User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 7

Blanking instead of deleting Talk pages?
Hi Metropolitan90, just for curiosity, why blank Talk:LEMO instead of deleting? If that is the policy, I'll avoid bothering admins with speedy tags. Thanks, Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a specific policy that deals with this, and other admins might have chosen to delete Talk:LEMO instead of blanking it. The content of the talk page had been just the number and letter ".68c". If someone had created an article in the mainspace with just that, it would clearly have been speedily deletable for nonsense or lack of content or lack of context. But this was a talk page, and users are allowed more freedom in terms of what they put on talk pages. LEMO is a legitimate page, so even if Talk:LEMO had been deleted, anyone could re-create it for any reason without even being logged in. Since ".68c" isn't libelous or a copyright violation, it doesn't harm anyone for it to be in the edit history. Personally, as an admin, I'm much more concerned about the mainspace than what appears on talk pages, so I usually delete pages in the Talk: namespace only if their corresponding pages in the mainspace have been deleted or never existed. However, I encourage you to keep looking for pages which ought to be speedily deleted and tagging them, since I used to do that but don't get around to that much anymore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood and agreed, it makes good sense for Talk. I also don't really have time for random patrolling, but I still keep an eye on a bunch of pages. --Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

National Association of Scholars
Dear Metropolitan90,

Thanks for your note about copyright infringements on our page. Can you tell me how to donate our material to Wikipedia? I read about it, but it wasn't clear. And can you tell me how to recover the page once we make the donation? You can post on the page where you posted before for National Association of Scholars.

Thank you

Adebter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adebter (talk • contribs)

Delete Cavs Depth Chart
It has been confirmed by the user that the depth chart here : be removed as stated here :  Only admins can do it so your it. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has already been taken care of by another admin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User mo-2
Because not only it's POV but is also not accurate. It was meant as a joke. Anyway see other articles on the matter. No user can speak Moldovan, since all speak Romanian.BereTuborg (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the Moldovan language user templates deleted, it would be better to take them to WP:TFD instead rather than trying to speedy delete them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. BereTuborg (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Miss Cosmos"
Just FYI... two more "Miss Cosmos" type articles have also appeared, so I decided to tack them on to the existing AFD rather than create separate ones. I hope this was okay... I just wanted to alert you since you had already voted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding this change
You may have wanted to read the talk page. --Rockfang (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Aydınlatma ve Isıtma Araçları Müzesi. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Hovel t moon because the creator protested its deletion
I have removed the prod tag from Hovel t moon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Articles for deletion/Hovel t moon, which overrides the need for a prod tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! --  At am a chat 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright query
Hi, I noticed that you declined the speedy tag I put on The Alabama Militia Law of 1820 (and that you've now prodded it). I was just wondering whether this copyright notice is invalid (as it was the only reason I tagged it)? I'm no expert but I thought that as the text was almost certainly copied from there and not the original document, that it would still be a copyvio? I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't want to make the same mistake again. thanks, ascidian  | talk-to-me  17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just tagged it with copyvio.--Rockfang (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've submitted my comment on this at Copyright problems to allow Wikipedia's copyright experts to make the decision. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which, on reflection, is where I should have taken it. Thanks anyway, ascidian  | talk-to-me  23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to your message to Marathi Mulgaa...
Dear Metropolitan90,

Thank you for the note on my talk page. This page contains the same content as those deleted below but in French. User:Cult Free World says he's translating it into English. Very sneaky try to avoid the deletion review procedure.

Previous deletions are here:
 * 1)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
 * 2)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Chennai%29
 * 3)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29
 * 4)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Sri_Ram_Chandra_Consciousness
 * 5)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_of_Shahjahanpur
 * 6)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Parthasarathy_Rajagopal_Chari
 * 7)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sahaj_Marg_India
 * 8)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr
 * 9)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India
 * 10)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr/x

A condition for re-posting the article was secondary materials required (this was the reason it was deleted, because no secondary sources). User:Willbeback confirmed that secondary sources were needed for the article to survive deletion review here.

Thank you for looking at this. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
I do my best to really understand the position of those who disagree with me.

In Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam you expressed the judgment that the article didn't use any secondary sources. I posed questions, looking for clarification as to whether the OARDEC "Summary of Evidence memos" were or were not secondary sources.

I would really appreciate you looking at WP:RS/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

If, after reading those two sections, you still feel the memos are not secondary sources, I would really appreciate an explanation. Even a hint as to why you do not regard those memos as secondary sources would be helpful.

If you read those two relatively brief discussion, remained sure the memos were not secondary sources, but didn't feel prepared to discuss this, or explain why, I would appreciate a one sentence note saying something like. "I read them, my opinion is unchanged, but I don't want to discuss it." -- I would still find that helpful, and would respect your wishes.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand your argument correctly, it appears that you consider that these memos are not primary sources because they are based on other documents which are primary sources. However, I believe that this is an overly limited definition of what a primary source can be. I understand that these memos were generated as part of the process of review of the individuals' detention at Guantanamo Bay.

As a point of comparison, a legal brief might make extensive references to documents produced in the litigation, and a judge's written decision explaining the reasoning behind the verdict might in turn be based in part on the legal brief submitted by the more successful party. Yet the legal briefs and the judge's decision would themselves be primary sources, at least as to establishing notability for the case or its parties in Wikipedia.

Similarly, the fact that Ajam's detention review case has generated some documents which are not themselves evidence but which summarize evidence found in other documents does not establish, in my mind, that he has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" under WP:BIO. If a general interest newspaper or magazine (in the USA, Syria, or anywhere else) were to print an article focusing on Ajam himself, that would be the kind of secondary source I would be looking for in order to establish notability.

As the article Secondary source states, "Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used." In this case, it appears that all the sources used in the article Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam which actually refer to Ajam himself are primary sources as to establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to return to the afd and offering further, civil, meaningful comments. Thanks for responding here.


 * If I understand you, you are not in favor of merging and deleting all articles about Guantanamo captives. But you would favoring all articles about Guantanamo captives, for whom the only references we have are the Summary of Evidence memos, if the allegations in those memos contain allegations that are not highly remarkable?


 * About three or four hundred of the captives have had some kind of press coverage. A smaller number, I can't really estimate how many, have had ongoing, recurring coverage.
 * So, you would support keeping articles about Guantanamo captives who have published books, since their release, or have been the subject of books written by others? Moazzam Begg, for instance is in the news all the time.
 * Captives repatriated captives made the news when they were repatriated; and again when their home country laid charges against them; again when they went to trial; when they were sentenced; when their sentence was overturned on appeal.
 * Some captives have press references, in their wikipedia article, to just a single event, like their repatriation.


 * You may have been suggesting that the allegations Ajam faced were typical of of the kind of allegations the 572 captives who went through a CSR Tribunal faced. If so, I would agree.  The allegations he faced are not untypical.


 * I know some people would regard a profile by Amnesty International of Human Rights First as of equivalent worth to press coverage.
 * Well over one hundred captives had their continued detention justified because their name, or "known alias", was found on some kind of suspicious list.
 * Being accused of being listed on the contact list on KSM's laptop? How significant is that?
 * Some other references to suspicious lists are worded a lot less alarmingly. This doesn't mean those lists are less alarming.
 * Half a dozen captives faced the allegation that they were listed on a web-site devoted to publicizing the details of their cases, in order to lobby their home governments to press for the USA for their release. Heck, from that description, the web-site could have been Amnesty International.


 * The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. The nominator has accused me of turning the article into a "COATRACK".  I believe I refuted that.


 * I don't know if you noticed, but it seems to me that the nominator has been unnecessarily hostile, combative and accusatory.


 * The testimony of about 450 of those 572 captives, before their CSRT or their first or second annual Administrative Review Board hearings has been published.
 * Can I ask your opinion on whether you could see a captive's testimony, on top of the allegation memos, could make them merit an article? If the captive claimed they were tortured in custody, could you see that as sufficient to merit coverage?
 * What if the captive claimed they were sold for a bounty?
 * What if the captive pointed out that the allegations against them were internally inconsistent?
 * What if the captive claimed the allegations in the memo were brand new to them, were totally unrelated to anything they had ever been interrogated about?


 * Another respondent said that there were articles about 645 Guantanamo captives. That sounds like about the right number.  For the record we don't have articles about all 776 captives because there remain about 150 captives we don't know anything about, other than their name, nationality and birth date.


 * There is no record that about one hundred captives attended any of their Tribunals. There is also evidence that the DoD has failed to comply with the court order forcing them to release these documents.


 * I appreciate you taking the further time to review those other documents. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a civil, meaningful reply on the afd.  Thanks again.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "But you would favoring all articles about Guantanamo captives, for whom the only references we have are the Summary of Evidence memos, if the allegations in those memos contain allegations that are not highly remarkable?" I assume you are asking if I would favor deleting all articles about Guantanamo captives for whom the only references we have are the Summary of Evidence memos, if the allegations in those memos contain allegations that are not highly remarkable. If that's what you mean, then absolutely I would favor deleting such articles.

If the detainee wrote a book and had it published after being released, or if he was the subject of a book written by others, that would count very strongly in favor of his notability. Moazzam Begg does indeed appear to be notable, as you suggest. Other detainees who have received more limited press coverage will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ajam, who has received zero press coverage that has been identified in the article, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Begg; Ajam is clearly non-notable.

I don't think there is any level of allegation that a detainee could make that would automatically qualify him as notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Allegations made by a detainee that he was tortured, sold for a bounty, had inconsistent allegations against him, or had unrelated allegations brought up in the memo are just allegations. If the allegations become the subject of press coverage, then that might contribute to his notability, but just making the allegations does not do anything to establish their truth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to thank you again for offering your honest considered opinion on the DRV. I know you took the time to review the material I asked.  And I appreciate it.


 * Regarding whether allegations alone would satisfy you that someone merited coverage, can I ask you to consider Abdul Aziz Al Matrafi? He didn't testify at any of his proceedings.  But he is alleged to have been a founder of Al Wafa, a charity group that was alleged to have been a front for financing al Qaeda.  Several dozen Guantanamo captives had their detention justified because they were alleged to have a tie to Al Wafa.  At least four captives had their detention justified because they were alleged to know Al Matrafi, or to have met him.  So, would you see him as an exception to your suggestion above?


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, there are no relevant independent sources provided in the article about Abdul Aziz Al Matrafi. I could find Al Matrafi (unlike Ajam) mentioned in a couple of articles in major newspapers: The Guardian and The Washington Post. Both articles report on the same event -- the release of an Osama Bin Laden audiotape in which Bin Laden said that Al Matrafi had no connection to Al Qaeda. But this does not seem to have led to any significant follow-up coverage of Al Matrafi, and in any event the OBL audiotape is not even mentioned in the Al Matrafi article. I note that the audiotape could be susceptible to many different interpretations as to OBL's motive for making it. To take just three: (1) OBL really believed that Al Matrafi had no connection to Al Qaeda; (2) Al Matrafi was an Al Qaeda member, and OBL was covering up for him in hopes of getting him released; (3) OBL had some grudge or dispute against Al Matrafi and wanted him to be harshly treated by the Americans, so he mentioned Al Matrafi on the audiotape, assuming that the Americans would consider a character reference provided by OBL as confirmation that the person in question is a terrorist. This may not fully answer your question but I thought it was worth mentioning. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission Error
Why when I click on upload my own photos or the upload form I get Permission Error? Editors want me to make citations but won't let me upload them. (Lookinhere (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I do not know why you are getting a permission error when you try to upload photos. However, you don't need to upload photos to provide citations -- just type in the information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem you have with uploading may have to do with the fact that you appear to have been an editor for less than 4 days. Once you have passed the 4-day mark you may be able to upload files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But I uploaded a photo yesterday with no problem see James Avery Image:James_avery_bust.jpg (Lookinhere (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
 * In that case, I don't know what the problem is. (Note: I removed the actual image from this page but left the link.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed editors critical of citations do not do any kind of research into the subject matter and demand that they have instant access to books and reference not available online. These sources are in books in special collections or archives that some editor at the University of China has neither access to nor business critiquing the subject matter they are not educated in or acquainted with. For someone to critique the subject of Colonial America, they should be educated in the particular Individual.  Not just someone who says for example “how do I know your car is red, where is the link to your DMV file for the car?”  (Lookinhere (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Nation article by McNeil on Daniel Pipes
I noyiced your comment at Iron Duke's talk page indicating you had more to say at the RS noticeboard discussion of this. The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. So I've nowickied the closure and invite you to have your say. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the premature closure that I am unaware of and need to respect? Andyvphil (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy and prod for a page that has survived 3 deletion nominations
Metro, I saw that you speedied Glossary_of_Christian_and_Jewish_terms because if not having content, and then that you prodded it using an adequate template for soft redirects that are no longer useful. These actions were correct and adequate.

However, if you look at the top of its talk page, you will see that this page has survived 3 deletion nominations, and the last one here Articles_for_deletion/Glossary_of_Jewish_and_Christian_terms was only 2 months and a half ago and decided to keep the article as a redirect. From reading the nomination debate, it appears that there were concerns about keeping the history list for legal concerns with the GFDL requirement of keeping a list of authors. Please address this concern before deleting the articel with its associated history. If the address has been concerced somewhere else, then please point to those places on the talk page and then prod it again. If you think that the deletion debate decision is obviously no longer necessary but you have no hard proof of it, then you could open a deletion review (DRV) so people can say why it's still necessary or not and an admin will take the decision at the end of the review.

Again, a page that has survived a deletion debate shouldn't be speedy deleted or prodded without at least explaining on the talk page why the decision on the deletion debate is no longer valid, and this one has survived 3 of them --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the editor you mainly need to discuss this with is User:Epson291 who attempted to speedy delete Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms and several redirects to it on the grounds that "Article it redirects to no longer exists". I did put a proposed deletion tag on Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms, but that was because I did not think it should be speedily deleted. Upon checking the article's history, though, I see that you are correct that it had survived the WP:AFD process and so the article was not eligible for the WP:PROD process any more. In this particular case I should have checked the talk page to see the article's AfD history.

I did attempt to discuss this with User:Epson291 here but received no response. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Epson has not atempted again to delete the article, maybe he read this section and noticed his mistake. He seems to be currently busy with WikiProject_Israel and WikiProject_Judaism, so he has found other stuff to do --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why a business should have a website
Hi this article is purely for information its not advertising and also I have permission to post it, what would you require in order for me to prove the permission?

kindest regards

Lassany (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem is that the article was taken directly from the website of a web design company, which has a business interest in wanting other businesses to have websites, since they could be hired to build their website. For comparison, if there was an article titled Reasons why you should own a mobile phone that had been taken directly from information provided by a mobile phone company, I think we would consider that advertising and a conflict of interest as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cliff-rose talk page
I'm sure that's fine. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Contralto
The discussions are old and I am doing general maintenance on all the voice type pages right now per discussion with the opera wikiproject. There is no reason to keep conversations that discussed problems that no longer relate to the current version of the article out in the open.Nrswanson (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lauren Dukoff
Back in January, you deleted a talk page under "Lauren Dukoff", because that article did not exist. This article exists now; could you please restore the talk page? Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There had been only one edit to Talk:Lauren Dukoff before it was deleted, but I have now restored it to the edit history of the talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Have a good day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is phantom409
This is the real phantom409. I do not get ahold of you in any other way but I am reuqesting that content involving me is removed from your server. The materials involving me was fraudulently placed and absolutely fictitious from a 16 year old boy who has been stalking me for months. If you want an article about me posted then I would be more than happy to provide that information to you instead of posting bogus information that is totally untrue about me.

Thank you, phantom409
 * I'm sorry, but I don't even know what article or page you are posting about where the fraudulent and fictitious information is being posted. The closest thing I could find was an apparent attack message against you which I removed from a page more than a year ago. If I find any fraudulent or fictitious information about you, I would be willing to help delete it. However, in that case, you may wind up with having no article about you in the encyclopedia at all. I'm not familiar enough with you to know whether we should have an article about you at all -- but I know I don't want a fraudulent/fictitious article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

well I am refferring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-11-20#Kenneth_Dennis_AKA_Phantom409 in which a young kid at that time WAs a 13 year old kid.

If you look on my usertalk page you will see at how the kid wished to lie to you guys in order to embarrass me and humiliate me. I was googling and typed phantom409 and this was I found on a google search engine. Since that time the kid went to that other site and did a article on ED under the account wtvcrew1 in order to further embarrass me for no reason.

That is why I am contacting you now. I did not discover this article until last week and do not normally come to your site. It caught my attention and I am asking that the record is straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom409 (talk • contribs)
 * I see that someone has removed your name from that page at your request. Beyond that, I don't know what I can do about it. As you can see, the Articles for creation request was rejected. If you are still concerned about it, please see Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and contact the Wikimedia Foundation at the address on that page if necessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

University AFDs
Hello. It seems some of the university-related AFDs are having trouble gaining enough discussion to form a consensus. I thought you might want to voice your opinion on these AFDs: Articles for deletion/Student Action, Articles for deletion/Associated Students of the University of Hawaii. Thanks!--SevernSevern (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)--SevernSevern (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Student Government AFDs
Hello. I have proposed a change to the student government/student union section under Common Deletion Outcomes, and I would like your input. Thanks! User:SevernSevern aka Flunkerton (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, there's a new version of the proposed language for the WP:OUTCOMES. We'd appreciate another dose of your input on this "final" version of the proposed change.


 * "The notability of student unions may vary between different counties and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor in each AFD"


 * Thanks, User:SevernSevern aka Flunkerton (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Samaria (Mitcham) Bailey
I'm not sure this project needs an article on the subject, but I think there is notability asserted (thus no speedy deletion) and that the subject is such that a wider group of editors need to weigh in (thus no prod). Erechtheus (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Abouth facts of history
Hi there, i was searching something on wiki and i found that someone deliberately post a page about Kuzman Sapkarev, presenting him as "bulgarian". I tried to change but your administrators unabled me to do so. I demand from you to remove the post right away, because it is FALSE, it is NOT TRUE that Kuzman Sapkarev was bulgarian. He was born as MACEDONIAN, and he died that way. I will not tolerate that the name of my great-grand father is treated this way. I thought that wikipedia is something you can rely on, i am disappointed.

P.S. Also the Grigor Prlicev section, and Miladinov Brothers shoud be corected imidiately, they were also MACEDONIANS, not bulgarians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mise02mkd (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, but I have never heard of any of these people before. So I have no personal knowledge or opinion as to whether they are Macedonian or Bulgarian. I recommend that you discuss these matters on the talk page of the respective articles and provide your evidence that the subject of the article is Macedonian rather than Bulgarian, so that a consensus can be developed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)