User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 20

Barack Obama, Sr.
there is a little dispute over at the Barack Obama, Sr. page. mind weighing in?

Atheism is not a religion, so it is more accurate to say that his religion is None (atheist) than to say Religion: Atheist. what do you think?

Talk page on this

Auss00 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not been involved in that discussion, and so I don't think I'm going to get involved now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * that's fine. I just saw your name on the history page of that article and wanted to see if you had any opinions. Auss00 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Government
The version you reverted to is not the original proposal. Some months ago, I reverted further to the last version that was actually discussed. Beeblebrox later deleted some paragraphs he didn't like. The whole point of closing down editing there was that no new edits should be made to the "rejected proposal" (it wasn't actually rejected, Beeblebrox used strong arm tactics to argue that).

At the time, when Beeblebrox deleted those paragraphs, I didn't have the time to check out what he had done. Later I wanted to restart the proposal, but Beeblebrox blocked that attempt (it had gone "stale", apparently a few months of inactivity is considered "stale" here). What my experience there and on some other pages make clear is that people like me in practice can't contribute to policy pages. What is not clear, though, is if even rejected policy proposals are going to be misrepresented. Count Iblis (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will unprotect the page to allow an accurate description of the proposal. However, if I find that the page contains statements such as "Quality of content was given a far larger weight in the determination of page ranking and that ultimately led to Wikipedians establishing a Government system. The Government system led to many benefits for Wikipedia beyond just being an emergency tool to fix problems in an article or on some policy page", I will remove them and re-protect the page. Those statements are simply inaccurate, because Wikipedians did not establish a Government system, and the Government system could not have led to benefits for Wikipedia because it never went into effect. If you have a better proposal than the one that failed (yes, it was rejected and failed; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government), I recommend starting it on a new page rather than trying to propose it on the existing page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is written from the perspective of a Wikipedian living thousands of years from now, where it is official policy :). The present version is still written in that way, so one would have to rewrite it completely to remove that aspect of the text. That it ended up being rejected was due to Beeblebrox deciding to escalate matters to bring it to a premature close rather than proceed on the path that was originally envisioned, i.e. to rewrite it first based on the comments, and then have an RFC. The whole thing ended up being misrepresented as "a stale proposal that has little support". It was judged to be just that and then it got rejected on that basis. Then, given that is where we are, I agree that any new proposal will have to be made on a new page. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to go flinging mud at me you could had at least have the common courtesy to let me know. This proposal was not rejected because of me, it was rejected because the community didn't support it. All I did was to try to get you to see that, but you have lost all sense of perspective where this pet proposal of yours is concerned and you still can't see that. I actually feel sorry for you that you still cling to the notion that if you just make some corrections this will go somewhere. The paragraphs I removed were not removed because I disagreed with them, they were removed because they were made up bullshit that you wrote. As I said again and again in the previous discussions about this, if you want to make up nonsense about how some hopeless proposal changed Wikipedia, you should be doing that in userspace. It's also funny how you only pay attention to this page when someone other than you dares to edit it. Again, if you want to control a page, put in userspace, not WP space. Better yet, let it go and move on already. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When I started this, I made it very clear that the present text would not be put to a vote, rather I would ask for comments on the general idea of a government, the scope of it etc. ec. and then I would rewrite it based on the feedback. A rejection of the proposal would then be understood to mean that at the end of the process, when I would had rewritten it, it would have been rejected in the concuding RFC.


 * But, due to lack of time, I didn't go on swiftly with the second stage. When you came along, you interpreted the first stage as the final stage, despite many attempts of me making it clear that it wasn't (on the talk page that was mede abundandly clear also). You continued to argue that the proposal had been rejected by saying that the community would never accept anything like this, even though, in theory, the final propsal could have said precisely that.


 * What pissed me off about all this was not being able to continue with this, basically being dictated what the timeline for working on this should be and that the whole effort was spun into something it was never meant to be. It's a bit like someone declaring a three stage rocket to be of flawed design if he only sees the finished first stage (the other stages have yet to be built). With only the first stage it won't go into orbit. Despite being told that it is a three stage rocket, the person continues to argue that the rocket won't go into orbit. Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about me and you. despite your claims if you lok at the talk history it is apparent that the core idea behind the proposal was rejected and numerous other users commented along those lines way back then, but you pretended what was really going on was that they were discussing your proposal. This revision of the talk page is a perfect example. You can pretend all you like, just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it. Don't bother replying, it is clear to me that there is no poiint discussing this any further, you are truly lost when it comes to this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Moulin Rouge Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James McMillan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Campusdada
Hi just wanted to bring this to your attention. You deleted the article with WP:CSD (which is what was suggested in the article's AFD)), but you didn't close the AFD. I just wanted to check if this was intentional or an oversight. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've closed the AFD, could you please check and let me know if I've done it correctly (this is my first closure). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing the AfD. I didn't close it myself just because I didn't get around to doing so; I didn't mean for it to be kept open. The way you closed it looks fine. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems
Please help, and drag me out of my stupidity, sir. Ballisticizer (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just posted there, but you may not like what I had to say. I believe that a previous version of the Wikipedia article Ram Kishore Shukla was copied from this article by B.D. Sharma based on the date of the latter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Article- Michelle Denise Profit
My article continues to be deleted. I read the help sessions, but I still don't understand why the article continues to be deleted. My article is of a person who is relavent, and is active on the social scene. She raises large amounts of money for various events and she photographed in multiple magazines and newspapers. Will you please, please help me. I understand you're busy, but it appears I really need your help. It seemed simple, but I guess I can't get it. It seems you know your stuff, because you pointed out the errors in my article. Will ypou help. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AHangon+preload+A7&editintro=&preloadtitle=Contested+deletion&section=new&title=Talk%3AMichelle+profit&create=Click+here+to+contest+this+speedy+deletion [(Michelle Denise Profit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlrichards (talk • contribs)
 * I will try to give you further advice later. But for now, I would advise you to do the following things if you want Michelle to have an article: (1) Make sure she would qualify as notable under Notability (people). (2) Draft the article in your own user space at User:Karlrichards/Michelle Denise Profit where you can work on it without having it submitted to the main part of the encyclopedia yet. It can be moved into the mainspace later. (3) Find sources you can cite for all the statements you put into the article. You can get advice on how to format the sources into footnotes, or whatever, later, if you don't know how yet -- for now, you can just put the sources in parentheses or brackets after each sentence, so that other people will be able to confirm the sources later. Good luck. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of some article or another, per my talk page
Thanks for the note. Thought I was trying to help Wikipedia by researching, providing evidence (reference the Talk page where that was provided) of a hoax article that had been in the encyclopedia since 2007 at least.

Sorry if I confused the procedure. I won't bother any further, as I've already devoted several hours to the process, and frankly, if it's too complicated to do in three hours I'm not that invested in it. I won't get in the way of the professionals. Thanks for the help. Please don't contact me further. T L Miles (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You have no right
You have no right to tag me like that and threaten me with a block. I have put you on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I made an HONEST mistake that NO one corrected me until you did. I thought it was pornographic actors AND models not pornographic actors and pornographic models. It was an honest mistake. I urge you to read WP:Good Faith. -- Everyone Dies In the End  (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the ANI, but I still think you should not treat other editors this way.-- Everyone Dies In the End  (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please
While you and I have often disagreed, I found you fair-minded in willing to explain your position more fully, when I didn't understand it. I appreciated that, at the time. Thanks!

I think there is an area where we may agree, or where I remember you stating some positions I agreed with back in late 2010 or early 2011. Of course, even if I remember that correctly, your views may have changed.

The issue? Good faith contributors use of subpages in userspace. I had a very persistent challenger, who I thought applied an unreasonable catch-22 double standard to their scrutiny of the subpages I started in userspace.


 * 1) They seemed to think any page that hadn't been edited recently obviously wasn't being used, and so should be subject to deletion.
 * 2) They seemed to think any page where the use being made of it wasn't immediately obvious to a passing observer should be subject to deletion.
 * 3) They seemed to think any page lapsed from WP:STALEDRAFT, or WP:FALSEARTICLE should be subject to deletion, even if it were changed, so it no longer violated STALEDRAFT or FALSEARTICLE.

Can I ask your opinion on a couple of questions?
 * 1) There are some userspace pages, like User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/inprocessdates, which I believe I have consulted thousands of times.  There have been periods of longer than a year when I did not update those notes, but I was consulting them regularly.  My interpretation of WP:Userpage is that a userspace page can contain rough notes, scaffolding, for working on articles, without ever being intended to being promoted to being an article itself, and still fully comply with WP:Userpage.  Would you agree?
 * 2) I spent some time, adding explanations to some userspace page, so this contributor wouldn't nominate them for deletion because their purpose wasn't obvious.  It was a great shock to see those efforts rewarded by a nomination for deletion base on a claim it was a FALSEARTICLE.  Do you think a userspace page should be subject to deletion just because its purpose wasn't obvious to a casual observer?  Surely if there is a real concern the concerned party could ask what it was used for?
 * 3) When there is a problem with an actual article, in article space, that is considered serious enough to justify a nomination for deletion, one of the things those who favor keeping the article can do is to rewrite the article, or excise portions of it.  When their efforts to rewrite or excise the troublesome sections succeed, and the problem is no longer present, those articles are kept.  WP:Userpage says good faith contributors have traditionally been offered "considerable leeway" in how they make use of pages in userspace.  For reasons I don't understand, instead of offering "considerable leeway" my challenger tried to exercise zero tolerance, a higher standard than what we expect in article space.  So long as older revisions of a userspace page had some troublesome element they wanted to see it deleted.  Do you think that a former article, once userified, can be stripped of the elements that make it look like an article, and converted into a page of notes, and once that has been done, no longer be vulnerable to deletion under WP:FALSEARTICLE?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a discussion of the articles you created at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, I didn't read the whole thing but I didn't see where people were discussing the pages in your userspace. Would it be more productive for me to add my opinion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or somewhere else? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Templates in your user space
Sorry, this is entirely my fault. I've been away for a couple of years and thought it a good idea to get rid of all the bits I no longer used; obviously forgetting I'd used some of it on other people's pages. Thank you for helping clear it up! // Fi  nns  10:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Boobs (short story)
Hi Metropolitan90. You speedy deleted an article called Boobs (short story) per Criteria for speedy deletion, which is still linked to from at least two other articles. One of Wikipedia's shortcomings is that no one, including established editors entrusted with rollback privileges, can view the deleted content. On the one hand, apparently no one has complained about the deletion, and I assume you know G3 when you see it; on the other hand, the idea of an award winning story named "Boobs" could easily seem like a hoax, but a story with that title did win the 1990 Hugo Award for Best Short Story, and was also nominated for the Nebula Award for Best Short Story that year. Being only a short story in a niche genre, it's at least possible that a legitimate article was deleted and no one noticed. Could you please make the deleted article available to me so that I can see if it had any relevance to the short story by Suzy McKee Charnas? DOSGuy (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had heard of the short story, or at least seen it in lists of Hugo Award-winning stories, before I deleted that article. The reason I deleted the article was that it had been created with the entire text consisting of the abbreviation "wtf". That's it, just "wtf"; the text didn't even contain a vowel. (The only other edit was someone else tagging the page for db-vandalism.) The short story by Charnas is a notable topic, and I wouldn't have deleted the article if it had any legitimate content about the actual short story "Boobs" that won the Hugo Award, but it didn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamx1123
There's no point in userfying this because it was not created by this user in the first place. In fact the user is now locked globally as a spambot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed the fact that the page was created by an IP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the welcome is also of no use - see Special:CentralAuth/Jamx1123.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

David Livingstone - link for Hamilton United Reformed Church
It appears that the link to my Church Website was removed - you identity associated with that deletion. The deletion is supposed to have been because of copyright infringement. However as Webmaster and author of the Hamilton site- all images are my own photographs and therefore I am sole copyright holder. All photographs reproduced have been taken with the consent of the property owner with the express purpose of being published on the Church Website. How can our link be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CornerD (talk • contribs) Yes the text was taken from the site for which I was author; therefore technically is not a breach of copyright -m merely a shared author. - but I accept that is a moot point. I have created a new page using differing text; which still seems to be unacceptable because I have personal knowledge of the site. Nobody who did not have personal knowledge would write an article about us anyway. I have added three references which anyone can consult to verify the facts in the article - none of which are contentious nor express an opinion.CornerD (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Derek Corner
 * I did delete Hamilton United Reformed Church because most of it appeared to have been copied, word for word, from the church's own web site at, which would have been a copyright violation. However, there don't appear to have been any images/photographs on the article at the time I deleted it. Nor have I been able to locate any files (images) uploaded by you, nor have I deleted any files (images) uploaded by anybody this year. So I don't have any information about the photos you took. If you uploaded some images and they are now missing, I recommend asking at Help desk and maybe someone there will be able to help you better. Also, as you can see, the article Hamilton United Reformed Church has been re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus at Constitutional Republic
Hi - the deletion nomination for Constitutional Republic has run for several days with a consensus appearing to support deletion (4 are in support of deletion and 1 agrees there are issues with the entry but does not support deletion). I would like to request you close the discussion and delete the entry. BlueSalix (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I commented in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic (2nd nomination), even without giving a recommendation, I don't think I should be the one to close the discussion. I'm sure some other administrator will catch up with the discussion and close it in the next day or so -- rarely is it necessary to seek out an admin to close an AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

T:JLO
Hi. I saw your rejection. I think this page qualifies for WP:CSD. If this were a valid pseudo-namespace redirect, it would go to Talk:Jennifer Lopez as a companion to JLO. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   03:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you take the redirect to Redirects for discussion instead. If the community agrees that it's not an appropriate pseudo-namespace redirect, it will get deleted in a week anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tampa Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NASL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My Apology
Hello. I have come to apologize for what I have done to Univision and the other stuff. I admit it was stupid and would like to learn how to give warnings and blocks to vandalists in the future. Again, I am sorry and I won't make any more vandalizing mistakes. Andrew Hessner (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But before getting into anti-vandal work, you might want to work on some general improvement of the encyclopedia -- adding facts, fixing misspellings, that sort of thing. There are all sorts of things that can be worked on listed at Community portal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tyrell Crowell
Just wanted to let you know that I have put it up for AFD at Articles for deletion/Tyrell Crowell. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 08:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrell Crowell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derrick Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)