User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 18

Inquiry on AfDs
Hi Metropolitan90, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make that much difference to me (from my perspective as someone participating in AfDs as opposed to closing them), because I often don't remember who is an admin, and it would be unusual for me to check on all the participants in an AfD discussion I was in to see which ones are and which ones are not admins. On rare occasions I might do that, but not normally. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. :) It is also a little bit tedious to check participants' adminship in an AfD discussion. Bluesum (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in!
Thanks for weighing in on Wafah Dufour. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply a friendly greeting


SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hot Sauce
You should consider switching to Crystal Hot Sauce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs)

Talkback
--   Luke      (Talk)   00:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

BollySpice
Hello. You've declined the proposed deletion of BollySpice, which doesn't quality per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. The website has not received specific coverage from independant, notable third party sources or newspapers. Its content has not won a well-known and independent award, and is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Scieberking (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, please feel free to nominate it for deletion at Articles for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Côteaux et Châteaux
Hello! You deleted the talk page of Communauté de communes Côteaux et Châteaux on August 28. :(

I was building a draft for that article and had explained that on it's talk page… Anyhow, i have (re)created the article and talk page so please don't delete them : they do now have a parent article. :|

I now realise it's my fault for leaving a talk on it's own (G8 —thanks for info) but i'm just informing you in case you think that i'm some nut who's been re-creating deleted pages. :)

Thanks for reading this! Benzband (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)  : D

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 11:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Organization
Hi, I made some changes in the article, please check and write the result in Articles for deletion/Persian Gulf Organization if you can. Thanks Mehran  Debate 20:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention. Mehran  Debate 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bradford Dungeon
Actually London Dungeon seems to indicate that you can actually create something of the sort and find enough tourists to make money. My afd was primarily based on the fact that surely nothing so stupid could ever exist. Since I'm obviously wrong about that, I'd rather kill the AfD even if I still feel the page should go because it's premature. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the tourist attraction detailed in the article Bradford Dungeon (fan made) does not exist. I can find no mention of it on the internet, the article contradicts itself, e.g. "is a popular tourist Attraction in Bradford" and "Opening in 2012", but more disturbing is reference to a Great Fire segment, which tastelessly makes reference to the Bradford City stadium fire in which 56 people died. I suggest this article is removed at the earliest opportunity. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Zip Code 30052
I've added a number of other ZIP codes to the nomination, you may wish to have another look. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pablo Cheng
Hi, Metropolitan90! Just curious as to *why* you declined the speedy deletion request for Pablo Cheng? The article (about a person) doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject and is an obvious candidate for speedy. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: his Internet Movie Database listing indicates that he does seem to have an acting career, and the article has been on Wikipedia for almost six years. Although the article doesn't truly assert his significance, as you indicated, it would be better to take the page to AfD and have an open discussion to see whether he does have significance and there is some interest in improving the article so it can be kept, or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Gnostic Marshalism Spirituality
It looks like this article was recreated. I didn't tag it as spam, is it the same article? Gnostic Marshalism Spirituality Thanks! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks the same, after having been re-created, to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT
Thank you for your prompt administrative action on the DThomsen8 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would ask to restore the talk page of Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. It contains several discussions as also open page-move request. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's restored now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

SEO "professional" biopage argument
Very solid argument in favor of deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola I had another deletion request going from the same category that struck out as a draw. Would you give it a look and share your thoughts on article and argument for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jill_Whalen Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for signing in for me. I haven't done that in quite awhile! My bad. Smatprt (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Chadwick Lawrence
You declined the CSD on the above page with the edit sum "article asserts notability", which part of the article does that ? Mt king  (edits)  20:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "... one of the largest full service law firms in Yorkshire ..." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All firms can describe themselves in that way. Mt  king  (edits)  20:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an "assertion" of notability. I didn't say it was "proof" of notability, but an article doesn't need that to escape speedy deletion. Just take the page to WP:AFD if you think it ought to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Chatting with Classmates
 Chzz  ► 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage inspired me
I have resurrected Wikiracing. As you seem to have an interest in the topic I thought I should let you know. Any sage wisdom would be welcome. heh. JORGENEV 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Corruption Gov
As the article needs more work before it is ready, I ask that you consider my suggestion that it be Userfied back to its author for continued work OUT OF MAINSPACE, as the topic IS verifiable and might well be seen as passing WP:NF when completed. I will be glad to oversee its growth and improvement away from the ticking clock and I have strongly urged on the author's talk page that he use userspace for creation of his drafts for new articles in the future, and not mainspace. I think its reasoable to give him guidence and time to learn.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF on AfD
Hey Metropolitan90, thanks for cruising by and leaving me this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dannysullivan&diff=0&oldid=207042508

Telling me that by golly, I left a message on a close AfD page (huh, what, can you just speak plain language?) and that hardly anyone will see those comments there (even though you did) and that if I want to challenge a deletion of something, I should use some arcane cryptic obscure Wikipedia deletion review process.

Here's a little acronym for you. WTF?

Look, somehow in the insane closed little world of Wikipedia editors, where non-specialist editors pretend to be experts on what's notable, you decided that this person wasn't. You know, because you all couldn't find enough references, in part because you don't know the subject enough to even know how to find the right references -- but even if you had, since you're not subject experts, they mean nothing to you.

So, despite my general feeling that contributing anything to Wikipedia is a big giant waste of time, I actually left you all some pretty detailed references. At the very least, I'd think you'd have though hmm, maybe there's enough there that this should be put up for re-review. And since you're actually an expert on Wikipedia procedures -- why didn't you just do it?

What's the point here? To have an accurate crowd-sourced encyclopedia, or to only have it be as accurate as the incredibly tiny few number of people who care to play in the high priesthood of Wikipedia editing allow it to be.

If it's the latter, well, job well done. If it's the former, well, you know what to do.

Geez, just to leave you a response, in the email I got, I was told to go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90

Which then told me at the top that actually, to contact you, I should come to this page. Which in turn, you know, isn't particularly user friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysullivan (talk • contribs)

You are famous.
So this User:Dannysullivan is trying to drum up some anger off Wikipedia.

First he wrote this on his blog and then he posted it to hackernew.

Figured you might want to know. He has yet post an deletion review request. -- Zac  Bowling  (user 05:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did see his blog post because he mentioned it at Requests for undeletion, but I didn't know about the Hacker News posting until you mentioned it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm Frustrated
Yes, of course I'm trying to drum up anger. I'd hope people who love Wikipedia and work hard on it would understand why there's that anger and fix the problems within the system to make it better.

And no, I didn't post it to Hacker News. This is an example of things that are wrong about Wikipedia. You make an assumption, turn it into fact without attribution, then others come along to debate it trying to find some third-party reference about it. First party information doesn't matter. I don't know who submitted it there.

I did post a deletion review request, using the form for the non contested reviews. I did that yesterday. I didn't do it using the deletion review form because as I explained, in detail in my post, that form doesn't appear to be useful for page that are already deleted, only for those that are in a deletion review process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.30.223 (talk • contribs)
 * I never said that you posted the blog post to Hacker News. ZacBowling told me that above, but I didn't say that it was you who posted it because I didn't know who did post it there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, quote "First he wrote this on his blog and then he posted it to hackernew." end quote. That line says: "he posted it" - now you wrote: "I never said". Something is not right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.235.254 (talk • contribs)
 * As I said above, it was ZacBowling who told me that Danny "wrote this on his blog and then he posted it to hackernew". You can see that in this diff. That link will show you the difference ("diff") between my user talk page before that comment was added and after. You will see that the edit was made by Zac and is signed by him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved from higher up on page
Hey y did u delete my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.126.175 (talk • contribs)
 * Answered on your talk page, I think. This is why I ask people (at the top of this page) to identify "the exact title of the former article" they are asking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)