assume it was a test page because the person was trying out the various ways of Wikipedia formatting. But a short article about something that cannot be identified on the web is not a test page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess I should mark Sri sri aathkhelia bornaamghar non-notable. Thanks for explaining the true meaning of test page! Shenhemu (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Alistair Kidd
Hi Metropolitan. I noticed you had changed the db-hoax tag I had put to db-bio. I just wanted to explain that the db-hoax tag was not put because the kid did not exist (he obviously does), but because the claims of directing serials et al that had been put seemed hoaxes (due to non-availability of any rs). Just thought I'll clarify, nothing else. Thanks and warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a non-hoax because the article was talking about him making YouTube videos. I figured that he might have been filming those serials for YouTube in a way that was true, just not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Refusal of deleton request (Christoph brüx)
Hi, I have a question regarding this. Forgive me if I understood something wrong (my home wiki is the german one, not the english one). The man's name ist Christoph Brüx, not brüx. The article's creator made a mistake and asked for help because he doesn't know how to move articles. The article was moved to the right name with capital ″B". Isn't it consensus in en-WP to delete this kind of wrong redirects? Greetings --Schniggendiller talk  21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no such consensus in the English Wikipedia. Naming conventions (capitalization) says that such redirects are unnecessary, but harmless. If someone had created Christoph Brüz in error instead of the correct spelling Christoph Brüx, that erroneous redirect should be deleted. But a redirect with correct spelling but incorrect capitalization can just be left alone because it doesn't make any difference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, okay, I will keep this in mind as an example for "rules & procedures contrary to their counterparts in de-WP" :-) Thanks for your explanation. Greetings --Schniggendiller talk  01:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Stub
Hello! This list is incomplete, hence stub. Doncsecztalk 08:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you meant now, so I have attached the inc-lit template to the list saying, "This literature-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." This is more specific than the "stub" template, which normally refers to the entire article. The whole article would not be classified as a stub just because part of it is incomplete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Doncsecztalk 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion List of Hindu temples in Poland
User--  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- through marking my article List of Hindu temples in Poland has made a mistake. There were no logical and objective reasons for such an action. But obviously he's unable to recognize it. He wants a revenge instead by repeatedly deleting my article without any reasons, and in my opinion his behaviour is completely incompatible with his desire to become an administrator of Wikipedia.

But you're right that my remarks about --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- were too rude and unnecessary in such a discussion. I've already told him I'm sorry for some remarks I've written. SETI3 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the problematic comments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion you Restored
The talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.2.53.91 refers to different user/s as it is an office computer that changes yearly. Please delete as per prior users request as I don't wish to recieve comments from editors when I browse wikipedia at work. Thank you. (129.96.234.165 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
 * The best way to avoid getting messages for other people is to register an account. But since you are not currently using the IP address associated with User talk:123.2.53.91, you won't receive the messages for that account anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Harvey Silverman second page deletion
Thank you- I removed link on Dr. Silverman's listing and don't think anyone else will find the page. Have a good day, Lmitro2010 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)lmitro2010

DYK nomination of Angel Porrino
Hello, your nomination of Angel Porrino at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Albeck
Thanks for taking the time to go through the article for Andy Albeck and adding details from the LA Times. Your efforts are mucg appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Angel Porrino
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoNoLita
Why did you delete my page? I can assure you it is not a hoax. On what grounds do you decide whether a topic is a hoax or not and what qualifies you to make that judgement? I have spent a considerable amount of my free time trying to launch this campaign and I don't really understand what it is about it that leads you to believe that it is not genuine.

I spent several days making the page and researching the topic. I made many edits. I sought and received feedback. And still, the day of going live, the page is deleted by you.

What recourse do i have in such a situation? I am keen to get my page back up.

DoctorOm (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the page SoNoLita to allow further review, but I have added multiple tags of "citation needed" and "who" to the article to indicate the lack of sourcing and vagueness. As explained on Talk:SoNoLita by another editor, this article has no sources to discuss the campaign to establish SoNoLita as a recognized neighborhood, and your statement that you "have spent a considerable amount of [your] free time trying to launch this campaign" supports what User:Beyond My Ken wrote, that the article was created by the person who was trying to campaign for the establishment of the neighborhood, which would be a conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the creator would obviously dispute it, I'll skip PRODing the article and go right to AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is a "hoax", since it's written as if the neighborhood actually exists. while the author's comments here make it clear that he or she is attempting to bring it into existence, so the article is saying something that is patently untrue, despite the accurate descriptions of the places inside this "neighborhood". Wikipedia is not an advertising medium to be used for promotion of anyone's favorite cause or program. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Roger Friedman
Hello! Your submission of Roger Friedman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Friedman
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight Triple DIvide Point
Hello. (Actual name: Searchlight Triple Divide).. The talk page explains that the divide point was moved over to the SE of Eldorado Valley (a Triple Divide also in NE).. On the link to the discussion page for Searchlight Triple Divide Point I put the latest (updated version)..User:Hike796 keeps deleting half the page and DISTORTING it... The link (to my original-style page (I assume NOT what you saw), is either here: ... -(and you'll see how much I had to add back)-or the article link to the Discussion page... (I have NOT voted, (and won't), but I'm going to assure each Voter sees the real page. AND of note, on the Discussion Page I pointed out that the TRIPLE Divide Point is on the Great Basin Divide and it borders the Colorado River, and watershed. (the NE point of the same valley does the same as well as being on Lake Mead.Mmcannis (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Template:Mega Model
I've had plenty of similar navboxes deleted per CDS G8 where the main article has been deleted, though perhaps the distinction here is that there is a remaining blue link in the template as well as a remainiung transclusion? They may not be explicitly covered by the G8 criteria, but I do think they are covered by the spirit of the criteria. Perhaps this merits some discussion at WT:SPEEDY? PC78 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Kailashgupta180
Back in July, User:Kailashgupta180 was repeatedly recreating a mainspace article about himself (I presume), which was speedily deleted about 5 times. The last time, you userfied the page to his main User page. However, since that point, the user has done almost nothing other than edit that page, and add his name and email address to a variety of pages. He did create one article on a village in India which remains, although that article also had his contact info in it...I've tried to communicate twice with the user, as I think he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is. However, I've never received a response, nor has did he respond to any of the messages left by others. Today the user tried to further transform his user page to look like an article (with templates and infoboxes). I'm not quite sure how to proceed; perhaps you could leave another message, or perhaps its time for the user to be blocked per WP:NOTMYSPACE. I don't see that anyone else has tried to communicate with the user outside of templates, so I don't believe that I can start an RFC/U. Your thoughts? I'll watchlist this, so you can just reply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the situation, I don't have any good advice. I do note that the situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that the user appears to be editing from an IP address now, which could make blocking him more difficult. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Including editing the village article to add the same info. For now I'll just keep watching and see if regular, rapid reverting discourages him.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if any warnings apply to either User:Kailashgupta180 or the IP address, feel free to issue such a warning on their respective user talk page after each future incident of inappropriate editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Batdanm
Fuck You, You Dickhead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.241.243 (talk • contribs)
 * I take it that this is a reference to these edits to Justin Guarini. However, I have no idea who User:Batdanm is supposed to be; there's no account registered under that name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Linda J. Wachner
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for this. I forgot ... Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles
An AfD in which you recently took part has spun off a discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines which may interest you. Handschuh-talk to me 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick questions
In the DRv for DMFA, you advised future articles 'keep the article's focus on establishing notability for the comic overall rather than describing the characters and plot in detail.'

Could you specify or elucidate the line of reasoning here? The article seems similar in structure to other articles about comics/TV shows/movies/etc., so I'm not sure precisely what improvement is being requested. Do you know of a "good" article that can serve as a rubric? Does it just need more footnotes describing the sources for all of the plot material? I can do additional searching to improve the article, if you point me in the right direction. :)

Is article text available during DRv? How?

Sim (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a really good example to show you was a model, I can say that I would be looking at the number of independent sources that are not the comic itself, as well as the prominence of the sources cited, and the range of sources they came from (i.e. having 5 different articles from 5 different newspapers is better than having 5 articles from the same newspaper). For example, the Xkcd article deals with a notable webcomic and cites, among other sources, this New York Times article. That's a great source for establishing notability, but I don't expect all webcomics to be able to establish notability through a New York Times article. And, conversely, the 50 or so citations to Xkcd.com itself in the Xkcd article don't do anything to establish notability. I am not looking so much for more footnotes describing the sources for all the plot material at this time, because first I would be looking for footnotes establishing that this comic is one I should pay attention to at all. Only after that has been established would I suggest going into detail about the plot. For further guidance, see WP:WEB. With regard to the article text being available during deletion review, I have gone ahead and temporarily undeleted the page at Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures so you and everyone else can see what the article most recently looked like. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you so much; I understand now! Do you think the best bet is for the article to be re-user-ified, so I can go do that? Sim (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. You can request that the article be userfied in the deletion review, or if it gets deleted, I or another administrator can userfy it for you. (Userfication of the article wouldn't be controversial as long as you do in fact work on it after it is userfied, as opposed to just leaving the content there unchanged.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you do that? I just checked and it was just closed >.< Also, would you mind taking a look at it when I finish it? I can let you know when, on this talk page. Sim (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's restored now to User:Sim/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures. I am willing to look at it again if you let me know when you are finished. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

South Georgia
You're right of course. Given the editor's lack of civility, I couldn't resist this rather feeble joke. Mea culpa  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 23 Minutes in Hell
The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol Welsman
Hello Meteopolitan90, Thanks for recognizing that a Carol Welsman article is overdue. As a German Wikipedian I appreciate any assistance from native speakers on the English WP. Best wishes --Hans (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

more details
With regard to what WTOP had to say about Wali Mohammed. This was an Associated Press article, widely republished, from late winter of 2006.

The Associated Press had submitted various FOIA requests for information about the Guantanamo captives. The DoD did not comply with those FOIA requests. They declined, but not under a national security claim, which probably would have succeeded. They declined, claiming they were withholding the information to protect the captives' privacy. US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff ruled against the DoD, ordering them to publish all the information by 6pm 2006-3-3. The DoD only partially complied. They released the transcripts, which were only identified by an ID number. But they withheld all their lists which matched the ID numbers to the captives' names. That list wasn't published for another six weeks.

A couple of dozen captives, including Wali Mohammed, had their name uttered during the course of their Tribunals, and so those couple of dozen captives could be identified by name. The Associated Press published a long article that devoted a couple of paragraphs summarizing what the Tribunal transcript said about the captives who could be identified by name.

Back in 2006 I didn't expect WTOP to go 404. A year or two ago, after it went 404, I spent some time searching for other publications that reprinted the AP profiles. Unfortunately, different publications often retitle AP stories. And, in this particular instance, publications generally left some captives out, to make the stories fit in the space they had available. I just looked for the alternate publications. In the time I had available I didn't find any. With more effort I think I could find one, or a couple.

Hold the presses, I found a copy.

Reading it now it is clear that Wali Mohammed was not the Transport Minister. He was a senior financier. The witness the AP story refers to -- he would have been the Transport Minister. AP is reporting that the bad debt Wali Mohammed incurred was discussed at the Taliban's cabinet level. I think that is notable. IIRC the debt was Taliban regime funds that Wali Mohammed, a trusted financier, had access to for one purpose, but which he used for unauthorized currency speculation in the foreign funds market. I think this would make him the closest thing Taliban era Afghanistan had to a Bernie Madoff. Geo Swan (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Angela Slatter
Hi, can you please assist me with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Slatter. So far you're the only person who has made constructive input. I would like to get this page suitable for inclusion and avoid deletion. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have any ideas I will let you know. Right now I'm not sure exactly what you should do to improve the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I've come here to thank you. As I wrote here, it has been my experience that practically no one who has disagreed with me over whether the OARDEC memos should be regarded as WP:RS was prepared to spare the time to read my counter-arguments, and offer a civil and courteous reply.

You were a rare exception. I am trying to remember whether anyone else at all took that step.

Let me thank you for that. I appreciated it at the time. And I have remembered your collegiality in other discussions. Thanks!

It is possible if I were to reread your rebuttal I would be convinced today. I am sorry to tell you that I can't remember when you offered your rebuttal, or where you offered your rebuttal.

The key point in the note in the diff I offered above is my suggestion that there should be an WP:RFC on the question of whether the OARDEC memos should be considered WP:RS. I have never initiated an RFC. Do you have any advice for me?

Thanks for your earlier collegiality and fairness. And thanks in advance for considering offering further advice.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Timelimits on userspace drafts
I didn't set out to make more use of userspace pages than other contributors. But it seems I have done so. Our policies are complicated, and are growing more so. Some of those pages have recently triggered other contributors concerns. I see myself as a good faith contributor, and I am prepared to fix those userspace pages I where I inadvertently lapsed from policy. If they can't be fixed I would prefer to delete them myself, so I can do so in an orderly fashion, cannibalizing and re-using the non-problematic portions.

Unfortunately I seem to have attracted the scrutiny of some contributors who aren't prepared to grant me the leeway WP:User pages recommends.

I have several concerns over this scrutiny. But I will ask you here about one aspect, since I saw you had already commented on timelimits, and staledrafts. You offered the opinion that a userspace page shouldn't really be considered abandoned until that person who started it had left the project, and had been gone a year.

My view is much closer to yours. I presumed your comment implied some obvious provisos. I presume your comment did not apply to userified formerly deleted material. The consensus seems to be that previously deleted material can only be kept in userspace for a limited time, like six months. The consensus seems to be that even previously deleted material that is being actively worked on has to go after six months.

From your comment it seemed to me that you would agree that this six month limit should not apply to drafts of new articles. Have I got that right?

Would you agree that a userspace page, that started as an article, that was userified, after deletion, could be retained if useful elements, were retained, after removing the elements that triggered the deletion concern were removed, and it was altered so it no longer looked like an article?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I recommended allowing userspace drafts to be kept as long as the editor had not abandoned Wikipedia for a full year, I was only thinking about drafts of new articles, not content that had previously been deleted. WP:UP says, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host ... deleted content .... Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." Whether I would recommend (at WP:MFD) keeping or deleting a userspace draft of a once-deleted article would depend, in part, on how actively the user seemed to be trying to get the article in condition to return to the mainspace. Of course, I can't speak for everyone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Errigo deletion
Thanks for the heads-up on Errigo. As I can't remember anything about the article, I trust your judgment. We need to thin out articles on less than notable mafiosi. Rogermx (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Iran
Please note that I have heavily rewritten this article, so please reconsider your "delete" recommendation at Articles for deletion/Bomb Iran. Thanks, DHowell (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my "delete" recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)